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 just read the one you linked. LOL, I like it.1
-
canadianlbs 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.
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.2 -
canadianlbs 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.3 -
canadianlbs 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.3 -
Everyone can and should get some form of exercise. I know I have made people upset with this opinion in the past but I stand by it. Unless you can't move your arms and legs at all you can do something and for health should.
When I spent a Summer unable to walk I found light hand weight routines and seated cardio. When my shoulder/arm gives me trouble it's leg day or I go for a run.
So many people, even on this site with "Fitness" in the name dismiss the importance of exercise as unnecessary or something extra. It is necessary to be healthy though6 -
I think exercise is important for health and quite helpful (IME, anyway) for weight loss, and even more so for weight maintenance, although it depends on the person.
I'd still say exercise is not necessary for weight loss, because it is not.
If someone told me they wanted to lose weight, but the sticking point was exercise, because they did not want to do it/couldn't imagine ever being a person who did it or had no time, I'd tell them that just walking more and working that into your life in smaller increments can be excellent exercise, much better than nothing, and should not be dismissed as not counting. I'd also suggest trying lots of different things and broadening (again) the idea of exercise from slaving away at a gym.
BUT, as we discussed upthread about "eating clean" (or even just eating "healthy"), I think it's worth pointing out that desirable as exercise is, just losing weight is good for health, and you can do that without exercise if you really, really don't want to or think you cannot exercise.
Many people change their minds about exercise, also, when they feel better about their bodies and also just feel better about moving around, as weight loss can help with. I'd never say that exercise is not important for health, but I totally understand why people stress that you don't have to choose between being willing/able (in your own mind) to exercise and losing weight.
I think it's a shame that this position is taken as saying exercise/fitness is not important. I'd say it's meeting people where they are.8 -
For lifelong weight loss it's not about calories or exercise.
It's about tearing down and building up new habits.7 -
Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.6
-
Everyone can and should get some form of exercise. I know I have made people upset with this opinion in the past but I stand by it. Unless you can't move your arms and legs at all you can do something and for health should.
When I spent a Summer unable to walk I found light hand weight routines and seated cardio. When my shoulder/arm gives me trouble it's leg day or I go for a run.
So many people, even on this site with "Fitness" in the name dismiss the importance of exercise as unnecessary or something extra. It is necessary to be healthy though
Yep. The ability to move/exercise is a gift..
Don't waste the gift.17 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Everyone can and should get some form of exercise. I know I have made people upset with this opinion in the past but I stand by it. Unless you can't move your arms and legs at all you can do something and for health should.
When I spent a Summer unable to walk I found light hand weight routines and seated cardio. When my shoulder/arm gives me trouble it's leg day or I go for a run.
So many people, even on this site with "Fitness" in the name dismiss the importance of exercise as unnecessary or something extra. It is necessary to be healthy though
Yep. The ability to move/exercise is a gift..
Don't waste the gift.
That was actually part of my wake-up call. As I've mentioned on numerous other threads (and probably this one!), I've got refluxed veins due to my legs having to carry too much... me. I ignored the warning signs, so my body shrieked. I.E., because my lymphatic system was being obstructed, I ended up with lymphedema. And the doctors told me that I had to rest my leg as much as possible. No walking. Either a taxi or a wheelchair to get to my doctor's office six blocks away. Buses for grocery shopping, when that had been about the only walking I was still getting at my heaviest. By the time the vascular surgeon told me I was okay to start walking again, I was champing at the bit. I started slow: minimum 25 minutes of walking, every day, come hell or high water. Things increased from there. But it was really the temporary 'ban' on walking that got me off my *kitten* and moving around again.15 -
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.0 -
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.2 -
stanmann571 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.1 -
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.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.0 -
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.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.
Most of the time people mention they are eating 800 calories but neglect to mention they are under Doctors supervision, and that is why they get jumped on. Include that you are under a Doctors care and you will not be told to eat more.6 -
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.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.
You can mention it on this site, but you have to qualify it with, "I am morbidly obese and my doctor has recommended this calorie limit."
The problem with mentioning 800 calorie plans in passing is that little tiny people read that and think, "Oh. I can eat way less? Well, great - I'll lose faster." There are many ana sufferers who use this site to track intake and use it in disordered ways. Myfitnesspal has chosen to disallow promotion of VLCDs as a means to keep healthy weight-loss front and center.
You won't be able to stay at that low calorie for long. You have a lot of body fat. VLCDs are short-term tools for people who are at risk due to being extremely over-weight. Extreme obesity is life-threatening, but so is anorexia.12 -
Haven't been to this thread in one week...... and I missed nearly 1000 posts??1
-
stanmann571 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.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 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.0 -
Deadlifts are my favorite ab exercise.9
-
VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 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.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 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!2 -
stanmann571 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...2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »stanmann571 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.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stanmann571 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 Airforce have all transitioned to crunches due to the back and neck damage done by situps.
Do they also work on their jazz hands like me 'n Vintage Feline?
10 -
That calories in/out works....but not all the time. If it worked all the time people wouldn't plateau. Since there's no way to do controlled long term studies there's a lot about weight and health that we don't know.
BMI is severely lacking as a measure of health. I use waist to hip ratio.9 -
That calories in/out works....but not all the time. If it worked all the time people wouldn't plateau. Since there's no way to do controlled long term studies there's a lot about weight and health that we don't know.
As I understand it, some of the reasons for plateaus are- A person who weighs (grabbing random number) 250 lbs and walks a mile at 3.0 mph will burn more calories than a person who weighs 140 walking the same distance at the same weight rate. (Danged typo!) It takes energy moving extra poundage around.
- Some people don't adjust their calorie intake downward as their weight drops. When I started MFP, my base calories after plugging in my height, weight, activity level and weightloss rate of 1lb/week were 1710, which means I would have probably maintained at 2210, give or take. 68 lbs later, my base calories are at 1380, which means I'd probably maintain at 1880. So, if I'd never adjusted my calories from my starting weight and kept eating at 1710, I'd probably have seen my weightloss slow and plateau by now, because, I'd be eating virtually at maintenance.
- I can only speak for myself, but after a time, complacency can set in. I stop putting everything on the scale because "I know what 120 grams of rice looks like after months of weighing it out." Except that I don't. I know what it looks like roughly. And after a while, portion sizes start to creep upwards.
- Similarly, in the past, I've stopped logging because "I know my calories by now." Except that without a log, I can forget some of what I ate. I can mess up with my mental math. Etc.
- Misjudging exercise burns.
- While Starvation Mode isn't real, Starvation Response is and can cause a slight slowdown in metabolism. Also, being on too few calories, can lead to less energy, which would reduce the intensity/length of exercise, so fewer calories get burned.
Not saying that these are the only reasons; mostly they're distilled from things I've read on these forums and links I've found either here, or via my own Google searches. But to me, CICO does work, so long as we can reliably ascertain the CI and the CO.13 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »That calories in/out works....but not all the time. If it worked all the time people wouldn't plateau. Since there's no way to do controlled long term studies there's a lot about weight and health that we don't know.
CI/CO is an energy equation - so yes it always works - a plateau comes out when CI and CO are equalized - which means either one or the other side of the equation (or both) needs to be adjusted
7 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stanmann571 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.
The Army it was! I found carrying a 70-80lb rucksack on 20+ mile road marches to be more of a strain on my back and neck than situps ever were...5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 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?)0
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
- 426 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