The DEBUNKING thread.........myths that need to be trashed

James_1954

LauraMarie, thanks for your thoughtful example. Please allow me to discuss it a little.

I think we have to distinguish carefully between the quantity "work" as formulated in Newtonian physics and "work" as we intuitively and colloquially understand it. I'm wanting to call the first "physical" work, but that won't work so well, since all of us here at MFP are concerned with matters that are very much "physical:" our bodies and what they do, and what they need to do it. So, let's talk about "Newtonian work." Newtonian work has a very specific definition: it's the scalar product of two vectors: a displacement vector (that's the one that goes from an object's initial position to its final position) and the force vector that's applied to the object. The "scalar" product means that the product is not a vector; it's simply a quantity that is equal to the magnitude of the one vector, times the magnitude of the other, times the cosine of the angle between them. If the two vectors point in the same direction, the angle between them is zero, the cosine of zero is one, and the work is positive, and is equal to the force times the distance. If they point in the opposite directions, the angle between them is 180°, the cosine of 180° is negative one, and the work is negative, and is again the force times the distance. If the force is perpendicular to the displacement, the angle is 90°, and cos(90°) is zero, so no work is done. That's the situation when an object moves some level (horizontal) distance; the gravitational force, which is vertical (straight down) is perpendicular to the (horizontal) displacement, and does no work. If the gravitational force does no work, the gravitational potential energy of the object is unchanged. So, we can call a level surface a gravitational "equipotential," meaning that the gravitational potential is the same at every point on the surface.

Now, let's talk about "work" in the second sense: "work" as we experience and intuitively understand it. For clarity, I would like to call it "effort." It is sometimes related to Newtonian work, and sometimes is not. For example: if I go to the well, let a bucket down on a rope, let it fill with nice, cool water, and then haul it up, I am doing work on that full bucket. I'm exerting an upward force on it (using the rope). Let's use evil English-system units here: suppose the bucket weighs 15 lb, and the well is 30 ft deep: I will do 450 ft·lb of work in raising the bucket. I will experience "effort" in proportion to that work. Now, there is no unit for "effort" existing, that I know of, so let's just agree to measure "effort" in LauraMaries (LM), and say that in doing 450 ft·lb of Newtonian work, I expend 450 LM of effort. Suppose further that, tomorrow when I again draw up a bucket of water, I only pull it halfway up when my bowling buddy stops by and wants to talk. While I'm talking, I just hold the bucket in place. When he goes away, I finish pulling the bucket up. My "effort" meter continued to run while I was holding the bucket halfway up and talking. When I'm all finished, my arms are telling me that pulling the bucket up cost me 450 LM, just like before, PLUS an additional 200 LM for holding the thing halfway up, so now I'm 650 LM's worth of tired. The Newtonian work I did was the same, but my effort was larger.

Let's look at your examples. When I walk, as you say, the center of mass of my leg alternately rises and falls. I have to do positive Newtonian work to make it go up. Since I don't let it accelerate downward (free fall), but insist that it descend with constant velocity, I also have to do (negative) Newtonian work as it descends. The effect of doing work on my leg muscles does not depend at all on the "sign" (positive or negative) of the work; what it costs me, nutritionally and in terms of effort, depends only on the absolute value or magnitude of the work. So I have to do Newtonian work to walk on level ground, AND I have to expend effort. But when I bear a static load (by simply standing up, or holding a bowling ball out at arm's length, or planking), I do no Newtonian work, because there's no displacement (the first vector from the definition above is zero). However, any of these activities result in my expending effort, and my body will change as a result of any of them. Otherwise, we wouldn't do planks (and oh, how often I wish my "abs" instructor at the Y would forget about them -- my God, how that woman does love to plank us!).

Finally, when a geological fault is "building up" energy, that's not, strictly, potential energy; potential energy is always the mechanical energy that an object acquires due to its location with respect to a field (gravitational or electrostatic). What does increase over time is the pressure (force divided by surface area) on a rock structure. Eventually, when the force exerted on the structure by this geological pressure exceeds the very large static frictional forces that hold it in place, it breaks loose and moves, with the catastrophic results well-known to us all.

TrainingWithTonya

"Stretching prevents injuries."

... Warming up prior to exercise and increasing blood flow to the muscles is actually more conducive to injury prevention. I'm not suggesting that you eliminate stretching. ...

That's interesting, and it's something I've read from time to time. I guess my question is: what does a "warmup" look like? Is it basically a slower or easier version of the activity we're warming up for, or what?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

A warm up is designed to get the blood pumping stronger to all the areas of the body. Primarily warm up and cool down are for your heart so it can handle the changes in rate, stroke volume, total peripheral resistance, blood pressure, etc. Before you go into super intense activities with certain muscles, they need to be primed kind of like you prime your lawn mower before starting it. Get the blood pumping there to provide all the necessary components to the individual cells for producing the ATP needed to fuel the movements. Personally, I like a dynamic warm-up, where you get all the areas of the body moving through a full range of motion. It looks kind of silly and will get you stared at in some gyms, but here is my favorite sequence of dynamic warm up exercises. If the whole picture doesn't show up here, just right click and save as (it's a jpg picture file) so you can open it in your photo program to see the whole thing.

I TOTALLY agree that dynamic stretching is the way to go (for me at least). I try to save my slower, gaining flexibility type stretching for the cool down.

But your number 1 motion makes me cry! You are putting so much pressure on the discs in your lumbar spine that way!!! If you have a very strong core (especially transverse abdominus and quadratus lumborum), you probably won't damage your lower back - but if you don't (like perhaps the person who asked the question about a good warmup routine), you could easily slip a disc!

I love stretch number 4, though - great for dynamically stretching the iliopsoas, especially the iliacus which is much harder to stretch and chronically tight on about 90% of the population. (Edit to add: by stretch 4, I mean the one titled "Lunge 3".)

It actually doesn't put any more pressure on the discs then a sit up or the seated abdominal machine at the gym. Where people tend to have a problem with the low back is when they don't do a dynamic movement through a full range of motion like this prior to doing those exercises.

ninerbuff

Another: "IF YOU AREN'T SWEATING, THEN YOU AREN'T WORKING OUT HARD ENOUGH"

Sweat is used to cool you down and isn't a total indicator if a person isn't working out hard enough. There are some that sweat more than others and the temperature you work out in will total affect your sweating. Work out in warmer environments and you sweat more. Work out in cooler environments and you sweat less.
One of the best ways to debunk this myth is comparing Bikram yoga to swimming. Many sweat tons, in Bikram yoga and would think they are burning a ton of calories. This would be false. You don't sweat in a pool because you normally can't raise your skin temperature any higher than the temperature of the water. But you do burn a good amount of calories because of the resistance.

ninerbuff

More:

"FUNCTIONAL TRAINING AND UNSTABLE SURFACE TRAINING TARGET YOUR CORE".

Actually if you became a power lifter, your core would be stronger than any functional or unstable surface training. As of late, there has been a big flux of Bosu, Stability ball, and unstable surface training going on because a lot of the "NEW" Personal Trainers getting accreditation are instructed on it. The snow job here is that your mid section will look much more "leaner" and "tighter" because of it.
Training on unstable surfaces don't target your core any more than if you trained your core directly. In fact unstable surface don't allow many to be able to use a heavier weight for an exercise due to balance issues. While it's important to incorporate stabilizers on any exercise, if the exercise you're trying to attempt doesn't target and stress the intended muscle it's designed for then incorporating the stabilizers is useless.
EX. Stability ball chest press- usually done with dumbells, many will "feel" their core but nothing in their chest after the exercise mostly because the weight they used wasn't enough to stress the pectoral muscles. With added weight they wouldn't be able to balance themselves. So if the pectorals aren't getting the workout, what's the purpose of the exercise? The answer from many a new PT is "to target your core". Well then why not just do direct abdominal exercises?
Most don't know that Functional and unstable training was initially used for REHABILITATION. Some how it found it's way into mainstream Fitness and now is a fore front to many a gym.

JNick77

More:

"FUNCTIONAL TRAINING AND UNSTABLE SURFACE TRAINING TARGET YOUR CORE".

Actually if you became a power lifter, your core would be stronger than any functional or unstable surface training. As of late, there has been a big flux of Bosu, Stability ball, and unstable surface training going on because a lot of the "NEW" Personal Trainers getting accreditation are instructed on it. The snow job here is that your mid section will look much more "leaner" and "tighter" because of it.
Training on unstable surfaces don't target your core any more than if you trained your core directly. In fact unstable surface don't allow many to be able to use a heavier weight for an exercise due to balance issues. While it's important to incorporate stabilizers on any exercise, if the exercise you're trying to attempt doesn't target and stress the intended muscle it's designed for then incorporating the stabilizers is useless.
EX. Stability ball chest press- usually done with dumbells, many will "feel" their core but nothing in their chest after the exercise mostly because the weight they used wasn't enough to stress the pectoral muscles. With added weight they wouldn't be able to balance themselves. So if the pectorals aren't getting the workout, what's the purpose of the exercise? The answer from many a new PT is "to target your core". Well then why not just do direct abdominal exercises?
Most don't know that Functional and unstable training was initially used for REHABILITATION. Some how it found it's way into mainstream Fitness and now is a fore front to many a gym.

I'm glad somebody said it! I see trainers at my gym having their clients do stupid **** like this all the time and I can only hope their clients ask for their mone back. If you want to work your pecs then do pectoral related exercise. If you want to work your core then work your core.

ninerbuff

I'm glad somebody said it! I see trainers at my gym having their clients do stupid **** like this all the time and I can only hope their clients ask for their mone back. If you want to work your pecs then do pectoral related exercise. If you want to work your core then work your core.

Yep, reason for this thread is to debunk some of the info that has people confused. Anecdotal evidence ain't evidence and unless there's some peer viewed scientific based trials and studies, most of the myths is just what most people learned from hearing it from untrained people who think they are in-the-know.

fteale

I have been meaning to post that about "long, lean muscles" for ages. It's such bollocks! Muscles are muscles. Thanks for pointing that out!

ninerbuff

I have been meaning to post that about "long, lean muscles" for ages. It's such bollocks! Muscles are muscles. Thanks for pointing that out!

Yeah, I hate infomercials that say "You will build long lean muscles". Totally telling naive buyers what they want to hear. I'd love to hear them say that to a vertically challenged person.

SallieBeige

James, you are a genius!
I love your posts Keep 'em coming

Izzy62

This is all so interesting

I'm really sorry James but physics scared me at school and I have to confess to skim reading some of your posts, anything that uses letters instead of numbers just seems wrong to my poor little brain xx

Anyhow, my question to all you good people is...

I had knee surgery on June 1st, and was braced and on crutches for nearly 8 weeks. As you can imagine my left leg muscles appear to be non-existant at the moment. What has happened to this muscle, has it disappeared, or shrunk or what? I'm still trying to lose weight but should I eat more now I'm trying to get my leg strong - would this help the muscle build, or recover (whichever they need to do) faster?

At present I'm going to the gym every other day and doing stationary bike and then squats, leg press, abductor, adductor (sp), the quad lifty thing (sorry not sure what that machine is called) and then hamstring curls followed by a lot of stretching. I'm also going to pilates or yogalates a couple of times a week. I throw in some arm exercise also, although they do feel like they are getting ignored a bit at the moment.

I have to say I was really scared to see how much muscle appears to heve been "lost" in such a short time.

Thanks,

Izzy

joejccva71

I'm going to add my nutrition debunked myths to this thread. If only you can edit you original post and just add mine to the bottom, but ill just reply and put them on last page. Lol. Will do it when I get to work.

joejccva71

NUTRITION MYTHS DEBUNKED:


1. Meal timing is irrelevant. - Yes it may have "worked for you" to eat 5-6 small meals a day to "stoke the metabolic fire", but it's completely unneccessary. Alot of people go crazy trying to fit 5-6 or even 7 meals a day into their daily routine and it does not matter. There are folks that eat 2 or 3 days a time and have lost alot of weight just fine.

2. Eating late at night is bad for you and will make you fat[/b[ - This is false. In fact there are studies that have shown that people actually lost more weight by eating late at night as opposed to eating breakfast.

Study 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3508745
Study 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1550038
Study 3: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9040548
Study 4: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007
Study 5: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475137 (This is the one where more people had greater weight loss eating more carbs at dinner.)


3. Eat ONLY 40-50g of protein per meal - There is alot of misinformation out there where people say "You should only eat 40-50g of protein per meal as that is the most the body can handle at once."

SURVEY SAYS: "X"

This is again wrong. There is no difference between eating 20g per meal or 100g per meal as long as you obtain your minimum protein macro intake per day. Now there is a difference between eating 100g of protein per meal and eating 400-500g of protein in one meal which is WAY MORE than the body should consume throughout an entire day.

(More on macros later)

4. I can't eat fat, it will make me fat!! - I thoroughly enjoy reading people's blogs and/or posts/articles regarding fat consumption. This is so incredibly false that if you just do a LITTLE research you will find this out. We all need fat in our diet. Fats are required to produce and build new cells. They are a source of energy and are critical in the transmission of nerve impulses and brain function and development. They are also involved in the synthesis of other essential molecules such as hormones. Fats provide sanity, satiety, energy, and libido!

You should be ingesting .35-.75g of dietary fat per lb of bodyweight per day. You should try to get your fats from fat sources such as almonds, fish oil, fatty fish, flaxseed, hempseed, canola, olive oil, eggs, lean meats and poultry and dairy products.

5. Saturated Fats are bad for you and cause CVD and CHD - One of my favorite myths debunked. No, saturated fats are NOT bad for you and they do NOT cause Cardiovascular and Coronary Heart Disease. Trans fat on the other hand is an unsaturated fat and is the worst kind. This is where McDonalds french fries come into play.

6. Protein causes fat loss - I must eat more protein! - This is also wrong. Protein itself does not cause fat loss. Eating a calorie deficit under your maintenance does. Proteins are the building blocks of muscle. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. All of the antibodies and enzymes, and many of the hormones in the body are proteins. They provide for the transport of nutrients, oxygen and waste throughout the body. They provide the structure and contracting capability of muscles. They also provide collagen to connective tissues of the body and to the tissues of the skin, hair and nails.

7. I have to eat super clean to lose weight/burn fat - You don't have to eat super clean to burn fat and lose weight. As long as you hit your macros everyday while eating at a calorie deficit from what your maintenance is you will lose weight. I know natural bodybuilders that eat bacon, drink chocolate milk, eat burritos while watching their calorie intake/macros and they still cut up to contest condition.

8. I have to do lots of cardio to burn the fat off. - Truth be told, weight loss and fat burning are 95% diet and 5% training. You do NOT have to step inside a gym to lose weight if your diet is in check. Period. Cardio training, Aerobics, Weight Training are not the cause of losing weight. Make a mental picture of your heart with arms and it picks up a dumbell and starts lifting it over and over. Thats cardio in a quick nutshell. Obviously there is a little more to it then that.

Note: You could run outside in 100 degree heat for hours on end, run on that treadmill until you sweat so much you can water plants, but NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING will happen regarding weight loss if your diet is not right. Period. End of story.

ninerbuff

This is all so interesting

I'm really sorry James but physics scared me at school and I have to confess to skim reading some of your posts, anything that uses letters instead of numbers just seems wrong to my poor little brain xx

Anyhow, my question to all you good people is...

I had knee surgery on June 1st, and was braced and on crutches for nearly 8 weeks. As you can imagine my left leg muscles appear to be non-existant at the moment. What has happened to this muscle, has it disappeared, or shrunk or what? I'm still trying to lose weight but should I eat more now I'm trying to get my leg strong - would this help the muscle build, or recover (whichever they need to do) faster?

At present I'm going to the gym every other day and doing stationary bike and then squats, leg press, abductor, adductor (sp), the quad lifty thing (sorry not sure what that machine is called) and then hamstring curls followed by a lot of stretching. I'm also going to pilates or yogalates a couple of times a week. I throw in some arm exercise also, although they do feel like they are getting ignored a bit at the moment.

I have to say I was really scared to see how much muscle appears to heve been "lost" in such a short time.

Thanks,

Izzy

When muscle isn't used it atrophies. But will diligent work you can "regain" it back.

SallieBeige

Please clarify ... maybe I have missed something here.

I am not obese - but very close to it.

I would like to loose weight and tone at the same time - are you saying here that I have to choose one or the other as I am not in the obese category?

I certainly dont want to stay borderline obese - nor to I want to go any more flabby than I already am which will happen if I loose some weight but dont gain any muscle.

So how should I be trying to proceed?

jg627

Please clarify ... maybe I have missed something here.

I am not obese - but very close to it.

I would like to loose weight and tone at the same time - are you saying here that I have to choose one or the other as I am not in the obese category?

I certainly dont want to stay borderline obese - nor to I want to go any more flabby than I already am which will happen if I loose some weight but dont gain any muscle.

So how should I be trying to proceed?

If you want to strength train, there's absolutely no sense in waiting until after you lose weight to do it unless you'e bedridden or something, but don't let being disabled hold you back either. I know people who are crippled and achieved some impressive muscle gains. If you want to do it, just do it. Doing cardio will help enhance your training. Do a good balance of both.

Some of this may have been covered already, but it lists specific case studies as well if you want to look them up: http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Myths.html

kellybones

bump to read at work tonight

ninerbuff

NUTRITION MYTHS DEBUNKED:


1. Meal timing is irrelevant. - Yes it may have "worked for you" to eat 5-6 small meals a day to "stoke the metabolic fire", but it's completely unneccessary. Alot of people go crazy trying to fit 5-6 or even 7 meals a day into their daily routine and it does not matter. There are folks that eat 2 or 3 days a time and have lost alot of weight just fine.

2. Eating late at night is bad for you and will make you fat[/b[ - This is false. In fact there are studies that have shown that people actually lost more weight by eating late at night as opposed to eating breakfast.

Study 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3508745
Study 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1550038
Study 3: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9040548
Study 4: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007
Study 5: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475137 (This is the one where more people had greater weight loss eating more carbs at dinner.)


3. Eat ONLY 40-50g of protein per meal - There is alot of misinformation out there where people say "You should only eat 40-50g of protein per meal as that is the most the body can handle at once."

SURVEY SAYS: "X"

This is again wrong. There is no difference between eating 20g per meal or 100g per meal as long as you obtain your minimum protein macro intake per day. Now there is a difference between eating 100g of protein per meal and eating 400-500g of protein in one meal which is WAY MORE than the body should consume throughout an entire day.

(More on macros later)

4. I can't eat fat, it will make me fat!! - I thoroughly enjoy reading people's blogs and/or posts/articles regarding fat consumption. This is so incredibly false that if you just do a LITTLE research you will find this out. We all need fat in our diet. Fats are required to produce and build new cells. They are a source of energy and are critical in the transmission of nerve impulses and brain function and development. They are also involved in the synthesis of other essential molecules such as hormones. Fats provide sanity, satiety, energy, and libido!

You should be ingesting .35-.75g of dietary fat per lb of bodyweight per day. You should try to get your fats from fat sources such as almonds, fish oil, fatty fish, flaxseed, hempseed, canola, olive oil, eggs, lean meats and poultry and dairy products.

5. Saturated Fats are bad for you and cause CVD and CHD - One of my favorite myths debunked. No, saturated fats are NOT bad for you and they do NOT cause Cardiovascular and Coronary Heart Disease. Trans fat on the other hand is an unsaturated fat and is the worst kind. This is where McDonalds french fries come into play.

6. Protein causes fat loss - I must eat more protein! - This is also wrong. Protein itself does not cause fat loss. Eating a calorie deficit under your maintenance does. Proteins are the building blocks of muscle. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. All of the antibodies and enzymes, and many of the hormones in the body are proteins. They provide for the transport of nutrients, oxygen and waste throughout the body. They provide the structure and contracting capability of muscles. They also provide collagen to connective tissues of the body and to the tissues of the skin, hair and nails.

7. I have to eat super clean to lose weight/burn fat - You don't have to eat super clean to burn fat and lose weight. As long as you hit your macros everyday while eating at a calorie deficit from what your maintenance is you will lose weight. I know natural bodybuilders that eat bacon, drink chocolate milk, eat burritos while watching their calorie intake/macros and they still cut up to contest condition.

8. I have to do lots of cardio to burn the fat off. - Truth be told, weight loss and fat burning are 95% diet and 5% training. You do NOT have to step inside a gym to lose weight if your diet is in check. Period. Cardio training, Aerobics, Weight Training are not the cause of losing weight. Make a mental picture of your heart with arms and it picks up a dumbell and starts lifting it over and over. Thats cardio in a quick nutshell. Obviously there is a little more to it then that.

Note: You could run outside in 100 degree heat for hours on end, run on that treadmill until you sweat so much you can water plants, but NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING will happen regarding weight loss if your diet is not right. Period. End of story.

In total agreement here! Lots of BS from some BRO SCIENCE trying to say otherwise.

ninerbuff

Please clarify ... maybe I have missed something here.

I am not obese - but very close to it.

I would like to loose weight and tone at the same time - are you saying here that I have to choose one or the other as I am not in the obese category?

I certainly dont want to stay borderline obese - nor to I want to go any more flabby than I already am which will happen if I loose some weight but dont gain any muscle.

So how should I be trying to proceed?

There isn't such a thing as "toning". I think it's perceived as having muscle without looking like it. Everyone has muscle. The condition it's in is the difference. If your muscle is worked out on a strong, it's not unconditioned. If you don't work out muscle, it's "soft" and unconditioned. Lifting weights will "harden" the muscle by causing it to "fill" out with the influx of water and glycogen.
So go ahead and lift those weights.

SallieBeige

Thanks, but are you saying that if I want to loose weight at the same time, those muscles will not develop because my body will keep using them for energy?
In which case, whats the point?

JNick77

Thanks, but are you saying that if I want to loose weight at the same time, those muscles will not develop because my body will keep using them for energy?
In which case, whats the point?

Your muscles will absolutely get stronger even if trying to lose weight. Your muscles will gain little to know "mass" which isn't the same thing. Your muscles will grow a little because they have to in order to get stronger you just won't get huge or anything.