Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Options
Replies
-
-
stevencloser wrote: »The whole notion of 'functional strength' and that compound lifts are the be all and end all.
Newb's concentrating on only compound lifts and not doing enough to build whats most important...mind muscle connection.
Dedicating whole workouts to just abs....fkn LOL.
The notion that a calorie is a calorie, no if one causes me to hold more water then they're not equal when it comes to my goals...which leads me to another...
Water has just as much as a detrimental effect on the appearance of a physique than fat.
The stigma attached to PED's...yet it's socially acceptable to take something that literally disables you (alcohol). People wasting time chasing ever dwindling results when they could transform their life, yet they're too scared of the social stigma to do what should be seen as normal.
People being too reliant on what hey read rather than walking the walk. I will nearly always put more value on the advice of someone who's actually where I want to be, than some skinny fat MFPer clutching a science paper.
The best football coaches tend to not have been the best players in their active time. Go figure.
True. I don't recall Bill Belichick having a stellar career as a player at any level.
As far as in the gym and/or on MFP, I've seen some of the biggest dudes dispensing some of the worst, most bro-ey advice. Some people succeed in spite of what they do, not because of what they do.
And if somebody is using PEDs, the value of their advice is further diminished. You can gain muscle just looking at a barbell if you're doing enough test. You could run a completely idiotic routine that would be useless for a natty and still be able to put on muscle. Be honest up front and admit that you're using drugs so people can gauge your advice accordingly.
Not to even mention the fact that a PED using bodybuilder who has already gained a ton of muscle and is now running specialization routines to refine his physique will work out completely differently than a natty who just started lifting and is struggling to put on some mass. Yeah, you've got 20-inch arms, no kidding you're doing a ton of isolation exercises. But don't tell a newbie/natty that they should be doing 8 sets of 5 different varieties of curls for their biceps four times a week. They haven't developed the work capacity, they don't have the recovery capacity of a PED user and they don't have the foundation in place to support that kind of routine.14 -
stevencloser wrote: »The whole notion of 'functional strength' and that compound lifts are the be all and end all.
Newb's concentrating on only compound lifts and not doing enough to build whats most important...mind muscle connection.
Dedicating whole workouts to just abs....fkn LOL.
The notion that a calorie is a calorie, no if one causes me to hold more water then they're not equal when it comes to my goals...which leads me to another...
Water has just as much as a detrimental effect on the appearance of a physique than fat.
The stigma attached to PED's...yet it's socially acceptable to take something that literally disables you (alcohol). People wasting time chasing ever dwindling results when they could transform their life, yet they're too scared of the social stigma to do what should be seen as normal.
People being too reliant on what hey read rather than walking the walk. I will nearly always put more value on the advice of someone who's actually where I want to be, than some skinny fat MFPer clutching a science paper.
The best football coaches tend to not have been the best players in their active time. Go figure.
True. I don't recall Bill Belichick having a stellar career as a player at any level.
As far as in the gym and/or on MFP, I've seen some of the biggest dudes dispensing some of the worst, most bro-ey advice. Some people succeed in spite of what they do, not because of what they do.
And if somebody is using PEDs, the value of their advice is further diminished. You can gain muscle just looking at a barbell if you're doing enough test. You could run a completely idiotic routine that would be useless for a natty and still be able to put on muscle. Be honest up front and admit that you're using drugs so people can gauge your advice accordingly.
Not to even mention the fact that a PED using bodybuilder who has already gained a ton of muscle and is now running specialization routines to refine his physique will work out completely differently than a natty who just started lifting and is struggling to put on some mass. Yeah, you've got 20-inch arms, no kidding you're doing a ton of isolation exercises. But don't tell a newbie/natty that they should be doing 8 sets of 5 different varieties of curls for their biceps four times a week. They haven't developed the work capacity, they don't have the recovery capacity of a PED user and they don't have the foundation in place to support that kind of routine.
100% agree.
Same goes for people who have lost a ton of weight after being incredibly overweight and claiming they have all the answers to weight loss because they have done it, just like putting on muscle is easier with PED, so is weight loss at a higher bf%.1 -
A menopausal women who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp.
What? Why not?3 -
because if you cannot lose fat, you will not be able to recomp.4
-
stanmann571 wrote: »
A menopausal women who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp.
And yet, there are menopausal women on MFP who have successfully recomped.
Where?
Right here. I actually haven't a second DEXA to prove reduced BF% but I have lost inches without losing weight. I expect I might lose a few more now that spring is here. I'm very active in spring.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The concept of intuitive eating. The idea that we are somehow supposed to know when to start or stop eating to maintain a subjective weight is entirely absurd. The endless threads of people leaving MFP and starting up again give a small degree of insight into this.
Expecting people to manage a checkbook without balancing is a little more plausible because once your expenses overtake your income, the consequences are immediate and direct. There are no such immediate consequences in weight management.
I love this. I do think there are alternatives to calorie counting that work, but they aren't intuitive eating and require some kind of monitoring.
Sure, some people don't have to think about it, perhaps, but they didn't get fat.
Why would intuitive eating mean not thinking about it?? It's quite the opposite really.
Many people who claim we should be able to "intuitively eat" mean we should be able to just eat and not have to every think about it and we just won't want to eat too much. That's what I think is unrealistic.
I can maintain or lose without counting, but I do other things, like watch portion sizes, avoid snacking (or actively pay attention and compensate), make sure I am reasonably active. But that's something more than just going by "instinct." It's mindful.
I guess it's just semantics but I think mindful eating and intuitive eating are the same thing. Intuition is something that must be mindfully adhered to. It's usually by ignoring our intuition that we run into problems.
I think some people use intuitive eating to mean the same thing as mindful eating, although I prefer the latter term.
However, as GottaBurnEm noted, there have been people lately claiming that it's some sign that humans are messed up that we have to think about it at all, and that means that only sick people (or mentally ill) get fat or some such nonsense. In accordance with that some use the term "intuitive eating" to mean "don't have to think about it."
Well 'some people' pretty much kidnap and ruin every single term that relates to diet, don't they? I would say intuitive eating is 'not having to think about it much'. It's not mindless eating, it's just listening to your intuition when it comes to eating. Which may be a learning process if you are used to mindlessly eating everything that your taste buds might desire.
I'm not slamming the term intuitive eating. The point I was agreeing with (and how this started) was that there's no reason to think that humans would normally, without thinking, be able to just eat whatever we want in a situation of surplus and not gain. That was the point being made, the person called it "intuitive eating." You think that's not really intuitive eating? Great, that isn't the bit that interests me. (For once I don't have strong opinions about semantics.) ;-)
I would say that what works for me (mindful eating) isn't about listening to my "intuition" at all, my intuition has nothing to do with it. It's using judgment and reason when it comes to how much I should be eating in a day, which I find is easy when I mostly eat to a usual schedule, am reasonably active, and don't snack much, pay attention to the amounts I eat, understand what is more calorie dense, stuff like that. I don't think of that as "intuitive" (although I don't eat identically every day, of course), but more mindful, like I said, being aware both of what works for me and of what I'm eating (which also includes focusing on enjoyment).
I don't have a problem with "intuitive eating" as I know it's a term that means a lot of different things. I have a problem (again) with the idea that if only we were healthy we could never get fat since we'd never overeat. That strikes me as bunk for many or most people.
I've never seen anyone use the term "intuitive eating" to mean that if we were healthy we could never get fat since we'd never overeat. I would agree that's so ridiculous that's it's funny.
But your second paragraph makes some good points on the differences between mindful eating and intuitive eating. I tend to think of them as the same, but I guess intuitive eating is eating a diet you know to be healthy without a lot of thought, though certainly not without a lot of knowledge. At some point you would have to learn what a healthy diet is for it to become intuitive.
My mindful eating doesn't really require a lot of thought either, mostly it's just habit. I like the idea of mindful eating, because I think being actively mindful about it in a broad array of ways -- including appreciating the food when eating it, being aware of what you are eating, enjoying the cooking process -- are things that are helpful to me. It really has nothing to do with needing a lot of thought to know what's healthy (I don't think most people need much thought to know what's generally a healthy diet vs. not).
Intuitive eating to me goes along more with the idea that one can just listen to hunger feelings and eat to hunger. I don't think that's a matter of practice or learning to or knowledge. I think maybe some people are just better at it than others. For me, hunger never seems to be the issue, and I don't believe that eating to hunger would ever be the answer (not saying it can't be for others). I do find that when I routinely eat to a schedule I adapt easily to that schedule. If I graze, it's disaster -- I overeat without being really really (uncomfortably) mindful, and so it's better for me to eat to schedule or eat set meals. It's generally been this way for me; I don't think it's that I don't understand what's healthy well enough or that I haven't learned something that is learnable (or that I should for some reason aspire to learn).
I guess this is why I shy away from dieting terms in general. None seem to have a universal definition. *shrug*
Sure, but like I said, I'm not debating terms, but the specific claim that the one poster mentioned (to disagree with -- I agreed with his disagreement). Whether or not you call that intuitive eating as he did (if you don't want to, I'm cool with that), I think it's absurd to assume that people will naturally not overeat, regardless of the food environment, if they are only just healthy, and thus if they do they must be ill. (This is a specific claim that I've seen made on MFP, I understand that you are not agreeing with it.)
Personally, I think it's natural that humans will overeat in certain food environments (not everyone, obviously, but many or most), and therefore need to have some kind of strategies, whatever one calls it, to avoid it. (I don't think it must be calorie counting, of course.)
At this point, I have no clue if your idea of intuitive eating is the one where people just learn to follow their hunger or not, or if what you are talking about and what I'm talking about with "mindful eating" are similar or not, but I agree that the labels aren't really furthering the discussion.0 -
right, but you're not having trouble with losing fat...? I wasn't arguing that it wasn't possible, I was saying that if you aren't able to lose fat, you wont be able to recomp.
The reason this started is because ninerbuff was saying that recomping would cause someone to lose fat not weight (of course), but we were speaking about menopausal women who are apparently able to lose fat just fine, but the scale weight doesn't move, which is why I was asking, what would cause a menopausal women to lose fat and not lose weight.0 -
-
right, but you're not having trouble with losing fat...? I wasn't arguing that it wasn't possible, I was saying that if you aren't able to lose fat, you wont be able to recomp.
The reason this started is because ninerbuff was saying that recomping would cause someone to lose fat not weight (of course), but we were speaking about menopausal women who are apparently able to lose fat just fine, but the scale weight doesn't move, which is why I was asking, what would cause a menopausal women to lose fat and not lose weight.
Water. Hormones go crazy during menopause. It's possible to lose several lbs of fat and still gain weight. Been there, done that.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
No.... a recomp is (almost, since you're body is always either catabolic or anabolic) simultaneously losing fat and building muscle. SO, what I'm saying is in order to recomp, fat will need to be lost....2 -
My unpopular opinions:
1. Current "don't eat gluten" gluten free diet craze. Bread and pasta have been around since ancient times. Eat it moderation like all things. If you are truly allergic to gluten (celiac disease) by all means don't eat it.
2. Those diet plans where they send you the food (ie Jenny Craig). Yes, you might lose the weight, but eventually you have to go back to eating regular food. Then what?
3. Diet sweetners, IMO give some people a false sense that they can drink soda like its no tomorrow. I'll go with the soda with sugar (mexican coke) if I ever drink it. At least it's documented what sugar does to the human body.
10 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
No.... a recomp is (almost, since you're body is always either catabolic or anabolic) simultaneously losing fat and building muscle. SO, what I'm saying is in order to recomp, fat will need to be lost....
Maybe it's not what you mean, but when you originally said "A menopausal women who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp" you appear to be conflating fat with weight. I am not menopausal, but since I began lifting a year ago, I have not lost weight, but I have gone from a size 10 to a size 6 through successful recomping. But yeah, losing the *fat* part is kind of crucial.
3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
No.... a recomp is (almost, since you're body is always either catabolic or anabolic) simultaneously losing fat and building muscle. SO, what I'm saying is in order to recomp, fat will need to be lost....
So, if not humor or sarcasm, do you believe fat cannot be lost during menopause?1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
No.... a recomp is (almost, since you're body is always either catabolic or anabolic) simultaneously losing fat and building muscle. SO, what I'm saying is in order to recomp, fat will need to be lost....
So, if not humor or sarcasm, do you believe fat cannot be lost during menopause?
No, I do not believe that.0 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »
guys..... you are literally picking things and not even knowing the context of what is being talked about....3 -
French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
A menopausal women who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp.
And yet, there are menopausal women on MFP who have successfully recomped.
Where?
@AnnPT77 for one
how fat did she lose during this "recomp"?
I believe she went from obese to profile pics flexing her back and arm muscles.
That wouldn't be a recomp, just awesome fat loss.
Well, she became a competitive rower traveling around the country, so I suspect that she has also been able to add some muscle; not as much as a 20 year old kid obviously, but still, every little fiber is valuable. I have not quizzed her as to DEXA scans and such; she will have to weigh in herself.
Wait! Wait! WAIT!
Even though I (the cited AnnPT77) do have an unnaturally (and probably unpleasantly) high opinion of myself (
for the humor impaired), I cannot serve as the poster li'l ol' lady for menopausal women who recomp while losing weight.
I didn't do that. I lost weight, revealing unsuspected amounts of muscle - not huge, but kinda OK for a wrinkly.
I was obese, and a competitive rower - not "competitive" like "beating everyone with my stunning speed", but in the sense of "competing and getting the occasional place (not just participation) medal". I competed in big races a few times (Masters Nationals, Head of the Charles) but it's a flattering exaggeration to say that I was a competitive rower traveling the country (@French_Peasant, your publicity agent fees will arrive in the mail . . . someday). I travel the country to watch my favorite university team compete, have rowed myself in a few far-ish flung races, but have mostly competed more in/near my state.
After rowing for, hmmm, 12-13 years, I lost 1/3 of my body weight, and - voila! - some cute little muscles here and there. Yay, me! But I've never had a DEXA scan (for athletic body comp, just for osteopenia (!) ). I'd guess low to mid 20%s BF at 120lbs or so and 5'5", so nothing to write home about.
As a final remark on this: It was not at all clear what "A menopausal woman who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp." was intended to mean, if you ask me. Sounds like "if she can't do one (ever), she can't do the other (ever)" which is Just Confusing
However, I am commenting without reading the preceding 6 pages of thread, something I try never to do . . . but I kinda got pulled in here unexpectedly, didn't I?
- -
I'm willing, however, to be the poster lil ol' lady for any of the following semi-unpopular opinions (which I do hold):- It's possible to recomp, to some extent,without regular weight lifting (though it is a slower route)
- It's possible to be an athlete while obese (arguably not the best way to be an athlete, but possibly the best way to be obese, if one insists on being obese)
- It's possible to be kinda fit while obese.
- It's possible to do any of the above, starting when already menopausal (though I did kinda cheat & get into menopause at age 45 via chemotherapy)
- It's possible to do any of the first 3 items above after advanced-stage cancer, and after chemotherapy/radiation.
- A person can be pretty darned active, working out hard & regularly,and stay fat (for at least a decade, anyway, IME)
- It's possible to lose a substantial amount of weight, even reasonably quickly, when menopausal, hypothyroid or even both.
- Women who bemoan "the girls" shrinking from weight loss might wish to consider that excess weight increases breast cancer risk very materially, and "the girls" shrink even less delightfully via lumpectomy, let alone mastectomy, let alone 2 of the latter. That may be mean, but it's true. (P.S., I'm just happy to be alive, not resentful about the surgery that was necessary to accomplish that).
60 -
Oreos taste like 2 rounds of dark-brown fiberboard with de-minted toothpaste in between.
Halo Top is so unsatisfying that it isn't even worth its meager calories. I threw out most of a pint of the stuff.
Generally speaking, so-called hyper-palatable foods don't even taste good. A lot of people think they do simply because so many other people (including pretty ones on TV) told them they do, and humans are very suggestible & motivated by perceived norms.
(I once gave my cousin a glass of water with red food coloring in it, and asked him what flavor it was. He said "cherry".)
It's lame to blame manufacturers for abusing us by selling us crappy 'addictive' food when we've encouraged them to do so by proving that's what we want to buy. They just want to make money. If we'd buy single-serve shelf-stable organic non-GMO gluten-free roasted brussels sprouts, that's what they'd sell us. This "addictive foods" nonsense is just another way to shift responsibility.34 -
Here's another one:
I believe that there truly exist people who, for some reason, maintain their weight (or even gain) on an accurately-tracked calorie consumption level that seems absurdly low for their size, to most of us. And these people are more likely to post in the forums than people who lose at average calorie levels, or at higher than average calorie levels.
I think many/most who claim such a thing are mistaken - instead, they're eating more than they think, or over-estimating exercise burn. But I think some are truthful, and not mistaken. Maybe 1 in 50? Not sure.
Why? The statistics suggest that there would be outliers at both extremes. Good-sized TDEE discrepancies among extreme weight-losers suggest that surprising adaptations are in the realm of the possible. Also, I've observed this a very small number of times in my MFP friend feed - people who appear to track accurately, but lose very slowly, and require low calorie levels to do it. Finally, I seem to be an outlier on the other end of the scale - I maintain at a calorie level 30%+ higher than calculators predict from my characteristics.
I don't talk about this belief much, because I think people who incorrectly believe they have a "slow metabolism" are much (much) more common. But I wish the forums would be a little less bullying about this possibility, just in case: It's possible to say that an OP's beliefs are unlikely, without calling them names.33
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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