[socillion]

My argument is that challenging yourself is healthy, and that applies to both physical and mental activities. I suspect the difference may lie in what we consider "good health".

Being challenging also doesn't imply an activity is unenjoyable or unrewarding.

> But personally I would not choose to do things that were clearly suboptimal for my body solely because it would be more challenging.

What things?

[Dewie]

And where did I ever say that challenging yourself is not healthy? It seems that you went on a tangent from the start (the math and reading examples were clearly perversions of my original argument). Is your tactic now to gradually water down your argument until we arrive at something so non-disagreeable that I will just sheepishly agree, wondering what kind of misunderstanding lead us to this point? The original claim was that; assuming that a low-carb diet is superior to a more generic diet, it is better to use such a diet rather than simply doing something harder that yields the same end result, simply because of the attitude of "no pain no gain" (notice this last phrase. It describes a challenging activity that is also not enjoyable). So, no. I don't find value in challenging myself in masochistic ways. I might build character by hopping on one leg to work each day, but I'd rather spend my time in other ways, which may involve challenging myself in ways that also yields other rewards

[socillion]

> it is better to use such a diet rather than simply doing something harder that yields the same end result

You assert that exercising and changing your diet have the same end result when they clearly do not, unless you are using "healthy" as a euphemism for "lose weight" or something similar. Do you have a factual basis for asserting that changing your diet and exercising result in the same end results?

Thank you for clarifying that you do not find exercise enjoyable, I was curious if that was the case. I find exercise to be rewarding in it's own right - it's unfortunate that you don't experience it the same way.

"No pain, no gain" can be interpreted as saying that sometimes it is worth enduring discomfort or pain in the short term for a longer term reward. It's more a comment on dealing with delayed gratification than a description of whether an activity is enjoyable or worth doing.

[Dewie]

> You assert that exercising and changing your diet have the same end result when they clearly do not, unless you are using "healthy" as a euphemism for "lose weight" or something similar.

Do you know what a euphemism is? A euphemism is calling something that is undesirable, unpleasant or offensive by a word that sounds nicer or has better connotations. How is "lose weight" - which in this thread clearly is about losing excess fat and not about something like being anorexic - undesirable, unpleasant or offensive?

Yes, eating well is one facet of being health - try to find someone who thinks ones diet is inconsequential to ones health. That does not mean that it is the only facet of being healthy, just like I can't accuse you of using exercise as a "euphemism" for health since doing a lot of exercise and only eating ice cream is clearly not healthy overall (even though the exercise in isolation is).

[Dewie]

> You assert that exercising and changing your diet have the same end result when they clearly do not, unless you are using "healthy" as a euphemism for "lose weight" or something similar. Do you have a factual basis for asserting that changing your diet and exercising result in the same end results?

I have NEVER said anything remotely similar to that. My argument has been that assuming (I've always said assuming or some variation; it's a premise, not an assertion) that low-carb is superior to some other method, like a more generic diet, AND it is easier to follow, you should do that. Nowhere have I said ANYTHING about exercising and dieting being the same. The argument is more general; given that doing some thing (ANY thing, exercising, standing on one foot, low-carb, etc.) is easier AND yields better results compared to another thing (AGAIN, any one thing; standing on one foot, exercising, etc.), you should do the former.

My argument does not rely on low-carb actually being better than something (anything) else; that was simply the premise.

> Thank you for clarifying that you do not find exercise enjoyable, I was curious if that was the case. I find exercise to be rewarding in it's own right - it's unfortunate that you don't experience it the same way.

Thank you for for repeatedly misrepresenting, or even inventing, what I've said. I wonder what leads you to jump to these specific conclusions; is it the fact that I've been writing about 'challenging' things, or 'no pain no gain'? Well, exercise is not solely the domain of 'challenging'; a diet can be challenging. That was what was after all what was discussed originally, namely the fact that a person scoffed at using a specific, claimed to be easier and better diet, over another diet. Nothing about exercise, or that it replaces it. "No pain no gain"? I'd venture to say that people that are one something like "one apple for breakfast, one banana for dinner and that's it" are probably going to feel some pain while on this diet, certainly compared to someone that is on a diet actually lets them eat enough food to become somewhat sated. Exercise can be painful, but not necessarily. Nowhere have I ever said that all exercise is just painful.

My sentence about "jumping on one leg to work" has nothing to do with exercise in general. It is just a silly everyday limitation. I might like to play rugby instead, because that is a sport that I enjoy.

As for if I find exercise enjoyable or not: it depends. Lifting weights can be 'enjoyable in its own right', i.e. simply the act of doing it. On the other hand, something like high intensity interval training is often downright miserable. In fact, let me for a moment take a page out of the exercise masochists and say; if you are enjoying exercising, you are simply not exercising hard enough! Which leads me to the last point:

> "No pain, no gain" can be interpreted as saying that sometimes it is worth enduring discomfort or pain in the short term for a longer term reward. It's more a comment on dealing with delayed gratification than a description of whether an activity is enjoyable or worth doing.

...and it can be eventually be taken so far as to become and end in itself rather than something that serves a higher purpose. There are plenty of fitness-geeks that use how much pain they are in to gauge how well they are doing, but that is certainly not always the best strategy. You can bench press a weight until you are so exhausted that you could hardly lift anything, but you might be better off not lifting until failure if your main goal is to increase strength and stress your nervous system, over building muscle.

[socillion]

Assertion: Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.

Euphemism: The substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.

Premise: A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.

Your usage of "premise" is odd. An argument is made up of premises which support a conclusion, suggesting that the conclusion does not rely on the premises of that argument is false.

> My argument has been that assuming (I've always said assuming or some variation; it's a premise, not an assertion)

It's an assertion, but also a premise of your argument. Whether or not it is an assumption is irrelevant.

> If you want to challenge your body, and simply maintaining good health is not challenging enough, there are endless possibilities. Recreational sports, for example. Gymnastics. Parkour. But personally I would not choose to do things that were clearly suboptimal for my body solely because it would be more challenging.

Here is where you list examples of exercise and call them "suboptimal" (for obtaining "good health") compared to a diet.

> The original claim was that; assuming that a low-carb diet is superior to a more generic diet, it is better to use such a diet rather than simply doing something harder that yields the same end result

Since, as you say and I correctly interpreted, this is a general statement, it can also be applied to your previous conclusion that exercise is suboptimal compared to a diet and is therefore "something harder that yields the same end result". You contradict this now with a much more balanced view on exercise.

> There are plenty of fitness-geeks that use how much pain they are in to gauge how well they are doing, but that is certainly not always the best strategy. You can bench press a weight until you are so exhausted that you could hardly lift anything, but you might be better off not lifting until failure if your main goal is to increase strength and stress your nervous system, over building muscle.

Doing bench presses until failure does not mean you're in pain. Doing bench presses until failure doesn't even mean you'll feel pain the next day. I'm also curious what you think is the best way to "increase strength and stress your nervous system" if working to exhaustion is not optimal.

Maybe your arguments would be clearer if you didn't spend half of them on snide remarks and potshots. I'm tired of this so I won't be returning.