Fitness myths: a debunking thread.

metamorphosis

So i thought it would be handy to start a thread specifically debunking fitness myths. I know there is some info with regards this in the stickies but with the questions that sometimes fly around here it seems some people don't bother reading the stickies and go straight to the threads.

So anyway. I got the idea for this thread today after the following incident.
Friend of mine asks how she can go about getting fit. She won't go to the inside of a gym so i say how about taking some group fitness classes like aerobics. She says no because she's not co - ordinated. Then i suggest spinning or jogging as they don't require co-ordination. She freaks out saying how they will only make her thighs bulk up big time. Face palm moment! Needless to say i got no where with when i suggested buying a weights set from argos. I told her she could squat and lunge her way to Alaska and her thighs still wouldn't have big thighs. She didn't even like the idea of going for a brisk walk. She wasn't having any of my scientifically sound counter arguments! She found an excuse for every exercise.

So any fitness myths that we would like to debunk? any similar stories?

Supercell

Myth :- People with six packs must be doing loads of sit-ups, so if i do loads of sit-ups i'll get a six pack.

Debunk : You can't spot reduce, you could do a bajillion situps a day but if you are a fatty nobody is ever going to see it even though you might have the best ever set of abs below the beer belly.

Zamboni

Myth: Jogging makes you thin.

Overweight person see thin joggers.
Falsely assumes a causal relationship between the exercise & bodyshape.
Overweight person jogs.
I cringe whilst thinking of their shins.

(I was a fat jogger many years ago)

Roper

Zamboni wrote: »

Myth: Jogging makes you thin.

Overweight person see thin joggers.
Falsely assumes a causal relationship between the exercise & bodyshape.
Overweight person jogs.
I cringe whilst thinking of their shins.

(I was a fat jogger many years ago)

Not neccessarily a myth since plenty of joggers get thin by jogging and looking after their diet. I know lots of people who keep in shape doing steady state cardio. Just because it goes against the prevaling wisdom here doesn't make it a myth.

Myth: you must use "insert supplement here" to gain muscle/weight.
Debunk: almost any good food will do as long as you're eating lots.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Myth; Cardio is detrimental to gaining mass.

Debunk; An effficient CV system will carry more oxygen to the muscles than an unfit one will. A muscle with a good oxygen supply will lift heavier, longer and more intense thus building bigger, stronger muscles.

.

celestial

Myth: Steady state cardio is ineffective for cardio loss.

Debunk: Those who claim it is may well be trying to sell you something. It has worked for bodybuilders since time immemorial and it will work for you.

ragg

celestial wrote: »

Myth: Steady state cardio is ineffective for cardio loss.

Debunk: Those who claim it is may well be trying to sell you something. It has worked for bodybuilders since time immemorial and it will work for you.

Disagree

http://www.bodyincredible.com/how-to-avoid-chunk-fat-aerobics-instructor-syndrome/

EileenG

Myth: women should do lots of reps of light weights or they will get big and bulky.

Debunk: Don't I wish! I just don't have enough testosterone to get bulky. The best I can hope for is to deadlift my way to looking as if I occasionally get off my arse.

Hanley

ragg wrote: »

Disagree

http://www.bodyincredible.com/how-to-avoid-chunk-fat-aerobics-instructor-syndrome/

Disagree.



We could do this all day.

The simple fact is, if you're lifting weights, have a decent base amount of muscle, control your diet and keep protein high steady state "aerobic" cardio works really fcuking well for fat loss.

A fat aerobics instructor who doesn't lift weights is a ridiculous way of trying to prove LIT cardio doesn't "work" for fat loss. Of course it works if you're putting your time in in the weight room as well.

cowzerp

if your burning loads of calories your going to burn fat, it does not matter wheter its steady or intervals, the main difference is how each 1 will affect your fitness levels, and interval training does increase your metabolism a bit mor like weights do but not so much that it renders steady state cardio useless, do both.

Ping Chow Chi

Myth: you must stretch before exercise
Truth: There is no evidence to support this

rubadub

Myth: Gymnastics (or other weight training) will stunt your growth,
Debunk: Short people can usually acheive a have a higher strength to weight ratio so can perform harder bodyweight feats, so it is more likely to have short pro gymnasts.

A logical follow on myth which you never hear is playing basketball will make you tall. This can be used to debunk the myth too.

Myth: When you give up weight training all the muscle turns to fat.
Debunk: Many people doing resistance training will have a high calorie intake and some will continue to eat like this when they stop training. Then they will be subjecting themselves to a large excess of calories and so put on weight/fat.

metamorphosis

EileenG wrote: »

Myth: women should do lots of reps of light weights or they will get big and bulky.

Debunk: Don't I wish! I just don't have enough testosterone to get bulky. The best I can hope for is to deadlift my way to looking as if I occasionally get off my arse.

Over in JJbs today and on the tv in the lounge they usually have music videos playing, but today there were 2 'instructers' on the tv giving out advice 'eat good foods, exercise more' ... the usual like. Then one of them stated that if your looking to lose weight go easy on the weights and have a lower weight with higher reps up to 15!!!! i was stunned.

5 min later, the other instructer came on and said how lifting heavy weights was very important for losing weight and fat loss
... and we wonder why people are confused about weghts!!!!

d'Oracle

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Myth: you must stretch before exercise
Truth: There is no evidence to support this

At the risk of talking out of place, I don't think you are going far enough.

There is sufficient evidence to refute this myth.
Static stretching supposedly lowers the ability of muscles to store elastic energy. Making your muscles perform less effectivly.

However, there is lots of evidence to suggest dynamic stretching is beneficial to performance.
Like warm-up sets in weight training programmes.

floggg

ragg wrote: »

Disagree

http://www.bodyincredible.com/how-to-avoid-chunk-fat-aerobics-instructor-syndrome/

I'm not sure i am as qualified as Kat from "Body Incredible" but i am going to disagree with your disagree.

I know cardio works for weight loss because i did the cardio and got the tshirt. A small one. I had to throw out all my XL ones, they were way too big on me.

Cardio on its own will not result in weight loss, but neither will lifting weights. You won't get anywhere without fixing your diet. But one you do sort the diet, it doesn't matter whether you do cardio only, weights only, or both, you will lose weight as long as you exercise.

How about this debunk:

Myth: Steady state cardio and eating mars bars is effective for fat loss.
debunk: those who say it is are trying to selling you something - mars bars!

Hanley

d'Oracle wrote: »

Static stretching supposedly lowers the ability of muscles to store elastic energy. Making your muscles perform less effectivly.

However, there is lots of evidence to suggest dynamic stretching is beneficial to performance.
Like warm-up sets in weight training programmes.

Anyone know much about these studies?? I saw one recently where static stretching of the lower body was shown to decrease vertical jump performance by approx. 10% as opposed to dynamic warm ups. How applicable would this be to distance training anyway? Probably an argument involving flexibility -v- mobility to be had as well.

But at the same time, Joe DeFranco's a fan of static stretching the hip flexors prior to testing because they tend to inhibit the jump...

Joe C

Supercell wrote: »

Myth :- People with six packs must be doing loads of sit-ups, so if i do loads of sit-ups i'll get a six pack.

Debunk : You can't spot reduce, you could do a bajillion situps a day but if you are a fatty nobody is ever going to see it even though you might have the best ever set of abs below the beer belly.

http://www.ppcchicago.com/articles/biosignature-modulation.php

floggg

Joe C wrote: »

http://www.ppcchicago.com/articles/biosignature-modulation.php

Ok, i think we should get one thing clear in this thread - you can post an internet link to back up almost any argument. That doesn't mean that what you have posted is actually true!

I'm sorry, but unless you can post some link from a well respected source (preferably medical), other than the website of the particular organisation peddling the wonder solution, which backs up the claim, i'm calling BS! That goes for all statements which appear to go against generally accepted logic!

mloc

Joe C wrote: »

http://www.ppcchicago.com/articles/biosignature-modulation.php

Haven't read anything as pseudo-sciency as that in ages. It takes accepted facts, completely distorts them and then presents the new, completely untrue "conclusions" as evidence of some BS training program.

Another L. Casei Immunitass pile of sh*te.

Joe C

mloc wrote: »

Haven't read anything as pseudo-sciency as that in ages. It takes accepted facts, completely distorts them and then presents the new, completely untrue "conclusions" as evidence of some BS training program.

Another L. Casei Immunitass pile of sh*te.

I'd certainly take your word over an Olympic strength coaches opinions based on years of testing and training.

itsallaboutheL

Joe C wrote: »

I'd certainly take your word over an Olympic strength coaches opinions based on years of testing and training.

Lets not start Polliquin bashing now kids, and i'd be fairly sure he had SFA to do with any part of that article, at this stage he's like

Santa

he only exists in the minds of marketing execs

Joe C

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

Lets not start Polliquin bashing now kids, and i'd be fairly sure he had SFA to do with any part of that article, at this stage he's like

Santa

he only exists in the minds of marketing execs

?

itsallaboutheL

Joe C wrote: »

?

?

floggg

Joe C wrote: »

I'd certainly take your word over an Olympic strength coaches opinions based on years of testing and training.

Wasn't he the guy who invented the volvic challenge?

Roper

Poloquin can turn fat into muscle just by looking at it.

Brian?

Joe C wrote: »

http://www.ppcchicago.com/articles/biosignature-modulation.php

There is nothing there that says you can spot reduce fat using excercise and definatly nothing that says crunches will give you a 6 pack. In fact, if there's one man alive who hates crunches its Poliquin.

The science may or may not be iffy but its nothing to do with endless situps giving you a 6 pack so posting it in reply to this is taking the piss:

Originally Posted by Supercell
Myth :- People with six packs must be doing loads of sit-ups, so if i do loads of sit-ups i'll get a six pack.

Debunk : You can't spot reduce, you could do a bajillion situps a day but if you are a fatty nobody is ever going to see it even though you might have the best ever set of abs below the beer belly.

kevpants

Joe C wrote: »

I'd certainly take your word over an Olympic strength coaches opinions based on years of testing and training.

Biosignature...... that is all.

d'Oracle

Hanley wrote: »

Anyone know much about these studies?? I saw one recently where static stretching of the lower body was shown to decrease vertical jump performance by approx. 10% as opposed to dynamic warm ups. How applicable would this be to distance training anyway? Probably an argument involving flexibility -v- mobility to be had as well.

But at the same time, Joe DeFranco's a fan of static stretching the hip flexors prior to testing because they tend to inhibit the jump...

Don't have any links, but I read one undertaken by University of Canterbury (NZ) When I was down there.

I also saw that one about vertical jump performance, was posted on here.
The basis of which transfers pretty well to most applications, running involves kinetic storage too.

If these cases are true, the flexibility is probably best worked on separately i.e. away from weights or cardio or what have you. Maybe a yoga session in the evening if you train at lunch?

Or else dynamically.
I mean, if you are having flexibility problems (say groin) when you squat, are groin stretches going to help more than squatting with the bare bar?

d'Oracle

Joe C wrote: »

I'd certainly take your word over an Olympic strength coaches opinions based on years of testing and training.

That article reads like an essay on the benefits of Snake oil.

I couldn't debunk it, apart from his obvious total lack of understanding of the function and effects of Thyroxine, but knowing how proper scientific evidence is presented, this looks very shoddy.

Edwardius

floggg wrote: »

I'm sorry, but unless you can post some link from a well respected source (preferably medical), other than the website of the particular organisation peddling the wonder solution, which backs up the claim, i'm calling BS! That goes for all statements which appear to go against generally accepted logic!

Funny thing, I came across this a while ago:

http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/showthread.php?t=176

I wasn't bored enough to follow up the paper and find out what they actually did and it's probably no use in real terms anyway but it was vaguely noteworthy.

Edit: Actually work is more boring and I found the full text. They neglected to mention this in the abstract...

"Based on the present results, it cannot be foreseen if specific
exercises can induce spot reduction, since triacylglycerol (TG)
stores could be fully replenished or even supercompensated
between exercise sessions"

(this part ain't free so might have some I.P. issues or whatever. Delete it if needs be)

The experiment had a bunch of lads doing leg extensions. They ended up reporting that full body training would be better anyway. It is a little interesting to note that the fat was mobilised from local adipose tissue...

Edwardius

d'Oracle wrote: »

That article reads like an essay on the benefits of Snake oil.

Another useless fact: The original snake-oil was from China and had a fairly high conc. of EPA. Yanks decided to get in on this but for some reason the comp of their snake-oil wasn't anywhere near as useful. Didn't stop 'em selling it though.

I should do some work.

all_smilz

IS this true?
my bf and i were discussing push ups and i do them on my knees with my legs crossed ( i figured its cos im not strong enough to do em on my feet) he said that its just how girls are supposed to do them?
wtf?

itsallaboutheL

Its just a modified push-up, if you can do full ones then do full ones!

Hanley

all_smilz wrote: »

IS this true?
my bf and i were discussing push ups and i do them on my knees with my legs crossed ( i figured its cos im not strong enough to do em on my feet) he said that its just how girls are supposed to do them?
wtf?

Knees = easier, and normally girls need ot make it easier cos guys are relatively stronger, that's why you see girls doing it on their knees. No reason to do it tho if you can do it on your toes...


Reminded me of one....

Myth: Push ups make a girls womb fall out

c'mon now... seriously?

ragg

"You can't spot reduce" is a buzz phrase on Internet forums - A guy with moobs who benches a lot, while following the right diet, will lose proportionally more inches off his moobs then else where - the key being to what i said is the right diet! With that said, if the workout is not balanced, said guy will probably get injured.

In short you can lose more off your problem areas, but you need to follow the right diet and a sensible workout

cowzerp

ragg wrote: »

"You can't spot reduce" is a buzz phrase on Internet forums - A guy with moobs who benches a lot, while following the right diet, will lose proportionally more inches off his moobs then else where - the key being to what i said is the right diet! With that said, if the workout is not balanced, said guy will probably get injured.

In short you can lose more off your problem areas, but you need to follow the right diet and a sensible workout

Your confusing toning an area with spot reducing an area, this can not happen, the body burns the next available fat, not the area your working, 1 is got to do with muscle and the other fat, there not related otherwise all girls would walk around with perfect figures and surgery would be a big waste of money.

ragg

"tone" :mad: that word makes me want to kill.

While doing 1,000,000 situps is pointless. Someoe doing ab work will lose more inches off their stomach then somone who is not. Call it what you want (once its not "toning") but its true

Roper

ragg wrote: »

"tone" :mad: that word makes me want to kill.

While doing 1,000,000 situps is pointless. Someoe doing ab work will lose more inches off their stomach then somone who is not. Call it what you want (once its not "toning") but its true

No, it's not true. Your abs are gaining definition through ab work, not losing fat.

cowzerp

That is toning wheter you like it or not, its simply the muscle firming up which is called tone, what name do you have if your so smart? You where wrong on spot reducing and now digging a bigger hole for yourself.

Hanley

I don't get the hate for "tone". Like we all know it's not technically correct in the context of how most people use it, but we ALL know what it means. So what's the big deal?

itsallaboutheL

Hanley wrote: »

I don't get the hate for "tone". Like we all know it's not technically correct in the context of how most people use it, but we ALL know what it means. So what's the big deal?

:pac:some of us are tone deaf

Hanley

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

:pac:some of us are tone deaf

That was actually a good one!! Your wit's improving!

itsallaboutheL

Hanley wrote: »

That was actually a good one!! Your wit's improving!

there's a couple of g'ems among 1000 posts of ****te!

Zamboni

Feel free to berate me but I agree with raggamuffin :pac:

Tone is simply a word that some idiot back in the Lycra clad eighties (or even earlier) transferred from music & colour into the magical world of fitness.
It has absolutely no scientific meaning in the context that it is meant.
It would be so much easier if people just said I want definition.
Although due to its widespread use now and as language is constantly evolving, I have no doubt that eventually it will appear in a dictionary as an adjective to describe muscle mass with low bodyfat.
In which case me and ragg will just have to get over it!

Hanley

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

there's a couple of g'ems among 1000 posts of ****te!

I take it back.

all_smilz

Hanley wrote: »

Knees = easier, and normally girls need ot make it easier cos guys are relatively stronger, that's why you see girls doing it on their knees. No reason to do it tho if you can do it on your toes...


Reminded me of one....

Myth: Push ups make a girls womb fall out

c'mon now... seriously?

Thats what i thought re pushups... i CANT for life of me do em on my toes...

btw its BABIES that make ur womb fall out.... lol!:D

arybvtcw0eolkf

ragg wrote: »

"tone" :mad: that word makes me want to kill.

While doing 1,000,000 situps is pointless. Someoe doing ab work will lose more inches off their stomach then somone who is not. Call it what you want (once its not "toning") but its true

Actually your wrong(ish).

A fat individual doing a lot of sit ups can actually increase the size if their waist simply because working a muscle makes it bigger. A bigger muscle covered in a layer of fat will often make that area bigger!.

It happens with the arm's, quads, delts etc, why do people think abs should be any different?.

.

Roper

Zamboni wrote: »

Feel free to berate me but I agree with raggamuffin :pac:

Tone is simply a word that some idiot back in the Lycra clad eighties (or even earlier) transferred from music & colour into the magical world of fitness.
It has absolutely no scientific meaning in the context that it is meant.
It would be so much easier if people just said I want definition.
Although due to its widespread use now and as language is constantly evolving, I have no doubt that eventually it will appear in a dictionary as an adjective to describe muscle mass with low bodyfat.
In which case me and ragg will just have to get over it!

No you're also wrong. Tone is a derivation of the word tonus, which is the semi contracted state a regularly trained muscle is in.

The reason people hate the word tone is because the internet said so once and they had a cool soundtrack to prove it.

ragg

Roper wrote: »

No, it's not true. Your abs are gaining definition through ab work, not losing fat.

Is that not spot reducing??

What I was saying is, Two man Identical men with exactly the same body composition, man A does 3 exercises for his abs, man B does none! Who has a slimmer waist?

mloc

Roper wrote: »

No you're also wrong. Tone is a derivation of the word tonus, which is the semi contracted state a regularly trained muscle is in.

The reason people hate the word tone is because the internet said so once and they had a cool soundtrack to prove it.

I guess it's one of those things. People get confused about the meaning of the word. You're right on the technical definition there; tone is generally referring to the state of semi-contraction, or of slight muscle activation.

The problem is people say tone when they mean defined, which itself is ambiguous.

I guess:

Massive : Large quantity of muscle mass
Toned: Muscle mass in state of activation, firm
Ripped: Low body fat
Defined: Toned and ripped

IMHO, anyway.

Zamboni

Roper wrote: »

No you're also wrong. Tone is a derivation of the word tonus, which is the semi contracted state a regularly trained muscle is in.

You're just too fond of telling people they're wrong

I'm fairly sure my origin of the use of the word tone in relation to body compostion/definition is correct albeit vague. Coming from the idea of a stretched taut string.

1340, from O.Fr. ton (13c.), from L. tonus "a sound, tone, accent," lit. "stretching" (in M.L., a term peculiar to music), from Gk. tonos "vocal pitch, raising of voice, accent, key in music," originally "a stretching, taut string," related to teinein "to stretch" (see tenet).
Etymology Online

I know what tonus is and that is not the origin of the use of the word tone as I understand it.
The truth is neither of us are language experts and can pinpoint with any serious evidence the first use of the word tone in relation to body composition.
So I'll take a draw...:D