Annoyances at the gym!
Options
Replies
-
azulvioleta6 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Wow are you judgemental on the people in group classes! And I say this as a former dancer. I'd rather have all of those unco-ordinated people in my class giving it a go. Key here is dance fitness, it's for all comers. It's hardly pro level ballet and a beginner rocks up (which by the way, the dancers would just work around in the class anyway).
I workout at home. So my lard *kitten* boy cat plonking himself in the middle of my space as I'm about to get going would be my annoyance!
LOL i can kinda understand where's she's coming from. I had the opposite problem, and this one woman still sticks in my mind years later. She used to stand up the very front of the class, her moves were like 10 times faster than the instructors, she didnt do any of them properly or even close, she reminded me of an orangutan flailing her arms and legs about. Why she came to a class with an instructor showing you moves confounded me, she just did her own thing to her own special beat of the music.
It was incredibly off putting standing behind her, and you could see the other people in the class behind and around her getting all uncoordinated, and god forbid if you stood too close as you would get a hit in your face or a kick in the shins. Everyone gave her a wide berth, she will always hold a special place in my heart, she really did give those classes her all.
It is the lack of self-awareness astounds me. Why do people like this not stand in the back where they have plenty of space and won't be so distracting? If you KNOW that you can't dance (and who, by adulthood, doesn't generally have a sense of this?) and you can't even begin to keep up or understand the timing, why would you pick this kind of activity? My observation is that it is often people who are young, thin and injury-free who are the most annoying in these kinds of situations--it's not that they make a few mistakes, it is that they are ALWAYS going in the wrong direction. They have no excuse for not being able to do the activity well, particularly when someone like me (older, larger frame, injuries/disabilities) can do it just fine.
If you know that you really don't have a propensity for a certain activity, why wouldn't you choose something else?
I honestly don't care that much as long as I don't have to risk getting smacked by someone. I injure very easily due to medical issues, and having to worry about getting run into by someone who is not trying hard enough isn't cool.
Seriously????
Out of all the fitness things out there, dance-based classes are some of the most fun and attractive to people of all sizes and skill levels. People like music. They like feeling like they're at a party. They like exercise to be fun, even if they're not very good at it. If you're so concerned about getting run into, go stand in the back corner where you have all the space you need, and let everyone else get a friggin' workout in too.13 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »So glad I don't go to the same gym as you, you sound like the kind of person I was worried about when I started going to the gym.azulvioleta6 wrote: »It's a long freaking list.
-people who wait ON the machines - Where do you want them to wait? Seriously confused with this one, not that I use machines other than lat pull down and assisted pull up
How is this confusing? Get OFF of the machine if you are not using it.
Stand in between machines, do a lap around the room, step aside, whatever makes sense in the particular space. What you do NOT have the right to do is to slow down someone else's workout for no reason.
If you spend 30 minutes sitting on a machine taking up space and checking your e-mail, you may be preventing me from finishing my circuit and being able to go home. If you need a chair, go find an actual chair somewhere else in the gym. Weight areas are not meant for sitting.
I'm curious, have you ever just nicely asked "Do you mind if I work in while you're resting between sets?"11 -
Nothing much. I mind my own business, and most lifters have mutual respect for what I'm doing and vise versa. The ones that don't, often back down from their behavior once they realize the size difference I suppose. I don't try to throw my size around, but I'm realizing that the young kids that get obnoxious in general are a bit intimidated by me so I guess gym etiquette is taught in some round about ways.1
-
Bookmarking this for the next time someone says "no one is paying attention to you" to a newbie worried about being judged at the gym.
Hygiene and consideration of others matter and will be noticed. This is true everywhere, not just at the gym.
I don't care what you look like, how fat you are, how you are dressed, etc., but be clean, be appropriate and don't get in the way of people who are serious about exercise.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »There's some evidence of people incorrectly associating bodybuilding with low iq's and I understand that PF's use of the word "lunk" perpetuates that myth, and can be considered offensive, but I would argue that if we were to try to measure who was on the lower rung of our social ladder, obese people or bodybuilders, I'd say it's easily obese people. If you could convince obese people to come to a gym without slamming bodybuilders, so much the better, but if calling bodybuilders "lunks" gets more obese people into the gym perhaps the end justifies the means. Bodybuilders have broad shoulders, figuratively speaking,
So it's just fine and dandy to put down a group of people who are tough enough to take it, as long as the fragile obese people are exercising?
Gotcha. Nice moral reasoning there.
Were it MY company I wouldn't use a derogatory term in my marketing even if it meant improved sales or profits. It's just not who I am. But I wouldn't sign a petition forcing PF to remove the word "lunk" unless someone could show me that it does nothing to increase the likelihood that obese people would go to the gym.
I can't see how my moral reasoning is faulty here, unless you believe that the whole "lunk" or "meathead" association with bodybuilders is increasing. I don't. IMO bodybuilding has become more mainstream and that association is decreasing.
1 -
Btw, I also agree with incentives to hire visible minorities. I tend to cheer for the underdog. Immoral?1
-
When the WiFi drops out and I'm in the middle of a battle on Boom Beach.
While simultaneously injuring people with my un-coordinated outbof time dancing whilst sitting on a machine whilst sweating all over a machine whilst farting and chewing gum.3 -
-
goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »There's some evidence of people incorrectly associating bodybuilding with low iq's and I understand that PF's use of the word "lunk" perpetuates that myth, and can be considered offensive, but I would argue that if we were to try to measure who was on the lower rung of our social ladder, obese people or bodybuilders, I'd say it's easily obese people. If you could convince obese people to come to a gym without slamming bodybuilders, so much the better, but if calling bodybuilders "lunks" gets more obese people into the gym perhaps the end justifies the means. Bodybuilders have broad shoulders, figuratively speaking,
So it's just fine and dandy to put down a group of people who are tough enough to take it, as long as the fragile obese people are exercising?
Gotcha. Nice moral reasoning there.
Were it MY company I wouldn't use a derogatory term in my marketing even if it meant improved sales or profits. It's just not who I am. But I wouldn't sign a petition forcing PF to remove the word "lunk" unless someone could show me that it does nothing to increase the likelihood that obese people would go to the gym.
I can't see how my moral reasoning is faulty here, unless you believe that the whole "lunk" or "meathead" association with bodybuilders is increasing. I don't. IMO bodybuilding has become more mainstream and that association is decreasing.
Moving goalposts here. Now the bar for questionable ethics in the scenario is that bodybuilders have to be actively harmed in an increasing fashion by PF's use of the term in order for this whole equivalence scenario your presented to be wrong.
You're the one who said it was okay, bodybuilders could take it, so sure, put them down so that the obese people felt comfortable.
Sure, Plus Size models can take it, they're rich and famous. So let me call them some name for their clothing choices that might be unflattering so people of size who can't afford to dress that way don't feel bad about themselves.
Same difference, right?1 -
goldthistime wrote: »Btw, I also agree with incentives to hire visible minorities. I tend to cheer for the underdog. Immoral?
Only if in the act of that incentivizing you're then discriminating against those without minority status. Then you'd have the equivalent of what you originally posted in your reasoning supporting Planet Fitness.0 -
I don't think he's saying its fine and dandy. Maybe the lesser evil.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »There's some evidence of people incorrectly associating bodybuilding with low iq's and I understand that PF's use of the word "lunk" perpetuates that myth, and can be considered offensive, but I would argue that if we were to try to measure who was on the lower rung of our social ladder, obese people or bodybuilders, I'd say it's easily obese people. If you could convince obese people to come to a gym without slamming bodybuilders, so much the better, but if calling bodybuilders "lunks" gets more obese people into the gym perhaps the end justifies the means. Bodybuilders have broad shoulders, figuratively speaking,
So it's just fine and dandy to put down a group of people who are tough enough to take it, as long as the fragile obese people are exercising?
Gotcha. Nice moral reasoning there.CorneliusPhoton wrote: »I had no idea that PF had an actual alarm that went off.
Same! I always thought the "lunk alarm" was figurative. Its a pretty amazing revelation. I have so many questions... Can anyone pull it? Is it not more disruptive than the grunting/dropping? Is it a volume thing? An intimidation thing? Like, if you drop the 5lb-ers, would you set it off? What happens to the perpetrator? Do they just go about their business after public humiliation? Looking for vids now cause there is no way someone does not flip their kitten after being adrenaline-fueled and called out in a public space. Moral issues aside, its got to be a fascinating social experiment.
Anyway, my biggest annoyance would be people trying to talk to you with your headphones in.1 -
I don't think he's saying its fine and dandy. Maybe the lesser evil.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »There's some evidence of people incorrectly associating bodybuilding with low iq's and I understand that PF's use of the word "lunk" perpetuates that myth, and can be considered offensive, but I would argue that if we were to try to measure who was on the lower rung of our social ladder, obese people or bodybuilders, I'd say it's easily obese people. If you could convince obese people to come to a gym without slamming bodybuilders, so much the better, but if calling bodybuilders "lunks" gets more obese people into the gym perhaps the end justifies the means. Bodybuilders have broad shoulders, figuratively speaking,
So it's just fine and dandy to put down a group of people who are tough enough to take it, as long as the fragile obese people are exercising?
Gotcha. Nice moral reasoning there.CorneliusPhoton wrote: »I had no idea that PF had an actual alarm that went off.
Same! I always thought the "lunk alarm" was figurative. Its a pretty amazing revelation. I have so many questions... Can anyone pull it? Is it not more disruptive than the grunting/dropping? Is it a volume thing? An intimidation thing? Like, if you drop the 5lb-ers, would you set it off? What happens to the perpetrator? Do they just go about their business after public humiliation? Looking for vids now cause there is no way someone does not flip their kitten after being adrenaline-fueled and called out in a public space. Moral issues aside, its got to be a fascinating social experiment.
Anyway, my biggest annoyance would be people trying to talk to you with your headphones in.
What if someone my size tripped walking through the weight area and fell down? Surely 180lbs hitting the ground would set it off? Wouldn't the utter humiliation of not only taking a tumble but setting off an alarm put someone like me off going back ever again?1 -
I don't think he's saying its fine and dandy. Maybe the lesser evil.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »There's some evidence of people incorrectly associating bodybuilding with low iq's and I understand that PF's use of the word "lunk" perpetuates that myth, and can be considered offensive, but I would argue that if we were to try to measure who was on the lower rung of our social ladder, obese people or bodybuilders, I'd say it's easily obese people. If you could convince obese people to come to a gym without slamming bodybuilders, so much the better, but if calling bodybuilders "lunks" gets more obese people into the gym perhaps the end justifies the means. Bodybuilders have broad shoulders, figuratively speaking,
So it's just fine and dandy to put down a group of people who are tough enough to take it, as long as the fragile obese people are exercising?
Gotcha. Nice moral reasoning there.CorneliusPhoton wrote: »I had no idea that PF had an actual alarm that went off.
Same! I always thought the "lunk alarm" was figurative. Its a pretty amazing revelation. I have so many questions... Can anyone pull it? Is it not more disruptive than the grunting/dropping? Is it a volume thing? An intimidation thing? Like, if you drop the 5lb-ers, would you set it off? What happens to the perpetrator? Do they just go about their business after public humiliation? Looking for vids now cause there is no way someone does not flip their kitten after being adrenaline-fueled and called out in a public space. Moral issues aside, its got to be a fascinating social experiment.
Anyway, my biggest annoyance would be people trying to talk to you with your headphones in.
You're missing the point.
There doesn't need to be any evil in this scenario.
There is no need to other groups of people and pit them against each other.
Planet Fitness is preying upon the fear people have of being judged, so what do they do? They say yes kiddies, that monster under the bed is real, but don't worry, we don't let him in our house.
And Goldthistime thinks that's just fine.
I think it's a horrible thing to do to people.
2 -
goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »There's some evidence of people incorrectly associating bodybuilding with low iq's and I understand that PF's use of the word "lunk" perpetuates that myth, and can be considered offensive, but I would argue that if we were to try to measure who was on the lower rung of our social ladder, obese people or bodybuilders, I'd say it's easily obese people. If you could convince obese people to come to a gym without slamming bodybuilders, so much the better, but if calling bodybuilders "lunks" gets more obese people into the gym perhaps the end justifies the means. Bodybuilders have broad shoulders, figuratively speaking,
So it's just fine and dandy to put down a group of people who are tough enough to take it, as long as the fragile obese people are exercising?
Gotcha. Nice moral reasoning there.
Were it MY company I wouldn't use a derogatory term in my marketing even if it meant improved sales or profits. It's just not who I am. But I wouldn't sign a petition forcing PF to remove the word "lunk" unless someone could show me that it does nothing to increase the likelihood that obese people would go to the gym.
I can't see how my moral reasoning is faulty here, unless you believe that the whole "lunk" or "meathead" association with bodybuilders is increasing. I don't. IMO bodybuilding has become more mainstream and that association is decreasing.
Watch these ads (from PF's YouTube channel itself, no less) and tell me whether or not you think they're promoting stereotypes and shaming/demeaning certain groups:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQfmpXsLV_4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn5mzEAMAkY
OTOH, In all fairness, I do like the response video from this gym (if we're going to say fair is fair):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBRG4RkE51Q 6 -
goldthistime wrote: »Btw, I also agree with incentives to hire visible minorities. I tend to cheer for the underdog. Immoral?
Invoking race relations, in order to make a point on the forums...is that a Godwin's corollary?6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »There's some evidence of people incorrectly associating bodybuilding with low iq's and I understand that PF's use of the word "lunk" perpetuates that myth, and can be considered offensive, but I would argue that if we were to try to measure who was on the lower rung of our social ladder, obese people or bodybuilders, I'd say it's easily obese people. If you could convince obese people to come to a gym without slamming bodybuilders, so much the better, but if calling bodybuilders "lunks" gets more obese people into the gym perhaps the end justifies the means. Bodybuilders have broad shoulders, figuratively speaking,
So it's just fine and dandy to put down a group of people who are tough enough to take it, as long as the fragile obese people are exercising?
Gotcha. Nice moral reasoning there.
Were it MY company I wouldn't use a derogatory term in my marketing even if it meant improved sales or profits. It's just not who I am. But I wouldn't sign a petition forcing PF to remove the word "lunk" unless someone could show me that it does nothing to increase the likelihood that obese people would go to the gym.
I can't see how my moral reasoning is faulty here, unless you believe that the whole "lunk" or "meathead" association with bodybuilders is increasing. I don't. IMO bodybuilding has become more mainstream and that association is decreasing.
Moving goalposts here. Now the bar for questionable ethics in the scenario is that bodybuilders have to be actively harmed in an increasing fashion by PF's use of the term in order for this whole equivalence scenario your presented to be wrong.
You're the one who said it was okay, bodybuilders could take it, so sure, put them down so that the obese people felt comfortable.
Sure, Plus Size models can take it, they're rich and famous. So let me call them some name for their clothing choices that might be unflattering so people of size who can't afford to dress that way don't feel bad about themselves.
Same difference, right?
It's not a discussion I've had with anyone before, I'm thinking through why I don't find the use of the term "lunk" as offensive as others have.
I had trouble figuring out the plus sized versus low income example you gave me. Let's take away the plus sized part of it and ask if it would be okay to mock people who spend large sums of money on clothing so that people who can't afford those clothes feel better about themselves. I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't be up in arms if someone else did.
The social underdog thing matters to me. I would, for instance, find it more offensive if a plus sized model were mocked for her size than an underweight model.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »There's some evidence of people incorrectly associating bodybuilding with low iq's and I understand that PF's use of the word "lunk" perpetuates that myth, and can be considered offensive, but I would argue that if we were to try to measure who was on the lower rung of our social ladder, obese people or bodybuilders, I'd say it's easily obese people. If you could convince obese people to come to a gym without slamming bodybuilders, so much the better, but if calling bodybuilders "lunks" gets more obese people into the gym perhaps the end justifies the means. Bodybuilders have broad shoulders, figuratively speaking,
So it's just fine and dandy to put down a group of people who are tough enough to take it, as long as the fragile obese people are exercising?
Gotcha. Nice moral reasoning there.
Were it MY company I wouldn't use a derogatory term in my marketing even if it meant improved sales or profits. It's just not who I am. But I wouldn't sign a petition forcing PF to remove the word "lunk" unless someone could show me that it does nothing to increase the likelihood that obese people would go to the gym.
I can't see how my moral reasoning is faulty here, unless you believe that the whole "lunk" or "meathead" association with bodybuilders is increasing. I don't. IMO bodybuilding has become more mainstream and that association is decreasing.
Moving goalposts here. Now the bar for questionable ethics in the scenario is that bodybuilders have to be actively harmed in an increasing fashion by PF's use of the term in order for this whole equivalence scenario your presented to be wrong.
You're the one who said it was okay, bodybuilders could take it, so sure, put them down so that the obese people felt comfortable.
Sure, Plus Size models can take it, they're rich and famous. So let me call them some name for their clothing choices that might be unflattering so people of size who can't afford to dress that way don't feel bad about themselves.
Same difference, right?
It's not a discussion I've had with anyone before, I'm thinking through why I don't find the use of the term "lunk" as offensive as others have.
I had trouble figuring out the plus sized versus low income example you gave me. Let's take away the plus sized part of it and ask if it would be okay to mock people who spend large sums of money on clothing so that people who can't afford those clothes feel better about themselves. I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't be up in arms if someone else did.
The social underdog thing matters to me. I would, for instance, find it more offensive if a plus sized model were mocked for her size than an underweight model.
At least you admit that your ethics are situational.5 -
goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »There's some evidence of people incorrectly associating bodybuilding with low iq's and I understand that PF's use of the word "lunk" perpetuates that myth, and can be considered offensive, but I would argue that if we were to try to measure who was on the lower rung of our social ladder, obese people or bodybuilders, I'd say it's easily obese people. If you could convince obese people to come to a gym without slamming bodybuilders, so much the better, but if calling bodybuilders "lunks" gets more obese people into the gym perhaps the end justifies the means. Bodybuilders have broad shoulders, figuratively speaking,
So it's just fine and dandy to put down a group of people who are tough enough to take it, as long as the fragile obese people are exercising?
Gotcha. Nice moral reasoning there.
Were it MY company I wouldn't use a derogatory term in my marketing even if it meant improved sales or profits. It's just not who I am. But I wouldn't sign a petition forcing PF to remove the word "lunk" unless someone could show me that it does nothing to increase the likelihood that obese people would go to the gym.
I can't see how my moral reasoning is faulty here, unless you believe that the whole "lunk" or "meathead" association with bodybuilders is increasing. I don't. IMO bodybuilding has become more mainstream and that association is decreasing.
Moving goalposts here. Now the bar for questionable ethics in the scenario is that bodybuilders have to be actively harmed in an increasing fashion by PF's use of the term in order for this whole equivalence scenario your presented to be wrong.
You're the one who said it was okay, bodybuilders could take it, so sure, put them down so that the obese people felt comfortable.
Sure, Plus Size models can take it, they're rich and famous. So let me call them some name for their clothing choices that might be unflattering so people of size who can't afford to dress that way don't feel bad about themselves.
Same difference, right?
It's not a discussion I've had with anyone before, I'm thinking through why I don't find the use of the term "lunk" as offensive as others have.
I had trouble figuring out the plus sized versus low income example you gave me. Let's take away the plus sized part of it and ask if it would be okay to mock people who spend large sums of money on clothing so that people who can't afford those clothes feel better about themselves. I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't be up in arms if someone else did.
The social underdog thing matters to me. I would, for instance, find it more offensive if a plus sized model were mocked for her size than an underweight model.
I know you like analyzing things to death, so I'll cut to the meat of where I think you're coming from.
You root for the underdog, and feel that the ends justify the means in upholding that morality.
I do not think the ends justify the means.
I think all people, regardless of being underdogs or not, are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity. That includes not being called names and not being pitted against each other.
Frankly, I find your stance morally repugnant, because you've gone as far as defending the use of derogatory language (which should never be okay) depending on who it was used against. That means your ethics are situational.
Mine aren't.6 -
goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »There's some evidence of people incorrectly associating bodybuilding with low iq's and I understand that PF's use of the word "lunk" perpetuates that myth, and can be considered offensive, but I would argue that if we were to try to measure who was on the lower rung of our social ladder, obese people or bodybuilders, I'd say it's easily obese people. If you could convince obese people to come to a gym without slamming bodybuilders, so much the better, but if calling bodybuilders "lunks" gets more obese people into the gym perhaps the end justifies the means. Bodybuilders have broad shoulders, figuratively speaking,
So it's just fine and dandy to put down a group of people who are tough enough to take it, as long as the fragile obese people are exercising?
Gotcha. Nice moral reasoning there.
Were it MY company I wouldn't use a derogatory term in my marketing even if it meant improved sales or profits. It's just not who I am. But I wouldn't sign a petition forcing PF to remove the word "lunk" unless someone could show me that it does nothing to increase the likelihood that obese people would go to the gym.
I can't see how my moral reasoning is faulty here, unless you believe that the whole "lunk" or "meathead" association with bodybuilders is increasing. I don't. IMO bodybuilding has become more mainstream and that association is decreasing.
Watch these ads (from PF's YouTube channel itself, no less) and tell me whether or not you think they're promoting stereotypes and shaming/demeaning certain groups:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQfmpXsLV_4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn5mzEAMAkY
OTOH, In all fairness, I do like the response video from this gym (if we're going to say fair is fair):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBRG4RkE51Q
LOL! I love the Iron Sport Gym! Great dig at the end: "Come to our planet!"
I agree those PF ads are judgemental. I saw one that was kind of funny actually where a guy with an "Arnold" accent keeps saying "I pick things up and I put them down." I usually say that to myself when I'm at my gym.
So it seems PFs goal is to sign up wussies and keep them wussies. What happens if someone joins, works really hard and becomes successful beyond their wildest dreams? An accomplishment of which anyone should be proud. Would PF then give them the boot? It seems their encouragement is to pay, go and do half-hearted work with no goals and just keep doing that? Unfortunately one is opening up where I live - could hurt the place I like to go.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »There's some evidence of people incorrectly associating bodybuilding with low iq's and I understand that PF's use of the word "lunk" perpetuates that myth, and can be considered offensive, but I would argue that if we were to try to measure who was on the lower rung of our social ladder, obese people or bodybuilders, I'd say it's easily obese people. If you could convince obese people to come to a gym without slamming bodybuilders, so much the better, but if calling bodybuilders "lunks" gets more obese people into the gym perhaps the end justifies the means. Bodybuilders have broad shoulders, figuratively speaking,
So it's just fine and dandy to put down a group of people who are tough enough to take it, as long as the fragile obese people are exercising?
Gotcha. Nice moral reasoning there.
Were it MY company I wouldn't use a derogatory term in my marketing even if it meant improved sales or profits. It's just not who I am. But I wouldn't sign a petition forcing PF to remove the word "lunk" unless someone could show me that it does nothing to increase the likelihood that obese people would go to the gym.
I can't see how my moral reasoning is faulty here, unless you believe that the whole "lunk" or "meathead" association with bodybuilders is increasing. I don't. IMO bodybuilding has become more mainstream and that association is decreasing.
Watch these ads (from PF's YouTube channel itself, no less) and tell me whether or not you think they're promoting stereotypes and shaming/demeaning certain groups:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQfmpXsLV_4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn5mzEAMAkY
OTOH, In all fairness, I do like the response video from this gym (if we're going to say fair is fair):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBRG4RkE51Q
LOL! I love the Iron Sport Gym! Great dig at the end: "Come to our planet!"
I agree those PF ads are judgemental. I saw one where a guy with an "Arnold" accent keeps saying "I pick things up and I put them down." I usually say that to myself when I'm at my gym.
So it seems PFs goal is to sign up wussies and keep them wussies. What happens if someone joins, works really hard and becomes successful beyond their wildest dreams? And accomplishment of which anyone should be proud. Would PF then give them the boot? It seems their encouragement is to pay, go and do half-hearted work with no goals and just keep doing that? Unfortunately one is opening up where I live - could hurt the place I like to go.
You just hit on something I think bothers me most about the PF rhetoric - not only do they shame/demean people certain groups, by extension they actively encourage their members not to be like those groups. How many people have decided to never bother to lift weights because PF taught them that would make them lunkheads? Despite the fact that building and maintaining muscle mass being one of the healthiest things you can do for your body, not to mention it being aesthetically pleasing?
How many PF members want to get "toned" (their word, not mine) and PF is actively discouraging them from doing the thing that is the easiest and most certain way to get that look?5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions