it is probably not "muscle"
Options
Replies
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »You didn't mention her. No one did.
I wasn't implying the only reason he found you credible was due to your pics, sara. I'm surprised you'd even think that.WalkingAlong wrote: »How was that a dig at you? Do you agree with him that only women who post revealing pics can be credible? That was my point.
Sidesteel- Yes. That's all I'm saying. It's the constant barrage of "you can't x in a y". I think people can take it wrong and find it insulting. After about the fourth repetition, the implication seems more and more like, "You can't possibly be changing your body in a positive way therefore you must be doing something wrong."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
0 -
But everyone does have very specific scenarios, hopefully one of the takeaways from this pretty positive thread is to get away from blanket statements for everyone. Both the "must be gaining muscle if you are in a weight plateau and doing prancersize" and the "impossible to gain muscle in a deficit" ends of the spectrum.
As blanket statements, sure.
But when someone comes on the forums and their diary shows a massive calorie deficit while consuming 13g of protein a day....
It's safe to definitively say that person is not gaining muscle mass.
0 -
But everyone does have very specific scenarios, hopefully one of the takeaways from this pretty positive thread is to get away from blanket statements for everyone. Both the "must be gaining muscle if you are in a weight plateau and doing prancersize" and the "impossible to gain muscle in a deficit" ends of the spectrum.
As blanket statements, sure.
But when someone comes on the forums and their diary shows a massive calorie deficit while consuming 13g of protein a day....
It's safe to definitively say that person is not gaining muscle mass.
Totally agree. Unless Zumba is factored in....
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I am learning all about lifting weights, cardio and loosing weight. It seems to go slow but I am seeing some progress. I have someone training me and she told me that If I don't loose weight it is probably muscle. So, what you are saying is that it might not be? Like I said I am just learning and want to do this right.
Yes, it might not be true. It depends upon a lot of different variables, but I wouldn't let it get it you. Weight loss and body composition changes take a long time.
@lolbroscience didn't you have access to some studies on this???
Studies regarding the variables?
sorry, I should of clarified..
@lolbroscience studies on building muscle in a deficit in relation to newbie gains and more elite type athletes….
@ndj1979 This one? The athletes are motocross, football, gymnatics, skiing, dance, ice hockey, etc.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Truls_Raastad/publication/51113664_Effect_of_two_different_weight-loss_rates_on_body_composition_and_strength_and_power-related_performance_in_elite_athletes/links/0912f5093e5020d670000000.pdf
skimmed it, but have not had a chance to dive into it...
sounds interesting...0 -
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »You didn't mention her. No one did.
I wasn't implying the only reason he found you credible was due to your pics, sara. I'm surprised you'd even think that.WalkingAlong wrote: »How was that a dig at you? Do you agree with him that only women who post revealing pics can be credible? That was my point.
Sidesteel- Yes. That's all I'm saying. It's the constant barrage of "you can't x in a y". I think people can take it wrong and find it insulting. After about the fourth repetition, the implication seems more and more like, "You can't possibly be changing your body in a positive way therefore you must be doing something wrong."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
0 -
On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »You didn't mention her. No one did.
I wasn't implying the only reason he found you credible was due to your pics, sara. I'm surprised you'd even think that.WalkingAlong wrote: »How was that a dig at you? Do you agree with him that only women who post revealing pics can be credible? That was my point.
Sidesteel- Yes. That's all I'm saying. It's the constant barrage of "you can't x in a y". I think people can take it wrong and find it insulting. After about the fourth repetition, the implication seems more and more like, "You can't possibly be changing your body in a positive way therefore you must be doing something wrong."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
It sure is for the bold. I wonder who you think it is though?0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »You didn't mention her. No one did.
I wasn't implying the only reason he found you credible was due to your pics, sara. I'm surprised you'd even think that.WalkingAlong wrote: »How was that a dig at you? Do you agree with him that only women who post revealing pics can be credible? That was my point.
Sidesteel- Yes. That's all I'm saying. It's the constant barrage of "you can't x in a y". I think people can take it wrong and find it insulting. After about the fourth repetition, the implication seems more and more like, "You can't possibly be changing your body in a positive way therefore you must be doing something wrong."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
Actually, I posted something that was not totally in line with the people you seem to have an issue with and was not called out - I am female, and over 40. But wait...must be the underwear pic that makes me credible.
You do not need to wade through 13,000 post - how about just this one. I may have missed it, but you were the one who brought the whole thing up and decided to throw in the underwear comment. You posted 'so you agree with him' - he never said that and you were asked to point to where - which would be where in this thread.
Its very easy to make accusations and use the whole "I am not wading through..." to try to get out of supporting your accusation.0 -
On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.
How did you get your muscle mass tested?0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »You didn't mention her. No one did.
I wasn't implying the only reason he found you credible was due to your pics, sara. I'm surprised you'd even think that.WalkingAlong wrote: »How was that a dig at you? Do you agree with him that only women who post revealing pics can be credible? That was my point.
Sidesteel- Yes. That's all I'm saying. It's the constant barrage of "you can't x in a y". I think people can take it wrong and find it insulting. After about the fourth repetition, the implication seems more and more like, "You can't possibly be changing your body in a positive way therefore you must be doing something wrong."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
It sure is for the bold. I wonder who you think it is though?
Taking a wild guess, but I doubt she thinks it is her...0 -
On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.
if you don't believe in CICO approach then how did you lose body fat?
and your are conflating 1200 calories of nutrients with 1200 calories of energy.
1200 calories of donuts = 1200 calories of vegetables
However
1200 calories of donuts do not have the same nutritional content as 1200 calories of vegetables...
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »You didn't mention her. No one did.
I wasn't implying the only reason he found you credible was due to your pics, sara. I'm surprised you'd even think that.WalkingAlong wrote: »How was that a dig at you? Do you agree with him that only women who post revealing pics can be credible? That was my point.
Sidesteel- Yes. That's all I'm saying. It's the constant barrage of "you can't x in a y". I think people can take it wrong and find it insulting. After about the fourth repetition, the implication seems more and more like, "You can't possibly be changing your body in a positive way therefore you must be doing something wrong."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
It sure is for the bold. I wonder who you think it is though?
Taking a wild guess, but I doubt she thinks it is her...
Which I find hilarious.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »You didn't mention her. No one did.
I wasn't implying the only reason he found you credible was due to your pics, sara. I'm surprised you'd even think that.WalkingAlong wrote: »How was that a dig at you? Do you agree with him that only women who post revealing pics can be credible? That was my point.
Sidesteel- Yes. That's all I'm saying. It's the constant barrage of "you can't x in a y". I think people can take it wrong and find it insulting. After about the fourth repetition, the implication seems more and more like, "You can't possibly be changing your body in a positive way therefore you must be doing something wrong."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
It sure is for the bold. I wonder who you think it is though?
Taking a wild guess, but I doubt she thinks it is her...
Which I find hilarious.
agreed...
even more hilarious is when she said that all the mods were men and that MFP was a male driven site and was somehow biased against woman...
whoops...! LOL0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »You didn't mention her. No one did.
I wasn't implying the only reason he found you credible was due to your pics, sara. I'm surprised you'd even think that.WalkingAlong wrote: »How was that a dig at you? Do you agree with him that only women who post revealing pics can be credible? That was my point.
Sidesteel- Yes. That's all I'm saying. It's the constant barrage of "you can't x in a y". I think people can take it wrong and find it insulting. After about the fourth repetition, the implication seems more and more like, "You can't possibly be changing your body in a positive way therefore you must be doing something wrong."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
It sure is for the bold. I wonder who you think it is though?
Taking a wild guess, but I doubt she thinks it is her...
Which I find hilarious.
agreed...
even more hilarious is when she said that all the mods were men and that MFP was a male driven site and was somehow biased against woman...
whoops...! LOL
Yeah I guess it's safe to say she got caught in a lie pretty quickly this time and saw that there was no way out of it so she decided to go with the whole "I don't have to prove anything" angle instead of admitting she made something up.
I don't know if silence is funnier than her reply. I don't think it is. Her reply> silence
0 -
I'm probably the only one who notices that the women on this site who lift or do serious strength training are way more likely to have "skin" pics while the women who don't are likely to not have them or even complain that such things exist.
I'm sure it's just a meaningless coincidence anyway.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions