FACEPALM. People who don't know what they're talking about AT ALL. I'm really just venting...
Options
Replies
-
JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
How do you shop for groceries?5 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
Perhaps I should have rephrased "able-bodied" as someone who is capable of safely lifting more.3 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.7 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.4 -
Getting on the scale is just a tool.
For some people it works. For some people it doesn't. I have done both successfully. Just like calorie counting. I'm a nerd person- so numbers work for me- measurements and daily tracking. but It's certainly not the be all end all.
At least that's a discussable topic. I was strolling around in WallyWorld grabbing some essentials and had to pass a these women chatting in the way- and the one was talking about how she was alkaline and had to reduce the alkalinity and if you wake up in the morning and your breath tastes sweet is the toxins leaving your body.
I wanted to punch her in the face.
8oz of H2SO4 will clear that right up!
Somebody, somewhere will be stupid enough to try that. ((facepalm))0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.
True. I was thinking of the more popular exercises that are advertised on the front of Shape magazine and Women's whatever right alongside the fad diets that always suggest/demonstrate low weights to get you "toned," not the less common exercises you brought up.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.
However, if you're going to be doing what amounts to a dumbbell-accessorized aerobic dance cardio circuit kind of routine, you really shouldn't be flinging heavy weights around while you do it. It's a recipe for injury.
I understand that that sort of thing is not your thing, and you don't see value in it (intending "you"/"your" to refer to several people posting along this line, not just PP).
It's not my thing, either.
It doesn't optimize any adaptation. But it's not void of value. It will create some gradual adaptation in a fitter direction, to a point. If it's fun to someone, and they'll do it, but they don't enjoy "more nearly optimal" forms of exercise and wouldn't do those, they should certainly ride on what they enjoy, at least until they reach the point of wanting different/more. Doing any (safe) active thing is better than doing nothing - lots better.
It seems like it should be possible to point out limitations of certain modalities, and encourage trial/adoption of others, without (mostly) coming across as dismissive. That kind of communication style also seems more likely to draw converts . . . if that's the point.
JMO.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.
However, if you're going to be doing what amounts to a dumbbell-accessorized aerobic dance cardio circuit kind of routine, you really shouldn't be flinging heavy weights around while you do it. It's a recipe for injury.
I understand that that sort of thing is not your thing, and you don't see value in it (intending "you"/"your" to refer to several people posting along this line, not just PP).
It's not my thing, either.
It doesn't optimize any adaptation. But it's not void of value. It will create some gradual adaptation in a fitter direction, to a point. If it's fun to someone, and they'll do it, but they don't enjoy "more nearly optimal" forms of exercise and wouldn't do those, they should certainly ride on what they enjoy, at least until they reach the point of wanting different/more. Doing any (safe) active thing is better than doing nothing - lots better.
It seems like it should be possible to point out limitations of certain modalities, and encourage trial/adoption of others, without (mostly) coming across as dismissive. That kind of communication style also seems more likely to draw converts . . . if that's the point.
JMO.
Actually if you’re going to do aerobic dance cardio circuits you shouldn’t be using any weights for the dance cardio part.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.
However, if you're going to be doing what amounts to a dumbbell-accessorized aerobic dance cardio circuit kind of routine, you really shouldn't be flinging heavy weights around while you do it. It's a recipe for injury.
I understand that that sort of thing is not your thing, and you don't see value in it (intending "you"/"your" to refer to several people posting along this line, not just PP).
It's not my thing, either.
It doesn't optimize any adaptation. But it's not void of value. It will create some gradual adaptation in a fitter direction, to a point. If it's fun to someone, and they'll do it, but they don't enjoy "more nearly optimal" forms of exercise and wouldn't do those, they should certainly ride on what they enjoy, at least until they reach the point of wanting different/more. Doing any (safe) active thing is better than doing nothing - lots better.
It seems like it should be possible to point out limitations of certain modalities, and encourage trial/adoption of others, without (mostly) coming across as dismissive. That kind of communication style also seems more likely to draw converts . . . if that's the point.
JMO.
Actually if you’re going to do aerobic dance cardio circuits you shouldn’t be using any weights for the dance cardio part.
IME, it's its usually some interludes of pseudo-weight-lifting moves at a moderately high rate: Say, the 3-lb dumbbell curls or rows in tandem with side steps, or bodyweight lunges/squats in dance-music rhythm while merely holding the 3-pounders . . . not gonna hurt most people.
But I've never done a Jillian or Chalean workout, just some earlier-era stuff in a similar vein. With the ones I've done in the past, those specific moves, 3 pounds wouldn't likely hurt someone who didn't fatigue out to really bad form at the reps given, but I'd have found it silly dangerous to do them with weight I'd use in a more intentional, more controlled, less distracting weight training format.
If you've done the Jillian or Chalean workouts, I'll defer to your more recent knowledge.
It does seem odd to me that a little while ago, 3 pounds was an inconsiderable nothing to be using in those contexts, and now it's a risky excess. Again, I'm speaking to the overall thrust of the thread in saying this, not necessarily saying you personally switched horses about whether 3 pounds is too little or too much.1 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.
True. I was thinking of the more popular exercises that are advertised on the front of Shape magazine and Women's whatever right alongside the fad diets that always suggest/demonstrate low weights to get you "toned," not the less common exercises you brought up.
The real deal should be that any movement is good movement though. It’s like the good, better, best model, so maybe jazzing it up with some high motivation low intensity lady on YouTube is good, maybe interval training is better, and maybe heavy lifting is best (or in your opinion whatever exercise beats the rest). But anyone getting up from the newest episode of game of thrones to move their body is doing good. I think it can derail a persons confidence, and their pride in having made strides in the right direction when they hear that their exercise is not elite enough to be deemed worthwhile.
7 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.
However, if you're going to be doing what amounts to a dumbbell-accessorized aerobic dance cardio circuit kind of routine, you really shouldn't be flinging heavy weights around while you do it. It's a recipe for injury.
I understand that that sort of thing is not your thing, and you don't see value in it (intending "you"/"your" to refer to several people posting along this line, not just PP).
It's not my thing, either.
It doesn't optimize any adaptation. But it's not void of value. It will create some gradual adaptation in a fitter direction, to a point. If it's fun to someone, and they'll do it, but they don't enjoy "more nearly optimal" forms of exercise and wouldn't do those, they should certainly ride on what they enjoy, at least until they reach the point of wanting different/more. Doing any (safe) active thing is better than doing nothing - lots better.
It seems like it should be possible to point out limitations of certain modalities, and encourage trial/adoption of others, without (mostly) coming across as dismissive. That kind of communication style also seems more likely to draw converts . . . if that's the point.
JMO.
Actually if you’re going to do aerobic dance cardio circuits you shouldn’t be using any weights for the dance cardio part.
IME, it's its usually some interludes of pseudo-weight-lifting moves at a moderately high rate: Say, the 3-lb dumbbell curls or rows in tandem with side steps, or bodyweight lunges/squats in dance-music rhythm while merely holding the 3-pounders . . . not gonna hurt most people.
But I've never done a Jillian or Chalean workout, just some earlier-era stuff in a similar vein. With the ones I've done in the past, those specific moves, 3 pounds wouldn't likely hurt someone who didn't fatigue out to really bad form at the reps given, but I'd have found it silly dangerous to do them with weight I'd use in a more intentional, more controlled, less distracting weight training format.
If you've done the Jillian or Chalean workouts, I'll defer to your more recent knowledge.
It does seem odd to me that a little while ago, 3 pounds was an inconsiderable nothing to be using in those contexts, and now it's a risky excess. Again, I'm speaking to the overall thrust of the thread in saying this, not necessarily saying you personally switched horses about whether 3 pounds is too little or too much.
I believe the issue is holding or attaching weights (even light ones) to the far end of the arms or legs and doing random dance moves which has been shown to have a high injury vs benefit ratio.
Not really an issue if someone is picking up light weights and doing traditional exercises as part of a dance/cardio routine.2 -
Fixed:
"FACEPALM. People who DISAGREE WITH ME don't know what they're talking about AT ALL. I'm really just venting..."2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
How do you shop for groceries?
I use a shopping cart and my husband puts them in and carries them out. I'm so SORRY that I can only use girlie-girlie Pink Weights of Shame and not the Big Boy/Girl Weights of RAW POWAH.
I lift an amount that I can safely lift and put down. Having had muscle injuries where I couldn't move my arms puts it in perspective.
And thank you for making me feel like a PoS because my strength is minuscule.13 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.
However, if you're going to be doing what amounts to a dumbbell-accessorized aerobic dance cardio circuit kind of routine, you really shouldn't be flinging heavy weights around while you do it. It's a recipe for injury.
I understand that that sort of thing is not your thing, and you don't see value in it (intending "you"/"your" to refer to several people posting along this line, not just PP).
It's not my thing, either.
It doesn't optimize any adaptation. But it's not void of value. It will create some gradual adaptation in a fitter direction, to a point. If it's fun to someone, and they'll do it, but they don't enjoy "more nearly optimal" forms of exercise and wouldn't do those, they should certainly ride on what they enjoy, at least until they reach the point of wanting different/more. Doing any (safe) active thing is better than doing nothing - lots better.
It seems like it should be possible to point out limitations of certain modalities, and encourage trial/adoption of others, without (mostly) coming across as dismissive. That kind of communication style also seems more likely to draw converts . . . if that's the point.
JMO.
Actually if you’re going to do aerobic dance cardio circuits you shouldn’t be using any weights for the dance cardio part.
IME, it's its usually some interludes of pseudo-weight-lifting moves at a moderately high rate: Say, the 3-lb dumbbell curls or rows in tandem with side steps, or bodyweight lunges/squats in dance-music rhythm while merely holding the 3-pounders . . . not gonna hurt most people.
But I've never done a Jillian or Chalean workout, just some earlier-era stuff in a similar vein. With the ones I've done in the past, those specific moves, 3 pounds wouldn't likely hurt someone who didn't fatigue out to really bad form at the reps given, but I'd have found it silly dangerous to do them with weight I'd use in a more intentional, more controlled, less distracting weight training format.
If you've done the Jillian or Chalean workouts, I'll defer to your more recent knowledge.
It does seem odd to me that a little while ago, 3 pounds was an inconsiderable nothing to be using in those contexts, and now it's a risky excess. Again, I'm speaking to the overall thrust of the thread in saying this, not necessarily saying you personally switched horses about whether 3 pounds is too little or too much.
I believe the issue is holding or attaching weights (even light ones) to the far end of the arms or legs and doing random dance moves which has been shown to have a high injury vs benefit ratio.
Not really an issue if someone is picking up light weights and doing traditional exercises as part of a dance/cardio routine.
I've seen/done workouts of the second type (back in he day), but have never seen/done any of that first type. (I'm sure there are some of the first type in the deep recesses of YouTube, and I've certainly seen regular people (not mass-market "trainers") foolishly advocate using wrist/ankle weights while doing dance-y stuff.) Your comment on that sort of thing is what I was trying to say (not well
) back a couple of posts ago in the thread, when I said "you really shouldn't be flinging heavy weights around". (Generic " you", BTW.)
Purely based on snips and video commercials, I'd be surprised if any of the current mainstream video exercise presenters have people flinging weights around, but I don't really know from personal observation whether they do or not.
IMO, civility would be better served if we all avoided criticising workouts we've not personally done, or at least watched all the way through. Even then, there are basically 3 scenarios when I think it's possibly civil to criticize someone's chosen workout: (1) If I think they're significantly risking injury; (2) if they're asking for exercise advice and their proposed workout (or one proposed to them) seems not to match up with their goals; or (3) it's something about rowing and I'm fairly confident that they're doing it (or thinking about it) wrong.
On a general thread, it has to be fine to point out limitations of a particular modality . . . politely (unless/until getting bad-tempered feedback) . . . even though snarking and sniffing is way more fun.
The point, in my mind, is to get the maximum number of people doing anything active (and safe) that they enjoy, and that supports their personal goals.
For clarity: I have no reason or intention to imply that PP (Packerjohn) has done anything wrong or uncivil (seems like a good guy, overall ). I'm just chatting, in the overall context of the thread.
1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.
However, if you're going to be doing what amounts to a dumbbell-accessorized aerobic dance cardio circuit kind of routine, you really shouldn't be flinging heavy weights around while you do it. It's a recipe for injury.
I understand that that sort of thing is not your thing, and you don't see value in it (intending "you"/"your" to refer to several people posting along this line, not just PP).
It's not my thing, either.
It doesn't optimize any adaptation. But it's not void of value. It will create some gradual adaptation in a fitter direction, to a point. If it's fun to someone, and they'll do it, but they don't enjoy "more nearly optimal" forms of exercise and wouldn't do those, they should certainly ride on what they enjoy, at least until they reach the point of wanting different/more. Doing any (safe) active thing is better than doing nothing - lots better.
It seems like it should be possible to point out limitations of certain modalities, and encourage trial/adoption of others, without (mostly) coming across as dismissive. That kind of communication style also seems more likely to draw converts . . . if that's the point.
JMO.
Actually if you’re going to do aerobic dance cardio circuits you shouldn’t be using any weights for the dance cardio part.
IME, it's its usually some interludes of pseudo-weight-lifting moves at a moderately high rate: Say, the 3-lb dumbbell curls or rows in tandem with side steps, or bodyweight lunges/squats in dance-music rhythm while merely holding the 3-pounders . . . not gonna hurt most people.
But I've never done a Jillian or Chalean workout, just some earlier-era stuff in a similar vein. With the ones I've done in the past, those specific moves, 3 pounds wouldn't likely hurt someone who didn't fatigue out to really bad form at the reps given, but I'd have found it silly dangerous to do them with weight I'd use in a more intentional, more controlled, less distracting weight training format.
If you've done the Jillian or Chalean workouts, I'll defer to your more recent knowledge.
It does seem odd to me that a little while ago, 3 pounds was an inconsiderable nothing to be using in those contexts, and now it's a risky excess. Again, I'm speaking to the overall thrust of the thread in saying this, not necessarily saying you personally switched horses about whether 3 pounds is too little or too much.
I believe the issue is holding or attaching weights (even light ones) to the far end of the arms or legs and doing random dance moves which has been shown to have a high injury vs benefit ratio.
Not really an issue if someone is picking up light weights and doing traditional exercises as part of a dance/cardio routine.
I've seen/done workouts of the second type (back in he day), but have never seen/done any of that first type. (I'm sure there are some of the first type in the deep recesses of YouTube, and I've certainly seen regular people (not mass-market "trainers") foolishly advocate using wrist/ankle weights while doing dance-y stuff.) Your comment on that sort of thing is what I was trying to say (not well ) back a couple of posts ago in the thread, when I said "you really shouldn't be flinging heavy weights around". (Generic " you", BTW.)
Purely based on snips and video commercials, I'd be surprised if any of the current mainstream video exercise presenters have people flinging weights around, but I don't really know from personal observation whether they do or not.
IMO, civility would be better served if we all avoided criticising workouts we've not personally done, or at least watched all the way through. Even then, there are basically 3 scenarios when I think it's possibly civil to criticize someone's chosen workout: (1) If I think they're significantly risking injury; (2) if they're asking for exercise advice and their proposed workout (or one proposed to them) seems not to match up with their goals; or (3) it's something about rowing and I'm fairly confident that they're doing it (or thinking about it) wrong.
On a general thread, it has to be fine to point out limitations of a particular modality . . . politely (unless/until getting bad-tempered feedback) . . . even though snarking and sniffing is way more fun.
The point, in my mind, is to get the maximum number of people doing anything active (and safe) that they enjoy, and that supports their personal goals.
For clarity: I have no reason or intention to imply that PP (Packerjohn) has done anything wrong or uncivil (seems like a good guy, overall ). I'm just chatting, in the overall context of the thread.
This has to be the most civil discussion of civility I've seen in a long time! Sincerely. :drinker:2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions