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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
What commonly given MFP Forum advice do you personally disagree with?
Replies
-
coderdan82 wrote: »One thing that gets repeated ad nauseam, that is 100% true but kind of simplistic is "All you need to lose weight is to be in a caloric deficit". That's kind of like saying "All you need to win a hockey game is to score more goals than your opponent". Really, is that all? Well, now that I know I think I'll go get drafted by the NHL.
It's nothing like saying all you need to do to win is to score more goals.
The difference is that I have control over how much I eat. And if I try to control calories and find myself consistently going over, I -- and specifically I, not others on MFP -- have the best ability to look at the data and what happened during the day and understand why that was and what should change.What about the specifics such as strategies for controlling appetite, keeping satiated, getting all the right nutrients, etc.?
People give advice on these things all the time.I had people jump down my throat once when I suggested eating less fruit because it's very high in sugar and leaves you hungry relatively soon after eating it.
Because fruit doesn't leave people in general hungry relatively soon after eating it. I find fruit quite filling.
If it works for you, that's great -- that's my whole point about how each person is the expert on what works for them. Telling others they should avoid fruit is a whole different matter.14 -
coderdan82 wrote: »One thing that gets repeated ad nauseam, that is 100% true but kind of simplistic is "All you need to lose weight is to be in a caloric deficit". That's kind of like saying "All you need to win a hockey game is to score more goals than your opponent". Really, is that all? Well, now that I know I think I'll go get drafted by the NHL.
What about the specifics such as strategies for controlling appetite, keeping satiated, getting all the right nutrients, etc.? I can drink my daily calorie target in one sitting by just chugging on pop, but it won't give me any protein, vitamins or minerals and I'll be hungry in less than an hour. This is where things like the low-carb/keto/paleo diets come in handy for some people but people bash them because it's not just calorie counting. I had people jump down my throat once when I suggested eating less fruit because it's very high in sugar and leaves you hungry relatively soon after eating it.
The problem is that the ONLY thing that is definitely true for everyone is CICO. If someone says they are struggling to stay under their calorie goal, or are too hungry, they will get plenty of suggestions. But when someone posts "I'm can't seem to cut out junk food, I'll never lose this weight" they are rightly told, don't worry about cutting it all out, all you really need is a deficit.
Some people do better with increased protein, others fat. Some need either of those combined with fiber. Some people find starches make them hungrier, for others they are filling. Some people do better eating a big breakfast, others skipping breakfast and saving calories for a late night snack. I find bananas filling but apples leave me hungry. I don't find fat filling at all, I can easily over eat stuff like nuts and cheese. If someone had suggested LCHF to me before I got my calories in line and learned from my diary, I would've wasted weeks trying to figure out why I wasn't full like I'm supposed to be.
Giving specific tips is really only useful once a newbie has been logging for awhile and can start to see patterns in what is working for them and what isn't. Otherwise every one would just suggest a bunch of different things and confuse a newbie as much as the diet industry has.
LCHF does not automatically make a diet nutritious. I know several low carbers who eat lots of "junk" food. Nutrition and weight loss are two very different goals. Any way of eating can be nutritious or nutrient poor.19 -
I've seen it here, but not often. It's shown up occasionally, like in threads where people are talking about doing/liking whatever cardio (not always running) but wanting to add/preserve muscle and asking for help with that. Somebody comes in and says OP has to give up the long-form cardio (maybe do HIIT instead, of all things) because cardio just burns up muscle. Then others say that's stupid bro-vice, and the OP gets pointed to the "which lifting program" thread, and is told they'll be fine as long as they fuel their total exercise load.
So, yeah: Have seen it, but it pretty much gets poo-poo-ed and dismissed quickly.
There was one thread, though, where there was a more extended kind of a battle of JPGs, showing ultra-thin distance runners who had, to put it gently, a seeming lack of interest in upper body development. I'd link it, but I can't remember what it was.
I remember that thread, some guy was really on about runners. It got shut down because of him. Our runners didn't take it sitting down.5 -
Because fruit doesn't leave people in general hungry relatively soon after eating it. I find fruit quite filling.
If it works for you, that's great -- that's my whole point about how each person is the expert on what works for them. Telling others they should avoid fruit is a whole different matter.
Ok, people keep zeroring in on the fruit thing. Let's read my post again:coderdan82 wrote: »I had people jump down my throat once when I suggested eating less fruit because it's very high in sugar and leaves you hungry relatively soon after eating it.
I suggested it because that's what works for me so it might work for them. Where, in my post, does I say it works for everyone? Maybe my wording is a bit off, should've said "I find it leaves me hungry" rather than "leaves you hungry".Some people do better with increased protein, others fat. Some need either of those combined with fiber. Some people find starches make them hungrier, for others they are filling. Some people do better eating a big breakfast, others skipping breakfast and saving calories for a late night snack. I find bananas filling but apples leave me hungry. I don't find fat filling at all, I can easily over eat stuff like nuts and cheese. If someone had suggested LCHF to me before I got my calories in line and learned from my diary, I would've wasted weeks trying to figure out why I wasn't full like I'm supposed to be.
This is exactly my point though. I used low-carb as an example because this is what I'm doing so it's where I notice the backlash but if you need something - anything - more than just calorie counting to help you stay in that calorie deficit then what's wrong with that? If it's not working then, yeah, get the heck off that diet, otherwise stick with what works.8 -
"You have to lift heavy if you don't want to look like a skinnyfat noodle person."
I'm just an n=1, but personally, my legs and butt look a million times better now that I'm just running and cycling than they ever did when I was trying a squat/deadlift type program. I have the quads and glutes I always wanted and was never able to achieve before. Strong Curves had nothing on my cycle commute. Even my abs are better now than when I followed a lifting program.
If people want to lift weights I think that's great (my husband does it exclusively and thinks cardio is evil, and he looks very fit and can certainly lift stuff I can't, even if he can't run a couple miles to save his life), but constantly crapping all over people who like cardio is kinda sucky and trying to deter people from running or whatever in favour of lifting is nonsensical to me. I like to run, I like to bike, and I get the results I want from it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Exercise is important and I think there's a place for strength training AND cardio, and the best workout routine is one you enjoy and will stick to.
These are my feelings precisely. I do lift and I'm firmly in the camp that thinks that resistance training of some form is very important. However, I also do (and enjoy gaspshockhorror) quite a lot of cardio because I happen to think my heart is my most important muscle. Why would I work my other muscles and ignore my heart? I hate to hear or see people downing others as "cardio bunnies" or whatever, as though a strong and healthy heart is somehow less important to pursue than a strong back or arms or legs.11 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »
WTF is that?
That is Major Bedhead from Big Comfy Couch. My daughter used to love that show.3 -
I might get roasted for this, but I think micros do matter not just macros. People should eat nutrient dense foods as often as possible. Also, I think grains should not be a staple and that you should get your carbs largely from gluten free starches (potato, rice, etc) and fruits.
I don't think anyone would argue with the first point about micros and nutrient dense foods being important.
However, unless you have celiac disease or gluten sensitivity, there's no reason to avoid gluten at all.
I have celiac disease and have to avoid it. Now I love me a baked potato, but I don't know why anyone would give up a decent pasta or pizza crust voluntarily.10 -
coderdan82 wrote: »One thing that gets repeated ad nauseam, that is 100% true but kind of simplistic is "All you need to lose weight is to be in a caloric deficit". That's kind of like saying "All you need to win a hockey game is to score more goals than your opponent". Really, is that all? Well, now that I know I think I'll go get drafted by the NHL.
What about the specifics such as strategies for controlling appetite, keeping satiated, getting all the right nutrients, etc.? I can drink my daily calorie target in one sitting by just chugging on pop, but it won't give me any protein, vitamins or minerals and I'll be hungry in less than an hour. This is where things like the low-carb/keto/paleo diets come in handy for some people but people bash them because it's not just calorie counting. I had people jump down my throat once when I suggested eating less fruit because it's very high in sugar and leaves you hungry relatively soon after eating it.
Satiety is individual. What gets bashed is the idea that there's a universal satiating macro mix that works for everyone.
An apple can keep me quite satisfied. A keto diet wouldn't.
And what gets bashed is the idea that there's anything outside of satiety which helps with compliance to a calorie deficit for *some* people to be offered by following a low carb diet. They still work by calorie deficit. They won't satiate everyone who tries them. The problem is that the people who promote those diets try to sell their books/promote their websites by telling their followers that there are universal solutions for all people. This isn't the case.13 -
CurlyGirl_OnKeto wrote: »You can eat your calories burned from working out. I don't like this advice.
You may like the reddit loseit forum then.... They are hardcore into saying most folks should not eat back their calories burned from working out (one of the reasons I stopped lurking there for the most part).2 -
This content has been removed.
-
coderdan82 wrote: »
Ok, people keep zeroring in on the fruit thing. Let's read my post again:
I suggested it because that's what works for me so it might work for them. Where, in my post, does I say it works for everyone? Maybe my wording is a bit off, should've said "I find it leaves me hungry" rather than "leaves you hungry".
Right here: "it's very high in sugar and leaves you hungry relatively soon after eating it."
There's a big difference between saying that and saying to someone who had said they were relying on fruit for breakfast or snacks that they might want to consider trying something with more mixed macros, since for YOU fruit tends to result in you getting hungry soon after, possibly because that's how you react to foods with high sugar, even nutrient-dense ones.
I say stuff like that all the time (although not about fruit since I find it filling) and don't get woo'd. I often say that FOR ME snacking doesn't work and can result in never feeling satisfied and not working, so people might want to experiment with eating patterns and see what works for them, for example.This is exactly my point though. I used low-carb as an example because this is what I'm doing so it's where I notice the backlash but if you need something - anything - more than just calorie counting to help you stay in that calorie deficit then what's wrong with that? If it's not working then, yeah, get the heck off that diet, otherwise stick with what works.
Absolutely no one says there is anything wrong with picking strategies that help with satiety.
People object to once-size-fits-all advice, evangelizing your (anyone's) preferred way of eating, or making broad assertions that are not true for everyone (like fruit is not filling or that fat is or that IF is better than other ways of eating).
Personally, I don't assume people ARE struggling with satiety unless they say so (I never did, maybe I intuitively knew what was satiating to me, maybe I naturally adjusted -- I have other issues with staying in a deficit at time, but it's not hunger). If they do, I try to suggest a variety of possibilities and help them work out what will work based on themselves and maybe experimentation. If someone is asking for general advice I say to consider satiety and nutrition. And I think most others who regularly give advice do as well -- the claim that people say to think about nothing but calories is simply untrue.10 -
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... Bull that's perpetually spouted but in my many years of experience totally false.46
-
jamesakrobinson wrote: »A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... Bull that's perpetually spouted but in my many years of experience totally false.
...yet it's still a scientifically proven fact. Assuming that you're speaking strictly in terms of weight loss, that is.23 -
...yet it's still a scientifically proven fact. Assuming that you're speaking strictly in terms of weight loss, that is.
In that case why do I loose much more/faster on macro with lower carbs comparing to the same amount of kcal with higher carbs?20 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
I don't know. She's talking about arms not fitting in sleeves. Did not have that problem doing judo. I do have that problem now. That's what I was referring to.quiksylver296 wrote: »
Must be genetics. I did judo for years, and never got "bulky". Two+ years hardcore in the gym, though? Yep, SUPAH BULKY!!!
Could well be, maybe I'm the opposite of a hard gainer. I would mention that I normally train with men who often have 10kg+ on me, so I am used to moving around heavy weights Although this is over the course of year and years, so I supposed that my time yoyo dieting probably contributed with unintentional bulk/cut cycles. Maybe I should start lifting and become extra bulky!
(and by bulky, yes I mean more than just gently muscular, I mean "even though I'm wearing a top 2 sizes larger than me, I cannot pull this on over my arms" bulky)8 -
That's not what I was saying. The guidelines were put out there as a good way of reducing calories/weight. My point is that it's 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.
If person A focuses on avoiding added sugar and ignores calories, they will probably end up reducing their calorie intake without realizing it (though there is no guarantee).
If person B focuses on reducing calorie consumption and ignores sugar, they will probably end up with a healthy level of added sugar without realizing it (though there is no guarantee).
Maybe I give people too much credit, but if person B is drinking a good amount of soda and limiting their calories overall, they will end up hungry and either figure it out for themselves or come here asking about it. We see posts all the time from people who drink too much soda and are looking for tips on how to stop. And we give them tips - diet soda, black coffee, carry a water bottle, ween yourself down, etc. They want to stop due to the calories, but the net effect will be less sugar.
And I can imagine it's possible to eat a low added sugar diet and still not eat a nutritionally complete diet, I'm thinking of keto/low carb dieters who happen to eat a lot of convenience "low carb" foods rather than whole foods. Sugar level is not inherently proportional to nutrition density.
There is no confirmed "health" benefit to reducing added sugar (according to these major health organizations) beyond controlling calorie intake/weight. So if you are already controlling your calorie intake and weight, there is nothing in these guidelines (at least as far as I'm seeing) to suggest focusing on added sugar is necessary.
ETA: To be clear, I'm not saying (and I don't think anyone here is really saying) that a diet loaded with added sugar is healthy. We're saying that any attempt to get your calories in line will naturally over time lead to a healthy level of added sugar.
Expanding on my disagreement/unpopular opinion.
I just find it odd that the "regulars" pooh-pooh the guidelines of these organizations regarding added sugar, but virtually high five posts from a guy that posts pictures of the obscene quantities of high calorie nutrient poor food he is supposedly consuming and still keeping in shape (may be *kitten* up his health long term but that's between him and his doctor). Seems to blow the moderation thing out of the water.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
If it's really the guy's picture and he is really eating all that he's a snowflake and not representative of the real world due to his activity level. Where are the people on that thread saying this isn't realistic for 99%+ of us?
People get excited about this modeling but talk down recommendations from the best scientists in the world.
SMH.
20 -
Personally, and I don't think I'm unusual, I don't dismiss the recommendations of the WHO, etc., at all. I simply say that there are more sensible ways of getting to the same place than hyperfocusing on added sugar (which too many newbies misunderstand as sugar -- see, e.g., the fears about fruit and sugar in dairy, and how just upthread one poster translated a study on added sugar to "sugar").
As I've said over and over, if you are on a limited calorie goal and hit it, hit a sensible protein goal, and make an efforts to have a balanced diet based around nutrient dense foods including lots of vegetables, ideally some fruit, and other sources of fiber, healthy fats, etc., and if you understand (as is just common sense) and that calories from lower nutrient foods (and we all know what they are) should be limited and not the base of the diet, then it's very unlikely you will be consuming excess sugar.
I also suggested looking at sugar for a while and seeing if you were getting more than expected and, if so, if it was from whole food sources (i.e., NOT added sugar), or if you seemed to be getting in more than expected from other sources (which is worth knowing, although I think virtually no one is actually going to be surprised that the foods that have lots of added sugar have lots of added sugar).
This idea that people are eating terrible diets very high in sugar and don't know it and don't know it's not ideal when they are already focusing on calories and limiting them is just a strawman. Do some people decide that for various reasons they are going to do it anyway, or aren't yet ready to put in the work to change it, or that it is more important to focus on other things first? Yes, absolutely. But that's not because they don't know what a good diet looks like or think these nutrition goals are consistent with having huge amounts of added sugar.
Now, all bets are off IF one has lots of calories (very active, larger guy, on a bulk, or some combination). To what extent more added sugar (and whether the source matters) are problems in that context might be worth discussing (I think we don't really know). But that's not actually the context in which these questions are normally raised.
The question in which they are raised are: (1) should I worry about putting milk in my coffee/that fruit makes me go over my goal; and (2) can I lose weight if I eat some sweets? (and the answer to this ALWAYS includes many comments about satiety and moderation and overall good diet).12 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Expanding on my disagreement/unpopular opinion.
I just find it odd that the "regulars" pooh-pooh the guidelines of these organizations regarding added sugar, but virtually high five posts from a guy that posts pictures of the obscene quantities of high calorie nutrient poor food he is supposedly consuming and still keeping in shape (may be *kitten* up his health long term but that's between him and his doctor). Seems to blow the moderation thing out of the water.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
If it's really the guy's picture and he is really eating all that he's a snowflake and not representative of the real world due to his activity level. Where are the people on that thread saying this isn't realistic for 99%+ of us?
People get excited about this modeling but talk down recommendations from the best scientists in the world.
SMH.
I don't see the regulars "pooh-poohing" added sugar. They ask if being over your sugar goal is because of fruit or dairy. I go over frequently because of fruit. As for the muscular guy eating junk food-have you read his thread? He has regular check-ups and blood work done. All A-OK.11 -
_aenyeweddien_ wrote: »
In that case why do I loose much more/faster on macro with lower carbs comparing to the same amount of kcal with higher carbs?_aenyeweddien_ wrote: »
In that case why do I loose much more/faster on macro with lower carbs comparing to the same amount of kcal with higher carbs?
Physics would say you are wrong...you can’t break laws of physics...now could it be fat eating higher fat gives you more energy and so you start moving more increases your calorie out while your CI remains to same? Possibly
It’s why sometimes when ppl go from extremely restrictive diet to more caloric intake they unknowingly increase incidental movement which increases calories out - it’s not that eating more burns more but how your body uses said energy10 -
One thing I will say... seems a lot of what we see as commonly given advice is subject to how we read/interpret things. Specifically, topics we are sensitive to. Some of the things people are pointing out as "commonly given advice" I don't think I've ever seen, and certainly wouldn't call it common. I think that really speaks to personal biases... something we should all be aware of on a discussion board.13
-
_aenyeweddien_ wrote: »
In that case why do I loose much more/faster on macro with lower carbs comparing to the same amount of kcal with higher carbs?
I'm wondering if this is a time where what you think/observe to be happening isn't what's actually happening?13 -
_aenyeweddien_ wrote: »
In that case why do I loose much more/faster on macro with lower carbs comparing to the same amount of kcal with higher carbs?
With lower carbs you are losing more water which can account for more total weight loss.13 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Expanding on my disagreement/unpopular opinion.
I just find it odd that the "regulars" pooh-pooh the guidelines of these organizations regarding added sugar, but virtually high five posts from a guy that posts pictures of the obscene quantities of high calorie nutrient poor food he is supposedly consuming and still keeping in shape (may be *kitten* up his health long term but that's between him and his doctor). Seems to blow the moderation thing out of the water.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
If it's really the guy's picture and he is really eating all that he's a snowflake and not representative of the real world due to his activity level. Where are the people on that thread saying this isn't realistic for 99%+ of us?
People get excited about this modeling but talk down recommendations from the best scientists in the world.
SMH.
And I think that's where the disconnect is. We aren't pooh-poohing the guidelines. We are reading the reasoning those organizations state are behind the guidelines and using some critical thinking to realize that since we are already paying attention to other numbers, added sugars will naturally fall in line. So there is no reason to freak out over eating a piece of birthday cake if it fits in your calories. I feel like you are willfully ignoring the multiple times it's been stated that we AREN'T saying lots of added sugar isn't a problem. It's just not necessary to tell folks here to worry about it, because it will take care of itself.
And I haven't read through Still Skeptical in awhile, but I'm reasonably sure OP was clear this was an extreme experiment, that he's not saying nutrition isn't important for health, and that he doesn't eat that way all the time.10 -
coderdan82 wrote: »
My example was extreme on purpose to call out the fact that there are strategies to be worked out and some of the approaches people take get ridiculed even though they work for some people.
It was a suggestion, not a generalization.
I don't see the point of using such an extreme example.
If it isn't a generalization, you may want to consider rephrasing it. When you say fruit leaves "you" hungry after eating it, it comes across like you're telling other people what will happen to them.7 -
I'm wondering if this is a time where what you think/observe to be happening isn't what's actually happening?
Yeah, this^^
It is easier for many people to lose with LC. It's easier for me. It's easier because I have to eliminate a lot of my triggery foods in order to stay Low(er) Carb, and in so doing I have to increase fat and protein. That keeps my blood sugar more stable so I don't feel that fake hunger, I don't have any off-plan over-eating and I feel satiated on LC. Problem with LC is that for me it isn't sustainable long-term. I'm not willing to give up cookies forever. I am going to want a baguette or some oatmeal at some point. So even though I do go back to LC when I want to drop a couple pounds (I'm in Maintenance now) I don't feel like I am in balance when I do it, because there are so many foods I restrict when I'm LC.
Sure, it works. It keeps me from over-eating, because it's so restrictive.
It's still calories in < calories out. I am under no illusion that I can over-eat my calories and still lose weight. That's not how it works.10 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
I disagree with some of the advice I see a lot regarding preventing loose/saggy skin. Lots of people seem to chime in saying slow weight loss can help with this. While I don't disagree that slow weight loss is preferable and healthier, I don't really think it can help prevent loose skin. Losing slowly does give the skin more time to adapt, so may look a little better during weight loss, but the end result will likely be the same regardless of how slowly you go.
Genetics and age are the biggest factors and how fast you gained the weight or how long you were overweight probably plays a much bigger part than how fast or slow you lose the weight. Gaining the weight is what stretched the skin so the "damage" is already done before you start losing.
This is not to discourage others from slow healthy weight loss, but I do think it's setting people up for possible disappointment... on other forums I see a lot of "I lost the weight slowly and still have all this loose skin"13 -
I disagree with some of the advice I see a lot regarding preventing loose/saggy skin. Lots of people seem to chime in saying slow weight loss can help with this. While I don't disagree that slow weight loss is preferable and healthier, I don't really think it can help prevent loose skin. Losing slowly does give the skin more time to adapt, so may look a little better during weight loss, but the end result will likely be the same regardless of how slowly you go.
Genetics and age are the biggest factors and how fast you gained the weight or how long you were overweight probably plays a much bigger part than how fast or slow you lose the weight. Gaining the weight is what stretched the skin so the "damage" is already done before you start losing.
This is not to discourage others from slow healthy weight loss, but I do think it's setting people up for possible disappointment... on other forums I see a lot of "I lost the weight slowly and still have all this loose skin"
I see you got "woo"ed for this. Hopefully not a negative woo as I suspect you may be correct. It would be nice to see some backup for either position though. Not sure if there are studies on this or not.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Summer running can be a drag too. I can find something to complain about in every season!
That's why I like the bicycle. I can generate my own breeze as long as I'm moving. But when I stop, the waterworks start
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.7K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions