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
1241242244246247358

Replies

  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    work_on_it 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*

    Yup. I was the bringer of treats too, although my favorite things to make were the yeast coffeecakes and cinnamon rolls. My most legendary treats were my chocolate eclair's. I actually loved watching these guys in their fancy suits trying to eat them.
  • jdlobb
    jdlobb Posts: 1,232 Member
    Options
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    I think you pie people are just contrarians. Cake is so far superior to all forms of pie that it really shouldn't be open for debate.

    People will bring in cake to share at the office in the same way they bring in vege trays. Simply because people will part with these unwanted items.

    Pie? No one shares pie, unless under extreme duress.

    they bring in cake because they love you and want to share the good word of cake.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    Options
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Poundcake all the way...

    Especially if it is made the real way: a pound of butter, a pound of flour, a pound of sugar, and a pound of eggs. (Yes, I just gave out my recipe)
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Pie is what I eat when there is no cake.

    I can't eat cake if there is no pie. I am too emotionally distraught. :'(
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    Pie, real pie with a real crust, beats all. Since I can't eat a real crust any more, the new winner in my books is cheesecake.

    Gluten free cheesecakes can be just as good as their gluten containing counterparts. Gluten free cakes and pies? Notsomuch.

    Bob's 1 to 1 flour makes an awesome GF crust. Almost can't tell it from wheat flour.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    Options
    earlnabby wrote: »
    work_on_it 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*

    Yup. I was the bringer of treats too, although my favorite things to make were the yeast coffeecakes and cinnamon rolls. My most legendary treats were my chocolate eclair's. I actually loved watching these guys in their fancy suits trying to eat them.

    Ah yes, cinnamon rolls. I am fond of a sweetened yeast dough (see my love for cinnamon sugar pretzels). Iced buns are another love of mine though I've never made them. i think they're very British.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    mmapags wrote: »
    Pie, real pie with a real crust, beats all. Since I can't eat a real crust any more, the new winner in my books is cheesecake.

    Gluten free cheesecakes can be just as good as their gluten containing counterparts. Gluten free cakes and pies? Notsomuch.

    Bob's 1 to 1 flour makes an awesome GF crust. Almost can't tell it from wheat flour.

    Using what for fat (butter)? I might need to experiment.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    mmapags wrote: »
    Pie, real pie with a real crust, beats all. Since I can't eat a real crust any more, the new winner in my books is cheesecake.

    Gluten free cheesecakes can be just as good as their gluten containing counterparts. Gluten free cakes and pies? Notsomuch.

    Bob's 1 to 1 flour makes an awesome GF crust. Almost can't tell it from wheat flour.

    Using what for fat? I might need to experiment.

    Butter or lard or a mix is what I have used.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    mmapags wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Pie, real pie with a real crust, beats all. Since I can't eat a real crust any more, the new winner in my books is cheesecake.

    Gluten free cheesecakes can be just as good as their gluten containing counterparts. Gluten free cakes and pies? Notsomuch.

    Bob's 1 to 1 flour makes an awesome GF crust. Almost can't tell it from wheat flour.

    Using what for fat? I might need to experiment.

    Butter or lard or a mix is what I have used.

    That's what I was hoping you'd say!
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,958 Member
    Options
    annaskiski wrote: »
    pie>cheesecake> cake

    This ^^ Thank goodness the handbasket will have the right foods, someone should bring coffee. @cwolfman13?

    I guess he could bring the craft beer, as well. Is he in this thread? I guess he will get this notification. :lol:

  • jdlobb
    jdlobb Posts: 1,232 Member
    Options
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    Denying the existence of a Cake Culture seems a little silly when the mere mention of "cake" inspires multiple pages of passionate gushing over cake and other desserts...

    You're not wrong
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,154 Member
    Options
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Speziface wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    Cardio is a waste of time (unless you actually enjoy it).

    Or enjoy the stronger heart and more plentiful food.

    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.

    Essentially, yes. And that is what I believe happened to you. Especially given that you started in an untrained state.

    In the HIIT studies, that is what happened with untrained subjects. The gained muscle mass. So, the wrong conclusion was jumped to that HIIT universally causes muscle mass growth. McDonald's contention is that in untrained individuals, yes. In trained individuals, "no _____ way" is the how he expressed it.

    Just as a minor point of clarification: Rowing is not mostly HIIT. In fact it's rarely HIIT - HIIT workouts are typically used as you'd expect: As a fraction of the workouts leading to a key competition, presumably to move VO2 max. Most of rowing (especially at my level) is LISS or regular intervals.

    But yes, what you say is what I think happened: Newbie gains and recomp . . . from "cardio", mostly LISS and regular intervals. It's a strength endurance sport.

    Another n=1 anecdote: Elite rowers weight train extensively, of course, and do
    absurd volumes of cardiovascular work, mostly rowing (boat, machine) but also some cardio cross-training such as running or biking. On water, there are two types of rowing: Sculling, two oars per person, so laterally symmetric; and sweep, one oar per person so laterally asymmetric. Many sweep rowers specialize in a particular side, starboard or port. A former member of my rowing club had been a competitive collegiate, then US national team, rower. After her rowing career, one of her (non-sports specialist) doctors asked her if she knew that her muscular development was asymmetric - more muscle development on the side she most rowed with. (Of course she did.) Trained individual, effect of very high volume "cardio".

  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    Options
    VioletRojo wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    Denying the existence of a Cake Culture seems a little silly when the mere mention of "cake" inspires multiple pages of passionate gushing over cake and other desserts...

    I think what is being denied is that Cake Culture is a bad thing.

    Or that "Cake Culture" (seriously?... ok...) is responsible for obesity.

    I don't think that It is responsible for obesity - but for a lot of people, it enables and perpetuates obesity.
This discussion has been closed.