Does anyone else dislike exercise?

neandermagnon

There is nothing politically correct about biology, the basics of metabolics, or the brutal process of evolution.

Mother nature could care less what any of us think, or how fulfilling our lives are- except she wants as many babies from us as possible.

It is a cruel world.

Evolution doesn't *want* anything. There is no end point in evolution or purpose. Anything that can survive and breed does so and leaves its genes in the next generation. There's absolutely no purpose to it whatsoever. It just happens. It leads to greater complexity and greater adaptation to the environment because individuals who have random mutations that make them better at surviving and breeding, survive and breed better and leave more copies of their genes in the next generation. (Although becoming too well adapted can be disadvantageous when the environment changes and can even result in extinction due to failure to adapt quickly enough to the new environment.)

I don't get why atheists would personify nature or give it purpose. Nature doesn't want anything, it just is.

As for fulfilling lives - enjoying the things that are necessary to survive and breed, and thriving as opposed to surviving, means you are more likely to leave your genes in the next generation. Natural selection DOES select for traits that allow individuals to thrive as opposed to merely survive - they leave more copies of their genes in the next generation. In fact the ability to survive and breed better than others is pretty much what natural selection is all about. Until the invention of contraceptives, a more fullfilling life generally did involve breeding more - more success at getting laid and greater desire to get laid, to put it bluntly. Physically and mentally healthy humans tend to want lots of sex. But if you get into the dynamics of the evolution of co-operation and altruism, not every individual in a population needs to breed for the population to thrive. What remains in the next generation is genes. Whatever helps those genes to be in the next generation is what counts, not necessarily whether individuals breed. If close kin survive better because of the actions of a non-breeding individual, then genes that code for that behaviour still end up in the next generation. So to say that the only purpose of evolution is to have lots of babies is not quite correct - 1. there's no purpose, and 2. you don't have to breed to get favourable genes in the next generation, if your behaviour is helping close kin to breed more successfully.

likitisplit

I have long held a belief that people with naturally more muscles are more likely to enjoy physical exercise, similarly people with not much don't. Do people agree or disagree with this idea?

That's probably a belief based on observation of the end results, and jumping to a conclusion: if you do exercise, you will have bigger muscles because you use them more than someone who doesn't. Everyone can increase muscle mass, and once they do, you will conclude they like exercise. But that assumption doesn't follow through. I know people who love it who are skinny/lightly muscled and those who call it a "necessary evil", and some who hate it but who are very well muscled, obviously they love the results but not the exercise. I don't think it follows though at all, but I see how it is easy to make such an assumption without looking deeper.

Babies aren't born buff. There really isn't such a large variation typically that many have "naturally have big muscles", and when they do, sometimes they aren't that strong! There is variation in density of muscle, both in the sexes and from person to person, and denser muscle is not as large. I know many people who look "buffer" than me, who just are not as strong. I also knew of some who didn't look as strong as I did, who were, or at least were much stronger than expected by visual approximation. So your visual estimation of who has bigger muscles and likely to like exercise is already starting off very poor as a judgement. Then consider, easier weight gain and obesity also tends to lead to "bigger muscles", and obesity commonly appears to be paired with "easier muscle growth" too, using your assumption, we conclude that obese people are more likely to like exercise? I think not, it appears to be a thoroughly bad assumption.

More often than not, what is happening is more use of the muscles = bigger muscles, which leads to more positive experience in exercise results, which leads to positive feelings about exercise, causing a feedback loop to encourage more exercise, and more muscle growth and better success/feelings/results etc. But some of us still feel the pain each and every single time, despite those who think there is some "natural advantage because you like it".

One belief that put me at a disadvantage for years was the people who, say, did cartwheels found them easy. I now realize that people who do cartwheels actually find them as challenging as I do, it's just that they have become accustomed and coordinated in the face of the challenge. They are fun BECAUSE they are challenging.

neandermagnon

Steve, you have a lot of energy about this. Makes me wonder if we define 'exercise' differently.

I think there is a difference between exercising and being active. 'Exercising' just-to-burn-calories-so-you-won't-look-fat does sound like painful drudgery. But doing something active because you enjoy it is quite different.

And everyone enjoys different 'active-ities.' Free to be you and me -- that kind of thing

No "delusional" people required -- just people who have different ideas of what is fun.

Exercise to me is not sports, or what you do in the course of your day- like delivering the mail or doing manual labor.

Exercise is repetitive activity with no other purpose than to burn off calories for weight loss.

No other animal in creation does this.

I remember seeing a story about penguins at Seaworld swimming around their pool very fast for 24 hours, but I doubt they were consciously trying to lose weight.

If you LOVE to exercise the way I have defined it, then there is something wrong with you.

Think about it.

It is anti-evolutionary in that it serves no useful purpose. Exercise has NOT been shown to extend the average life-span in the normal-weighted person.

People who don't exercise live to procreate just as well as those do.

So if it is natural to LOVE to exercise, then why stop? Just keep on exercising and loving it more and more and burn more energy and expend more calories UNTIL YOU DIE!!!

See?

So it should be natural NOT to love to exercise- unless there is a goal you want to achieve that you LOVE that trumps nature- like looking in the mirror and not seeing a fat person.

But my real point is that there are other ways to lose weight. Society tells you false information about food, the need for food, and the necessity of a morning meal. This throws off one's hunger "set-point" resulting in far too many people in obesity.

It is a boon to the fitness industry and breakfast food companies, however.

Well, we see things differently. You've chosen a purely biological viewpoint. Most people don't take a purely biological approach to life.

I know that for many people, exercise/active-ities/physically-pushing-oneself can bring great joy and satisfaction. Not for everyone, but not much appeals to everyone --even sex/reproduction.

Personally, I find it hard to understand how anyone can just sit around all the time without becoming delusional.

I take a purely biological viewpoint to this and it's very easy to explain how enjoyment of things that are necessary for survival - including physical exertion - evolved.

Additionally, artistic expression and creativity can also be explained by natural selection. Greater creativity, attention to detail, imagination, etc = the ability to make better hunting weapons. It's thought by many that it's this trait explains the sudden and vast increase in cultural evolution and technological development associated with the upper palaeolithic. i.e. that upper palaeolithic Homo sapiens sapiens was (and is, because we're the same subspecies) more creative than middle palaeolithic humans of all species. And while this trait may be viewed as merely functional, as in it leads to more success at hunting - in particular long range hunting weapons that reduces the risk of sustaining hunting injuries and therefore increase their ability to survive and breed - the experience of having such a brain means the enjoyment of art, music, dancing, painting, flintknapping to make something that's beautiful as well as functional, appreciation of colour, texture and all of that.... for such an individual, a life without those things would be depressing - and failing to utilise those abilities would reduce their chance of surviving and breeding. So while it's correct that ultimately all that counts is leaving your genes in the next generation - it's erroneous to remove enjoying life and enjoying the things that you need to do to survive from the equation - that is a trait that is selected for and increases an individual's and a population's chances of leaving their genes in the next generation. Evidence: the evolution of our species and our need to express ourselves beyond mere survival.

likitisplit

Steve, you have a lot of energy about this. Makes me wonder if we define 'exercise' differently.

I think there is a difference between exercising and being active. 'Exercising' just-to-burn-calories-so-you-won't-look-fat does sound like painful drudgery. But doing something active because you enjoy it is quite different.

And everyone enjoys different 'active-ities.' Free to be you and me -- that kind of thing

No "delusional" people required -- just people who have different ideas of what is fun.

Exercise to me is not sports, or what you do in the course of your day- like delivering the mail or doing manual labor.

Exercise is repetitive activity with no other purpose than to burn off calories for weight loss.

No other animal in creation does this.

I remember seeing a story about penguins at Seaworld swimming around their pool very fast for 24 hours, but I doubt they were consciously trying to lose weight.

If you LOVE to exercise the way I have defined it, then there is something wrong with you.

Think about it.

It is anti-evolutionary in that it serves no useful purpose. Exercise has NOT been shown to extend the average life-span in the normal-weighted person.

People who don't exercise live to procreate just as well as those do.

So if it is natural to LOVE to exercise, then why stop? Just keep on exercising and loving it more and more and burn more energy and expend more calories UNTIL YOU DIE!!!

See?

So it should be natural NOT to love to exercise- unless there is a goal you want to achieve that you LOVE that trumps nature- like looking in the mirror and not seeing a fat person.

But my real point is that there are other ways to lose weight. Society tells you false information about food, the need for food, and the necessity of a morning meal. This throws off one's hunger "set-point" resulting in far too many people in obesity.

It is a boon to the fitness industry and breakfast food companies, however.

Well, we see things differently. You've chosen a purely biological viewpoint. Most people don't take a purely biological approach to life.

I know that for many people, exercise/active-ities/physically-pushing-oneself can bring great joy and satisfaction. Not for everyone, but not much appeals to everyone --even sex/reproduction.

Personally, I find it hard to understand how anyone can just sit around all the time without becoming delusional.

I take a purely biological viewpoint to this and it's very easy to explain how enjoyment of things that are necessary for survival - including physical exertion - evolved.

Additionally, artistic expression and creativity can also be explained by natural selection. Greater creativity, attention to detail, imagination, etc = the ability to make better hunting weapons. It's thought by many that it's this trait explains the sudden and vast increase in cultural evolution and technological development associated with the upper palaeolithic. i.e. that upper palaeolithic Homo sapiens sapiens was (and is, because we're the same subspecies) more creative than middle palaeolithic humans of all species. And while this trait may be viewed as merely functional, as in it leads to more success at hunting - in particular long range hunting weapons that reduces the risk of sustaining hunting injuries and therefore increase their ability to survive and breed - the experience of having such a brain means the enjoyment of art, music, dancing, painting, flintknapping to make something that's beautiful as well as functional, appreciation of colour, texture and all of that.... for such an individual, a life without those things would be depressing - and failing to utilise those abilities would reduce their chance of surviving and breeding. So while it's correct that ultimately all that counts is leaving your genes in the next generation - it's erroneous to remove enjoying life and enjoying the things that you need to do to survive from the equation - that is a trait that is selected for and increases an individual's and a population's chances of leaving their genes in the next generation. Evidence: the evolution of our species and our need to express ourselves beyond mere survival.

I've thought that a sense of beauty was a mechanism to alert us to important natural events. I have no science. But when you think about what we find beautiful, a lot of it are things like flowers (precursors to fruit), weather patterns, seasonal changes, baby animals...things that have a pretty big survival payoff in the future if you note them.

neandermagnon

Steve, you have a lot of energy about this. Makes me wonder if we define 'exercise' differently.

I think there is a difference between exercising and being active. 'Exercising' just-to-burn-calories-so-you-won't-look-fat does sound like painful drudgery. But doing something active because you enjoy it is quite different.

And everyone enjoys different 'active-ities.' Free to be you and me -- that kind of thing

No "delusional" people required -- just people who have different ideas of what is fun.

Exercise to me is not sports, or what you do in the course of your day- like delivering the mail or doing manual labor.

Exercise is repetitive activity with no other purpose than to burn off calories for weight loss.

No other animal in creation does this.

I remember seeing a story about penguins at Seaworld swimming around their pool very fast for 24 hours, but I doubt they were consciously trying to lose weight.

If you LOVE to exercise the way I have defined it, then there is something wrong with you.

Think about it.

It is anti-evolutionary in that it serves no useful purpose. Exercise has NOT been shown to extend the average life-span in the normal-weighted person.

People who don't exercise live to procreate just as well as those do.

So if it is natural to LOVE to exercise, then why stop? Just keep on exercising and loving it more and more and burn more energy and expend more calories UNTIL YOU DIE!!!

See?

So it should be natural NOT to love to exercise- unless there is a goal you want to achieve that you LOVE that trumps nature- like looking in the mirror and not seeing a fat person.

But my real point is that there are other ways to lose weight. Society tells you false information about food, the need for food, and the necessity of a morning meal. This throws off one's hunger "set-point" resulting in far too many people in obesity.

It is a boon to the fitness industry and breakfast food companies, however.

Well, we see things differently. You've chosen a purely biological viewpoint. Most people don't take a purely biological approach to life.

I know that for many people, exercise/active-ities/physically-pushing-oneself can bring great joy and satisfaction. Not for everyone, but not much appeals to everyone --even sex/reproduction.

Personally, I find it hard to understand how anyone can just sit around all the time without becoming delusional.

I take a purely biological viewpoint to this and it's very easy to explain how enjoyment of things that are necessary for survival - including physical exertion - evolved.

Additionally, artistic expression and creativity can also be explained by natural selection. Greater creativity, attention to detail, imagination, etc = the ability to make better hunting weapons. It's thought by many that it's this trait explains the sudden and vast increase in cultural evolution and technological development associated with the upper palaeolithic. i.e. that upper palaeolithic Homo sapiens sapiens was (and is, because we're the same subspecies) more creative than middle palaeolithic humans of all species. And while this trait may be viewed as merely functional, as in it leads to more success at hunting - in particular long range hunting weapons that reduces the risk of sustaining hunting injuries and therefore increase their ability to survive and breed - the experience of having such a brain means the enjoyment of art, music, dancing, painting, flintknapping to make something that's beautiful as well as functional, appreciation of colour, texture and all of that.... for such an individual, a life without those things would be depressing - and failing to utilise those abilities would reduce their chance of surviving and breeding. So while it's correct that ultimately all that counts is leaving your genes in the next generation - it's erroneous to remove enjoying life and enjoying the things that you need to do to survive from the equation - that is a trait that is selected for and increases an individual's and a population's chances of leaving their genes in the next generation. Evidence: the evolution of our species and our need to express ourselves beyond mere survival.

I've thought that a sense of beauty was a mechanism to alert us to important natural events. I have no science. But when you think about what we find beautiful, a lot of it are things like flowers (precursors to fruit), weather patterns, seasonal changes, baby animals...things that have a pretty big survival payoff in the future if you note them.

yes I agree, and this also was possibly part of what separated upper palaeolithic humans from middle palaeolithic i.e. pretty crucial to our evolution.

another interesting thing is the fact that humans find sparkly things and open bodies of water beautiful... before we evolved the ability to rationalise - so maybe in Australopithcines or early Homo, finding water beautiful led to populations making their home close to water, which meant easy access to water, which meant greater survival. So even before you get to the evolution of higher cognitive functions like spotting patterns and cycles in nature, you have natural selection in favour of individuals who find environments that are easier to survive in more beautiful and who therefore set up home in them.

RHachicho

Well in the end of the day you can believe what you like. Personally I'm a Pagan. (No not a Wiccan a Pagan. I don't believe in any magic spells) i absolutely do believe in the inherent spirituality in nature, science and in everything that exists. So it frustrates me to see someone try to make out like they are coming in from an Atheist perspective. And then enshrine mother nature like some cruel unforgiving god in the next.

And while neandermagnon I do not agree with your definition of things I can understand that you come from a firmly held and sensible belief in the state of things. I personally do not think every action and behavior can be reduced to a means of survival and reproduction. But that is my belief. And acting like my belief is better than yours and trying to convince you to think as I do is actually against my religion.

graysmom2005

Nobody loves exercise. We do it for the benefits. It's part of being an adult, doing things we'd rather not.

That said, I am never sorry after a work out. But I am almost never pumped to go beforehand. It's always the reward afterward that makes me glad I did it.

You can't say nobody loves exercise! LOL! I actually do love to exercise, but only because I found the workouts that I have FUN doing. That ain't the treadmill or stair master. It took a while of finding instructors that I love, that play awesome music, and programs that I actually look forward to doing. Spin with an amazing instructor and the Les Mills programs all do it for me. I have so much fun in Combat and Jam and Pump. And I'll do anything to loud rocking music. You gotta just find something you enjoy, and it makes it play and not work. :-)

LiftAllThePizzas

Reducing the rich interesting creatures that humans are to mere vessels for DNA is perhaps the saddest thing of all. Even if there is nothing spiritual about the universe. Which I don't really believe. That still means that DNA has no more purpose to exist than any individual human being.

In fact to the human in question in that case DNA is almost like a parasite. Hanging onto our life and burdening us with children to take care of until we wear out and die preserving it's prerogative. It tempts us into a life of service and slavery with the reproductive urge that is ultimately of no benefit to us whatsoever. This argument is absolutely RIDICULOUS of course. But no more so than the one you seem to ascribe to.

So you're saying I want to be special because I want to be special and if I'm not special then I won't be special, therefore I am special. And also this other thing that is nothing like reality would also be true (even though it wouldn't and isn't) so as you can see this false dichotomy supports my worldview.

QueenBishOTUniverse

There is nothing politically correct about biology, the basics of metabolics, or the brutal process of evolution.

Mother nature could care less what any of us think, or how fulfilling our lives are- except she wants as many babies from us as possible.

It is a cruel world.

Evolution doesn't *want* anything. There is no end point in evolution or purpose. Anything that can survive and breed does so and leaves its genes in the next generation. There's absolutely no purpose to it whatsoever. It just happens. It leads to greater complexity and greater adaptation to the environment because individuals who have random mutations that make them better at surviving and breeding, survive and breed better and leave more copies of their genes in the next generation. (Although becoming too well adapted can be disadvantageous when the environment changes and can even result in extinction due to failure to adapt quickly enough to the new environment.)

I don't get why atheists would personify nature or give it purpose. Nature doesn't want anything, it just is.

Oh jeebus thank you! All of this ascribing intent to biological processes was about to make my eyes bleed.

RHachicho

Reducing the rich interesting creatures that humans are to mere vessels for DNA is perhaps the saddest thing of all. Even if there is nothing spiritual about the universe. Which I don't really believe. That still means that DNA has no more purpose to exist than any individual human being.

In fact to the human in question in that case DNA is almost like a parasite. Hanging onto our life and burdening us with children to take care of until we wear out and die preserving it's prerogative. It tempts us into a life of service and slavery with the reproductive urge that is ultimately of no benefit to us whatsoever. This argument is absolutely RIDICULOUS of course. But no more so than the one you seem to ascribe to.

So you're saying I want to be special because I want to be special and if I'm not special then I won't be special, therefore I am special. And also this other thing that is nothing like reality would also be true (even though it wouldn't and isn't) so as you can see this false dichotomy supports my worldview.

No I'm saying that I believe that everything is special. But if you believe that nothing is special then neither is "Mother Nature" or DNA. And there is really no point in even having kids. Why would an intelligent organism pay into a system with zero benefits to it. After all the survival of the species does not mean their survival.

The truth is that evolution does not work like an all knowing machine. Depending on the situation unfavorable traits can and are selected for. The truth is that no one in this topic knows the be all end all answers for this kind of questions. I just hate know it all's who try and make out like they know the whole damn score. It's really no better than priests prattling about the absolute "word of god". It's just an excuse to tell themselves they actually understand the way the world and even the universe works.

Truth is we are an intelligent species of apes and though we have come a long way since our cave dwelling days what we understand about the world and the universe is still literally dwarfed by what we don't. Therefore I find people who make out like they got everything figured out rather cowardly. It's like they are running from their ignorance for the safety of fake surety. It's the exact same bullheaded I know better than you-ism that an advocate of a dogmatic religion would preach.

Truth is I don't KNOW anything for sure. I have my beliefs and positions. Which you are free to mock if you think they are wrong. But I would think less of you for that. Now don't get me wrong I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. But the way Steve098 talks it's like a matter of fact . No! I am right about this! Everyone else is wrong! This is how it is! Is just arrogant and disrespectful.

It's not his message I argue with It may well be correct. it's his attitude.