Lively Discussion

[k2ster]

We've got a lively discussion going on the Scott Sonnen blog regarding an article Coach posted about exercise addiction. The article focuses on certain women in the entertainment industry who seem to have gone overboard with their exercise regimens.

I seem to be the lone wolf who sides with the author (who is female). Everyone else's take is that the article is telling women how they should or should not look.

Am I totally missing the point here? Am I a politically incorrect male Chauvinist pig? :-) I would love for some women to chime in on this one.

Follow the discussion here:
http://www.rmaxinternational.com/flowcoach/?p=151

Keith Koger
Charlotte, NC

[Coach Flanagan]

I'll bite. :)

Keith,

This is the 3rd time you've made reference to "Political Correctness". What are you defining as "Politically correct" versus "incorrect" in this context?

[Chuck Kechter]

Way too many assumptions being thrown around... Not one of the posters there KNOW anything about how those women are training... Let alone "be" the spokesman for the "cultural" aspects of how they look...

Since I know how the word assume breaks down I will pass (except for this ;p :))

[Coach Flanagan]

Let alone "be" the spokesman for the "cultural" aspects of how they look...

Can you rephrase this? I'm not sure what you're stating here, Chuck.

I agree with your first point - which is why you will not find any commentary of mine regarding their workouts. The information given was far too insufficient.

[k2ster]

Sean,

I think what I am seeing in the arguments against the article is an underlying fear of offending anyone, ever, at anytime. If everyone is walking around on eggshells for fear of ever hurting anyone's feelings by actually making an observation then where goes the need for discussion? It just seems to me that the arguments being made against the article only see this "how dare you tell a woman how she can or cannot look" viewpoint. That, to me, is political correctness at its worst. No one, except for me it seems, is seeing pictures of women who are taking exercise to extremes at the cost of their health.

Oh, and thanks for biting! :-)

Keith

[k2ster]

Way too many assumptions being thrown around... Not one of the posters there KNOW anything about how those women are training... Let alone "be" the spokesman for the "cultural" aspects of how they look...

Chuck,

Did you actually READ the article? How can you say that nothing was said about their training? The article mentions that Madge works out for 2-3 HOURS each day doing yoga and Pilates. You can clearly see by looking at her that she is overtraining. Look at pictures of her just a few years ago. She looked great! She was sculpted and fit. Now she is addicted to exercise for fear of, gasp, looking older and she has actually made herself look exactly that!

Keith
Charlotte

[Coach Flanagan]

Trust me, Keith. I have noooo problems with offending someone if I have to. :)

My objection isn't so much that the author appears to me to be espousing her visual ideal (not my fight - I can just ignore it), but that its being disguised as a commentary on exercise.

Do I think those actresses look healthy? For the most part, not really. However, thats not the point. It comes back to the fact that their actual training protocols are quickly glossed over. Many of the pictures shown the actresses look extremely thin - perhaps to a degree that could make that a health problem. But with the bare minimum actual discussion of their training programs, Its insufficient to make a commentary. Maybe they're exercising too much...or maybe they're not eating enough, or maybe they were just plain ill when the picture was taken (looking at one picture in particular there). Or...perhaps even though they may appear "not healthy" to me and my own particular bias, perhaps they are in optimal health and just happen to be thin.

[Chuck Kechter]

With the soft-core journalism of the author, and some of the assumptions in the comments, it sounds like there are judgements being made about the women in question -- as to their looks -- as opposed to their health (which no one here can know), how they feel, how well they move , et cetera...

Since no one here knows what is going in those celebrities lives (are they doing that for a roll, a medical condition, ascetic reason, et cetera) anything said about it, is pure noise -- and no signal... And anyone that comments -- WITHOUT knowing is stating their preferences (which are usually culturally conditioned) rather than what is.

And with this I am done.

[Coach Flanagan]

In the case of Madonna's workout, the article describes her daily regimine as a "a grueling" 3 hours of ashtanga. Thats a pretty crappy description of her workout as far as I'm concerned. Grueling how? Is the author simply saying its grueling because of the length of time? In that case, perhaps on paper maybe a 90 minute no-intensity Intu-Flow Session could be described half-assed as a "Grueling 90 Minutes of mobility training". Would it be grueling for the average athlete? Or is it in fact a Rate of Perceived exertion of 7-9 every day for Madonna for the entire 3 hours?

[k2ster]

How does that saying go? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it? I certainly got it, didn't I? :-)

Good points, guys. Sean, I even made the same point you made regarding the exertion rate, etc., in one of my posts on the blog. So, being the fair and balanced kind of guy that I am (choke, choke), I'll tip my hat and cede the floor.

Still looking for a woman's point of view, though. Connie, are you out there?

Keith the humbled

[Kathryn Woodall]

I'm with Chuck on this...way too many assumptions are flying around. Keith I'm not sure what it is that you want a woman to say. I don't know those women, their levels of health, their exercise habits, there eating habits, how they think, what they believe, or their happiness levels. I also don't know the author of the article and therefor can't feel comfortable that the article is anything more than her opinion. I've seen pictures of a still-living Elvis in some magazines but that doesn't mean that I'm sitting by my computer waiting for the announcement of his next new release.

If you are asking for a generalized opinion, then it is that women and men should focus on health first and let the physique be a natural by-product of doing so, that magazine articles which point fingers (whether accurately or not) without relevant statistical information as well as proposed healthy solutions serve educationally empty information, and that at least for some people the illusion that health can be evaluated by appearance alone is still present.

[Nick1974]

I would say all that can be said about that particular magazine article has been said, but it begs the question, what does a healthy physique look like? Can we, or should we, use our physique as a baraometer of our health? Perhaps what we could do that would be helpful to wider society would be to show, and promote what a healthy physique actually looks like. For example, the "six pack abs" may be perceived to be a symbol of health and fitness, but in actual fact the trainee is probably damaging the natural 'firing sequence' of his/her core activation (and breathing) by doing 200 situps every day in pursuit of those six pack abs.

[Kathryn Woodall]

Perhaps what we could do that would be helpful to wider society would be to show, and promote what a healthy physique actually looks like.

I think that confusion lies at least partially in that statement. Health is impossible to define by a look. Health is made up of choices and actions and is a dynamic of a person interacting successfully within her/his environment. Static pictures fail at being able to demonstrate that. I can show pictures of people who "look" healthy but actually have cancer, HIV, or died days after the photo of a heart attack. They may not look any different than a picture of someone else who is disease free. Provided that it is being recorded honestly, a thorough food/training/thought blog is a much better "picture" of someone's health than a photo ever could be.

[Connie Brown]

Connie, are you out there?
LOL hi Keith, I was hoping my silence was speaking volumes.

First - what Chuck said about the article -


pure noise -- and no signal

Remember the article Coach Sonnon recently wrote, about the junk food equivalent in food for the mind? My filter kicked in on that article and it didn't make the cut.

Second - what Dr K said -


Health is impossible to define by a look.

I remember thinking even as I read the article - what can you tell from a still photo? How do they move? what is the quality of skin tone? all that stuff. Not even to mention the underlying invisible medical things.

Can't tell addiction from the outside either. High volume, high intensity, low bodyfat, high vascularity, even amenorhhea don't always say yes. It would take a shrink to diagnose.

[shadow]

Yes the opposite can be true also...

people can look fantastic (and I have a few friends from the past who come to mind with their good genetics) on the outside but fill themselves with trash..... what me way not see is the insides rotting away.

To me those women did look overtrained, but who knows with hollywood and even photoshop.

I recently saw this recording clip someone did of themselves photoshopping an image of a rather overweight woman and when he was finished.... well she looked pretty good.

Tabloid magazines are paid to make people feel good about themselves by rubbing dirt on the stars... thats why they sell so many, I think.