Funny fitness misconceptions by people just starting out
Replies
-
Plus new dieters are hyperfocused on food and calories so that also makes it harder to eat more. Being aware of your food rather than eating mindlessly makes most people satisfied with less, and logging makes people very aware.jennycina93 wrote: »The people who claim they can't eat anywhere near 1200 calories b/c they get too full. Do they not realize they were most likely eating way above that to gain weight in the first place?
bugs me when people keep saying this. when someone changes their diet to include healthy nutritionally dense foods with less calories and cut out the carbs, it IS more difficult to get to 1200 calories. you get full on less. just a fact. why does this bother people so much? they aren't making it up. sure if they put the crap back into their diet, it will be super easy to reach 1200 calories and more, but that isn't the best idea.
0 -
LOL, people defending the whole muscle weighs more than fat crowd are cute.
Tell me again how man and dinosaur lived together?0 -
but maybe it's rocket surgery. Yes. Rocket Surgery.0
-
herrspoons wrote: »
They usually keep it to prostate surgeries and colonoscopies.
Rectum? Damn near killed 'em.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »40andFindingFitness wrote: »"Muscle weighs more than fat." I hate when people say that. Since when does 5lbs not equal 5lbs? Weight is not same as density.
Semantics. The point of "muscle weighs more than fat" isn't that "a pound isn't a pound." That would be ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't take as much muscle (by volume) to make a pound as it does fat.
Trying to argue that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat is overcomplicating the issue. No one would pitch a fit if I said iron weighs more than jello.
Of course, a pound of water and a pound of whipped cream weigh the same but a gallon of water and a gallon of whipped cream do not. Likewise, a square inch of muscle is heavier than a square inch of fat.
And yes, weight and density are not the same. Nor are density and mass the same. Nor are mass and volume the same. However, density does determine the amount of mass in a given volume which determines the weight of the object/material. Thus weight is dependent on density.
Whenever I see someone argue this point, I think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, keep saying that muscle weighs more than fat." *sigh*
And I always think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, say that a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat...because, duh. We all know that."
But seriously, muscle is more dense, thus it weighs more per square inch. Three square inches of muscle weighs more than three square inches of fat. That's exactly what everyone means when they say muscle weighs more than fat and everyone knows that that's what they mean.
lol.
It's dangerous to assume people are as smart or smarter than they claim to be.
Yes.
I wonder - are we supposed to assume that by square inch, he/she meant cubic inch as well?
This whole argument reminds me of a discussion I had with an employee of mine. Yes. I do, in fact, understand your e-mail. But when you send me (or anyone else) something like, "Y U no be here R U away", you give the impression that you're uneducated, lazy, or a kid, not a hard worker in your mid-thirties with a Bachelor's degree and more than 15 yrs work experience.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »40andFindingFitness wrote: »"Muscle weighs more than fat." I hate when people say that. Since when does 5lbs not equal 5lbs? Weight is not same as density.
Semantics. The point of "muscle weighs more than fat" isn't that "a pound isn't a pound." That would be ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't take as much muscle (by volume) to make a pound as it does fat.
Trying to argue that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat is overcomplicating the issue. No one would pitch a fit if I said iron weighs more than jello.
Of course, a pound of water and a pound of whipped cream weigh the same but a gallon of water and a gallon of whipped cream do not. Likewise, a square inch of muscle is heavier than a square inch of fat.
And yes, weight and density are not the same. Nor are density and mass the same. Nor are mass and volume the same. However, density does determine the amount of mass in a given volume which determines the weight of the object/material. Thus weight is dependent on density.
Yes, totally agree. It's just semantics and it's somehow become this incredibly silly thing that MFP people use to show how intelligent they are. If I said "a piece of feather and a brick weigh the same", I bet the same people would tell me how crazy I was. OF COURSE, 1 lb of anything is equal to 1 lb of anything. That doesn't change the fact that density = mass/volume. If muscle is more dense than fat when volume is constant, mathematically it stands that muscle has a higher mass when volume is constant, as well. All three measurements are interdependent.0 -
JazzFischer1989 wrote: »
its really hard to get to 1200 if you are having one egg for breakfast, soup for lunch, and fish and some rice for dinner….
I imagine so, and then on top of that they claim they're full. I find it really hard to believe. I feel like saying "Do what you were doing before but slightly less" lol.
They are full. They aren't lying. If they do what they did before, they wouldn't eat slightly less. They wouldn't be able to control it.tigersword wrote: »
Or maybe the goal number is wrong. Full is full. I would trust my body that it is full and it worked well for me to lose weight and keep it off. It isn't exactly natural to log calories in the first place to hit some goal.0 -
tigersword wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
Are you asking what healthy eating is? http://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2013/04/HEPApr2013.jpgLolBroScience wrote: »
Follow that, but also keep your sodium around 1200 and eliminate trans and sat fats...and instead of limiting white pasta and bread, eliminate them. Do it for a week, then come back and report how well you did and whether it was difficult to meet your goals for a week.
An even bigger challenge would be a year, but it cannot see anyone doing it without needing to do it.
I think a week would give you a small idea of how difficult it would be for a year, though.
No, I was asking what you define as healthy eating since you said no saturated fats are allowed. There are plenty of nutrient dense foods that contain saturated fat.
I also maintain on 3600 calories, so I don't think I'll be doing that. I'm perfectly content hitting my micros for the day with 2000+ calories left to spare.
Well, if you ever want to experience having difficulty meeting a calorie goal, follow that diet.
If you can't reach a reasonable calorie goal on it, then it isn't a healthy diet.
Also, why such low sodium? You can eat far more sodium than that and still be healthy.
Or what is claimed to be a reasonable calorie goal is wrong.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Plus new dieters are hyperfocused on food and calories so that also makes it harder to eat more. Being aware of your food rather than eating mindlessly makes most people satisfied with less, and logging makes people very aware.jennycina93 wrote: »The people who claim they can't eat anywhere near 1200 calories b/c they get too full. Do they not realize they were most likely eating way above that to gain weight in the first place?
bugs me when people keep saying this. when someone changes their diet to include healthy nutritionally dense foods with less calories and cut out the carbs, it IS more difficult to get to 1200 calories. you get full on less. just a fact. why does this bother people so much? they aren't making it up. sure if they put the crap back into their diet, it will be super easy to reach 1200 calories and more, but that isn't the best idea.
Yep0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »40andFindingFitness wrote: »"Muscle weighs more than fat." I hate when people say that. Since when does 5lbs not equal 5lbs? Weight is not same as density.
Semantics. The point of "muscle weighs more than fat" isn't that "a pound isn't a pound." That would be ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't take as much muscle (by volume) to make a pound as it does fat.
Trying to argue that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat is overcomplicating the issue. No one would pitch a fit if I said iron weighs more than jello.
Of course, a pound of water and a pound of whipped cream weigh the same but a gallon of water and a gallon of whipped cream do not. Likewise, a square inch of muscle is heavier than a square inch of fat.
And yes, weight and density are not the same. Nor are density and mass the same. Nor are mass and volume the same. However, density does determine the amount of mass in a given volume which determines the weight of the object/material. Thus weight is dependent on density.
*breath of fresh air*
thank you.
i DO say muscle weighs more than fat, because it does. if two people have similar height and girth measurements, but one weighs way more than the other, it's because the heavier one has more lean body mass than the lighter one. it's one of the ways you can identify "skinny fat" people. the skinny fat people lack lean body mass.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »40andFindingFitness wrote: »"Muscle weighs more than fat." I hate when people say that. Since when does 5lbs not equal 5lbs? Weight is not same as density.
Semantics. The point of "muscle weighs more than fat" isn't that "a pound isn't a pound." That would be ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't take as much muscle (by volume) to make a pound as it does fat.
Trying to argue that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat is overcomplicating the issue. No one would pitch a fit if I said iron weighs more than jello.
Of course, a pound of water and a pound of whipped cream weigh the same but a gallon of water and a gallon of whipped cream do not. Likewise, a square inch of muscle is heavier than a square inch of fat.
And yes, weight and density are not the same. Nor are density and mass the same. Nor are mass and volume the same. However, density does determine the amount of mass in a given volume which determines the weight of the object/material. Thus weight is dependent on density.
Whenever I see someone argue this point, I think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, keep saying that muscle weighs more than fat." *sigh*
And I always think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, say that a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat...because, duh. We all know that."
But seriously, muscle is more dense, thus it weighs more per square inch. Three square inches of muscle weighs more than three square inches of fat. That's exactly what everyone means when they say muscle weighs more than fat and everyone knows that that's what they mean.
that's also true, except it's per cubic inch, not square inch.
anyone who says muscle doesn't weigh more than fat, and argues about it til they're blue in the face, need to back off and realize there are different ways of looking at things, and depending on which direction you're coming from, IT'S ALL TRUE. muscle weighs more than fat (per given volume - which is what i look at, because i can see if a person is shrinking, so if they complain the scale isn't moving, well.. muscle weighs more than fat. you can change fat a lot, and gain muscle a little, and you'll shrink even if the scale is exactly the same).
and, a pound of muscle is smaller than a pound of fat.
and, the muscle of a cow is healthy to eat and the fat isn't particularly.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »
They usually keep it to prostate surgeries and colonoscopies.
Rectum? Damn near killed 'em.
funniest thing i've read all day. thanks!
have a great day everyone. 0 -
this argument about muscle weighing more than fat is ridiculous. people should quit thinking they are smarter than everyone else for poking holes in that statement. they aren't. everyone knows that a pound is the same as a pound. if someone actually said this to me irl, i wouldn't want anything to do with them. arrogance with nothing to back it up is an irritating quality.0
-
so does a pound of unicorn muscle weigh more than a pound of unicorn fat????0
-
It honestly reminds me of dweebs from high school who would ask the time, and if you said 4:00pm they'd laugh and snort and go "actually, it's 3:59:45, dur hur hur"this argument about muscle weighing more than fat is ridiculous. people should quit thinking they are smarter than everyone else for poking holes in that statement. they aren't. everyone knows that a pound is the same as a pound. if someone actually said this to me irl, i wouldn't want anything to do with them. arrogance with nothing to back it up is an irritating quality.
0 -
They are full. They aren't lying. If they do what they did before, they wouldn't eat slightly less. They wouldn't be able to control it.
I was being flippant. My point is, they are capable of eating more if they try or at least start incorporating some calorie dense foods. It's hard to believe that someone who was eating 3k+ calories a day and being sedentary would struggle with the caloric intake of a child, unless they've developed some sort of medical condition or had gastric bypass surgery.0 -
JazzFischer1989 wrote: »
They are full. They aren't lying. If they do what they did before, they wouldn't eat slightly less. They wouldn't be able to control it.
I was being flippant. My point is, they are capable of eating more if they try or at least start incorporating some calorie dense foods. It's hard to believe that someone who was eating 3k+ calories a day and being sedentary would struggle with the caloric intake of a child, unless they've developed some sort of medical condition or had gastric bypass surgery.
I'm telling you that you're wrong. It might be hard to believe if it didn't happen to you, but you are not the same as everyone else. Of course they could force themselves to eat more, but it's a silly thing to do. Since this seems to come up repeatedly, maybe just MAYBE it's okay for them to listen to their bodies and eat until they are full. They wouldn't even know they were undereating if not for logging it, so maybe the bottom line is, they really are not undereating at all.0 -
1) Walking and running burn the same amount of calories per mile.
2) Don't drink or eat dairy.0 -
Except the only time I ever hear this said is when overweight people have been working out for, like, two days and all of a sudden they're gaining weight because they're "putting on muscle."i DO say muscle weighs more than fat, because it does. if two people have similar height and girth measurements, but one weighs way more than the other, it's because the heavier one has more lean body mass than the lighter one. it's one of the ways you can identify "skinny fat" people. the skinny fat people lack lean body mass.
0 -
Except the only time I ever hear this said is when overweight people have been working out for, like, two days and all of a sudden they're gaining weight because they're "putting on muscle."i DO say muscle weighs more than fat, because it does. if two people have similar height and girth measurements, but one weighs way more than the other, it's because the heavier one has more lean body mass than the lighter one. it's one of the ways you can identify "skinny fat" people. the skinny fat people lack lean body mass.
Right, that's why it's usually a goofy thing to say, because it's not relevant to anything. Not because anyone thinks a lb doesn't equal a lb, but because there's no reason to think someone lost a lb of fat (or more) but somehow also added more than a lb of muscle canceling it out.
When people use it in a more rational way, though--like I would be happy to end up at my current weight of 130 were I to lose sufficient fat and put on sufficient muscle, since muscle weighs more than fat, so I would expect to be heavier with a higher percentage of lean mass--it's sensible and anyone not just trying to be a jerk would know what I mean.
People should stop pretending like the problem with the first is that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat (which is the normal colloquial way of saying it's denser) and attack the real illogic.
0 -
JazzFischer1989 wrote: »
They are full. They aren't lying. If they do what they did before, they wouldn't eat slightly less. They wouldn't be able to control it.
I was being flippant. My point is, they are capable of eating more if they try or at least start incorporating some calorie dense foods. It's hard to believe that someone who was eating 3k+ calories a day and being sedentary would struggle with the caloric intake of a child, unless they've developed some sort of medical condition or had gastric bypass surgery.
There's no reason to assume that someone fat is in the habit of eating 3000 plus calories a day. I gained quite fast and yet was probably eating about 2000 calories a day, since I was sedentary. Possibly less (more like maintenance) on plenty of days cancelled out by high calorie restaurant or takeout meals.
And the calories I ate were no more by volume than what I'm eating now and no more or even less than what I was eating when I first started and was hyper vigilant about cutting calories. So, when I first starting logging I was surprised that my calories were under 1200--I'd been annoyed by the 1200 goal and figured I would do more like 1500 to lose.
It of course wasn't that I couldn't eat more--that's not really true for anyone--but that I felt satisfied, wasn't hungry, and was fat, so it seemed wrong to eat more than I was hungry for or intentionally include calories for reasons other than satiation when I wasn't feeling in need of them. I assume that's why most feel confused or conflicted when they run into this. Personally, I didn't ask on the boards, since I was pretty confident I could figure it out, and I did gradually start being more lenient and work in more cheese and olive oil and nuts and larger servings of meat and fruit, and I think this helped me find the whole thing more sustainable long term, but it's really not that weird that lots of people run into this and IMO it usually solves itself.
I do think it's a shame if people decide anything that would bring them over 1200 must be unhealthy (those who decide to cut carbs and fat and anything they think tastes good), but people need to work it out sometimes.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »JazzFischer1989 wrote: »
They are full. They aren't lying. If they do what they did before, they wouldn't eat slightly less. They wouldn't be able to control it.
I was being flippant. My point is, they are capable of eating more if they try or at least start incorporating some calorie dense foods. It's hard to believe that someone who was eating 3k+ calories a day and being sedentary would struggle with the caloric intake of a child, unless they've developed some sort of medical condition or had gastric bypass surgery.
There's no reason to assume that someone fat is in the habit of eating 3000 plus calories a day. I gained quite fast and yet was probably eating about 2000 calories a day, since I was sedentary. Possibly less (more like maintenance) on plenty of days cancelled out by high calorie restaurant or takeout meals.
And the calories I ate were no more by volume than what I'm eating now and no more or even less than what I was eating when I first started and was hyper vigilant about cutting calories. So, when I first starting logging I was surprised that my calories were under 1200--I'd been annoyed by the 1200 goal and figured I would do more like 1500 to lose.
It of course wasn't that I couldn't eat more--that's not really true for anyone--but that I felt satisfied, wasn't hungry, and was fat, so it seemed wrong to eat more than I was hungry for or intentionally include calories for reasons other than satiation when I wasn't feeling in need of them. I assume that's why most feel confused or conflicted when they run into this. Personally, I didn't ask on the boards, since I was pretty confident I could figure it out, and I did gradually start being more lenient and work in more cheese and olive oil and nuts and larger servings of meat and fruit, and I think this helped me find the whole thing more sustainable long term, but it's really not that weird that lots of people run into this and IMO it usually solves itself.
I do think it's a shame if people decide anything that would bring them over 1200 must be unhealthy (those who decide to cut carbs and fat and anything they think tastes good), but people need to work it out sometimes.
exactly0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Except the only time I ever hear this said is when overweight people have been working out for, like, two days and all of a sudden they're gaining weight because they're "putting on muscle."i DO say muscle weighs more than fat, because it does. if two people have similar height and girth measurements, but one weighs way more than the other, it's because the heavier one has more lean body mass than the lighter one. it's one of the ways you can identify "skinny fat" people. the skinny fat people lack lean body mass.
Right, that's why it's usually a goofy thing to say, because it's not relevant to anything. Not because anyone thinks a lb doesn't equal a lb, but because there's no reason to think someone lost a lb of fat (or more) but somehow also added more than a lb of muscle canceling it out.
When people use it in a more rational way, though--like I would be happy to end up at my current weight of 130 were I to lose sufficient fat and put on sufficient muscle, since muscle weighs more than fat, so I would expect to be heavier with a higher percentage of lean mass--it's sensible and anyone not just trying to be a jerk would know what I mean.
People should stop pretending like the problem with the first is that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat (which is the normal colloquial way of saying it's denser) and attack the real illogic.
Exactly. The misconception here isn't that "muscle weighs more than fat." That's not a misconception (even if some people do want to fuss over particulars about how to express the difference in densities between fat and muscle).
The misconception is that muscle can be gained so quickly and easily as some seem to think. Gaining muscle is a long, difficult process.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Except the only time I ever hear this said is when overweight people have been working out for, like, two days and all of a sudden they're gaining weight because they're "putting on muscle."i DO say muscle weighs more than fat, because it does. if two people have similar height and girth measurements, but one weighs way more than the other, it's because the heavier one has more lean body mass than the lighter one. it's one of the ways you can identify "skinny fat" people. the skinny fat people lack lean body mass.
Right, that's why it's usually a goofy thing to say, because it's not relevant to anything. Not because anyone thinks a lb doesn't equal a lb, but because there's no reason to think someone lost a lb of fat (or more) but somehow also added more than a lb of muscle canceling it out.
When people use it in a more rational way, though--like I would be happy to end up at my current weight of 130 were I to lose sufficient fat and put on sufficient muscle, since muscle weighs more than fat, so I would expect to be heavier with a higher percentage of lean mass--it's sensible and anyone not just trying to be a jerk would know what I mean.
People should stop pretending like the problem with the first is that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat (which is the normal colloquial way of saying it's denser) and attack the real illogic.
Exactly. The misconception here isn't that "muscle weighs more than fat." That's not a misconception (even if some people do want to fuss over particulars about how to express the difference in densities between fat and muscle).
The misconception is that muscle can be gained so quickly and easily as some seem to think. Gaining muscle is a long, difficult process.
oh yeah, that's annoying. i've also seen someone claim that they are gaining muscle weight on a calorie deficit and others backed them up as this actually being possible.0 -
New year and the gym/fitness newbies. They come in droves, but if we tolerate them for just a few weeks most will leave and only a few join us.
"I'm always hungry."
"I gain weight if I eat more than 1200 calories." (right - that's what got you here)
"Muscle weighs more than fat." I hate when people say that. Since when does 1lb not equal 1lb?0 -
47Jacqueline wrote: »"Muscle weighs more than fat." I hate when people say that. Since when does 1lb not equal 1lb?
you didn't backread anything in this thread, did you? this has only been debated for just about the entire thread.0 -
I don't find this funny as much as it is disturbing.
But the people that think you need to eat a shake to stop yourself from eating all day. I've never had anyone actually say it to my face today. I was baffled. My aunt recommended that I try a Special K shake and said it keeps her full all day.
She asked if I had it. I don't like sharing much about my exercise/calorie efforts since she picked at my weight in the past so I just said "no, I do drink protein shakes though." She said "and it keeps you full all day?" I said "no...it's what I drink after a workout, I still eat regular meals." She was baffled. She said "you still eat dinner?" Yep. Why would I not? She proceeded to tell me her current weight and how she really needs to lose 3 pounds.
I later pulled my mom aside and said "please don't listen to a word your sister says about weight loss."
One freaking shake for the whole day to keep you full? (And then you go binge a few days later). No way.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »40andFindingFitness wrote: »"Muscle weighs more than fat." I hate when people say that. Since when does 5lbs not equal 5lbs? Weight is not same as density.
Semantics. The point of "muscle weighs more than fat" isn't that "a pound isn't a pound." That would be ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't take as much muscle (by volume) to make a pound as it does fat.
Trying to argue that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat is overcomplicating the issue. No one would pitch a fit if I said iron weighs more than jello.
Of course, a pound of water and a pound of whipped cream weigh the same but a gallon of water and a gallon of whipped cream do not. Likewise, a square inch of muscle is heavier than a square inch of fat.
And yes, weight and density are not the same. Nor are density and mass the same. Nor are mass and volume the same. However, density does determine the amount of mass in a given volume which determines the weight of the object/material. Thus weight is dependent on density.
Whenever I see someone argue this point, I think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, keep saying that muscle weighs more than fat." *sigh*
And I always think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, say that a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat...because, duh. We all know that."
But seriously, muscle is more dense, thus it weighs more per square inch. Three square inches of muscle weighs more than three square inches of fat. That's exactly what everyone means when they say muscle weighs more than fat and everyone knows that that's what they mean.
lol.
It's dangerous to assume people are as smart or smarter than they claim to be.
Yes.
I wonder - are we supposed to assume that by square inch, he/she meant cubic inch as well?
This whole argument reminds me of a discussion I had with an employee of mine. Yes. I do, in fact, understand your e-mail. But when you send me (or anyone else) something like, "Y U no be here R U away", you give the impression that you're uneducated, lazy, or a kid, not a hard worker in your mid-thirties with a Bachelor's degree and more than 15 yrs work experience.
On. The. Nose.
Moving beyond that, typos in work emails...0 -
I'm a jerk, I'll validate the hell out of someone doing that.One freaking shake for the whole day to keep you full? (And then you go binge a few days later). No way.
"Oh yeah, that's a great idea, let me know how it works for you!" Well, I wouldn't validate close kin doing it, but anyone else is fair game.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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