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
-
VintageFeline wrote: »work_on_it wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »But only if it's good cake.
That's my prob with cake culture... it's so rarely the good cake.
This is why in a few of my jobs I was the bringer of cake. I make good cake.
But as vested as I am in the cake culture I actually don't eat much of it because of the whole most cake is bad cake thing. I'm not wasting calories on substandard fare and I'm not about to bake a whole cake just for me (no office to foist it on now).
My brownies were especially legendary in their day *reminisces wistfully*
Please to send sample.7 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
I'll stick with my strong heart and plentiful food from weightlifting and HIIT. More bang for the buck.
Not in my experience. Can't sustain HIIT long enough to burn any meaningful amount of calories, and whatever I burn I eat back twofold or more because it increases my hunger substantially. Now don't get me wrong, no one has to do cardio (or weight lifting, or HIIT for that matter), but you can't call any form of exercise a waste of time because there are clear benefits to being active, health and otherwise.
Yes, sitting on your *kitten* is a much greater waste of time.
Since I don't like exercising in general, I'm going to spend the least amount of time possible to get the greatest benefit which means high intensity. I just want to get it over with so I can get back to thing I enjoy.
And that's totally alright! It's just, this sounds more like preference than opinion.
Nah, I still am not a fan of cardio(but it's better than nothing). I believe there are much greater benefits from high intensity exercise.
How do you know you don't burn as much calories doing HIIT? I believe that much shorter, high intensity exercise may not burn as much at the time, but the residual calorie burn from greater muscle stimulation lasts much longer resulting in more CO.
EPOC (Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consunption) for HIIT is 14%, for Low Impact Steady State it's 7%. That's the % of residual burn of calories burned during. FWIW. HIIT can't be done for very long so the overall burn is not that big. If you could do 30 minutes of HIIT, your Butner with EPOCH would be about the same as 60 minutes of LISS but who can do 30 minutes of HIIT??
This would depend on the intensity of the HIIT. And as @GottaBurnEmAll stated not all "HIIT" is equal. To me, HIIT means the intervals are 100% all out.
That is the HIIT I'm talking about and in exercise physiology circle based on studies, that is the commonly accepted number. This was discussed in detail on the Lyle McDonald article sjomial linked to. It is also the number Dr. Brad Shoenfeld uses. It pretty objective and not really the subject of much speculation as to variance.
Less that 100% all out would not technically be HIIT but would be considered interval training. The EPOC would fall somewhere between LISS and HIIT depending on intensity. All HIIT is not equal because the Marketing woo machines call everything HIIT today. Things like 1 hours HIIT classes. If you can do it for 1 hour, it ain't HIIT!!
PS: The link sjomial gave is the 2nd in a series of in depth article about the subject and references a lot of the current research. If that is the link you are kind of dismissive of in one of your posts above, I suggest you didn't read it thoroughly. There are links to both the initial article in the series and the following ones at the bottom of the one posted.
I did read it, but I'll look at the references too. My main leaning to HIIT over cardio is that it is closer to weightlifting in it's muscle building potential... if I am not mistaken. However, I pretty much just lift and try to stay away from all that gross running stuff...
The studies that showed muscle building improvements were done with untrained subjects. In someone like you are me doing weight training that has not been demonstrated. In a trained individual, the benefit is primarily increase in VO2 max. HIIT in trained subjects provides cardio benefit.
If you read the series of articles, he covers all of this.
Ah..
So, I understand how HIIT would not improve muscle building in someone who lifts. But wouldn't it build muscle in someone who typically only does cardio (steady state)?
Possibly, I don't know. It wasn't one of the scenarios addressed.
It should. Think of HIIT (or any cardio workout) as a VERY long weightlifting set using VERY light weights. For example, if you're riding a bicycle for an hour and keep an average cadence of 80 rpm on the pedals you've just done 4,800 repetitions. That'll build muscle.
I'm sure it builds some muscle in previously sedentary individuals.
It's not very scientific, but I just look at those who primarily do long distance anything and say, "I don't want to look like that." I look at weightlifters or Olympic sprinters and I'm like, " Yeah, that's where I want to be."1 -
I was away this weekend with 4 friends and my BF. One of the ladies was turning 50, and her husband had the hotel put a cake and a balloon in her room. She chose to share the cake with the group. I chose not to have any (I don't like cake that much and I could tell it wouldn't be worth it). You would have thought I refused car insurance. Everyone made a HUGE deal about it, but I didn't care. I stood my ground. Afterwards my BF told me it was horrible cake and I missed nothing. But wow, did I offend.3
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
I'll stick with my strong heart and plentiful food from weightlifting and HIIT. More bang for the buck.
Not in my experience. Can't sustain HIIT long enough to burn any meaningful amount of calories, and whatever I burn I eat back twofold or more because it increases my hunger substantially. Now don't get me wrong, no one has to do cardio (or weight lifting, or HIIT for that matter), but you can't call any form of exercise a waste of time because there are clear benefits to being active, health and otherwise.
Yes, sitting on your *kitten* is a much greater waste of time.
Since I don't like exercising in general, I'm going to spend the least amount of time possible to get the greatest benefit which means high intensity. I just want to get it over with so I can get back to thing I enjoy.
And that's totally alright! It's just, this sounds more like preference than opinion.
Nah, I still am not a fan of cardio(but it's better than nothing). I believe there are much greater benefits from high intensity exercise.
How do you know you don't burn as much calories doing HIIT? I believe that much shorter, high intensity exercise may not burn as much at the time, but the residual calorie burn from greater muscle stimulation lasts much longer resulting in more CO.
EPOC (Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consunption) for HIIT is 14%, for Low Impact Steady State it's 7%. That's the % of residual burn of calories burned during. FWIW. HIIT can't be done for very long so the overall burn is not that big. If you could do 30 minutes of HIIT, your Butner with EPOCH would be about the same as 60 minutes of LISS but who can do 30 minutes of HIIT??
This would depend on the intensity of the HIIT. And as @GottaBurnEmAll stated not all "HIIT" is equal. To me, HIIT means the intervals are 100% all out.
That is the HIIT I'm talking about and in exercise physiology circle based on studies, that is the commonly accepted number. This was discussed in detail on the Lyle McDonald article sjomial linked to. It is also the number Dr. Brad Shoenfeld uses. It pretty objective and not really the subject of much speculation as to variance.
Less that 100% all out would not technically be HIIT but would be considered interval training. The EPOC would fall somewhere between LISS and HIIT depending on intensity. All HIIT is not equal because the Marketing woo machines call everything HIIT today. Things like 1 hours HIIT classes. If you can do it for 1 hour, it ain't HIIT!!
PS: The link sjomial gave is the 2nd in a series of in depth article about the subject and references a lot of the current research. If that is the link you are kind of dismissive of in one of your posts above, I suggest you didn't read it thoroughly. There are links to both the initial article in the series and the following ones at the bottom of the one posted.
I did read it, but I'll look at the references too. My main leaning to HIIT over cardio is that it is closer to weightlifting in it's muscle building potential... if I am not mistaken. However, I pretty much just lift and try to stay away from all that gross running stuff...
The studies that showed muscle building improvements were done with untrained subjects. In someone like you are me doing weight training that has not been demonstrated. In a trained individual, the benefit is primarily increase in VO2 max. HIIT in trained subjects provides cardio benefit.
If you read the series of articles, he covers all of this.
Ah..
So, I understand how HIIT would not improve muscle building in someone who lifts. But wouldn't it build muscle in someone who typically only does cardio (steady state)?
Possibly, I don't know. It wasn't one of the scenarios addressed.
It should. Think of HIIT (or any cardio workout) as a VERY long weightlifting set using VERY light weights. For example, if you're riding a bicycle for an hour and keep an average cadence of 80 rpm on the pedals you've just done 4,800 repetitions. That'll build muscle.
I think anything that creates overload will cause some muscle growth if nutritional conditions are right. But, as I said, in the sources I read, it was not addressed. Sadly, many of the studies on HIIT seem to have been done on college campuses utilizing untrained students and the subjects. In Lyle McDonalds articles, he talks about this and how it confounds much of the results.
Obviously, if someone is working, say legs, a couple of times in the gym per week, running or bike riding is not likely to cause lots of muscle development. I can't say it wouldn't cause any though as the act of running or riding is slightly different than weight lifting. So, I'm sure there would be some muscular adaptation that would take place. Whether that would result in hypertrophy though may be questionable. More likely neuromuscular recruitment adaptations.
I'm not going to argue hard for hypertrophy, because I really don't know, but as an n=1, I did lose a couple of clothing sizes over a period of a few years at roughly the same body weight from something most people consider cardio (rowing, mostly boats, some machines), with negligible ancillary strength training. I don't know that NM adaptations can account for size reduction, unless "toning" really is a thing after all (heh).
This really represents a lot of reps (4000-5000 weekly, often, maybe more), with some small workload progressivity via technical improvements along the way.
Clearly, a well designed progressive weight training program would produce similar results much faster, with less workout time investment . . . but, for me, less fun. I'm not well-muscled like the lifting women around here, especially not in a well-rounded, balanced way . . . but neither am I stick-like. IMO only, of course.
5 -
Jancandoit7 wrote: »I hate this idea, and the encouragement I've seen so often stated on MFP... "so long as it fits into your daily calories you can eat anything you want." If one is willing to stick to a weight loss plan, why would they want to eat lots of empty calorie garbage foods? I don't think this should be encouraged- it's counterproductive to getting truly healthy. Shouldn't the goal be to get healthy and not just to become thin? This really bugs me....
Why does "eat what you want" automatically equate to eating "lots of empty calorie garbage foods"?
Late to the discussion, but this is what I always wonder about.4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »Made me smile! Now, I'm off to walk to the shopping mall and get my nephew his birthday present. Back in an hour and a half or so!
But will there be cake at the birthday celebration?
Of course! And I'll likely have some!2 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »Made me smile! Now, I'm off to walk to the shopping mall and get my nephew his birthday present. Back in an hour and a half or so!
But will there be cake at the birthday celebration?
Of course! And I'll likely have some!
You might as well be smoking.
15 -
Packerjohn wrote: »work_on_it wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »But only if it's good cake.
That's my prob with cake culture... it's so rarely the good cake.
But guarantee it will get eaten, even if it's *kitten* cake, while the fresh fruit will be barely touched.
I guess I really live in a weird part of the country, or work in a field with a lot of weird peeps.
We get a huge box of fruit from our Peapod delivery service every week, one for every floor. The fruit is very popular and def gets eaten. Even stuff that you would think would be hard to share, like large cantaloupes and other melons.
But someone always cuts one up and puts it on the counter. Gone in a few hours...10 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
I'll stick with my strong heart and plentiful food from weightlifting and HIIT. More bang for the buck.
Not in my experience. Can't sustain HIIT long enough to burn any meaningful amount of calories, and whatever I burn I eat back twofold or more because it increases my hunger substantially. Now don't get me wrong, no one has to do cardio (or weight lifting, or HIIT for that matter), but you can't call any form of exercise a waste of time because there are clear benefits to being active, health and otherwise.
Yes, sitting on your *kitten* is a much greater waste of time.
Since I don't like exercising in general, I'm going to spend the least amount of time possible to get the greatest benefit which means high intensity. I just want to get it over with so I can get back to thing I enjoy.
And that's totally alright! It's just, this sounds more like preference than opinion.
Nah, I still am not a fan of cardio(but it's better than nothing). I believe there are much greater benefits from high intensity exercise.
How do you know you don't burn as much calories doing HIIT? I believe that much shorter, high intensity exercise may not burn as much at the time, but the residual calorie burn from greater muscle stimulation lasts much longer resulting in more CO.
EPOC (Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consunption) for HIIT is 14%, for Low Impact Steady State it's 7%. That's the % of residual burn of calories burned during. FWIW. HIIT can't be done for very long so the overall burn is not that big. If you could do 30 minutes of HIIT, your Butner with EPOCH would be about the same as 60 minutes of LISS but who can do 30 minutes of HIIT??
This would depend on the intensity of the HIIT. And as @GottaBurnEmAll stated not all "HIIT" is equal. To me, HIIT means the intervals are 100% all out.
That is the HIIT I'm talking about and in exercise physiology circle based on studies, that is the commonly accepted number. This was discussed in detail on the Lyle McDonald article sjomial linked to. It is also the number Dr. Brad Shoenfeld uses. It pretty objective and not really the subject of much speculation as to variance.
Less that 100% all out would not technically be HIIT but would be considered interval training. The EPOC would fall somewhere between LISS and HIIT depending on intensity. All HIIT is not equal because the Marketing woo machines call everything HIIT today. Things like 1 hours HIIT classes. If you can do it for 1 hour, it ain't HIIT!!
PS: The link sjomial gave is the 2nd in a series of in depth article about the subject and references a lot of the current research. If that is the link you are kind of dismissive of in one of your posts above, I suggest you didn't read it thoroughly. There are links to both the initial article in the series and the following ones at the bottom of the one posted.
I did read it, but I'll look at the references too. My main leaning to HIIT over cardio is that it is closer to weightlifting in it's muscle building potential... if I am not mistaken. However, I pretty much just lift and try to stay away from all that gross running stuff...
The studies that showed muscle building improvements were done with untrained subjects. In someone like you are me doing weight training that has not been demonstrated. In a trained individual, the benefit is primarily increase in VO2 max. HIIT in trained subjects provides cardio benefit.
If you read the series of articles, he covers all of this.
Ah..
So, I understand how HIIT would not improve muscle building in someone who lifts. But wouldn't it build muscle in someone who typically only does cardio (steady state)?
Possibly, I don't know. It wasn't one of the scenarios addressed.
It should. Think of HIIT (or any cardio workout) as a VERY long weightlifting set using VERY light weights. For example, if you're riding a bicycle for an hour and keep an average cadence of 80 rpm on the pedals you've just done 4,800 repetitions. That'll build muscle.
I think anything that creates overload will cause some muscle growth if nutritional conditions are right. But, as I said, in the sources I read, it was not addressed. Sadly, many of the studies on HIIT seem to have been done on college campuses utilizing untrained students and the subjects. In Lyle McDonalds articles, he talks about this and how it confounds much of the results.
Obviously, if someone is working, say legs, a couple of times in the gym per week, running or bike riding is not likely to cause lots of muscle development. I can't say it wouldn't cause any though as the act of running or riding is slightly different than weight lifting. So, I'm sure there would be some muscular adaptation that would take place. Whether that would result in hypertrophy though may be questionable. More likely neuromuscular recruitment adaptations.
I'm not going to argue hard for hypertrophy, because I really don't know, but as an n=1, I did lose a couple of clothing sizes over a period of a few years at roughly the same body weight from something most people consider cardio (rowing, mostly boats, some machines), with negligible ancillary strength training. I don't know that NM adaptations can account for size reduction, unless "toning" really is a thing after all (heh).
This really represents a lot of reps (4000-5000 weekly, often, maybe more), with some small workload progressivity via technical improvements along the way.
Clearly, a well designed progressive weight training program would produce similar results much faster, with less workout time investment . . . but, for me, less fun. I'm not well-muscled like the lifting women around here, especially not in a well-rounded, balanced way . . . but neither am I stick-like. IMO only, of course.
A couple of questions for you Ann; were you in a trained and fit state when you started? Could the reduction in clothing sizes have been from BF loss? Muscle gain (hypertrophy) would cause size increases in a lean individual. But in an individual with high to average body fat, not so much and fat loss with weight staying the same would result in size reduction. Eg. the oft referred to recomp.
I've seen your profile pic. Good muscle development!0 -
annaskiski wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »work_on_it wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »But only if it's good cake.
That's my prob with cake culture... it's so rarely the good cake.
But guarantee it will get eaten, even if it's *kitten* cake, while the fresh fruit will be barely touched.
I guess I really live in a weird part of the country, or work in a field with a lot of weird peeps.
We get a huge box of fruit from our Peapod delivery service every week, one for every floor. The fruit is very popular and def gets eaten. Even stuff that you would think would be hard to share, like large cantaloupes and other melons.
But someone always cuts one up and puts it on the counter. Gone in a few hours...
I would be on board with the fruit too. Now if we merge fruit and cake into say a fruit tart with delicious creme patissiere then we're really talking!14 -
cmriverside wrote: »So for anyone who would like to read more on "cake culture" and its impact from a public health viewpoint s well as tips to beat it, here is a quick article from a health insurance webpage: https://www.aviva.co.uk/private-health-insurance/health-tips/healthy-eating/article/beat-office-cake-culture/.
This is the first sentence:You’re sitting at work when your colleagues come over with the biscuit tin and you can’t help but tuck in. Before you know it, you’ve eaten five or six chocolate digestives without even noticing – we’ve all been there.
I don't even understand the language.
Are we taking a nap with a laxative? I don't...
I actually do understand it, but ya know.
From the article:Why not also make it an opportunity to bring in food of your own to share? Over a quarter (26%) of people plan to eat healthier in the New Year7, which means you’re probably not alone in your quest to forgo the French Fancies. Some homemade granola bars or these energy bites would go down seriously well – without any guilt.
I'm not arguing that the granola bars are probably more nutrient-dense than the bakery cake. But 'without any guilt' in this context would seem to imply 'comparable in calories to fruits, veggies, rice cakes, and/or meringues', which is... kinda not accurate.
I just put the energy bites into the recipe builder and came up with 86 calories per. Fair enough. But you know what's got roughly the same amount of calories if you make them a teeny bit smaller than the recipe suggests so you've got 21 instead of 16? These (Came up at 85 calories when I recalculated according to the recipe builder). Okay, the energy bites give you 30 per recipe and a few more nutrients. In terms of calorie 'hit' from eating one of either, they're close.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
I'll stick with my strong heart and plentiful food from weightlifting and HIIT. More bang for the buck.
Not in my experience. Can't sustain HIIT long enough to burn any meaningful amount of calories, and whatever I burn I eat back twofold or more because it increases my hunger substantially. Now don't get me wrong, no one has to do cardio (or weight lifting, or HIIT for that matter), but you can't call any form of exercise a waste of time because there are clear benefits to being active, health and otherwise.
Yes, sitting on your *kitten* is a much greater waste of time.
Since I don't like exercising in general, I'm going to spend the least amount of time possible to get the greatest benefit which means high intensity. I just want to get it over with so I can get back to thing I enjoy.
And that's totally alright! It's just, this sounds more like preference than opinion.
Nah, I still am not a fan of cardio(but it's better than nothing). I believe there are much greater benefits from high intensity exercise.
How do you know you don't burn as much calories doing HIIT? I believe that much shorter, high intensity exercise may not burn as much at the time, but the residual calorie burn from greater muscle stimulation lasts much longer resulting in more CO.
EPOC (Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consunption) for HIIT is 14%, for Low Impact Steady State it's 7%. That's the % of residual burn of calories burned during. FWIW. HIIT can't be done for very long so the overall burn is not that big. If you could do 30 minutes of HIIT, your Butner with EPOCH would be about the same as 60 minutes of LISS but who can do 30 minutes of HIIT??
This would depend on the intensity of the HIIT. And as @GottaBurnEmAll stated not all "HIIT" is equal. To me, HIIT means the intervals are 100% all out.
That is the HIIT I'm talking about and in exercise physiology circle based on studies, that is the commonly accepted number. This was discussed in detail on the Lyle McDonald article sjomial linked to. It is also the number Dr. Brad Shoenfeld uses. It pretty objective and not really the subject of much speculation as to variance.
Less that 100% all out would not technically be HIIT but would be considered interval training. The EPOC would fall somewhere between LISS and HIIT depending on intensity. All HIIT is not equal because the Marketing woo machines call everything HIIT today. Things like 1 hours HIIT classes. If you can do it for 1 hour, it ain't HIIT!!
PS: The link sjomial gave is the 2nd in a series of in depth article about the subject and references a lot of the current research. If that is the link you are kind of dismissive of in one of your posts above, I suggest you didn't read it thoroughly. There are links to both the initial article in the series and the following ones at the bottom of the one posted.
I did read it, but I'll look at the references too. My main leaning to HIIT over cardio is that it is closer to weightlifting in it's muscle building potential... if I am not mistaken. However, I pretty much just lift and try to stay away from all that gross running stuff...
The studies that showed muscle building improvements were done with untrained subjects. In someone like you are me doing weight training that has not been demonstrated. In a trained individual, the benefit is primarily increase in VO2 max. HIIT in trained subjects provides cardio benefit.
If you read the series of articles, he covers all of this.
Ah..
So, I understand how HIIT would not improve muscle building in someone who lifts. But wouldn't it build muscle in someone who typically only does cardio (steady state)?
Possibly, I don't know. It wasn't one of the scenarios addressed.
It should. Think of HIIT (or any cardio workout) as a VERY long weightlifting set using VERY light weights. For example, if you're riding a bicycle for an hour and keep an average cadence of 80 rpm on the pedals you've just done 4,800 repetitions. That'll build muscle.
I think anything that creates overload will cause some muscle growth if nutritional conditions are right. But, as I said, in the sources I read, it was not addressed. Sadly, many of the studies on HIIT seem to have been done on college campuses utilizing untrained students and the subjects. In Lyle McDonalds articles, he talks about this and how it confounds much of the results.
Obviously, if someone is working, say legs, a couple of times in the gym per week, running or bike riding is not likely to cause lots of muscle development. I can't say it wouldn't cause any though as the act of running or riding is slightly different than weight lifting. So, I'm sure there would be some muscular adaptation that would take place. Whether that would result in hypertrophy though may be questionable. More likely neuromuscular recruitment adaptations.
I'm not going to argue hard for hypertrophy, because I really don't know, but as an n=1, I did lose a couple of clothing sizes over a period of a few years at roughly the same body weight from something most people consider cardio (rowing, mostly boats, some machines), with negligible ancillary strength training. I don't know that NM adaptations can account for size reduction, unless "toning" really is a thing after all (heh).
This really represents a lot of reps (4000-5000 weekly, often, maybe more), with some small workload progressivity via technical improvements along the way.
Clearly, a well designed progressive weight training program would produce similar results much faster, with less workout time investment . . . but, for me, less fun. I'm not well-muscled like the lifting women around here, especially not in a well-rounded, balanced way . . . but neither am I stick-like. IMO only, of course.
A couple of questions for you Ann; were you in a trained and fit state when you started? Could the reduction in clothing sizes have been from BF loss? Muscle gain (hypertrophy) would cause size increases in a lean individual. But in an individual with high to average body fat, not so much and fat loss with weight staying the same would result in size reduction. Eg. the oft referred to recomp.
I've seen your profile pic. Good muscle development!
Definitely in an untrained state to start - depleted even (chemotherapy, other life challenges) . Certainly there was fat loss - a fair bit. But if weight stays the same, something of equivalent weight was gained. Not just water, I think. That'd be a lot of water, over quite a time scale. Fat loss alone, with no compensating gain elsewhere, would mean lower body weight.
Recomp is fat loss with muscle gain, resulting in smaller body size at the same weight, because muscle is more compact than fat pound for pound . . . as I understand it.
And thank you.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I'm sad for all the cakes feeling terrible now.
Just because someone has a desk job doesn't mean they're lazy AF. They just happen to have a job that isn't active. I'd say the bigger problem here is a culture of screens as entertainment in their various forms than the bringing of cakes to work. People who are more active have little issue fitting in calorie dense deliciousness into their day and why shouldn't they if they can.
Side note: cake doesn't give you cancer because of its toxicity, straw man to compare it to cigarettes.
Not really a straw man as studies have shown that being overweight is as bad as smoking insofar as risk of premature death. Cake can make you overweight...especially as part of a program of unhealthy snacking whilst doing sedentary activities. Both obesity and smoking increase the risk of cancer. It doesn't matter how the cancer is caused ( toxicity vs. Excess fat) you still die.
Seriously dude, you have an eating disorder.
I work in an office, and the there are a large variety of people here. There's a group that bikes for miles before/after during lunch. Another large group converted an unused storage room into a large lifting area. (They brought in those cushiony floor mats, a power cage, several squat racks, etc). Yes, there are some overweight people here as well. I would estimate they make up about 25% of the people here. (Several hundred peeps in this building.) So not the majority by any means.
Sharing food to express friendship has been the cultural norm for humans for thousands of years.
Perhaps you have a problem with cake. You need to learn to deal with it, or you will not be successful. Understand, not everyone needs to lose weight, has diabetes, or other health issues. Cake is not a deadly food.
My office work culture mirrors (or is perhaps worse) than the country as a whole, with perhaps over 70% overweight. How you guys ended up with a workforce of only 25% overweight is amazing, someone should do a case study on your culture!
Our corporate wellness group is desperately trying to get our overweight workforce to adopt healthier lifestyle habits with dismal results The smoking area outside is bustling as is the cafeteria section that sells fried and breaded food. Our site fitness center is never busy and the people there are the ones that need it the least. Charity fundraising entails selling donuts and walking tacos to hundreds of people who would not be able to buy them if the elevator broke down and they had to climb a flight of stairs or two. "Cake Culture" is not an urban legend, I see it in practice all the time.
...and it's every individual's choice whether they partake in those things or not. We make our own decisions and we live with the results. Life is funny that way.
From the directions this discussion has taken (not singling out any one particular person), I'm not quite sure if some people are advocating for a totalitarian environment where everybody is compelled to eat, live and exercise a certain way or what.
I'm not saying to outlaw cake at work. I'm just not wildly excited to see already overweight people overeat cake and donuts at work for the purpose of honoring social bonding ceremonies, I don't think it is very inspiring.6 -
cmriverside wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I have decided cake culture sucks.
I don't have an office job, but if I did, cake culture would just be a blur of cakes, cookies, bagels and whatnot that people would be mocking ME ME ME ME with that I couldn't eat because gluten.
Therefor, cake culture should be banished. Because I can't get in on it.
We have to think of everyone's feelings, right? That's how this works, isn't it? Am I doing this right?
Unfortunately, this is exactly how stuff like this gets banned. One person gets their feelings hurt, or feels offended when people are generally just trying to be nice and cries about it until nobody else can partake.
Its cake. For people's birthdays. Good God, I don't even know how this topic has sustained debate. If you don't want cake, don't eat cake. If you are unable to say no, or feel the need to pretend to eat it then you have much larger issues than the person bringing in the cake.
I hope you realize that I was employing the sarcasm font.
I'm in full agreement that it's quite simple to just say no, and if people pushing the cake get butthurt about it, that's their problem. I don't owe anyone anything other than saying "thanks for offering, but no thank you, I'm not hungry."
Of course we all know that one insecure/compliment-seeker who just wants us to pat him/her on the back and tell them what a great person they are for bringing in XX and how delicious it is and how their XX is so much better than anything we've ever tasted, and, "You'll have to give me your recipe," and blah blah blah. Ego strokes, please.
You'll recognize her/him by the thread that is titled, "No one ever compliments me on my weight loss, why????"
Then next week s/he will complain that someone is objectifying him/her with their comments.
Ugh I worked with her. I want to post her name here so you will look out for her, but I'm guessing we all know one.
I'm an awful person. Those people make me so annoyed at their passive aggression that I derive some sort of sick satisfaction out of t-ing them off.
Just one more reason to make room for me in the handbasket.
7 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I'm sad for all the cakes feeling terrible now.
Just because someone has a desk job doesn't mean they're lazy AF. They just happen to have a job that isn't active. I'd say the bigger problem here is a culture of screens as entertainment in their various forms than the bringing of cakes to work. People who are more active have little issue fitting in calorie dense deliciousness into their day and why shouldn't they if they can.
Side note: cake doesn't give you cancer because of its toxicity, straw man to compare it to cigarettes.
Not really a straw man as studies have shown that being overweight is as bad as smoking insofar as risk of premature death. Cake can make you overweight...especially as part of a program of unhealthy snacking whilst doing sedentary activities. Both obesity and smoking increase the risk of cancer. It doesn't matter how the cancer is caused ( toxicity vs. Excess fat) you still die.
Seriously dude, you have an eating disorder.
I work in an office, and the there are a large variety of people here. There's a group that bikes for miles before/after during lunch. Another large group converted an unused storage room into a large lifting area. (They brought in those cushiony floor mats, a power cage, several squat racks, etc). Yes, there are some overweight people here as well. I would estimate they make up about 25% of the people here. (Several hundred peeps in this building.) So not the majority by any means.
Sharing food to express friendship has been the cultural norm for humans for thousands of years.
Perhaps you have a problem with cake. You need to learn to deal with it, or you will not be successful. Understand, not everyone needs to lose weight, has diabetes, or other health issues. Cake is not a deadly food.
My office work culture mirrors (or is perhaps worse) than the country as a whole, with perhaps over 70% overweight. How you guys ended up with a workforce of only 25% overweight is amazing, someone should do a case study on your culture!
Overweight stats differ quite a bit based on location and income and education. My workplace is way less than 70% overweight and the percentage of professionals at the office who are overweight is quite low. I used to be one of the very few, so noticed. So unlikely it really deserves a study.
We don't have a "cake culture" (my college used to always send out worried letters about "keg culture" and I can't help but think of that), but we do have food in the kitchen at various times (my assistant has a family bakery business and will bring in recipes she is trying out, and some vendors will give food as gifts), and I usually ignore it, since part of my current strategy is not snacking.
0 -
I hate vegetables, I hate everything about vegetables, I wish I can avoid them for the rest of my life but that can't happen. Just thinking about vegetables makes me upset. All these people keep on telling me that they taste good and all but I have failed to agree and I just really don't like vegetables. Not all of them, but most of them.2
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »So for anyone who would like to read more on "cake culture" and its impact from a public health viewpoint s well as tips to beat it, here is a quick article from a health insurance webpage: https://www.aviva.co.uk/private-health-insurance/health-tips/healthy-eating/article/beat-office-cake-culture/.
This is the first sentence:You’re sitting at work when your colleagues come over with the biscuit tin and you can’t help but tuck in. Before you know it, you’ve eaten five or six chocolate digestives without even noticing – we’ve all been there.
I don't even understand the language.
Are we taking a nap with a laxative? I don't...
I actually do understand it, but ya know.
From the article:Why not also make it an opportunity to bring in food of your own to share? Over a quarter (26%) of people plan to eat healthier in the New Year7, which means you’re probably not alone in your quest to forgo the French Fancies. Some homemade granola bars or these energy bites would go down seriously well – without any guilt.
I'm not arguing that the granola bars are probably more nutrient-dense than the bakery cake. But 'without any guilt' in this context would seem to imply 'comparable in calories to fruits, veggies, rice cakes, and/or meringues', which is... kinda not accurate.
I just put the energy bites into the recipe builder and came up with 86 calories per. Fair enough. But you know what's got roughly the same amount of calories if you make them a teeny bit smaller than the recipe suggests so you've got 21 instead of 16? These (Came up at 85 calories when I recalculated according to the recipe builder). Okay, the energy bites give you 30 per recipe and a few more nutrients. In terms of calorie 'hit' from eating one of either, they're close.
I semi-regularly look at the "healthy" snacks that are ever emerging in the supermarket and always laugh heartily and nope them back to the shelf. More often than not they are more expensive and more calorific than say, the Rice Krispies bars I got today (it might be Fibre One, Soreen malt loaf, single serve bags of chips) as my daily treat. Sure there might be more nutrients but if my diet is otherwise nutritionally sound you can be sure I'd rather have two Fibre One brownies than one compacted dried fruit bar dressed up as a health treat!5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »work_on_it wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »But only if it's good cake.
That's my prob with cake culture... it's so rarely the good cake.
This is why in a few of my jobs I was the bringer of cake. I make good cake.
But as vested as I am in the cake culture I actually don't eat much of it because of the whole most cake is bad cake thing. I'm not wasting calories on substandard fare and I'm not about to bake a whole cake just for me (no office to foist it on now).
My brownies were especially legendary in their day *reminisces wistfully*
I am also a good baker. I'm not confident about much about myself, but I'm confident about this.
I remember one time, when I was still single, I was home alone on the weekend, baking Christmas cookies to bring into work the following week.
The neighbor across the hall was having a party, and they were all three sheets to the wind. Around 11:00, they knocked on my door, and I ended up with a room full of partiers who couldn't take the delicious smells any more eating all the Christmas cookies (of course I offered).
Fortunately, I had enough supplies to bake more the next day to bring into work.6 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »So for anyone who would like to read more on "cake culture" and its impact from a public health viewpoint s well as tips to beat it, here is a quick article from a health insurance webpage: https://www.aviva.co.uk/private-health-insurance/health-tips/healthy-eating/article/beat-office-cake-culture/.
This is the first sentence:You’re sitting at work when your colleagues come over with the biscuit tin and you can’t help but tuck in. Before you know it, you’ve eaten five or six chocolate digestives without even noticing – we’ve all been there.
I don't even understand the language.
Are we taking a nap with a laxative? I don't...
I actually do understand it, but ya know.
From the article:Why not also make it an opportunity to bring in food of your own to share? Over a quarter (26%) of people plan to eat healthier in the New Year7, which means you’re probably not alone in your quest to forgo the French Fancies. Some homemade granola bars or these energy bites would go down seriously well – without any guilt.
I'm not arguing that the granola bars are probably more nutrient-dense than the bakery cake. But 'without any guilt' in this context would seem to imply 'comparable in calories to fruits, veggies, rice cakes, and/or meringues', which is... kinda not accurate.
I just put the energy bites into the recipe builder and came up with 86 calories per. Fair enough. But you know what's got roughly the same amount of calories if you make them a teeny bit smaller than the recipe suggests so you've got 21 instead of 16? These (Came up at 85 calories when I recalculated according to the recipe builder). Okay, the energy bites give you 30 per recipe and a few more nutrients. In terms of calorie 'hit' from eating one of either, they're close.
Thanks for quoting that. Funny how the alternative is more calorie dense than many cakes. This is a problem I see often... Just because something has a better nutrient density doesn't mean overeating it won't make you fat, and looking at that recipe it doesn't take much to overeat those. Those tiny little balls of deliciousness are probably close to 100 calories each, worse than cookies.4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »work_on_it wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »But only if it's good cake.
That's my prob with cake culture... it's so rarely the good cake.
This is why in a few of my jobs I was the bringer of cake. I make good cake.
But as vested as I am in the cake culture I actually don't eat much of it because of the whole most cake is bad cake thing. I'm not wasting calories on substandard fare and I'm not about to bake a whole cake just for me (no office to foist it on now).
My brownies were especially legendary in their day *reminisces wistfully*
I want to try your cake
and brownies
please
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions