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?

Options
1234235237239240358

Replies

  • jdlobb
    jdlobb Posts: 1,232 Member
    Options
    Also, I am very jealous of all you folks who have potluck-happy Indian coworkers. I'd kill for some decent saag paneer in my little pocket of SE Georgia.

    it's the best. homemade samosas are divine
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    I think we worry way too much about what other people think of us.

    Indeed...

  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    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.

    ?!?!?!
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    Personal accountability?
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Macy9336 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.

    That's their fault for acquiescing. Not the fault of "cake culture".

    Really? So would you apply this thought process to other cultural practices which encourage certain behaviours? Such as encouraging young teens to engage in drinking, but when they do drink to say it's all their fault for swallowing the alcoholic beverages?

    Yes. I don't drink alcohol. Guess how I do that in "party" atmospheres?


    "No, thanks."


    See my post above for more ^^
    Ok, but the fact you say no, does not mean that the pressure to conform to a cultural norm...eating the cake or drinking...does not exist. It does exist and it encourages a behaviour that is not healthy.

    I was at a company after-work function at a brewery where a big group of coworkers passed their drinks around for everyone to taste. As a pseudo-germaphobe, this is way too much for me, and unfortunately, I stood out as an oddball that didn't want to participate with the team. One woman said, "you have kids, I'm surprised this would bother you". Actually having kids is exactly why I don't, I don't need to needlessly bring home someone else's illness and get my family sick just because dad wanted to be part of the team and taste beers that were being passed around.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,293 Member
    Options
    bweath2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    Cardio is a waste of time (unless you actually enjoy it).

    Or enjoy the stronger heart and more plentiful food.

    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)?

    I'm quoting you, but hope you won't feel picked on: There are several posts in this sub-thread that induce me to say it.

    Many, many things these days are called "HIIT". I've seen the term applied to workouts based in running, cycling, stairs, rowing, "functional fitness" circuits involving things like battle ropes and tractor tires, calisthenics of various sorts, weight circuits, water exercises and more.

    The precise physiological effects of an activity really depend on the specifics of the activity as well as the intensity, among other factors.

    Huge abstract generalizations of the type "HIIT achieves X outcome better than other modalities" are close to meaningless without consideration of the underlying activity and its intensity. This over-generalization problem is only magnified by the ridiculously squishy use of the term "HIIT". The upper-body strength implications of "HIIT" dumbbell circuits are different from the upper-body strength implications of "HIIT" stationary bike workouts.

    Even within the same activity, say the dumbbell circuits, the nature of the activity can limit (or enhance) the magnitude of difference in effects between its "HIIT" variation and its steady state version. You can only cardio-ize a mostly-strength activity so far, or strength-ize a mostly cardiovascular one - how far depends on the activity. Much "cardio" is not purely cardiovascular; some "strength" workouts have cardiovascular effects.

    Talking about these things at the highest level of abstraction really needs to be done carefully, or we risk ranging into meaningless territory.


This discussion has been closed.