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?

1…6263656768…239

Replies

  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,219 Member
    mathjulz wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    mathjulz wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    stanmann571 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?)

    Yeah, that's me. I don't do crunches. I recently did start some ab work, but only because my obliques aren't progressing as fast as the rest.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    mathjulz wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    mathjulz wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    stanmann571 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?)

    Ha, gymnast before dancer here. Hip manifested whilst dancing some 15 years ago. I'm a little concerned that my other hip has recently snapped a few times but we'll see. Regardless I just want to permanently stop my flexors constantly straining and my back hurting. Lifting and stretching for two years has only made it a little worse!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Huskeryogi wrote: »
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    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

    https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories

    The idea here is that most don't burn that much with exercise and that for a lot of people increasing exercise may even result in increasing calories more. It does not support the idea that holding calories constant and increasing exercise would not work for weight loss.

    So many of these articles, also, focus on what works for weight loss assuming you aren't, won't, or don't want to count calories. It is true that many tricks work for weight loss even if people are resistant to directly controlling calories, especially if one doesn't already eat healthfully or largely satiating foods or limit extra eating, etc. But none of that is contrary to the idea that CICO is what matters.

    Personally, if I don't want to count, increasing activity is extremely important, and I've definitely lost just by increasing activity. (Matt Fitzgerald has talked about how this was his experience and directly addressed some of the studies and their weaknesses on this topic in some of his books.)

    But of course I'm just guessing at what your point was intended to be. Just posting a link doesn't communicate it well, so could be I am misunderstanding.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Huskeryogi wrote: »
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    Huskeryogi wrote: »
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    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

    https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories

    yeah that doesn't actually dispute CICO...all is says is just cause you work out, doesn't mean you can go whole hog on eating and drinking, you still need to watch what you eat and make sure you eat less than you burn...

    But if calories you burn aren't linear (rates changes based on the amount of exercise/other factors WE DO NOT KNOW) it's an unknownable variable. If we can't accurately calculate calories out, calories in/calories out doesn't work.

    You don't need to know the specific numbers for it to work.

    If you are just starting, either get an estimate from a calculator (realizing it's just an estimate) or from MFP or look at what you have been eating/doing, and reduce from that. Then adjust based on results.

    I've mentioned that I lost just based on activity. At the time I'd lost weight and was a healthy weight but wasn't losing the last 10 lbs I wanted to (I wasn't counting calories either). I decided to increase exercise with a goal (training for a triathlon), kept my eating as it had been -- which was pretty set -- and lost the 10 lbs.

    Most people don't have set eating, so when they increase exercise they eat more. This isn't because increasing burn does not work (it's not linear, but close enough), but because they overcompensate. If you know basically what you are eating enough to hold it steady or decrease and know your activity enough to hold it steady or increase, it's easy.

    For example, I don't know what I burn from exercise, I never track. But I track miles run, hours in the gym, have pretty consistent daily movement outside of exercise (based on how much I walk in daily life), stuff like that. So it would be very easy for me to know I had increased activity even without knowing specific numbers, and therefore to know I was burning more, period.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Neurotic22 wrote: »
    Against popular opinion... I don't weigh everything. I overestimate unless it's a calorie-dense food (e.g. estimate - carrot, weigh - cheese).

    This is because I can't handle it - I end up constantly doing the numbers in my head due to my anxiety disorder.


    ...and I am another believer that junk food exists/it matters what you eat!

    I don't see any issue with this and do the same. This is a matter of prioritizing what matters. One point is that calorie estimations carry an inherent 20% margin of error. In the beginning I simply entered 1.2 to ensure a deficit. Now I just use my output to ensure a deficit.
  • Huskeryogi
    Huskeryogi Posts: 578 Member
    I'm not just starting. My feelings are based on 15 years of paying attention to my body and as much research as I can stand to consume.

    Nothing you have said has contradicted my assertion that we don't have the tools to accurately calculate Calories Out. So we're arguing in circles.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,133 Member
    Huskeryogi wrote: »
    I'm not just starting. My feelings are based on 15 years of paying attention to my body and as much research as I can stand to consume.

    Nothing you have said has contradicted my assertion that we don't have the tools to accurately calculate Calories Out. So we're arguing in circles.

    You seem to be making a (possibly valid) argument that calorie counting doesn't work (for you, anyway) because actual calories in/out can't be determined accurately. But you're telling us that's a valid argument that CICO (the energy balance equation) is incorrect. That doesn't follow.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Huskeryogi wrote: »
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    Huskeryogi wrote: »
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    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

    https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories

    yeah that doesn't actually dispute CICO...all is says is just cause you work out, doesn't mean you can go whole hog on eating and drinking, you still need to watch what you eat and make sure you eat less than you burn...

    But if calories you burn aren't linear (rates changes based on the amount of exercise/other factors WE DO NOT KNOW) it's an unknownable variable. If we can't accurately calculate calories out, calories in/calories out doesn't work.

    One of my biggest problems with anything weight loss or fitness related is anyone saying anything works ALL the time.

    Your calories out isn't going to swing up and down wildly from day to day. It's going to be pretty similar to make an educated guess. In maths you employ approximation techniques for getting results of formulas that would be too complicated to calculate properly.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    I disagree that what you eat doesn't matter. Sure you'll lose weight eating at a deficit, but HEALTH should be the ultimate goal. Natural is better and I'm sticking to it!

    Twinkie diet, Fat head and at least 2 threads on mfp where people improved their health simply through weight loss.

    Also hemlock is natural.

    Sure an obese individual losing weight will generally improve health markers. Don't you think long term an individual will have better health markers eating a diet that is 80-90% nutrient dense vs the same person eating the same number of calories on the Twinkie diet or something similar?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories