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.
Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
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 -
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?)
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.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.
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!0 -
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
8 -
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
I'm not sure why you posted that artivcle, but if it was to refute - "CI/CO is an energy equation - so yes it always works" you'll see that in the article, they conclude that (emphasis mine):
"At the individual level, some very good research on what works for weight loss comes from the National Weight Control Registry, a study that has parsed the traits, habits, and behaviors of adults who have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for a minimum of one year. They currently have more than 10,000 members enrolled in the study, and these folks respond to annual questionnaires about how they've managed to keep their weight down.
The researchers behind the study found that people who have had success losing weight share a few things in common: They weigh themselves at least once a week. They restrict their calorie intake, stay away from high-fat foods, and watch their portion sizes. They also exercise regularly.
But note: These folks use physical activity in addition to calorie counting and other behavioral changes. Every reliable expert I've ever spoken to on weight loss says the most important thing a person can do is to limit calories in a way they like and can sustain, and focus on eating healthfully."
Which is an endorsement of the CI-CO is it not?13 -
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.4 -
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...
5 -
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.13 -
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.
you aren't changing the fact that CICO is an energy equation - knowing how the variables change doesn't negate that it is and always will be an energy equation. understanding how YOUR body adapts to the variables (through hormones, medical issues, calories burned due to differing levels of fitness) only refines the equation, does not negate it9 -
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 BRAIN might not know the exact last detail of every calorie in the CICO equation, but your BODY certainly does, and it totes up the account books down to the very last calorie in or out (which is how you can get fat even if you think you are not eating that much). The variables do not change the basic law of conservation of energy. It's science: yay!
Fortunately you have the tools at hand to be able to put together a good guesstimate, and if your best guesstimate is not working, guesstimate some more.13 -
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.3 -
5
-
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!6 -
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.
CICO is just a math formula. It's never "wrong."
I don't believe your claim of "unknowable," unless you mean that it is difficult to know the exact numbers. I can get close. I logged food and guesstimated my exercise for eight months when I was losing over 70 pounds ten years ago. My calorie intake was below my calorie needs, therefore I lost weight. Was it an exact science? No. But I know for an absolute fact I ate less than I needed, because I'm 70 pounds lighter and it wasn't by accident.
I still log food and exercise and my weight has been stable for ten years (+/- five or so pounds depending on the season here in the cold NW.)5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 413 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions