We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Farm exercise
Replies
-
Nonsensical? In what way?nakedraygun wrote: »I have a friend, who is a farmer and a powerlifter.
Tell me, should he rely on his farming to prepare for meet day? I mean, heck, if farming is exercise, why even strength train?
thats just nonsense
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
it is exercise but it will be way easier to set it into your activity level rather than logging it every day.1
-
MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »
I hear ya, but it still comes down to the intention, which is kind of weird.nakedraygun wrote: »
Not entirely arbitrary. I’ll argue that exercise is done within a program to elicit an adaptation, no matter how naive that program might be. For example, consider the posts on MFP asking about ones routine. “Hey what do you think of my awesome abs and left forearm routine?”MistressSara wrote: »I agree with just upping the activity level, but NEAT vs. exercise is a blurry line. If I commute by bike it's NEAT, but if I ride for no reason it's exercise. If I swing a sledge hammer at a tractor tire it's exercise, but if I chop wood it's NEAT. I'm not complaining, but just noting and explaining that it's a somewhat arbitrary designation.
Activity done without some type of oversight within a program is just activity, it’s actual carryover to elicit an adaptation is negligible or nonexistent.
How is that weird?
Bear with me because these thoughts mightn't come out in coherent paragraphs, but I'll try.
Activity is activity regardless of the mental intention behind it. I'm not saying this quite right. Umm, I guess it's that intention is a mental thing - just thought - and activity is, well, active.
Intentions are often mixed. Sometimes I want to breathe fresh air AND get some exercise.
It probably depends on what you want to get out of exercise AND how active you can realistically be in our modern world.
If you're going for a certain kind of performance or aesthetic, then specific training is necessary. If we're just trying to up our calorie burn then it doesn't matter how we get there - 30 minutes on the treadmill or walking to the grocery store amounts to the same thing. I have sometimes joked that if I were a farmer before the turn of the century I wouldn't have to work out. (I DO most definitely have to work out.)
In terms of "functional fitness" (loaded term I know), if we leveraged and increased the actual activities of our daily lives, that might be for the best (again, not for people who want a certain performance or aesthetic, but just for overall fitness and health in daily life). We get good at guitar by playing and practicing on a guitar (and theory blah blah blah), not by diddling around on a cardboard cutout made to mimic a fretboard. We get good at walking by walking, and running by running, lifting by lifting.
Just to be clear, I don't think the distinction is completely arbitrary, but somewhat.
I know you won't agree with me but I hope I've explained myself with a little bit of clarity. Still friendly?
Of course still friendly, I’m just trying to untangle your thoughts on the matter and I can’t do that without blunt questions.
So, if we’re trying “ to up our calorie burn” then 30 minutes on a treadmill versus walking to the store is a significant difference in scope. Now if 30minutes on the treadmill is done 3x a week for 9 months while the store walk is done on a whim, I think the difference is in scope is self evident.
My grandfather was born in 1900 and ran two dairy farms up until the Depression wiped him out. I think he might have something else to say about a persons relative fitness as we understand it today if he were alive today.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Here’s the thing, why would someone even want to track folding laundry, horse riding, or bailing hay? If a person zeroed out their BMR and TDEE at the start of the day and added their activity precisely to that day’s calorie burn, they would have an accurate number of calories to eat for their needs each day.
But we know that is impossible because 1) Data like doesn’t exist; 2) Even if it did, it wouldn’t be customized for you; 3) Even it could be customized, it would be still inaccurate. Your precise calories needs with that method change day to day, hour to hour. I am not an expert myself, but from what I’ve read of the science in popular periodicals is that metabolism is poorly understood and more science has to be done on it to have a better understanding of the process.
This is why estimating your BMR and then your TDEE works pretty good since it’s an estimate anyway. If the calories are daily too high, we subtract a little more until we get the numbers moving where we want too, usually down.
Now a guy like me with higher than average muscle and lean mass can cut calories and induce a body weight loss without any special added cardio or exercise. In fact, I do none. (I often do this to make weight for a meet. Eat less and my metabolism does the rest.)2 -
I’m glad you’re a former smoker. That’ll kill you. However I’d argue that to a well adapted individual, all those walks to the store may start out as exercise but after awhile it becomes covered under NEAT. Adaptation has been made like in the case of the OP farmer at the start of this thread — which is still while the OP needs an exercise program.MistressSara wrote: »
Right, and if the trip to the grocery store was weekly, and the trip to the laundromat was weekly, and the trip to the library and post office were weekly we're talking about significant NEAT. I lived that way back in the day. If I hadn't been smoking, I'd have been pretty healthy and I was definitely very active.nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »
I hear ya, but it still comes down to the intention, which is kind of weird.nakedraygun wrote: »
Not entirely arbitrary. I’ll argue that exercise is done within a program to elicit an adaptation, no matter how naive that program might be. For example, consider the posts on MFP asking about ones routine. “Hey what do you think of my awesome abs and left forearm routine?”MistressSara wrote: »I agree with just upping the activity level, but NEAT vs. exercise is a blurry line. If I commute by bike it's NEAT, but if I ride for no reason it's exercise. If I swing a sledge hammer at a tractor tire it's exercise, but if I chop wood it's NEAT. I'm not complaining, but just noting and explaining that it's a somewhat arbitrary designation.
Activity done without some type of oversight within a program is just activity, it’s actual carryover to elicit an adaptation is negligible or nonexistent.
How is that weird?
Bear with me because these thoughts mightn't come out in coherent paragraphs, but I'll try.
Activity is activity regardless of the mental intention behind it. I'm not saying this quite right. Umm, I guess it's that intention is a mental thing - just thought - and activity is, well, active.
Intentions are often mixed. Sometimes I want to breathe fresh air AND get some exercise.
It probably depends on what you want to get out of exercise AND how active you can realistically be in our modern world.
If you're going for a certain kind of performance or aesthetic, then specific training is necessary. If we're just trying to up our calorie burn then it doesn't matter how we get there - 30 minutes on the treadmill or walking to the grocery store amounts to the same thing. I have sometimes joked that if I were a farmer before the turn of the century I wouldn't have to work out. (I DO most definitely have to work out.)
In terms of "functional fitness" (loaded term I know), if we leveraged and increased the actual activities of our daily lives, that might be for the best (again, not for people who want a certain performance or aesthetic, but just for overall fitness and health in daily life). We get good at guitar by playing and practicing on a guitar (and theory blah blah blah), not by diddling around on a cardboard cutout made to mimic a fretboard. We get good at walking by walking, and running by running, lifting by lifting.
Just to be clear, I don't think the distinction is completely arbitrary, but somewhat.
I know you won't agree with me but I hope I've explained myself with a little bit of clarity. Still friendly?
Of course still friendly, I’m just trying to untangle your thoughts on the matter and I can’t do that without blunt questions.
So, if we’re trying “ to up our calorie burn” then 30 minutes on a treadmill versus walking to the store is a significant difference in scope. Now if 30minutes on the treadmill is done 3x a week for 9 months while the store walk is done on a whim, I think the difference is in scope is self evident.
My grandfather was born in 1900 and ran two dairy farms up until the Depression wiped him out. I think he might have something else to say about a persons relative fitness as we understand it today if he were alive today.
Now many of my neighbors are Amish. I've never seen any of them in a gym, but they are physically fit.
Your Amish might have relative fitness, but once adapted to that stimulus it is just activity and not exercise. I know I seem exhaustingly pedantic, but if the activity that is considered exercise is to be considered exercise in the normative sense, then blurred distinctions between categories only fail us.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Which is why scope of exercise is then needed, because all that cardio burns leans mass and the stimulus fails. What does the typical MFPer do at this juncture when all that cardio fails to get the last 10-20 pounds off? They strength train (usually with free weights) where the stimulus can be increased workout to workout, week after week, year after year.MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
I’m glad you’re a former smoker. That’ll kill you. However I’d argue that to a well adapted individual, all those walks to the store may start out as exercise but after awhile it becomes covered under NEAT. Adaptation has been made like in the case of the OP farmer at the start of this thread — which is still while the OP needs an exercise program.MistressSara wrote: »
Right, and if the trip to the grocery store was weekly, and the trip to the laundromat was weekly, and the trip to the library and post office were weekly we're talking about significant NEAT. I lived that way back in the day. If I hadn't been smoking, I'd have been pretty healthy and I was definitely very active.nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »
I hear ya, but it still comes down to the intention, which is kind of weird.nakedraygun wrote: »
Not entirely arbitrary. I’ll argue that exercise is done within a program to elicit an adaptation, no matter how naive that program might be. For example, consider the posts on MFP asking about ones routine. “Hey what do you think of my awesome abs and left forearm routine?”MistressSara wrote: »I agree with just upping the activity level, but NEAT vs. exercise is a blurry line. If I commute by bike it's NEAT, but if I ride for no reason it's exercise. If I swing a sledge hammer at a tractor tire it's exercise, but if I chop wood it's NEAT. I'm not complaining, but just noting and explaining that it's a somewhat arbitrary designation.
Activity done without some type of oversight within a program is just activity, it’s actual carryover to elicit an adaptation is negligible or nonexistent.
How is that weird?
Bear with me because these thoughts mightn't come out in coherent paragraphs, but I'll try.
Activity is activity regardless of the mental intention behind it. I'm not saying this quite right. Umm, I guess it's that intention is a mental thing - just thought - and activity is, well, active.
Intentions are often mixed. Sometimes I want to breathe fresh air AND get some exercise.
It probably depends on what you want to get out of exercise AND how active you can realistically be in our modern world.
If you're going for a certain kind of performance or aesthetic, then specific training is necessary. If we're just trying to up our calorie burn then it doesn't matter how we get there - 30 minutes on the treadmill or walking to the grocery store amounts to the same thing. I have sometimes joked that if I were a farmer before the turn of the century I wouldn't have to work out. (I DO most definitely have to work out.)
In terms of "functional fitness" (loaded term I know), if we leveraged and increased the actual activities of our daily lives, that might be for the best (again, not for people who want a certain performance or aesthetic, but just for overall fitness and health in daily life). We get good at guitar by playing and practicing on a guitar (and theory blah blah blah), not by diddling around on a cardboard cutout made to mimic a fretboard. We get good at walking by walking, and running by running, lifting by lifting.
Just to be clear, I don't think the distinction is completely arbitrary, but somewhat.
I know you won't agree with me but I hope I've explained myself with a little bit of clarity. Still friendly?
Of course still friendly, I’m just trying to untangle your thoughts on the matter and I can’t do that without blunt questions.
So, if we’re trying “ to up our calorie burn” then 30 minutes on a treadmill versus walking to the store is a significant difference in scope. Now if 30minutes on the treadmill is done 3x a week for 9 months while the store walk is done on a whim, I think the difference is in scope is self evident.
My grandfather was born in 1900 and ran two dairy farms up until the Depression wiped him out. I think he might have something else to say about a persons relative fitness as we understand it today if he were alive today.
Now many of my neighbors are Amish. I've never seen any of them in a gym, but they are physically fit.
Your Amish might have relative fitness, but once adapted to that stimulus it is just activity and not exercise. I know I seem exhaustingly pedantic, but if the activity that is considered exercise is to be considered exercise in the normative sense, then blurred distinctions between categories only fail us.
Yes, I've heard that distinction before, but it just raises more questions. If a person does 30 minutes on the treadmill everyday at the same speed and incline, that should eventually be categorized as NEAT according to the definition you gave. If a person runs the same five mile course at the same pace everyday, because of adaptation, that becomes NEAT. Do you agree?
What I'm getting at though, is that NEAT (and good nutrition) could be enough to avoid obesity and obesity-related illness, to perform required daily tasks with relative ease, to maintain bone density and reasonable muscle mass into old age. These things are part (only part) of my personal definition of fitness.
No arguments from me about sound nutrition and staying active. And if we want our senior population to have higher bone mass, we don’t set them on the treadmill we strength train them.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Which is why scope of exercise is then needed, because all that cardio burns leans mass and the stimulus fails. What does the typical MFPer do at this juncture when all that cardio fails to get the last 10-20 pounds off? They strength train (usually with free weights) where the stimulus can be increased workout to workout, week after week, year after year.MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
I’m glad you’re a former smoker. That’ll kill you. However I’d argue that to a well adapted individual, all those walks to the store may start out as exercise but after awhile it becomes covered under NEAT. Adaptation has been made like in the case of the OP farmer at the start of this thread — which is still while the OP needs an exercise program.MistressSara wrote: »
Right, and if the trip to the grocery store was weekly, and the trip to the laundromat was weekly, and the trip to the library and post office were weekly we're talking about significant NEAT. I lived that way back in the day. If I hadn't been smoking, I'd have been pretty healthy and I was definitely very active.nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »
I hear ya, but it still comes down to the intention, which is kind of weird.nakedraygun wrote: »
Not entirely arbitrary. I’ll argue that exercise is done within a program to elicit an adaptation, no matter how naive that program might be. For example, consider the posts on MFP asking about ones routine. “Hey what do you think of my awesome abs and left forearm routine?”MistressSara wrote: »I agree with just upping the activity level, but NEAT vs. exercise is a blurry line. If I commute by bike it's NEAT, but if I ride for no reason it's exercise. If I swing a sledge hammer at a tractor tire it's exercise, but if I chop wood it's NEAT. I'm not complaining, but just noting and explaining that it's a somewhat arbitrary designation.
Activity done without some type of oversight within a program is just activity, it’s actual carryover to elicit an adaptation is negligible or nonexistent.
How is that weird?
Bear with me because these thoughts mightn't come out in coherent paragraphs, but I'll try.
Activity is activity regardless of the mental intention behind it. I'm not saying this quite right. Umm, I guess it's that intention is a mental thing - just thought - and activity is, well, active.
Intentions are often mixed. Sometimes I want to breathe fresh air AND get some exercise.
It probably depends on what you want to get out of exercise AND how active you can realistically be in our modern world.
If you're going for a certain kind of performance or aesthetic, then specific training is necessary. If we're just trying to up our calorie burn then it doesn't matter how we get there - 30 minutes on the treadmill or walking to the grocery store amounts to the same thing. I have sometimes joked that if I were a farmer before the turn of the century I wouldn't have to work out. (I DO most definitely have to work out.)
In terms of "functional fitness" (loaded term I know), if we leveraged and increased the actual activities of our daily lives, that might be for the best (again, not for people who want a certain performance or aesthetic, but just for overall fitness and health in daily life). We get good at guitar by playing and practicing on a guitar (and theory blah blah blah), not by diddling around on a cardboard cutout made to mimic a fretboard. We get good at walking by walking, and running by running, lifting by lifting.
Just to be clear, I don't think the distinction is completely arbitrary, but somewhat.
I know you won't agree with me but I hope I've explained myself with a little bit of clarity. Still friendly?
Of course still friendly, I’m just trying to untangle your thoughts on the matter and I can’t do that without blunt questions.
So, if we’re trying “ to up our calorie burn” then 30 minutes on a treadmill versus walking to the store is a significant difference in scope. Now if 30minutes on the treadmill is done 3x a week for 9 months while the store walk is done on a whim, I think the difference is in scope is self evident.
My grandfather was born in 1900 and ran two dairy farms up until the Depression wiped him out. I think he might have something else to say about a persons relative fitness as we understand it today if he were alive today.
Now many of my neighbors are Amish. I've never seen any of them in a gym, but they are physically fit.
Your Amish might have relative fitness, but once adapted to that stimulus it is just activity and not exercise. I know I seem exhaustingly pedantic, but if the activity that is considered exercise is to be considered exercise in the normative sense, then blurred distinctions between categories only fail us.
Yes, I've heard that distinction before, but it just raises more questions. If a person does 30 minutes on the treadmill everyday at the same speed and incline, that should eventually be categorized as NEAT according to the definition you gave. If a person runs the same five mile course at the same pace everyday, because of adaptation, that becomes NEAT. Do you agree?
What I'm getting at though, is that NEAT (and good nutrition) could be enough to avoid obesity and obesity-related illness, to perform required daily tasks with relative ease, to maintain bone density and reasonable muscle mass into old age. These things are part (only part) of my personal definition of fitness.
No arguments from me about sound nutrition and staying active. And if we want our senior population to have higher bone mass, we don’t set them on the treadmill we strength train them.
HA! I wouldn't set anyone on a treadmill without a really good reason.
Not even in a naked gym? Lol2 -
This content has been removed.
-
From the point of weight loss, distinguishing between activity and exercise is academic even if adaptation takes place, if the activity is dropped you will lose fitness fast enough and if you don't adjust calories weight gain will occur.3
-
MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Which is why scope of exercise is then needed, because all that cardio burns leans mass and the stimulus fails. What does the typical MFPer do at this juncture when all that cardio fails to get the last 10-20 pounds off? They strength train (usually with free weights) where the stimulus can be increased workout to workout, week after week, year after year.MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
I’m glad you’re a former smoker. That’ll kill you. However I’d argue that to a well adapted individual, all those walks to the store may start out as exercise but after awhile it becomes covered under NEAT. Adaptation has been made like in the case of the OP farmer at the start of this thread — which is still while the OP needs an exercise program.MistressSara wrote: »
Right, and if the trip to the grocery store was weekly, and the trip to the laundromat was weekly, and the trip to the library and post office were weekly we're talking about significant NEAT. I lived that way back in the day. If I hadn't been smoking, I'd have been pretty healthy and I was definitely very active.nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »
I hear ya, but it still comes down to the intention, which is kind of weird.nakedraygun wrote: »
Not entirely arbitrary. I’ll argue that exercise is done within a program to elicit an adaptation, no matter how naive that program might be. For example, consider the posts on MFP asking about ones routine. “Hey what do you think of my awesome abs and left forearm routine?”MistressSara wrote: »I agree with just upping the activity level, but NEAT vs. exercise is a blurry line. If I commute by bike it's NEAT, but if I ride for no reason it's exercise. If I swing a sledge hammer at a tractor tire it's exercise, but if I chop wood it's NEAT. I'm not complaining, but just noting and explaining that it's a somewhat arbitrary designation.
Activity done without some type of oversight within a program is just activity, it’s actual carryover to elicit an adaptation is negligible or nonexistent.
How is that weird?
Bear with me because these thoughts mightn't come out in coherent paragraphs, but I'll try.
Activity is activity regardless of the mental intention behind it. I'm not saying this quite right. Umm, I guess it's that intention is a mental thing - just thought - and activity is, well, active.
Intentions are often mixed. Sometimes I want to breathe fresh air AND get some exercise.
It probably depends on what you want to get out of exercise AND how active you can realistically be in our modern world.
If you're going for a certain kind of performance or aesthetic, then specific training is necessary. If we're just trying to up our calorie burn then it doesn't matter how we get there - 30 minutes on the treadmill or walking to the grocery store amounts to the same thing. I have sometimes joked that if I were a farmer before the turn of the century I wouldn't have to work out. (I DO most definitely have to work out.)
In terms of "functional fitness" (loaded term I know), if we leveraged and increased the actual activities of our daily lives, that might be for the best (again, not for people who want a certain performance or aesthetic, but just for overall fitness and health in daily life). We get good at guitar by playing and practicing on a guitar (and theory blah blah blah), not by diddling around on a cardboard cutout made to mimic a fretboard. We get good at walking by walking, and running by running, lifting by lifting.
Just to be clear, I don't think the distinction is completely arbitrary, but somewhat.
I know you won't agree with me but I hope I've explained myself with a little bit of clarity. Still friendly?
Of course still friendly, I’m just trying to untangle your thoughts on the matter and I can’t do that without blunt questions.
So, if we’re trying “ to up our calorie burn” then 30 minutes on a treadmill versus walking to the store is a significant difference in scope. Now if 30minutes on the treadmill is done 3x a week for 9 months while the store walk is done on a whim, I think the difference is in scope is self evident.
My grandfather was born in 1900 and ran two dairy farms up until the Depression wiped him out. I think he might have something else to say about a persons relative fitness as we understand it today if he were alive today.
Now many of my neighbors are Amish. I've never seen any of them in a gym, but they are physically fit.
Your Amish might have relative fitness, but once adapted to that stimulus it is just activity and not exercise. I know I seem exhaustingly pedantic, but if the activity that is considered exercise is to be considered exercise in the normative sense, then blurred distinctions between categories only fail us.
Yes, I've heard that distinction before, but it just raises more questions. If a person does 30 minutes on the treadmill everyday at the same speed and incline, that should eventually be categorized as NEAT according to the definition you gave. If a person runs the same five mile course at the same pace everyday, because of adaptation, that becomes NEAT. Do you agree?
What I'm getting at though, is that NEAT (and good nutrition) could be enough to avoid obesity and obesity-related illness, to perform required daily tasks with relative ease, to maintain bone density and reasonable muscle mass into old age. These things are part (only part) of my personal definition of fitness.
No arguments from me about sound nutrition and staying active. And if we want our senior population to have higher bone mass, we don’t set them on the treadmill we strength train them.
HA! I wouldn't set anyone on a treadmill without a really good reason.
Not even in a naked gym? Lol
That might be a good reason. Depends on the clientele.
Exclusive gym it is then.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
MistressSara wrote: »
I can't find the emoji fanning herself.nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Which is why scope of exercise is then needed, because all that cardio burns leans mass and the stimulus fails. What does the typical MFPer do at this juncture when all that cardio fails to get the last 10-20 pounds off? They strength train (usually with free weights) where the stimulus can be increased workout to workout, week after week, year after year.MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
I’m glad you’re a former smoker. That’ll kill you. However I’d argue that to a well adapted individual, all those walks to the store may start out as exercise but after awhile it becomes covered under NEAT. Adaptation has been made like in the case of the OP farmer at the start of this thread — which is still while the OP needs an exercise program.MistressSara wrote: »
Right, and if the trip to the grocery store was weekly, and the trip to the laundromat was weekly, and the trip to the library and post office were weekly we're talking about significant NEAT. I lived that way back in the day. If I hadn't been smoking, I'd have been pretty healthy and I was definitely very active.nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »
I hear ya, but it still comes down to the intention, which is kind of weird.nakedraygun wrote: »
lMistressSara wrote: »I agree with just upping the activity level, but NEAT vs. exercise is a blurry line. If I commute by bike it's NEAT, but if I ride for no reason it's exercise. If I swing a sledge hammer at a tractor tire it's exercise, but if I chop wood it's NEAT. I'm not complaining, but just noting and explaining that it's a somewhat arbitrary designation.
Not entirely arbitrary. I’ll argue that exercise is done within a program to elicit an adaptation, no matter how naive that program might be. For example, consider the posts on MFP asking about ones routine. “Hey what do you think of my awesome abs and left forearm routine?”
Activity done without some type of oversight within a program is just activity, it’s actual carryover to elicit an adaptation is negligible or nonexistent.
How is that weird?
Bear with me because these thoughts mightn't come out in coherent paragraphs, but I'll try.
Activity is activity regardless of the mental intention behind it. I'm not saying this quite right. Umm, I guess it's that intention is a mental thing - just thought - and activity is, well, active.
Intentions are often mixed. Sometimes I want to breathe fresh air AND get some exercise.
It probably depends on what you want to get out of exercise AND how active you can realistically be in our modern world.
If you're going for a certain kind of performance or aesthetic, then specific training is necessary. If we're just trying to up our calorie burn then it doesn't matter how we get there - 30 minutes on the treadmill or walking to the grocery store amounts to the same thing. I have sometimes joked that if I were a farmer before the turn of the century I wouldn't have to work out. (I DO most definitely have to work out.)
In terms of "functional fitness" (loaded term I know), if we leveraged and increased the actual activities of our daily lives, that might be for the best (again, not for people who want a certain performance or aesthetic, but just for overall fitness and health in daily life). We get good at guitar by playing and practicing on a guitar (and theory blah blah blah), not by diddling around on a cardboard cutout made to mimic a fretboard. We get good at walking by walking, and running by running, lifting by lifting.
Just to be clear, I don't think the distinction is completely arbitrary, but somewhat.
I know you won't agree with me but I hope I've explained myself with a little bit of clarity. Still friendly?
Of course still friendly, I’m just trying to untangle your thoughts on the matter and I can’t do that without blunt questions.
So, if we’re trying “ to up our calorie burn” then 30 minutes on a treadmill versus walking to the store is a significant difference in scope. Now if 30minutes on the treadmill is done 3x a week for 9 months while the store walk is done on a whim, I think the difference is in scope is self evident.
My grandfather was born in 1900 and ran two dairy farms up until the Depression wiped him out. I think he might have something else to say about a persons relative fitness as we understand it today if he were alive today.
Now many of my neighbors are Amish. I've never seen any of them in a gym, but they are physically fit.
Your Amish might have relative fitness, but once adapted to that stimulus it is just activity and not exercise. I know I seem exhaustingly pedantic, but if the activity that is considered exercise is to be considered exercise in the normative sense, then blurred distinctions between categories only fail us.
Yes, I've heard that distinction before, but it just raises more questions. If a person does 30 minutes on the treadmill everyday at the same speed and incline, that should eventually be categorized as NEAT according to the definition you gave. If a person runs the same five mile course at the same pace everyday, because of adaptation, that becomes NEAT. Do you agree?
What I'm getting at though, is that NEAT (and good nutrition) could be enough to avoid obesity and obesity-related illness, to perform required daily tasks with relative ease, to maintain bone density and reasonable muscle mass into old age. These things are part (only part) of my personal definition of fitness.
No arguments from me about sound nutrition and staying active. And if we want our senior population to have higher bone mass, we don’t set them on the treadmill we strength train them.
HA! I wouldn't set anyone on a treadmill without a really good reason.
Not even in a naked gym? Lol
That might be a good reason. Depends on the clientele.
Exclusive gym it is then.
Cruel, cruel world.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 440 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions