Annoyances at the gym!
Replies
-
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
I don't mock people. It makes me boring, but it's just not something I do. People are mocked on MFP all the time. Are you offended each and every time, or does it depend on the situation?
I'm startled by your use of the word "repugnant". Here I am thinking we were all having a friendly discussion. This just isn't a topic I'm passionate enough about to get into a brawl over. I'm out.
Btw, it's unfortunate we went down this path. I quite liked reading many of your posts.
1 -
goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
I don't mock people. It makes me boring, but it's just not something I do. People are mocked on MFP all the time. Are you offended each and every time, or does it depend on the situation?
I'm startled by your use of the word "repugnant". Here I am thinking we were all having a friendly discussion. This just isn't a topic I'm passionate enough about to get into a brawl over. I'm out.
Btw, it's unfortunate we went down this path. I quite liked reading many of your posts.
You may not personally mock people, but you're okay with a corporate policy that mocks people that aren't the underdog since it supports the underdogs going to the gym.
I think that fairly sums up your position.
Yes, I do find all mocking offensive. I don't find sarcastic mocking pf oneself offensive, though, if it's being done in a light-hearted manner.
I find situational ethics morally repugnant, yes. If something is wrong (mocking, when it's being done with serious intent), then it is wrong. Full stop.1 -
Was annoyed today to find out the bathroom didn't have any air freshener or a fan because I went in go pee and the previous occupant dropped a load, I think someone died in there. I got out of there quick thinking, dang, the next person is going to think it was me. Low and behold...a guy is waiting to go in after me. Figures.3
-
People who sit on the machines and text longer than the standard break between reps. People who scream very loudly while working out (I always look to see who dropped a weight on their foot and it's usually just some person who picked weights that are too heavy.)
You aren't the first to mention screaming but I honestly don't think I've heard this in a gym. Are you talking about people grunting loudly lifting or do people actually scream? Honestly, I don't recall ever witnessing screaming.0 -
When my little dog thinks it's cool to lay on my belly when I'm trying to do crunches or hip thrusts at my home gym or any lay down mat exercise. So inconsiderate I swear..yes my profile pic is said little dog
8 -
Reading this thread....investing in a home gym just paid for itself.3
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
I don't mock people. It makes me boring, but it's just not something I do. People are mocked on MFP all the time. Are you offended each and every time, or does it depend on the situation?
I'm startled by your use of the word "repugnant". Here I am thinking we were all having a friendly discussion. This just isn't a topic I'm passionate enough about to get into a brawl over. I'm out.
Btw, it's unfortunate we went down this path. I quite liked reading many of your posts.
You may not personally mock people, but you're okay with a corporate policy that mocks people that aren't the underdog since it supports the underdogs going to the gym.
I think that fairly sums up your position.
Yes, I do find all mocking offensive. I don't find sarcastic mocking pf oneself offensive, though, if it's being done in a light-hearted manner.
I find situational ethics morally repugnant, yes. If something is wrong (mocking, when it's being done with serious intent), then it is wrong. Full stop.
Hmmm...I put some thought into why many people get more upset about an obese person being mocked than a thin/fit person.
I think it's a similar comparison to what many (not me) call "reverse racism"...in that it's not even close to the same thing.
The odd person may give a thin person grief "eat a hamburger, blah blah blah" and yes, of course it can hurt your feelings or annoy you. What obese people get however, day in and day out from ALL of society..."you'rr lazy, you're ugly, you're not worthy of love, you're stupid...blah blah blah". It's a different thing and I think comparing the two is offensive.
2 -
The guy who constantly oogles me when I work out, making sassy comments about my figure and trying to get a look down my top when I'm doing pushups. Sometimes he grabs my butt when I bend over.
That's what I get for working out in the living room when the hubster is about, though.30 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »The guy who constantly oogles me when I work out, making sassy comments about my figure and trying to get a look down my top when I'm doing pushups. Sometimes he grabs my butt when I bend over.
That's what I get for working out in the living room when the hubster is about, though.
Sounds like he might be related to my husband. :-P3 -
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.
I'm amazed that the headphones thing actually seems to be a top 10 annoyance on this thread. I guess people actually wear those to avoid talking to others and not just because the music loop sucks lol.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:
OTOH, In all fairness, I do like the response video from this gym (if we're going to say fair is fair):
Actually, I always thought those ads were funny and tongue and cheek, I didn't realize that they actually promoted a culture of intolerance to certain people at some of their clubs but again they just don't fit my requirements so I don't really care. I actually find the hardcore gyms to be far more friendly in general and people often get a sense of community you don't get in a general gym and that's a shame that most people will never get to feel that sense of belonging to something more than a gym.3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
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.
I'm amazed that the headphones thing actually seems to be a top 10 annoyance on this thread. I guess people actually wear those to avoid talking to others and not just because the music loop sucks lol.
I've been known to leave them in when my playlist ends, just to maintain my *kitten* off vibe
2 -
LittleChipin wrote: »When my little dog thinks it's cool to lay on my belly when I'm trying to do crunches or hip thrusts at my home gym or any lay down mat exercise. So inconsiderate I swear..yes my profile pic is said little dog
Best post!2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
I don't mock people. It makes me boring, but it's just not something I do. People are mocked on MFP all the time. Are you offended each and every time, or does it depend on the situation?
I'm startled by your use of the word "repugnant". Here I am thinking we were all having a friendly discussion. This just isn't a topic I'm passionate enough about to get into a brawl over. I'm out.
Btw, it's unfortunate we went down this path. I quite liked reading many of your posts.
You may not personally mock people, but you're okay with a corporate policy that mocks people that aren't the underdog since it supports the underdogs going to the gym.
I think that fairly sums up your position.
Yes, I do find all mocking offensive. I don't find sarcastic mocking pf oneself offensive, though, if it's being done in a light-hearted manner.
I find situational ethics morally repugnant, yes. If something is wrong (mocking, when it's being done with serious intent), then it is wrong. Full stop.
Hmmm...I put some thought into why many people get more upset about an obese person being mocked than a thin/fit person.
I think it's a similar comparison to what many (not me) call "reverse racism"...in that it's not even close to the same thing.
The odd person may give a thin person grief "eat a hamburger, blah blah blah" and yes, of course it can hurt your feelings or annoy you. What obese people get however, day in and day out from ALL of society..."you'rr lazy, you're ugly, you're not worthy of love, you're stupid...blah blah blah". It's a different thing and I think comparing the two is offensive.
What's offensive is deriding anyone for what they look like period and end of story. There is no comparing of shames here it's all the same and to try to grade it on a curve is rather offensive.6 -
not_my_first_rodeo wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »
-people who stand in the front in a dance fitness class when they can't keep up/have no idea what they are doing
-people with no musicality, timing or ability to count who try to take dance fitness classes
-people moving the wrong way in a group class...especially if they are doing this in my blind spot
This is why I don't take the classes or go to the gym. I've tried, but the attitude I get from the more experienced people makes me feel inadequate and unwelcome. Oh, an instructor might be encouraging, but then I get grief from the other people in a class--because apparently I need to have personally trained with Bob Fosse to be in a beginner class (which is probably not your situation).
That and the people who have given me attitude or made audible comments because I'm not fit and thin already. I don't need that. I'll stick to walking outdoors and trying to do stuff at home.
I weighed about 280 when I started doing Zumba. I don't give a damn if people are thin--I do care if they are nearly running into me or putting me at risk of running into them.
I've NEVER said anything to anyone about being a bad dancer, ever. I do warn people that I have no peripheral vision (brain injury) and that if I can't see them, I might not be able to prevent a crash if they aren't in the right place.1 -
I get totally perturbed when work schedule keeps me from getting to the gym.4
-
The grunting and moaning and groaning would do my head in!
I tried so hard to keep quiet when I was in labour with both of my kids because I didn't want to annoy the other women in neighboring rooms as well as the doctors and nurses who must have constant migraines from all the screaming.
So, if i managed to pop out 2 bowling bowls in relative quietness I can't see why gym goers can't keep the grunting to a minimum 1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »The grunting and moaning and groaning would do my head in!
I tried so hard to keep quiet when I was in labour with both of my kids because I didn't want to annoy the other women in neighboring rooms as well as the doctors and nurses who must have constant migraines from all the screaming.
So, if i managed to pop out 2 bowling bowls in relative quietness I can't see why gym goers can't keep the grunting to a minimum
You would have made a wonderful Scientologist.4 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »The grunting and moaning and groaning would do my head in!
I tried so hard to keep quiet when I was in labour with both of my kids because I didn't want to annoy the other women in neighboring rooms as well as the doctors and nurses who must have constant migraines from all the screaming.
So, if i managed to pop out 2 bowling bowls in relative quietness I can't see why gym goers can't keep the grunting to a minimum
You would have made a wonderful Scientologist.
Eeewww no thank you! I didn't realise it was a thing for them. I have no other reason but trying to be considerate to those around me, why i was even thinking about anyone else at the time i don't know!!
It's just that when i was waiting in the room before my proper labour begun there were some almighty screamers giving birth next door and it made me even more petrified about what i was in for, plus it was annoyingly nerve grating
0 -
The PF I go to has so many people lifting I can't get to the equipment without a good wait. Good cross section of members from college students to the elderly.
What I don't like though is people loading up bars with 100s of lbs of weight that I need help unracking.2 -
newheavensearth wrote: »The PF I go to has so many people lifting I can't get to the equipment without a good wait. Good cross section of members from college students to the elderly.
What I don't like though is people loading up bars with 100s of lbs of weight that I need help unracking.
You should never have to unrack another's weights. Demand justice!3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
You aren't the first to mention screaming but I honestly don't think I've heard this in a gym. Are you talking about people grunting loudly lifting or do people actually scream? Honestly, I don't recall ever witnessing screaming.
Well, just to add my two cents on the grunting/screaming and weight dropping, I've got two stories from my previous gym that go against the "no one's doing it on purpose" perspective:
There was a dude there, maybe 6'2" and pretty lanky who was just generally bad at gym etiquette (stuff like not unloading his weight after squatting and leaving the bar all the way at the top of the rack where my 5'5" *kitten* couldn't reach it.) But the most annoying thing about him was that he grunted/yelled a sort of "UNGH!" that you could hear across the gym over the sound of your headphones on every single rep of every set.
I'm not talking heavy lifting either. The most memorable instance was while he was leaning against the dumbbell rack doing one-arm rows with 25 lb dumbbells. He then just opened his hand and let the weight drop to the floor when he was done. No effort at all made to put down a weight which I as a 30-something female can lift in relative silence and place quietly on the floor afterwards. My husband finally told him what a previous poster said his wife told someone: That if he had to drop it he wasn't strong enough to be lifting it. He at least stopped throwing *kitten* on the floor after that. The scream-grunting continued.
On another occasion, when we were in the gym at night (not our usual hours) there were a group of young gym bros there talking loudly in the corner, which in itself wasn't really a bother. But one guy decided to start deadlifting using what I can only assume was his interpretation of the "bounce" method. What it translated to was him basically throwing the weight down, causing it to bounce several inches off the floor, and then riding the force back up to the top, over and over. The portion of the gym he was in was upstairs, directly over the locker rooms, and when I went to change shortly thereafter, the ceiling of the locker room was shaking and all the lockers were rattling.
So, yeah. Needing to put a heavy deadlift down fast, or grunting on those last few reps is one thing (and I do both). But not all grunts and weight-drops are created equal.
That said, my biggest gym annoyance is still that my gym closed without warning and took off with my membership fees.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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?"
Yaaaaaaaaaasssss.0 -
Wow.azulvioleta6 wrote: »
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.
1. No one was born to know how to dance. Some never got the opportunity to learn until later on in life.
3. Those who don't quite know the moves are actually instructed by some to stand in the front in some classes so that they can SEE the instructor to learn how to execute the moves. Some don't have the natural ability of timing, but it certainly can be learned observation, education and practice. I say this as a former instrumental music teacher an accomplished musician.
3. Those who choose to pick the activity WANT to learn. They see it as enjoyable and actually want to get it. It takes longer for some, of course. Much longer. Why judge because you're "better" than them? Not everyone had the opportunity to learn dance or music (rhythm) from an early age. Some with certain mental illness also have a hard time learning the steps, but eventually 'get it'.
4. How do you know these 'uncoordinated people' don't have some sort of injury/disability/illness? Come on now. Just because they don't tell anyone about it, doesn't mean they don't. Not everyone wears their illnesses as a badge.
5. " 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?" This is quite judgmental and sad. Not everyone is the same, and not everyone is as 'good as you'. Instead of judging, why not lend a helping hand, or throw in some encouragement. This sort of attitude can be picked up on and causes those who try hard to learn something to not bother and give up. Why are you so angry at things you cannot change?
Hey, at least the are doing SOMETHING. They're not sitting in front of a TV munching on crap and whining about their weight...they're working at something. Weren't you ever a noob at something? How did that make you feel? I couldn't run or lift heavy weights before I started. I am doing much better now than I started. I couldn't play most instruments just by picking it up (except saxophone), but I worked hard and practiced my *kitten* off. And you know what? I got better. I ended up getting top level degrees on 2 instruments I played and level 6-7 on the others.
I had a 5th grade clarinet student that I was teaching privately 2x a week. For the longest time, they could NOT get it, at ALL, but she practiced and practiced. She lived nearby, so I could hear her. She did not excel like my other students, but she tried very hard. About 2 months later....bam, she got it. It clicked for her. Her hard work paid off, and I was SO DAMN PROUD OF HER! Not once did I think that she should give up. I didn't want to give up on her.
Would I ridicule anyone who was at a lower level, or who didn't get it? No. Why? We're ALL different. We're all at different stages and we all learn differently. We need to lift each other up, not tear each other down. This world has enough *kitten* hate going on.
18 -
cerise_noir wrote: »
Wow.azulvioleta6 wrote: »
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.
1. No one was born to know how to dance. Some never got the opportunity to learn until later on in life.
3. Those who don't quite know the moves are actually instructed by some to stand in the front in some classes so that they can SEE the instructor to learn how to execute the moves. Some don't have the natural ability of timing, but it certainly can be learned observation, education and practice. I say this as a former instrumental music teacher an accomplished musician.
3. Those who choose to pick the activity WANT to learn. They see it as enjoyable and actually want to get it. It takes longer for some, of course. Much longer. Why judge because you're "better" than them? Not everyone had the opportunity to learn dance or music (rhythm) from an early age. Some with certain mental illness also have a hard time learning the steps, but eventually 'get it'.
4. How do you know these 'uncoordinated people' don't have some sort of injury/disability/illness? Come on now. Just because they don't tell anyone about it, doesn't mean they don't. Not everyone wears their illnesses as a badge.
5. " 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?" This is quite judgmental and sad. Not everyone is the same, and not everyone is as 'good as you'. Instead of judging, why not lend a helping hand, or throw in some encouragement. This sort of attitude can be picked up on and causes those who try hard to learn something to not bother and give up. Why are you so angry at things you cannot change?
Hey, at least the are doing SOMETHING. They're not sitting in front of a TV munching on crap and whining about their weight...they're working at something. Weren't you ever a noob at something? How did that make you feel? I couldn't run or lift heavy weights before I started. I am doing much better now than I started. I couldn't play most instruments just by picking it up (except saxophone), but I worked hard and practiced my *kitten* off. And you know what? I got better. I ended up getting top level degrees on 2 instruments I played and level 6-7 on the others.
I had a 5th grade clarinet student that I was teaching privately 2x a week. For the longest time, they could NOT get it, at ALL, but she practiced and practiced. She lived nearby, so I could hear her. She did not excel like my other students, but she tried very hard. About 2 months later....bam, she got it. It clicked for her. Her hard work paid off, and I was SO DAMN PROUD OF HER! Not once did I think that she should give up. I didn't want to give up on her.
Would I ridicule anyone who was at a lower level, or who didn't get it? No. Why? We're ALL different. We're all at different stages and we all learn differently. We need to lift each other up, not tear each other down. This world has enough *kitten* hate going on.
I'd like to chime in. I'm a person who trained to dance professionally since being a toddler and had that all taken away by catastrophic knee injuries. Here I am decades later back in dance training. REAL dance training, with people who have danced all their lives.
I work out in the middle. The best dancers are in the back. The people new to this level of dance are in the front. Because they need to see the mirror (which includes everyone), and they need to have the eyes of the instructors. I'm in the middle because I'm extremely rusty, but I pick up choreography quickly and I have "epiphanies" with my form on my own without needing help.
I LOVE YOUR POST. I'm all about it.14 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
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.
I'm amazed that the headphones thing actually seems to be a top 10 annoyance on this thread. I guess people actually wear those to avoid talking to others and not just because the music loop sucks lol.
I've been known to leave them in when my playlist ends, just to maintain my *kitten* off vibe
In your livingroom? Poor hubs :laugh:5 -
When you're in mid workout and someone hits on u, and u try not to be rude so u engage in the conversation just for the guy to ramble on and on; then the machine you were doing sets on gets taken and u have no one to blame but yourself because you should've grew some balls told the guy to leave you alone1
-
you should've grew some balls told the guy to leave you alone
If you did that, he probably would leave you alone.
My biggest workout annoyance is when my husband wants to come down the stairs when I'm in the middle of doing step aerobics on the bottom step. So inconsiderate! Can't you see I'm working out here?3 -
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.
Right ok, note to self, not allowed to sit and rest between sets on the lat pull down or assisted pull up, must get up take a lap around the gym and not actually recover and heaven forbid I should check my email while sitting recovering. I'm in the middle of knitting a scarf, maybe I should take that to do between sets. Because you do know that once the weights get heavy enough you need to take a few minutes between sets or you'd most likely fail (or not perform as well) in the next, don't you?
If someone is genuinely sitting at a machine for 30 minutes without doing anything (never actually seen that myself but maybe it's just at my gym people don't do that) then how about you politely ask them to move for the 2 minutes it's going to take you to use it (because you obviously don't need to rest between sets)?8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions