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?
Replies
-
BabyBear76 wrote: »Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.
I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.0 -
BabyBear76 wrote: »Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.
I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.
I would say you're exactly wrong.
Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »BabyBear76 wrote: »Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.
I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.
I would say you're exactly wrong.
Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.
This. Crunches are actually the flavour du jour because full "old school" ones can cause all kinds of issues. I don't do a lot of core isolation but largely due to a hip that makes a lot of variations uncomfortable (about to be investigated). But when I don't do it regularly, even with lifting and other work that requires the engagement of my core, my back does suffer when I don't have core specific work at least semi-regularly.1 -
It's funny that you mention that because the bolded part is what I do (per doctor's orders), and it's been working, but we're not allowed to mention that in here.My most unpopular "opinion" is that you need to eat more to lose weight, because science. Mention I'm eating 800 calories per day to lose weight? Cheers, praise, questions on how I'm doing it, what I'm eating, etc. Tell them I'm actually eating 2800 calories per day to lose weight? *crickets* Then the storm.0 -
It's funny that you mention that because the bolded part is what I do (per doctor's orders), and it's been working, but we're not allowed to mention that in here.My most unpopular "opinion" is that you need to eat more to lose weight, because science. Mention I'm eating 800 calories per day to lose weight? Cheers, praise, questions on how I'm doing it, what I'm eating, etc. Tell them I'm actually eating 2800 calories per day to lose weight? *crickets* Then the storm.
Most of the time people mention they are eating 800 calories but neglect to mention they are under Doctors supervision, and that is why they get jumped on. Include that you are under a Doctors care and you will not be told to eat more.6 -
It's funny that you mention that because the bolded part is what I do (per doctor's orders), and it's been working, but we're not allowed to mention that in here.My most unpopular "opinion" is that you need to eat more to lose weight, because science. Mention I'm eating 800 calories per day to lose weight? Cheers, praise, questions on how I'm doing it, what I'm eating, etc. Tell them I'm actually eating 2800 calories per day to lose weight? *crickets* Then the storm.
You can mention it on this site, but you have to qualify it with, "I am morbidly obese and my doctor has recommended this calorie limit."
The problem with mentioning 800 calorie plans in passing is that little tiny people read that and think, "Oh. I can eat way less? Well, great - I'll lose faster." There are many ana sufferers who use this site to track intake and use it in disordered ways. Myfitnesspal has chosen to disallow promotion of VLCDs as a means to keep healthy weight-loss front and center.
You won't be able to stay at that low calorie for long. You have a lot of body fat. VLCDs are short-term tools for people who are at risk due to being extremely over-weight. Extreme obesity is life-threatening, but so is anorexia.12 -
Haven't been to this thread in one week...... and I missed nearly 1000 posts??1
-
stanmann571 wrote: »BabyBear76 wrote: »Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.
I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.
I would say you're exactly wrong.
Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.
I honestly think planks are far better for improving core strength. Also balance activities, like yoga ones. And maybe I've forgotten "correct" form for a crunch, so there could be that.
Edit - also note that I said situps are only slightly better (IMO), but again they require correct form.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »BabyBear76 wrote: »Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.
I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.
I would say you're exactly wrong.
Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.
This. Crunches are actually the flavour du jour because full "old school" ones can cause all kinds of issues. I don't do a lot of core isolation but largely due to a hip that makes a lot of variations uncomfortable (about to be investigated). But when I don't do it regularly, even with lifting and other work that requires the engagement of my core, my back does suffer when I don't have core specific work at least semi-regularly.
I guess your "old school" means sit-ups? I don't think they're especially great either (note I said they are only slightly better).
I can empathize with you on the hip issues/back pain. I was out of the gym for several months for a recurrent back/hip pain issue. It was finally diagnosed as hyper-mobility of the SI joint, and PT had me working on core and glute strength. Interestingly, not a single crunch (nor a sit-up) was done as remedy. Several other core-building exercises, though. (I share to offer you hope for a simple resolution and give you my perspective, not as an appeal to authority).
Core strength = good. But are crunches the best way to get there? I don't think they are.0 -
Deadlifts are my favorite ab exercise.9
-
VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »BabyBear76 wrote: »Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.
I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.
I would say you're exactly wrong.
Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.
This. Crunches are actually the flavour du jour because full "old school" ones can cause all kinds of issues. I don't do a lot of core isolation but largely due to a hip that makes a lot of variations uncomfortable (about to be investigated). But when I don't do it regularly, even with lifting and other work that requires the engagement of my core, my back does suffer when I don't have core specific work at least semi-regularly.
I guess your "old school" means sit-ups? I don't think they're especially great either (note I said they are only slightly better).
I can empathize with you on the hip issues/back pain. I was out of the gym for several months for a recurrent back/hip pain issue. It was finally diagnosed as hyper-mobility of the SI joint, and PT had me working on core and glute strength. Interestingly, not a single crunch (nor a sit-up) was done as remedy. Several other core-building exercises, though. (I share to offer you hope for a simple resolution and give you my perspective, not as an appeal to authority).
Core strength = good. But are crunches the best way to get there? I don't think they are.
I have snapping hip, ruling out dysplasia. Have had it since my dancing days. So if it's not a bone issue then off to the physio. It's the hip "rescuing" itself causing all the other issues no matter how hard I've tried to equally modify for it. I am hyper-mobile but I don't think that's the issue here. We'll see.
I actually love pilates, when done correctly with a properly qualified instructor, for core strength. It was a part of our timetable at dance school. So for me it's more about the crunch variation than just straight up crunches.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »BabyBear76 wrote: »Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.
I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.
I would say you're exactly wrong.
Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.
This. Crunches are actually the flavour du jour because full "old school" ones can cause all kinds of issues. I don't do a lot of core isolation but largely due to a hip that makes a lot of variations uncomfortable (about to be investigated). But when I don't do it regularly, even with lifting and other work that requires the engagement of my core, my back does suffer when I don't have core specific work at least semi-regularly.
I guess your "old school" means sit-ups? I don't think they're especially great either (note I said they are only slightly better).
I can empathize with you on the hip issues/back pain. I was out of the gym for several months for a recurrent back/hip pain issue. It was finally diagnosed as hyper-mobility of the SI joint, and PT had me working on core and glute strength. Interestingly, not a single crunch (nor a sit-up) was done as remedy. Several other core-building exercises, though. (I share to offer you hope for a simple resolution and give you my perspective, not as an appeal to authority).
Core strength = good. But are crunches the best way to get there? I don't think they are.
I have snapping hip, ruling out dysplasia. Have had it since my dancing days. So if it's not a bone issue then off to the physio. It's the hip "rescuing" itself causing all the other issues no matter how hard I've tried to equally modify for it. I am hyper-mobile but I don't think that's the issue here. We'll see.
I actually love pilates, when done correctly with a properly qualified instructor, for core strength. It was a part of our timetable at dance school. So for me it's more about the crunch variation than just straight up crunches.
Those of us who have danced--and warmed up with endless crunches with an instructor barking to push harder through assorted diabolical variations--likely have a unique appreciation for the core-strength-building capacity of crunches. I think that they can seem deceptively easy, especially with the basic variation where you are just lying on the floor, chillaxin' with your head in your hands. Although I agree with Carlos, a deadlift is my favorite crunch!2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »BabyBear76 wrote: »Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.
I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.
I would say you're exactly wrong.
Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.
I did tens of thousands of situps while I served in the military. I suffered zero back hyperextensions and you could have grated cheese on my abs. It is all about form...2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »BabyBear76 wrote: »Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.
I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.
I would say you're exactly wrong.
Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.
I did tens of thousands of situps while I served in the military. I suffered zero back hyperextensions and you could have grated cheese on my abs. It is all about form...
Well since only the army does situps, I'll assume that's what you're referencing.
Navy, Marines, and Air Force have all transitioned to crunches due to the back and neck damage done by situps.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »BabyBear76 wrote: »Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.
I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.
I would say you're exactly wrong.
Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.
I did tens of thousands of situps while I served in the military. I suffered zero back hyperextensions and you could have grated cheese on my abs. It is all about form...
Well since only the army does situps, I'll assume that's what you're referencing.
Navy, Marines, and Airforce have all transitioned to crunches due to the back and neck damage done by situps.
Do they also work on their jazz hands like me 'n Vintage Feline?
10 -
That calories in/out works....but not all the time. If it worked all the time people wouldn't plateau. Since there's no way to do controlled long term studies there's a lot about weight and health that we don't know.
BMI is severely lacking as a measure of health. I use waist to hip ratio.9 -
That calories in/out works....but not all the time. If it worked all the time people wouldn't plateau. Since there's no way to do controlled long term studies there's a lot about weight and health that we don't know.
As I understand it, some of the reasons for plateaus are- A person who weighs (grabbing random number) 250 lbs and walks a mile at 3.0 mph will burn more calories than a person who weighs 140 walking the same distance at the same weight rate. (Danged typo!) It takes energy moving extra poundage around.
- Some people don't adjust their calorie intake downward as their weight drops. When I started MFP, my base calories after plugging in my height, weight, activity level and weightloss rate of 1lb/week were 1710, which means I would have probably maintained at 2210, give or take. 68 lbs later, my base calories are at 1380, which means I'd probably maintain at 1880. So, if I'd never adjusted my calories from my starting weight and kept eating at 1710, I'd probably have seen my weightloss slow and plateau by now, because, I'd be eating virtually at maintenance.
- I can only speak for myself, but after a time, complacency can set in. I stop putting everything on the scale because "I know what 120 grams of rice looks like after months of weighing it out." Except that I don't. I know what it looks like roughly. And after a while, portion sizes start to creep upwards.
- Similarly, in the past, I've stopped logging because "I know my calories by now." Except that without a log, I can forget some of what I ate. I can mess up with my mental math. Etc.
- Misjudging exercise burns.
- While Starvation Mode isn't real, Starvation Response is and can cause a slight slowdown in metabolism. Also, being on too few calories, can lead to less energy, which would reduce the intensity/length of exercise, so fewer calories get burned.
Not saying that these are the only reasons; mostly they're distilled from things I've read on these forums and links I've found either here, or via my own Google searches. But to me, CICO does work, so long as we can reliably ascertain the CI and the CO.13 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »That calories in/out works....but not all the time. If it worked all the time people wouldn't plateau. Since there's no way to do controlled long term studies there's a lot about weight and health that we don't know.
CI/CO is an energy equation - so yes it always works - a plateau comes out when CI and CO are equalized - which means either one or the other side of the equation (or both) needs to be adjusted
7 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »BabyBear76 wrote: »Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.
I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.
I would say you're exactly wrong.
Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.
I did tens of thousands of situps while I served in the military. I suffered zero back hyperextensions and you could have grated cheese on my abs. It is all about form...
Well since only the army does situps, I'll assume that's what you're referencing.
Navy, Marines, and Air Force have all transitioned to crunches due to the back and neck damage done by situps.
The Army it was! I found carrying a 70-80lb rucksack on 20+ mile road marches to be more of a strain on my back and neck than situps ever were...5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »BabyBear76 wrote: »Unpopular opinion: sit-ups and crunches are horrible. Cardio sucks.
I agree that crunches are horrible - useless for anything but getting better at crunches, IMO. I would give situps slightly more value, but there are still better ways to have a strong core.
I would say you're exactly wrong.
Correct crunches are great for improving core strength.. and situps are a great way to hyperextend your back.
This. Crunches are actually the flavour du jour because full "old school" ones can cause all kinds of issues. I don't do a lot of core isolation but largely due to a hip that makes a lot of variations uncomfortable (about to be investigated). But when I don't do it regularly, even with lifting and other work that requires the engagement of my core, my back does suffer when I don't have core specific work at least semi-regularly.
I guess your "old school" means sit-ups? I don't think they're especially great either (note I said they are only slightly better).
I can empathize with you on the hip issues/back pain. I was out of the gym for several months for a recurrent back/hip pain issue. It was finally diagnosed as hyper-mobility of the SI joint, and PT had me working on core and glute strength. Interestingly, not a single crunch (nor a sit-up) was done as remedy. Several other core-building exercises, though. (I share to offer you hope for a simple resolution and give you my perspective, not as an appeal to authority).
Core strength = good. But are crunches the best way to get there? I don't think they are.
I have snapping hip, ruling out dysplasia. Have had it since my dancing days. So if it's not a bone issue then off to the physio. It's the hip "rescuing" itself causing all the other issues no matter how hard I've tried to equally modify for it. I am hyper-mobile but I don't think that's the issue here. We'll see.
I actually love pilates, when done correctly with a properly qualified instructor, for core strength. It was a part of our timetable at dance school. So for me it's more about the crunch variation than just straight up crunches.
My hip has a "popping" thing, too. I blame gymnastics. (We did x-rays to rule out bone issues, too, before physio).
I actually agree with crunch variations, especially some of the pilates ones. What I'm talking about is the straight up basic crunch. It's totally unnecessary for good abs. (Was it @usmcmp who shared a picture of washboard abs with never having done a crunch?)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 907 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions