Peer review request - misconceptions and myths
Replies
-
Just number 4.
Muscle DOES weigh more than fat. When checking something for density, you weigh equal VOLUME of materials. So 1 liter of muscle will weigh more than 1 liter of fat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
When checking for density, you weigh (or technically mass them if you're using grams / kilograms) things at any volume you want - you then divide by volume. If there was a universal volume used, they're be no need to state an example like 1 liter.
So materials can have densities but only a concrete instantiation of that material as an object can have mass.0 -
I don't know about anyone else but to me goat urine would qualify as a dirty food.
0 -
I didn't get past #4 because I think people who say muscle doesn't weigh more than fat because one pound = one pound are either being obtuse and obnoxious.0
-
I'm unsure as to what type of feedback you're looking for or who the intended audience is. Off the cuff reaction here is that if you're shootng for a "list ", shorten it up a lot. If the audience is new to dieting, eliminate the condescending tone .0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I didn't get past #4 because I think people who say muscle doesn't weigh more than fat because one pound = one pound are either being obtuse and obnoxious.
Thank you. This has been mentioned by a few posters and I do see now how this could be obnoxious. Noted.MarcyKirkton wrote: »I'm unsure as to what type of feedback you're looking for or who the intended audience is. Off the cuff reaction here is that if you're shootng for a "list ", shorten it up a lot. If the audience is new to dieting, eliminate the condescending tone .
Any kind of feedback, including yours, which was very helpful - thank you.
All of the replies were very helpful. Some replies made me go back to reading on subjects I thought I understood pretty well, others pointed out the obnoxiousness of items I've listed, which I'd probably will not be concentrating on anymore.0 -
11. Given that nutrition is merely a footnote in your description, and that you're being purposely obtuse with respect to semantics (there are different meanings of "bad", of course), the way it's worded suggests all foods are equal with respect to nutrition.0
-
- Do not take anyone’s word or advice (including this list) – conduct your own research and possibly consult with a professional first before jumping head over feet. It’s the Internet for Christ’s sake.
You should have made this one number 17, not number 1. But you did and I took your advice. I stopped reading right there.
(Not really. I got as far as muscle weighing/not weighing more than fat. That was the real point where I decided to follow #1. But it sounded better to say I stopped reading earlier.)
0 - Do not take anyone’s word or advice (including this list) – conduct your own research and possibly consult with a professional first before jumping head over feet. It’s the Internet for Christ’s sake.
-
#3 - this one I've found both discouraging and confusing, but I hear it frequently on the forums. I wonder - if this is true, how it is that I've lost 81 pounds while also becoming stronger, and is proven by how much weight I can lift vs. how much I could lift before? Are "building muscle" and "becoming stronger" two different things?0
-
meganridenour wrote: »#3 - this one I've found both discouraging and confusing, but I hear it frequently on the forums. I wonder - if this is true, how it is that I've lost 81 pounds while also becoming stronger, and is proven by how much weight I can lift vs. how much I could lift before? Are "building muscle" and "becoming stronger" two different things?
You can increase strength without increasing muscle mass.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »11. Given that nutrition is merely a footnote in your description, and that you're being purposely obtuse with respect to semantics (there are different meanings of "bad", of course), the way it's worded suggests all foods are equal with respect to nutrition.
@Sabine_Stroehm, I agree. What many replies made me realize that the tone of the entire list is too obnoxious. This list was compiled over time, based on some discussions I was involved at the time. That might have influenced the tone. Noted. Thank you- Do not take anyone’s word or advice (including this list) – conduct your own research and possibly consult with a professional first before jumping head over feet. It’s the Internet for Christ’s sake.
You should have made this one number 17, not number 1. But you did and I took your advice. I stopped reading right there.
(Not really. I got as far as muscle weighing/not weighing more than fat. That was the real point where I decided to follow #1. But it sounded better to say I stopped reading earlier.)
Thank you. It has been pointed out that the "muscle/fat weight" is not worth even mentioning. Thank you.meganridenour wrote: »#3 - this one I've found both discouraging and confusing, but I hear it frequently on the forums. I wonder - if this is true, how it is that I've lost 81 pounds while also becoming stronger, and is proven by how much weight I can lift vs. how much I could lift before? Are "building muscle" and "becoming stronger" two different things?
@meganridenour, read the 19th post on the first page where @rankinsect provided a pretty good explanation of the process correcting my statement.0 - Do not take anyone’s word or advice (including this list) – conduct your own research and possibly consult with a professional first before jumping head over feet. It’s the Internet for Christ’s sake.
-
Like your politeness in accepting feedback!
Here's mine about #3 which I see you've already decided to research further.....
Firstly calorie deficit doesn't equal "nothing". For example my calories when cutting are often more than 2300 so plenty of room for good nutrition to provide the building blocks for new tissue.3.“You are not losing weight because you’re gaining new muscles” – building new muscles while on a caloric deficit is practically impossible. Our bodies cant build new tissue out of nothing (caloric deficit). There is only one rare short-time window of opportunity for building new muscle tissue while on caloric deficit is at the beginning of weight loss (beginners gain) and it requires careful planning, precise nutrition, and properly structured exercise routine.
Everyone will have a level of deficit that would prevent muscle building and that will vary from lean and fully trained individuals who may need to do bulk/cut cycles to see significant progress to overweight, undertrained individuals who have plenty of energy reserves to make up a shortfall and have potential for relatively easy muscle gain. There is no magic switch at TDEE -1.
It's not just beginners either: returning after a training break, genetically gifted (including just about all young men), novel training stimulus, under trained... There's a hell of a lot of people who fit in those categories.
As for careful planning and precise nutrition - would disagree. Simply small deficit, adequate protein and train hard will get pretty close to any theoretical optimal result using calorie/nutrition timing or cycling, fasted training or any other "trick" that might yield marginal benefits.
Think it bears repetition that the very personal optimal results for an individual may vary from minimising muscle loss to maximising muscle gain. So from looking at your profile picture "practically impossible" may well be true for you no matter how good your training but take a new to lifting, chubby, 18 year male doing a haphazard lifting regime and the results would most likely be very different.0 -
Hi all!
Can you eat less than your calculated BMR? – Yes! Because the BRM number calculated is just a general approximation which could or could not apply to you. Your actual BMR could easily be 300 calories more or 300 calories less than that. You have to assess your logging and progress as you go and adjust accordingly.
While in some way I agree, in the sense that BRM is a number based on an average that would be fairly close for the vast majority of people while not being extremely precise. The issue is that BRM is not really the important number except as a good guideline for a minimum calorie level. The important number is TDEE. The goal is to eat under that with a moderate deficit. The number of people I have seen here over the years who look at the BMR number as what they need to take their deficit from is amazing, and frankly as a general guideline for the low minimum, even though it is not precise from person to person, the estimated BMR number is a good choice especially since for the majority of people it will be fairly close to their actual BMR.
If a person was eating at their BMR and not losing, assuming good confidence that logging is accurate, then perhaps it would be appropriate to eat below BMR, but to simply say people can eat below their BMR merely because it is a number that is not precise but rather based on population derived averages seems to be going further than is necessary.
0 -
Like your politeness in accepting feedback!
Here's mine about #3 which I see you've already decided to research further.....
Firstly calorie deficit doesn't equal "nothing". For example my calories when cutting are often more than 2300 so plenty of room for good nutrition to provide the building blocks for new tissue.
Everyone will have a level of deficit that would prevent muscle building and that will vary from lean and fully trained individuals who may need to do bulk/cut cycles to see significant progress to overweight, undertrained individuals who have plenty of energy reserves to make up a shortfall and have potential for relatively easy muscle gain. There is no magic switch at TDEE -1.
It's not just beginners either: returning after a training break, genetically gifted (including just about all young men), novel training stimulus, under trained... There's a hell of a lot of people who fit in those categories.
As for careful planning and precise nutrition - would disagree. Simply small deficit, adequate protein and train hard will get pretty close to any theoretical optimal result using calorie/nutrition timing or cycling, fasted training or any other "trick" that might yield marginal benefits.
Think it bears repetition that the very personal optimal results for an individual may vary from minimising muscle loss to maximising muscle gain. So from looking at your profile picture "practically impossible" may well be true for you no matter how good your training but take a new to lifting, chubby, 18 year male doing a haphazard lifting regime and the results would most likely be very different.
@sijomial, thank you. @rankinsect also pointed this out in his post and I really appreciate it. I've already started reading on this subject and see that there are so many factors and variables that simply stating "building new muscles while on a caloric deficit is practically impossible" is plain wrong. My initial lack of reading on gaining muscle while on a deficit was based on my own experience and limited reading I've done to find out why I was not gaining. But at 45 with tons of HIIT cardio 5-6 times per week I realize that I've came to a wrong conclusion.
Thank you for your feedback, which, along with others, I will use to advance my knowledge and progress.0 -
I just wanted to say thank you for posting your list. Even though I disagreed with some of it, I think this has been a good discussion.0
-
rileysowner wrote: »While in some way I agree, in the sense that BRM is a number based on an average that would be fairly close for the vast majority of people while not being extremely precise. The issue is that BRM is not really the important number except as a good guideline for a minimum calorie level. The important number is TDEE. The goal is to eat under that with a moderate deficit. The number of people I have seen here over the years who look at the BMR number as what they need to take their deficit from is amazing, and frankly as a general guideline for the low minimum, even though it is not precise from person to person, the estimated BMR number is a good choice especially since for the majority of people it will be fairly close to their actual BMR.
If a person was eating at their BMR and not losing, assuming good confidence that logging is accurate, then perhaps it would be appropriate to eat below BMR, but to simply say people can eat below their BMR merely because it is a number that is not precise but rather based on population derived averages seems to be going further than is necessary.
@rileysowner, I jogged this one not from MFP forum topics, but from another board where people would chop their arm and a leg arguing that one cannot ever go below BMR. Of course, accuracy of logging would probably be the most common issue for not losing weight.
An additional factor for this item was logging inaccuracy, which would not be very critical if one is logging consistently. For example (exaggerating), if one records their eggs as 30 calories each, and logs their 15 min walks as 600 calories - that's not a problem as long as they do it all the time consistently. Eventually, adjusting as they progress, they will arrive at a daily budget they need to eat using their calculations - be it accurate or not and that number will not line up with the calculators online because it will be offset by their consistent logging errors.
Thank you for your input.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »While in some way I agree, in the sense that BRM is a number based on an average that would be fairly close for the vast majority of people while not being extremely precise. The issue is that BRM is not really the important number except as a good guideline for a minimum calorie level. The important number is TDEE. The goal is to eat under that with a moderate deficit. The number of people I have seen here over the years who look at the BMR number as what they need to take their deficit from is amazing, and frankly as a general guideline for the low minimum, even though it is not precise from person to person, the estimated BMR number is a good choice especially since for the majority of people it will be fairly close to their actual BMR.
If a person was eating at their BMR and not losing, assuming good confidence that logging is accurate, then perhaps it would be appropriate to eat below BMR, but to simply say people can eat below their BMR merely because it is a number that is not precise but rather based on population derived averages seems to be going further than is necessary.
@rileysowner, I jogged this one not from MFP forum topics, but from another board where people would chop their arm and a leg arguing that one cannot ever go below BMR. Of course, accuracy of logging would probably be the most common issue for not losing weight.
An additional factor for this item was logging inaccuracy, which would not be very critical if one is logging consistently. For example (exaggerating), if one records their eggs as 30 calories each, and logs their 15 min walks as 600 calories - that's not a problem as long as they do it all the time consistently. Eventually, adjusting as they progress, they will arrive at a daily budget they need to eat using their calculations - be it accurate or not and that number will not line up with the calculators online because it will be offset by their consistent logging errors.
Thank you for your input.
The inaccuracy issue is so big. Yesterday a coworker came over and asked me if it was bad that she was ending up a couple hundred calories under her goal of 1440 calories per day. Looking at her, my first thought was that there was no need for her to only eat 1440 calories per day and certainly not under it. After a bit of questioning, though, my answer was that I thought she was likely eating over 1440 calories but, based on her losses, was probably eating at a good level. My suggestion was that she measure out her foods the way she has been and then weigh them on a digital scale to figure out how many calories she's been eating and then just stay at that level.0 -
meganridenour wrote: »#3 - this one I've found both discouraging and confusing, but I hear it frequently on the forums. I wonder - if this is true, how it is that I've lost 81 pounds while also becoming stronger, and is proven by how much weight I can lift vs. how much I could lift before? Are "building muscle" and "becoming stronger" two different things?
@meganridenour, read the 19th post on the first page where @rankinsect provided a pretty good explanation of the process correcting my statement.
Thank you for pointing this out! This makes a lot more sense to me now.0 -
For the can't gain muscle in a deficit, I'll drop this here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctnIn conclusion, data from this study suggest that athletes who want to gain LBM and increase 1RM strength during a WL period combined with strength training should aim for a weekly BW loss of 0.7%.0 -
For the can't gain muscle in a deficit, I'll drop this here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctnIn conclusion, data from this study suggest that athletes who want to gain LBM and increase 1RM strength during a WL period combined with strength training should aim for a weekly BW loss of 0.7%.
@senecarr, thank you IMMENSELY!0 -
To everyone posted in this thread: thank you very much, I truly appreciate it.
Your feedback helped me to realize more than a few things, pointed me to a few new sources of information, cleared up a few uncertainties. I edited my list according and corrected my list.
Thank you.
A few common misconceptions and plain old myths I’ve seen thrown around these forums0 -
To everyone posted in this thread: thank you very much, I truly appreciate it.
Your feedback helped me to realize more than a few things, pointed me to a few new sources of information, cleared up a few uncertainties. I edited my list according and corrected my list.
Thank you.
A few common misconceptions and plain old myths I’ve seen thrown around these forums
If we had a "like" button I would have used it. Good job on improving your advice.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions