Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What commonly given MFP Forum advice do you personally disagree with?
Replies
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »"You have to lift heavy if you don't want to look like a skinnyfat noodle person."
I'm just an n=1, but personally, my legs and butt look a million times better now that I'm just running and cycling than they ever did when I was trying a squat/deadlift type program. I have the quads and glutes I always wanted and was never able to achieve before. Strong Curves had nothing on my cycle commute. Even my abs are better now than when I followed a lifting program.
If people want to lift weights I think that's great (my husband does it exclusively and thinks cardio is evil, and he looks very fit and can certainly lift stuff I can't, even if he can't run a couple miles to save his life), but constantly crapping all over people who like cardio is kinda sucky and trying to deter people from running or whatever in favour of lifting is nonsensical to me. I like to run, I like to bike, and I get the results I want from it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Exercise is important and I think there's a place for strength training AND cardio, and the best workout routine is one you enjoy and will stick to.
As a corollary to this, I'll add that I sort of disagree with the idea that the only effective type of lifting is "heavy" lifting.
I should add the caveat that I *can't* lift heavy due to exertion induced migraines, but I can train with progressive overload by adding reps and sets to moderate weights and still get results.
Furthermore, the larger point is that not everyone has goals that can only be met by lifting heavy. Many people have goals that can be met with other sorts of resistance training.
I do have to say that I think the advice to lift heavy has cooled down a bit from where it used to be. I just wish there were more balanced advice offered in general to give people who don't want to or can't lift heavy other options. Or at least that such advice was given more often. I have to say I have seen it given more often than it used to be.
There's a lot of dogma and persistent broscience surrounding lifting. "Heavy is better than light", "free weights are better than machines", "the Smith machine is evil and will snap your *kitten* up", "compound exercises are the best", "you have to do squats", etc..
When you spend some time reading research and the evidence-based findings of true fitness professionals, you learn that the answers are a lot more nuanced and contextual (and a lot less black and white) than opinions such as the above.
Ha. I was just going to say that I disagree with the broad statement that free weights are better than machines. Completely dependent on the person and the goals. My mom is going to go to the gym by herself and I know that she won't use free weights by herself. She will use machines. Resistance exercise is important so I'd rather her use machines than nothing.
"Abs are made in the kitchen." No, they're not. Abs are muscles. Muscles are built via resistance work.
"Toned/toning isn't a real thing." Sure it is. It's a term that has been used for decades and considering the context in which it is generally used, it's fairly easy to figure out its meaning. If you're still confused, ask the poster to post an example of what they're talking about.
More generally, the "dispute the terminology, don't help the OP" form of advice is unhelpful: Toning, HIIT, "vegetarian but eating fish", "plant based" "eating clean", etc.
It doesn't bother me when someone answers and clarifies terminology, and it's OK to ask questions (even though OPs sometimes take that as negative) but just taking shots at the terminology is annoying, and I think creates a culture that can feel like the cool kids beating up on lower status new kids.
Most of the time, one can take a decent guess. "Most people seem to mean X by toning. If that's what you mean, then ABCD. 'Toning' doesn't have a clear definition; a better term would be Y."
If all someone has to say in reply to "I'm eating clean, but can't lose weight" is "I wash my food", they're being one of the snarky kids in the back of the classroom shooting spitballs. JMO, obviously.27 -
Advice that assumes weight loss varies directly with intake, ignoring activity. It's not always going to be the case that if someone cuts an additional 500 calories daily, they automatically and unconditionally lose an extra pound a week.
Intake has impact on energy level, which can have an effect on activity level - from reading posts here, I suspect some people are more sensitive to this effect than others, and that for some there may be an inflection point in intake where a more pronounced energy/activity change happens.
If eating 500 calories fewer daily reduces someone from an average life style to a limp lump of fatigue on the couch, who zaps a Lean Cuisine and goes to bed early, they're not going to lose an extra pound a week.
Yes, I exaggerate . . . but CICO really isn't just math about intake, it's math about intake and activity, and the CO side has some nuance in practice.23 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »"You have to lift heavy if you don't want to look like a skinnyfat noodle person."
I'm just an n=1, but personally, my legs and butt look a million times better now that I'm just running and cycling than they ever did when I was trying a squat/deadlift type program. I have the quads and glutes I always wanted and was never able to achieve before. Strong Curves had nothing on my cycle commute. Even my abs are better now than when I followed a lifting program.
If people want to lift weights I think that's great (my husband does it exclusively and thinks cardio is evil, and he looks very fit and can certainly lift stuff I can't, even if he can't run a couple miles to save his life), but constantly crapping all over people who like cardio is kinda sucky and trying to deter people from running or whatever in favour of lifting is nonsensical to me. I like to run, I like to bike, and I get the results I want from it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Exercise is important and I think there's a place for strength training AND cardio, and the best workout routine is one you enjoy and will stick to.
As a corollary to this, I'll add that I sort of disagree with the idea that the only effective type of lifting is "heavy" lifting.
I should add the caveat that I *can't* lift heavy due to exertion induced migraines, but I can train with progressive overload by adding reps and sets to moderate weights and still get results.
Furthermore, the larger point is that not everyone has goals that can only be met by lifting heavy. Many people have goals that can be met with other sorts of resistance training.
I do have to say that I think the advice to lift heavy has cooled down a bit from where it used to be. I just wish there were more balanced advice offered in general to give people who don't want to or can't lift heavy other options. Or at least that such advice was given more often. I have to say I have seen it given more often than it used to be.
There's a lot of dogma and persistent broscience surrounding lifting. "Heavy is better than light", "free weights are better than machines", "the Smith machine is evil and will snap your *kitten* up", "compound exercises are the best", "you have to do squats", etc..
When you spend some time reading research and the evidence-based findings of true fitness professionals, you learn that the answers are a lot more nuanced and contextual (and a lot less black and white) than opinions such as the above.
Ha. I was just going to say that I disagree with the broad statement that free weights are better than machines. Completely dependent on the person and the goals. My mom is going to go to the gym by herself and I know that she won't use free weights by herself. She will use machines. Resistance exercise is important so I'd rather her use machines than nothing.
"Abs are made in the kitchen." No, they're not. Abs are muscles. Muscles are built via resistance work.
"Toned/toning isn't a real thing." Sure it is. It's a term that has been used for decades and considering the context in which it is generally used, it's fairly easy to figure out its meaning. If you're still confused, ask the poster to post an example of what they're talking about.
I agree on the machines, especially for seniors. Heck, even Lyle agrees with you.6 -
"Toned/toning isn't a real thing." Sure it is. It's a term that has been used for decades and considering the context in which it is generally used, it's fairly easy to figure out its meaning. If you're still confused, ask the poster to post an example of what they're talking about.
I posted once as a joke for someone to explain the difference between "toning", "getting fit" and "recomp". To me they are all pretty much the same thing, but recomp just is an in phrase right now.
9 -
"Toned/toning isn't a real thing." Sure it is. It's a term that has been used for decades and considering the context in which it is generally used, it's fairly easy to figure out its meaning. If you're still confused, ask the poster to post an example of what they're talking about.
Thank you. That has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time. If you have a problem with toning, you better also have a problem with bulking, cutting, and getting ripped.16 -
Am I the only one who finds the title of this thread to be rather passive-aggressive?
For me its when people start giving medical advice or diagnosing others.
I think I was following the thread that gave rise to this comment (though I think it's since been deleted), and I remember wondering why a person would think that about that particular thread. I've seen threads where people express concerns that a poster may have disordered thinking about food (and with so many impressionable young people lurking on the site, I think that's a good thing), and others where people have asked something like, "what do you think might be causing this?", but even in those instances, people are usually cautioned to ask their doctor.9 -
I've seen threads semi-regularly where people gave medical advice (sometimes with bashing of the evil corporate medical establishment along the way. . . some thyroid threads: ugh). Normally someone else pretty quickly says "See your doctor; don't listen to random unqualified idiots on the internet."
I've also seen people chided (appropriately) for giving what amounted to medical advice without seeing it as such, for example by answering questions like "What exercises can I do if I have knee pain?".
Not to mention the infamous tendency for a few people - always bashed for it, and rightly so - to give magical dietary advice to cancer survivors. Mega ugh.
I'd say inappropriate medical advice happens here fairly often, but doesn't often go undisputed.Am I the only one who finds the title of this thread to be rather passive-aggressive?
<snip>
Got us yapping, dinnit? 8 -
I've seen threads semi-regularly where people gave medical advice (sometimes with bashing of the evil corporate medical establishment along the way. . . some thyroid threads: ugh). Normally someone else pretty quickly says "See your doctor; don't listen to random unqualified idiots on the internet."
I've also seen people chided (appropriately) for giving what amounted to medical advice without seeing it as such, for example by answering questions like "What exercises can I do if I have knee pain?".
Not to mention the infamous tendency for a few people - always bashed for it, and rightly so - to give magical dietary advice to cancer survivors. Mega ugh.
I'd say inappropriate medical advice happens here fairly often, but doesn't often go undisputed.
I see a little bit of that, but guess I just don't get around enough... not a terrible thing
I also took the point of the tread to be more like, what advice espoused by the majority do you disagree with (though I could be mistaken). I think most experienced users don't tend to give medical advice, or deal in absolutes, as many comments have alluded to. But again, I don't know everything that goes on around here 1 -
Now that we are into page 4... I think the general consensus is that the most prevalent advice tends to be pretty sound. We have since strayed a bit from that and gotten into terminology or behavior (for lack of a better term) that may bother some of us.8
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »"You have to lift heavy if you don't want to look like a skinnyfat noodle person."
I'm just an n=1, but personally, my legs and butt look a million times better now that I'm just running and cycling than they ever did when I was trying a squat/deadlift type program. I have the quads and glutes I always wanted and was never able to achieve before. Strong Curves had nothing on my cycle commute. Even my abs are better now than when I followed a lifting program.
If people want to lift weights I think that's great (my husband does it exclusively and thinks cardio is evil, and he looks very fit and can certainly lift stuff I can't, even if he can't run a couple miles to save his life), but constantly crapping all over people who like cardio is kinda sucky and trying to deter people from running or whatever in favour of lifting is nonsensical to me. I like to run, I like to bike, and I get the results I want from it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Exercise is important and I think there's a place for strength training AND cardio, and the best workout routine is one you enjoy and will stick to.
As a corollary to this, I'll add that I sort of disagree with the idea that the only effective type of lifting is "heavy" lifting.
I should add the caveat that I *can't* lift heavy due to exertion induced migraines, but I can train with progressive overload by adding reps and sets to moderate weights and still get results.
Furthermore, the larger point is that not everyone has goals that can only be met by lifting heavy. Many people have goals that can be met with other sorts of resistance training.
I do have to say that I think the advice to lift heavy has cooled down a bit from where it used to be. I just wish there were more balanced advice offered in general to give people who don't want to or can't lift heavy other options. Or at least that such advice was given more often. I have to say I have seen it given more often than it used to be.
There's a lot of dogma and persistent broscience surrounding lifting. "Heavy is better than light", "free weights are better than machines", "the Smith machine is evil and will snap your *kitten* up", "compound exercises are the best", "you have to do squats", etc..
When you spend some time reading research and the evidence-based findings of true fitness professionals, you learn that the answers are a lot more nuanced and contextual (and a lot less black and white) than opinions such as the above.
Ha. I was just going to say that I disagree with the broad statement that free weights are better than machines. Completely dependent on the person and the goals. My mom is going to go to the gym by herself and I know that she won't use free weights by herself. She will use machines. Resistance exercise is important so I'd rather her use machines than nothing.
"Abs are made in the kitchen." No, they're not. Abs are muscles. Muscles are built via resistance work.
"Toned/toning isn't a real thing." Sure it is. It's a term that has been used for decades and considering the context in which it is generally used, it's fairly easy to figure out its meaning. If you're still confused, ask the poster to post an example of what they're talking about.
More generally, the "dispute the terminology, don't help the OP" form of advice is unhelpful: Toning, HIIT, "vegetarian but eating fish", "plant based" "eating clean", etc.
It doesn't bother me when someone answers and clarifies terminology, and it's OK to ask questions (even though OPs sometimes take that as negative) but just taking shots at the terminology is annoying, and I think creates a culture that can feel like the cool kids beating up on lower status new kids.
I'm someone who thinks that terminology can be important and if the OP uses buzzwords that have unclear meaning that it basically obscures communication. However, I definitely agree that JUST challenging/disputing terminology is useless. But asking questions or noting the lack of clarity with the buzzwords is, IMO, worth doing while responding as best you can and for the purpose of better responding to the question.
HIIT is a specific thing, so using the term to mean something entirely different is confusing, for example.
I find discussions more focused on terminology itself interesting (what is "plant-based" vs. vegan or what not), but those discussions don't belong in an advice thread.6 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »"Toned/toning isn't a real thing." Sure it is. It's a term that has been used for decades and considering the context in which it is generally used, it's fairly easy to figure out its meaning. If you're still confused, ask the poster to post an example of what they're talking about.
I posted once as a joke for someone to explain the difference between "toning", "getting fit" and "recomp". To me they are all pretty much the same thing, but recomp just is an in phrase right now.
Why "toning" rubs some people (often women) the wrong way (although not really me, and I never comment on it) is that you tend to hear it as follows: I don't want to do any exercise that builds muscle, ugh, I don't want to get bulky or be all muscle-y like [insert very lean woman with muscles], I just want to tone.
Thing is that there's no specific "toning" exercises, it is the same as getting fit or recomp.
Often "toning" just means "I want to be thinner and to look nice, not to have especially big muscles, but also not to look bony." And fact is, a woman at a deficit who does some progressive overload exercise (including training involving running and biking and some upper body stuff, including swimming), is going to achieve this, since it's just not that easy to build muscle as a woman and you aren't doing it to any "beyond toned" extent without trying, especially in a deficit.12 -
-
MFP would have it no other way, lol.1 -
I believe semantics are important to meaningful communication, and like lemurcat2, I enjoy discussions about terminology. Some of the most enlightening (not to mention entertaining) threads on this site involve the definition of words.5
-
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »I guess the only commonly given advice that I "sort of" disagree with comes up in the threads where people ask "I'm going out to dinner, how do I limit my calories?".
Many long-time posters say "It's only one meal, just enjoy yourself."
While, yes, that's true, in the long run one meal won't make or break you...I think it might set some people up for failure.
If you don't eat out much and/or it's a special occasion, sure, order what you like. But some people eat out multiple times a week. I know that if I did that and "just enjoyed myself" each time, it would be a struggle to control my weight.
I agree with this, especially because it seems to be advice given by people who truly do go out (and indulge freely) like once every six to eight weeks, not every 3-4 days like a lot of people do simply due to business, social, etc. It's just *not* realistic for everyone to only dine out a few times per year and "just enjoy", it's helpful to have a game plan.9 -
I feel like I’m gonna get eaten alive for this one but I really cringe when I see others getting jumped on about CICO being the end all be all of losing weight. I remember reading a thread where someone talked about being on steroids for a chronic condition (May have been RA) and being concerned about weight gain and of course someone jumped in to condescend to them about how CICO is the only thing that mattered and that they didn’t gain weight on steroids and therefore if you do it’s a lack of willpower, etc etc etc.
Many people dealing with chronic health conditions are facing some serious barriers to weight loss that have more to do with managing pain and fatigue and hormones and whatever else. I’m an endometriosis survivor and the damn disease caused cancer and all sorts of other problems. Once I had extensive excision surgery and a hysterectomy with my ovaries removed my health has significantly improved and I’ve lost 46 lbs with not a lot of difficulty. Before that i couldn’t do much more than curling up in a ball with a heating pad on. If i did go to the gym it would literally be like 7 days of recovering from one work out in extreme pain. What I’m saying is yes, CICO is extremely important but there is more to losing weight than that simple equation for many people and it used to hit me hard when I would read threads about it only being a willpower CICO thing.
(I’ve been a lurker for years and really don’t post a lot)34 -
That brings up an interesting point. I am a moderator, but that doesn't give me leave to feel morally superior to someone who is an abstainer. Alternately, my daily chocolate habit doesn't mean I'm weaker than someone who hasn't had a chocolate bar since Doc Martens were cool.
WUT,
are they not cool?13 -
Calories in calories out.25
-
Saying CICO is what matters for weightloss is NOT the same thing as saying it's just willpower or that if you don't do it it's a willpower issue. I really haven't seen a lot of people saying the latter, so don't think that's "commonly given advice" but I'm sure some people have said it from time to time, as you can find some people saying anything.
On steroids: "Steroids affect your metabolism and how your body deposits fat. This can increase your appetite, leading to weight gain, and in particular lead to extra deposits of fat in your abdomen.
Self-care tips:
Watch your calories and exercise regularly to try to prevent excessive weight gain. But don't let weight gain damage your self-esteem. Know that the weight will come off - and your stomach return to its normal size - relatively easily in the six months to a year after you discontinue steroids."
https://www.hss.edu/conditions_steroid-side-effects-how-to-reduce-corticosteroid-side-effects.asp
So that does NOT say that CICO would not work for someone taking steroids, quite the opposite.
That said, what I would say, and what I think of as the "commonly-given MFP advice" is that in some cases a health condition may need to be resolved before weight loss becomes the focus. Someone with a thyroid condition, for example, probably should focus most on getting the condition under control, meds straightened out, if losing weight is an exercise in frustration.
I think it's a misunderstanding to read the factual statement that CICO are what determine weight loss, gain, or neither to say something about the mental powers of any particular person. There are lots of reasons why weight loss may be extremely hard at a particular time.23 -
I'll add blind following of advice/information because it came from an institution. Institutions have a poor track record of following evidence and allowing other motivations to influence policy.
Show me the data.4 -
Two things I disagree with.
"Lift heavy things or else"
And
"You are not losing weight because you are not measuring with pinpoint accuracy" given to people who are obese. Honestly I think if you are obese you are not within a rounding error of not losing weight. You'll probably lose more slowly though.19 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.16 -
I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html
Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."
And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:
“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
Science is real.
55 -
Guardian, Nutritionnews and Fung. Not much Science there.27
-
"You are not losing weight because you are not measuring with pinpoint accuracy" given to people who are obese. Honestly I think if you are obese you are not within a rounding error of not losing weight. You'll probably lose more slowly though.
I think a lot of people who are obese may be in denial about how much they are eating and worse than average at eyeballing or estimating. So for them perhaps focusing on careful weighing and being as accurate as possible can be helpful. I also think for at least a subset of obese people are very emotional around the whole topic, it's charged, and so stepping back and making it just about logging and careful measuring can take the emotion out of it (and to some extent the good/bad judgments and the superstition, the idea that if I ate at the wrong time or didn't eat exactly the right way it wouldn't work) -- focusing on simple concrete things like being super accurate with calories and logging was helpful for me.
I did tend to be someone who overestimated if anything, though, and did not have a problem losing.13 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
I think you are right as to how the question normally gets asked.
I think obviously people should not eat insane amounts of sugar.
But I also think that if one (1) eats appropriate calories; (2) is in a deficit and/or not someone who does a ton of cardio; and (3) makes an effort to eat a healthful diet with adequate protein and fiber and micronutrients, then one is simply not able to eat excessive amounts of sugar very often.
If someone says "I just ate a cookie, will I lose weight" or "can I eat chocolate and lose," I don't assume they are planning to eat a diet made up largely of those foods, I assume they are asking "can I fit these in in a moderate amount and lose."
Some people, of course, don't want to change their diets, and they aren't usually the people asking the questions/getting the advice, and they know it's not healthy to make up their diets of a huge amount of sugary snacks -- everyone already knows that.
So the whole thing about people saying it makes no difference if you eat tons of sugar and an overall poor diet is basically a strawman, IMO.14 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.12 -
"You can't get bulky by accident"
Which is just straight up not true. I understand the sentiment, it's saying that you are not going to suddenly become muscular without doing anything that would allow this to happen.
But I have several cases of anecdotal evidence from people who do not lift where they have unintentionally become more bulky than they'd like/realised. This is when you're doing an exercise that builds muscles, but you don't realise it.
Like my friend did when she took up rowing. Or like me when for years, literal years, I thought I just had fat arms. The reason I cannot wear long sleeved blouses or find blazers that fit was because of my fat arms. Until another (female) judo player mentioned, in passing, how they hated how they couldn't wear long sleeves as clothing companies don't think that women should have muscles and how judo players have muscular arms. And yeah, suddenly it made sense, when I tense my muscles I can see that there's a lot there, and that, yeah, I have got bulky by accident. For reference: I don't lift, I don't go to the gym, I don't do weight exercises. I judo twice a week and that's all the strength related training I do. And this has been the case for years. So no, it is certainly possible to become bulky by accident.26 -
This content has been removed.
-
"You can't get bulky by accident"
Which is just straight up not true. I understand the sentiment, it's saying that you are not going to suddenly become muscular without doing anything that would allow this to happen.
But I have several cases of anecdotal evidence from people who do not lift where they have unintentionally become more bulky than they'd like/realised. This is when you're doing an exercise that builds muscles, but you don't realise it.
Like my friend did when she took up rowing. Or like me when for years, literal years, I thought I just had fat arms. The reason I cannot wear long sleeved blouses or find blazers that fit was because of my fat arms. Until another (female) judo player mentioned, in passing, how they hated how they couldn't wear long sleeves as clothing companies don't think that women should have muscles and how judo players have muscular arms. And yeah, suddenly it made sense, when I tense my muscles I can see that there's a lot there, and that, yeah, I have got bulky by accident. For reference: I don't lift, I don't go to the gym, I don't do weight exercises. I judo twice a week and that's all the strength related training I do. And this has been the case for years. So no, it is certainly possible to become bulky by accident.
Must be genetics. I did judo for years, and never got "bulky". Two+ years hardcore in the gym, though? Yep, SUPAH BULKY!!! 15
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions