What terms/phrases wind you up about losing weight?
Options
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »'peanut butter is a good source of protein'.
GAH. Might as well say that bread is a good source of protein then. So aggravating.
Peanut Butter IS an objectively good source of protein
Chicken breast has 16 grams protein per 52 gram serving
Peanut butter has 8 grams protein per 32 gram serving
Bread has less than 3.6 grams protein per 28 gram serving
Weight doesn't matter one bit. You're supposed to look at the amount of protein per calories.
200 calories of chicken breast give you 40g of protein
200 calories of PB will give you 7g of protein
200 calories of French bread will give you 8g of protein
So yep. French bread is a better source of protein than peanut butter.
200 calories of French bread is half a loaf(8 servings)
200 calories of PB is half a serving.
200 calories of chicken breast is 2 servings
Dowhatchalike, but that doesn't make PB a poor source of Protein.
Funny . . . my jar says a serving of peanut butter is 30g = 190 calories. Brands vary +/- 10 calories or so, but still . . . .2 -
Can I add a non-fitness one, that @AnnPT77 reminded me of?
Yes? Goooooood
"Make-up pallet". It is a palette, as in a painter's palette, which s/he would use to mix the exact shade wanted.
Absolutely not a pallet; THIS is a pallet. Try putting that on your eyelids.
12 -
I'm late to this, but "loose" is the norm today. It normally means something that is baggy or doesn't fit tightly because it is too "loose."amusedmonkey wrote: »It makes me chuckle to imagine "loose" becoming the norm someday in the future.
I think it highly unlikely that in a hundred years, "loose" will drift to mean "get rid of." Never mind that that drift in meaning would also entail a grammatical shift, from adjective to verb. Linguistically speaking, that doesn't usually happen. I mean, Gollum did it, transitioning "precious," between noun and adjective, ("My precious [ring]." "Why does he look at us that way, Precious?") but that is done by a corrupted character in a fictional universe. So . . . nah. Not gonna happen.2 -
-
2
-
13
-
OregonMother wrote: »
I'm late to this, but "loose" is the norm today. It normally means something that is baggy or doesn't fit tightly because it is too "loose."amusedmonkey wrote: »It makes me chuckle to imagine "loose" becoming the norm someday in the future.
I think it highly unlikely that in a hundred years, "loose" will drift to mean "get rid of." Never mind that that drift in meaning would also entail a grammatical shift, from adjective to verb. Linguistically speaking, that doesn't usually happen. I mean, Gollum did it, transitioning "precious," between noun and adjective, ("My precious [ring]." "Why does he look at us that way, Precious?") but that is done by a corrupted character in a fictional universe. So . . . nah. Not gonna happen.
Noun to verb happens a lot. Googling, adulting, etc. So, maybe.3 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »OregonMother wrote: »
I'm late to this, but "loose" is the norm today. It normally means something that is baggy or doesn't fit tightly because it is too "loose."amusedmonkey wrote: »It makes me chuckle to imagine "loose" becoming the norm someday in the future.
I think it highly unlikely that in a hundred years, "loose" will drift to mean "get rid of." Never mind that that drift in meaning would also entail a grammatical shift, from adjective to verb. Linguistically speaking, that doesn't usually happen. I mean, Gollum did it, transitioning "precious," between noun and adjective, ("My precious [ring]." "Why does he look at us that way, Precious?") but that is done by a corrupted character in a fictional universe. So . . . nah. Not gonna happen.
Noun to verb happens a lot. Googling, adulting, etc. So, maybe.
I'm just going to throw "pro-active" out there. This word didn't exist until the 80s - Used as follows; "Let's be pro-active instead of reactive." The opposite of reactive is active, but pro-active was used often enough and it was added to the dictionary - and now we can't seem to loose it.
(See what I did there?)5 -
OregonMother wrote: »
I'm late to this, but "loose" is the norm today. It normally means something that is baggy or doesn't fit tightly because it is too "loose."amusedmonkey wrote: »It makes me chuckle to imagine "loose" becoming the norm someday in the future.
I think it highly unlikely that in a hundred years, "loose" will drift to mean "get rid of." Never mind that that drift in meaning would also entail a grammatical shift, from adjective to verb. Linguistically speaking, that doesn't usually happen. I mean, Gollum did it, transitioning "precious," between noun and adjective, ("My precious [ring]." "Why does he look at us that way, Precious?") but that is done by a corrupted character in a fictional universe. So . . . nah. Not gonna happen.
I'm missing the context to this and the thread is too long to go back and find it, but I expect amusedmonkey meant that she was amused at the idea of "loose" becoming the normal spelling of lose (which is horrible to imagine but probably will happen, as language evolves).
Loose as a verb (it means "to set free") already IS a proper usage, so could people start to think that "lose" (which they imagine as "loose" meant to set fat free, to set keys free (a humorous way of meaning drop them so they cannot be found) or the like? Sure, people assume origins that don't really fit all the time. I've heard people claim "whole 9 yards" is a football reference and go to lengths to explain why it's 9 and not 10 and even to assume it is a football reference so say "whole 10 yards." But it's not, even if we don't know what it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_whole_nine_yards
An even better one is free rein. People often write "free reign" assuming it relates to absolute monarchy or some such (since it can be used to say a ruler has free rein), but of course it refers to holdings reins loosely.
And note how I got us back to "loose"! (Patting self on the back now!)5 -
I was going to say, 'to be pedantic for a moment', at the start of this post, and then I realised that implied I had another setting...
Loose is actually already a verb; it's just somewhat archaic at this point. It means... to let go, release. Er, easier to explain in context, probably.
For example:
Legolas loosed his arrows.
We loosed the hounds of war.15 -
Epic cross-post with @lemurcat12, Batman! Sorry.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I've heard people claim "whole 9 yards" is a football reference and go to lengths to explain why it's 9 and not 10 and even to assume it is a football reference so say "whole 10 yards." But it's not, even if we don't know what it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_whole_nine_yards
Going on down the football rabbit trail, I heard someone yesterday say, "They are on the 99 yard line."
What??2 -
GMTA! ;-)1
-
I'm just going to throw "pro-active" out there. This word didn't exist until the 80s - Used as follows; "Let's be pro-active instead of reactive." The opposite of reactive is active, but pro-active was used often enough and it was added to the dictionary - and now we can't seem to loose it.
(See what I did there?)
As in, "we can't seem to loose it [from our grip]?"
1 -
OregonMother wrote: »
I'm just going to throw "pro-active" out there. This word didn't exist until the 80s - Used as follows; "Let's be pro-active instead of reactive." The opposite of reactive is active, but pro-active was used often enough and it was added to the dictionary - and now we can't seem to loose it.
(See what I did there?)
As in, "we can't seem to loose it [from our grip]?"
Nicely done!0 -
OregonMother wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I've heard people claim "whole 9 yards" is a football reference and go to lengths to explain why it's 9 and not 10 and even to assume it is a football reference so say "whole 10 yards." But it's not, even if we don't know what it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_whole_nine_yards
Going on down the football rabbit trail, I heard someone yesterday say, "They are on the 99 yard line."
What??
I would take that to mean that they have almost the whole way to go still ahead of them. I can almost imagine someone saying "Hey guys, we're not on the 1-yard line. We're not even on the 50. We're on the 99-yard line!"0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »OregonMother wrote: »
I'm late to this, but "loose" is the norm today. It normally means something that is baggy or doesn't fit tightly because it is too "loose."amusedmonkey wrote: »It makes me chuckle to imagine "loose" becoming the norm someday in the future.
I think it highly unlikely that in a hundred years, "loose" will drift to mean "get rid of." Never mind that that drift in meaning would also entail a grammatical shift, from adjective to verb. Linguistically speaking, that doesn't usually happen. I mean, Gollum did it, transitioning "precious," between noun and adjective, ("My precious [ring]." "Why does he look at us that way, Precious?") but that is done by a corrupted character in a fictional universe. So . . . nah. Not gonna happen.
I'm missing the context to this and the thread is too long to go back and find it, but I expect amusedmonkey meant that she was amused at the idea of "loose" becoming the normal spelling of lose (which is horrible to imagine but probably will happen, as language evolves).
Yes, that's what I meant. It is possible for a word to acquire an alternative acceptable spelling before the old one gets gradually pushed out of usage. Language is fascinatingly organic.
Side note:
Hangry and bro (bruh too) are now recognized words in the dictionary.1 -
14 -
When people say CICO doesn't matter if you're eating fat/carbs/sugar. It's a very simple principle: a pound of feathers and a pound of stones are both a pound. 3,500 fat calories and 3,500 veggie calories are both a pound.
Organic/vegan/anti-buzzword nazis. If you want to eat only organic or waste money on non-gluten products you don't *need*, go right ahead. But stop badgering others with your diet and nutrition degree from Facebook University.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »OregonMother wrote: »
I'm late to this, but "loose" is the norm today. It normally means something that is baggy or doesn't fit tightly because it is too "loose."amusedmonkey wrote: »It makes me chuckle to imagine "loose" becoming the norm someday in the future.
I think it highly unlikely that in a hundred years, "loose" will drift to mean "get rid of." Never mind that that drift in meaning would also entail a grammatical shift, from adjective to verb. Linguistically speaking, that doesn't usually happen. I mean, Gollum did it, transitioning "precious," between noun and adjective, ("My precious [ring]." "Why does he look at us that way, Precious?") but that is done by a corrupted character in a fictional universe. So . . . nah. Not gonna happen.
I'm missing the context to this and the thread is too long to go back and find it, but I expect amusedmonkey meant that she was amused at the idea of "loose" becoming the normal spelling of lose (which is horrible to imagine but probably will happen, as language evolves).
Yes, that's what I meant. It is possible for a word to acquire an alternative acceptable spelling before the old one gets gradually pushed out of usage. Language is fascinatingly organic.
Side note:
Hangry and bro (bruh too) are now recognized words in the dictionary.
Literally also now literally means figuratively...my head exploded.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions