Article: Athletes Vs. Exercisers

Disagree. An athlete in someone competing in athletics. I do not consider myself an athlete but I exercise for much deeper reasons than to be social or have fun.

He lost me at the first (unintelligible) sentence.

I think the intent of the article had a lot of merit in the fact that some people make excuses, while others just do what it takes. I think the way it was conveyed was a poor choice of words and style.

Not really buying it. The "exercisers" group has some pretty sweeping generalizations.

Half the people I know who exercise don't do it because it's "fun" they do it because they want to stay fit and healthy.

As far as I'm concerned, I think athletes are those who compete in athletics. (like a mavd said). There are plenty of "exercisers" who stick to their plans and are just as focused on their goals as his so-called athletes.

The dude seems pretty full of himself.
I would never consider myself an athlete. Nor do I fit his definition of an exerciser.
I don't compete in anything since I was forced to retire from martial arts training. But I wasn't exactly "competitive" when I was training. More of a stepping stone for my opponents to get to the next round in sparring.
When I go to the Y I don't spend much, if any time, talking to anyone other than my kids or my trainer. I'm more focused on keeping my heart rate up.
I have goals that I am working toward. And those goals change as I discover new ways to define my goals.
I suspect I am closer to what most people here consider themselves. Few people that fit this guy's definition of "athlete" would even consider MFP anyway. That would be considered seeking an "external solution."

This was my comment on his blog:

"You know how many "athletes" I've come across, that love their sport & do it whenever they can, but you can't get their lazy butt to do real workouts that might improve their game? Nor are they disciplined enough to take anything serious that might be construed as work outside their game? "

Talk about generalizations!

This was my comment on his blog:

"You know how many "athletes" I've come across, that love their sport & do it whenever they can, but you can't get their lazy butt to do real workouts that might improve their game? Nor are they disciplined enough to take anything serious that might be construed as work outside their game? "

Talk about generalizations!

I consider my daughter an "athlete" and like tharrop says, she does not have the discipline to do anything outside of scheduled practices to improve her game.

On the other hand, I consider myself an "exerciser", not an athlete. I do get up before work 3 days a week to work out. I work out at lunch 3-5 days a week. And anything else I can work into that, I am in! Running, basketball, cleaning, whatever. I love it! I eat as clean as possible with exceptions of course, while my child will eat crap and not think twice about it.

Maybe Alex shouldn't use the terms athlete and exerciser. Doesn't really fit into what we know or experience.

I believe I am approximately 14.3952 % dumber for having read that.

Jynus makes a point. I think there are significant differences that can be generalized, to an extent. There's a huge shift in mindset between training to lose those extra inches, and training so you can do the things you love. In my limited experience, at some point it stops being about weight, and it becomes all about building enough strength to run that extra mile, add that extra pound, or last just one minute longer in the ring. You find what you love, and you'll do anything to make doing it possible. You start training to become the person who can meet those goals, not just a person who exercises. It can change the way you see things.

However, I also think the author made some harsh and sweeping generalizations about "exercisers" that managed to discredit the rest of the article. Some of his points are valid, and worth considering, but they may have come across more clearly without the veiled value judgement.