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
-
My understanding is that sugar is good post-workout to replenish glycogen stores. Could be mistaken.0
-
It's good in an apple pie on Thanksgiving too.8
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's good in an apple pie on Thanksgiving too.
And good in apple pie outside of Thanksgiving too.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's good in an apple pie on Thanksgiving too.
And good in apple pie outside of Thanksgiving too.
Is this an unpopular opinion? I'd consider it mainstream, tbh.
5 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's good in an apple pie on Thanksgiving too.
And good in apple pie outside of Thanksgiving too.
Is this an unpopular opinion? I'd consider it mainstream, tbh.
depends on which group you are a member of - the "sugar is poison!" crowd would vastly disagree lol
and pumpkin pie - can't forget the pumpkin pie! With whipped cream!3 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's good in an apple pie on Thanksgiving too.
And good in apple pie outside of Thanksgiving too.
True, and in just the apple also.1 -
My understanding is that sugar is good post-workout to replenish glycogen stores. Could be mistaken.
My point is that you don't really need to put context around sugar for it to be "good", but if you do, it's also used during endurance sports/activities.
I believe @lemurcat12 has a story about a friend who's known for her Coke guzzling during marathons.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »My understanding is that sugar is good post-workout to replenish glycogen stores. Could be mistaken.
My point is that you don't really need to put context around sugar for it to be "good", but if you do, it's also used during endurance sports/activities.
I believe @lemurcat12 has a story about a friend who's known for her Coke guzzling during marathons.
coke during the marathon on an ironman is da bomb! so is the chicken broth - its magical!2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »My understanding is that sugar is good post-workout to replenish glycogen stores. Could be mistaken.
My point is that you don't really need to put context around sugar for it to be "good", but if you do, it's also used during endurance sports/activities.
I believe @lemurcat12 has a story about a friend who's known for her Coke guzzling during marathons.
i ran a half-marathon in Romania years ago and they had beer every at the water table every 2 miles.3 -
I like eating a few gummy bears after I work out but I have no disipline when they are in my house...I stopped buying them because I believe they cause more harm than good....its a very unpopular opinion in my house. Does this count?3
-
evilpoptart63 wrote: »I like eating a few gummy bears after I work out but I have no disipline when they are in my house...I stopped buying them because I believe they cause more harm than good....its a very unpopular opinion in my house. Does this count?
I get the annies singles(60 calories) in a 50 count box from Costco.1 -
I've been meaning to grab a bag of the halloween sized sour patch kids single packs for a post-workout snack.0
-
Diet and workout are less about health and more about being hot for me. I have a better sex life if I feel confident about my appearance. Health and wellness are icing.5
-
stanmann571 wrote: »evilpoptart63 wrote: »I like eating a few gummy bears after I work out but I have no disipline when they are in my house...I stopped buying them because I believe they cause more harm than good....its a very unpopular opinion in my house. Does this count?
I get the annies singles(60 calories) in a 50 count box from Costco.
You are my hero! Fantastic idea!!! Im going to have to pick some up!!0 -
-
-
-
evilpoptart63 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »evilpoptart63 wrote: »I like eating a few gummy bears after I work out but I have no disipline when they are in my house...I stopped buying them because I believe they cause more harm than good....its a very unpopular opinion in my house. Does this count?
I get the annies singles(60 calories) in a 50 count box from Costco.
You are my hero! Fantastic idea!!! Im going to have to pick some up!!
I have the same issue. with gummies/chips/etc. so I get the singles. It's more expensive, but less painful than eating a 24 oz bag when I want 4 doritos.
2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »evilpoptart63 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »evilpoptart63 wrote: »I like eating a few gummy bears after I work out but I have no disipline when they are in my house...I stopped buying them because I believe they cause more harm than good....its a very unpopular opinion in my house. Does this count?
I get the annies singles(60 calories) in a 50 count box from Costco.
You are my hero! Fantastic idea!!! Im going to have to pick some up!!
I have the same issue. with gummies/chips/etc. so I get the singles. It's more expensive, but less painful than eating a 24 oz bag when I want 4 doritos.
One of my life challenges: They don't make the old-school taco flavor Doritos in singles. Only flavor I like, and I can eat them like a mad dog. Learning to moderate them from the big bag: Hard; very hard.2 -
Here's another one of mine: As an individual that makes their living selling dietary supplements, I think that most multivitamins are pretty useless for the majority of the population buying them.
IMO, most multivitamins are pretty low in most nutrients (except for b 12, sometimes) and often only have around 100% of the FDA DRV of most of them, which is a pretty much just a token amount. Most people that are health-minded enough to buy a multivitamin and actually take it on a regular basis probably eat well enough to get a wide variety of vitamins from their food, barring specific medical conditions or diagnosed deficiencies. For those people, therapeutic amounts of the missing nutrients usually aren't present in the average multivitamin, and such individuals usually have to buy isolated, specific supplements (EX: a person with a vitamin D deficiency taking a specific D3 supplement rather than a multivitamin with D3). Multivitamins just provide "insurance" by bringing people peace of mind that they're getting baseline amounts of vitamins and minerals (sometimes).
I think that most people would do better by getting a good, methylated B-Complex and D-3 (2000 IU, unless you're really low), both of which are cheaper on their own than a multi.2 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »Here's another one of mine: As an individual that makes their living selling dietary supplements, I think that most multivitamins are pretty useless for the majority of the population buying them.
IMO, most multivitamins are pretty low in most nutrients (except for b 12, sometimes) and often only have around 100% of the FDA DRV of most of them, which is a pretty much just a token amount. Most people that are health-minded enough to buy a multivitamin and actually take it on a regular basis probably eat well enough to get a wide variety of vitamins from their food, barring specific medical conditions or diagnosed deficiencies. For those people, therapeutic amounts of the missing nutrients usually aren't present in the average multivitamin, and such individuals usually have to buy isolated, specific supplements (EX: a person with a vitamin D deficiency taking a specific D3 supplement rather than a multivitamin with D3). Multivitamins just provide "insurance" by bringing people peace of mind that they're getting baseline amounts of vitamins and minerals (sometimes).
I think that most people would do better by getting a good, methylated B-Complex and D-3 (2000 IU, unless you're really low), both of which are cheaper on their own than a multi.
The RDA for D3 is unfortunately based on an unrealistic estimate for outdoor activity and likely needs to be reassessed in light of the general indoor nature of modern American life.1 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »IMO, most multivitamins are pretty low in most nutrients (except for b 12, sometimes) and often only have around 100% of the FDA DRV of most of them, which is a pretty much just a token amount.
Now I'm confused. DRV is daily recommend amount, right? So if you are taking 100% of the DRV, aren't you getting what you are supposed to have? If it's actually necessary to go over the DRV, in some cases I've seen to the tune of 3 or 4x the DRV, then why is that number the DRV and not the higher one?1 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »IMO, most multivitamins are pretty low in most nutrients (except for b 12, sometimes) and often only have around 100% of the FDA DRV of most of them, which is a pretty much just a token amount.
Now I'm confused. DRV is daily recommend amount, right? So if you are taking 100% of the DRV, aren't you getting what you are supposed to have? If it's actually necessary to go over the DRV, in some cases I've seen to the tune of 3 or 4x the DRV, then why is that number the DRV and not the higher one?
Especially if one already has an okay diet. I think for most who take it it's intended as a backup.
I don't take a multi, admittedly -- I'm confident I get plenty of most things and it gave me stomach issues. I do take a D3 in the winter.1 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »jayjay12345654321 wrote: »jayjay12345654321 wrote: »I think gyms make people lazy and codependent on someone else to decide for them what exercises they can and can't do based on machinery provided.
So if you don't have the advanced equipment at home to continue to improve your strength and cardio you suddenly become lazy because you join a gym with the equipment you need???
I don't need advanced equipment to stay fit. That's what the front door is for. It opens up to a world of free and limitless options.
Hard to train for powerlifting outside of the gym. I am almost offended at being called lazy and codependent. I work my *kitten* off for my goals.
ETA: Just FYI, my goal next Saturday is a 400 lb deadlift. Again, not sure how I could train for that outside of a gym.
Just interrupting here to say “You go girl!!”
A 400 lb deadlift is not a goal easily obtained. Well done.6 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
the bolded is not in any definition of "sport" that I Have seen.Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »There is a difference between a sport and a competition. All sports are competitions, but not all competitions are sports. Fishing doesn’t become a sport merely because a lot of fishermen get together and compete against each other for a prize, it is a competition. The same with synchronized swimming, dogsledding, powerlifting, competitive eating, ice sculpturing, and lumberjacking; the mere fact that people gather and engage in these activities in competition with each other does not make them sports. That doesn’t mean that many competitive activities don’t require just as much talent, dexterity, strength, and resilience as sports do.
you might want to revamp this list...
synchronized swimming is hard and requires a lot of physical endurance and strength.
as does powerlifting
lumber jacking aka highland games
sports again are defined as an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.
where as game is defined as a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
and competitions are what are a result of games/sports...
The defining characteristic isn’t whether an activity is “hard” or not. I scuba dive, it is very physically demanding, but it isn’t anything close to a sport.
One of the characteristics that define a sport is whether participants actually play against another individual or team, with that opposing individual or team able to exert some sort of defense or otherwise impede their efforts. Otherwise, it is just an activity.
A group of synchronized swimmers can gather in a pool in an empty building and put on a very physically demanding performance – the presence of others isn’t required to participate in the activity. In the Summer Olympics, the best groups of swimmers gather together and compete, but at no time do any of the groups ever physically interact with each other or otherwise influence their performances. Therefore it isn’t a sport, it is a competition.
The same with powerlifting. I lifted weights this morning, engaging in an individual activity, not a sport, even though it required strength. If I show up at a powerlifting event this weekend, I’m performing similar activities before judges, and if I happen to lift the most weight, I win the competition. That doesn’t make it a sport. Only if an opposing powerlifter was able to affect my performance in some way would it become a sport.
scuba diving depending on how it's done could be considered a sport...
tell me running isn't a sport...but it is mostly done as an individual, can be done in competition and the others competing will not affect the performance of the runner unless by accident.
so again...
sports again are defined as an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.
where as game is defined as a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
and competitions are what are a result of games/sports...
btw I have a brother who is a master diver and I have done some myself...is it a sport...Yes...based on the definiton of it being done by an individual for entertainment....and if you require the competition aspect..fine they are competing against themselves
I interpret “against” as literal.
Competing against someone else doesn’t mean you have the opportunity to interfere with their success. It means that you are on opposing sides of the competition.
If I am in a race with someone, I am competing against them. If I cross the finish line first, I win. If they cross first, I lose.
That doesn’t require that they have the opportunity to block me from passing them like an outfielder would have the opportunity to rob an opposing player of a home run.
Competing “against” another person or team simply means that each is opposed to the victory of the other in that one team succeeding means failure for the other team.
If I succeed in deadlifting more than the other guy, he loses. We are against one another.
He need not have the opportunity to take out my knees during the lift in order for it to be considered a sport.
For you to interpret “against” as literal is fine. The explanation I offer here fits the literal definition of against.
For you to say that “against” means an opportunity to defend against the opposition is not interpreting “against” as literal. It is misinterpreting the clear language of the definition and extrapolating it to say things it doesn’t say.
Any child can understand that racing “against” someone else doesn’t mean you get to throw turtle shells at them a la Mario Kart. It means that one wins and the other loses.4 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »not_a_runner wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
the bolded is not in any definition of "sport" that I Have seen.Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »There is a difference between a sport and a competition. All sports are competitions, but not all competitions are sports. Fishing doesn’t become a sport merely because a lot of fishermen get together and compete against each other for a prize, it is a competition. The same with synchronized swimming, dogsledding, powerlifting, competitive eating, ice sculpturing, and lumberjacking; the mere fact that people gather and engage in these activities in competition with each other does not make them sports. That doesn’t mean that many competitive activities don’t require just as much talent, dexterity, strength, and resilience as sports do.
you might want to revamp this list...
synchronized swimming is hard and requires a lot of physical endurance and strength.
as does powerlifting
lumber jacking aka highland games
sports again are defined as an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.
where as game is defined as a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
and competitions are what are a result of games/sports...
The defining characteristic isn’t whether an activity is “hard” or not. I scuba dive, it is very physically demanding, but it isn’t anything close to a sport.
One of the characteristics that define a sport is whether participants actually play against another individual or team, with that opposing individual or team able to exert some sort of defense or otherwise impede their efforts. Otherwise, it is just an activity.
A group of synchronized swimmers can gather in a pool in an empty building and put on a very physically demanding performance – the presence of others isn’t required to participate in the activity. In the Summer Olympics, the best groups of swimmers gather together and compete, but at no time do any of the groups ever physically interact with each other or otherwise influence their performances. Therefore it isn’t a sport, it is a competition.
The same with powerlifting. I lifted weights this morning, engaging in an individual activity, not a sport, even though it required strength. If I show up at a powerlifting event this weekend, I’m performing similar activities before judges, and if I happen to lift the most weight, I win the competition. That doesn’t make it a sport. Only if an opposing powerlifter was able to affect my performance in some way would it become a sport.
scuba diving depending on how it's done could be considered a sport...
tell me running isn't a sport...but it is mostly done as an individual, can be done in competition and the others competing will not affect the performance of the runner unless by accident.
so again...
sports again are defined as an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.
where as game is defined as a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
and competitions are what are a result of games/sports...
btw I have a brother who is a master diver and I have done some myself...is it a sport...Yes...based on the definiton of it being done by an individual for entertainment....and if you require the competition aspect..fine they are competing against themselves
Focusing on this part of your definition:
…in which an individual or team competes against another or others...
I interpret “against” as literal. With powerlifting, synchronized swimming, golf, etc., you are not competing directly against other competitors (they may not even be in the venue with you at the time you are competing), you are performing an activity as an individual or team and that performance is then compared to other individuals or teams, whether it is the amount of weight lifted, the judge’s scores, the number of golf strokes, etc.
In tennis, basketball, soccer, hockey, baseball, etc., you are literally competing against an opponent, and the requirement of the simultaneous presence of an opponent defines the activity as a sport. In basketball you don’t have a single team come out and shoot as many baskets as possible in 48 minutes and then another team come out afterwards and do the same thing, later comparing the point totals and then declaring a winner. The interaction between the 2 teams in exerting their will upon the other is integral and is one of the major factors that defines it as a sport.
It is fairly common in competitive powerlifting for attempts to be based off of what other competitors are lifting/totaling though. What one lifter does can change the outcome of what another may decide to attempt... So it's not entirely "we'll each do our own thing and then compare after." There is a certain aspect of interaction which can affect the outcome.
I'm not contending that being in close proximity or being aware of what your competitors are doing won't change the nature of the competition, it does all the time. Reacting based upon the actions of your competitor (becoming less aggressive when you know you have a big stroke lead in golf, easing back when you know you are 1,000 meters ahead of the 2nd place runner in a 10,000 meter run, not going for a PR on a lift because you know you can win without it based on your competitor's lift) is very different than a direct defense like a pitcher throwing a fastball past you, a goalie blocking your slapshot, a cornerback covering a pass thrown to you in football, etc.
Both are competitive, thus both qualify as sports
You seem to be trying very hard to define what IS NOT a sport. I’m not sure why.
Not complicated
A spelling bee is competitive, is that a sport?
You seem to be averse to critical thinking and analysis, which doesn't entail snarky comments like "Not complicated", lol. I have clearly defined my definition of sports and provided numerous examples to back up my analysis, you just don't like my answer.
Physical exertion/skill and competition.
Spelling bee only meets one of those qualifications.
Ironic that you insult the critical thinking of others while simultaneously extrapolating the concept of competing against another team or individual to mean the opportunity of offering direct defense to the opposing team/individual.
And so you’ve repeated your flawed definition (which is not the universally accepted definition and is unique only to yourself) and telling us which sports qualify and why.
So? You saying it over and over again doesn’t make it correct.
And how are you defining analysis? As an analyst myself, I’m curious as to what you’ve actually analyzed to arrive at your conclusion.
Certainly you’ve not analyzed the mounds of data regarding the historical, modern and near universal ideas about what qualifies as “sport” because that data all disagrees with your view.
You’ve also not analyzed the accepted definitions of the word “against” or you would understand that one need not offer a direct defense against the opposition to compete against them.8 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »not_a_runner wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
the bolded is not in any definition of "sport" that I Have seen.Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »There is a difference between a sport and a competition. All sports are competitions, but not all competitions are sports. Fishing doesn’t become a sport merely because a lot of fishermen get together and compete against each other for a prize, it is a competition. The same with synchronized swimming, dogsledding, powerlifting, competitive eating, ice sculpturing, and lumberjacking; the mere fact that people gather and engage in these activities in competition with each other does not make them sports. That doesn’t mean that many competitive activities don’t require just as much talent, dexterity, strength, and resilience as sports do.
you might want to revamp this list...
synchronized swimming is hard and requires a lot of physical endurance and strength.
as does powerlifting
lumber jacking aka highland games
sports again are defined as an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.
where as game is defined as a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
and competitions are what are a result of games/sports...
The defining characteristic isn’t whether an activity is “hard” or not. I scuba dive, it is very physically demanding, but it isn’t anything close to a sport.
One of the characteristics that define a sport is whether participants actually play against another individual or team, with that opposing individual or team able to exert some sort of defense or otherwise impede their efforts. Otherwise, it is just an activity.
A group of synchronized swimmers can gather in a pool in an empty building and put on a very physically demanding performance – the presence of others isn’t required to participate in the activity. In the Summer Olympics, the best groups of swimmers gather together and compete, but at no time do any of the groups ever physically interact with each other or otherwise influence their performances. Therefore it isn’t a sport, it is a competition.
The same with powerlifting. I lifted weights this morning, engaging in an individual activity, not a sport, even though it required strength. If I show up at a powerlifting event this weekend, I’m performing similar activities before judges, and if I happen to lift the most weight, I win the competition. That doesn’t make it a sport. Only if an opposing powerlifter was able to affect my performance in some way would it become a sport.
scuba diving depending on how it's done could be considered a sport...
tell me running isn't a sport...but it is mostly done as an individual, can be done in competition and the others competing will not affect the performance of the runner unless by accident.
so again...
sports again are defined as an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.
where as game is defined as a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
and competitions are what are a result of games/sports...
btw I have a brother who is a master diver and I have done some myself...is it a sport...Yes...based on the definiton of it being done by an individual for entertainment....and if you require the competition aspect..fine they are competing against themselves
Focusing on this part of your definition:
…in which an individual or team competes against another or others...
I interpret “against” as literal. With powerlifting, synchronized swimming, golf, etc., you are not competing directly against other competitors (they may not even be in the venue with you at the time you are competing), you are performing an activity as an individual or team and that performance is then compared to other individuals or teams, whether it is the amount of weight lifted, the judge’s scores, the number of golf strokes, etc.
In tennis, basketball, soccer, hockey, baseball, etc., you are literally competing against an opponent, and the requirement of the simultaneous presence of an opponent defines the activity as a sport. In basketball you don’t have a single team come out and shoot as many baskets as possible in 48 minutes and then another team come out afterwards and do the same thing, later comparing the point totals and then declaring a winner. The interaction between the 2 teams in exerting their will upon the other is integral and is one of the major factors that defines it as a sport.
It is fairly common in competitive powerlifting for attempts to be based off of what other competitors are lifting/totaling though. What one lifter does can change the outcome of what another may decide to attempt... So it's not entirely "we'll each do our own thing and then compare after." There is a certain aspect of interaction which can affect the outcome.
I'm not contending that being in close proximity or being aware of what your competitors are doing won't change the nature of the competition, it does all the time. Reacting based upon the actions of your competitor (becoming less aggressive when you know you have a big stroke lead in golf, easing back when you know you are 1,000 meters ahead of the 2nd place runner in a 10,000 meter run, not going for a PR on a lift because you know you can win without it based on your competitor's lift) is very different than a direct defense like a pitcher throwing a fastball past you, a goalie blocking your slapshot, a cornerback covering a pass thrown to you in football, etc.
Both are competitive, thus both qualify as sports
You seem to be trying very hard to define what IS NOT a sport. I’m not sure why.
Not complicated
A spelling bee is competitive, is that a sport?
You seem to be averse to critical thinking and analysis, which doesn't entail snarky comments like "Not complicated", lol. I have clearly defined my definition of sports and provided numerous examples to back up my analysis, you just don't like my answer.
you keep giving examples of things you consider sports or not sports. You haven't given a single example of any other person or authoritative body that agrees with your narrow definition of "sport"
Every question in life doesn't have a definitive authority that provides the correct answer. There is value in reasoning through concepts and creating our own answers when faced with ambiguity. Beyond this discussion, it doesn't matter if an activity is a sport, and I don't think that anyone is going to use that as criteria for participating in an activity (at least I would hope)
What ambiguity?
Physical exertion/skill + competition = sport
The “defense” bit is a fictional add-on of your own making.
Every sports organization, including the Olympics themselves, as well as the general populace all disagree with your claim that direct defense is a requirement of sport.
Perhaps where there is no one governing body to offer a single definition, it would be helpful to look to the whole host of authoritative bodies which happen to all agree that a sport does not require the opportunity to defend against one’s opponent.
Use some critical thinking, man.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions