Funny fitness misconceptions by people just starting out

123578

Replies

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    eat clean to lose weight
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    I'm happy to look like I sound dumb to some. Muscle DOES weigh more than fat. Sand does weigh more than sawdust. Iron does weigh more than tin. Fiberglass boats weigh more than wood. No one adds the volume/size to the sentence because the meaning is clear. "But the ark weighs more than a dinghy so you're wrong!" Silly.

    bolded part = mission accomplished
  • Aviva92
    Aviva92 Posts: 2,333 Member
    edited December 2014
    Aviva92 wrote: »
    so no point in eating more just to hit some target

    You mean the levels essentially recommended by most significant medical authorities as appropriate for continued health.

    1200 isn't much, and I'm generally sceptical of anyone claiming that they can't consume that much energy in a day.

    meh, i think those levels aren't exactly right. you can't just give one broad number for absolutely everyone on every day of their life. forcing yourself to get there is silly. if you're 100 calories under for a couple days, it ain't gonna kill you. what if you didn't even log and were 100 calories under naturally? you would not know it in order to force it. all around silly.

    you're skeptical because it never happened to you. doesn't mean that it's unheard of for anyone else.
  • FisherGT
    FisherGT Posts: 55 Member
    Muscle does not weight more than fat. 5 pounds of muscle and 5 pounds of fat weight the same. Fat is more voluminous per gram when compared to muscle might be more accurate. I am going to go into the chemistry of it tonight cause its bugging me, i need to find out the molecular weight of each. That also depends on the content of the muscle *__* sorry molecular biology student here.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Aviva92 wrote: »
    you're skeptical because it never happened to you. doesn't mean that it's unheard of for anyone else.

    At 1600 cals pd, net, I was so underfuelled I was virtually inert. I was also miserably hungry at the time.

    Anyway, the key point was the assertion that eating "healthy" is somehow more filling.

    I note that you're shifting towards this being a couple of days. Many people who post here saying they can't hit 1200 cals are talking about consistent undereating, not a deviation below their normal consumption.

    My bugbear is the idea that chronic undereating is a good way to lose weight in a healthy way.

    Reflecting back to the point early in the thread about "not losing because your not eating enough" is reasonable if one is undereating and it's affecting one's base activity level. BTDT, adding about 400 cals per day led me to be more active.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,603 Member
    edited December 2014

    .
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Muscle does not weight more than fat. 5 pounds of muscle and 5 pounds of fat weight the same. Fat is more voluminous per gram when compared to muscle might be more accurate.

    I don't think the point that muscle is denser than fat is in dispute. People seem to be agitated that other people don't know that.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Muscle does not weight more than fat. 5 pounds of muscle and 5 pounds of fat weight the same. Fat is more voluminous per gram when compared to muscle might be more accurate.

    I don't think the point that muscle is denser than fat is in dispute. People seem to be agitated that other people don't know that.

    it just gets old because it comes up a lot ..

    someone tried saying in another thread that some inches are different than other inches..really?
  • Aviva92
    Aviva92 Posts: 2,333 Member
    Aviva92 wrote: »
    you're skeptical because it never happened to you. doesn't mean that it's unheard of for anyone else.

    At 1600 cals pd, net, I was so underfuelled I was virtually inert. I was also miserably hungry at the time.

    Anyway, the key point was the assertion that eating "healthy" is somehow more filling.

    I note that you're shifting towards this being a couple of days. Many people who post here saying they can't hit 1200 cals are talking about consistent undereating, not a deviation below their normal consumption.

    My bugbear is the idea that chronic undereating is a good way to lose weight in a healthy way.

    Reflecting back to the point early in the thread about "not losing because your not eating enough" is reasonable if one is undereating and it's affecting one's base activity level. BTDT, adding about 400 cals per day led me to be more active.

    you're a man. your minimum is therefore at least 300 more than a woman, so you can't compare yourself to women at all.

    i lost weight consistently on around 1200 net calories most days. never stalled. didn't gain it back. it worked for me. i now eat more, but i kept most of it off for close to 2 years now.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    it just gets old because it comes up a lot ..

    There is a lot of bollox that comes up regularly, this is one that people get really animated, to the point of abusive about though.

    Not really sure why.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    it just gets old because it comes up a lot ..

    There is a lot of bollox that comes up regularly, this is one that people get really animated, to the point of abusive about though.

    Not really sure why.

    meh I don't know.people get pretty fired up in the sugar threads too. ...
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    oh and the folks that think paleo is the only way to lose weight and be healthy are annoying too ...
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    meh I don't know.people get pretty fired up in the sugar threads too. ...

    Fair, I forgot this was in GD&WL where one calorie of clean food is different from one calorie of BAD food, and of course carbs after sunset should only be eaten whilst standing on one leg and facing into the wind :)
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    meh I don't know.people get pretty fired up in the sugar threads too. ...

    Fair, I forgot this was in GD&WL where one calorie of clean food is different from one calorie of BAD food, and of course carbs after sunset should only be eaten whilst standing on one leg and facing into the wind :)

    lol
  • JazzFischer1989
    JazzFischer1989 Posts: 531 Member
    edited December 2014
    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?

    I don't get this one either! How did you get to be 50lbs overweight?
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    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?

    I don't get this one either! How did you get to be 50lbs overweight?

    typically they over embrace the whole "clean" concept and go for small portions, fat free cottage cheese, butter, etc..

    basically they go from one end of spectrum to the other..

    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….
  • JazzFischer1989
    JazzFischer1989 Posts: 531 Member
    ndj1979 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.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,603 Member
    Spend a week eating nothing but the healthiest foods (also low sodium, no trans or sat fats) and see how easy it is to reach your goal every day.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Muscle does not weight more than fat. 5 pounds of muscle and 5 pounds of fat weight the same. Fat is more voluminous per gram when compared to muscle might be more accurate.

    I don't think the point that muscle is denser than fat is in dispute. People seem to be agitated that other people don't know that.

    it just gets old because it comes up a lot ..

    someone tried saying in another thread that some inches are different than other inches..really?

    I can't remember her name now, but there was a poster a while ago who swore up and down that a 10 pound dumbbell was heavier than a 10 pound ream of paper.
  • FisherGT
    FisherGT Posts: 55 Member
    tigersword wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Muscle does not weight more than fat. 5 pounds of muscle and 5 pounds of fat weight the same. Fat is more voluminous per gram when compared to muscle might be more accurate.

    I don't think the point that muscle is denser than fat is in dispute. People seem to be agitated that other people don't know that.

    it just gets old because it comes up a lot ..

    someone tried saying in another thread that some inches are different than other inches..really?

    I can't remember her name now, but there was a poster a while ago who swore up and down that a 10 pound dumbbell was heavier than a 10 pound ream of paper.

    I think some people confuse density with weight O.O;