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 commonly given MFP Forum advice do you personally disagree with?
Options
Replies
-
rheddmobile wrote: »
Congrats on improving your A1c!
High morning numbers are sometimes caused not by food but by dawn phenomenon, which is the liver releasing stored glycogen in order to rev up your body for the coming day, combined with stress hormones trying to wake you up. When that's the case, in my experience eating a little something will actually cause the numbers to drop, by lowering stress hormones. I have pretty pronounced dawn phenomenon - the other day woke up at 110 (which is high for me, usually I'm about 94) and was 89 an hour and fifteen minutes after a 43 net carb breakfast. (Steel cut oats made with milk, fruit, cottage cheese.) Something you might want to test for yourself, since everyone is different.
Since I'm using working out by 5:30am, and I really want a "real" breakfast after 7am so I'm not gnawing my arms off at 9:30, I have pretty much landed on the fruit or a slice of toast with a tablespoon of PB if I wake up below 100mg/dL.
I don't usually get to test a hour later as I'm in the middle of a workout, and then the intense coffee klatch post workout. So I'm usually at home by 7, and certainly by 7:30 and working on the omelette.
On Fridays, when I know I'm going to be out on the bicycle for a few hours the next day, I might do a bit of carb loading so I don't bonk at mile 50 or so. But that's planned, and I probably will still have the banana, just because 30g of carbs can't hurt when I'm about to burn 2-3k in calories over the next 3-4 hours.1 -
Just to ease everyone's mind, since I know we're all super concerned..
Combat boots are super in right now. So, let your Doc Martens flag fly.
11 -
I disagree with the assertion that you don't need to exercise.
What you mean is that you don't want to do the work necessary to follow a proper training program, no matter how much it might improve your quality of life, your physique, or your longevity.
I wouldn't recommend not exercising...but when this is stated, it is generally in the context of losing weight or weight management in general. I lost a good 15 Lbs with diet alone and then started exercising.3 -
whatalazyidiot wrote: »Just to ease everyone's mind, since I know we're all super concerned..
Combat boots are super in right now. So, let your Doc Martens flag fly.
How about granny gowns and love beads to go with the Doc Martens? Long straight hair? I was so totally "in" for about 5 seconds when I was 18!
edited to finish sentence. and spelling.9 -
whatalazyidiot wrote: »Just to ease everyone's mind, since I know we're all super concerned..
Combat boots are super in right now. So, let your Doc Martens flag fly.
How about granny gowns and love beads to go with the Doc Martens? Long straight hair? I was so totally "in" for about 5 seconds when I was 18!
edited to finish sentence. and spelling.
@pinuplove will be so happy to hear this.2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »whatalazyidiot wrote: »Just to ease everyone's mind, since I know we're all super concerned..
Combat boots are super in right now. So, let your Doc Martens flag fly.
How about granny gowns and love beads to go with the Doc Martens? Long straight hair? I was so totally "in" for about 5 seconds when I was 18!
edited to finish sentence. and spelling.
@pinuplove will be so happy to hear this.
They make me look taller, ok?!2 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »Lifting weights is better for your health then cardio
I'm confused. Do you believe this or do you think this is bad advice?
Regardless, the part I don't get is why one or the other? I prefer cardio and enjoy going for a run, but I still lift 3 times a week.
Cardio is a better calorie burn but does not do enough to increase muscle mass. Lifting is better for maintaining or increasing muscle mass, but sucks as a calorie burn.
While personal preferences and goals come into play, I see no reason to not do both in some form.
I'm not saying one or the other, to the contrary I'm saying both play a roll...
But today I think cardio is undervalued compared to lifting because most just don't want to do it lol
I dunno. I've seen the bro-vice about not doing cardio because it burnz yer gainz, and a certain amount of (what I consider) wishful thinking from people who seriously love lifting about how it's improved their CV fitness exactly like actual CV exercise does . . . but I've also seen the "you don't want to get bulky so don't lift" advice.
Both tend to get shamed or shouted down, the latter perhaps with more vehemence.
There are occasional posts from lifting lovers that go a little far, but stop short of bro-vice, and don't get much pushback from us cardioheads. Those people are strong, I'm not gonna always pick fights with 'em.
Speculating about what people do or don't do, want to do or don't, based on their advice in a specific scenario . . . kind of shaky ground, IMO.
In appropriate context, I pretty much always recommend that people strength train (especially women, some of whom sadly still need extra encouragement that it will be OK). I pretty much never lift, because I just don't find it fun. Still, it's the right thing to do, whether I like or not, and whether I do it, or not. (I've done enough of it, and consistently enough in certain periods, to have some opinions.) Of course I also recommend . . . well, not usually "cardio", exactly, but something that gets the heart and lungs working.
It's still driving me crazy that people talk about "cardio" as if it were all one thing. Ugh.
Edited: weird punctuation.8 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I disagree with the assertion that you don't need to exercise.
What you mean is that you don't want to do the work necessary to follow a proper training program, no matter how much it might improve your quality of life, your physique, or your longevity.
I wouldn't recommend not exercising...but when this is stated, it is generally in the context of losing weight or weight management in general. I lost a good 15 Lbs with diet alone and then started exercising.
I had a similar experience. I lost my first 100 lbs. with my diet alone and then started exercising.
When I started out my doctors advised me to be careful with exercising because they were worried I would cause permanent damage to my knees (even walking - I was THAT big). They suggested water aerobics. That didn't happen because I was too embarrassed to be seen without a shirt on.
I'm now down about 245 lbs. and am trying to find that maintenance balance. I exercise all the time and am in the best shape of my life (I am still too embarrassed to be seen without a shirt - now its all the loose skin that makes me look like a deflated balloon with muscles).17 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »whatalazyidiot wrote: »Just to ease everyone's mind, since I know we're all super concerned..
Combat boots are super in right now. So, let your Doc Martens flag fly.
How about granny gowns and love beads to go with the Doc Martens? Long straight hair? I was so totally "in" for about 5 seconds when I was 18!
edited to finish sentence. and spelling.
@pinuplove will be so happy to hear this.
They make me look taller, ok?!
Maybe less short????2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I disagree with the assertion that you don't need to exercise.
What you mean is that you don't want to do the work necessary to follow a proper training program, no matter how much it might improve your quality of life, your physique, or your longevity.
I wouldn't recommend not exercising...but when this is stated, it is generally in the context of losing weight or weight management in general. I lost a good 15 Lbs with diet alone and then started exercising.
I had a similar experience. I lost my first 100 lbs. with my diet alone and then started exercising.
When I started out my doctors advised me to be careful with exercising because they were worried I would cause permanent damage to my knees (even walking - I was THAT big). They suggested water aerobics. That didn't happen because I was too embarrassed to be seen without a shirt on.
I'm now down about 245 lbs. and am trying to find that maintenance balance. I exercise all the time and am in the best shape of my life (I am still too embarrassed to be seen without a shirt - now its all the loose skin that makes me look like a deflated balloon with muscles).
Congratulations on this! Wow! For the record, I see some larger people at the public pool and honest to goodness what I think is, "Good for him/her. I hope s/he sticks with it." No one really pays much attention at the pool, we're all too busy worrying about our bathing suits staying on or too much chlorine. Honest!
10 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »whatalazyidiot wrote: »Just to ease everyone's mind, since I know we're all super concerned..
Combat boots are super in right now. So, let your Doc Martens flag fly.
How about granny gowns and love beads to go with the Doc Martens? Long straight hair? I was so totally "in" for about 5 seconds when I was 18!
edited to finish sentence. and spelling.
@pinuplove will be so happy to hear this.
They make me look taller, ok?!
Maybe less short????
Maybe. I like keeping my goals within reach.2 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »I disagree with the assertion that you don't need to exercise.
What you mean is that you don't want to do the work necessary to follow a proper training program, no matter how much it might improve your quality of life, your physique, or your longevity.
Not everyone needs what we picture as "exercise": regular time scheduled for a set routine of cardio or strength training. Someone whose job is heavy on manual labor does not need to go home and spend an hour "working out". They already got that built into their regular day. My uncles were farmers. Their regular workday was plenty all by itself.
Someone whose job is highly sedentary? Yes, they should get some sort of exercise, but not necessarily a "proper training program".
Yeah, this "need" for a training program, and the self-congratulatory attitudes that sometimes go along with saying so in an non-situation-aware way, are conceits of reasonably well-to-do first worlders who implicitly consider it a status symbol to spend effort that produces only self-enhancement . . . none of that dirty "physical work" stuff. There may also be a whiff of new-convert evangelism that goes into saying "what you mean is that you don't want to do the work necessary to follow a proper training program". (I is holy, and I will find the Promised Land. Heh.)
It's kind of analogous to having a giant, carefully groomed lawn to illustrate how much land you can hold unproductive at significant cost.
(I'm exaggerating a bit for fun here, of course. Not entirely false, though.
It's true that some sedentary people say they "hate exercise" and don't want to do it, but they rarely get (only) advice to actually do none).
"You must follow a training program if you want quality of life, physique, and longevity" is counterfactual, as well as being (in some cases) unhelpful and unrealistic advice. As far as wanting to "do the work", healthful activity need not necessarily be hard work; it can be energetic fun. To me, pointing that out to the exercise-reluctant builds a better on-ramp to fitness than does "you must train hard". Active fun is a gateway drug, potentially.
Me, I've had a cushy first-world life, mostly with a decent-paying sedentary job, so I've definitely used "training programs" along the way. At other times, I've also done fun, calorie-burning, strength- and CV-enhancing life or leisure-time activities that weren't "training programs" (martial arts, regular canoeing/rowing, transportation mainly by bicycle, others**). The benefits are similar. Ditto for people who have well-rounded active jobs, including quite a few in my blue-collar birth family who reached a strong and pretty healthy advanced age before checking out.
As an aside to this thread in general:
I can't remember how many times, but surely double digits if not triple, that I've typed some near variation of . . .
"Calories for weight management + well-rounded micros/macros for nutrition + exercise for fitness = best odds of long-term good health"
. . . in those "can I eat a cookie" "do I have to exercise" etc. threads. There's obviously a certain segment of the population on this thread, who want to complain about those threads, but who didn't actual read them . . . at least not beyond some post or phrase that sent them off in an angry huff. (I say this not just in consideration of my own posts there, but those of many others, who actually read, then give well-rounded commonsense advice.)
**ETA: I stayed fat, even obese, while doing those fitness-enhancing things, and while at times even being quite fit (strength, flexibility, CV). Maybe there really is something to the "calories are king for weight management" thing. They sure were for me.13 -
I don't know what's been said, I'm not reading 15 pages but...
"Starvation Mode"
AAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUGH.
Do your research, people. This is not a real thing the way most people on these forums talk about it. At WORST, you can curb your base metabolism down by about 12% with dieting, and that's on the extreme end. Unless you are ACTUALLY starving, ie; you have been suffering anorexia for a long time, or uh... I dunno, are impoverished and haven't eaten more than toast in months. It's not just damaging because it's stupid misinformation that needs to stop being passed down by so-called fitness gurus, who don't understand WHY cheat days result in weight loss (it's a lot of reasons, but one is loss of water weight, which is meaningless). It's damaging because people believe it, and then do the OPPOSITE of what they should be doing. Now, I'm not necessarily saying calorie increases on a diet are bad, sometimes someone is just eating far too little to maintain reasonable activity levels, and end up feeling like crap. They can't do exercise well, because they're fatigued from too few calories. So sometimes a few more calories actually helps you hit the gym harder, so you can actually build more muscle and be a lower body fat percentage, sure. And that leads to more weight loss instead of less. A guy who has enough energy to absolutely POUND AWAY at the treadmill for half an hour is burning way more calories than a guy who is so tired that all he can do is walk. And he's building lean body mass while he does that, increasing his base metabolism, while walk guy... isn't. But by and large, plateaus really need you to examine whether you're making common dietary mistakes. Are you weighing your food? Getting enough water? Too much salt? Are you retaining water from doing really, really hard workouts, maybe, and need a rest? Are you just being an impatient snot?? Etc. Lots of things.
It's never *donking* "starvation mode".8 -
That 1200 is 'starving yourself' and that everyone can lose weight on much more than that, if they aren't then they are cheating and not measuring everything correctly. This gets to me every time and makes me feel like I'm doing it wrong. I've only ever lost weight on 1200 or less.
I have always struggled with exercise, I may do it short-term, but I hate doing it and so tend to give up quickly. I barely walk even. Maybe 300-400 steps per day usually, that is literally it. I'm short (5'2) and there's no chance I could lose weight eating 1500 or something like other people. Just wouldn't happen, I'd gain weight.8 -
I'm just happy that scrunchies are back.10
-
That 1200 is 'starving yourself' and that everyone can lose weight on much more than that, if they aren't then they are cheating and not measuring everything correctly. This gets to me every time and makes me feel like I'm doing it wrong. I've only ever lost weight on 1200 or less.
I have always struggled with exercise, I may do it short-term, but I hate doing it and so tend to give up quickly. I barely walk even. Maybe 300-400 steps per day usually, that is literally it. I'm short (5'2) and there's no chance I could lose weight eating 1500 or something like other people. Just wouldn't happen, I'd gain weight.
Are you implying that you can lose weight on 1200 but gain on 1500? I'm pretty sure that's mathematically impossible
I don't think it's a bad thing to encourage people to evaluate whether 1200 is a reasonable goal for them. This is because so many come on this site and choose the 2 lb/week goal without having the current body mass to support it, or have just heard you need to eat 1200 calories to lose weight, whereas relatively few people are so short & sedentary so as to require 1200 calories to lose a reasonable amount of weight. And many, many people do not log accurately. That's not a moral judgment and doesn't mean people are "cheating". It just means they may not have mastered good logging skills yet and thus may think they require 1200 to lose, when in reality they may be eating several hundred calories more. People who mention this are trying to be helpful, because most of us have been there. Will it apply to every single person? Of course not.
A common theme I'm seeing among some of the comments on this thread is, "I don't like it when people give X advice because it doesn't apply to those of us in Y situation." Well sure... advice here is geared to the majority and what would be the most helpful to the average user, unless you are in a thread or group devoted to Y situation.18 -
Calories in, calories out are all that matter. Literally speaking, yes. But in application, our methods of being able to measure our intake and output are not perfect enough for this to be all that matters. I believe foods affect our metabolic health. Many of us have poor metabolic health. I'm sorry, but eating 1800 calories of sugar versus 1800 calories of veg is just not the same thing. If calories in calories out were all that mattered, in a way that our calculations could actually count, then eating at a deficit should produce extremely predictable weight loss. And it just doesn't. I can measure with the utmost precision, yet weight loss is still not as predictable as it would be if CICO was a perfect system. Now, I'm not saying many people haven't lost weight counting calories only. But that's not proof that it's the perfect way. Overall health impacts weight loss and eating all calories from junk does not promote overall health.41
-
erikayblue wrote: »Calories in, calories out are all that matter. Literally speaking, yes. But in application, our methods of being able to measure our intake and output are not perfect enough for this to be all that matters. I believe foods affect our metabolic health. Many of us have poor metabolic health. I'm sorry, but eating 1800 calories of sugar versus 1800 calories of veg is just not the same thing. If calories in calories out were all that mattered, in a way that our calculations could actually count, then eating at a deficit should produce extremely predictable weight loss. And it just doesn't. I can measure with the utmost precision, yet weight loss is still not as predictable as it would be if CICO was a perfect system. Now, I'm not saying many people haven't lost weight counting calories only. But that's not proof that it's the perfect way. Overall health impacts weight loss and eating all calories from junk does not promote overall health.
Have you read ANY of the rest of this thread?
Or any thread on this site? Ever?
I can't even.24 -
https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/erikayblue wrote: »...I'm sorry, but eating 1800 calories of sugar versus 1800 calories of veg is just not the same thing...
Excerpt:....What I want to discuss is a concept that I call ‘excluding the middle’ but which is more formally referred to as a logical fallacy called ‘the false dilemma‘, the ‘either/or fallacy’ or a whole host of other things. It’s something I see a lot in both Internetz articles and Internetz arguments...
...In the clean freak’s mind, there are two binary options: you either eat clean 100% or you’re eating nothing but junk food at every meal every day. The idea that you might ‘eat clean’ (whatever those words mean to you) 80-90% of the time and include selective ‘unclean foods’ (whatever that means to you) the other 10-20% of the time is simply an inconceivable one to many.
They are excluding the middle: it’s clean 100% of the time (except when it’s not) or junk food 100% of the time, you can’t do anything in the middle. Even though you clearly can. And most do, and more probably should.28
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions