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
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Again, it's ludicrous to say that ANY particular size is "healthy" or "unhealthy", especially if you're comparing size shifts over time. People in the Western World (by and large) have gotten bigger over the past 60 years, and that includes getting taller on average.
So far in this discussion, we've established:
1) Sizing for women's clothing in reality is all over the place and has shifted over time into vanity sizing.
2) Sizing standards are much smaller than what is actually in the stores/ on the labels.
3) People (women in this discussion) are bigger on average than they were 60 years ago.
4) The 'average' woman is probably still overfat.
BF% (on average) is a much better discussion point that X size or X weight to answer the question 'is this too big to be healthy?'
Can we stop telling size 12 women that they're obese
? While that may be true for some, it is most definitely not true for large sections of the population.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.
The average woman is 5'4. On average (most likely) a 5'4 woman who is a size 12 is overweight. However, that does not mean that being a size 12 means you are overweight. A 5'10 woman, for example.
So plenty of people who are 12 are not overweight.
(This is like the silliest conversation ever. I don't get why people are invested in saying a particular dress size is inherently a sign of overweight or obesity when there are much more direct measures like height and weight.)
This is literally the point I was trying to make in my post. I was pointing out by the original posters logic a size 12 would be considered overweight since they say the average woman is a size 12 and the average woman is overweight. This is why I ended my post by saying what really matters is being at a healthy weight.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Wait. I thought this was all about US sizing, so I thought I'd stay out of the discussion. But if we're not... Size 12 means a 34.5 inch waist? Which country's sizes, @SezxyStef?
Sizing differs from store to store. Some call this vanity sizing. I call it stores making clothes big enough to sell, but that is another thread. High street stores publish individual size guides, to tell the public the dimensions they design their garments to fit.
In the UK:
1) River Island. Size 12 jeans and trousers are listed as 29 inch/73cm waists. Pay attention to the centimetre measurement! https://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/size-guides/womens#extrasizeguide-womens-trousers
2) Next- 29 inches or 74cm. http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31028
3) the White Stuff- it's 29 inches or 73cm .http://www.whitestuff.com/mobile/mobile-help-her-size/
4) Marks & Spencer- it's 29.5 inches or 75cm. http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?mcptredirect
5) Monsoon- it's 28.5 inches or 73 cm http://uk.monsoon.co.uk/view/content/size-guide
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
That's interesting. According to the chart I'm a tight size 20 by hip and a size 18 by waist, but most of my current well fitting clothes are a size 14.
And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.
I would've said that "vanity sizing" is the gradual evolution of any given set of measurements to correlate to a smaller size number, pretty much across the range of stores and manufacturers, over several decades.
That it's common for individual women to have a waist that nominally (or actually) fits one size, hips another, bust possibly a third, and maybe even shoulders a fourth? That's been a 'feature' of numbered sizing standards forever.
Why do we tolerate this? Men get waist/inseam measures, we get an abstract number, with some mostly-unhelpful complication of "short" to "long", "petite" to "tall", and "juniors"/"misses"/"women's"(in the US). I'm guessing women spend more money on clothes; why do we get worse standards?.
It's a good trend that different brands now deviate from the standards' proportions, so that more women have a hope of finding something, somewhere that fits. It would be nice if it were a little more transparent.
9 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Wait. I thought this was all about US sizing, so I thought I'd stay out of the discussion. But if we're not... Size 12 means a 34.5 inch waist? Which country's sizes, @SezxyStef?
Sizing differs from store to store. Some call this vanity sizing. I call it stores making clothes big enough to sell, but that is another thread. High street stores publish individual size guides, to tell the public the dimensions they design their garments to fit.
In the UK:
1) River Island. Size 12 jeans and trousers are listed as 29 inch/73cm waists. Pay attention to the centimetre measurement! https://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/size-guides/womens#extrasizeguide-womens-trousers
2) Next- 29 inches or 74cm. http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31028
3) the White Stuff- it's 29 inches or 73cm .http://www.whitestuff.com/mobile/mobile-help-her-size/
4) Marks & Spencer- it's 29.5 inches or 75cm. http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?mcptredirect
5) Monsoon- it's 28.5 inches or 73 cm http://uk.monsoon.co.uk/view/content/size-guide
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
That's interesting. According to the chart I'm a tight size 20 by hip and a size 18 by waist, but most of my current well fitting clothes are a size 14.
And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.
I would've said that "vanity sizing" is the gradual evolution of any given set of measurements to correlate to a smaller size number, pretty much across the range of stores and manufacturers, over several decades.
That it's common for individual women to have a waist that nominally (or actually) fits one size, hips another, bust possibly a third, and maybe even shoulders a fourth? That's been a 'feature' of numbered sizing standards forever.
Why do we tolerate this? Men get waist/inseam measures, we get an abstract number, with some mostly-unhelpful complication of "short" to "long", "petite" to "tall", and "juniors"/"misses"/"women's"(in the US). I'm guessing women spend more money on clothes; why do we get worse standards?.
It's a good trend that different brands now deviate from the standards' proportions, so that more women have a hope of finding something, somewhere that fits. It would be nice if it were a little more transparent.
I just used some google-fu (a small amount, granted, as this is the first thing that came up, but it makes sense, in a way) and found: http://fashion-incubator.com/why-isnt-womens-clothing-sized-like-mens-pt-2/
I think - and I obviously could be wrong - that the main reason, per the article, is simply larger variances in certain dimensions:Many believe men have it easier because numbers are used to indicate their sizing. This is true and false but because is the operative word here. Men’s pants can be sold by numbers (waist and inseam) because the hip dimensions of men’s bodies (relative to waist size), is more easily predicted. It is because of their anatomy that numbers indicating hip measure is not needed to sell their pants.
This is not true for women. Women’s waist to hip difference can range from 12″ difference to the waist being several inches larger than the hips. So, the plea for women’s sizes to be sold like men’s is only similar if men’s pants were also sold by waist, inseam and hip. Since they are not, you can multiply the proverbial 99 sizes to get on the order of 300 sizes -duly noted are objections by Alison and others that makers aren’t required to produce all sizes.
Like I mentioned - not sure if that's it, but it seems to make sense.
2 -
Again, it's ludicrous to say that ANY particular size is "healthy" or "unhealthy", especially if you're comparing size shifts over time. People in the Western World (by and large) have gotten bigger over the past 60 years, and that includes getting taller on average.
So far in this discussion, we've established:
1) Sizing for women's clothing in reality is all over the place and has shifted over time into vanity sizing.
2) Sizing standards are much smaller than what is actually in the stores/ on the labels.
3) People (women in this discussion) are bigger on average than they were 60 years ago.
4) The 'average' woman is probably still overfat.
BF% (on average) is a much better discussion point that X size or X weight to answer the question 'is this too big to be healthy?'
Can we stop telling size 12 women that they're obese? While that may be true for some, it is most definitely not true for large sections of the population.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.
I couldn't agree more! What I was addressing stemmed from a post saying (essentially) "size 12 is too fat, and it's scary that the average women is so big". Several other posts chimed in saying that size 12 = obese. It's my own personal interpretation, but I don't think that 'overfat' = obese. Sure, it can on the upper side of the scale, but it can also be overweight. I'm currently at a BMI of 27. Yes, that is overfat, but it's not obese (I'm also still working on getting to a lower BMI).
I admit that I take personal exception to general statements that X size is too big to be healthy, because I am a bigger woman. I'm taller, and broader in the shoulders and hips, and even at the mid to low range of a normal BMI, it's unlikely that I'll ever be smaller than a size 8-ish. I know that it will be a healthy size for me, just like a 10 or 12 will be when I'm at the top end of normal. It irks me when people use such a nonsensical measure to call someone too fat.
I was one of the people who said something about size 12 people and obesity and I was quite clear that I was only talking about short people. At least I hope I was.
FTR, I'm talking pretty short here. I'm 5'1" and my sister (who I also referenced) is even shorter than me. She thinks she's 5', but ... LOL... no. She's a lot shorter than me than just an inch.
I was just sharing that for the two of us, at size 12, I was (and she is) definitely obese.
Someone taller with a different frame size? Entirely different ball game, of course. And this is definitely why sizing is a poor metric for anything.4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Wait. I thought this was all about US sizing, so I thought I'd stay out of the discussion. But if we're not... Size 12 means a 34.5 inch waist? Which country's sizes, @SezxyStef?
Sizing differs from store to store. Some call this vanity sizing. I call it stores making clothes big enough to sell, but that is another thread. High street stores publish individual size guides, to tell the public the dimensions they design their garments to fit.
In the UK:
1) River Island. Size 12 jeans and trousers are listed as 29 inch/73cm waists. Pay attention to the centimetre measurement! https://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/size-guides/womens#extrasizeguide-womens-trousers
2) Next- 29 inches or 74cm. http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31028
3) the White Stuff- it's 29 inches or 73cm .http://www.whitestuff.com/mobile/mobile-help-her-size/
4) Marks & Spencer- it's 29.5 inches or 75cm. http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?mcptredirect
5) Monsoon- it's 28.5 inches or 73 cm http://uk.monsoon.co.uk/view/content/size-guide
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
That's interesting. According to the chart I'm a tight size 20 by hip and a size 18 by waist, but most of my current well fitting clothes are a size 14.
And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.
I would've said that "vanity sizing" is the gradual evolution of any given set of measurements to correlate to a smaller size number, pretty much across the range of stores and manufacturers, over several decades.
That it's common for individual women to have a waist that nominally (or actually) fits one size, hips another, bust possibly a third, and maybe even shoulders a fourth? That's been a 'feature' of numbered sizing standards forever.
Why do we tolerate this? Men get waist/inseam measures, we get an abstract number, with some mostly-unhelpful complication of "short" to "long", "petite" to "tall", and "juniors"/"misses"/"women's"(in the US). I'm guessing women spend more money on clothes; why do we get worse standards?.
It's a good trend that different brands now deviate from the standards' proportions, so that more women have a hope of finding something, somewhere that fits. It would be nice if it were a little more transparent.
What always bugs me about the difference in women's and men's clothing is that men's clothing is made to be altered and alterations are much cheaper, if not included in the purchase price. Their pants have extra seam allowance in the places where they might need to be let out, same thing with jackets across the shoulders. Pants and sleeves are designed to have the length altered easily. Women's clothes have none of this. Women are expected to conform to a specific size and shape and nobody cares about you if you don't fit it. Men can be all kinds of different sizes and shapes. Alterations are much more difficult and expensive for women.
This is why I sew, and have for 40 years. I have broad shoulders and long arms and legs but a short torso. Women's clothing does not fit me comfortably.4 -
nothing wrong with booze. DRINK UP.6
-
Pretty sure that's a popular opinion.
7 -
My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.30 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
I disagree with ATG being the only way to squat, and many like Lyle McDonald, Thrall, Mehdi, etc. plus lifters here would as well. Many cannot squat ATG due to mobility issues and pain, not from bad form. Also, some don't have the hip structure to be able to ATG. I guess the trainers at anytime fitness recommend ATG?
*kitten*-to-grass isn't the only way to squat. It's really the crossfit way of thinking "ATG or GTFO". I've seen many who ATG with butt-wink/horrible form.19 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
How doesn't something that's not "Olympic qualify form" count?
Count for what, exactly?9 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
Yup this is not only unpopular its woo9 -
GemstoneofHeart wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »GemstoneofHeart wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Even if we take manufacturers out of the equation, why is it not okay for two hypothetical women who are the exact same shape and height to have different preferences? What makes size 12 not okay, bar health problems? Few are obese at that size.
It's okay to have preferences, but I can tell you that very short women are usually obese at a size 12. I know I was, I know my sister is currently.
Agree. I'm now a size 12 (previously a 16/18) and my BMI is still a 30.2. I'm 5'6 so I'm not short at all.
When I started out, I wore a 12. I'm 5'4" and weighed 145lbs which is just shy of overweight. I was carrying about 30% BF though so skinny fat at best. It is possible but not common and not really anything to celebrate.
Oh, I wasn't celebrating it at all. My point was that I am tallish and a size 12 and I'm still considered obese. The PP said that 12 would be considered obese on someone short. It's still obese on me too, someone average/tall. Not many women will be at a "healthy" BMI at a size 12.
Me! Actually I edged into healthy at 14. But I'm six-one Talk about having trouble finding clothes that fit... 8 -
Because of human mechanics, form can't be perfect if the loads are at maximum. So if we're talking Olympic form, many wouldn't hold records if they didn't stumble a bit on a clean and jerk or a squat with a slightly more forward lean than usual. So would should those records be discounted because of a small break in form?VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
I get what you're saying, but you shouldn't use the term "Olympic qualifying form" when the actual form breaks and the lift still counts. You should say "form that you see fit" doesn't count. Then it's subjective and applies to the actual thread.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
What are your qualifications to be an expert in olympic style squat form. Are there trainers that teach that at the Anytime Fitness where you go? I used to go to one and there were no olympic trainers there but i know they vary from location to location. Olympic lifts are a specialized field though.5 -
I ATG just because I can. Many of my clients can't and squat just fine. One thing I've learned over the years is that people aren't looking to be perfect at everything and that people think everything that has to be perfectly done to count have more flaws in their form than they think.cerise_noir wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
I disagree with ATG being the only way to squat, and many like Lyle McDonald, Thrall, Mehdi, etc. plus lifters here would as well. Many cannot squat ATG due to mobility issues and pain, not from bad form. Also, some don't have the hip structure to be able to ATG. I guess the trainers at anytime fitness recommend ATG?
*kitten*-to-grass isn't the only way to squat. It's really the crossfit way of thinking "ATG or GTFO". I've seen many who ATG with butt-wink/horrible form.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
10 -
Count for what?VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
It's one thing to think (you'd be beyond rude to say it, unsolicited) that it shouldn't count for the Squats [ ] entry on someone's personal life goals list, or that it should be to full depth before people can justifiably include it on their bio on okcupid, for example. Quite another thing to say that it doesn't count in terms of increased fitness and blah-di-blah, because obviously, it does.
10 -
Wait wait wait. Remember it's at a University being wired to electro cardiograms and indirect calorimeter for 2 hours no less. So there's got to be some sort of Olympic coach there watching the lift even with all that stuff in the way.VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
What are your qualifications to be an expert in olympic style squat form. Are there trainers that teach that at the Anytime Fitness where you go? I used to go to one and there were no olympic trainers there but i know they vary from location to location. Olympic lifts are a specialized field though.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
Wait wait wait. Remember it's at a University being wired to electro cardiograms and indirect calorimeter for 2 hours no less. So there's got to be some sort of Olympic coach there watching the lift even with all that stuff in the way.VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
What are your qualifications to be an expert in olympic style squat form. Are there trainers that teach that at the Anytime Fitness where you go? I used to go to one and there were no olympic trainers there but i know they vary from location to location. Olympic lifts are a specialized field though.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But the avatar photo was taken at Anytime Fitness. That is why people are asking7 -
Apropos of this thread, it has just occurred to me that one of my unpopular opinions is that if I were single, I would be fine with people declaring any depth of squat they wanted in the Life Achievements section of their OKCupid bio. It would help me to screen them out of my dating pool more efficiently.
Actually, do the kidz ever use okcupid any more? Is it all about Tinder now? Plentyoffish.com?11 -
Oh it's gotta be just a pic taken there. We've been informed that she ONLY works out at the University under some sort of grant. I still have yet to know which University actually does this for people who aren't athletes in their programs though. Wished she'd tell me which because I've contacted 5 of them so far in Texas and no go.
Wait wait wait. Remember it's at a University being wired to electro cardiograms and indirect calorimeter for 2 hours no less. So there's got to be some sort of Olympic coach there watching the lift even with all that stuff in the way.VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
What are your qualifications to be an expert in olympic style squat form. Are there trainers that teach that at the Anytime Fitness where you go? I used to go to one and there were no olympic trainers there but i know they vary from location to location. Olympic lifts are a specialized field though.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But the avatar photo was taken at Anytime Fitness. That is why people are asking
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 15
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions