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
-
No but you really should be drinking Coke Zero.drinking a diet coke right now, am I going to die or have a heart attack?singingflutelady wrote: »
Beat me to it.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Exactly the reason for my respond above. I believe the stuff you eat matters to the organ. Sure it's 0 cal, but if u have too much of it, what would happen to ur organs? We all enjoy a little junk here n there from time to time. But when u r consuming something bad and not being aware or alert of it, that'd be troublesome.Alatariel75 wrote: »I don't believe in diet version of drinks. It's just as bad if not more harmful. Putting that on food diary to attempt to keep cal count low is just fooling yourself. Same goes for sugar substitutes. Just man up and consume the real thing, it's not the end of the world.
How is it more harmful? Why can't I spend those calories on something else? Or do you not believe that they're actually 0 calorie and that the manufacturers are lying and getting away with it?
You keep dancing around the question. WHAT is bad about it.
Organs man. Organs.
If there are organs in my Coke Zero, I'm taking it back.15 -
byustrongman wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Full fat Coke
is this the new bulletproof coffee? blend some coke with melted butter and mct oil?
Nah. It's just the Brit (and I think Aussie, too - maybe other places, as well) way of saying "non-diet" soda. Had me confused the first few times I saw/heard it.
Ha, never occurred to me people wouldn't get that vernacular.1 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »
Nah, Coke No Sugar is where it's at. Does the US have that yet? We're now up to three sugar free Cokes in NZ, not counting caffeine-free, vanilla, etc. Ingredients in Zero and No Sugar exactly the same except for preservative (in the Zero). Somehow, the No Sugar is actually closer to real Coke (I think, really need to do side by side taste tests of all three). More sweetener maybe? Guess I will just die sooner...
Coke Zero has officially been replaced by Coke Zero Sugar here.
I was highly skeptical but believe it or not, they actually improved the taste and got even closer to actual Coke.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »
Nah, Coke No Sugar is where it's at. Does the US have that yet? We're now up to three sugar free Cokes in NZ, not counting caffeine-free, vanilla, etc. Ingredients in Zero and No Sugar exactly the same except for preservative (in the Zero). Somehow, the No Sugar is actually closer to real Coke (I think, really need to do side by side taste tests of all three). More sweetener maybe? Guess I will just die sooner...
Coke Zero has officially been replaced by Coke Zero Sugar here.
I was highly skeptical but believe it or not, they actually improved the taste and got even closer to actual Coke.
Yeah, weirdly we're apparently keeping Zero, along with the No Sugar (which lives right beside the normal coke on the shelf, and the only distinguishing thing on the label is a black band at the top).
Annoyingly, the pizza place has both Zero and No Sugar, but No Sugar is thus far only available in a two for one taste test pack with ordinary coke (and a free eye mask).0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »
Nah, Coke No Sugar is where it's at. Does the US have that yet? We're now up to three sugar free Cokes in NZ, not counting caffeine-free, vanilla, etc. Ingredients in Zero and No Sugar exactly the same except for preservative (in the Zero). Somehow, the No Sugar is actually closer to real Coke (I think, really need to do side by side taste tests of all three). More sweetener maybe? Guess I will just die sooner...
Coke Zero has officially been replaced by Coke Zero Sugar here.
I was highly skeptical but believe it or not, they actually improved the taste and got even closer to actual Coke.
They're replacing coke zero with the no sugar coke here in Australia.... I think the no sugar version is minging (because it tastes more like coke). Diet for me! (diet vanilla preferably - when I can find it!)0 -
I don't believe in diet version of drinks. It's just as bad if not more harmful. Putting that on food diary to attempt to keep cal count low is just fooling yourself. Same goes for sugar substitutes. Just man up and consume the real thing, it's not the end of the world.
I prefer to "woman up" and drink what I choose due to personal preference and not because of what some misinformed internet warrior thinks.
Anyway, I can't stand the way regular soda makes my teeth feel. I don't get that crunchy feel with diet drinks.
11 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »
Nah, Coke No Sugar is where it's at. Does the US have that yet? We're now up to three sugar free Cokes in NZ, not counting caffeine-free, vanilla, etc. Ingredients in Zero and No Sugar exactly the same except for preservative (in the Zero). Somehow, the No Sugar is actually closer to real Coke (I think, really need to do side by side taste tests of all three). More sweetener maybe? Guess I will just die sooner...
I think it's called Coke Zero Sugar here, which seemed a stupid name change to me. (There was an ad for it before the movie I saw last weekend.)
I hate Coke Zero (unlike Diet Coke, which is tasty), so do not plan to try it. I'm stuck in my ways!0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »
Nah, Coke No Sugar is where it's at. Does the US have that yet? We're now up to three sugar free Cokes in NZ, not counting caffeine-free, vanilla, etc. Ingredients in Zero and No Sugar exactly the same except for preservative (in the Zero). Somehow, the No Sugar is actually closer to real Coke (I think, really need to do side by side taste tests of all three). More sweetener maybe? Guess I will just die sooner...
Coke Zero has officially been replaced by Coke Zero Sugar here.
I was highly skeptical but believe it or not, they actually improved the taste and got even closer to actual Coke.
They're replacing coke zero with the no sugar coke here in Australia.... I think the no sugar version is minging (because it tastes more like coke). Diet for me! (diet vanilla preferably - when I can find it!)
They're phasing out Coke Zero apparently, but may have issues because Woolies is refusing to even stock the No Sugar one.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »
Nah, Coke No Sugar is where it's at. Does the US have that yet? We're now up to three sugar free Cokes in NZ, not counting caffeine-free, vanilla, etc. Ingredients in Zero and No Sugar exactly the same except for preservative (in the Zero). Somehow, the No Sugar is actually closer to real Coke (I think, really need to do side by side taste tests of all three). More sweetener maybe? Guess I will just die sooner...
Coke Zero has officially been replaced by Coke Zero Sugar here.
I was highly skeptical but believe it or not, they actually improved the taste and got even closer to actual Coke.
They're replacing coke zero with the no sugar coke here in Australia.... I think the no sugar version is minging (because it tastes more like coke). Diet for me! (diet vanilla preferably - when I can find it!)
They're phasing out Coke Zero apparently, but may have issues because Woolies is refusing to even stock the No Sugar one.
Bahahahaha! But, why?
And interesting that the US and Aus are phasing out Zero, and NZ is steadfastly going with having both. We do like to move to the beat of our own drum, though.
Also, Google tells me I was right about No Sugar having more sweetener than Zero, hence why it's closer to Classic in taste.1 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »
Nah, Coke No Sugar is where it's at. Does the US have that yet? We're now up to three sugar free Cokes in NZ, not counting caffeine-free, vanilla, etc. Ingredients in Zero and No Sugar exactly the same except for preservative (in the Zero). Somehow, the No Sugar is actually closer to real Coke (I think, really need to do side by side taste tests of all three). More sweetener maybe? Guess I will just die sooner...
Coke Zero has officially been replaced by Coke Zero Sugar here.
I was highly skeptical but believe it or not, they actually improved the taste and got even closer to actual Coke.
They're replacing coke zero with the no sugar coke here in Australia.... I think the no sugar version is minging (because it tastes more like coke). Diet for me! (diet vanilla preferably - when I can find it!)
They're phasing out Coke Zero apparently, but may have issues because Woolies is refusing to even stock the No Sugar one.
Bahahahaha! But, why?
And interesting that the US and Aus are phasing out Zero, and NZ is steadfastly going with having both. We do like to move to the beat of our own drum, though.
Also, Google tells me I was right about No Sugar having more sweetener than Zero, hence why it's closer to Classic in taste.
Woolies said that they have too many Coke products already and sales of Zero were fine and they basically told Coke to get stuffed. It's pretty funny.2 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.13 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
That's because evolution designed us to be omnivores, get our food from a wide variety of sources, and pretty much eat anything that won't kill us
7 -
I don't believe in diet version of drinks. It's just as bad if not more harmful. Putting that on food diary to attempt to keep cal count low is just fooling yourself. Same goes for sugar substitutes. Just man up and consume the real thing, it's not the end of the world.
I have reactive hypoglycemia. The liquid sugar causes too extreme of an insulin response, leaving me with low blood sugar. One of my best friends has T2 diabetes.
For either of us, the "real thing" would be very bad, and especially for her, the "end of the world" (or of her)2 -
Apparently this opinion might be unpopular but Coke Zero Sugar is the worst parts of coke zero and diet coke.
1 -
Here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-011-1968-2VintageFeline wrote: »
Didn't dance around anything. My biggest concern with it is over-consuming it without knowing you are having too much of it compared with how you would react to regular counterpart.stevencloser wrote: »
Exactly the reason for my respond above. I believe the stuff you eat matters to the organ. Sure it's 0 cal, but if u have too much of it, what would happen to ur organs? We all enjoy a little junk here n there from time to time. But when u r consuming something bad and not being aware or alert of it, that'd be troublesome.Alatariel75 wrote: »I don't believe in diet version of drinks. It's just as bad if not more harmful. Putting that on food diary to attempt to keep cal count low is just fooling yourself. Same goes for sugar substitutes. Just man up and consume the real thing, it's not the end of the world.
How is it more harmful? Why can't I spend those calories on something else? Or do you not believe that they're actually 0 calorie and that the manufacturers are lying and getting away with it?
You keep dancing around the question. WHAT is bad about it.
But to name other, diabetes, heart disease.
There is no sugar in, wait for it, sugar free drinks so how on earth can it impact/cause/exacerbate or whatever, diabetes?
Same goes for heart disease, where on earth have you seen a study that shows this link?
There is no evidence (not fear mongering blogs or websites) to indicate there is anything wrong with the consumption of diet drinks and any potential issues (so far only observed in mice as far as I'm aware) would call for drinking amounts that would cause far worse problems long before the side effects of the diet drink kicked in.
Oy vey.
"We assessed diet and regular soft drink consumption using a food frequency questionnaire..."
Those are not very reliable...
That's putting it lightly.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-011-1968-2VintageFeline wrote: »
Didn't dance around anything. My biggest concern with it is over-consuming it without knowing you are having too much of it compared with how you would react to regular counterpart.stevencloser wrote: »
Exactly the reason for my respond above. I believe the stuff you eat matters to the organ. Sure it's 0 cal, but if u have too much of it, what would happen to ur organs? We all enjoy a little junk here n there from time to time. But when u r consuming something bad and not being aware or alert of it, that'd be troublesome.Alatariel75 wrote: »I don't believe in diet version of drinks. It's just as bad if not more harmful. Putting that on food diary to attempt to keep cal count low is just fooling yourself. Same goes for sugar substitutes. Just man up and consume the real thing, it's not the end of the world.
How is it more harmful? Why can't I spend those calories on something else? Or do you not believe that they're actually 0 calorie and that the manufacturers are lying and getting away with it?
You keep dancing around the question. WHAT is bad about it.
But to name other, diabetes, heart disease.
There is no sugar in, wait for it, sugar free drinks so how on earth can it impact/cause/exacerbate or whatever, diabetes?
Same goes for heart disease, where on earth have you seen a study that shows this link?
There is no evidence (not fear mongering blogs or websites) to indicate there is anything wrong with the consumption of diet drinks and any potential issues (so far only observed in mice as far as I'm aware) would call for drinking amounts that would cause far worse problems long before the side effects of the diet drink kicked in.
Oy vey.
"We assessed diet and regular soft drink consumption using a food frequency questionnaire..."
Those are not very reliable...
That's putting it lightly.
Turning over a new leaf. Trying the gentle route...5 -
Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."10
-
SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
12 -
SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I'm not sure it's fair to say exercise isn't required to be healthy. Sure at a given point in time you could be healthy and not exercising, but over time being sedentary can lead to as many health problems as being overweight.7 -
SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
Are you assuming then that everyone is able to exercise and has a job?3 -
SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
Not so sure about this...
1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I'm not sure it's fair to say exercise isn't required to be healthy. Sure at a given point in time you could be healthy and not exercising, but over time being sedentary can lead to as many health problems as being overweight.
I totally agree - I don't think that you can be healthy long term without exercising. Being sedentary results in an unfavorable body composition which lacks muscle development and bone density, and lacking cardio stamina. Long term this will start to impact your vital stats and make you vulnerable to health issues as you grow older.7 -
SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
Personally I don't go for the all or nothing mentality. As life changes so do one's priorities. I believe in keeping a top 5 list. The top 5 may change their order but they will generally be up there...6 -
SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I tend to agree, which is blasphemy on a fitness forum. I'm not sure having different priorities is "an excuse". A person has right to their own priorities and it's silly to judge their priorities as "inferior" just because they aren't the same as someone else's. I also agree that exercise is not a requirement for health, and by that I mean purposeful exercise. I believe being active does affect health a lot, but it doesn't necessarily need to be exercise. I have seen living proof of it.
My mom is in her 60s, and by her posture you would think she is in her 40s. She has a straight back, strong straight pulled back shoulders, great balance in her step, she stands tall and looks solid, she jumps from counter to counter like a monkey to clean and does garden work for hours in a deep squat position. She carries around 100 lb bags of firewood as if they're nothing and has more stamina to do anything than I ever will. She does no official exercise, but she has a job that requires some strength and muscle stamina and she's the kind of woman who won't stay still for more than a few minutes. At her age she has ZERO common age-related metabolic problems like blood sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure... etc. She isn't on any medications. I'm nearly half her age and even after years of working on it and normalizing all of my stats I can only dream of her blood work and blood pressure (110-80).8 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I tend to agree, which is blasphemy on a fitness forum. I'm not sure having different priorities is "an excuse". A person has right to their own priorities and it's silly to judge their priorities as "inferior" just because they aren't the same as someone else's. I also agree that exercise is not a requirement for health, and by that I mean purposeful exercise. I believe being active does affect health a lot, but it doesn't necessarily need to be exercise. I have seen living proof of it.
My mom is in her 60s, and by her posture you would think she is in her 40s. She has a straight back, strong straight pulled back shoulders, great balance in her step, she stands tall and looks solid, she jumps from counter to counter like a monkey to clean and does garden work for hours in a deep squat position. She carries around 100 lb bags of firewood as if they're nothing and has more stamina to do anything than I ever will. She does no official exercise, but she has a job that requires some strength and muscle stamina and she's the kind of woman who won't stay still for more than a few minutes. At her age she has ZERO common age-related metabolic problems like blood sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure... etc. She isn't on any medications. I'm nearly half her age and even after years of working on it and normalizing all of my stats I can only dream of her blood work and blood pressure (110-80).
Endorsed. Active is important for long-term health, but active is not synonymous with intentional exercise. Work works, whether it's part of paid employment or daily life. Not all forms of works are equal, of course, and some repetitive motions' cumulative injurious effects are one example.
We evolved to be as we are through working, not by lifting barbells and running on treadmills.
The whiff of special virtue that occasionally wafts around intentional (not elsewise productive) exercise is, in part, a class prejudice or class marker.
How's that for an unpopular opinion?
Read carefuly: I'm not dissing intentional exercise. I think it's a fine thing, especially in our first-world modern circumstances, and I consider it so (maybe extra so!) even for those with active jobs that are unbalanced in their physical effects.15 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I tend to agree, which is blasphemy on a fitness forum. I'm not sure having different priorities is "an excuse". A person has right to their own priorities and it's silly to judge their priorities as "inferior" just because they aren't the same as someone else's. I also agree that exercise is not a requirement for health, and by that I mean purposeful exercise. I believe being active does affect health a lot, but it doesn't necessarily need to be exercise. I have seen living proof of it.
My mom is in her 60s, and by her posture you would think she is in her 40s. She has a straight back, strong straight pulled back shoulders, great balance in her step, she stands tall and looks solid, she jumps from counter to counter like a monkey to clean and does garden work for hours in a deep squat position. She carries around 100 lb bags of firewood as if they're nothing and has more stamina to do anything than I ever will. She does no official exercise, but she has a job that requires some strength and muscle stamina and she's the kind of woman who won't stay still for more than a few minutes. At her age she has ZERO common age-related metabolic problems like blood sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure... etc. She isn't on any medications. I'm nearly half her age and even after years of working on it and normalizing all of my stats I can only dream of her blood work and blood pressure (110-80).
You actually just described a series of exercise activities that your mom does consistently, which sound just as effective as a regimented program in a gym. In her case, prioritizing exercise is unnecessary - for those of us who get very little exercise at work or through hobbies, I think it is critical to set a few hours aside per week for it.5 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I tend to agree, which is blasphemy on a fitness forum. I'm not sure having different priorities is "an excuse". A person has right to their own priorities and it's silly to judge their priorities as "inferior" just because they aren't the same as someone else's. I also agree that exercise is not a requirement for health, and by that I mean purposeful exercise. I believe being active does affect health a lot, but it doesn't necessarily need to be exercise. I have seen living proof of it.
My mom is in her 60s, and by her posture you would think she is in her 40s. She has a straight back, strong straight pulled back shoulders, great balance in her step, she stands tall and looks solid, she jumps from counter to counter like a monkey to clean and does garden work for hours in a deep squat position. She carries around 100 lb bags of firewood as if they're nothing and has more stamina to do anything than I ever will. She does no official exercise, but she has a job that requires some strength and muscle stamina and she's the kind of woman who won't stay still for more than a few minutes. At her age she has ZERO common age-related metabolic problems like blood sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure... etc. She isn't on any medications. I'm nearly half her age and even after years of working on it and normalizing all of my stats I can only dream of her blood work and blood pressure (110-80).
You actually just described a series of exercise activities that your mom does consistently, which sound just as effective as a regimented program in a gym. In her case, prioritizing exercise is unnecessary - for those of us who get very little exercise at work or through hobbies, I think it is critical to set a few hours aside per week for it.
And that is most of the US.1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I tend to agree, which is blasphemy on a fitness forum. I'm not sure having different priorities is "an excuse". A person has right to their own priorities and it's silly to judge their priorities as "inferior" just because they aren't the same as someone else's. I also agree that exercise is not a requirement for health, and by that I mean purposeful exercise. I believe being active does affect health a lot, but it doesn't necessarily need to be exercise. I have seen living proof of it.
My mom is in her 60s, and by her posture you would think she is in her 40s. She has a straight back, strong straight pulled back shoulders, great balance in her step, she stands tall and looks solid, she jumps from counter to counter like a monkey to clean and does garden work for hours in a deep squat position. She carries around 100 lb bags of firewood as if they're nothing and has more stamina to do anything than I ever will. She does no official exercise, but she has a job that requires some strength and muscle stamina and she's the kind of woman who won't stay still for more than a few minutes. At her age she has ZERO common age-related metabolic problems like blood sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure... etc. She isn't on any medications. I'm nearly half her age and even after years of working on it and normalizing all of my stats I can only dream of her blood work and blood pressure (110-80).
You actually just described a series of exercise activities that your mom does consistently, which sound just as effective as a regimented program in a gym. In her case, prioritizing exercise is unnecessary - for those of us who get very little exercise at work or through hobbies, I think it is critical to set a few hours aside per week for it.
Exactly. The post didn't say "intentional exercise" or exercise for the sake of exercise/fitness.
And if it had it would still be incorrect as it's quite possible to be fit if you live an active life even if you never do "intentional exercise".2 -
Yeah. As I've mentioned elsewhere (or maybe here, a bunch of pages back), I'm a walker. I'll take 2-hours-plus walks on a regular basis to exercise, but if there's somewhere I need to go, I'll also choose to not take transit or have someone drive me (I don't drive) if time and weather permit. So, I log my 15-minute walks to and from the grocery store, deducting time spent in line; I try to march in place at traffic lights. Ditto for my 45-minute walks to the library and my nearly 2-hour walks to the bakery and deli.
I'm not sure where it all falls. Purposeful exercise, because I chose to not take the subway? Normal activity because even at my heaviest, I was still walking for some errands, so some things haven't really changed apart from my now being aware of how many minutes it takes? All I know is that I log the walks, I eat back half the calories I'm said to have burned, my pace seems to be picking up a bit, and the weight is coming off.8
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions