What terms/phrases wind you up about losing weight?
Replies
-
"I can't afford to eat healthy". Which means they can't afford to shop at Whole Foods, the gluten free aisle, or organic.
There's a wealth of foods between Kraft Dinner and the GF aisle.
Sometimes I despair that this whole generation doesn't know how to shop or how to cook.
Cooking very simple foods at home is the absolute cheapest way I can live. Meat, veg, rice/pasta/couscous/potato side, meat and salad lunches... I will never get the not being able to afford to 'eat healthy'.6 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »"I can't afford to eat healthy". Which means they can't afford to shop at Whole Foods, the gluten free aisle, or organic.
There's a wealth of foods between Kraft Dinner and the GF aisle.
Sometimes I despair that this whole generation doesn't know how to shop or how to cook.
Cooking very simple foods at home is the absolute cheapest way I can live. Meat, veg, rice/pasta/couscous/potato side, meat and salad lunches... I will never get the not being able to afford to 'eat healthy'.
I agree.... There was a time in my poor past where I lived on ground beef over white rice with canned veggies from the food pantry.3 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »"I can't afford to eat healthy". Which means they can't afford to shop at Whole Foods, the gluten free aisle, or organic.
There's a wealth of foods between Kraft Dinner and the GF aisle.
Sometimes I despair that this whole generation doesn't know how to shop or how to cook.
Cooking very simple foods at home is the absolute cheapest way I can live. Meat, veg, rice/pasta/couscous/potato side, meat and salad lunches... I will never get the not being able to afford to 'eat healthy'.
I agree.... There was a time in my poor past where I lived on ground beef over white rice with canned veggies from the food pantry.
I spent a semester eating chicken thigh, rice/pasta and frozen veg baked together with a can of cream of chicken soup. One lot lasted me and the cat 5 days for about $8. I sure as hell never had an issue with being overweight then.7 -
Sometimes I despair that this whole generation doesn't know how to shop or how to cook.
Historically, only a small fraction of people needed to know how to cook well, because meals were far more communal than they are in the era of the 1.6 kid nuclear family.
Everybody knowing how to cook would actually be the historical anomaly.
6 -
Sometimes I despair that this whole generation doesn't know how to shop or how to cook.
Historically, only a small fraction of people needed to know how to cook well, because meals were far more communal than they are in the era of the 1.6 kid nuclear family.
Everybody knowing how to cook would actually be the historical anomaly.
Cooking isn't evolutionary, there's been single family households for more than long enough for a reasonable expectation to exist that the majority of people in first world countries should know how to cook the basics.4 -
-
dale050467 wrote: »using loose instead of lose
English speaking grammer Nazis who seem to assume that everyone who communicates in English speaks English as a first language and must therefore be perfect at it.
I corrected my mistake Herr Generaloberst.
Huh. Loose and lose. See the thing is they are two different words with two different meanings. It's nothing to do with grammar Nazism - because it isn't grammar. The opposite of loose is tight, the opposite of lose is gain. You might as well say " I want to apricot weight" because it makes as much sense.
I bolded your statement because I fail to understand why you took offence to learning something new - if English is indeed a second language for you then you now know the difference and can use either word correctly in the future. "Ich bien ein berliner" if you see what I mean?
I don't think people actually think that "loose" and "lose" are interchangeable or that "loose" is the right word.
I'm pretty sure it's just a simple typo that their spell-checker/autocorrect doesn't fix.
Same with "weigh" vs "weight."
I doubt people would say "I "weight" myself on Mondays" on purpose. It's just that many words that have "gh" at the end also end with a "t" (weight, height, thought, bought, brought, thought, caught...) so when typing "gh" the fingers habitually hit the "t" key. This doesn't happen to me on my phone when typing with my thumbs but on a keyboard I have to go back all the time and remove the unnecessary "t."3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »dale050467 wrote: »using loose instead of lose
English speaking grammer Nazis who seem to assume that everyone who communicates in English speaks English as a first language and must therefore be perfect at it.
I corrected my mistake Herr Generaloberst.
Huh. Loose and lose. See the thing is they are two different words with two different meanings. It's nothing to do with grammar Nazism - because it isn't grammar. The opposite of loose is tight, the opposite of lose is gain. You might as well say " I want to apricot weight" because it makes as much sense.
I bolded your statement because I fail to understand why you took offence to learning something new - if English is indeed a second language for you then you now know the difference and can use either word correctly in the future. "Ich bien ein berliner" if you see what I mean?
I don't think people actually think that "loose" and "lose" are interchangeable or that "loose" is the right word.
I'm pretty sure it's just a simple typo that their spell-checker/autocorrect doesn't fix.
Same with "weigh" vs "weight."
I doubt people would say "I "weight" myself on Mondays" on purpose. It's just that many words that have "gh" at the end also end with a "t" (weight, height, thought, bought, brought, thought, caught...) so when typing "gh" the fingers habitually hit the "t" key. This doesn't happen to me on my phone when typing with my thumbs but on a keyboard I have to go back all the time and remove the unnecessary "t."
I have a love/hate relationship with autocorrect. Sigh.4 -
If I say I pigged out, I'm probably bragging. Lolsunfastrose wrote: »I hate the term "pigging out" when referring to self. It's so self hating.LovesDogsAndBooks wrote: »LovesDogsAndBooks wrote: »English is not my first language, so I don't get what's wrong with talking about "muscle tone" or "being toned"? Just had a quick glance at Wikipedia, and the word seems related to muscle.
It is. Atonic literally means 'lacking muscular tone.' So tone is technically fine to say.
However, when someone says they want to 'tone up' I still always picture this:
Thanks! Maybe there are certain negative connotations that you only have as a native speaker. But there have been a couple of people here in this thread that are bothered by someone saying muscle tone or getting toned. Then they seem to be wrong, not the people who say that.
There is a misconception that a person's muscles may be soft and "un-toned" and that working out with light weights or cardio will "tone" those muscles, making them tighter and firmer (appearing smaller). However, that's not actually how things work so when people take issue with people wanting to "tone," it has more to do with this misconception than the word itself.
The truth is that muscle is denser and firmer than fat so if your arm feels soft and squishy, it's because you have fat in your arm. The way to "get toned" then is to either 1) lose the fat to reveal the muscle underneath or 2) build the muscle (making it bigger) so that it can be seen/felt in contrast to the fat.
However, people think that if they're not too overweight and they feel soft, it's not due to the presence of fat and their muscles are just soft/fluffy, which is not really the case.4 -
I'm a new mommy OR I'm menopausal Or I'm female Or I'm old.
These aren't reasons, they're excuses.
They could be used as excuses, certainly.
But new babies, pregnancy, breast feeding, recent menopause, and aging all cause changes in the body that usually impact how women feel from day to day. I think women come here looking to hear how other women have adjusted in those situations.
Sometimes people just want advice from others in similar situations. They aren't necessarily making excuses.14 -
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »dale050467 wrote: »using loose instead of lose
English speaking grammer Nazis who seem to assume that everyone who communicates in English speaks English as a first language and must therefore be perfect at it.
I corrected my mistake Herr Generaloberst.
Huh. Loose and lose. See the thing is they are two different words with two different meanings. It's nothing to do with grammar Nazism - because it isn't grammar. The opposite of loose is tight, the opposite of lose is gain. You might as well say " I want to apricot weight" because it makes as much sense.
I bolded your statement because I fail to understand why you took offence to learning something new - if English is indeed a second language for you then you now know the difference and can use either word correctly in the future. "Ich bien ein berliner" if you see what I mean?
I don't think people actually think that "loose" and "lose" are interchangeable or that "loose" is the right word.
I'm pretty sure it's just a simple typo that their spell-checker/autocorrect doesn't fix.
I think a shockingly high percentage of people, native English speakers, DO believe that loose is the correct spelling. I even had some jerk (who had other silly things to say) make fun of me for using "lose" way back in 2014 (I recall because he also called me fat when I mentioned being 140, and so I can date it to when I was 140).
I first noticed this years and years ago when I used to read some (American) football usenet groups and people would go on about how some team was going to loose. The general discussion level didn't get too much better, although there were some interesting stats discussions, so I quickly explored elsewhere.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »dale050467 wrote: »using loose instead of lose
English speaking grammer Nazis who seem to assume that everyone who communicates in English speaks English as a first language and must therefore be perfect at it.
I corrected my mistake Herr Generaloberst.
Huh. Loose and lose. See the thing is they are two different words with two different meanings. It's nothing to do with grammar Nazism - because it isn't grammar. The opposite of loose is tight, the opposite of lose is gain. You might as well say " I want to apricot weight" because it makes as much sense.
I bolded your statement because I fail to understand why you took offence to learning something new - if English is indeed a second language for you then you now know the difference and can use either word correctly in the future. "Ich bien ein berliner" if you see what I mean?
I don't think people actually think that "loose" and "lose" are interchangeable or that "loose" is the right word.
I'm pretty sure it's just a simple typo that their spell-checker/autocorrect doesn't fix.
Same with "weigh" vs "weight."
I doubt people would say "I "weight" myself on Mondays" on purpose. It's just that many words that have "gh" at the end also end with a "t" (weight, height, thought, bought, brought, thought, caught...) so when typing "gh" the fingers habitually hit the "t" key. This doesn't happen to me on my phone when typing with my thumbs but on a keyboard I have to go back all the time and remove the unnecessary "t."
I disagree. I think most don't know the difference between lose and loose.10 -
CICO
/ducks8 -
"Research shows" then gives their opinion without any indication of where and what the research is. This isn't just when it comes to dieting. I have colleagues who do this at work. They do it to shut down the debate by claiming they are an expert or there is scientific evidence they are right. Frustrating.4
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »dale050467 wrote: »using loose instead of lose
English speaking grammer Nazis who seem to assume that everyone who communicates in English speaks English as a first language and must therefore be perfect at it.
I corrected my mistake Herr Generaloberst.
Huh. Loose and lose. See the thing is they are two different words with two different meanings. It's nothing to do with grammar Nazism - because it isn't grammar. The opposite of loose is tight, the opposite of lose is gain. You might as well say " I want to apricot weight" because it makes as much sense.
I bolded your statement because I fail to understand why you took offence to learning something new - if English is indeed a second language for you then you now know the difference and can use either word correctly in the future. "Ich bien ein berliner" if you see what I mean?
I don't think people actually think that "loose" and "lose" are interchangeable or that "loose" is the right word.
I'm pretty sure it's just a simple typo that their spell-checker/autocorrect doesn't fix.
I think a shockingly high percentage of people, native English speakers, DO believe that loose is the correct spelling. I even had some jerk (who had other silly things to say) make fun of me for using "lose" way back in 2014 (I recall because he also called me fat when I mentioned being 140, and so I can date it to when I was 140).
I first noticed this years and years ago when I used to read some (American) football usenet groups and people would go on about how some team was going to loose. The general discussion level didn't get too much better, although there were some interesting stats discussions, so I quickly explored elsewhere.
Oh my cow...what a loser that guy was...3 -
Sometimes I despair that this whole generation doesn't know how to shop or how to cook.
Historically, only a small fraction of people needed to know how to cook well, because meals were far more communal than they are in the era of the 1.6 kid nuclear family.
Everybody knowing how to cook would actually be the historical anomaly.
Suppose that's true (I'd argue the point.). Still, basic cooking is:- Dead easy
- Cheaper
- Likely to be more nutritious ovetall (if you're trying for that)
- Tastier (potentially)
- Lower calorie (if you're trying at all)
- Quicker than non-cooking people imagine
I wish more people would give it a whirl.
(I know you didn't specifically argue the contrary, @Mr_Knight.)3 -
Oooooooooooooh.Carlos_421 wrote: »
If I say I pigged out, I'm probably bragging. Lolsunfastrose wrote: »I hate the term "pigging out" when referring to self. It's so self hating.LovesDogsAndBooks wrote: »LovesDogsAndBooks wrote: »English is not my first language, so I don't get what's wrong with talking about "muscle tone" or "being toned"? Just had a quick glance at Wikipedia, and the word seems related to muscle.
It is. Atonic literally means 'lacking muscular tone.' So tone is technically fine to say.
However, when someone says they want to 'tone up' I still always picture this:
Thanks! Maybe there are certain negative connotations that you only have as a native speaker. But there have been a couple of people here in this thread that are bothered by someone saying muscle tone or getting toned. Then they seem to be wrong, not the people who say that.
There is a misconception that a person's muscles may be soft and "un-toned" and that working out with light weights or cardio will "tone" those muscles, making them tighter and firmer (appearing smaller). However, that's not actually how things work so when people take issue with people wanting to "tone," it has more to do with this misconception than the word itself.
The truth is that muscle is denser and firmer than fat so if your arm feels soft and squishy, it's because you have fat in your arm. The way to "get toned" then is to either 1) lose the fat to reveal the muscle underneath or 2) build the muscle (making it bigger) so that it can be seen/felt in contrast to the fat.
However, people think that if they're not too overweight and they feel soft, it's not due to the presence of fat and their muscles are just soft/fluffy, which is not really the case.
Is THAT what the toning arguments are about? Did not realise that anyone was under that misapprehension at all. I've been vaguely noticing passionate arguments on "toning"and whether it was possible to "make yourself toned" for yonks.
Did wonder why anyone would be arguing against the idea that it's possible to make your muscles slightly bigger, but not very much bigger.
Light has dawned.
2 -
(I know you didn't specifically argue the contrary, @Mr_Knight.)
Oh good.
Because I'm not arguing against people knowing how to do basic cooking - the points you listed are all valid - just pointing out that it would be a relatively new expectation, because historically, that wasn't the case.
1 -
I'm a grandmother and my grandmother knew how to cook. So that's five generations of familial rather than communal cooking.
I live in the prairies and I've visited farmer's kitchens. Everyone in the kitchen knew how to put together a meal. I've read pioneer diaries and even if community members supported each other, the good cook and the skilled musician were valued everywhere.
From the recipes handed down in our family I'd say this generation is missing a few basics. My granddaughter excepting of course.5 -
I picked up a family pack of pork chops and it made the equivalent of three dinners (just the two of us). The meal worked out to fifty cents a serving. Sure the sides were a little bit more but not much more. Can any fast food place beat that?3
-
Sometimes I despair that this whole generation doesn't know how to shop or how to cook.
Historically, only a small fraction of people needed to know how to cook well, because meals were far more communal than they are in the era of the 1.6 kid nuclear family.
Everybody knowing how to cook would actually be the historical anomaly.
Suppose that's true (I'd argue the point.). Still, basic cooking is:- Dead easy
- Cheaper
- Likely to be more nutritious ovetall (if you're trying for that)
- Tastier (potentially)
- Lower calorie (if you're trying at all)
- Quicker than non-cooking people imagine
I wish more people would give it a whirl.
(I know you didn't specifically argue the contrary, @Mr_Knight.)
I'd argue that basic cooking seems easy to people that know how to cook, but I have heard of people burning water and following simple instructions.... Well you know how that goes.1 -
Practice makes anything easier.
Sometimes these you-tube videos make it worse by showing off a five star skill like its dead easy.
Don't start with the Souffle.8 -
Practice makes anything easier.
Sometimes these you-tube videos make it worse by showing off a five star skill like its dead easy.
Don't start with the Souffle.
Most people don't waste food like that.. Also that's probably when it becomes expensive.
I do agree that practice makes perfect.1 -
My mom tried to teach me how to cook, but she didn't have a lot of variety, so I didn't learn much. My SIL and SIL's sisters taught me a lot. Then I got a meal prep service, and it taught me a lot more. Those things are kind of expensive, but they have improved my confidence in the kitchen. I think if you have the money (~$10 per person, per meal; so less than a dinner out, but still pricy) and want to learn how to cook better, it is a good way to go.5
-
...
- Lol. Ok, I'm showing my age here (an ancient 41 year old here), but why do people feel the urge to write lol in random places in a sentence? For example "I am at 180lbs now and really need to get to 120lbs lol". Do some people's keyboards just randomly dispense the word?...
Yes! The random lols! I don't get it either! They are usually inserted when there is nothing remotely funny nearby. Is it like a nervous tic or something? (To be fair, I'm even more ancient...)
5 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Sometimes I despair that this whole generation doesn't know how to shop or how to cook.
Historically, only a small fraction of people needed to know how to cook well, because meals were far more communal than they are in the era of the 1.6 kid nuclear family.
Everybody knowing how to cook would actually be the historical anomaly.
Suppose that's true (I'd argue the point.). Still, basic cooking is:- Dead easy
- Cheaper
- Likely to be more nutritious ovetall (if you're trying for that)
- Tastier (potentially)
- Lower calorie (if you're trying at all)
- Quicker than non-cooking people imagine
I wish more people would give it a whirl.
(I know you didn't specifically argue the contrary, @Mr_Knight.)
I'd argue that basic cooking seems easy to people that know how to cook, but I have heard of people burning water and following simple instructions.... Well you know how that goes.
People who have the physical coordination and attention span required to drive a car, and the memory/intelligence needed to follow multi-episode TV shows, could learn basic cooking. They simply don't want to.
It's their call - it's not a moral obligation. I just think it's not the wisest available choice - especially if they're trying to get healthier or lose weight.
ETA: I think I'm starting to confuse this with the "Unpopular Opinions" thread.
Jeesh. Sorry! 5 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Sometimes I despair that this whole generation doesn't know how to shop or how to cook.
Historically, only a small fraction of people needed to know how to cook well, because meals were far more communal than they are in the era of the 1.6 kid nuclear family.
Everybody knowing how to cook would actually be the historical anomaly.
Suppose that's true (I'd argue the point.). Still, basic cooking is:- Dead easy
- Cheaper
- Likely to be more nutritious ovetall (if you're trying for that)
- Tastier (potentially)
- Lower calorie (if you're trying at all)
- Quicker than non-cooking people imagine
I wish more people would give it a whirl.
(I know you didn't specifically argue the contrary, @Mr_Knight.)
I'd argue that basic cooking seems easy to people that know how to cook, but I have heard of people burning water and following simple instructions.... Well you know how that goes.
People who have the physical coordination and attention span required to drive a car, and the memory/intelligence needed to follow multi-episode TV shows, could learn basic cooking. They simply don't want to.
It's their call - it's not a moral obligation. I just think it's not the wisest available choice - especially if they're trying to get healthier or lose weight.
ETA: I think I'm starting to confuse this with the "Unpopular Opinions" thread. Jeesh. Sorry!
Lol I agree. But then again common sense is not common and expectations are high here. :laugh:
And all the MFP threads start to run together after a while..3 -
...
- Lol. Ok, I'm showing my age here (an ancient 41 year old here), but why do people feel the urge to write lol in random places in a sentence? For example "I am at 180lbs now and really need to get to 120lbs lol". Do some people's keyboards just randomly dispense the word?...
Yes! The random lols! I don't get it either! They are usually inserted when there is nothing remotely funny nearby. Is it like a nervous tic or something? (To be fair, I'm even more ancient...)
I think it generally means I'm joking...or being silly0 -
None. It actually annoys me how wound up people get over particular phrases.10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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