Health is more than body size. Don't use the scale to measure health.
Options
Replies
-
So I read the study provided by Tomatoey and now I see where some of the issues are coming from; when I hear injury, I'm an idiot and think injury. When I read the subjects #1 injury(defined by any pain post run) was tibial stress syndrome I realize this study isn't describing injury, it is describing pain. It is very common for a novice runner to get shin splints or tibial stress syndrome. Also, the study allowed people with existing injuries to count those injuries in their findings. Interesting study.0
-
Some people SUCK at running and will almost certainly hurt themselves if they do it long enough bc their mechanics for it are terrible.
When you say their biomechanics are "terrible" what do you mean specifically?
Do think they will inevitably get badly injured even with strategies to minimise risk (such as drills to improve running form or most runs done at any easy pace?)
0 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I think it is so dangerous to promote the idea that you can be "healthy" and overweight to young people. It discourages them against even trying to moderate how much they eat and eat healthy.
I disagree. I think it's an excellent "come as you are" message, when it comes to improving your health. Most of us didn't fall out of bed being svelte, fitness glamazons. We all started somewhere
To me the message is, "don't hide in your basement eating Cheetos by yourself all day (yeah I know that's a stereotype, but work with me here), come out and play ball". It says, "don't be a recluse just because you're fat. Come out, be active, and socialize with your people who feel the sun and moon rise and set on your face". Just live, Just Be.
0 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I think it is so dangerous to promote the idea that you can be "healthy" and overweight to young people. It discourages them against even trying to moderate how much they eat and eat healthy.
I disagree. I think it's an excellent "come as you are" message, when it comes to improving your health. Most of us didn't fall out of bed being svelte, fitness glamazons. We all started somewhere
To me the message is, "don't hide in your basement eating Cheetos by yourself all day (yeah I know that's a stereotype, but work with me here), come out and play ball". It says, "don't be a recluse just because you're fat. Come out, be active, and socialize with your people who feel the sun and moon rise and set on your face". Just live, Just Be.
This would have been the message, and it would have been a beautiful message, if it was any average person in this cover who just happens to be overweight and loves running. But, it was not some random runner with extra weight. It is about a young girl who is making a living out of selling her "fatness". It is not about "come as you are", it is about "fat is beautiful" and now we are also telling you "fat is healthy".0 -
Having not read the article, just on looks/layout alone, the Cover doesn't make me want to buy that issue. Or get a subscription for that matter.
0 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I think it is so dangerous to promote the idea that you can be "healthy" and overweight to young people. It discourages them against even trying to moderate how much they eat and eat healthy.
I disagree. I think it's an excellent "come as you are" message, when it comes to improving your health. Most of us didn't fall out of bed being svelte, fitness glamazons. We all started somewhere
To me the message is, "don't hide in your basement eating Cheetos by yourself all day (yeah I know that's a stereotype, but work with me here), come out and play ball". It says, "don't be a recluse just because you're fat. Come out, be active, and socialize with your people who feel the sun and moon rise and set on your face". Just live, Just Be.
This would have been the message, and it would have been a beautiful message, if it was any average person in this cover who just happens to be overweight and loves running. But, it was not some random runner with extra weight. It is about a young girl who is making a living out of selling her "fatness". It is not about "come as you are", it is about "fat is beautiful" and now we are also telling you "fat is healthy".
If she were my friend or my daughter and she were fat, I would think she was beautiful. Honestly here's what I really think about all this:
You go, girl!
You can do it!
Dominate your workout!
Don't be silly - no one's looking at you, get out there and enjoy yourself...
... Just don't do it on my magazine cover
0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »But sometimes it is wiser/better to keep opinions to your self
Some people might have better outcomes than I did if they stayed away from running, and that would make me happy even if I annoyed some people.
IKR? Nothing makes me happier than convincing people to never try to achieve their goals and to live in fear of what might happen. Any day that I can convince somebody to just settle for mediocrity is a good day. Glad we agree on that
Running gets touted all over the place as being the "best cardio to lose weight" (highest calorie burn, free, slims legs down - have a google on the quoted phrase to see what comes up). The hype makes it sound really good to people who otherwise would be just as happy swimming or cycling or dancing. If people's goals mostly involve losing some weight and being more active, there are approximately 50 things I can think of that could accomplish that without ligament damage being a reasonably high probability (not just possibility). If people really want to be runners, they're obviously just going to do it. They'll do what they want anyway.
I don't think anyone can accuse me of running around the forums touting the awesomeness of running. It's fairly well known that I'd rather get shot in the face than run a single mile. I don't think that ability to run X distance is the end all be all of fitness. I don't think running is THE way to lose weight.
And yet, nobody can accuse me of running around the forums discouraging people from running, either. If someone wants to run, go run. I'll give them what little I have to offer when it comes to running advice. I HATE running, but I'm willing to encourage people to run if that's what they want to do. So you trying to flag everyone away from it is patently ridiculous.
Injury rates? Whatever. I guess you've never played a single sport in your life. Because do you know what the injury rate for sports are? Any sport? It's 100%. Because if your do anything hard enough and long enough eventually you'll get some form of injury from it. Hell, secretaries develop overuse injuries. Are you going to neg everyone that wants to participate in a sport, too? You must be a blast at parties.
The other thing that's killing me here is how you keep saying that you don't want others to suffer the same injuries you have. That's.....wow. Just wow. I've read hundreds of your posts here in F&E since you arrived on MFP. I've answered a few of your questions. And the thing that stands out.....not to put too fine a point on it.....but you're injury prone. I'm not saying that as an insult. Heck, It's a running joke with my friends right now how often I get hurt doing stuff so I understand getting hurt so I'm not making fun of that at all.
But from your posts, you've gotten seriously injured from essentially every strenous endeavor you've engaged in. Hey, that happens, and I'm truly sorry it's been that way for you. But that makes you an outlier. To assume that *everyone else* is highly likely to suffer the same fate that you have if they try a particular activity is PREPOSTEROUS. just like if I sent people to the free weight section and expected them all to lift the same amounts as me and progress at the same rate as me. I don't do that. I give them advice *as it pertains to them*, not me, and then wish them the best of luck. It would be nice if you'd consider doing the same.
I'm flattered that you read my posts that attentively.
Nice straw man, though - I *don't* assume "everyone" will deal with the kinds of problems I've had. I think there's probably a bell curve re genetic fit for most sports (in terms of anthropometry, collagen type and distribution, etc etc), and that the ones in the bottom third for running, in this case, are just going to be less lucky in terms of vulnerability to injury, regardless of training variables.
You can laugh at the injury rates if you want. They might be irrelevant to hardcore athletes, most of whom yeah, probably do get injured eventually. (And also have the training years, coaching, knowledge, and *access to good rehab care* to return to their sport in a reasonable timeframe.)
However, I'm willing to bet that most people on here *aren't* athletes, and are more interested in losing weight, or getting reasonably fit, or looking hot on the beach, than pursuing athletic excellence. I'd bet most would rather be athletically "mediocre" and buff, or be able to stay active over the long haul, than be injured and heroic in the short term. The injury rates might matter to some of them.
My advice was directed to those who might reasonably determine their risk of injury, based on past experience, or current weight. I said a few times that it comes down to *appetite for risk*. That's another way people differ, and it would be great if you could have an understanding of that. You obviously think of caution as something negative, ok. I have an equally unfavorable view of encouraging people to do things that might harm them unnecessarily.
I have actually very much appreciated your input on my past questions.
(And I am fun at parties until people get on the subject of running.)
"Never try anything because, based on my extensive personal experience, it's not if you get hurt, it's when. ESPECIALLY running, it's the devil."
- Tomatoey
There. Just make this your signature line. It sums up everything you've said in this thread with 99.9% less superfluous verbage.
I realize it's hard to keep track when there are a lot of words. Here's the more concise version again
What does that even mean?
How do you know you're good at running before you decide to try running?
I feel like almost no one has not had the opportunity to run (unlike say SCUBA diving or pole dancing) but admit this may not be true for everyone.
The following is my opinion (albeit one shared by at least two of my past physiotherapists):
Some people are built to run. Great biomechanics for running. They're like gazelles, beautiful to watch. They know they can run because when they do it, it's easy and feels good (vs bad).
Some people are ok at running. Medium biomechanics for running, maybe not perfect but they can make it work without hurting themselves.
Some people SUCK at running and will almost certainly hurt themselves if they do it long enough bc their mechanics for it are terrible.
The issue is when people THINK they're in group 2 but are actually in group 3. That can be long term bad news bears (it happened to me).
Many people who are ACTUALLY in group 2 will probably be fine, but there's no real way to know until you've already hurt yourself, possibly permanently
That's weird. I would have thought that this would be the more concise version.
But I guess we have different opinions on what "concise" means just like we have different opinions on what constitutes "injury".
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »So I read the study provided by Tomatoey and now I see where some of the issues are coming from; when I hear injury, I'm an idiot and think injury. When I read the subjects #1 injury(defined by any pain post run) was tibial stress syndrome I realize this study isn't describing injury, it is describing pain. It is very common for a novice runner to get shin splints or tibial stress syndrome. Also, the study allowed people with existing injuries to count those injuries in their findings. Interesting study.
EXACTLY. that's what makes it so insane to use that study as the basis for anything, much less a reason that no one should even try running. Well no one, except the thin people "that already know" they are good at it, of course.
As soon as they spouted that fifty percent of people got injured, it was obvious that we were being fed propaganda. That number isn't supported by anything any of us have experienced in real life. Half the people I know need surgery after running for a year? LolNO. Ohhhhhh, half the people have an ouchie??? Oh, let's totes direct everyone to zumba classes then.
0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »But sometimes it is wiser/better to keep opinions to your self
Some people might have better outcomes than I did if they stayed away from running, and that would make me happy even if I annoyed some people.
IKR? Nothing makes me happier than convincing people to never try to achieve their goals and to live in fear of what might happen. Any day that I can convince somebody to just settle for mediocrity is a good day. Glad we agree on that
Running gets touted all over the place as being the "best cardio to lose weight" (highest calorie burn, free, slims legs down - have a google on the quoted phrase to see what comes up). The hype makes it sound really good to people who otherwise would be just as happy swimming or cycling or dancing. If people's goals mostly involve losing some weight and being more active, there are approximately 50 things I can think of that could accomplish that without ligament damage being a reasonably high probability (not just possibility). If people really want to be runners, they're obviously just going to do it. They'll do what they want anyway.
I don't think anyone can accuse me of running around the forums touting the awesomeness of running. It's fairly well known that I'd rather get shot in the face than run a single mile. I don't think that ability to run X distance is the end all be all of fitness. I don't think running is THE way to lose weight.
And yet, nobody can accuse me of running around the forums discouraging people from running, either. If someone wants to run, go run. I'll give them what little I have to offer when it comes to running advice. I HATE running, but I'm willing to encourage people to run if that's what they want to do. So you trying to flag everyone away from it is patently ridiculous.
Injury rates? Whatever. I guess you've never played a single sport in your life. Because do you know what the injury rate for sports are? Any sport? It's 100%. Because if your do anything hard enough and long enough eventually you'll get some form of injury from it. Hell, secretaries develop overuse injuries. Are you going to neg everyone that wants to participate in a sport, too? You must be a blast at parties.
The other thing that's killing me here is how you keep saying that you don't want others to suffer the same injuries you have. That's.....wow. Just wow. I've read hundreds of your posts here in F&E since you arrived on MFP. I've answered a few of your questions. And the thing that stands out.....not to put too fine a point on it.....but you're injury prone. I'm not saying that as an insult. Heck, It's a running joke with my friends right now how often I get hurt doing stuff so I understand getting hurt so I'm not making fun of that at all.
But from your posts, you've gotten seriously injured from essentially every strenous endeavor you've engaged in. Hey, that happens, and I'm truly sorry it's been that way for you. But that makes you an outlier. To assume that *everyone else* is highly likely to suffer the same fate that you have if they try a particular activity is PREPOSTEROUS. just like if I sent people to the free weight section and expected them all to lift the same amounts as me and progress at the same rate as me. I don't do that. I give them advice *as it pertains to them*, not me, and then wish them the best of luck. It would be nice if you'd consider doing the same.
I'm flattered that you read my posts that attentively.
Nice straw man, though - I *don't* assume "everyone" will deal with the kinds of problems I've had. I think there's probably a bell curve re genetic fit for most sports (in terms of anthropometry, collagen type and distribution, etc etc), and that the ones in the bottom third for running, in this case, are just going to be less lucky in terms of vulnerability to injury, regardless of training variables.
You can laugh at the injury rates if you want. They might be irrelevant to hardcore athletes, most of whom yeah, probably do get injured eventually. (And also have the training years, coaching, knowledge, and *access to good rehab care* to return to their sport in a reasonable timeframe.)
However, I'm willing to bet that most people on here *aren't* athletes, and are more interested in losing weight, or getting reasonably fit, or looking hot on the beach, than pursuing athletic excellence. I'd bet most would rather be athletically "mediocre" and buff, or be able to stay active over the long haul, than be injured and heroic in the short term. The injury rates might matter to some of them.
My advice was directed to those who might reasonably determine their risk of injury, based on past experience, or current weight. I said a few times that it comes down to *appetite for risk*. That's another way people differ, and it would be great if you could have an understanding of that. You obviously think of caution as something negative, ok. I have an equally unfavorable view of encouraging people to do things that might harm them unnecessarily.
I have actually very much appreciated your input on my past questions.
(And I am fun at parties until people get on the subject of running.)
"Never try anything because, based on my extensive personal experience, it's not if you get hurt, it's when. ESPECIALLY running, it's the devil."
- Tomatoey
There. Just make this your signature line. It sums up everything you've said in this thread with 99.9% less superfluous verbage.
I realize it's hard to keep track when there are a lot of words. Here's the more concise version again
What does that even mean?
How do you know you're good at running before you decide to try running?
I feel like almost no one has not had the opportunity to run (unlike say SCUBA diving or pole dancing) but admit this may not be true for everyone.
The following is my opinion (albeit one shared by at least two of my past physiotherapists):
Some people are built to run. Great biomechanics for running. They're like gazelles, beautiful to watch. They know they can run because when they do it, it's easy and feels good (vs bad).
Some people are ok at running. Medium biomechanics for running, maybe not perfect but they can make it work without hurting themselves.
Some people SUCK at running and will almost certainly hurt themselves if they do it long enough bc their mechanics for it are terrible.
The issue is when people THINK they're in group 2 but are actually in group 3. That can be long term bad news bears (it happened to me).
Many people who are ACTUALLY in group 2 will probably be fine, but there's no real way to know until you've already hurt yourself, possibly permanently
That word, concise, it doesn't mean what you think it means.0 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I think it is so dangerous to promote the idea that you can be "healthy" and overweight to young people. It discourages them against even trying to moderate how much they eat and eat healthy.
I disagree. I think it's an excellent "come as you are" message, when it comes to improving your health. Most of us didn't fall out of bed being svelte, fitness glamazons. We all started somewhere
To me the message is, "don't hide in your basement eating Cheetos by yourself all day (yeah I know that's a stereotype, but work with me here), come out and play ball". It says, "don't be a recluse just because you're fat. Come out, be active, and socialize with your people who feel the sun and moon rise and set on your face". Just live, Just Be.
This would have been the message, and it would have been a beautiful message, if it was any average person in this cover who just happens to be overweight and loves running. But, it was not some random runner with extra weight. It is about a young girl who is making a living out of selling her "fatness". It is not about "come as you are", it is about "fat is beautiful" and now we are also telling you "fat is healthy".
If she were my friend or my daughter and she were fat, I would think she was beautiful. Honestly here's what I really think about all this:
You go, girl!
You can do it!
Dominate your workout!
Don't be silly - no one's looking at you, get out there and enjoy yourself...
... Just don't do it on my magazine cover
If she were my daughter, I would have been encouraging her to lose weight so she can live past 30 without health problems, not letting her think of herself as a health role model. Beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, and it the end, what is visually appealing is completely subjective. Health is not. She is just getting out of her teens. Up to this point, her parents have been enabling her to become a morbidly obese kid. This not an act of love.0 -
So for the people who say being fat = unhealthy, what is your definition of healthy? What would I have to have to be healthy in your opinion? Is it being a certain weight (BMI)? Blood markers? Fitness test?0
-
LolNO. Ohhhhhh, half the people have an ouchie??? Oh, let's totes direct everyone to zumba classes then.
not to belabor a very very small joke- but I find this hysterical because watching people who aren't dancers- teaching high energy workouts that involve very specific dance movement with foot placements to avoid injury- just makes me cringe.
Seriously- pas de bourrée- I watch them do them in zumba- it requires specific foot placement with knee/leg turn out so you don't torque your knee.
I can promise you they don't know what foot pattern that is and where knees and toes are supposed to be pointed.
Add on sticky shoes? its' a recipe for injury.
Where as you can find way more running articles than the technical aspects of a proper turn out required for dance movement- which I can tell you zumba enthusiasts aren't going to be researching.
0 -
cheshirecatastrophe wrote: »
otherwise it becomes just another version of those ridiculous "women with her head back laughing whilst eating healthy food" (yeah, who actually does that?)
My salad is HILARIOUS, ok?
0 -
The fat part, depends on definition of fat. Fat can mean anything from having some weight to lose for personal preference to being morbidly obese. A BMI that gets you into a category where part of the label is "morbidly" for sure does not match any definition of healthy.So for the people who say being fat = unhealthy, what is your definition of healthy? What would I have to have to be healthy in your opinion? Is it being a certain weight (BMI)? Blood markers? Fitness test?
0 -
wut?
The fat part, depends on definition of fat. Fat can mean anything from having some weight to lose for personal preference to being morbidly obese. A BMI that gets you into a category where part of the label is "morbidly" for sure does not match any definition of healthy.So for the people who say being fat = unhealthy, what is your definition of healthy? What would I have to have to be healthy in your opinion? Is it being a certain weight (BMI)? Blood markers? Fitness test?
That's the quantity of it- not the actual definition of fat.
Fat is fat- how you define it isn't relevant to how much of it you have- those are two totally different topics.0 -
wut?
The fat part, depends on definition of fat. Fat can mean anything from having some weight to lose for personal preference to being morbidly obese. A BMI that gets you into a category where part of the label is "morbidly" for sure does not match any definition of healthy.So for the people who say being fat = unhealthy, what is your definition of healthy? What would I have to have to be healthy in your opinion? Is it being a certain weight (BMI)? Blood markers? Fitness test?
That's the quantity of it- not the actual definition of fat.
Fat is fat- how you define it isn't relevant to how much of it you have- those are two totally different topics.
I was using "fat" as in "I am fat". So, I guess "how much fat" would have been a better way to say this0 -
In your definition of healthy, would I be healthy? I'll provide some stats you might need:
The fat part, depends on definition of fat. Fat can mean anything from having some weight to lose for personal preference to being morbidly obese. A BMI that gets you into a category where part of the label is "morbidly" for sure does not match any definition of healthy.So for the people who say being fat = unhealthy, what is your definition of healthy? What would I have to have to be healthy in your opinion? Is it being a certain weight (BMI)? Blood markers? Fitness test?
- blood work tests fall into "normal"
- BMI 28.8 (overweight, 5'1", 152.4#)
- 50.9% BF as of February, 2015 from a bone density scan
- BP 122/76 (taken July 31, 2015)
- normal heart rate 59 (taken July 31, 2015)0 -
In your definition of healthy, would I be healthy? I'll provide some stats you might need:
The fat part, depends on definition of fat. Fat can mean anything from having some weight to lose for personal preference to being morbidly obese. A BMI that gets you into a category where part of the label is "morbidly" for sure does not match any definition of healthy.So for the people who say being fat = unhealthy, what is your definition of healthy? What would I have to have to be healthy in your opinion? Is it being a certain weight (BMI)? Blood markers? Fitness test?
- blood work tests fall into "normal"
- BMI 28.8 (overweight, 5'1", 152.4#)
- 50.9% BF as of February, 2015 from a bone density scan
- BP 122/76 (taken July 31, 2015)
- normal heart rate 59 (taken July 31, 2015)
At 260 pounds, I was able to complete a Tough Mudder. Even though I had the endurance, strength, and agility to complete the distance and the obstacles, I'm much much better off at a much lower weight. My labs were all in the perfectly normal range as well, but I have no qualms at all when my doctor says I need to lose weight.
I don't get to redefine healthy weight just because my health markers are good *right now*. The entire point of establishing health weight guidelines is that the risks go up as the weight goes up and go down as the weight goes down. Just because I don't have Type II diabetes today doesn't mean I shouldn't strive to improve in the ways that I can0 -
I am really wondering about this whole thread.
When i swear here be offensive, call peoples names to make give my opinion etc etc. i get a warnings or and posts removed, or get jailed or even banned.
But apparently i have to start making video's that are offensive and posts those as reaction in threads, because that seems to be allowed!0 -
wut?
The fat part, depends on definition of fat. Fat can mean anything from having some weight to lose for personal preference to being morbidly obese. A BMI that gets you into a category where part of the label is "morbidly" for sure does not match any definition of healthy.So for the people who say being fat = unhealthy, what is your definition of healthy? What would I have to have to be healthy in your opinion? Is it being a certain weight (BMI)? Blood markers? Fitness test?
That's the quantity of it- not the actual definition of fat.
Fat is fat- how you define it isn't relevant to how much of it you have- those are two totally different topics.
I was using "fat" as in "I am fat". So, I guess "how much fat" would have been a better way to say this
well everyone has fat- without fat you're pretty much dead. 0% fat is not a goal for which you should be striving.
But yes- ultimately a large part of health will be/can be determined by how much fat you have- and the fat/muscle ratio.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K 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
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions