Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
Jackibrazil wrote: »BMI is bull... to an extent. I think you can be quite healthy with a slightly elevated BMI and that BFP is a much better indicator of health status. I think a lot of people agree on that. The unpopular part is when I say "slightly." I don't know how many people in my fitness groups use the "BMI is crap" excuse to say they aren't very overweight when their BMI is WAY above obese range. It's not that it's a complete bull measure, just doesn't account for some variables. There's room fro upward fluctuation, but not THAT much.
Also, I don't think you can be obese and perfectly healthy. People say they're healthy and obese and that it's "just because of hypothyroidism" that they're fat. Well, I wouldn't consider hyporthyroidism a healthy thing. I know it's not their fault but there's still a health issue at hand. ALSO, I have hyporthyroidism and while yes it's a bit harder to lose weight, it is completely possible. When I'm not losing weight or when I'm gaining it's because I've been cutting corners or snacking. Does it suck that my skinny friends seem to be able to eat all the taco bell in the world and stay a size 4? Yes, but that doesn't make it an excuse for me to be and stay fat.
BMI is used to analyse populations, not individuals. The problem isn't with BMI, but with people's understanding of what BMI is and how it can be applied.
Hypothyroidism impacts your Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) by ~5% from clinical evaluation and that is going from fully treated to no hormonal supplementation, a rather extreme situation. To put this into perspective that is 80 kcals/day out of a 1600 kcal/day caloric budget.
What thyroid, and all hormonal disorders, impact are your satiety and appetite triggers. People end up eating far more than they should as they don't feel full, they feel tired and sluggish, tend to move less and eat more.6 -
jseams1234 wrote: »I was in the Army... it was mid January 1992 - Ft. Devens, MA. Cold cold cold snow and black ice everywhere. I was sitting in my barracks room thinking if I wanted to risk breaking something and taking a walk to the post Bowling Alley or maybe the Enlisted Club for some food. I was starving and I had missed dinner at the chow hall.
Then I remembered that my Grandma had sent me a a fruitcake for Christmas. It was still sitting in my wall locker, neatly wrapped in cellophane. Well, hunger won out and I took a nibble. Hmmm.... not so bad. Took a bite.... hey, not bad at all! I ate the entire thing. I don't know if it was just hunger or what, but it was delicious.
I haven't eaten one since. So, my current opinion might not be so generous.
I went through training at Fort Devens in the winter also: 1983-84. 05H.
Ah! A morse guy. I was a SIGINT analyst there TDY for the Electronic Warfare Analyst Course. I grew up in Arizona so Massachusetts in the winter was a bit of a shock for me. 0 -
jseams1234 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »I was in the Army... it was mid January 1992 - Ft. Devens, MA. Cold cold cold snow and black ice everywhere. I was sitting in my barracks room thinking if I wanted to risk breaking something and taking a walk to the post Bowling Alley or maybe the Enlisted Club for some food. I was starving and I had missed dinner at the chow hall.
Then I remembered that my Grandma had sent me a a fruitcake for Christmas. It was still sitting in my wall locker, neatly wrapped in cellophane. Well, hunger won out and I took a nibble. Hmmm.... not so bad. Took a bite.... hey, not bad at all! I ate the entire thing. I don't know if it was just hunger or what, but it was delicious.
I haven't eaten one since. So, my current opinion might not be so generous.
I went through training at Fort Devens in the winter also: 1983-84. 05H.
Ah! A morse guy. I was a SIGINT analyst there TDY for the Electronic Warfare Analyst Course. I grew up in Arizona so Massachusetts in the winter was a bit of a shock for me.
I went through basic in Jan-Mar of 1989 at Ft Knox. The poor southern guys had a really hard time coping, they marked them with black duct tape around the shoulder flap on their field jackets so that they would get pulled when the temperature dropped too low. I'm from Michigan originally and found the winter weather in Kentucky to be comparatively rather mild and pleasant, lol.1 -
joemac1988 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Yep. This has taken a weird turn. From "a PT must be in shape" (I still think they don't have to if they don't want to) to all kinds of irrelevant silliness.
Are you .....amused
I am actually. I'm more amused than insulting by fat shaming. I wonder why it happens and what mechanisms drive it.
I'm sure this is going to be another unpopular opinion but I think the nasty insults are ones you have no control over or are plain false. Race, sex, sexual orientation, cognitive function, etc are inexcusible. Fat, lazy...if it's true and what they say bothers you, change it! If it's not true or you don't care, why are we still talking about it?
Personally, I fat shame because it worked on me. I was fat and became so ashamed of it due to nicknames, comments etc that I actually did something about it. Sometimes the best helping hand is a swift kick in the @$$. Did it suck at the time? Yup. Now, I wouldn't change it for anything.
For the record, I'd never fat shame someone I don't know personally. I acknowledge that tough-love approach doesn't work for everyone. But it does work for some...there's this chef from the UK (I forget his name) that lost over 100lbs because his friend texted him "Fat F***" every morning.
I'd rather hear what I need to hear over what I want to hear 100% of the time.
i mean, other than people on the internet right? cause that's all fun and games . . . eye roll.2 -
Jackibrazil wrote: »BMI is bull... to an extent. I think you can be quite healthy with a slightly elevated BMI and that BFP is a much better indicator of health status. I think a lot of people agree on that. The unpopular part is when I say "slightly." I don't know how many people in my fitness groups use the "BMI is crap" excuse to say they aren't very overweight when their BMI is WAY above obese range. It's not that it's a complete bull measure, just doesn't account for some variables. There's room fro upward fluctuation, but not THAT much.
Also, I don't think you can be obese and perfectly healthy. People say they're healthy and obese and that it's "just because of hypothyroidism" that they're fat. Well, I wouldn't consider hyporthyroidism a healthy thing. I know it's not their fault but there's still a health issue at hand. ALSO, I have hyporthyroidism and while yes it's a bit harder to lose weight, it is completely possible. When I'm not losing weight or when I'm gaining it's because I've been cutting corners or snacking. Does it suck that my skinny friends seem to be able to eat all the taco bell in the world and stay a size 4? Yes, but that doesn't make it an excuse for me to be and stay fat.
I'm in complete agreement with you here, start to finish. I know the opinion on BMI and the accuracy of the cutoffs on the margins are unpopular based on reactions to posts I've made on this topic. On another thread I brought up concerns with the statistical validity of the 25 cutoff worldwide, and got more "woo" marks than the sum of all other reactions. Irritating. Very irritating. I seriously think people don't listen or comprehend that I'm arguing variances of 5-20 lbs, not trying to talk away obesity much less morbid obesity.
I happen to agree with both of you.
Where I part company with you is agreeing with a statement like "I think BMI is bull".
Because it's not.
It's got a purpose, for populations. It's not really a useful metric for individuals and isn't meant to be.
I just don't think making a blanket statements with language calling it crap or bull is helpful to the point trying to be made about it.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »BMI is bull... to an extent. I think you can be quite healthy with a slightly elevated BMI and that BFP is a much better indicator of health status. I think a lot of people agree on that. The unpopular part is when I say "slightly." I don't know how many people in my fitness groups use the "BMI is crap" excuse to say they aren't very overweight when their BMI is WAY above obese range. It's not that it's a complete bull measure, just doesn't account for some variables. There's room fro upward fluctuation, but not THAT much.
Also, I don't think you can be obese and perfectly healthy. People say they're healthy and obese and that it's "just because of hypothyroidism" that they're fat. Well, I wouldn't consider hyporthyroidism a healthy thing. I know it's not their fault but there's still a health issue at hand. ALSO, I have hyporthyroidism and while yes it's a bit harder to lose weight, it is completely possible. When I'm not losing weight or when I'm gaining it's because I've been cutting corners or snacking. Does it suck that my skinny friends seem to be able to eat all the taco bell in the world and stay a size 4? Yes, but that doesn't make it an excuse for me to be and stay fat.
I'm in complete agreement with you here, start to finish. I know the opinion on BMI and the accuracy of the cutoffs on the margins are unpopular based on reactions to posts I've made on this topic. On another thread I brought up concerns with the statistical validity of the 25 cutoff worldwide, and got more "woo" marks than the sum of all other reactions. Irritating. Very irritating. I seriously think people don't listen or comprehend that I'm arguing variances of 5-20 lbs, not trying to talk away obesity much less morbid obesity.
I happen to agree with both of you.
Where I part company with you is agreeing with a statement like "I think BMI is bull".
Because it's not.
It's got a purpose, for populations. It's not really a useful metric for individuals and isn't meant to be.
I just don't think making a blanket statements with language calling it crap or bull is helpful to the point trying to be made about it.
That's why my post said to an extent. And had an explanation. The reason I said the exact words "BMI is bull" is because I've seen those exact words on multiple fitness sites I've looked at and I was adding to it a basic "not really though..."1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »BMI is bull... to an extent. I think you can be quite healthy with a slightly elevated BMI and that BFP is a much better indicator of health status. I think a lot of people agree on that. The unpopular part is when I say "slightly." I don't know how many people in my fitness groups use the "BMI is crap" excuse to say they aren't very overweight when their BMI is WAY above obese range. It's not that it's a complete bull measure, just doesn't account for some variables. There's room fro upward fluctuation, but not THAT much.
Also, I don't think you can be obese and perfectly healthy. People say they're healthy and obese and that it's "just because of hypothyroidism" that they're fat. Well, I wouldn't consider hyporthyroidism a healthy thing. I know it's not their fault but there's still a health issue at hand. ALSO, I have hyporthyroidism and while yes it's a bit harder to lose weight, it is completely possible. When I'm not losing weight or when I'm gaining it's because I've been cutting corners or snacking. Does it suck that my skinny friends seem to be able to eat all the taco bell in the world and stay a size 4? Yes, but that doesn't make it an excuse for me to be and stay fat.
I'm in complete agreement with you here, start to finish. I know the opinion on BMI and the accuracy of the cutoffs on the margins are unpopular based on reactions to posts I've made on this topic. On another thread I brought up concerns with the statistical validity of the 25 cutoff worldwide, and got more "woo" marks than the sum of all other reactions. Irritating. Very irritating. I seriously think people don't listen or comprehend that I'm arguing variances of 5-20 lbs, not trying to talk away obesity much less morbid obesity.
I happen to agree with both of you.
Where I part company with you is agreeing with a statement like "I think BMI is bull".
Because it's not.
It's got a purpose, for populations. It's not really a useful metric for individuals and isn't meant to be.
I just don't think making a blanket statements with language calling it crap or bull is helpful to the point trying to be made about it.
OK I'll be more precise. Using a population metric with a significant deviance to determine the health and potential penalties to individuals is gross abuse of statistics.5 -
My hidden opinion of the merits of garlic, turmeric, apple cider vinegar, herbs, natural healing and medicines.
So many people trust their mega rich doctors to prescribe expensive meds for them when there is a wealth of info out there about natural remedies for pennies.
We seem to forget that most meds were developed from herbs, plants, even tree bark ffs!
Not sure about rhinoceros horn to fix my libido though, chipped a tooth chewing on one, only after wrestling it to the ground alive, I add!
I think to a point we should look for a more natural remedy...but I won't go so far as to say that ACV has merit...
I know I feel better lowering my cholesterol in a natural way...aka losing weight so I don't need the meds...but that being said I may need them in the future even after I lost weight as mine is still high side of normal...
and I feel that when given the opportunity to guarantee it will be lower by using "meds" vs maybe it will get lowered if I do X...yah I go with the meds.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »byustrongman wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Full fat Coke
is this the new bulletproof coffee? blend some coke with melted butter and mct oil?
I just gagged a little.
I knew people who would crush up hard cinnamon candy and dissolve it into their Cokes.
They had cinnamon Pepsi here not long ago. We-Columbus, Ohio-seem to be the test market for the US tho1 -
Pet peeve - people who believe that merely counting calories and not paying attention to nutrient levels is a healthy way to lose weight. Losing weight eating junk food may attain the immediate goal, but junk food doesn't supply sufficient balanced nutrition and it will likely cause problems later in life. Additives and artificial anything has to be filtered by the liver; this takes a toll on the liver, which, although it has an amazing ability to heal itself, will eventually wear out which can lead to fatty liver, fibrosis, cirrhosis and liver cancer.31
-
My hidden opinion of the merits of garlic, turmeric, apple cider vinegar, herbs, natural healing and medicines.
So many people trust their mega rich doctors to prescribe expensive meds for them when there is a wealth of info out there about natural remedies for pennies.
We seem to forget that most meds were developed from herbs, plants, even tree bark ffs!
Not sure about rhinoceros horn to fix my libido though, chipped a tooth chewing on one, only after wrestling it to the ground alive, I add!
Just because a drug is derived from a plant does not mean it is naturally present in a concentration that is medically effective or safe, or it may not even be a substance that can be administered orally.
Taxol, a very useful cancer drug, is derived from yew tree bark, but it would be reckless to advise a cancer patient to forego clinical treatment and just drink tea infusions from yew tree bark. You would have no way of telling if the dosage is too little or too much, if there are other substances in the bark that are undesirable, or even if the substance would survive in the stomach.
Herbal or other natural remedies have their place, but not as a substitute for a doctor's care and effective medications.
10 -
Sweet_Intensity wrote: »Pet peeve - people who believe that merely counting calories and not paying attention to nutrient levels is a healthy way to lose weight. Losing weight eating junk food may attain the immediate goal, but junk food doesn't supply sufficient balanced nutrition and it will likely cause problems later in life. Additives and artificial anything has to be filtered by the liver; this takes a toll on the liver, which, although it has an amazing ability to heal itself, will eventually wear out which can lead to fatty liver, fibrosis, cirrhosis and liver cancer.
Nonsense. Please supply legitimate studies to back this up. As far as eating junk food, what are you defining as junk food? People can meet their nutritional requirements eating all kinds of food, as long as they eat enough variety. Most "junk food" contains plenty of nutrients (hamburgers and pizza to use a couple of workhorses).13 -
Sweet_Intensity wrote: »Pet peeve - people who believe that merely counting calories and not paying attention to nutrient levels is a healthy way to lose weight. Losing weight eating junk food may attain the immediate goal, but junk food doesn't supply sufficient balanced nutrition and it will likely cause problems later in life. Additives and artificial anything has to be filtered by the liver; this takes a toll on the liver, which, although it has an amazing ability to heal itself, will eventually wear out which can lead to fatty liver, fibrosis, cirrhosis and liver cancer.
Yeah, I gotta save my liver for alcohol.16 -
Sweet_Intensity wrote: »Pet peeve - people who believe that merely counting calories and not paying attention to nutrient levels is a healthy way to lose weight. Losing weight eating junk food may attain the immediate goal, but junk food doesn't supply sufficient balanced nutrition and it will likely cause problems later in life. Additives and artificial anything has to be filtered by the liver; this takes a toll on the liver, which, although it has an amazing ability to heal itself, will eventually wear out which can lead to fatty liver, fibrosis, cirrhosis and liver cancer.
First - this has been discussed repeatedly in this thread, and many others like it. Since it bears repeating, even though it is tedious to do so for someone who didn't bother to read through the thread... No one is saying that counting calories in order to lose weight is all that matters for health, and that nutrition is unimportant. NO ONE.
Second - also discussed in this thread and many others like it - what's your definition of junk food? That is such a broad term it's almost as unhelpful as "clean eating" as a descriptor.
Third - what are you talking about in that last sentence? Anything artificial is going to take a toll on my liver, resulting in cirrhosis and liver cancer? How, exactly, did you come to that preposterous conclusion? And with such sweeping generalizations - "additives and anything artificial"? Which additives? What definition of artificial are you using, can you provide some examples? Oh and some actual studies that support this claim?15 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Sweet_Intensity wrote: »Pet peeve - people who believe that merely counting calories and not paying attention to nutrient levels is a healthy way to lose weight. Losing weight eating junk food may attain the immediate goal, but junk food doesn't supply sufficient balanced nutrition and it will likely cause problems later in life. Additives and artificial anything has to be filtered by the liver; this takes a toll on the liver, which, although it has an amazing ability to heal itself, will eventually wear out which can lead to fatty liver, fibrosis, cirrhosis and liver cancer.
First - this has been discussed repeatedly in this thread, and many others like it. Since it bears repeating, even though it is tedious to do so for someone who didn't bother to read through the thread... No one is saying that counting calories in order to lose weight is all that matters for health, and that nutrition is unimportant. NO ONE.
Second - also discussed in this thread and many others like it - what's your definition of junk food? That is such a broad term it's almost as unhelpful as "clean eating" as a descriptor.
Third - what are you talking about in that last sentence? Anything artificial is going to take a toll on my liver, resulting in cirrhosis and liver cancer? How, exactly, did you come to that preposterous conclusion? And with such sweeping generalizations - "additives and anything artificial"? Which additives? What definition of artificial are you using, can you provide some examples? Oh and some actual studies that support this claim?
In other words, "show me the data..."7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Sweet_Intensity wrote: »Pet peeve - people who believe that merely counting calories and not paying attention to nutrient levels is a healthy way to lose weight. Losing weight eating junk food may attain the immediate goal, but junk food doesn't supply sufficient balanced nutrition and it will likely cause problems later in life. Additives and artificial anything has to be filtered by the liver; this takes a toll on the liver, which, although it has an amazing ability to heal itself, will eventually wear out which can lead to fatty liver, fibrosis, cirrhosis and liver cancer.
First - this has been discussed repeatedly in this thread, and many others like it. Since it bears repeating, even though it is tedious to do so for someone who didn't bother to read through the thread... No one is saying that counting calories in order to lose weight is all that matters for health, and that nutrition is unimportant. NO ONE.
Second - also discussed in this thread and many others like it - what's your definition of junk food? That is such a broad term it's almost as unhelpful as "clean eating" as a descriptor.
Third - what are you talking about in that last sentence? Anything artificial is going to take a toll on my liver, resulting in cirrhosis and liver cancer? How, exactly, did you come to that preposterous conclusion? And with such sweeping generalizations - "additives and anything artificial"? Which additives? What definition of artificial are you using, can you provide some examples? Oh and some actual studies that support this claim?
In other words, "show me the data..."
I'm from Missouri - it's the Show Me State!4 -
Sweet_Intensity wrote: »Pet peeve - people who believe that merely counting calories and not paying attention to nutrient levels is a healthy way to lose weight. Losing weight eating junk food may attain the immediate goal, but junk food doesn't supply sufficient balanced nutrition and it will likely cause problems later in life. Additives and artificial anything has to be filtered by the liver; this takes a toll on the liver, which, although it has an amazing ability to heal itself, will eventually wear out which can lead to fatty liver, fibrosis, cirrhosis and liver cancer.
Please show one reference where this has ever been said. Because I don't believe it has. Not. Ever.9 -
Sweet_Intensity wrote: »Pet peeve - people who believe that merely counting calories and not paying attention to nutrient levels is a healthy way to lose weight. Losing weight eating junk food may attain the immediate goal, but junk food doesn't supply sufficient balanced nutrition and it will likely cause problems later in life. Additives and artificial anything has to be filtered by the liver; this takes a toll on the liver, which, although it has an amazing ability to heal itself, will eventually wear out which can lead to fatty liver, fibrosis, cirrhosis and liver cancer.
Please show one reference where this has ever been said. Because I don't believe it has. Not. Ever.
It's said all the time.
By those putting up strawmen to argue.
13 -
Sweet_Intensity wrote: »Pet peeve - people who believe that merely counting calories and not paying attention to nutrient levels is a healthy way to lose weight. Losing weight eating junk food may attain the immediate goal, but junk food doesn't supply sufficient balanced nutrition and it will likely cause problems later in life. Additives and artificial anything has to be filtered by the liver; this takes a toll on the liver, which, although it has an amazing ability to heal itself, will eventually wear out which can lead to fatty liver, fibrosis, cirrhosis and liver cancer.
You may be misunderstanding what is being said or taking it out of context. I'll leave this here for you to explain some of it instead of writing a long post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYeZVfPxwKM 3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »You may be misunderstanding what is being said or taking it out of context.
I am going with willful ignorance...3 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »CipherZero wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Here's the thing, and the link will no doubt be posted soon... It's possible to fuel effective progressive overload with "junk food"... someone on MFP with an open diary did it... for 90+ days with photos and detailed logs.
SO it's pretty well settled... FOOD is food.. calories are calories.
Check what NFL, NBA, Olympic athletes use to fuel their training. Sure there is some junk food, but most of it is nutrient dense.
You definitely shouldn't base what your diet and training should look like based on what genetic outliers do.
Genetic outliers?
How about hardest working athletes? You're weak.
To be fair, there is also quite a lot of steroid use in the NFL too. It used to be the case that if you testing positive for steroids and it was a first offence, you only got a 2-4 week ban. Seconds offences could be 10 games. Compare that to sports like rugby or 100m runners where the consequences are far more severe. That suggests to me that its a rather big problem and they expect it.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Sweet_Intensity wrote: »Pet peeve - people who believe that merely counting calories and not paying attention to nutrient levels is a healthy way to lose weight. Losing weight eating junk food may attain the immediate goal, but junk food doesn't supply sufficient balanced nutrition and it will likely cause problems later in life. Additives and artificial anything has to be filtered by the liver; this takes a toll on the liver, which, although it has an amazing ability to heal itself, will eventually wear out which can lead to fatty liver, fibrosis, cirrhosis and liver cancer.
You may be misunderstanding what is being said or taking it out of context. I'll leave this here for you to explain some of it instead of writing a long post:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYeZVfPxwKM
That was really good, thanks!2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
It's not really an extra dirty bowl. I like to semi mis en place, so would often pre chop and put some things in a bowl.
Putting them on the scale is an extra step (I remember the weights and note them down, but that's like a memory exercise that I find enjoyable). It doesn't FEEL like any added burden to me at all. It's fun.
Again, I accept that it does feel like an added burden or bothersome to you, even if I don't understand it. (I also don't care if you want to weigh or not -- I am not currently logging so I sometimes weigh, sometimes don't, don't write anything down.) What I find odd is someone who logs and measures in some other way insisting that using the scale makes it neurotic and burdensome. Or someone who doesn't track at all but uses a different strategy (which is me, currently) insisting that people who enjoy logging are doing it wrong.
My husband, who does all the cooking, does his mis en place onto a paper plate on the scale.0 -
Nevermind. I realized I was quoting someone from June. Whoops,0
-
This content has been removed.
-
richardgavel wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Some games are not sports. They may require skill, and a bit of fitness but a sport? Worthy of the Olympics? Nah.
Games IMO:- nascar or other race car or motor bike sports
- golf
- ping pong
- bowling
- curling (that was hard for a Canadian to admit)
- baseball
- horse riding or jumping
- crickett
Almost sport like:
diving
ski jumping
While yoga is not a sport, it is an exercise that destroys me well.
Sports don't necessitate fitness, they necessitate skill. In many sports, a level of fitness is required to reach the requisite level of skill, but not always. I think what's off is your definition of "sport".
The traditional definition of sport are combat/warrior skills performed in a nonlethal/recreational format.
that seems like an awfully archaic definition of "sport."
Is ESPN willing to broadcast it? There's a modern definition of it. Only problem is that includes poker and video game playing too, those could be sports based on definitions on this thread. Chess?
Also the Spelling Bee0 -
k8andchr1smom wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Some games are not sports. They may require skill, and a bit of fitness but a sport? Worthy of the Olympics? Nah.
Games IMO:- nascar or other race car or motor bike sports
- golf
- ping pong
- bowling
- curling (that was hard for a Canadian to admit)
- baseball
- horse riding or jumping
- crickett
Almost sport like:
diving
ski jumping
While yoga is not a sport, it is an exercise that destroys me well.
Sports don't necessitate fitness, they necessitate skill. In many sports, a level of fitness is required to reach the requisite level of skill, but not always. I think what's off is your definition of "sport".
The traditional definition of sport are combat/warrior skills performed in a nonlethal/recreational format.
that seems like an awfully archaic definition of "sport."
Is ESPN willing to broadcast it? There's a modern definition of it. Only problem is that includes poker and video game playing too, those could be sports based on definitions on this thread. Chess?
Also the Spelling Bee
and competitive eating1 -
That I’ll happily swear off some foods or reduce consumption of them to less than 3-4 servings a year (like bread, pizza, ice cream, cake) if by doing so my portion size of other (most likely more nutritional anyway) foods can be reasonable (larger than tiny).
Standard MFP advice of don’t eliminate any foods and control those portions left me hangry all day long.
To each his own.4 -
That there is some good to apple cider vinegar. (Gall bladder problems).
4 -
I don't know if this is unpopular, but I think people often misunderstand the so-called usual MFP advice. In my mind, not eliminating foods doesn't mean you shouldn't change your diet at all, just portions. As we were discussing in the Jack Lalanne thread, it makes sense to look at what you are eating excess calories of and what foods you need nutritionally and cut out or way down on calories you won't miss much, as well as treat type foods that many people probably consume in excess. If I consumed sugary sodas, I'm sure that would be something I'd consider cutting out, for example, and if I consumed a lot of dessert-type or savory snack foods, I'm sure I'd cut way down while making sure my main meals were filling and nutritious.
What I did -- and honestly it just seemed like common sense -- was cut out snacking (too much of an avenue for mindless and emotional eating) and focus on main meals (which for me were pretty nutrititous already, so I just looked at portion size, added fat, and made sure they had adequate protein). If I hadn't already been eating lots of vegetables I would have changed that, and I probably did bump it up even more (because I like volume).
I decided I enjoyed having a little something after dinner, so made that something I did when I had enough calories (often on a workout day), and what the extra was depended on how many calories, mood, so on -- sometimes a sweet food I control fine (ice cream, which I find satisfying in half cup amounts, small amount of high quality chocolate), sometimes fruit, sometimes good cheese. Other foods I don't enjoy when trying to limit calories (I did Indian at first with the low cal approach and decided I wanted to order what I would normally order and not just get tandoori or whatever and skip the naan). For those I include them more rarely, and eat as I like then (I don't find it's that hard to have high cal days occasionally, especially since I like long runs and bike rides, and especially at maintenance).
So clearly I have not just stuck with how I ate before (which was not working for me, even though it was nutritionally pretty fine) and reduced portions in some kind of thoughtless way. But if you asked me, I'd say I didn't cut anything out, never ate in a "diety" way, ate normally and like I want to eat going forward. I'd say I lost by eating less and moving more and that what I did was pretty consistent with MFP advice.
Sure, there are foods I used to eat and now never do (although I would if I really wanted them). That's because I used to eat food because it was there, or kind of mindlessly, and now if someone drops off cookies at my office that are just okay, I won't eat them. I don't eat the chips at my office because I don't really care about chips and I realized that when I did before it was "I'm stuck at work at dinnertime and I just want something to eat and plus I deserve a treat" and now I plan if I will need dinner at work or simply tell myself I will enjoy it more if I wait 'til I'm home. What that means is that I haven't had store-bought chips (at the office or otherwise) since I started losing weight in 2014, but not because I cut them out, it just happened. So overall I'm much choosier, but that isn't about sacrifice or restriction -- my diet is MORE reflective of what I really enjoy now than before.
That people seem to think the usual MFP advice means "just reduce portions of everything equally" and not think about things like preferences or nutrition or mindless eating or that "not eating a food you don't care that much about given limited quantities" would be disfavored always strikes me as, well, an odd misunderstanding.12
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions