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
-
I think you pie people are just contrarians. Cake is so far superior to all forms of pie that it really shouldn't be open for debate.
People will bring in cake to share at the office in the same way they bring in vege trays. Simply because people will part with these unwanted items.
Pie? No one shares pie, unless under extreme duress.
Edit: Your thinking shows lack of pieness. Quick to some pie and rethink your life.8 -
VintageFeline wrote: »work_on_it wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »But only if it's good cake.
That's my prob with cake culture... it's so rarely the good cake.
This is why in a few of my jobs I was the bringer of cake. I make good cake.
But as vested as I am in the cake culture I actually don't eat much of it because of the whole most cake is bad cake thing. I'm not wasting calories on substandard fare and I'm not about to bake a whole cake just for me (no office to foist it on now).
My brownies were especially legendary in their day *reminisces wistfully*
Yup. I was the bringer of treats too, although my favorite things to make were the yeast coffeecakes and cinnamon rolls. My most legendary treats were my chocolate eclair's. I actually loved watching these guys in their fancy suits trying to eat them.2 -
I think you pie people are just contrarians. Cake is so far superior to all forms of pie that it really shouldn't be open for debate.
People will bring in cake to share at the office in the same way they bring in vege trays. Simply because people will part with these unwanted items.
Pie? No one shares pie, unless under extreme duress.
they bring in cake because they love you and want to share the good word of cake.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Pie is what I eat when there is no cake.
I can't eat cake if there is no pie. I am too emotionally distraught.
2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Pie, real pie with a real crust, beats all. Since I can't eat a real crust any more, the new winner in my books is cheesecake.
Gluten free cheesecakes can be just as good as their gluten containing counterparts. Gluten free cakes and pies? Notsomuch.
Bob's 1 to 1 flour makes an awesome GF crust. Almost can't tell it from wheat flour.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »work_on_it wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »But only if it's good cake.
That's my prob with cake culture... it's so rarely the good cake.
This is why in a few of my jobs I was the bringer of cake. I make good cake.
But as vested as I am in the cake culture I actually don't eat much of it because of the whole most cake is bad cake thing. I'm not wasting calories on substandard fare and I'm not about to bake a whole cake just for me (no office to foist it on now).
My brownies were especially legendary in their day *reminisces wistfully*
Yup. I was the bringer of treats too, although my favorite things to make were the yeast coffeecakes and cinnamon rolls. My most legendary treats were my chocolate eclair's. I actually loved watching these guys in their fancy suits trying to eat them.
Ah yes, cinnamon rolls. I am fond of a sweetened yeast dough (see my love for cinnamon sugar pretzels). Iced buns are another love of mine though I've never made them. i think they're very British.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Pie, real pie with a real crust, beats all. Since I can't eat a real crust any more, the new winner in my books is cheesecake.
Gluten free cheesecakes can be just as good as their gluten containing counterparts. Gluten free cakes and pies? Notsomuch.
Bob's 1 to 1 flour makes an awesome GF crust. Almost can't tell it from wheat flour.
Using what for fat (butter)? I might need to experiment.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Pie, real pie with a real crust, beats all. Since I can't eat a real crust any more, the new winner in my books is cheesecake.
Gluten free cheesecakes can be just as good as their gluten containing counterparts. Gluten free cakes and pies? Notsomuch.
Bob's 1 to 1 flour makes an awesome GF crust. Almost can't tell it from wheat flour.
Using what for fat? I might need to experiment.
Butter or lard or a mix is what I have used.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Pie, real pie with a real crust, beats all. Since I can't eat a real crust any more, the new winner in my books is cheesecake.
Gluten free cheesecakes can be just as good as their gluten containing counterparts. Gluten free cakes and pies? Notsomuch.
Bob's 1 to 1 flour makes an awesome GF crust. Almost can't tell it from wheat flour.
Using what for fat? I might need to experiment.
Butter or lard or a mix is what I have used.
That's what I was hoping you'd say!1 -
vegaslounge wrote: »I'm late to the thread (it's been a fun read!) but figured I'd throw in my two cents...
I hate the "my coworker is trying to sabotage my weight loss by bringing in treats!" whine. And I don't just say this as a coworker who brings in said treats, I say it as a human being who has free will and doesn't have a paranoid chip on her shoulder, chocolate or otherwise.
You are not so special, and the world not so petty, that Becky from accounting is trying to derail your – yes, YOUR! PERSONAL!– weight loss goals. Even if she is, you aren't tied to your office chair while she crams cookies fois gras-style down your gullet (if this is the case, I think OSHA would be a better organization to contact than MFP). Occam's razor would say that your coworker is trying to be nice and, also, you aren't the only person in the office, buttercup. Maybe Josh from marketing or that guy who delivers the mail whom you've never bothered to learn the name of would like an afternoon pick-me-up.
The "solutions" to this "problem" are usually just as bad. I especially hate the, "throw it away in front of them, they'll get the hint" one. Again, I AM that coworker who brings in homemade goods, and based on feedback, I am a damn good cook. I've also lost 35lb in the last year. I love to bake (it's very soothing) but I don't have much of a sweet tooth so I undoubtedly make more than I know I'd eat for weeks. So, why not share the bounty? Honestly, if a coworker accepted a brownie and then made sure that I saw them throw it in the trash, I wouldn't "take the hint" that I'm not supposed to bring in treats. I'd be a little hurt because I put time, money and effort into doing something nice for the office and you're frankly coming across like a world-class kittenhole and remarkable egotist for no good reason. Even if your coworker is bringing in dollar-store doughnuts, they spent their money to be nice. Hell, my supervisor's treat last month sent me into anaphylaxis and I don't shout "murderer!" every time I see her (sometimes. Not every time.)
Maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe there really are Brazil-esque businesses where your coworkers surround you chanting "EAT! THE! CAKE!!! EAT! THE! CAKE!!!" and you get a zap to the cajones if you refuse. Is that what real office jobs are like? I've worked in non-profits my professional career, we're kind of the hippies of the corporate world.
I personally think this cake culture is a damaging maladaption. It's not a "nice" thing to bring in fat pills. It's definitely a bad thing to do. But because we have a cake culture in offices, it's almost expected that everyone take their turn bringing in sugary, fatty foods with which to tempt each other. Also to order and share a cake when a coworker has a birthday...yuck. It's just not a healthy practice for us humans to have adopted and yet we have and there's all kind of societal expectations around accepting the food, taking your turn to bring in food, etc. The sooner gone the better.
I agree with you to a point. It does get old really fast when there are constant treats, and a lot of pressure to eat them. I've had someone get genuinely upset at me for not taking a treat before. People who know me personally know that for my birthday, I'd much rather have fresh fruits and grill some corn and chicken for a celebration. I think bringing treats for a particular co workers birthday (e.x If mary is trying to lose weight and everyone knows, and they bring in a bunch of cake and treats for her, it may be considered rude and she may feel pressured to eat it since they did it 'for her') Generally though, there are good intentions behind it, but I agree that the culture could stand to change to be a little more infrequent.5 -
annaskiski wrote: »pie>cheesecake> cake
This ^^ Thank goodness the handbasket will have the right foods, someone should bring coffee. @cwolfman13?
I guess he could bring the craft beer, as well. Is he in this thread? I guess he will get this notification.
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »vegaslounge wrote: »I'm late to the thread (it's been a fun read!) but figured I'd throw in my two cents...
I hate the "my coworker is trying to sabotage my weight loss by bringing in treats!" whine. And I don't just say this as a coworker who brings in said treats, I say it as a human being who has free will and doesn't have a paranoid chip on her shoulder, chocolate or otherwise.
You are not so special, and the world not so petty, that Becky from accounting is trying to derail your – yes, YOUR! PERSONAL!– weight loss goals. Even if she is, you aren't tied to your office chair while she crams cookies fois gras-style down your gullet (if this is the case, I think OSHA would be a better organization to contact than MFP). Occam's razor would say that your coworker is trying to be nice and, also, you aren't the only person in the office, buttercup. Maybe Josh from marketing or that guy who delivers the mail whom you've never bothered to learn the name of would like an afternoon pick-me-up.
The "solutions" to this "problem" are usually just as bad. I especially hate the, "throw it away in front of them, they'll get the hint" one. Again, I AM that coworker who brings in homemade goods, and based on feedback, I am a damn good cook. I've also lost 35lb in the last year. I love to bake (it's very soothing) but I don't have much of a sweet tooth so I undoubtedly make more than I know I'd eat for weeks. So, why not share the bounty? Honestly, if a coworker accepted a brownie and then made sure that I saw them throw it in the trash, I wouldn't "take the hint" that I'm not supposed to bring in treats. I'd be a little hurt because I put time, money and effort into doing something nice for the office and you're frankly coming across like a world-class kittenhole and remarkable egotist for no good reason. Even if your coworker is bringing in dollar-store doughnuts, they spent their money to be nice. Hell, my supervisor's treat last month sent me into anaphylaxis and I don't shout "murderer!" every time I see her (sometimes. Not every time.)
Maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe there really are Brazil-esque businesses where your coworkers surround you chanting "EAT! THE! CAKE!!! EAT! THE! CAKE!!!" and you get a zap to the cajones if you refuse. Is that what real office jobs are like? I've worked in non-profits my professional career, we're kind of the hippies of the corporate world.
I personally think this cake culture is a damaging maladaption. It's not a "nice" thing to bring in fat pills. It's definitely a bad thing to do. But because we have a cake culture in offices, it's almost expected that everyone take their turn bringing in sugary, fatty foods with which to tempt each other. Also to order and share a cake when a coworker has a birthday...yuck. It's just not a healthy practice for us humans to have adopted and yet we have and there's all kind of societal expectations around accepting the food, taking your turn to bring in food, etc. The sooner gone the better.
You've inspired me...I plan to bring in donuts for my team tomorrow.
Seriously, there's no reason we can't eat sweets in moderation, especially as part of a celebration of a person and/or their achievements.
Lol. I hate sweets. Cannot stomach icing...so sweet my teeth hurt. So to me, it's torture to have to pretend to eat some kind of gooey treat. Blerg.
Or you could just not eat it.
I don't. But I see and watch others get pressured into eating this stuff when they'd obviously rather wouldn't.
If you don't eat it then why would you say "So to me, it's torture to have to pretend to eat some kind of gooey treat. Blerg."
I find it odd that others bringing in treats out of kindness is such torture for you. I don't always have a cookie or cake when people bring in treats but I appreciate the thought behind it. I'd rather look for the good in people though instead of being so negative.
Sorry, the definition of "pretend" is to act like you're doing something, in this case eating, without actually doing it. So yes, I pretend to eat without actually eating it. I'm not sure what you don't understand about it.
Also, all I've said is that it is both unhealthy and not a nice thing. I wouldn't really call using those terms being "so negative" or as other have said "demonising" These are really mild words on the scale of negativity.
I know I'm late to the cake party (and still catching up) but the very idea of taking something from a coworker and fake eating it boggles my mind. Do you spit it out later or hide it in a pocket until they're gone? The last time I did that was with my four-year-old nephew and he's starting to catch on. Unless you work with children, your coworkers should be able to handle a simple "no thanks" or "maybe later." If they can't or you can't be bothered to give them one, I don't think we can blame the cake.8 -
My grandmother always had baked goods in the house. She baked almost every day, and always had afternoon tea and dessert. She would never go to someone's house, or to a social event, without taking some fresh baked goodies, and she was very socially active. She was also very slim, as was my grandfather.
It's almost like having cake available isn't why people got fat, and it's a far more complex social issue...12 -
Denying the existence of a Cake Culture seems a little silly when the mere mention of "cake" inspires multiple pages of passionate gushing over cake and other desserts...12
-
Bry_Lander wrote: »Denying the existence of a Cake Culture seems a little silly when the mere mention of "cake" inspires multiple pages of passionate gushing over cake and other desserts...
You're not wrong
1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Denying the existence of a Cake Culture seems a little silly when the mere mention of "cake" inspires multiple pages of passionate gushing over cake and other desserts...
I think what is being denied is that Cake Culture is a bad thing.14 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
I'll stick with my strong heart and plentiful food from weightlifting and HIIT. More bang for the buck.
Not in my experience. Can't sustain HIIT long enough to burn any meaningful amount of calories, and whatever I burn I eat back twofold or more because it increases my hunger substantially. Now don't get me wrong, no one has to do cardio (or weight lifting, or HIIT for that matter), but you can't call any form of exercise a waste of time because there are clear benefits to being active, health and otherwise.
Yes, sitting on your *kitten* is a much greater waste of time.
Since I don't like exercising in general, I'm going to spend the least amount of time possible to get the greatest benefit which means high intensity. I just want to get it over with so I can get back to thing I enjoy.
And that's totally alright! It's just, this sounds more like preference than opinion.
Nah, I still am not a fan of cardio(but it's better than nothing). I believe there are much greater benefits from high intensity exercise.
How do you know you don't burn as much calories doing HIIT? I believe that much shorter, high intensity exercise may not burn as much at the time, but the residual calorie burn from greater muscle stimulation lasts much longer resulting in more CO.
EPOC (Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consunption) for HIIT is 14%, for Low Impact Steady State it's 7%. That's the % of residual burn of calories burned during. FWIW. HIIT can't be done for very long so the overall burn is not that big. If you could do 30 minutes of HIIT, your Butner with EPOCH would be about the same as 60 minutes of LISS but who can do 30 minutes of HIIT??
This would depend on the intensity of the HIIT. And as @GottaBurnEmAll stated not all "HIIT" is equal. To me, HIIT means the intervals are 100% all out.
That is the HIIT I'm talking about and in exercise physiology circle based on studies, that is the commonly accepted number. This was discussed in detail on the Lyle McDonald article sjomial linked to. It is also the number Dr. Brad Shoenfeld uses. It pretty objective and not really the subject of much speculation as to variance.
Less that 100% all out would not technically be HIIT but would be considered interval training. The EPOC would fall somewhere between LISS and HIIT depending on intensity. All HIIT is not equal because the Marketing woo machines call everything HIIT today. Things like 1 hours HIIT classes. If you can do it for 1 hour, it ain't HIIT!!
PS: The link sjomial gave is the 2nd in a series of in depth article about the subject and references a lot of the current research. If that is the link you are kind of dismissive of in one of your posts above, I suggest you didn't read it thoroughly. There are links to both the initial article in the series and the following ones at the bottom of the one posted.
I did read it, but I'll look at the references too. My main leaning to HIIT over cardio is that it is closer to weightlifting in it's muscle building potential... if I am not mistaken. However, I pretty much just lift and try to stay away from all that gross running stuff...
The studies that showed muscle building improvements were done with untrained subjects. In someone like you are me doing weight training that has not been demonstrated. In a trained individual, the benefit is primarily increase in VO2 max. HIIT in trained subjects provides cardio benefit.
If you read the series of articles, he covers all of this.
Ah..
So, I understand how HIIT would not improve muscle building in someone who lifts. But wouldn't it build muscle in someone who typically only does cardio (steady state)?
Possibly, I don't know. It wasn't one of the scenarios addressed.
It should. Think of HIIT (or any cardio workout) as a VERY long weightlifting set using VERY light weights. For example, if you're riding a bicycle for an hour and keep an average cadence of 80 rpm on the pedals you've just done 4,800 repetitions. That'll build muscle.
I think anything that creates overload will cause some muscle growth if nutritional conditions are right. But, as I said, in the sources I read, it was not addressed. Sadly, many of the studies on HIIT seem to have been done on college campuses utilizing untrained students and the subjects. In Lyle McDonalds articles, he talks about this and how it confounds much of the results.
Obviously, if someone is working, say legs, a couple of times in the gym per week, running or bike riding is not likely to cause lots of muscle development. I can't say it wouldn't cause any though as the act of running or riding is slightly different than weight lifting. So, I'm sure there would be some muscular adaptation that would take place. Whether that would result in hypertrophy though may be questionable. More likely neuromuscular recruitment adaptations.
I'm not going to argue hard for hypertrophy, because I really don't know, but as an n=1, I did lose a couple of clothing sizes over a period of a few years at roughly the same body weight from something most people consider cardio (rowing, mostly boats, some machines), with negligible ancillary strength training. I don't know that NM adaptations can account for size reduction, unless "toning" really is a thing after all (heh).
This really represents a lot of reps (4000-5000 weekly, often, maybe more), with some small workload progressivity via technical improvements along the way.
Clearly, a well designed progressive weight training program would produce similar results much faster, with less workout time investment . . . but, for me, less fun. I'm not well-muscled like the lifting women around here, especially not in a well-rounded, balanced way . . . but neither am I stick-like. IMO only, of course.
A couple of questions for you Ann; were you in a trained and fit state when you started? Could the reduction in clothing sizes have been from BF loss? Muscle gain (hypertrophy) would cause size increases in a lean individual. But in an individual with high to average body fat, not so much and fat loss with weight staying the same would result in size reduction. Eg. the oft referred to recomp.
I've seen your profile pic. Good muscle development!
Definitely in an untrained state to start - depleted even (chemotherapy, other life challenges) . Certainly there was fat loss - a fair bit. But if weight stays the same, something of equivalent weight was gained. Not just water, I think. That'd be a lot of water, over quite a time scale. Fat loss alone, with no compensating gain elsewhere, would mean lower body weight.
Recomp is fat loss with muscle gain, resulting in smaller body size at the same weight, because muscle is more compact than fat pound for pound . . . as I understand it.
And thank you.
Essentially, yes. And that is what I believe happened to you. Especially given that you started in an untrained state.
In the HIIT studies, that is what happened with untrained subjects. The gained muscle mass. So, the wrong conclusion was jumped to that HIIT universally causes muscle mass growth. McDonald's contention is that in untrained individuals, yes. In trained individuals, "no _____ way" is the how he expressed it.
Just as a minor point of clarification: Rowing is not mostly HIIT. In fact it's rarely HIIT - HIIT workouts are typically used as you'd expect: As a fraction of the workouts leading to a key competition, presumably to move VO2 max. Most of rowing (especially at my level) is LISS or regular intervals.
But yes, what you say is what I think happened: Newbie gains and recomp . . . from "cardio", mostly LISS and regular intervals. It's a strength endurance sport.
Another n=1 anecdote: Elite rowers weight train extensively, of course, and do
absurd volumes of cardiovascular work, mostly rowing (boat, machine) but also some cardio cross-training such as running or biking. On water, there are two types of rowing: Sculling, two oars per person, so laterally symmetric; and sweep, one oar per person so laterally asymmetric. Many sweep rowers specialize in a particular side, starboard or port. A former member of my rowing club had been a competitive collegiate, then US national team, rower. After her rowing career, one of her (non-sports specialist) doctors asked her if she knew that her muscular development was asymmetric - more muscle development on the side she most rowed with. (Of course she did.) Trained individual, effect of very high volume "cardio".
3 -
VioletRojo wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Denying the existence of a Cake Culture seems a little silly when the mere mention of "cake" inspires multiple pages of passionate gushing over cake and other desserts...
I think what is being denied is that Cake Culture is a bad thing.
Or that "Cake Culture" (seriously?... ok...) is responsible for obesity.9 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Denying the existence of a Cake Culture seems a little silly when the mere mention of "cake" inspires multiple pages of passionate gushing over cake and other desserts...
I think what is being denied is that Cake Culture is a bad thing.
Or that "Cake Culture" (seriously?... ok...) is responsible for obesity.
I don't think that It is responsible for obesity - but for a lot of people, it enables and perpetuates obesity.
4 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Denying the existence of a Cake Culture seems a little silly when the mere mention of "cake" inspires multiple pages of passionate gushing over cake and other desserts...
I think what is being denied is that Cake Culture is a bad thing.
Or that "Cake Culture" (seriously?... ok...) is responsible for obesity.
I don't think that It is responsible for obesity - but for a lot of people, it enables and perpetuates obesity.
it's a symptom of an overall culture that has gone too far with "acceptance" as a mantra, subsists on a garbage diet, and tells fat kids they're "just big boned." (child abuse)7 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
I'll stick with my strong heart and plentiful food from weightlifting and HIIT. More bang for the buck.
Not in my experience. Can't sustain HIIT long enough to burn any meaningful amount of calories, and whatever I burn I eat back twofold or more because it increases my hunger substantially. Now don't get me wrong, no one has to do cardio (or weight lifting, or HIIT for that matter), but you can't call any form of exercise a waste of time because there are clear benefits to being active, health and otherwise.
Yes, sitting on your *kitten* is a much greater waste of time.
Since I don't like exercising in general, I'm going to spend the least amount of time possible to get the greatest benefit which means high intensity. I just want to get it over with so I can get back to thing I enjoy.
And that's totally alright! It's just, this sounds more like preference than opinion.
Nah, I still am not a fan of cardio(but it's better than nothing). I believe there are much greater benefits from high intensity exercise.
How do you know you don't burn as much calories doing HIIT? I believe that much shorter, high intensity exercise may not burn as much at the time, but the residual calorie burn from greater muscle stimulation lasts much longer resulting in more CO.
EPOC (Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consunption) for HIIT is 14%, for Low Impact Steady State it's 7%. That's the % of residual burn of calories burned during. FWIW. HIIT can't be done for very long so the overall burn is not that big. If you could do 30 minutes of HIIT, your Butner with EPOCH would be about the same as 60 minutes of LISS but who can do 30 minutes of HIIT??
This would depend on the intensity of the HIIT. And as @GottaBurnEmAll stated not all "HIIT" is equal. To me, HIIT means the intervals are 100% all out.
That is the HIIT I'm talking about and in exercise physiology circle based on studies, that is the commonly accepted number. This was discussed in detail on the Lyle McDonald article sjomial linked to. It is also the number Dr. Brad Shoenfeld uses. It pretty objective and not really the subject of much speculation as to variance.
Less that 100% all out would not technically be HIIT but would be considered interval training. The EPOC would fall somewhere between LISS and HIIT depending on intensity. All HIIT is not equal because the Marketing woo machines call everything HIIT today. Things like 1 hours HIIT classes. If you can do it for 1 hour, it ain't HIIT!!
PS: The link sjomial gave is the 2nd in a series of in depth article about the subject and references a lot of the current research. If that is the link you are kind of dismissive of in one of your posts above, I suggest you didn't read it thoroughly. There are links to both the initial article in the series and the following ones at the bottom of the one posted.
I did read it, but I'll look at the references too. My main leaning to HIIT over cardio is that it is closer to weightlifting in it's muscle building potential... if I am not mistaken. However, I pretty much just lift and try to stay away from all that gross running stuff...
The studies that showed muscle building improvements were done with untrained subjects. In someone like you are me doing weight training that has not been demonstrated. In a trained individual, the benefit is primarily increase in VO2 max. HIIT in trained subjects provides cardio benefit.
If you read the series of articles, he covers all of this.
Ah..
So, I understand how HIIT would not improve muscle building in someone who lifts. But wouldn't it build muscle in someone who typically only does cardio (steady state)?
Possibly, I don't know. It wasn't one of the scenarios addressed.
It should. Think of HIIT (or any cardio workout) as a VERY long weightlifting set using VERY light weights. For example, if you're riding a bicycle for an hour and keep an average cadence of 80 rpm on the pedals you've just done 4,800 repetitions. That'll build muscle.
I think anything that creates overload will cause some muscle growth if nutritional conditions are right. But, as I said, in the sources I read, it was not addressed. Sadly, many of the studies on HIIT seem to have been done on college campuses utilizing untrained students and the subjects. In Lyle McDonalds articles, he talks about this and how it confounds much of the results.
Obviously, if someone is working, say legs, a couple of times in the gym per week, running or bike riding is not likely to cause lots of muscle development. I can't say it wouldn't cause any though as the act of running or riding is slightly different than weight lifting. So, I'm sure there would be some muscular adaptation that would take place. Whether that would result in hypertrophy though may be questionable. More likely neuromuscular recruitment adaptations.
I'm not going to argue hard for hypertrophy, because I really don't know, but as an n=1, I did lose a couple of clothing sizes over a period of a few years at roughly the same body weight from something most people consider cardio (rowing, mostly boats, some machines), with negligible ancillary strength training. I don't know that NM adaptations can account for size reduction, unless "toning" really is a thing after all (heh).
This really represents a lot of reps (4000-5000 weekly, often, maybe more), with some small workload progressivity via technical improvements along the way.
Clearly, a well designed progressive weight training program would produce similar results much faster, with less workout time investment . . . but, for me, less fun. I'm not well-muscled like the lifting women around here, especially not in a well-rounded, balanced way . . . but neither am I stick-like. IMO only, of course.
A couple of questions for you Ann; were you in a trained and fit state when you started? Could the reduction in clothing sizes have been from BF loss? Muscle gain (hypertrophy) would cause size increases in a lean individual. But in an individual with high to average body fat, not so much and fat loss with weight staying the same would result in size reduction. Eg. the oft referred to recomp.
I've seen your profile pic. Good muscle development!
Definitely in an untrained state to start - depleted even (chemotherapy, other life challenges) . Certainly there was fat loss - a fair bit. But if weight stays the same, something of equivalent weight was gained. Not just water, I think. That'd be a lot of water, over quite a time scale. Fat loss alone, with no compensating gain elsewhere, would mean lower body weight.
Recomp is fat loss with muscle gain, resulting in smaller body size at the same weight, because muscle is more compact than fat pound for pound . . . as I understand it.
And thank you.
Essentially, yes. And that is what I believe happened to you. Especially given that you started in an untrained state.
In the HIIT studies, that is what happened with untrained subjects. The gained muscle mass. So, the wrong conclusion was jumped to that HIIT universally causes muscle mass growth. McDonald's contention is that in untrained individuals, yes. In trained individuals, "no _____ way" is the how he expressed it.
Just as a minor point of clarification: Rowing is not mostly HIIT. In fact it's rarely HIIT - HIIT workouts are typically used as you'd expect: As a fraction of the workouts leading to a key competition, presumably to move VO2 max. Most of rowing (especially at my level) is LISS or regular intervals.
But yes, what you say is what I think happened: Newbie gains and recomp . . . from "cardio", mostly LISS and regular intervals. It's a strength endurance sport.
Another n=1 anecdote: Elite rowers weight train extensively, of course, and do
absurd volumes of cardiovascular work, mostly rowing (boat, machine) but also some cardio cross-training such as running or biking. On water, there are two types of rowing: Sculling, two oars per person, so laterally symmetric; and sweep, one oar per person so laterally asymmetric. Many sweep rowers specialize in a particular side, starboard or port. A former member of my rowing club had been a competitive collegiate, then US national team, rower. After her rowing career, one of her (non-sports specialist) doctors asked her if she knew that her muscular development was asymmetric - more muscle development on the side she most rowed with. (Of course she did.) Trained individual, effect of very high volume "cardio".
Yup, rowing is not HIIT pretty much any exercise from an untrained state is going to cause muscle development and cause certain hormonal fat burning adaptations. HIIT causes that to happen faster initially but LISS will cause it to happen also over a longer time frame.
I think rowing has a much more intense resistance component to it than biking or running. I'm not a spectacular runner but there are times I can get in the right rhythm with my stride and breathing that it feels fairly effortless. It's just a matter of how long my legs can go until they are past their point of conditioning and the energy runs out. Maybe once you get the muscles condition rowing is like that also? But I'm guessing getting in good rowing shape takes some work.
So, it would not surprise me that there would be muscular development at the very least and building of muscle mass in an untrained subject.
On the subject of cross training, most elite athletes have resistance training as part of their regimen. There is just no downside to it. My lifting helps my running or biking immensely and I am not even close to elite level. They would need to just to stay competitive. Do elite rowers use HIIT either before big meets or going into the season to get V02 max improvements for the most serious competitions?0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Denying the existence of a Cake Culture seems a little silly when the mere mention of "cake" inspires multiple pages of passionate gushing over cake and other desserts...
Don't get me wrong, I love cake...but I don't need my toes to count the number of times I eat it in a year. I might not even need both hands.4 -
cmriverside wrote: »It is absolutely about being a big girl/boy and not caving to pressure. I figure if I say "No, thanks," to offers of food - that's all I need to do. If someone pushes, I repeat. Third time they get, "Seriously? Did you not hear me say no the first two times?"
I think we worry way too much about what other people think of us. Who cares if Mary from accounting doesn't like that I don't eat her pineapple upside down cake? If she doesn't like it, that's her problem to figure out. Can't change Mary. Can only control me.
So today was a REALLY hard day for me. As it happened there was pizza and fun size candy bars. I had some of each even though I had packed lunch. If I hadn't had a kitteny day id have passed. But if it hadn't been available id have survived without it.
PS: @vegaslounge I'm in NWGA. If you're ever gonna be in the area hmu and I'll take you to my fave Indian place.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Denying the existence of a Cake Culture seems a little silly when the mere mention of "cake" inspires multiple pages of passionate gushing over cake and other desserts...
I think what is being denied is that Cake Culture is a bad thing.
Or that "Cake Culture" (seriously?... ok...) is responsible for obesity.
I don't think that It is responsible for obesity - but for a lot of people, it enables and perpetuates obesity.
I respectfully disagree. It doesn't "do" anything. It's just an inanimate food object. Peoples choices enable and perpetuate obesity. If you are obese, you know you should not be overindulging in cake.
Once someone is obese, they probably have insulin sensitivity issues that help keep them obese. But, cake doesn't enable and perpetuate anything. It's just a kind of food. We have all kinds of foods around us every day everywhere we go. It's all about people making choices.17 -
clicketykeys wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »It is absolutely about being a big girl/boy and not caving to pressure. I figure if I say "No, thanks," to offers of food - that's all I need to do. If someone pushes, I repeat. Third time they get, "Seriously? Did you not hear me say no the first two times?"
I think we worry way too much about what other people think of us. Who cares if Mary from accounting doesn't like that I don't eat her pineapple upside down cake? If she doesn't like it, that's her problem to figure out. Can't change Mary. Can only control me.
So today was a REALLY hard day for me. As it happened there was pizza and fun size candy bars. I had some of each even though I had packed lunch. If I hadn't had a kitteny day id have passed. But if it hadn't been available id have survived without it.
PS: @vegaslounge I'm in NWGA. If you're ever gonna be in the area hmu and I'll take you to my fave Indian place.
um. Did you mean to quote me?2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Denying the existence of a Cake Culture seems a little silly when the mere mention of "cake" inspires multiple pages of passionate gushing over cake and other desserts...
I think what is being denied is that Cake Culture is a bad thing.
Or that "Cake Culture" (seriously?... ok...) is responsible for obesity.
I don't think that It is responsible for obesity - but for a lot of people, it enables and perpetuates obesity.
I respectfully disagree. It doesn't "do" anything. It's just an inanimate food object. Peoples choices enable and perpetuate obesity. If you are obese, you know you should not be overindulging in cake.
Once someone is obese, they probably have insulin sensitivity issues that help keep them obese. But, cake doesn't enable and perpetuate anything. It's just a kind of food. We have all kinds of foods around us every day everywhere we go. It's all about people making choices.
it's pretty nuts to think that social pressures don't affect behavior of the population. A single individual has responsibility for their actions, but societal pressures absolutely influence outcomes in aggregate.
A culture where people show affection or appreciation by offering unhealthy food, and taking offense if that food is rejected, will without question cause more people to be obese, when considered across a population of 300 million people.
You are making the classic error of mistaking individual behavior for group behavior. Even if 90% of people can turn down the cake, the fact that the cake is presented is causing the other 10% to be more obese, which raises the incidence of obesity in the population. That's just how populations work.9 -
pie = 3.14...
cake = 42
cake > pie10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions