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.
Fitness and diet myths that just won't go away
Replies
-
wunderkindking wrote: »Have any of you worked customer service?
You know how many times you hear "must be free" when something doesn't ring up, and you kind of force polite laughter because you've heard it 9000 times by now and are just over it?
That's me with 'breakfast' means 'to break a fast'.
Yeah, I think it's just said by people so they can point out that they are smart enough to know the origin of a word.
If someone says, "I don't eat breakfast.", we all know what they mean. It doesn't mean they never eat.
Over time, the modern meaning of a word can evolve, regardless of its origin.11 -
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.
According to cereal companies. ALL MEALS are the most important meal of the day. Personally I don't eat traditional morning breakfast.
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
Amen. I haven't been able to eat breakfast since puberty, when some strange alignment of hormones started making me very nauseous for the first three or four waking hours. Yet despite skipping the morning meal for the past 45ish years, I've enjoyed above-average health.
I also work out first thing in the morning because I have more energy and motivation, even in a fasted state, than I do in the evenings.7 -
Drinking a protein supplement after a workout helps repair muscle right away.
Well yes and no. While some studies show this happening with elite athletes, there really aren't any that confirm it does the same for the average person who just works out hard. At best, you're just supplying more protein to your diet. At worst, you're just consuming more calories that could be used for something that you may really like to eat instead. Don't buy into the hype.
I don't buy into the hype, haven't noticed any significant changes whether I have a protein shake following a workout or hours later. For me, I just get hungry after a workout, so if it's gonna be a bit before my next meal, a protein shake makes a good snack to tide me over.3 -
cmhubbard92 wrote: »"Weighing every day isn't good for weight loss"
My friend said this to me the other day. I told her it's how I keep myself in check. I've lost 80+lbs since 2018, and have maintained it within a few pounds for the last six months/ish, tracking daily via Libra since the first day(900+ days of weight logged). I still have ~25 to lose, but I have found weighing daily to be helpful, to me, even when I am not focused on losing. When I am losing, it definitely helps me manage my process if I find myself losing too quickly. It stops me for slipping too much. For some, it can truly be unhelpful, but it works for me. It's definitely not a one-size-fits-all, but it's definitely not a bad thing either.
I go through this as well. It's funny to me because the people who think I am weird for weighing myself every morning are either...
1. Never had to watch their weight, or...
2. Are overweight and out of shape...5 -
wunderkindking wrote: »Have any of you worked customer service?
You know how many times you hear "must be free" when something doesn't ring up, and you kind of force polite laughter because you've heard it 9000 times by now and are just over it?
That's me with 'breakfast' means 'to break a fast'.
At the grocery store yesterday, the lady ahead of me needed to argue about the piece of seemingly everything she bought. This should be X, that should be Y. I could see the checker was getting exasperated. So when it was finally my turn, I started with "those are free," "you guys are gonna pay me $100 to accept that" etc. It was absurd enough that I got her to smile.11 -
wunderkindking wrote: »Have any of you worked customer service?
You know how many times you hear "must be free" when something doesn't ring up, and you kind of force polite laughter because you've heard it 9000 times by now and are just over it?
That's me with 'breakfast' means 'to break a fast'.
No no no no…. You’re right. My bad.
For what it’s worth, I eat so slowly that I have basically one meal a day, all day, with periods of nibbling stuff and periods of eating things that were served hot but now aren’t.5 -
cmhubbard92 wrote: »"Weighing every day isn't good for weight loss"
My friend said this to me the other day. I told her it's how I keep myself in check. I've lost 80+lbs since 2018, and have maintained it within a few pounds for the last six months/ish, tracking daily via Libra since the first day(900+ days of weight logged). I still have ~25 to lose, but I have found weighing daily to be helpful, to me, even when I am not focused on losing. When I am losing, it definitely helps me manage my process if I find myself losing too quickly. It stops me for slipping too much. For some, it can truly be unhelpful, but it works for me. It's definitely not a one-size-fits-all, but it's definitely not a bad thing either.
I go through this as well. It's funny to me because the people who think I am weird for weighing myself every morning are either...
1. Never had to watch their weight, or...
2. Are overweight and out of shape...
Absolutely!
I also found out that some people find it weird that I weigh and log my food... Meanwhile, they're willing to hand out 100s to spam ads about melting body fat away, even after asking how I lost the weight. I don't have money to throw around for a "miracle pill", and I trust myself, now, to make the right choices to get to where I need and want to be.7 -
That there is some abstract amount of exercise that is universally "too much exercise" or "too much exercise unless someone is a professional athlete". By "amount", I mean to consider both time and objective intensity (such as pace).
No. There is some amount of exercise that is excessive for a particular person at a particular level of fitness. There is some amount of exercise that will not fit into a particular person's life without ruining their life balance (i.e., it will prevent having enough time and energy for other things important to/for that person).
Or, that there is some abstract amount of exercise that is universally "the right amount of exercise".
There probably really is some amount of exercise that's "too little exercise" - like less than that standard 150 minutes a week of cardio and 2 days of strength training beloved by various national health-promotion authorities? - though that's somewhat individual and situational, too.
Also, slightly different myth, that "exercise" has a different effect on the body than the same activity done for reasons other than just intentional exercise. Honest, I've seen people propose that, essentially: That if you walk 5 miles at X pace on the job, that's somehow going to have a different fitness or calorie (or something) effect than walking 5 miles at X pace just in order to get the exercise. Activity calories matter, even if the activity is paid, produces a useful end product besides calorie burn, etc. (Most people realize this. A few seem not to.)9 -
P.S. I just re-read through a big chunk of this thread. Two reactions:
1. It's a fun thread: Thank you for it, @ninerbuff. (That's why I kept going once I started re-reading.)
2. It's completely hilarious how many times a sequence like this has been repeated in the thread:
"Myth: breakfast is the most important meal"
"it is the most important, because you can't literally skip breakfast: you break your fast the first time you eat in the day, no matter what time or foods you eat"
"no, everyone knows that breakfast refers to the meal that happens first thing in the morning, who cares about word origins".5 -
P.S. I just re-read through a big chunk of this thread. Two reactions:
1. It's a fun thread: Thank you for it, @ninerbuff. (That's why I kept going once I started re-reading.)
2. It's completely hilarious how many times a sequence like this has been repeated in the thread:
"Myth: breakfast is the most important meal"
"it is the most important, because you can't literally skip breakfast: you break your fast the first time you eat in the day, no matter what time or foods you eat"
"no, everyone knows that breakfast refers to the meal that happens first thing in the morning, who cares about word origins".
*Breathairians are still scam artists, tho….
5 -
Clippless pedals are faster because people power the bike by pulling up. Only when sprinting uphill.
12 -
Speed/pace doesn't affect calorie burn.
Of course it does, just that the effect is small for walking and running.
Going any speed means overcoming whatever resistance is holding you back from that. Including air resistance, which increases with the square of your speed. If you're talking about walking 3 vs 3.5 mph that's such a small difference that you can ignore it. When you're on a bike, the difference in how much energy it takes to go 30 vs 35 mph is staggering.
If you don't do exercises where this matters, in you don't need to know. You can land a rocket on the moon with Newtonian physics. But I've been "corrected" for asking about speed and conditions when somebody in the exercise forum asks about calories on a bike, by well meaning people who don't include speed in walking calcs and think it's universally not a factor.5 -
That there is some abstract amount of exercise that is universally "too much exercise" or "too much exercise unless someone is a professional athlete". By "amount", I mean to consider both time and objective intensity (such as pace).
No. There is some amount of exercise that is excessive for a particular person at a particular level of fitness. There is some amount of exercise that will not fit into a particular person's life without ruining their life balance (i.e., it will prevent having enough time and energy for other things important to/for that person).
Or, that there is some abstract amount of exercise that is universally "the right amount of exercise".
There probably really is some amount of exercise that's "too little exercise" - like less than that standard 150 minutes a week of cardio and 2 days of strength training beloved by various national health-promotion authorities? - though that's somewhat individual and situational, too.
Also, slightly different myth, that "exercise" has a different effect on the body than the same activity done for reasons other than just intentional exercise. Honest, I've seen people propose that, essentially: That if you walk 5 miles at X pace on the job, that's somehow going to have a different fitness or calorie (or something) effect than walking 5 miles at X pace just in order to get the exercise. Activity calories matter, even if the activity is paid, produces a useful end product besides calorie burn, etc. (Most people realize this. A few seem not to.)
Related to both of these - I've recently had, out of the blue, several people suggest to me that my new habit of walking pretty much anywhere within a 1.5 mile radius of my house is somehow bizarre and dangerous and not worth it in terms of calories burned. It's true that there's challenging topography, and if I'm transporting a lot of heavy things I will drive instead (e.g. the grocery store). If I go out for a walk for exercise only, it's fine. But if I'm visiting a friend or going to the dentist or the library, well....that's just crazy. Who ever heard of using your own two feet to go somewhere you need to go?
This isn't an exercise myth per se but I have realized that the "time saved" by driving short distances is not as significant as I used to believe, especially when contending with street/pay parking (very common where I live) and the process of loading a bunch of kids in the car. Same with parking right next to an entrance to a store. When I do drive, I park far away and while I might spend an extra couple minutes walking to and from the entrance (increasing NEAT for the win!) navigating the lot with my car is a lot easier and faster when I'm not right in the middle of all the action!16 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Speed/pace doesn't affect calorie burn.
Of course it does, just that the effect is small for walking and running.
Going any speed means overcoming whatever resistance is holding you back from that. Including air resistance, which increases with the square of your speed. If you're talking about walking 3 vs 3.5 mph that's such a small difference that you can ignore it. When you're on a bike, the difference in how much energy it takes to go 30 vs 35 mph is staggering.
If you don't do exercises where this matters, in you don't need to know. You can land a rocket on the moon with Newtonian physics. But I've been "corrected" for asking about speed and conditions when somebody in the exercise forum asks about calories on a bike, by well meaning people who don't include speed in walking calcs and think it's universally not a factor.
Oh, man, yes. And that same general idea is what makes rowing (very slightly, gradually) progressive in a strength sense, which is an implication on a different front. Each faster stroke requires more power to accelerate the boat (or flywheel). Keep doing it, and one gets stronger . . . slowly, veryVery slowly. I assume the same is true for biking, to some extent.
So, the myth I'm attempting to debunk here is the one that says there is no cardio that increases strength/muscle. I believe there is (and presumably more than one type). It's just that it's an extremely slow, inefficient route, if increasing strength/muscle is the key goal, versus, just, say, having fun or something.3 -
Not even sure how he gets a shot of carbs forces fat burn during workout.
I've read this in a couple of books written by ultra runners (don't remember which). I don't know what (if any) science is behind it, but there's this contention that a small amount of carbs before (or during) an otherwise fasted long run will stimulate fat metabolism.
1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Speed/pace doesn't affect calorie burn.
Of course it does, just that the effect is small for walking and running.
Going any speed means overcoming whatever resistance is holding you back from that. Including air resistance, which increases with the square of your speed. If you're talking about walking 3 vs 3.5 mph that's such a small difference that you can ignore it. When you're on a bike, the difference in how much energy it takes to go 30 vs 35 mph is staggering.
If you don't do exercises where this matters, in you don't need to know. You can land a rocket on the moon with Newtonian physics. But I've been "corrected" for asking about speed and conditions when somebody in the exercise forum asks about calories on a bike, by well meaning people who don't include speed in walking calcs and think it's universally not a factor.
Oh, man, yes. And that same general idea is what makes rowing (very slightly, gradually) progressive in a strength sense, which is an implication on a different front. Each faster stroke requires more power to accelerate the boat (or flywheel). Keep doing it, and one gets stronger . . . slowly, veryVery slowly. I assume the same is true for biking, to some extent.
So, the myth I'm attempting to debunk here is the one that says there is no cardio that increases strength/muscle. I believe there is (and presumably more than one type). It's just that it's an extremely slow, inefficient route, if increasing strength/muscle is the key goal, versus, just, say, having fun or something.
The kind of rowing I do is a bit different.
I am not on a moving seat. My legs don't do as much work. I do rock my torso forward and backward. Most of the time I am PUSHING on the oars facing forward. Pulling is stronger, and it gets me out of trouble. The boat I am moving weighs maybe a ton. Strokes aren't fast. I love it.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Speed/pace doesn't affect calorie burn.
Of course it does, just that the effect is small for walking and running.
Going any speed means overcoming whatever resistance is holding you back from that. Including air resistance, which increases with the square of your speed. If you're talking about walking 3 vs 3.5 mph that's such a small difference that you can ignore it. When you're on a bike, the difference in how much energy it takes to go 30 vs 35 mph is staggering.
If you don't do exercises where this matters, in you don't need to know. You can land a rocket on the moon with Newtonian physics. But I've been "corrected" for asking about speed and conditions when somebody in the exercise forum asks about calories on a bike, by well meaning people who don't include speed in walking calcs and think it's universally not a factor.
Oh, man, yes. And that same general idea is what makes rowing (very slightly, gradually) progressive in a strength sense, which is an implication on a different front. Each faster stroke requires more power to accelerate the boat (or flywheel). Keep doing it, and one gets stronger . . . slowly, veryVery slowly. I assume the same is true for biking, to some extent.
So, the myth I'm attempting to debunk here is the one that says there is no cardio that increases strength/muscle. I believe there is (and presumably more than one type). It's just that it's an extremely slow, inefficient route, if increasing strength/muscle is the key goal, versus, just, say, having fun or something.
The kind of rowing I do is a bit different.
I am not on a moving seat. My legs don't do as much work. I do rock my torso forward and backward. Most of the time I am PUSHING on the oars facing forward. Pulling is stronger, and it gets me out of trouble. The boat I am moving weighs maybe a ton. Strokes aren't fast. I love it.
Yes, sorry. Most often "rowing" here means sliding seat machines or watercraft.
Since it surprises me sometimes to see machine rowers say things about "rowing" that are inapplicable to rowing those skinny sliding-seat watercraft, I should be more sensitive to definitions. There's the type you do, and then of course regular fixed-seat rowboats of various types (that aren't the narrow type of craft), as well as rowing rigs for canoes/paddleboards (and maybe kayaks, too, dunno, just haven't seen those). Any of the variations would have different physical effects.
I would think your type of rowing, if repeated sufficiently, would have more of a strength effect than mine, though I don't know enough about it to know whether/how much it could potentially be progressive, or how.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Speed/pace doesn't affect calorie burn.
Of course it does, just that the effect is small for walking and running.
Going any speed means overcoming whatever resistance is holding you back from that. Including air resistance, which increases with the square of your speed. If you're talking about walking 3 vs 3.5 mph that's such a small difference that you can ignore it. When you're on a bike, the difference in how much energy it takes to go 30 vs 35 mph is staggering.
If you don't do exercises where this matters, in you don't need to know. You can land a rocket on the moon with Newtonian physics. But I've been "corrected" for asking about speed and conditions when somebody in the exercise forum asks about calories on a bike, by well meaning people who don't include speed in walking calcs and think it's universally not a factor.
Oh, man, yes. And that same general idea is what makes rowing (very slightly, gradually) progressive in a strength sense, which is an implication on a different front. Each faster stroke requires more power to accelerate the boat (or flywheel). Keep doing it, and one gets stronger . . . slowly, veryVery slowly. I assume the same is true for biking, to some extent.
So, the myth I'm attempting to debunk here is the one that says there is no cardio that increases strength/muscle. I believe there is (and presumably more than one type). It's just that it's an extremely slow, inefficient route, if increasing strength/muscle is the key goal, versus, just, say, having fun or something.
The kind of rowing I do is a bit different.
I am not on a moving seat. My legs don't do as much work. I do rock my torso forward and backward. Most of the time I am PUSHING on the oars facing forward. Pulling is stronger, and it gets me out of trouble. The boat I am moving weighs maybe a ton. Strokes aren't fast. I love it.
Yes, sorry. Most often "rowing" here means sliding seat machines or watercraft.
Since it surprises me sometimes to see machine rowers say things about "rowing" that are inapplicable to rowing those skinny sliding-seat watercraft, I should be more sensitive to definitions. There's the type you do, and then of course regular fixed-seat rowboats of various types (that aren't the narrow type of craft), as well as rowing rigs for canoes/paddleboards (and maybe kayaks, too, dunno, just haven't seen those). Any of the variations would have different physical effects.
I would think your type of rowing, if repeated sufficiently, would have more of a strength effect than mine, though I don't know enough about it to know whether/how much it could potentially be progressive, or how.
It would not be progressive unless you kept getting bigger boats and put more stuff on them.
When pushing, one goal is to keep the boat in the current and let the river do a lot of the work. Once you're going faster than the current, you can "drive" the boat where you want to go. As soon as you put in a pull stroke, you dump your speed and can't drive anymore. On the river we just got off, the low water means you have to pull a LOT to avoid all the rocks. It's typically not sufficient to really get a cardio workout. Well, not much. Walking is a mild cardio workout, so perhaps rowing a raft is too.
I still think you can get stronger by rowing more.
3 -
Any diet book.
I'm going to write one called 'Eat less Calories'
It will be blank inside.
Only £10.99
😁8 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Speed/pace doesn't affect calorie burn.
Of course it does, just that the effect is small for walking and running.
Going any speed means overcoming whatever resistance is holding you back from that. Including air resistance, which increases with the square of your speed. If you're talking about walking 3 vs 3.5 mph that's such a small difference that you can ignore it. When you're on a bike, the difference in how much energy it takes to go 30 vs 35 mph is staggering.
If you don't do exercises where this matters, in you don't need to know. You can land a rocket on the moon with Newtonian physics. But I've been "corrected" for asking about speed and conditions when somebody in the exercise forum asks about calories on a bike, by well meaning people who don't include speed in walking calcs and think it's universally not a factor.
Oh, man, yes. And that same general idea is what makes rowing (very slightly, gradually) progressive in a strength sense, which is an implication on a different front. Each faster stroke requires more power to accelerate the boat (or flywheel). Keep doing it, and one gets stronger . . . slowly, veryVery slowly. I assume the same is true for biking, to some extent.
So, the myth I'm attempting to debunk here is the one that says there is no cardio that increases strength/muscle. I believe there is (and presumably more than one type). It's just that it's an extremely slow, inefficient route, if increasing strength/muscle is the key goal, versus, just, say, having fun or something.
My leg muscles are big. They aren't huge like a power lifter, but you wouldn't believe I don't do lifts for them. I've ridden a bike almost my entire life, always in very hilly places. Up to 5,000 miles a year. There's been a great deal of leg strain, it's been far from ideal from the perspective of trying to build muscle, but it's also far from nothing and added up over time. I might have been able to get the same results out of 3 years of squats and deadlifts as 30 years of cycling, but I've had so much fun. 🙂9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions