What terms/phrases wind you up about losing weight?
Replies
-
LadyLilion wrote: »"the fat burning zone".
Makes me even more grateful I found MFP and learned what it really takes.
I asked about this one on the fitness board because I totally didn't know what the heck they meant. I knew my Fitbit shows my activity as either out of zone, fat-burning, cardio, and peak. I figured that HAD to mean something with respect to my weight loss...I mean, why else show it? It even tags it with how many calories per minute you are burning at the various levels. I have a very low heart rate - resting is about 50 bpm and I have a hard time getting it higher. I don't know if it's my medication or what, but I can be sweating my behind off and out of breath and really, not able to work any harder, and it'll get to cardio or peak for a hot second and then back down. I have a lot of "out of zone" time.
I'm also really grateful to MFP. You don't know if you don't ask.
No judgement
I wasn't singling anyone out or any particular piece of advice, it was more of an ah ha moment realizing how much information has changed in a relatively short amount of time. I will never criticize or judge someone for seeking out knowledge/information. Especially pertaining to healthy.
I also always thought you could spot reduce. It was some what of a sad day when I found research proving that false.
I'd be shocked if someone on here could say they never believed in one of the, now proven false, ideas about losing weight.
edit: format fix3 -
"Starvation mode"3
-
LadyLilion wrote: »
I asked about this one on the fitness board because I totally didn't know what the heck they meant. I knew my Fitbit shows my activity as either out of zone, fat-burning, cardio, and peak. I figured that HAD to mean something with respect to my weight loss...I mean, why else show it? It even tags it with how many calories per minute you are burning at the various levels. I have a very low heart rate - resting is about 50 bpm and I have a hard time getting it higher. I don't know if it's my medication or what, but I can be sweating my behind off and out of breath and really, not able to work any harder, and it'll get to cardio or peak for a hot second and then back down. I have a lot of "out of zone" time.
I'm also really grateful to MFP. You don't know if you don't ask.
People don't think that it might be a performance/training thing, because most aren't using a Fitbit or similar for that purpose. I think it would be nicer if they used the training heart rate zone descriptors instead: Recovery (Zone 1), Endurance (Zone 2), Stamina (Zone 3), Economy (Zone 4), Speed (Zone 5). Yes, still not the most clear and obvious, but at least it's linked to performance and not weight loss.
BTW - have you ever tested for your max HR? You may be someone for whom 220-age is really off on the high end (predicted max HR is too high) and the estimated zones are completely wrong for you.
I test the other way (and also have a low resting HR). For me, the estimated zones based on my age are way too low. If I used those, I'd be fluctuating between zones 2 and 3 strolling around the mall.
ETA: Futzing around with quote tags0 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
I was thinking the same thing.nutmegoreo wrote: »I have a couple thoughts about why people won't tell you. 1) They have done it in an unhealthy or less accepted way, and they don't want to be judged for it. 2) They have done it through something like calorie counting and have found that when they tell people their eyes will glaze over and be given a bunch of excuses, so feel it isn't worth the time and effort. 3) They have an illness that they don't wish to discuss.
People get different reactions based on the methodologies used.
Saying you had surgery instead of doing the work earns you less respect from me, but at least you admitted that you had surgery instead of acting like you worked as hard as everyone else.
You don't know how weight loss surgery works. Nobody I know who has had it is having a nice easy time losing their weight and keeping it off.
Btw, one of my pet peeves.
I have had WLS and like any other method of losing weight, it isn't easy and you still have to do the work and make lifestyle changes. The people that have the hardest time with success after surgery are the people who don't realize that, and think surgery in and of itself is the answer. It's just a tool like many other things. I guess a pet peeve of mine is being judged for my decision and being told I took the easy way out.11 -
People don't think that it might be a performance/training thing, because most aren't using a Fitbit or similar for that purpose. I think it would be nicer if they used the training heart rate zone descriptors instead: Recovery (Zone 1), Endurance (Zone 2), Stamina (Zone 3), Economy (Zone 4), Speed (Zone 5). Yes, still not the most clear and obvious, but at least it's linked to performance and not weight loss.
BTW - have you ever tested for your max HR? You may be someone for whom 220-age is really off on the high end (predicted max HR is too high) and the estimated zones are completely wrong for you.
I test the other way (and also have a low resting HR). For me, the estimated zones based on my age are way too low. If I used those, I'd be fluctuating between zones 2 and 3 strolling around the mall.
I have a heart arrhythmia - I skip beats - and am on 3 - that's right - 3 blood pressure meds. The arrhythmia isn't noticeable to me, but it gives nurses quite a start when they try to take my pulse. I never tell them in advance, just to watch their faces.
It's not dangerous. I had a stress test a few years ago and the cardiologist was please to see it actually goes away with exercise - it's the ones that get worse that you have to watch. But sometimes it takes some serious effort to raise it.
Basically, I think it makes the HR monitor a bit useless.
I've never had it tested...but it kind of freaks me out to think of raising it to the max...so I'm not sure I'd ever want to. At least not until I'm more fit than I am now.0 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »My personal #1 is "How do I find motivation?" or anything along those lines...
don't you have to distill it from unicorn tears harvested on the 3rd full moon of a leap year?11 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »My personal #1 is "How do I find motivation?" or anything along those lines...
Ugh this.
I don't understand what people want. No one can give you motivation, you have to find it for yourself.
Motivation is overrated anyway. It's good to get you started, but can fade quickly. Commitment and consistency even when you don't feel like it is where success lives.
13 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »MsHarryWinston wrote: »- Loose/lose, it just annoys the heck out of me.
- What the heck is up with the "fat burn zone"? I just don't understand it.
- When people say "I'm only on 1,200 calories a day but I'm not losing any weight. Oh and I don't use scales I just eyeball my portions but I know my tracking is perfect." Ummmm... doooooubtful.
- Or "I've hit a plateau! The scale hasn't moved for 3 days! Should I eat more??"
- OR "Oh my god i ate 100 calories over my goal last night and I gained 5 pounds! By the way it's my TOM. Oh and I ate a ton of carbs and soy sauce yesterday. Oh and I worked out and my muscles or sore. Oh, and I haven't pooped in 3 days..." Oh my god, dude, it's freakin water weight and waste just chiiiiiiiill.
- Omg and if I see one more thread asking if cheat days are ok. Do a freakin search! Soooo many people have given really thoughtful responses to that question time and time again.
I try to just mind my own business but when the first two pages are like, 6 threads with the SAME questions that the most cursory of searches would answer... Aaaaarg!
Simply put, it's being in the aerobic zone where the body burns more fat than glycogen, which is an important zone for training for endurance athletes. Any women's magazine talk beyond that is balderdash.
Sorry I totally meant my comment to be about the women's mag style use of the word. "Are you wasting your workout by not being in the fat burn zone? Don't let all your hard work go to waste!" Etc etc.
Just no.
Work out, burn calories + eating proper amount of calories for your weight loss goal -> CICO -> oh look you're losing weight now.
On the other hand yes, professional athletes benefit much more from knowledge of their different heart rate zones when working out.0 -
LadyLilion wrote: »"the fat burning zone".
Makes me even more grateful I found MFP and learned what it really takes.
I asked about this one on the fitness board because I totally didn't know what the heck they meant. I knew my Fitbit shows my activity as either out of zone, fat-burning, cardio, and peak. I figured that HAD to mean something with respect to my weight loss...I mean, why else show it? It even tags it with how many calories per minute you are burning at the various levels. I have a very low heart rate - resting is about 50 bpm and I have a hard time getting it higher. I don't know if it's my medication or what, but I can be sweating my behind off and out of breath and really, not able to work any harder, and it'll get to cardio or peak for a hot second and then back down. I have a lot of "out of zone" time.
I'm also really grateful to MFP. You don't know if you don't ask.
No judgement I wasn't singling anyone out or any particular piece of advice, it was more of an ah ha moment realizing how much information has changed in a relatively short amount of time. I will never criticize or judge someone for seeking out knowledge/information. Especially pertaining to healthy.
I also always thought you could spot reduce. It was some what of a sad day when I found research proving that false.
I'd be shocked if someone on here could say they never believed in one of the, now proven false, ideas about losing weight.
edit: format fix
I totally get this. I always wanted a 6-pack and my mom would say "you don't have to lose weight, your stomach muscles are just too soft. Do some crunches and you'll be fine."
Ha! Now I know that my body fat percentage was way too high for a 6-pack! Targeted abdominal exercises have always shown results for me, more defined waist or smoother stomach but I was never going to get abs without losing a good 30lb.
It took me ages to learn that all those celebrities saying they got their rock hard abs from doing 200 crunches a day were dirty filthy liars. I'm looking at you Janet Jackson!8 -
SingRunTing wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »My personal #1 is "How do I find motivation?" or anything along those lines...
Ugh this.
I don't understand what people want. No one can give you motivation, you have to find it for yourself.
Motivation is overrated anyway. It's good to get you started, but can fade quickly. Commitment and consistency even when you don't feel like it is where success lives.
Exactly! Dedication, not motivation!2 -
"Tummy"
Ugh. What are we, three years old?9 -
It's not a term or phrase but it annoys me when people don't "believe" in calorie counting or CICO or they think weight loss is specific to certain foods. I had a coworker at my last job who had gained a bunch of weight over the years and was convinced it was solely because of the 2 pieces of bacon she was eating for breakfast every morning. I'm like, 2 pieces of bacon only has like 40 calories. Also when people think you need to eat breakfast to lose weight, or eat many small meals a day, or whatever nonsense.3
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »"Tummy"
Ugh. What are we, three years old?
Yessss...this bothers me so much, but I always refrain from saying anything. We are adults...don't tell me you have "tummy trouble".4 -
It's not a term or phrase but it annoys me when people don't "believe" in calorie counting or CICO or they think weight loss is specific to certain foods. I had a coworker at my last job who had gained a bunch of weight over the years and was convinced it was solely because of the 2 pieces of bacon she was eating for breakfast every morning. I'm like, 2 pieces of bacon only has like 40 calories. Also when people think you need to eat breakfast to lose weight, or eat many small meals a day, or whatever nonsense.
what kind of bacon are you eating where two pieces are 40 calories????????1 -
'cheat days'. Really, if you feel that you have to cheat from your diet, why did you pick that diet in the first place? A healthy diet can incorporate higher calorie days... there's nothing to cheat about.
'how to lose belly fat in x days'. No. Just no.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »JessicaMcB wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Nicholas_39 wrote: »"Starvation mode"
Also when people claim cardio is bad for aesthetics so you should be doing weight lifting instead.
Cardio is bad for aesthetics... compare a marathoner to a judoka or gymnast
Not to pick on you @stanmann571, I agree that resistance training is important, but here is what irritates me about MFP at times- people stating their opinions like they are hard and fast facts. Aesthetics are highly subjective don't you think? In my opinion cardio isn't bad for aesthetics anymore than gymnastics is- they just develop different physiques.
Personally I'd rather look like Shalane Flanagan (marathon runner) than Jordyn Wieber (gymnast). I also think Hal Koerner (ultra runner) looks a far sight better than Asley Gonsalez (judoka). Not because either can be empirically proven to be better looking than the other, they are all incredibly fit people, but because Flanagan and Koerner are my preferred aesthetic for myself. If I wanted to look like Wieber or Misty Copeland or whatever then yeah, high volume long distance running would be counter-productive to that goal, but I don't. If someone else would rather look like them they aren't more or less right in their preferences than I am.
People should train for the physiques they want to attain. I'm a runner, I identify with runner aesthetic and therefore am training for that aesthetic. You want to look like a gymnast or a dancer then train like one. But no one fitness or physique goal is superior to all the others (to my mind anyway). Much like how no one way of eating is the one "to rule them all"
Going to have to disagree.
If your "aesthetic" is indistinguishable from a famine victim or drug addict. It's not attractive. By definition. It may be desirable for improved performance, but it's not aesthetically desirable.
Oh. Wow, just wow. How horrible.
Have you seen what @JessicaMcB looks like? Hint: nothing like the the hugely disgusting judgmental shite you wrote.11 -
LadyLilion wrote: »People don't think that it might be a performance/training thing, because most aren't using a Fitbit or similar for that purpose. I think it would be nicer if they used the training heart rate zone descriptors instead: Recovery (Zone 1), Endurance (Zone 2), Stamina (Zone 3), Economy (Zone 4), Speed (Zone 5). Yes, still not the most clear and obvious, but at least it's linked to performance and not weight loss.
BTW - have you ever tested for your max HR? You may be someone for whom 220-age is really off on the high end (predicted max HR is too high) and the estimated zones are completely wrong for you.
I test the other way (and also have a low resting HR). For me, the estimated zones based on my age are way too low. If I used those, I'd be fluctuating between zones 2 and 3 strolling around the mall.
I have a heart arrhythmia - I skip beats - and am on 3 - that's right - 3 blood pressure meds. The arrhythmia isn't noticeable to me, but it gives nurses quite a start when they try to take my pulse. I never tell them in advance, just to watch their faces. It's not dangerous. I had a stress test a few years ago and the cardiologist was please to see it actually goes away with exercise - it's the ones that get worse that you have to watch. But sometimes it takes some serious effort to raise it.
Basically, I think it makes the HR monitor a bit useless.
I've never had it tested...but it kind of freaks me out to think of raising it to the max...so I'm not sure I'd ever want to. At least not until I'm more fit than I am now.
Ah, never mind, then. And I'd definitely forget about training to HR zones.
My dad's on a blood pressure medication that keeps his heart rate artificially low (to protect his kidney, not for cardiac-related issues). He's been warned about doing significant effort because his heart can't compensate quickly enough and he'll get dizzy, weak, and possibly pass out. Not a positive thing while exercising.1 -
the word... CAN'T0
-
cerise_noir wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »JessicaMcB wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Nicholas_39 wrote: »"Starvation mode"
Also when people claim cardio is bad for aesthetics so you should be doing weight lifting instead.
Cardio is bad for aesthetics... compare a marathoner to a judoka or gymnast
Not to pick on you @stanmann571, I agree that resistance training is important, but here is what irritates me about MFP at times- people stating their opinions like they are hard and fast facts. Aesthetics are highly subjective don't you think? In my opinion cardio isn't bad for aesthetics anymore than gymnastics is- they just develop different physiques.
Personally I'd rather look like Shalane Flanagan (marathon runner) than Jordyn Wieber (gymnast). I also think Hal Koerner (ultra runner) looks a far sight better than Asley Gonsalez (judoka). Not because either can be empirically proven to be better looking than the other, they are all incredibly fit people, but because Flanagan and Koerner are my preferred aesthetic for myself. If I wanted to look like Wieber or Misty Copeland or whatever then yeah, high volume long distance running would be counter-productive to that goal, but I don't. If someone else would rather look like them they aren't more or less right in their preferences than I am.
People should train for the physiques they want to attain. I'm a runner, I identify with runner aesthetic and therefore am training for that aesthetic. You want to look like a gymnast or a dancer then train like one. But no one fitness or physique goal is superior to all the others (to my mind anyway). Much like how no one way of eating is the one "to rule them all"
Going to have to disagree.
If your "aesthetic" is indistinguishable from a famine victim or drug addict. It's not attractive. By definition. It may be desirable for improved performance, but it's not aesthetically desirable.
Oh. Wow, just wow. How horrible.
Have you seen what @JessicaMcB looks like? Hint: nothing like the the hugely disgusting judgmental shite you wrote.
I agree that aesthetics are personal opinions, but he didn't say that she looked like that description, he just said that it's unattractive (apparently by definition, whatever that's supposed to mean) but I don't think he was saying that was what she looks like.1 -
Muscleflex79 wrote: »It's not a term or phrase but it annoys me when people don't "believe" in calorie counting or CICO or they think weight loss is specific to certain foods. I had a coworker at my last job who had gained a bunch of weight over the years and was convinced it was solely because of the 2 pieces of bacon she was eating for breakfast every morning. I'm like, 2 pieces of bacon only has like 40 calories. Also when people think you need to eat breakfast to lose weight, or eat many small meals a day, or whatever nonsense.
what kind of bacon are you eating where two pieces are 40 calories????????
Oscar Mayer Center Cut Bacon is ~60 for 2 cooked slices . . . and worth every single one of them!!! I'm not even mad that I burned my tounge on a piece when I heated up my Bacon and Egg English Muffin this morning, lol.2 -
STLBADGIRL wrote: »LadyLilion wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »LadyLilion wrote: »"It's not a diet it's a lifestyle change"
I wonder if in a few years people will be saying "no dessert for me, I'm lifestyling"
But it IS a lifestyle change. Going from sitting in front of the TV and eating Dairy Queen 3x a week to taking evening walks and cooking healthy food and actually paying attention to your diet (noun, not verb) while avoiding 1300 calorie desserts you freaking LOVE - takes a considerable change in your actual lifestyle - believe me. And if you go back to your former lifestyle, you gain it back.
I agree. I have been smh with may of the responses....especially on a fitness message board where we should be more forgiving and understanding. But, I'm taking it as people venting.
Hey St. Louis! You'll likely understand this - I tried Ted Drewes for the first time last week. Husband brought home two quarts. We're weighing it out into 1/2 cup servings when we eat it. Four months ago, that would have lasted maybe 4 days.
To me, stuff like that definitely qualifies as a lifestyle change. LOL!
I do get the venting about stuff though. I'm back on MFP after dumping all my efforts awhile back. I'm already tired of some of the same stuff being posted time and time again.
Hey You.....now did he get Ted Drewes from the actual shop or did he get it out of the store? The one and only reason I tried Ted Drewes was because the lines were always soooooooooooo long. One day I stopped there just to see what all the hype was about - been hooked ever since... I try my best to stay far away from there....or go to treat myself!
I use all the words that people are pissed at as well - journey, lifestyle, etc. etc. etc., because those are the affirmations that I have to speak to myself and write down and give power to vs the other negative words that I used to give power to. It's most def. a lifestyle change/shift for me.
Despite the lines, despite the obstacles, despite the riots....let humanity and all semblance of society burn around me....Ted Drewes is worth any wait.1 -
When the Doc says "Good luck with the diet!". Makes me wanna throttle him.
I can't even baby-feline imagine how much doctors get tiny-kitty tired of giving weight-loss info to people who swear to lose, and instead come back in 6 months just as fat or fatter, with a boatload of lame rationalizations/excuses. How docs can even remotely remain polite and professional - this escapes me.
An experienced medical professional learns to ask the question three times, but in different ways:
Do you work out?
What kind of physical activity do you get?
How much time do you spend doing deliberate physical exercise?
By the time you get to the third question most people break and will be a bit honest with you, but nearly everyone initially "Eats healthy and gets plenty of exercise". The people who think they do not do this are typically in great shape - all relative.5 -
@stanmann571 you can't see the difference between Shalane Flanagan and the late Amy Winehouse? Really?
I honestly don't care what anyone else finds attractive, it isn't my business and I recognize that I am no authority on anyone else's body. You very clearly don't like runner's aesthetic and that's fine, but that doesn't invalidate other peoples' aesthetic choices that are different. I really don't see how representing one's very subjective opinions on any subject as fact is helpful in MFP discussion, which was ultimately my point.9 -
stanmann571 wrote: »JessicaMcB wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Nicholas_39 wrote: »"Starvation mode"
Also when people claim cardio is bad for aesthetics so you should be doing weight lifting instead.
Cardio is bad for aesthetics... compare a marathoner to a judoka or gymnast
Not to pick on you @stanmann571, I agree that resistance training is important, but here is what irritates me about MFP at times- people stating their opinions like they are hard and fast facts. Aesthetics are highly subjective don't you think? In my opinion cardio isn't bad for aesthetics anymore than gymnastics is- they just develop different physiques.
Personally I'd rather look like Shalane Flanagan (marathon runner) than Jordyn Wieber (gymnast). I also think Hal Koerner (ultra runner) looks a far sight better than Asley Gonsalez (judoka). Not because either can be empirically proven to be better looking than the other, they are all incredibly fit people, but because Flanagan and Koerner are my preferred aesthetic for myself. If I wanted to look like Wieber or Misty Copeland or whatever then yeah, high volume long distance running would be counter-productive to that goal, but I don't. If someone else would rather look like them they aren't more or less right in their preferences than I am.
People should train for the physiques they want to attain. I'm a runner, I identify with runner aesthetic and therefore am training for that aesthetic. You want to look like a gymnast or a dancer then train like one. But no one fitness or physique goal is superior to all the others (to my mind anyway). Much like how no one way of eating is the one "to rule them all"
Going to have to disagree.
If your "aesthetic" is indistinguishable from a famine victim or drug addict. It's not attractive. By definition. It may be desirable for improved performance, but it's not aesthetically desirable.
How come that's what's on the cover of every magazine then?
Because fashion photographers are drug addicts?1 -
There is one missing point in this whole marathoner vs gymnast aesthetic: it's not the cardio that makes marathoners thin and lean, it's that thinness and leanness result in better time, and excessive muscle mass (especially in the upper half) means slower time. Cardio does not lead to that lean look, purposely trying to achieve that lean look leads to it. I don't think it's unattractive, but obviously you do, but the point stands: it's not the cardio it's the goal.
I like the "traditional belly dancer" aesthetic:
Belly dancing will not cause me to have that soft looking belly and higher than average body fat (there are plenty of lean belly dancers), not getting too lean would.
ETA: swimmers, cyclers, and plenty of other athletes do a lot of cardio and they don't look like marathoners.12 -
stanmann571 wrote: »JessicaMcB wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Nicholas_39 wrote: »"Starvation mode"
Also when people claim cardio is bad for aesthetics so you should be doing weight lifting instead.
Cardio is bad for aesthetics... compare a marathoner to a judoka or gymnast
Not to pick on you @stanmann571, I agree that resistance training is important, but here is what irritates me about MFP at times- people stating their opinions like they are hard and fast facts. Aesthetics are highly subjective don't you think? In my opinion cardio isn't bad for aesthetics anymore than gymnastics is- they just develop different physiques.
Personally I'd rather look like Shalane Flanagan (marathon runner) than Jordyn Wieber (gymnast). I also think Hal Koerner (ultra runner) looks a far sight better than Asley Gonsalez (judoka). Not because either can be empirically proven to be better looking than the other, they are all incredibly fit people, but because Flanagan and Koerner are my preferred aesthetic for myself. If I wanted to look like Wieber or Misty Copeland or whatever then yeah, high volume long distance running would be counter-productive to that goal, but I don't. If someone else would rather look like them they aren't more or less right in their preferences than I am.
People should train for the physiques they want to attain. I'm a runner, I identify with runner aesthetic and therefore am training for that aesthetic. You want to look like a gymnast or a dancer then train like one. But no one fitness or physique goal is superior to all the others (to my mind anyway). Much like how no one way of eating is the one "to rule them all"
Going to have to disagree.
If your "aesthetic" is indistinguishable from a famine victim or drug addict. It's not attractive. By definition. It may be desirable for improved performance, but it's not aesthetically desirable.
How come that's what's on the cover of every magazine then?
The look on the cover of "every magazine" is unachievable by design. It's intended to make women feel bad about their bodies so that they'll buy the products advertised in the magazine so that the magazine makes money. The reason it's unachievable is that it's photoshopped.
For the record, the distance runner (who looks fine, and I see no reason a person shouldn't aspire to that aesthetic if it's realistic for their particular genetic makeup) is *not* what's on the cover of magazines. Not enough boobs, and her waist is actually proportional to the rest of her body.10 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »There is one missing point in this whole marathoner vs gymnast aesthetic: it's not the cardio that makes marathoners thin and lean, it's that thinness and leanness results in better time and excessive muscle mass especially in the upper half means slower time. Cardio does not lead to that lean look, purposely trying to achieve that lean look leads to it.
I like the "traditional belly dancer" aesthetic:
Belly dancing will not cause me to have that soft looking belly and higher than average body fat, not getting too lean would.
Honestly when I said dancers I meant more in line with the Misty Copelands of the world than belly dancers, etc. but that is pretty myopic on my part given that the lady pictured is obviously just as much a dancer. Thanks for pointing that out @amusedmonkey , there would definitely be aesthetics that hard training would actually be counterproductive to!
I would argue that purposeful cardio training can contribute to leaning out just from a personal standpoint (me and my trail running crew were talking about this last week but again, all n=1 accounts), but I get what you're saying.1 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »JessicaMcB wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Nicholas_39 wrote: »"Starvation mode"
Also when people claim cardio is bad for aesthetics so you should be doing weight lifting instead.
Cardio is bad for aesthetics... compare a marathoner to a judoka or gymnast
Not to pick on you @stanmann571, I agree that resistance training is important, but here is what irritates me about MFP at times- people stating their opinions like they are hard and fast facts. Aesthetics are highly subjective don't you think? In my opinion cardio isn't bad for aesthetics anymore than gymnastics is- they just develop different physiques.
Personally I'd rather look like Shalane Flanagan (marathon runner) than Jordyn Wieber (gymnast). I also think Hal Koerner (ultra runner) looks a far sight better than Asley Gonsalez (judoka). Not because either can be empirically proven to be better looking than the other, they are all incredibly fit people, but because Flanagan and Koerner are my preferred aesthetic for myself. If I wanted to look like Wieber or Misty Copeland or whatever then yeah, high volume long distance running would be counter-productive to that goal, but I don't. If someone else would rather look like them they aren't more or less right in their preferences than I am.
People should train for the physiques they want to attain. I'm a runner, I identify with runner aesthetic and therefore am training for that aesthetic. You want to look like a gymnast or a dancer then train like one. But no one fitness or physique goal is superior to all the others (to my mind anyway). Much like how no one way of eating is the one "to rule them all"
Going to have to disagree.
If your "aesthetic" is indistinguishable from a famine victim or drug addict. It's not attractive. By definition. It may be desirable for improved performance, but it's not aesthetically desirable.
How come that's what's on the cover of every magazine then?
The look on the cover of "every magazine" is unachievable by design. It's intended to make women feel bad about their bodies so that they'll buy the products advertised in the magazine so that the magazine makes money. The reason it's unachievable is that it's photoshopped.
For the record, the distance runner (who looks fine, and I see no reason a person shouldn't aspire to that aesthetic if it's realistic for their particular genetic makeup) is *not* what's on the cover of magazines. Not enough boobs, and her waist is actually proportional to the rest of her body.
My point was only that many people find waifs attractive. It is ridiculous to say that any one aesthetic is generally appealing (or not).4 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »JessicaMcB wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Nicholas_39 wrote: »"Starvation mode"
Also when people claim cardio is bad for aesthetics so you should be doing weight lifting instead.
Cardio is bad for aesthetics... compare a marathoner to a judoka or gymnast
Not to pick on you @stanmann571, I agree that resistance training is important, but here is what irritates me about MFP at times- people stating their opinions like they are hard and fast facts. Aesthetics are highly subjective don't you think? In my opinion cardio isn't bad for aesthetics anymore than gymnastics is- they just develop different physiques.
Personally I'd rather look like Shalane Flanagan (marathon runner) than Jordyn Wieber (gymnast). I also think Hal Koerner (ultra runner) looks a far sight better than Asley Gonsalez (judoka). Not because either can be empirically proven to be better looking than the other, they are all incredibly fit people, but because Flanagan and Koerner are my preferred aesthetic for myself. If I wanted to look like Wieber or Misty Copeland or whatever then yeah, high volume long distance running would be counter-productive to that goal, but I don't. If someone else would rather look like them they aren't more or less right in their preferences than I am.
People should train for the physiques they want to attain. I'm a runner, I identify with runner aesthetic and therefore am training for that aesthetic. You want to look like a gymnast or a dancer then train like one. But no one fitness or physique goal is superior to all the others (to my mind anyway). Much like how no one way of eating is the one "to rule them all"
Going to have to disagree.
If your "aesthetic" is indistinguishable from a famine victim or drug addict. It's not attractive. By definition. It may be desirable for improved performance, but it's not aesthetically desirable.
How come that's what's on the cover of every magazine then?
The look on the cover of "every magazine" is unachievable by design. It's intended to make women feel bad about their bodies so that they'll buy the products advertised in the magazine so that the magazine makes money. The reason it's unachievable is that it's photoshopped.
For the record, the distance runner (who looks fine, and I see no reason a person shouldn't aspire to that aesthetic if it's realistic for their particular genetic makeup) is *not* what's on the cover of magazines. Not enough boobs, and her waist is actually proportional to the rest of her body.
My point was only that many people find waifs attractive. It is ridiculous to say that any one aesthetic is generally appealing (or not).
With that, I wholeheartedly agree!1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »There is one missing point in this whole marathoner vs gymnast aesthetic: it's not the cardio that makes marathoners thin and lean, it's that thinness and leanness result in better time, and excessive muscle mass (especially in the upper half) means slower time. Cardio does not lead to that lean look, purposely trying to achieve that lean look leads to it. I don't think it's unattractive, but obviously you do, but the point stands: it's not the cardio it's the goal.
I like the "traditional belly dancer" aesthetic:
Belly dancing will not cause me to have that soft looking belly and higher than average body fat (there are plenty of lean belly dancers), not getting too lean would.
ETA: swimmers, cyclers, and plenty of other athletes do a lot of cardio and they don't look like marathoners.
Rowers do a bit (heh) of cardio, too. Not very much gaunt/emaciated happening here.
(It's Meghan Musnicki, two-time Olympic gold medalist. I suspect you'd find few gaunt/emaciated physiques among XC skiers, either. It's not the cardio per se.)
4
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