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?

16162646667239

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,404 Member
    I just read the one you linked. LOL, I like it.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited July 2017
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Appearance is a byproduct.

    which would be just fine by me if his presentation walked that particular talk. it doesn't, and it's the presentation i have an issue with.

    if bret contreras were some random guy in some gym passing unsolicited comments about the shape and 'quality' of women's rear ends, he'd get smacked no matter how many phd's he might have.

    Not exactly sure what "presentation" you're referring to. I've been following the guy for 8-10 years. He seems to root his advice in science.

    If you do find issues with the presentations, I would guess it's because he has to compete with Instagram bimbos who have no knowledge/education and are making millions telling the world their "secret" to the barely covered glutes they are showing off. Note: telling the "secret" doesn't include the part about cosmetic surgery.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Appearance is a byproduct.

    which would be just fine by me if his presentation walked that particular talk. it doesn't, and it's the presentation i have an issue with.

    if bret contreras were some random guy in some gym passing unsolicited comments about the shape and 'quality' of women's rear ends, he'd get smacked no matter how many phd's he might have.


    I get what you're saying, but he's speaking to a specific audience - the audience that wants "that type" of booty. He's not just speaking randomly. One of the things I tend to say is, "know your audience." He does.

    If you're (general you, not specifically you) not interested in glute development, you probably wouldn't follow him or his advice. In which case, I'm not sure why it matters how he speaks to his clientele. If you are, you probably should. And, in the case that you are interested in that department, you may or may not be (or feel that you are) "gifted" in that department. It's not really a judgment - it's just playing to that particular group.
  • sardelsa
    sardelsa Posts: 9,812 Member
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Appearance is a byproduct.

    which would be just fine by me if his presentation walked that particular talk. it doesn't, and it's the presentation i have an issue with.

    if bret contreras were some random guy in some gym passing unsolicited comments about the shape and 'quality' of women's rear ends, he'd get smacked no matter how many phd's he might have.


    I get what you're saying, but he's speaking to a specific audience - the audience that wants "that type" of booty. He's not just speaking randomly. One of the things I tend to say is, "know your audience." He does.

    If you're (general you, not specifically you) not interested in glute development, you probably wouldn't follow him or his advice. In which case, I'm not sure why it matters how he speaks to his clientele. If you are, you probably should. And, in the case that you are interested in that department, you may or may not be (or feel that you are) "gifted" in that department. It's not really a judgment - it's just playing to that particular group.

    I agree with this.

    I think the phrase "gifted" refers to someone who doesn't have to work (as) hard to achieve what you want to achieve. It doesn't mean one is better than the other though, it is very goal dependent.

    For example, I consider myself gifted in the calf department, the shape, the size, the muscles are very developed but still proportional to my body. I don't work them at all either.. if anything I wouldn't mind if they went down a little to be honest! But that doesn't' mean that huge calves are better than small calves, just means I have a genetic predisposition to large one and to someone who wants to grow theirs I might be considered gifted genetically.
    I don't know if that made sense but that is how I feel about the whole gifted thing, I don't get offended since I am not genetically predisposed to a larger booty. Just means I have to work harder if that is something I desire. If it's not, then I wouldn't worry about it.
  • Lleldiranne
    Lleldiranne Posts: 5,516 Member
    BabyBear76 wrote: »
    Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.

    I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    mathjulz wrote: »
    BabyBear76 wrote: »
    Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.

    I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.

    I would say you're exactly wrong.

    Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    mathjulz wrote: »
    BabyBear76 wrote: »
    Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.

    I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.

    I would say you're exactly wrong.

    Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.

    This. Crunches are actually the flavour du jour because full "old school" ones can cause all kinds of issues. I don't do a lot of core isolation but largely due to a hip that makes a lot of variations uncomfortable (about to be investigated). But when I don't do it regularly, even with lifting and other work that requires the engagement of my core, my back does suffer when I don't have core specific work at least semi-regularly.
  • zcb94
    zcb94 Posts: 3,678 Member
    Leigh14 wrote: »
    My most unpopular "opinion" is that you need to eat more to lose weight, because science. Mention I'm eating 800 calories per day to lose weight? Cheers, praise, questions on how I'm doing it, what I'm eating, etc. Tell them I'm actually eating 2800 calories per day to lose weight? *crickets* Then the storm.
    It's funny that you mention that because the bolded part is what I do (per doctor's orders), and it's been working, but we're not allowed to mention that in here.
  • ColetteM6
    ColetteM6 Posts: 138 Member
    Haven't been to this thread in one week...... and I missed nearly 1000 posts??
  • Lleldiranne
    Lleldiranne Posts: 5,516 Member
    edited July 2017
    mathjulz wrote: »
    BabyBear76 wrote: »
    Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.

    I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.

    I would say you're exactly wrong.

    Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.

    I honestly think planks are far better for improving core strength. Also balance activities, like yoga ones. And maybe I've forgotten "correct" form for a crunch, so there could be that.

    Edit - also note that I said situps are only slightly better (IMO), but again they require correct form.
  • Lleldiranne
    Lleldiranne Posts: 5,516 Member
    mathjulz wrote: »
    BabyBear76 wrote: »
    Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.

    I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.

    I would say you're exactly wrong.

    Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.

    This. Crunches are actually the flavour du jour because full "old school" ones can cause all kinds of issues. I don't do a lot of core isolation but largely due to a hip that makes a lot of variations uncomfortable (about to be investigated). But when I don't do it regularly, even with lifting and other work that requires the engagement of my core, my back does suffer when I don't have core specific work at least semi-regularly.

    I guess your "old school" means sit-ups? I don't think they're especially great either (note I said they are only slightly better).

    I can empathize with you on the hip issues/back pain. I was out of the gym for several months for a recurrent back/hip pain issue. It was finally diagnosed as hyper-mobility of the SI joint, and PT had me working on core and glute strength. Interestingly, not a single crunch (nor a sit-up) was done as remedy. Several other core-building exercises, though. (I share to offer you hope for a simple resolution and give you my perspective, not as an appeal to authority).

    Core strength = good. But are crunches the best way to get there? I don't think they are.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    mathjulz wrote: »
    mathjulz wrote: »
    BabyBear76 wrote: »
    Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.

    I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.

    I would say you're exactly wrong.

    Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.

    This. Crunches are actually the flavour du jour because full "old school" ones can cause all kinds of issues. I don't do a lot of core isolation but largely due to a hip that makes a lot of variations uncomfortable (about to be investigated). But when I don't do it regularly, even with lifting and other work that requires the engagement of my core, my back does suffer when I don't have core specific work at least semi-regularly.

    I guess your "old school" means sit-ups? I don't think they're especially great either (note I said they are only slightly better).

    I can empathize with you on the hip issues/back pain. I was out of the gym for several months for a recurrent back/hip pain issue. It was finally diagnosed as hyper-mobility of the SI joint, and PT had me working on core and glute strength. Interestingly, not a single crunch (nor a sit-up) was done as remedy. Several other core-building exercises, though. (I share to offer you hope for a simple resolution and give you my perspective, not as an appeal to authority).

    Core strength = good. But are crunches the best way to get there? I don't think they are.

    I have snapping hip, ruling out dysplasia. Have had it since my dancing days. So if it's not a bone issue then off to the physio. It's the hip "rescuing" itself causing all the other issues no matter how hard I've tried to equally modify for it. I am hyper-mobile but I don't think that's the issue here. We'll see.

    I actually love pilates, when done correctly with a properly qualified instructor, for core strength. It was a part of our timetable at dance school. So for me it's more about the crunch variation than just straight up crunches.
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    mathjulz wrote: »
    mathjulz wrote: »
    BabyBear76 wrote: »
    Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.

    I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.

    I would say you're exactly wrong.

    Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.

    This. Crunches are actually the flavour du jour because full "old school" ones can cause all kinds of issues. I don't do a lot of core isolation but largely due to a hip that makes a lot of variations uncomfortable (about to be investigated). But when I don't do it regularly, even with lifting and other work that requires the engagement of my core, my back does suffer when I don't have core specific work at least semi-regularly.

    I guess your "old school" means sit-ups? I don't think they're especially great either (note I said they are only slightly better).

    I can empathize with you on the hip issues/back pain. I was out of the gym for several months for a recurrent back/hip pain issue. It was finally diagnosed as hyper-mobility of the SI joint, and PT had me working on core and glute strength. Interestingly, not a single crunch (nor a sit-up) was done as remedy. Several other core-building exercises, though. (I share to offer you hope for a simple resolution and give you my perspective, not as an appeal to authority).

    Core strength = good. But are crunches the best way to get there? I don't think they are.

    I have snapping hip, ruling out dysplasia. Have had it since my dancing days. So if it's not a bone issue then off to the physio. It's the hip "rescuing" itself causing all the other issues no matter how hard I've tried to equally modify for it. I am hyper-mobile but I don't think that's the issue here. We'll see.

    I actually love pilates, when done correctly with a properly qualified instructor, for core strength. It was a part of our timetable at dance school. So for me it's more about the crunch variation than just straight up crunches.

    Those of us who have danced--and warmed up with endless crunches with an instructor barking to push harder through assorted diabolical variations--likely have a unique appreciation for the core-strength-building capacity of crunches. I think that they can seem deceptively easy, especially with the basic variation where you are just lying on the floor, chillaxin' with your head in your hands. Although I agree with Carlos, a deadlift is my favorite crunch!
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    mathjulz wrote: »
    BabyBear76 wrote: »
    Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.

    I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.

    I would say you're exactly wrong.

    Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.

    I did tens of thousands of situps while I served in the military. I suffered zero back hyperextensions and you could have grated cheese on my abs. It is all about form...
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    edited July 2017
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    mathjulz wrote: »
    BabyBear76 wrote: »
    Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.

    I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.

    I would say you're exactly wrong.

    Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.

    I did tens of thousands of situps while I served in the military. I suffered zero back hyperextensions and you could have grated cheese on my abs. It is all about form...

    Well since only the army does situps, I'll assume that's what you're referencing.

    Navy, Marines, and Air Force have all transitioned to crunches due to the back and neck damage done by situps.
  • Lleldiranne
    Lleldiranne Posts: 5,516 Member
    mathjulz wrote: »
    mathjulz wrote: »
    BabyBear76 wrote: »
    Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.

    I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.

    I would say you're exactly wrong.

    Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.

    This. Crunches are actually the flavour du jour because full "old school" ones can cause all kinds of issues. I don't do a lot of core isolation but largely due to a hip that makes a lot of variations uncomfortable (about to be investigated). But when I don't do it regularly, even with lifting and other work that requires the engagement of my core, my back does suffer when I don't have core specific work at least semi-regularly.

    I guess your "old school" means sit-ups? I don't think they're especially great either (note I said they are only slightly better).

    I can empathize with you on the hip issues/back pain. I was out of the gym for several months for a recurrent back/hip pain issue. It was finally diagnosed as hyper-mobility of the SI joint, and PT had me working on core and glute strength. Interestingly, not a single crunch (nor a sit-up) was done as remedy. Several other core-building exercises, though. (I share to offer you hope for a simple resolution and give you my perspective, not as an appeal to authority).

    Core strength = good. But are crunches the best way to get there? I don't think they are.

    I have snapping hip, ruling out dysplasia. Have had it since my dancing days. So if it's not a bone issue then off to the physio. It's the hip "rescuing" itself causing all the other issues no matter how hard I've tried to equally modify for it. I am hyper-mobile but I don't think that's the issue here. We'll see.

    I actually love pilates, when done correctly with a properly qualified instructor, for core strength. It was a part of our timetable at dance school. So for me it's more about the crunch variation than just straight up crunches.

    My hip has a "popping" thing, too. I blame gymnastics. (We did x-rays to rule out bone issues, too, before physio).

    I actually agree with crunch variations, especially some of the pilates ones. What I'm talking about is the straight up basic crunch. It's totally unnecessary for good abs. (Was it @usmcmp who shared a picture of washboard abs with never having done a crunch?)
This discussion has been closed.