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
-
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 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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. 🙂
Ultimately, the best workout is the one you repeat, so it sure sounds like you've found your best. (But give me squats and deadlifts anyday, lol.)4 -
Myth: drinking certain teas will make you poop out extra fat. Many of my family have believed this.11
-
I've felt that way the day after a chili night...4
-
I'm sure someone has already stated this one.
My mother hammered it into my head since the age of ten.
Thin = Healthy
No matter what it takes for you to get/be/stay thin.5 -
Don't get me started about detox or juice cleanses.
6 -
JustJenn68 wrote: »Don't get me started about detox or juice cleanses.
Ooof…. Ya.
My stepson’s baby mama.
Always doing some kind of juice cleanse or detox.
Simultaneously also at the ER on a regular basis for a banana bag. And making some cash on the side peddling (and often taking) many illicit substances.
She is no longer in my life. And I do not miss that drama lama.3 -
I'm sure someone has already stated this one.
My mother hammered it into my head since the age of ten.
Thin = Healthy
No matter what it takes for you to get/be/stay thin.
A corollary to this is it doesn't really matter what you eat to lose weight/stay at a healthy weight, it's how much. I mean technically, yes, but how healthy is the "thin" person that eats mostly junk? I can almost guarantee a person that maybe is a bit overweight who eats mostly nutritious foods is healthier than the skinny fat person who eats junk.
BYW, I think the whole HAES movement is also a myth, too.6 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »I'm sure someone has already stated this one.
My mother hammered it into my head since the age of ten.
Thin = Healthy
No matter what it takes for you to get/be/stay thin.
A corollary to this is it doesn't really matter what you eat to lose weight/stay at a healthy weight, it's how much. I mean technically, yes, but how healthy is the "thin" person that eats mostly junk? I can almost guarantee a person that maybe is a bit overweight who eats mostly nutritious foods is healthier than the skinny fat person who eats junk.
BYW, I think the whole HAES movement is also a myth, too.
There's a tweet or Tumblr post or something floating around the intermajig about someone who was complimented on how "healthy" they looked because their stomach was flat while they were actively addicted to and regularly using heroin.
I'm not deep in the HAES community but my understanding of "health at every size" is that the focus is more on taking care of and getting care for the body that you do actually have, rather than snarking/criticizing/punishing larger bodies basically just for existing, and not taking into account the history or needs or feelings of the actual human people inhabiting those bodies. My understanding was that the movement developed in response to the medical community at large basically dismissing complaints by fat people. Again, I'm not part of the community, but I've heard about it and this is what I've gleaned from, like, Instagram posts and the occasional blog.8 -
I am so sick *of articles that start "According to science..." or "Studies show..." or "Doctors say...". And why are they always "5 foods"??
*Never eat these 5 foods if you want to lose weight!
*Always eat these 5 foods if you want to live longer!
*These 5 foods will rev your metabolism!
*The same 5 foods will kill you!
And my current favorite: "Eating a hot dog takes away 36 minutes of healthy life!"*
* https://www.pcrm.org/news/blog/eating-hot-dog-takes-away-36-minutes-healthy-life#:~:text=Eating a hot dog takes away 36 minutes,as well as their impact on the environment.6 -
goal06082021 wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »I'm sure someone has already stated this one.
My mother hammered it into my head since the age of ten.
Thin = Healthy
No matter what it takes for you to get/be/stay thin.
A corollary to this is it doesn't really matter what you eat to lose weight/stay at a healthy weight, it's how much. I mean technically, yes, but how healthy is the "thin" person that eats mostly junk? I can almost guarantee a person that maybe is a bit overweight who eats mostly nutritious foods is healthier than the skinny fat person who eats junk.
BYW, I think the whole HAES movement is also a myth, too.
There's a tweet or Tumblr post or something floating around the intermajig about someone who was complimented on how "healthy" they looked because their stomach was flat while they were actively addicted to and regularly using heroin.
I'm not deep in the HAES community but my understanding of "health at every size" is that the focus is more on taking care of and getting care for the body that you do actually have, rather than snarking/criticizing/punishing larger bodies basically just for existing, and not taking into account the history or needs or feelings of the actual human people inhabiting those bodies. My understanding was that the movement developed in response to the medical community at large basically dismissing complaints by fat people. Again, I'm not part of the community, but I've heard about it and this is what I've gleaned from, like, Instagram posts and the occasional blog.
Yeah, I think the idea is that one can take steps to be healthier even if one isn't focused on weight loss, specifically including food choice and exercise.2 -
goal06082021 wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »I'm sure someone has already stated this one.
My mother hammered it into my head since the age of ten.
Thin = Healthy
No matter what it takes for you to get/be/stay thin.
A corollary to this is it doesn't really matter what you eat to lose weight/stay at a healthy weight, it's how much. I mean technically, yes, but how healthy is the "thin" person that eats mostly junk? I can almost guarantee a person that maybe is a bit overweight who eats mostly nutritious foods is healthier than the skinny fat person who eats junk.
BYW, I think the whole HAES movement is also a myth, too.
There's a tweet or Tumblr post or something floating around the intermajig about someone who was complimented on how "healthy" they looked because their stomach was flat while they were actively addicted to and regularly using heroin.
I'm not deep in the HAES community but my understanding of "health at every size" is that the focus is more on taking care of and getting care for the body that you do actually have, rather than snarking/criticizing/punishing larger bodies basically just for existing, and not taking into account the history or needs or feelings of the actual human people inhabiting those bodies. My understanding was that the movement developed in response to the medical community at large basically dismissing complaints by fat people. Again, I'm not part of the community, but I've heard about it and this is what I've gleaned from, like, Instagram posts and the occasional blog.
If that's the true mission, then I can get behind that and I think overall it seems like a good alternative to only focusing on weight as a measure of health. I personally think it's better to focus on making healthier food choices and getting more active as a way to achieve better health and weight loss. When I shifted my focus to that instead of getting to a certain size, it made it a lot easier. I still think that there are increased health risks with being obese, and to deny that is disingenuous. It seems like maybe what some are doing are using the movement to justify that you can still be morbidly obese and not have a greater risk for disease as long as you exercise and eat mostly nutrient-dense food (or think you do).4 -
I heard a new one yesterday in an ad on YouTube for some fitness quack.
This person was actually telling his viewers that they need to take hot baths daily in order to lose more weight. Because some kind of misunderstood science BS that he thought meant hot = burn lots of calories
If this actually worked, I would never have gotten fat. I love my hot baths.3 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »I heard a new one yesterday in an ad on YouTube for some fitness quack.
This person was actually telling his viewers that they need to take hot baths daily in order to lose more weight. Because some kind of misunderstood science BS that he thought meant hot = burn lots of calories
If this actually worked, I would never have gotten fat. I love my hot baths.
Reminds me of people who occasionally ask if they should log their sauna time as exercise.3 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »I heard a new one yesterday in an ad on YouTube for some fitness quack.
This person was actually telling his viewers that they need to take hot baths daily in order to lose more weight. Because some kind of misunderstood science BS that he thought meant hot = burn lots of calories
If this actually worked, I would never have gotten fat. I love my hot baths.
If that's actually how "burning fat" worked, I would have become 2-dimensional upon moving to Florida in fifth grade...bro, what the hell.6 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »goal06082021 wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »I'm sure someone has already stated this one.
My mother hammered it into my head since the age of ten.
Thin = Healthy
No matter what it takes for you to get/be/stay thin.
A corollary to this is it doesn't really matter what you eat to lose weight/stay at a healthy weight, it's how much. I mean technically, yes, but how healthy is the "thin" person that eats mostly junk? I can almost guarantee a person that maybe is a bit overweight who eats mostly nutritious foods is healthier than the skinny fat person who eats junk.
BYW, I think the whole HAES movement is also a myth, too.
There's a tweet or Tumblr post or something floating around the intermajig about someone who was complimented on how "healthy" they looked because their stomach was flat while they were actively addicted to and regularly using heroin.
I'm not deep in the HAES community but my understanding of "health at every size" is that the focus is more on taking care of and getting care for the body that you do actually have, rather than snarking/criticizing/punishing larger bodies basically just for existing, and not taking into account the history or needs or feelings of the actual human people inhabiting those bodies. My understanding was that the movement developed in response to the medical community at large basically dismissing complaints by fat people. Again, I'm not part of the community, but I've heard about it and this is what I've gleaned from, like, Instagram posts and the occasional blog.
If that's the true mission, then I can get behind that and I think overall it seems like a good alternative to only focusing on weight as a measure of health. I personally think it's better to focus on making healthier food choices and getting more active as a way to achieve better health and weight loss. When I shifted my focus to that instead of getting to a certain size, it made it a lot easier. I still think that there are increased health risks with being obese, and to deny that is disingenuous. It seems like maybe what some are doing are using the movement to justify that you can still be morbidly obese and not have a greater risk for disease as long as you exercise and eat mostly nutrient-dense food (or think you do).
I think the point is more that you actually can't know how healthy a person is just by looking at them, and even if you could make a statistically-supported guess (based on anything, weight or otherwise), the more important thing is that it's not actually your business in any way.5 -
goal06082021 wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »goal06082021 wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »I'm sure someone has already stated this one.
My mother hammered it into my head since the age of ten.
Thin = Healthy
No matter what it takes for you to get/be/stay thin.
A corollary to this is it doesn't really matter what you eat to lose weight/stay at a healthy weight, it's how much. I mean technically, yes, but how healthy is the "thin" person that eats mostly junk? I can almost guarantee a person that maybe is a bit overweight who eats mostly nutritious foods is healthier than the skinny fat person who eats junk.
BYW, I think the whole HAES movement is also a myth, too.
There's a tweet or Tumblr post or something floating around the intermajig about someone who was complimented on how "healthy" they looked because their stomach was flat while they were actively addicted to and regularly using heroin.
I'm not deep in the HAES community but my understanding of "health at every size" is that the focus is more on taking care of and getting care for the body that you do actually have, rather than snarking/criticizing/punishing larger bodies basically just for existing, and not taking into account the history or needs or feelings of the actual human people inhabiting those bodies. My understanding was that the movement developed in response to the medical community at large basically dismissing complaints by fat people. Again, I'm not part of the community, but I've heard about it and this is what I've gleaned from, like, Instagram posts and the occasional blog.
If that's the true mission, then I can get behind that and I think overall it seems like a good alternative to only focusing on weight as a measure of health. I personally think it's better to focus on making healthier food choices and getting more active as a way to achieve better health and weight loss. When I shifted my focus to that instead of getting to a certain size, it made it a lot easier. I still think that there are increased health risks with being obese, and to deny that is disingenuous. It seems like maybe what some are doing are using the movement to justify that you can still be morbidly obese and not have a greater risk for disease as long as you exercise and eat mostly nutrient-dense food (or think you do).
I think the point is more that you actually can't know how healthy a person is just by looking at them, and even if you could make a statistically-supported guess (based on anything, weight or otherwise), the more important thing is that it's not actually your business in any way.
I don't know, I think a person's appearance can actually tell you a lot about their health, and I don't just mean their size (skin color, hair, the way the move, etc.). You're right that it is none of my business what someone chooses to with their body, but I am allowed to disagree with statements that obesity in and of itself doesn't increase risk of health complications.7 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »goal06082021 wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »goal06082021 wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »I'm sure someone has already stated this one.
My mother hammered it into my head since the age of ten.
Thin = Healthy
No matter what it takes for you to get/be/stay thin.
A corollary to this is it doesn't really matter what you eat to lose weight/stay at a healthy weight, it's how much. I mean technically, yes, but how healthy is the "thin" person that eats mostly junk? I can almost guarantee a person that maybe is a bit overweight who eats mostly nutritious foods is healthier than the skinny fat person who eats junk.
BYW, I think the whole HAES movement is also a myth, too.
There's a tweet or Tumblr post or something floating around the intermajig about someone who was complimented on how "healthy" they looked because their stomach was flat while they were actively addicted to and regularly using heroin.
I'm not deep in the HAES community but my understanding of "health at every size" is that the focus is more on taking care of and getting care for the body that you do actually have, rather than snarking/criticizing/punishing larger bodies basically just for existing, and not taking into account the history or needs or feelings of the actual human people inhabiting those bodies. My understanding was that the movement developed in response to the medical community at large basically dismissing complaints by fat people. Again, I'm not part of the community, but I've heard about it and this is what I've gleaned from, like, Instagram posts and the occasional blog.
If that's the true mission, then I can get behind that and I think overall it seems like a good alternative to only focusing on weight as a measure of health. I personally think it's better to focus on making healthier food choices and getting more active as a way to achieve better health and weight loss. When I shifted my focus to that instead of getting to a certain size, it made it a lot easier. I still think that there are increased health risks with being obese, and to deny that is disingenuous. It seems like maybe what some are doing are using the movement to justify that you can still be morbidly obese and not have a greater risk for disease as long as you exercise and eat mostly nutrient-dense food (or think you do).
I think the point is more that you actually can't know how healthy a person is just by looking at them, and even if you could make a statistically-supported guess (based on anything, weight or otherwise), the more important thing is that it's not actually your business in any way.
I don't know, I think a person's appearance can actually tell you a lot about their health, and I don't just mean their size (skin color, hair, the way the move, etc.). You're right that it is none of my business what someone chooses to with their body, but I am allowed to disagree with statements that obesity in and of itself doesn't increase risk of health complications.
Sure, but again...you cannot know an individual's actual risk of anything just by looking at them. And if you do decide to speculate about a specific stranger's body, which is a weird thing to do but you're free to spend your time however you like I guess...keep it to yourself.3 -
goal06082021 wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »goal06082021 wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »goal06082021 wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »I'm sure someone has already stated this one.
My mother hammered it into my head since the age of ten.
Thin = Healthy
No matter what it takes for you to get/be/stay thin.
A corollary to this is it doesn't really matter what you eat to lose weight/stay at a healthy weight, it's how much. I mean technically, yes, but how healthy is the "thin" person that eats mostly junk? I can almost guarantee a person that maybe is a bit overweight who eats mostly nutritious foods is healthier than the skinny fat person who eats junk.
BYW, I think the whole HAES movement is also a myth, too.
There's a tweet or Tumblr post or something floating around the intermajig about someone who was complimented on how "healthy" they looked because their stomach was flat while they were actively addicted to and regularly using heroin.
I'm not deep in the HAES community but my understanding of "health at every size" is that the focus is more on taking care of and getting care for the body that you do actually have, rather than snarking/criticizing/punishing larger bodies basically just for existing, and not taking into account the history or needs or feelings of the actual human people inhabiting those bodies. My understanding was that the movement developed in response to the medical community at large basically dismissing complaints by fat people. Again, I'm not part of the community, but I've heard about it and this is what I've gleaned from, like, Instagram posts and the occasional blog.
If that's the true mission, then I can get behind that and I think overall it seems like a good alternative to only focusing on weight as a measure of health. I personally think it's better to focus on making healthier food choices and getting more active as a way to achieve better health and weight loss. When I shifted my focus to that instead of getting to a certain size, it made it a lot easier. I still think that there are increased health risks with being obese, and to deny that is disingenuous. It seems like maybe what some are doing are using the movement to justify that you can still be morbidly obese and not have a greater risk for disease as long as you exercise and eat mostly nutrient-dense food (or think you do).
I think the point is more that you actually can't know how healthy a person is just by looking at them, and even if you could make a statistically-supported guess (based on anything, weight or otherwise), the more important thing is that it's not actually your business in any way.
I don't know, I think a person's appearance can actually tell you a lot about their health, and I don't just mean their size (skin color, hair, the way the move, etc.). You're right that it is none of my business what someone chooses to with their body, but I am allowed to disagree with statements that obesity in and of itself doesn't increase risk of health complications.
Sure, but again...you cannot know an individual's actual risk of anything just by looking at them. And if you do decide to speculate about a specific stranger's body, which is a weird thing to do but you're free to spend your time however you like I guess...keep it to yourself.
Nobody can know the actual risk of any individual. Even if you know an individual's blood chemistry, their genetics, their lifestyle, their weight, their bone density, and their level of risk aversion, you can not know the "actual" risk. You can infer, for example, that someone who regularly smokes cigarettes has a higher risk of disease, but you can't state the actual risk. Even if you did know an individual has a 79.256% chance of developing disease, you can't know if that individual will fall on one side or another of those odds.
With that in mind, I think it's safe to infer that an obese person is at increased risk of disease. Does that mean obese people shouldn't love themselves? Not at all. Does it mean that an obese person would be healthier if they were able to get to a healthy weight? I think it's a safe inference.11 -
This may have already been mentioned, but the trainers and videos that say “do XYZ to lose the belly fat/love handles/bat wings etc”. You can’t spot reduce fat! Of course you can exercise those areas but as for actual fat loss, stop prying on people!
Oh and just gonna say 3 letters:
M L M5 -
Fat bombs and daily bullet-proof coffee. I have a friend who insists that both are an absolutely necessary part of her 'healthy diet.' Then she wonders why she's not been able to lose weight. Whenever she gains weight, she blames it on a serving a white rice or potato.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions