What terms/phrases wind you up about losing weight?

Options
1202123252638

Replies

  • WendyLeigh1119
    WendyLeigh1119 Posts: 495 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Yeah, fat burning zone is a good one. I seriously had someone tell me that it was useless to run or do other cardio if your heart rate was too high, as you wouldn't burn fat.

    It's similar to people thinking they must exercise fasted or it's not doing any good, which is another weird claim I've run into.

    To be fair, at least they're only misunderstanding rather than spewing nonsense. Higher intensity cardio DOES burn less calories from fat specifically, but it still burns fat (and creates the afterburn continuing after exercise is completed, which the "fat burn zone" never will).

    Technically, it still burns more calories of fat; it's just that a lower percentage of the calories burned come from fat. (Lower percentage of a bigger total can still be a bigger number.) So, it sucks that the media misrepresents it.

    I blame Fitbit for keeping that alive. Their explanation of exercise zones completely reinforces the whole "don't do intense cardio unless you're training for endurance thing.
  • MsMaeFlowers
    MsMaeFlowers Posts: 261 Member
    Options
    mlinci wrote: »
    -
    - this one is slightly irrational on my part, but I find it incredibly frustrating: it irritates me that as a 5'5, 139 lbs woman aged 41, I need to consistently walk about 11,000 steps a day to bring my calorie expenditure just to 2,000 or so calories. I am intensely jealous of taller, heavier and more muscular people who can eat more and not gain weight. Because I love eating. I also want to scream when older shorter women mention their total daily calorie expenditure is 1,500, just because of the sheer injustice of it

    As a 5'3" woman, I agree with this on a spiritual level.

    5'5" as well but at 130lbs I need to walk closer to 15,000 a day :( and 4 days a week are spent at a desk which leaves me 5 hours at the end of the day to cram in eating and walking and anything else I might need to do around the house, as well as work I do from home (also at a desk). It's frustrating some days.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Yeah, fat burning zone is a good one. I seriously had someone tell me that it was useless to run or do other cardio if your heart rate was too high, as you wouldn't burn fat.

    It's similar to people thinking they must exercise fasted or it's not doing any good, which is another weird claim I've run into.

    To be fair, at least they're only misunderstanding rather than spewing nonsense. Higher intensity cardio DOES burn less calories from fat specifically, but it still burns fat (and creates the afterburn continuing after exercise is completed, which the "fat burn zone" never will).

    They are spewing nonsense because they are misunderstanding. People are way too focused on whether they are specifically burning fat at any one moment and ignoring that if you have a deficit you need to make it up by burning fat at some point and that running hard also adds to burn and deficit. The idea that if you don't burn fat while doing the activity (and as noted above that's not actually true) it cannot be helpful for weight loss purposes is nonsense (and for the purposes of this thread, annoying!). ;-)
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Yeah, fat burning zone is a good one. I seriously had someone tell me that it was useless to run or do other cardio if your heart rate was too high, as you wouldn't burn fat.

    It's similar to people thinking they must exercise fasted or it's not doing any good, which is another weird claim I've run into.

    To be fair, at least they're only misunderstanding rather than spewing nonsense. Higher intensity cardio DOES burn less calories from fat specifically, but it still burns fat (and creates the afterburn continuing after exercise is completed, which the "fat burn zone" never will).

    Technically, it still burns more calories of fat; it's just that a lower percentage of the calories burned come from fat. (Lower percentage of a bigger total can still be a bigger number.) So, it sucks that the media misrepresents it.

    I blame Fitbit for keeping that alive. Their explanation of exercise zones completely reinforces the whole "don't do intense cardio unless you're training for endurance thing.

    I agree with this. In my head I translate "fat burning zone" to "steady state zone" when I'm cycling.
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    mph323 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Yeah, fat burning zone is a good one. I seriously had someone tell me that it was useless to run or do other cardio if your heart rate was too high, as you wouldn't burn fat.

    It's similar to people thinking they must exercise fasted or it's not doing any good, which is another weird claim I've run into.

    To be fair, at least they're only misunderstanding rather than spewing nonsense. Higher intensity cardio DOES burn less calories from fat specifically, but it still burns fat (and creates the afterburn continuing after exercise is completed, which the "fat burn zone" never will).

    Technically, it still burns more calories of fat; it's just that a lower percentage of the calories burned come from fat. (Lower percentage of a bigger total can still be a bigger number.) So, it sucks that the media misrepresents it.

    I blame Fitbit for keeping that alive. Their explanation of exercise zones completely reinforces the whole "don't do intense cardio unless you're training for endurance thing.

    I agree with this. In my head I translate "fat burning zone" to "steady state zone" when I'm cycling.

    That works! I call it the "not sitting on my butt" zone. I try to be in it several hours a day so that I'm getting a good amount of NEAT. So, I like that Fitbit shows me my time in each zone for the day, but not for the reason they think. :smile:
  • Rammer123
    Rammer123 Posts: 679 Member
    Options
    mph323 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Yeah, fat burning zone is a good one. I seriously had someone tell me that it was useless to run or do other cardio if your heart rate was too high, as you wouldn't burn fat.

    It's similar to people thinking they must exercise fasted or it's not doing any good, which is another weird claim I've run into.

    To be fair, at least they're only misunderstanding rather than spewing nonsense. Higher intensity cardio DOES burn less calories from fat specifically, but it still burns fat (and creates the afterburn continuing after exercise is completed, which the "fat burn zone" never will).

    Technically, it still burns more calories of fat; it's just that a lower percentage of the calories burned come from fat. (Lower percentage of a bigger total can still be a bigger number.) So, it sucks that the media misrepresents it.

    I blame Fitbit for keeping that alive. Their explanation of exercise zones completely reinforces the whole "don't do intense cardio unless you're training for endurance thing.

    I agree with this. In my head I translate "fat burning zone" to "steady state zone" when I'm cycling.

    That works! I call it the "not sitting on my butt" zone. I try to be in it several hours a day so that I'm getting a good amount of NEAT. So, I like that Fitbit shows me my time in each zone for the day, but not for the reason they think. :smile:


    Sitting on your butt would actually put you further into the "fat burning zone"
  • canadianlbs
    canadianlbs Posts: 5,199 Member
    Options
    'burn' bothers me a little. as in 'great burn!' but then i'm just generally not a type who enjoys too much of the rah-rah stuff in the first place.

    and i have to look away when i see what's being done to the word 'squats' all over certain parts of the broternet.
  • KateTii
    KateTii Posts: 886 Member
    Options
    Not a term/phrase but I get really sad seeing people bust their *kitten* in the gym, working so hard, then they go to the shops and get a "reward" for all their hard work that is 6x their calorie burn.

    (Very aware you can fit in treats in calorie counting, but you can pick the ones that really don't realise that they would have been better off staying at home instead of "rewarding" themselves)
  • xmissxamyx
    xmissxamyx Posts: 70 Member
    Options
    TmacMMM wrote: »
    "Transformation"

    "Journey"

    Not weight related, but it happens here more often than anywhere else I go: Mothers who refer to themselves as "mommies" or other baby talk names when talking to other adults.

    But, to each their own. It's convenient when the words are in the subject line, because then I can just skip those threads.

    OMG this is something that really really bugs me, not just on here but IRL. Same as when people refer to their kids as "Little Miss 3" or "Master 5" or who describe their children as being like "36 months" old