Where Does All the Misinformation Come From?
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »A lot of it is the media blowing things out of proportion. A single study suggests something and they report it as fact. Several studies show most people should eat less of <whatever> and they report it as <whatever> is unhealthy with no mention of amount. And people are lazy. They read the headline, maybe even skim the article but make no effort to find out what the actual study said or if it's been confirmed by f/u studies.
Many people believe everything they read regardless of whether the source is credible.
The "Biggest Loser" study is an excellent example of this! All of a sudden, permanent weight-loss is "hopeless." Only specific and out of context parts were reported. But rarely the fact that the study's authors said it was specific to people of this size who lost weight under these extreme conditions and that it wasn't generalizable to the masses.3 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Science changes as new research emerges and new facts discovered. Einstein disproved some of Newton's theories. Pluto is no longer a planet. But by and large the worst information comes from companies trying to sell something. We laugh at the old time snake oil sales men going from town to town selling cocaine laced cough syrup but go out and buy the newest "magic" weight loss pill.
I thought it was, again.
https://futurism.com/pluto-reclassified-as-a-major-planet/
WRITTEN BY
Jolene Creighton
@sciencejolene Website
April 1, 20170 -
JerSchmare wrote: »It comes from people selling things. But, it also comes from people wanting magic to be true. It's a hard pill to swallow to say, "you eat too much. So, stop doing that." It's much easier to sell a system that makes it complicated, but if you follow it, it works. A good example is Weight Watchers.
What's funny about this is checking in on my WW friends and seeing that they're double tracking calories and points, and arguing over counting fruit. Just count the dang calories and keep it simple.4 -
Yeah, I pointed that out earlier.JeromeBarry1 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Science changes as new research emerges and new facts discovered. Einstein disproved some of Newton's theories. Pluto is no longer a planet. But by and large the worst information comes from companies trying to sell something. We laugh at the old time snake oil sales men going from town to town selling cocaine laced cough syrup but go out and buy the newest "magic" weight loss pill.
I thought it was, again.
https://futurism.com/pluto-reclassified-as-a-major-planet/
WRITTEN BY
Jolene Creighton
@sciencejolene Website
April 1, 2017
0 -
MontyMuttland wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »Muscle does weigh more than fat so that one isn't misinformation.
A pound weighs a pound. But by volume, muscle weighs more than fat. Rarely does anyone specify volume in the "muscle weighs more than fat" truism because we figure your smart enough to figure out the obvious.
I'm quite certain the idea of starvation mode comes from people's experience. They cut calories drastically and exercise intensely and they get stuck at the same weight for months at a time. Or they diet and lose weight, then when they try to add back even a tiny bit more calories than their calories, they gain huge amounts of weight very quickly.
No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
These are two totally different measurements.
Weight is a measure of how heavy something is.
Volume is a measure of how much space something takes up.
They are not the same thing.
They are not interchangeable.
A kilo of fat weighs the same as a kilo of muscle and a kilo of feathers, but each of them takes up a different amount of physical space.
However, it's stuff like this where people confidently put forward ideas that are factually incorrect which leads to widespread nonsense getting believed by so many others.
People cling to notions they like the sound of, regardless of truth.
But facts remain true whether you like them or not, that's just the way it is!
I should call the people who invented the concept of density and tell them they were wrong because weight and volume are different things so you can't possible put them in relation.6 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »MontyMuttland wrote: »No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
? Am I missing something? There is such thing as weight per unit volume: it's called density.
Yes, they weren't clear. The objection is that weight-relative terms are used when it's density that's really being compared.
The counter-argument is that 'everybody knows' that when you say X is heavier than Y that you mean equal volumes of X and Y.
Now personally, I'd be ripped a new one if I use heavier and lighter in that way but I came up through a biochemistry and physics track and am still in a branch of science where assumptions and inaccurate terminology are frowned upon.
So would I. But then, I also understand the difference between a casual expression where, in context, the meaning is clear, and technical contexts where absolute clarity is important. I don't know why this should be so difficult for some people, except perhaps they enjoy the opportunity for needless pedantry.
What really kills me is when somebody complains that 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat...
...and then goes on to claim that an acceptable alternative expression is "muscle takes up less space than fat"!
Because, apparently, it goes without saying that all comparisons involve equal masses of substance.
Sorry, but if you're going to be so pedantic as to require that people clarify that 1 pint of muscle weighs more than 1 pint of fat, you'd darn well better be equally pedantic in requiring that people clarify that 1 pound of fat occupies more volume than 1 pound of muscle. Can't have it both ways!
The acceptable alternative for pedantic people is "muscle is denser than fat".
* if observed at equal pressure and temperatures.
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »MontyMuttland wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »Muscle does weigh more than fat so that one isn't misinformation.
A pound weighs a pound. But by volume, muscle weighs more than fat. Rarely does anyone specify volume in the "muscle weighs more than fat" truism because we figure your smart enough to figure out the obvious.
I'm quite certain the idea of starvation mode comes from people's experience. They cut calories drastically and exercise intensely and they get stuck at the same weight for months at a time. Or they diet and lose weight, then when they try to add back even a tiny bit more calories than their calories, they gain huge amounts of weight very quickly.
No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
These are two totally different measurements.
Weight is a measure of how heavy something is.
Volume is a measure of how much space something takes up.
They are not the same thing.
They are not interchangeable.
A kilo of fat weighs the same as a kilo of muscle and a kilo of feathers, but each of them takes up a different amount of physical space.
However, it's stuff like this where people confidently put forward ideas that are factually incorrect which leads to widespread nonsense getting believed by so many others.
People cling to notions they like the sound of, regardless of truth.
But facts remain true whether you like them or not, that's just the way it is!
I should call the people who invented the concept of density and tell them they were wrong because weight and volume are different things so you can't possible put them in relation.
Isn't the textbook definition of a gram 1 mL water at sea level?
OK, Wikipedia says it isn't that anymore.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MontyMuttland wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »Muscle does weigh more than fat so that one isn't misinformation.
A pound weighs a pound. But by volume, muscle weighs more than fat. Rarely does anyone specify volume in the "muscle weighs more than fat" truism because we figure your smart enough to figure out the obvious.
I'm quite certain the idea of starvation mode comes from people's experience. They cut calories drastically and exercise intensely and they get stuck at the same weight for months at a time. Or they diet and lose weight, then when they try to add back even a tiny bit more calories than their calories, they gain huge amounts of weight very quickly.
No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
These are two totally different measurements.
Weight is a measure of how heavy something is.
Volume is a measure of how much space something takes up.
They are not the same thing.
They are not interchangeable.
A kilo of fat weighs the same as a kilo of muscle and a kilo of feathers, but each of them takes up a different amount of physical space.
However, it's stuff like this where people confidently put forward ideas that are factually incorrect which leads to widespread nonsense getting believed by so many others.
People cling to notions they like the sound of, regardless of truth.
But facts remain true whether you like them or not, that's just the way it is!
I should call the people who invented the concept of density and tell them they were wrong because weight and volume are different things so you can't possible put them in relation.
Isn't the textbook definition of a gram 1 mL water at sea level?
OK, Wikipedia says it isn't that anymore.
No, but it's still close enough. Not that it really establishes an equivalence between mass and volume for anything but water. Other liquids with other densities won't have this equivalence.0 -
I feel like it's half people over-simplifying things and half people selling things.3
-
stevencloser wrote: »MontyMuttland wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »Muscle does weigh more than fat so that one isn't misinformation.
A pound weighs a pound. But by volume, muscle weighs more than fat. Rarely does anyone specify volume in the "muscle weighs more than fat" truism because we figure your smart enough to figure out the obvious.
I'm quite certain the idea of starvation mode comes from people's experience. They cut calories drastically and exercise intensely and they get stuck at the same weight for months at a time. Or they diet and lose weight, then when they try to add back even a tiny bit more calories than their calories, they gain huge amounts of weight very quickly.
No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
These are two totally different measurements.
Weight is a measure of how heavy something is.
Volume is a measure of how much space something takes up.
They are not the same thing.
They are not interchangeable.
A kilo of fat weighs the same as a kilo of muscle and a kilo of feathers, but each of them takes up a different amount of physical space.
However, it's stuff like this where people confidently put forward ideas that are factually incorrect which leads to widespread nonsense getting believed by so many others.
People cling to notions they like the sound of, regardless of truth.
But facts remain true whether you like them or not, that's just the way it is!
I should call the people who invented the concept of density and tell them they were wrong because weight and volume are different things so you can't possible put them in relation.
I should have worded my post better. You (and others) are right to point out I've denied the existence of density the way I wrote it, which is pretty dumb.
I was trying to make the point that in the context of healthy living and weight-loss it's not good to interchange weight and volume.
For example, "weighing" foods by the cupful rather than taking a physical weight on the scales results in a lot of variation.
0 -
MJ2victory wrote: »I feel like it's half people over-simplifying things and half people selling things.
GULLIBLE PEOPLE
Without facts we believe our politicians, leaders, preachers etc.0 -
Some misinformation is linked to misunderstanding. Like with the whole muscle weighing more than fat... Sure 1 pound of fat and 1 pound of muscle both weight 1 pound but the volume is different. Fat of the same weight takes up more space than that of muscle... So the misunderstanding is that muscle weighs more than fat (by volume) where the parenthesis is an assumed understanding.1
-
Omitting the common understanding that we're taking volume into consideration has led to many a surreal discussion on MFP.Some misinformation is linked to misunderstanding. Like with the whole muscle weighing more than fat... Sure 1 pound of fat and 1 pound of muscle both weight 1 pound but the volume is different. Fat of the same weight takes up more space than that of muscle... So the misunderstanding is that muscle weighs more than fat (by volume) where the parenthesis is an assumed understanding.
OP: Which has more calories, mustard or mayonnaise?
Answer: They both weigh the same. Mayonnaise is just bigger.
OP: ???
1 -
I think the human brain is designed to try and take short cuts. In some ways, it helps us figure out more efficient ways to complete tasks, freeing up time. For example, using farm equipment allows farmers to be more productive, produce more crops, make more money, and feed more people.
Unfortunately, when it comes to weight loss, there are no short cuts. Unsuccessful individuals keep searching for something that doesn't exist, and weight loss companies are all too happy to capitalize on this.
Combine this with the fact most people, especially ones who don't track there intakes, are really bad at estimating how much they are truly eating, a culture where cheap calorically dense extreme portions are ubiquitous, and a complete unwillingness to take responsibility for ones actions and you have exhibit A: the obesity epidemic.3 -
Well, not all vintage info is good. I have a 1940's cookbook that has similar menus but recommends to use mineral oil in place of the oil in dressings and mayonnaise.rainbowbow wrote: »Someone mentioned the 60's. Can i just say, atleast back then when companies were trying to sell you something they still provided you (somewhat) reasonable information.
Mineral oil is a great laxative. Probably no one back then on such a diet was as obsessed with their bowels as Americans are today on current diets sans the recommendation, based on the commercials aired. 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions