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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
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?)
Yeah, that's me. I don't do crunches. I recently did start some ab work, but only because my obliques aren't progressing as fast as the rest.2 -
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?)
Ha, gymnast before dancer here. Hip manifested whilst dancing some 15 years ago. I'm a little concerned that my other hip has recently snapped a few times but we'll see. Regardless I just want to permanently stop my flexors constantly straining and my back hurting. Lifting and stretching for two years has only made it a little worse!0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »
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
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories
8 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »
I'm not sure why you posted that artivcle, but if it was to refute - "CI/CO is an energy equation - so yes it always works" you'll see that in the article, they conclude that (emphasis mine):
"At the individual level, some very good research on what works for weight loss comes from the National Weight Control Registry, a study that has parsed the traits, habits, and behaviors of adults who have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for a minimum of one year. They currently have more than 10,000 members enrolled in the study, and these folks respond to annual questionnaires about how they've managed to keep their weight down.
The researchers behind the study found that people who have had success losing weight share a few things in common: They weigh themselves at least once a week. They restrict their calorie intake, stay away from high-fat foods, and watch their portion sizes. They also exercise regularly.
But note: These folks use physical activity in addition to calorie counting and other behavioral changes. Every reliable expert I've ever spoken to on weight loss says the most important thing a person can do is to limit calories in a way they like and can sustain, and focus on eating healthfully."
Which is an endorsement of the CI-CO is it not?13 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »
The idea here is that most don't burn that much with exercise and that for a lot of people increasing exercise may even result in increasing calories more. It does not support the idea that holding calories constant and increasing exercise would not work for weight loss.
So many of these articles, also, focus on what works for weight loss assuming you aren't, won't, or don't want to count calories. It is true that many tricks work for weight loss even if people are resistant to directly controlling calories, especially if one doesn't already eat healthfully or largely satiating foods or limit extra eating, etc. But none of that is contrary to the idea that CICO is what matters.
Personally, if I don't want to count, increasing activity is extremely important, and I've definitely lost just by increasing activity. (Matt Fitzgerald has talked about how this was his experience and directly addressed some of the studies and their weaknesses on this topic in some of his books.)
But of course I'm just guessing at what your point was intended to be. Just posting a link doesn't communicate it well, so could be I am misunderstanding.4 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »
yeah that doesn't actually dispute CICO...all is says is just cause you work out, doesn't mean you can go whole hog on eating and drinking, you still need to watch what you eat and make sure you eat less than you burn...
5 -
deannalfisher wrote: »
yeah that doesn't actually dispute CICO...all is says is just cause you work out, doesn't mean you can go whole hog on eating and drinking, you still need to watch what you eat and make sure you eat less than you burn...
But if calories you burn aren't linear (rates changes based on the amount of exercise/other factors WE DO NOT KNOW) it's an unknownable variable. If we can't accurately calculate calories out, calories in/calories out doesn't work.
One of my biggest problems with anything weight loss or fitness related is anyone saying anything works ALL the time.13 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »
But if calories you burn aren't linear (rates changes based on the amount of exercise/other factors WE DO NOT KNOW) it's an unknownable variable. If we can't accurately calculate calories out, calories in/calories out doesn't work.
One of my biggest problems with anything weight loss or fitness related is anyone saying anything works ALL the time.
you aren't changing the fact that CICO is an energy equation - knowing how the variables change doesn't negate that it is and always will be an energy equation. understanding how YOUR body adapts to the variables (through hormones, medical issues, calories burned due to differing levels of fitness) only refines the equation, does not negate it9 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »
But if calories you burn aren't linear (rates changes based on the amount of exercise/other factors WE DO NOT KNOW) it's an unknownable variable. If we can't accurately calculate calories out, calories in/calories out doesn't work.
One of my biggest problems with anything weight loss or fitness related is anyone saying anything works ALL the time.
Your BRAIN might not know the exact last detail of every calorie in the CICO equation, but your BODY certainly does, and it totes up the account books down to the very last calorie in or out (which is how you can get fat even if you think you are not eating that much). The variables do not change the basic law of conservation of energy. It's science: yay!
Fortunately you have the tools at hand to be able to put together a good guesstimate, and if your best guesstimate is not working, guesstimate some more.13 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »
But if calories you burn aren't linear (rates changes based on the amount of exercise/other factors WE DO NOT KNOW) it's an unknownable variable. If we can't accurately calculate calories out, calories in/calories out doesn't work.
You don't need to know the specific numbers for it to work.
If you are just starting, either get an estimate from a calculator (realizing it's just an estimate) or from MFP or look at what you have been eating/doing, and reduce from that. Then adjust based on results.
I've mentioned that I lost just based on activity. At the time I'd lost weight and was a healthy weight but wasn't losing the last 10 lbs I wanted to (I wasn't counting calories either). I decided to increase exercise with a goal (training for a triathlon), kept my eating as it had been -- which was pretty set -- and lost the 10 lbs.
Most people don't have set eating, so when they increase exercise they eat more. This isn't because increasing burn does not work (it's not linear, but close enough), but because they overcompensate. If you know basically what you are eating enough to hold it steady or decrease and know your activity enough to hold it steady or increase, it's easy.
For example, I don't know what I burn from exercise, I never track. But I track miles run, hours in the gym, have pretty consistent daily movement outside of exercise (based on how much I walk in daily life), stuff like that. So it would be very easy for me to know I had increased activity even without knowing specific numbers, and therefore to know I was burning more, period.3 -
5
-
Against popular opinion... I don't weigh everything. I overestimate unless it's a calorie-dense food (e.g. estimate - carrot, weigh - cheese).
This is because I can't handle it - I end up constantly doing the numbers in my head due to my anxiety disorder.
...and I am another believer that junk food exists/it matters what you eat!6 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »
But if calories you burn aren't linear (rates changes based on the amount of exercise/other factors WE DO NOT KNOW) it's an unknownable variable. If we can't accurately calculate calories out, calories in/calories out doesn't work.
One of my biggest problems with anything weight loss or fitness related is anyone saying anything works ALL the time.
CICO is just a math formula. It's never "wrong."
I don't believe your claim of "unknowable," unless you mean that it is difficult to know the exact numbers. I can get close. I logged food and guesstimated my exercise for eight months when I was losing over 70 pounds ten years ago. My calorie intake was below my calorie needs, therefore I lost weight. Was it an exact science? No. But I know for an absolute fact I ate less than I needed, because I'm 70 pounds lighter and it wasn't by accident.
I still log food and exercise and my weight has been stable for ten years (+/- five or so pounds depending on the season here in the cold NW.)5 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »
But if calories you burn aren't linear (rates changes based on the amount of exercise/other factors WE DO NOT KNOW) it's an unknownable variable. If we can't accurately calculate calories out, calories in/calories out doesn't work.
One of my biggest problems with anything weight loss or fitness related is anyone saying anything works ALL the time.
Your confusion, in my opinion, is in the subtle re-wording of the study results in the VOX article.
In the study it states (emphasis mine):
In Additive total energy expenditure models, total energy expenditure is a simple linear function of physical activity, and variation in physical activity energy expenditure (PA) determines variation in total energy expenditure. In Constrained total energy expenditure models, the body adapts to increased physical activity by reducing energy spent on other physiological activity, maintaining total energy expenditure within a narrow range.
in the VOX article this is paraphrased as:
"In other words, after a certain amount of exercise, you don't keep burning calories at the same rate: Total energy expenditure may eventually plateau."
This is incorrect according to the findings of the study and implies that increased exercise leads to a proportionally smaller exercise burn.
What they (VOX) could have said, if I'm interpreting the results correctly is:
"Above a certain level of exercise, people tend to compensate for excessive calorific burns by expending less during the rest of the day: In other words, you run a marathon in the morning and sit on the sofa for the next two days"
This seems to be the "exercise side" of what people refer to when discussing NEAT - where people talk about a drop in input calories causing a person to move about much less than otherwise, and therefore lose at a slower rate than the deficit would predict.
So, CICO still stands - we (or at least Pontzer) are not saying that the 85th minute of running on a treadmill burns less energy than the 14th but rather, if you run on the treadmill for a longtime, you're likely to feel tired and sit on your *kitten* for the rest of the day. Knowing that means that we can put strategies in place to reduce the "sofa time" or, split our exercise up into smaller chunks.11 -
Neurotic22 wrote: »Against popular opinion... I don't weigh everything. I overestimate unless it's a calorie-dense food (e.g. estimate - carrot, weigh - cheese).
This is because I can't handle it - I end up constantly doing the numbers in my head due to my anxiety disorder.
...and I am another believer that junk food exists/it matters what you eat!
I don't see any issue with this and do the same. This is a matter of prioritizing what matters. One point is that calorie estimations carry an inherent 20% margin of error. In the beginning I simply entered 1.2 to ensure a deficit. Now I just use my output to ensure a deficit.1 -
I'm not just starting. My feelings are based on 15 years of paying attention to my body and as much research as I can stand to consume.
Nothing you have said has contradicted my assertion that we don't have the tools to accurately calculate Calories Out. So we're arguing in circles.2 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »
But if calories you burn aren't linear (rates changes based on the amount of exercise/other factors WE DO NOT KNOW) it's an unknownable variable. If we can't accurately calculate calories out, calories in/calories out doesn't work.
One of my biggest problems with anything weight loss or fitness related is anyone saying anything works ALL the time.
Any measurement in the physical world is an estimate. Perfection only exists in the abstract. The key is to focus on the level of precision and accuracy required for a desired output.
If my speedometer and gas gauge are both defective the car still runs and I'm still traveling from point A to point B. This does not invalidate the fact that acceleration occurred, that gas was burned, etc.
12 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »I'm not just starting. My feelings are based on 15 years of paying attention to my body and as much research as I can stand to consume.
Nothing you have said has contradicted my assertion that we don't have the tools to accurately calculate Calories Out. So we're arguing in circles.
Just because you can't accurately determine calories out doesn't mean that CICO doesn't work? If you eat more than calories out, you gain... Right?7 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »I'm not just starting. My feelings are based on 15 years of paying attention to my body and as much research as I can stand to consume.
Nothing you have said has contradicted my assertion that we don't have the tools to accurately calculate Calories Out. So we're arguing in circles.
But you don't need to accurately calculate CO to the hundredth, tenth, individual calorie, or even tens of calories. You need to have a reasonable estimate of your CO so that you can reasonably estimate the CI requirements to balance the equation to your desire (lose, maintain, or gain weight). Our bodies are not a closed system, we are not a bomb calorimeter, and so subtle variations on both sides of the equation neither negate the validity or usefulness of the equation.
We don't need to be 100% accurate. Close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades is fine.
It is helpful to be precise. Repeatability, and appropriate adjustments based on real results over time, is far more relevant.
https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-accuracy-and-precision-60932810 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »I'm not just starting. My feelings are based on 15 years of paying attention to my body and as much research as I can stand to consume.
Nothing you have said has contradicted my assertion that we don't have the tools to accurately calculate Calories Out. So we're arguing in circles.
You seem to be making a (possibly valid) argument that calorie counting doesn't work (for you, anyway) because actual calories in/out can't be determined accurately. But you're telling us that's a valid argument that CICO (the energy balance equation) is incorrect. That doesn't follow.4 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »
But if calories you burn aren't linear (rates changes based on the amount of exercise/other factors WE DO NOT KNOW) it's an unknownable variable. If we can't accurately calculate calories out, calories in/calories out doesn't work.
One of my biggest problems with anything weight loss or fitness related is anyone saying anything works ALL the time.
Your calories out isn't going to swing up and down wildly from day to day. It's going to be pretty similar to make an educated guess. In maths you employ approximation techniques for getting results of formulas that would be too complicated to calculate properly.3 -
I disagree that what you eat doesn't matter. Sure you'll lose weight eating at a deficit, but HEALTH should be the ultimate goal. Natural is better and I'm sticking to it!12
-
I disagree that what you eat doesn't matter. Sure you'll lose weight eating at a deficit, but HEALTH should be the ultimate goal. Natural is better and I'm sticking to it!
What does that even mean?
I can design you a "natural" diet that will be the death of you in less than a year.
12 -
I disagree that what you eat doesn't matter. Sure you'll lose weight eating at a deficit, but HEALTH should be the ultimate goal. Natural is better and I'm sticking to it!
Twinkie diet, Fat head and at least 2 threads on mfp where people improved their health simply through weight loss.
Also hemlock is natural.10 -
I disagree that what you eat doesn't matter. Sure you'll lose weight eating at a deficit, but HEALTH should be the ultimate goal. Natural is better and I'm sticking to it!
A person on my friends list today posted an exuberantly excited and inspirational message that she has:
Lost 175 pounds
Reversed her prediabetes
Gotten off of high blood pressure medication she's been on for years.
Simply by cutting calories and losing weight.
I'd say HEALTH is her ultimate goal too, and she's rocking it, but you disagree?
11 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Twinkie diet, Fat head and at least 2 threads on mfp where people improved their health simply through weight loss.
Also hemlock is natural.
Sure an obese individual losing weight will generally improve health markers. Don't you think long term an individual will have better health markers eating a diet that is 80-90% nutrient dense vs the same person eating the same number of calories on the Twinkie diet or something similar?2 -
You can improve all your numbers by losing weight. That's a fact. But saying the quality of your food doesn't matter? Saying it's ok to eat foods laden with chemicals we cannot pronounce and are PROVEN to cause cancer and are even banned in other countries, doesn't matter? Dyes, preservatives, pesticides...they matter.26
-
You can improve all your numbers by losing weight. That's a fact. But saying the quality of your food doesn't matter? Saying it's ok to eat foods laden with chemicals we cannot pronounce and are PROVEN to cause cancer and are even banned in other countries, doesn't matter? Dyes, preservatives, pesticides...they matter.
We all die anyway. *shrug*6 -
You can improve all your numbers by losing weight. That's a fact. But saying the quality of your food doesn't matter? Saying it's ok to eat foods laden with chemicals we cannot pronounce and are PROVEN to cause cancer and are even banned in other countries, doesn't matter? Dyes, preservatives, pesticides...they matter.
Lots of things are banned in other countries... Doesn't mean it's right or smart.
And as far as "proven to cause cancer" Go ahead.7 -
You can improve all your numbers by losing weight. That's a fact. But saying the quality of your food doesn't matter? Saying it's ok to eat foods laden with chemicals we cannot pronounce and are PROVEN to cause cancer and are even banned in other countries, doesn't matter? Dyes, preservatives, pesticides...they matter.
Fortunately for me, I have a chemistry degree, so I can pronounce most of those things AND I understand them well enough to not be duped by fear mongering websites. But maybe if you wanted to provide some specific examples, we could discuss them?20
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions