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
-
JerSchmare wrote: »Not my opinion; but, this is my doctor's opinion. And, it is unpopular in some circles. That is, if you take in fewer calories than are needed to maintain your body weight, you'll lose weight. I've never heard so many dissenting opinions to such an assertion - except for some political discussions.
I know. It’s crazy.
I have a “friend” IRL that think he eats more than he burns and loses weight. He eats LCHF. He also idolizes Dr Fung, and others. I’ve tried to point out to him that it is impossible to eat more than you burn. While he refuses to track calories, even for one day, he told me, “I know for a fact that I eat more than I burn and I lose weight. I don’t need to track my calories or prove anything to you”. Ok snowflake.
I know for a fact I'm earning more money than I'm spending but somehow my balance keeps getting smaller. Huh? No, I'm not keeping track of my spending, why?9 -
* I agree with your speculation that a "better" gut flora population would mean getting better access to nutrition from food, including calories. Keep in mind that the gut bugs themselves eat in order to live/thrive: Often, they're harvesting things that we don't digest, which is why certain types of fiber are important. (There's some speculation is that this is related to why people who ramp up fiber too fast can get gassy - bugs gorging and micro-tooting.
).
This is my new favorite term.
1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »You must lift heavy. The rest of us who strength train in a different way are just spinning our wheels. Ah MFP, the church or Stronglifts.
I don't understand Halo top. Which means all the more for everyone else to have. That and it's not available here.
And you're damn right a large reason I cardio is to eat more. I've even started a bit of hiking as my calories are getting to a sad point as I creep towards goal.
The level of confirmation bias in "my meds are making/keeping me fat" threads.
lol! I bought into the "must lift heavy" mantra some years back... shoulders started getting wider, waist started getting boxed...Ummmm....I'm cool with all that. lol... Ill stick to lifting weights, but not as heavy as before and more reps, isolating muscles, and not just compound moves. Did SL 5x5 last time.......not my thing..didn't like how my shape was getting....but we live and we learn and do what's best for our personal goals. To each their own. If I do ever bulk and cut, it will be isolating muscles and not concentrating on compound moves cause I do not want my shape to be what it was starting to be last time when lifting heavy and doing just compound moves. lol
No offense to those who lift heavy..very admirable..just not what I expected it to be for my personal goals.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it depends on the person.
It does depend on the person. I work best when I work alone. I don't even do well with "support". It feels as if I need to meet some kind of expectation in return for the support, so if I do it solely for myself I tend to do better because I get to work flexibly the way that best works for me, focusing on the process itself instead of feeling pressured to deliver certain results. It's not about not being able to do as much as other people (that doesn't bother me one bit), it's more about having more freedom with my process.3 -
I'm largely the same, although sometimes training groups have been helpful in limited ways (I liked being able to do my long run with a group when marathon training one time, although I trained fine on my own another time too).
I'm not sure I totally buy into this (or any simplified theory), but Gretchen Rubin has this classification based on source of motivation (obliger = externally motivated, need things like accountability partners or commitment to a class, questioner = internally motivated, need to determine for yourself it is important, purely external doesn't work, upholder = motivated both internally and externally, rebel = struggle against strictures however imposed, even your own, need to find other strategies (like I'm sticking it to the man by doing this, I guess). ;-)
When I tested, I got questioner, and that fits with how I have effectively gotten fit. Tying it to an official class or another person doesn't work for me. A running group or Compu-Trainer class can IF I convince myself it fits into what I specifically want to do in some way. My best results have been when I plan out what I'm doing and really understand why and then work it (and I adore planning). Even telling people what I'm doing doesn't really work for added motivation, as I tend to feel now I'm doing it for them and it feels more stressful. Weird, but I think understanding it helps me work with it.
I never, ever got why people claimed an open diary was somehow relevant to their motivation before (you need others to tell you how to eat? you want others to comment on poor choices when they don't even understand your specific goals?) and I guess now I'm able to chalk that up to differences, although I still find it odd.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm largely the same, although sometimes training groups have been helpful in limited ways (I liked being able to do my long run with a group when marathon training one time, although I trained fine on my own another time too).
I'm not sure I totally buy into this (or any simplified theory), but Gretchen Rubin has this classification based on source of motivation (obliger = externally motivated, need things like accountability partners or commitment to a class, questioner = internally motivated, need to determine for yourself it is important, purely external doesn't work, upholder = motivated both internally and externally, rebel = struggle against strictures however imposed, even your own, need to find other strategies (like I'm sticking it to the man by doing this, I guess). ;-)
When I tested, I got questioner, and that fits with how I have effectively gotten fit. Tying it to an official class or another person doesn't work for me. A running group or Compu-Trainer class can IF I convince myself it fits into what I specifically want to do in some way. My best results have been when I plan out what I'm doing and really understand why and then work it (and I adore planning). Even telling people what I'm doing doesn't really work for added motivation, as I tend to feel now I'm doing it for them and it feels more stressful. Weird, but I think understanding it helps me work with it.
I never, ever got why people claimed an open diary was somehow relevant to their motivation before (you need others to tell you how to eat? you want others to comment on poor choices when they don't even understand your specific goals?) and I guess now I'm able to chalk that up to differences, although I still find it odd.
i just took the Gretchen Rubin test - i'm a total questioner with a dash of rebel (no surprise to anyone who knows me)1 -
JerSchmare wrote: »Jack Lalanes advice from 1960 was right on the money.
No coffee, no butter, no added sugar at all (because it's worse than cigarettes), no so-called "processed foods" (although he ate a bunch at restaurants so long as they added no salt and butter), and absolutely no dairy (because it's for suckling calves).
Really?
Okay, cool. I don't agree, but cool.11 -
This content has been removed.
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it depends on the person.
It does depend on the person. I work best when I work alone. I don't even do well with "support". It feels as if I need to meet some kind of expectation in return for the support, so if I do it solely for myself I tend to do better because I get to work flexibly the way that best works for me, focusing on the process itself instead of feeling pressured to deliver certain results. It's not about not being able to do as much as other people (that doesn't bother me one bit), it's more about having more freedom with my process.
For training, if it's one other person, and our goals are nearly aligned, it's great, but groups for groups sake is just a distraction and annoyance, and some attempts at motivation(from people who don't or hardly know me) will just make me want to stop.0 -
You put it here, so we can talk about it here.
And thanks for quoting me before I fixed my suckling calf typo!
Do you really agree with all that (if so, whatever, cool, I am actually curious that's all) or are you just trying to be controversial?7 -
This content has been removed.
-
JerSchmare wrote: »I like Jack. I remember watching him on tv. I remember how bad information on dieting was. I remember how difficult it was to find information, and that while books were available, it wasn’t like now. So, you just went with the best you could. I think for the time, the info was pretty good. But, Jack was a bit on the extreme side of it. He was also a showman. But, he lived and breathed what he preached. I think the other group takes things too literally. I don’t like the debate. It’s too pendantic and too literal. People know what you mean but they pick apart every syllable to make stupid arguments. It’s more sport than discussion. Was Jack 100%? No. Was it pretty good advice for the time? IMO, Yes.
So it was exactly like now.6 -
This content has been removed.
-
Going to the library wasn't difficult, depending on where you lived, though. I was walking distance from two, not counting the one at my school. I also used to buy calorie counter paperbacks at the book store.
What I find has changed is that, thanks to the internet and nutritional info on packaging, it's much easier to get up-to-date info and I don't have to deal with the whole "I'm in Canada and most of the brands in the paperback are US-based and not available here and they don't have half the brands that are."
But that's just calories.
As far as nutritional info, I think there's always been conflicting data and stuff taken out of context (examples: people with diabetes generally need to watch carb and sugar intake, therefore everyone should restrict these; people with gluten sensitivities get sick when they eat wheat, therefore it would be beneficial for everyone to avoid it). The internet has given people a platform and a presence, to the point where it's difficult to know who's actually an authority and who's just claiming to be one. But overall, I think people generally know the basics and don't eat like they're the poster children for the recurring strawman argument on these boards, consuming nothing but french fries and Little Debbie's.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Jack Lalanes advice from 1960 was right on the money.
No coffee, no butter, no added sugar at all (because it's worse than cigarettes), no so-called "processed foods" (although he ate a bunch at restaurants so long as they added no salt and butter), and absolutely no dairy (because it's for suckling calves).
Really?
Okay, cool. I don't agree, but cool.
Lalane was a zealot and his professional image was intertwined with his lifestyle habits, so he was one of the rare people who could sustain this type of regiment. For the rest of us, this level of restriction is unsustainable and in light of current nutritional knowledge, unnecessary.7 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Going to the library wasn't difficult, depending on where you lived, though. I was walking distance from two, not counting the one at my school. I also used to buy calorie counter paperbacks at the book store.
To be fair, I grew up in the 80s, but the 6 libraries that were within walking distance of where I lived were built before the 60s.
2 -
JerSchmare wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »I like Jack. I remember watching him on tv. I remember how bad information on dieting was. I remember how difficult it was to find information, and that while books were available, it wasn’t like now. So, you just went with the best you could. I think for the time, the info was pretty good. But, Jack was a bit on the extreme side of it. He was also a showman. But, he lived and breathed what he preached. I think the other group takes things too literally. I don’t like the debate. It’s too pendantic and too literal. People know what you mean but they pick apart every syllable to make stupid arguments. It’s more sport than discussion. Was Jack 100%? No. Was it pretty good advice for the time? IMO, Yes.
So it was exactly like now.
Sort, but different. In 1960, information was harder to get. You had to go to the library and do your own research. Since a lot of people wouldn’t do that, they just got whatever came over the tv, or word of mouth or the latest book diet fad.
Now, it’s the same problem, but too much information. And it’s hard for people to know what to do because of conflicting information. But, it’s all readily available.
Doubling down on speculation about times you weren't alive for, on a new and different thread? Too funny.
Might just as well speculate that because information was so rare and precious, people actually sought it out and engaged with it and thought about it, rather than using their mass-media-shortened attention spans on being slapped silly by a barrage of nonsense click-bait and memes all day long.
Truth, as usual, somewhere in the middle.10 -
JerSchmare wrote: »I like Jack.
I like him too, although I didn't know him in real time (didn't watch him on TV or anything, it's after the fact knowledge). But I don't think liking him means it's necessary to pretend his advice is better than it is or that he was a nutrition guru. I think his focus on generically eating well and, mainly, exercise and body-building is sufficient to see him as someone to think of positively without having to make him infallible or defend stuff that makes no sense. For another example, I like Tom Venuto, but I can accept that the body type stuff (endomorphs and so on) is pretty pointless. I like Walter Willett but don't agree with everything he says. I can admire Tom Brady as an athlete without thinking his diet is something all should aspire to.
With respect to the '60s and diet advice, I wasn't alive, but I doubt people weren't aware of sensible advice such as don't overdo the sweets. I do recall the '70s and '80s, and people knew that (and I don't think adults were eating lots of cake, as I said in the other thread).I don’t like the debate. It’s too pendantic and too literal. People know what you mean but they pick apart every syllable to make stupid arguments. It’s more sport than discussion. Was Jack 100%? No. Was it pretty good advice for the time? IMO, Yes.
It seems like it bothers you that people disagree with Lalanne? Like I said, I think you can admire him and not think his advice is perfect. I don't think my point (which was "people should make changes that make sense for their own diets and focus on getting in nutrients, not just staying away from foods that may be fine in moderation") is a stupid or pedantic one. It's a real difference in approach vs. "cut out these specific foods" (which again were not foods I ever ate a lot of -- the list ignored lots of high cal foods and cutting things out is not a good approach for lots of people). I am interested in and care about nutrition, that's why I care about this argument and discussing what nutrition involves.6 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Going to the library wasn't difficult, depending on where you lived, though. I was walking distance from two, not counting the one at my school. I also used to buy calorie counter paperbacks at the book store.
Agreed, and I actually think that learning to research things in books made me more able to evaluate information. I fear that lots of people think you can google something on the internet (or read it on Facebook) and trust it, which is terrifying.
I do like that a lot more information is on packages, as you said, and where I live at chain restaurants (I mostly don't go to chain restaurants, but I like that the information is available for those who do).But overall, I think people generally know the basics and don't eat like they're the poster children for the recurring strawman argument on these boards, consuming nothing but french fries and Little Debbie's.
YES -- or if they do eat the SAD (or whatever), they acknowledge it's because that's how they want to eat, and don't pretend they have no idea that vegetables are good for you or that excessive sweets is often high cal and not high in micronutrients or satiety (although people may find on satiety that their personal experience varies).
I really don't think one could read MFP and not realize that protein and vegetables and fiber and healthy fats and so on are important, unless one has a preexisting commitment to another way of eating that cites sources that disagree (keto or some versions of vegan or raw or what not).0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Jack Lalanes advice from 1960 was right on the money.
No coffee, no butter, no added sugar at all (because it's worse than cigarettes), no so-called "processed foods" (although he ate a bunch at restaurants so long as they added no salt and butter), and absolutely no dairy (because it's for suckling calves).
Really?
Okay, cool. I don't agree, but cool.
Lalane was a zealot and his professional image was intertwined with his lifestyle habits, so he was one of the rare people who could sustain this type of regiment. For the rest of us, this level of restriction is unsustainable and in light of current nutritional knowledge, unnecessary.
We agree.3 -
Yeah, guess I grew up in the Dark Ages (13 years old in 1960). The best thing about Jack Lalanne was his beautiful German shepherd.2
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »I'm curious about one thing, why is it ACV specifically? I'm partial to raspberry vinegar and hate the taste of apple cider vinegar. Could we make the former trendy please?
Isn't it something about the "mother" or some other weirdness specific to ACV?
Yes, I think so (though the popularized mythology probably also depends on Bragg and other acolytes/profiteers talking it up more abstractly).
In reality, I don't think "the mother" is inherently ACV specific: "Mother" is simply the culture that makes vinegar happen (just as you need culture to make yogurt yogurt, or sourdough sourdough).
I'm a science fan-girl, big time, but also a bit experimental in my behavior, when I think there's a moderately high probability bet to be made involving a food I find tasty, and that's clearly been evolution tested for safety. ACV (with mother ) is one.
There's some interesting (but inconclusive and non-definitive) science growing around human gut microbiome diversity. We definitely don't know enough to be prescriptive. Nonetheless, I personally feel there's enough "interesting stuff" that it makes sense to make it a point to regularly eat pro/prebiotic foods that are delicious, time-tested, and nutritious.
For me, that includes foods like kefir, yogurt, sauerkraut, miso, raw ACV, and the like. I see no down side (though some do need to avoid salt-cured fermented foods because of health issues).
This might be unpopular.
Interesting about the "mother" - I didn't realize vinegar was made with a culture. I agree that as a fermented food ACV could potentially have some positive impact on gut microbiome diversity. I'm with AmusedMonkey, though, wouldn't any type of vinegar have the same effect? Why ACV in particular?
ACV seems to be the only one that's widely available raw, unfiltered and unpasteurized. If other types of vinegar were available in that form, they'd have the same effect (or lack thereof ) AFAIK.
Edited: typo
I don't know if it relates to the popularity of Bragg's mother marketing, but I saw red wine vinegar with the mother at WF a couple of days ago.1 -
I, honestly, believe that my meds had a strong influence on my mood/metabolism/mindset/lifestyle and greatly increased my chances of gaining weight/appetite/lack of motivation/lack of exercise/sleep!! Until you've taken the amount of drugs that "may cause weight gain" and sleeping pills that I was prescribed, until you were a zombie, and until you have felt completely emotionless ... Until you watched the scale read 10lbs heavier every month for 6 months straight after starting said medications, and until you are able to slow your weight gain down only after you start tapering off the medications.. Then I think you have NO idea about how medications can affect your mood and therefore your weight.
I completely blame the medications I was on for making me gain 80lbs in a year. It is unfathomably easier to manage my weight/appetite/activity level without the medications.
So.. I guess my unpopular opinion about health and weight loss is that medications really can cause weight gain and can make it much more difficult to lose.10 -
People don't disagree that medications cause mood changes and that mood and physical well-being can affect how easy it is to control weight, I don't think. They are pointing out that there's an intermediary in the causal link -- the medication does not directly affect weight (thereby causing weight gain without something like a change in CO or CI). It generally causes some thing else (increased appetite, less energy, mood changes) that results in changes in activity or food consumption (or how much you pay attention or care) that itself affects mood.
I initially gained a bunch of weight when suffering from depression and anxiety. Being depressed did not cause the weight gain -- that I stopped all of the activity I'd been doing and to some extent self-medicated with eating did (and that I could not seem to make myself care at all played the biggest role). I think being clear about the specific reasons for the weight gain (eating and activity changes) as well as understanding some of the underlying reasons are both helpful for me (and neither means my weight is not within my responsibility or control, although I don't feel at all guilty or bad or whatever for gaining weight, because why would that make sense -- I feel good about losing it though, and felt really good when I was in the process of losing it).7 -
JerSchmare wrote: »^^^sort of. But, I am completely amazed at the average persons level of understanding about dieting. Things people say at work just blow my mind. I have to mostly keep quiet. And these are smart, intelligent people.
So, take that, and then enter the way back machine where information was not at your finger tips.
Since we've speculated hereabout "normal" eating in the 1950s-60s, I've posted a separate thread with images from a book, "Family Meals and Hospitality", by Lewis/Peckham/Hovey, 1960 edition. It was my high school Home Economics class book.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10625791/mainstream-eating-guidance-1960
Funnily enough, even in late 2017, this information was still right at my fingertips . . . just as it was 50 +/- years ago, and about as mainstream as you can get.
7 -
Fit meat head bodybuilder or fat couth potato -if you are huge, you are going to be in my cath lab at an earlier age than your peers.5
-
I don't think protein is as important as people make it out to be. I reached my lowest weight, and body fat, with protein 40-75 grams. Updated DEXA scan showed no muscle loss either. My mother isn't very fond of protein or meat as well. Her diet has always been plant heavy and unsaturated fat heavy while not much protein or meat (think Mediterranean). She used to model when she was my age. She's pretty fit for a woman in her 50's.11
-
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »I don't think protein is as important as people make it out to be. I reached my lowest weight, and body fat, with protein 40-75 grams. Updated DEXA scan showed no muscle loss either. My mother isn't very fond of protein or meat as well. Her diet has always been plant heavy and unsaturated fat heavy while not much protein or meat (think Mediterranean). She used to model when she was my age. She's pretty fit for a woman in her 50's.
If you lost weight you lost muscle...that's just a fact of life.
Dexa scans aren't 100% either.
Protein is important if you are doing resistance training to help repair the muscles and you need that if you want to build muscles.
and last but not least protein helps keep you feeling fuller longer...
So it is as important as any of the other macros...and to get up to 75 grams of protein is pretty good considering the RDA for a sedentary female is 46 grams...4
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