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 commonly given MFP Forum advice do you personally disagree with?
Options
Replies
-
Everyone has the ultimate choice to do what they believe, but unless there is a medical reason, I disagree with any diet that cuts out food groups. I also personally think that Keto-type diets (while they may show some results) are ultimately bad for your health. I believe in good quality food in reasonable quantities, exercise, and taking care of mental health. I'm not looking to get into a debate with anyone, it's just my opinion.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than this. Just like people can have a healthy, vegan diet with adequate protein, it just takes more work to accomplish this. So someone can be healthy on Keto, but it takes more work than just a standard diet.10 -
snowflake954 wrote: »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.
Wasn't that the one where a girl asked how to get started running and he flipped out about skinny fat runners and told her not to run? I believe I was one of the runners who gave him some constructive feedback.2 -
I don't think "commonly given MFP advice" is to cut out food groups.6
-
I stand corrected!! I almost didn't comment lol In hindsight...
0 -
Also, in my defense, the question does refer to MFP "forum" advice. So I think anything on here is fair game.0
-
I stand corrected!! I almost didn't comment lol In hindsight...
Oh, I'm not criticizing you! Especially after 17 pages, threads can wander anyway. Just an observation. And most of the posts that are bringing up advice that I don't think is common here, I'm glad it's not common here
5 -
-
I stand corrected!! I almost didn't comment lol In hindsight...
Oh, I'm not criticizing you! Especially after 17 pages, threads can wander anyway. Just an observation. And most of the posts that are bringing up advice that I don't think is common here, I'm glad it's not common here 0 -
Agree that overall trend over time is the only thing that ultimately matters, but if a person is interested in tracking their data, why wouldn't they minimize the variables? ...
I think this is a realistic and valid question, but my counter to that is that with all of the complexities happening, how do you even know you are "minimizing variables"?
For example, if you are holding more water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you are holding less water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you ate food yesterday that takes longer (or shorter) to digest, how would you know?
You can be regular like clockwork and poop every day at the same time, or you can at completely random times (like me). Those are all variables that may only be slightly controllable. You probably can't actually control cortisol or other hormones that tell your body's systems to do various things. But in any case, they are totally irrelevant to fat loss in the short term. Reducing noise in the short term doesn't tell you anything, because it's really impossible to even know. Our bodies don't regulate in any sort of simple linear fashion.
The only thing we can keep simple is calories in (if we track accurately). Calories out is a little harder because it has its own variables, but those estimates can be decent in the long term.
I think the idea of duplicating conditions makes perfect sense at the high-level. I just don't think it's actually possible. Can you drop (up to) a pound, which is really high, in your morning trip to the restroom? Probably. But, does that mean anything?3 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Agree that overall trend over time is the only thing that ultimately matters, but if a person is interested in tracking their data, why wouldn't they minimize the variables? ...
I think this is a realistic and valid question, but my counter to that is that with all of the complexities happening, how do you even know you are "minimizing variables"?
For example, if you are holding more water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you are holding less water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you ate food yesterday that takes longer (or shorter) to digest, how would you know?
You can be regular like clockwork and poop every day at the same time, or you can at completely random times (like me). Those are all variables that may only be slightly controllable. You probably can't actually control cortisol or other hormones that tell your body's systems to do various things. But in any case, they are totally irrelevant to fat loss in the short term. Reducing noise in the short term doesn't tell you anything, because it's really impossible to even know. Our bodies don't regulate in any sort of simple linear fashion.
The only thing we can keep simple is calories in (if we track accurately). Calories out is a little harder because it has its own variables, but those estimates can be decent in the long term.
I think the idea of duplicating conditions makes perfect sense at the high-level. I just don't think it's actually possible. Can you drop (up to) a pound, which is really high, in your morning trip to the restroom? Probably. But, does that mean anything?
It just seems like you are arguing too much about "perfection" with weighing. People don't expect the weight to be their "true" weight on any given day, but to just minimize those variables they can control. So weigh on an empty stomach after using the bathroom is the best we can do. Removes the variable of a big breakfast or a long morning run. I know I can add or subtract 2-3 lbs with either. In fact, for fun I tested it yesterday. I weighed when I got up. Had a small breakfast, several cups of coffee (3 I think) and went 15 km. Then got back on the scale when I got home and was ~3 lbs lighter than first thing. I should have weighed right before I went running, but didn't.
8 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Agree that overall trend over time is the only thing that ultimately matters, but if a person is interested in tracking their data, why wouldn't they minimize the variables? ...
I think this is a realistic and valid question, but my counter to that is that with all of the complexities happening, how do you even know you are "minimizing variables"?
For example, if you are holding more water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you are holding less water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you ate food yesterday that takes longer (or shorter) to digest, how would you know?
You can be regular like clockwork and poop every day at the same time, or you can at completely random times (like me). Those are all variables that may only be slightly controllable. You probably can't actually control cortisol or other hormones that tell your body's systems to do various things. But in any case, they are totally irrelevant to fat loss in the short term. Reducing noise in the short term doesn't tell you anything, because it's really impossible to even know. Our bodies don't regulate in any sort of simple linear fashion.
The only thing we can keep simple is calories in (if we track accurately). Calories out is a little harder because it has its own variables, but those estimates can be decent in the long term.
I think the idea of duplicating conditions makes perfect sense at the high-level. I just don't think it's actually possible. Can you drop (up to) a pound, which is really high, in your morning trip to the restroom? Probably. But, does that mean anything?
Uh huh... you're clearly very concerned about many things
I'm willing to go out there and propose, without evidence, that a person's weight taken in the morning, in the same state of dress, before all the variables of the day, will tend to paint a better overall picture than weighing one day in the morning, the next day at 12:00, the next day at 3:00 after a workout, the next day before bed, etc. My personal experience is that I can see my weight rise by 2-5 lbs throughout the day as a result of food, drink, activity, and other factors and yet consistently return to the same number in the morning, regardless of the size of the fluctuations of the previous day. And I think generally a person will see a more reliable, overall trend in a shorter period of time (4-6 weeks) than would be seen with the random weighing method. At any rate, I don't think anyone is really inconvenienced or harmed by this advice
8 -
Uh huh... you're clearly very concerned about many things
Not really. Just really answering the thread title, which is asking for opinions anyway. Like I mentioned before, I see absolutely no harm with the advice. Just disagree with whether it makes an actual difference. It's not wrong, just not relevant. When we're talking about fat loss, in my opinion, a better picture is always painted the longer the time window is - and the longer the time window is, the less those little things matter.
The way I know fat loss is happening has much more to do with the food scale than the bathroom scale.4 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Uh huh... you're clearly very concerned about many things
When we're talking about fat loss, in my opinion, a better picture is always painted the longer the time window is - and the longer the time window is, the less those little things matter.
The way I know fat loss is happening has much more to do with the food scale than the bathroom scale.
No argument with those 2 statements at all. And your point actually highlights why this advice is often given to newbies who haven't yet cultivated the patience for long-term trends- makes their short-term data a little less panic-inducing. Personally, I don't even do daily weigh-ins. 0 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Agree that overall trend over time is the only thing that ultimately matters, but if a person is interested in tracking their data, why wouldn't they minimize the variables? ...
I think this is a realistic and valid question, but my counter to that is that with all of the complexities happening, how do you even know you are "minimizing variables"?
For example, if you are holding more water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you are holding less water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you ate food yesterday that takes longer (or shorter) to digest, how would you know?
You can be regular like clockwork and poop every day at the same time, or you can at completely random times (like me). Those are all variables that may only be slightly controllable. You probably can't actually control cortisol or other hormones that tell your body's systems to do various things. But in any case, they are totally irrelevant to fat loss in the short term. Reducing noise in the short term doesn't tell you anything, because it's really impossible to even know. Our bodies don't regulate in any sort of simple linear fashion.
The only thing we can keep simple is calories in (if we track accurately). Calories out is a little harder because it has its own variables, but those estimates can be decent in the long term.
I think the idea of duplicating conditions makes perfect sense at the high-level. I just don't think it's actually possible. Can you drop (up to) a pound, which is really high, in your morning trip to the restroom? Probably. But, does that mean anything?
I think you're overcomplicating it, frankly.
I like to weigh daily. I do it at the same point in my day, dressed the same way, etc., to reduce (not eliminate) noise vs. signal. But what's noise and what's signal depends on what you're trying to understand. Fat gain/loss/maintenance is just one possibility.
With my daily weight, the water weight and digestive contents is not just noise to my fat-weight-management efforts, it's also signal to my understanding of my body. I couldn't translate it well to a big population research study, but for my n = 1, I can begin to form some useful hypotheses about causes of that variation, including its size/timing, and can even develop theories by informally testing those hypotheses through multiple trials. I like understanding how things like exercise, varied food intake, etc., affect the scale. Since it's not fat, I don't worry about it.
Daily weight is a range; I expect that. It's helpful to me, and interesting to me, to better understand it.
Over time, the daily weight range may change: It moves lower when I'm l losing, higher when I'm gaining, and varies around the same general weight when I'm maintaining. Libra helps me visualize that trend . . . also imperfectly. (Sometimes I mess with the Libra advanced settings to seek particular insights.)
You (general you) don't need to weigh daily, if you don't want to, don't find it useful, find it stressful, or whatever. I think it's interesting and useful, and will sometimes make that case to others. That's all. 10 -
How people react to weighing, how often they should weigh is variable.
For me it's important to weigh as close to daily as possible, or I start putting off getting on the scale. Doing it in basically the same situation is the only way to make it meaningful. I get there are still variables. I don't think everyone is the same on this, some might not need to weigh at all, but to monitor clothes fit or what not.4 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Uh huh... you're clearly very concerned about many things
Not really. Just really answering the thread title, which is asking for opinions anyway. Like I mentioned before, I see absolutely no harm with the advice. Just disagree with whether it makes an actual difference. It's not wrong, just not relevant. When we're talking about fat loss, in my opinion, a better picture is always painted the longer the time window is - and the longer the time window is, the less those little things matter.
The way I know fat loss is happening has much more to do with the food scale than the bathroom scale.
See for me it is the opposite. Neither are wrong or more efficient, just different ways of tracking progress.
Since I don't track my intake I use my trend weight in order to figure out what is going on. I like to weigh at the same time daily a)in order to not forget to do it and b) I do think it eliminates extra variables, but if there are variations I am aware of them and they correlate to certain things such as a high sodium meal the night before, food in my system, exercise etc. If I took my weight at different times my weight can fluctuate 5-8lbs during the day. I never see that kind of variation when I weigh first thing in the morning. That works best for me.
1 -
I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html
Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."
And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:
“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
Science is real.
Totally agree with you it’s pretty scary how many downvotes you’re getting.
32
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions