Fitness Misconceptions that drive you nuts?
Replies
-
I also get that squats and dead lifts are excellent exercises but they are not the end-all-be-all of exercise.
shut up and get out!!!
You're WRONG. squats and dead lifts are the best thing ever.
well- and pull ups.
I'm pretty sure jesus squats. so if jesus squats- you should too.
I'm not denying they aren't good. I rather enjoy them myself but there are other exercises out there too.0 -
I don't mix SI units up. Just because I didn't use the exact same words as you did, doesn't mean I don't know basic physics, chemistry, biology and more. Who brought up being a blast at cocktail parties? I most certainly didn't.Your rhetoric is sad. Instead of sticking to the topic at hand, you make it personal and insult me. I'm a blast at parties and I'm also the one, who avoids your type, the one that needs to insult others to boost their ego.
No. I pointed out that you claimed to be a scientist, and yet confused extraordinarily basic concepts like mass and weight WHILE you were criticizing people for not expressly differentiating between weight and density.
My point, which I'm sure you got very clearly, was that - despite your obvious inability to distinguish between mass and weight - I understood your point. I extended to you a courtesy you are unwilling to show others.
I stuck to the topic at hand. What you didn't like is that you embarrassed yourself by mixing up weight and mass and therefore made my point for me. I didn't insult you: I merely pointed out the petard upon which you hoisted yourself.
Have a nice day.0 -
BAW HA HA HA HA HA
Getting a lot of mileage out of pedantic- watched Family Guy last night did you?
Some of us don't get our vocabulary from Family Guy. Pedantic is an accurate description of your behavior. So that's what I'm calling it.And I'm really curious what "real" world do you live in? And how is it different than mine- but put that aside for a moment and in my 'fake' world... We regularly DO have to explain things- frequently, in very basic 3rd grade steps.
And just to be clear- and spell this out for you- by in my "fake world" I mean here on forums AND at my daily job... as an engineer.
If being an engineer is supposed to somehow bolster your argument, then you failed at doing so. You could be the world's top neurosurgeon for all I care. It doesn't change one whit of your behavior.I see you're new here... you'll figure it out at some point I expect.
Figure what out? That you think laughing at people using a common shorthand for comparing the densities of objects by talking about their weight makes you somehow smarter or superior to them? Sorry. But I've been around on the planet long enough to know that people who refuse to admit that they completely understand the concept being communicated are more interested in expressing their own ego rather than attempting to actually engage in effective communication.
Which was exactly my point all along. Thank you for reiterating it.0 -
I don't mix SI units up. Just because I didn't use the exact same words as you did, doesn't mean I don't know basic physics, chemistry, biology and more. Who brought up being a blast at cocktail parties? I most certainly didn't.
Have a nice day.
Re-read your post. Yes you did. We were talking about "weight," and you responded with "mass." I didn't make that basic mistake. You did. Yet you want to criticize others for making an equally basic equivalance. You just somehow think you're better or smarter because you make different errors in communication than they do. Color me unimpressed.
Have you looked in a mirror lately? It turns out you're human like everyone else, and maybe - just maybe - you shouldn't be living in a glass house when you're looking to throw stones.0 -
I see you're new here... you'll figure it out at some point I expect.Figure what out? That you think laughing at people using a common shorthand for comparing the densities of objects by talking about their weight makes you somehow smarter or superior to them? Sorry. But I've been around on the planet long enough to know that people who refuse to admit that they completely understand the concept being communicated are more interested in expressing their own ego rather than attempting to actually engage in effective communication.
Which was exactly my point all along. Thank you for reiterating it.
I think the problem you're having here is that you assume people are purposely pretending they don't know the difference between weight and density. A lot of people don't. A lot of people hear "what weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?" and they will instantly say "lead".
It's wonderful that you're so intelligent and that you assume the rest of the world is too. But it just isn't.0 -
Lifting heavy weights will make you huge!
On one hand they complement me on how "skinny" yet toned I've become, and they ask me how. I tell them lifting heavy has made a real difference and they say no, no it will make you huge! Duh!
XD I love that the proof they're wrong is right in front of their face and they still insist on believing the lie.
So I guess Bodybuilder's never lift, they just go fishing.. hmmm.. interesting.
:huh:0 -
The idea that you can 'trick' your body. Or 'shock' it.
.....jump start it. :laugh:
You need a cleanse pill to do that.
0 -
How people think that the calorie burn number on their Polar FT4 is perfect. Runs off laughing. :flowerforyou:
Sorry .. I have found it to be at times very very very wrong. And that was doing simple walking. Gave mine away to my sister.
People need to understand that it cannot measure calorie burn at all .. it can only measure heart rate. The calorie burn is just some guys math calculation, just like on every other device. They are often wrong.
This! and why spend the money on something that you can do manually! (for HR that is)0 -
I also get that squats and dead lifts are excellent exercises but they are not the end-all-be-all of exercise.
shut up and get out!!!
You're WRONG. squats and dead lifts are the best thing ever.
well- and pull ups.
I'm pretty sure jesus squats. so if jesus squats- you should too.
I'm not denying they aren't good. I rather enjoy them myself but there are other exercises out there too.
I know- I'm ribbing you a bit.
seen you around long enough figured you could probably handle it. You must deal with non-engineers if you have to explain things in basic 3rd grade steps.
My husband is a PE. I am not. He constantly has to draw pictures to explain things to me. I've been with him for 19 years and I still don't know what it is he does.
I work for the gubment- so lots of lots of people- none engineers and people who are supposed to be smart and can't figure out how to PDF a document and won't bother trying to TRY for themselves. Yes- it happens A.LOT. sometimes it makes me brain hurts- and unfortunately it isn't a matter of intelligence it's a matter of perception and how you process information. I deal with a lot of smart people who don't think the same way and it's sometimes hard- because it definitely resorts to pen and paper- most of the time it's fine- I get it- but sometimes... gosh... it makes my head hurt!!!
Good lord- you're one of those posters- find you want to play break apart the quote- we'll do so.Some of us don't get our vocabulary from Family Guy. Pedantic is an accurate description of your behavior. So that's what I'm calling it.
It had more to do with the fact it's the ONLY word you've been drawing on.
And I see nothing wrong with using TV to learn new words though- why begrudge someone from learning something new?
PS: nice passive aggressive- I don't get my vocabulary from Family Guy- it's just next to them, you're the only one I know who uses that word SO much.
My behavior isn't at question here honestly- you're making what's tantamount to a personal (this is the second one by the way you've made) attack on someone- that is NOT relevant to the discussion, so good job for completely side stepping the ACTUAL issue of dealing with people using the wrong words to properly explain a concept. Either you understand the concept or you do not.If being an engineer is supposed to somehow bolster your argument, then you failed at doing so. You could be the world's top neurosurgeon for all I care. It doesn't change one whit of your behavior.
And yes- as someone who is in a scientific field- It is/was relevant to the conversation.Which was exactly my point all along. Thank you for reiterating it.
Actually- you haven't made ANY point- other than you don't understand how it's important to use the proper terms to explain concepts to people.
You've done a great job at circumventing ANYTHING relevant to discussing why it's important (or not for your argument) and simple discussed that you think we are being petty.
But thanks for trying!!!0 -
I think the problem you're having here is that you assume people are purposely pretending they don't know the difference between weight and density. A lot of people don't. A lot of people hear "what weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?" and they will instantly say "lead".
It's wonderful that you're so intelligent and that you assume the rest of the world is too. But it just isn't.
Why do people make that mistake? Because they're not listening for the "pound of" part of the statement: in their heads they are conflating density and weight. That doesn't make them less intelligent: it makes them less scientifically rigorous or perhaps not as careful at listening as they could be.
It doesn't mean they didn't understand the concept at all. On the contrary, when you said "weight" they automatically imputed "density" to the question. *THIS* is precisely the point I am trying to make. To pretend that Average Joe doesn't understand density is faux intellectualism. He might answer that question wrong precisely *because" he understands that lead is more dense than feathers. If he didn't, then he would have answered differently.
There's a reason why "which weighs more a pound of lead or a pound of feathers" is considered a trick question. Because it takes advantage of a human being's natural tendency to filter and most people hear "lead vs. feathers" and answer accordingly.
If you wanted to laugh at someone for getting that question wrong, you could have yourself a good chortle here. Which is what pedants like to hang their hat on. But is that the way you treat someone you know who conflated the two concepts? Would you really make it a running joke on a website because they didn't use the scientifically correct terminology? No. You'd accept that they understand the basics of what is being communicated and you would move on. But on the internet, everyone wants to be a tough guy and show how much smarter or better than they are than the other guy, so "let's make this our little inside joke to laugh at people" stuff like this gets started.
I totally get that I'm not playing the game the way that the inside jokesters want me to. And clearly at least a couple of people are very upset with me for pointing out their own hypocrisy on the issue. But this little "inside joke" is saying a lot more about the people telling it than it does about the people who they're telling the joke about. Maybe it's about time the jokesters understood that.
That is the issue here, and why I mentioned it as something that gets on my nerves.0 -
Running will make your uterus fall out!!! It's a classic!
This would be epic. I'm totally done with the darned thing anyway.0 -
My 21-year-old daughter was told by a "trainer" at our gym that "Because you're a girl, you should do lots of reps with light weights." I was livid when she told me about it! Luckily she knew he was completely ignorant and just laughed him off.0
-
oh we just got religious up in here with jokes telling more about the jokesters than the jokes.
oh Lord.0 -
Lifting makes women huge.
Showed an example of that to my wife yesterday. A fitness model that works out at my gym was buying something at a store, and was in line behind us.
My wife was amazed when I told her that this woman behind us lifts heavier and with an intensity that I can't yet match.0 -
It had more to do with the fact it's the ONLY word you've been drawing on.
And I see nothing wrong with using TV to learn new words though- why begrudge someone from learning something new?
PS: nice passive aggressive- I don't get my vocabulary from Family Guy- it's just next to them, you're the only one I know who uses that word SO much.
You were the one who was trying to be insulting by bringing up Family Guy. You don't get to whine about me responding to it. If you didn't like it, you shouldn't have gone there. It was your choice.My behavior isn't at question here honestly- you're making what's tantamount to a personal (this is the second one by the way you've made) attack on someone- that is NOT relevant to the discussion, so good job for completely side stepping the ACTUAL issue of dealing with people using the wrong words to properly explain a concept. Either you understand the concept or you do not.
And yes- as someone who is in a scientific field- It is/was relevant to the conversation.
1) No it wasn't. It was a complete logical fallacy - appeal to authority. I have my own credentials I bring to the table. The difference between us is that my argument isn't so weak that I felt the only way to bolster it was by bringing them up. Being an engineer means you took some science classes in college. So did a lot of people. Including me. You don't like having been called out on it. But it doesn't change the fact that you did it in the first place.
2) I didn't make any personal attacks. I responded to *your* statement. I said it was irrelevant. And this is what you regard as a personal attack? Really? You should really brush up on what the words mean if that's what you believe it to be.Actually- you haven't made ANY point- other than you don't understand how it's important to use the proper terms to explain concepts to people.
You've done a great job at circumventing ANYTHING relevant to discussing why it's important (or not for your argument) and simple discussed that you think we are being petty.
Actually, *I* was the one who brought up the point. So the original point was mine to begin with. You responded with the intellectual equivalent of "nuh uh, because I'm an engineer and I say so." If that's what you regard as making a point or presenting an argument, then we truly are done here.
But thanks for trying!!!
[/quote]0 -
This content has been removed.
-
And I'm driven nuts by the people, who yell about science, proper science, citing the right places, calculating TDEE and all its components, shooting down anything and everything "alternative", but who fail totally to defend chemistry on high-school level (yeah, it isn't even taught on uni level). I'm a scientist and wouldn't dream of pushing this "yeah just call mass and density the same thing" message here, so I don't participate in the muscle/fat discussions anymore. It is as dense (pun very much intended) as to insist distance equals volume or time is the same as speed. Science is precise and in every other context that message is pushed here, but not when it comes to density. Pathetically hypocritical.
<snip>
You must be *loads* of fun at a cocktail party.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you......0 -
actually that is very possible if they are still over eating or building muscle at the same rate as losing fat. 5lbs muscle is the same weight as 5lbs of fat. but I've seen to many use it as an excuse instead of what is actually happening.
You can't build muscle and lose fat at the same time. You have to eat at a surplus to build muscle and you have to eat at a deficit to lose fat. If you're trying to lose, you might see strength gains as you're lifting but mostly you're burning the fat covering the muscle you do have so you can see it.0 -
I can't pick one because every person I know believes them all and you can't change their minds.
I once got in a serious argument with my bowling team (best friends, 2 nurses and a biologist) when I said meal timing doesn't matter. I showed them research that proved that breakfast doesn't jump-start your metabolism and the biologist said, "well that research is wrong". :explode: That same girl told me that I was gaining weight because I was lifting weights and that I needed cardio to burn fat.
Yes, this is a biologist.0 -
"I don't want to lift, 'cos I don't want to have muscle . . . or get bulky"0
-
Running will make your uterus fall out!!! It's a classic!
apparently so does heavy lifting.
so what are we supposed to do exactly?
Put a cork in it I guess.
omg dying :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
And I'm driven nuts by the people, who yell about science, proper science, citing the right places, calculating TDEE and all its components, shooting down anything and everything "alternative", but who fail totally to defend chemistry on high-school level (yeah, it isn't even taught on uni level). I'm a scientist and wouldn't dream of pushing this "yeah just call mass and density the same thing" message here, so I don't participate in the muscle/fat discussions anymore. It is as dense (pun very much intended) as to insist distance equals volume or time is the same as speed. Science is precise and in every other context that message is pushed here, but not when it comes to density. Pathetically hypocritical.
I suppose you're equally as pedantic about people making the equivalance between mass and weight despite the fact that they are entirely different measurements? Because you just made that equivalance by using the terms interchangeably. (Because we were talking about weight, not mass.)
See how annoyingly pedantic it is to nitpick what someone says by vainly attempting to intellectually "one up" somebody by attempting to parse every single word they say?
Yeah. I understood what you meant. But that's not what you *said*. Should I now make hundreds of posts about how people think that mass and weight are the same thing? No. Because I'm not a pedantic jerk. Just pointing out your hypocrisy.
Thank you for making my point for me.
You must be *loads* of fun at a cocktail party.
I will avoid both you.0 -
If you're dieting and seeing the numbers going down, is it not true you are in fact losing both mass and weight? You lose mass from your body and subsequently your weight (mass times gravitational acceleration) also goes down...0
-
they are proportional but they are not the same thing, weight depends on the gravitational pull of the celestial body you are onIf you're dieting and seeing the numbers going down, is it not true you are in fact losing both mass and weight? You lose mass from your body and subsequently your weight (mass times gravitational acceleration) also goes down...
mass on earth = mass on mars
weight on earth =/= weight on mars0 -
How people think that the calorie burn number on their Polar FT4 is perfect. Runs off laughing. :flowerforyou:
Sorry .. I have found it to be at times very very very wrong. And that was doing simple walking. Gave mine away to my sister.
People need to understand that it cannot measure calorie burn at all .. it can only measure heart rate. The calorie burn is just some guys math calculation, just like on every other device. They are often wrong.
I have wondered about this one for a while. Because I started in very bad shape, I didn't have to work very hard to get my heart rate up. I was working hard for me, but someone in great shape might have to work way harder to get their heart rate up to the same level. So how could we be burning the same number of calories based on heart rate?0 -
Lets say you take 2 people X and Y.
X says something snarky to Y and Y ignores them.
- everybody thinks X is a jerk
Y says something snarky to X
- everybody thinks Y is a jerk
X says something snarky to Y and Y replies with something snarky back
- everybody thinks "what a couple of ****s"0 -
they are proportional but they are not the same thing, weight depends on the gravitational pull of the celestial body you are onIf you're dieting and seeing the numbers going down, is it not true you are in fact losing both mass and weight? You lose mass from your body and subsequently your weight (mass times gravitational acceleration) also goes down...
mass on earth = mass on mars
weight on earth =/= weight on mars
Of course. But we can make a reasonable assumption that everyone on MFP is also on Earth. It's the trend.
And I think the point was that even on Mars, if you lose mass, you also lose weight, comparative to your previous weight also measured on Mars.0 -
My ex-Mother In Law (who is a wonderful person) genuinely worried about my lungs freezing from running outside in cold weather. :laugh:0
-
says you. i've been on the moon base since 2004
they are proportional but they are not the same thing, weight depends on the gravitational pull of the celestial body you are onIf you're dieting and seeing the numbers going down, is it not true you are in fact losing both mass and weight? You lose mass from your body and subsequently your weight (mass times gravitational acceleration) also goes down...
mass on earth = mass on mars
weight on earth =/= weight on mars
Of course. But we can make a reasonable assumption that everyone on MFP is also on Earth. It's the trend.0 -
actually that is very possible if they are still over eating or building muscle at the same rate as losing fat. 5lbs muscle is the same weight as 5lbs of fat. but I've seen to many use it as an excuse instead of what is actually happening.
You can't build muscle and lose fat at the same time. You have to eat at a surplus to build muscle and you have to eat at a deficit to lose fat. If you're trying to lose, you might see strength gains as you're lifting but mostly you're burning the fat covering the muscle you do have so you can see it.
You can do it if you are eating at the top of your maintenance range so that you are wobbling between over and under eating. I did it for 12 weeks, started and ended bang on the same weight and lost a pathetic 2.5 pounds of fat and gained 2.5 pounds of muscle (according to a hydrostatic assessment). During the 12 weeks, I went up a couple of pounds and then down a couple of pounds a couple times.
You can't do it if you are eating at a deficit, unless you are a newbie or extremely overweight.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions