Fitness myth pet peeves...
Replies
-
Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....
You mean it's more dense.
Or, it weighs more per volume.
Or it weighs more.
One of my pet peeves is people who like to be pedantic and say
" actually, muscle and fat weight the same, after all a pound of each... "
Well, yes if you have enough of them both to make a pound of each. But by that same definition a pound of Lead and a pound of Feathers...do feathers weight the same as lead? No.
If someone is comparing the weight of 2 different substances it should go without saying that they're comparing weight by volume, otherwise it just opens the door for reductio ad absurdum and nothing could be considered heavier than anything else.0 -
Edited : Deleting pointless argument.0
-
I was just discussing with my husband last night why I get so irrationally PISSED OFF at the notion of ***king BODY WRAPS. My idiot SILs hawk them on Facebook, and --completely aside from being supremely annoyed with them for treading on their friendship with me just to make a buck--I can't STAND how many ppl are falling for their crap pitches: "You can look like a model, with NO work, NO diet change, and NO effort!" :noway: :noway: :noway: I CALL BULLSH*T!!! Oh, the LAZINESS of people nowadays!!! Everybody wants the best of everything, but nobody wants to work for it or earn it.
There IS no magic, pill, miracle wrap, or innovative gadget that will make you lose fat, and I want to shake them until they get it through their thick heads.
What you said!0 -
Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....
You mean it's more dense.
Or, it weighs more per volume.
Or it weighs more.
One of my pet peeves is people who like to be pedantic and say
" actually, muscle and fat weight the same, after all a pound of each... "
Well, yes if you have enough of them both to make a pound of each. But by that same definition a pound of Lead and a pound of Feathers...do feathers weight the same as lead? No.
If someone is comparing the weight of 2 different substances it should go without saying that they're comparing weight by volume, otherwise it just opens the door for reductio ad absurdum and nothing could be considered heavier than anything else.
People like to assume that other people are stupid and don't understand about density. It makes them feel smarter.
no...words have meaning....it's best to use the correct words to convery what one is saying.0 -
Jesus Young lady did you read what I wrote? :sad: I wrote you can live without them,but they may help to meet your diet requirements....Lets put it into another perspective...have you tried to eat 3500+ calories with about 200g of protein? While you keep the macros in balance?? Let me guess,You haven'tTo be fair, i agree COMPLETELY with the creatine and PWO suggestion, BUT, a protein supplement or shake is absolutely unnecessary considering you are eating enough protein in your diet.
The only reason i would supplement protein (or ANYTHING for that matter) is if i was completely unable to get it in my diet naturally.
they are not necessary,nor absolutely unecessary...
sure you can just eat 750g of chicken breast which will give you that 200g of protein,but only around 1000 calories and no carbs...so the rest of the 2500 calories you will only eat from carbs and fat??it doesnt work that way..in each meal you have to optimise the amount of protein,carbs and fat from calories..which means 4-6 meals a day..can you cook that often every day??..besides there is nothing better after a hard weight training than a shake with a excellent balance of protein complex carbs and calories,mixed with only water will digest in your blood with a speed of which your super healthy home made meal will ever dream.after you tear your muscless you need them nutrients in your blood asap for optimal recovery and repair..but with no offence,while you ladies(most of you) think your pink,purple or whatever colored "heavy weight" dumbells are heavy weight,believe me you have no idea..BUT I mean no offense and everybodys goals are different do whatever you want to do but dont try change something that has been proved long time..What do you thing the "really big guys" such as those doing mr Olympia re doing to eat their calories? have you got any idea how much they eat?? 5000 - 8000 calories,maybe even more..they are PROS and they make living out of this,there is someone who is there all day just planing the meals and cooking for them..and guess what,every single one of them are still having protein shakes. ..Im seriously tired of repeating myself...I know no one will miss me,but Im done posting on this forums..
Milk varieties(skim/whole/icre cream) make it pretty easy to balance macros depending on whether you are cutting/bulking.
Only the cheapest of the cheap protein powders in bulk can match milk's cost effectiveness.0 -
Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....
You mean it's more dense.
Or, it weighs more per volume.
Or it weighs more.
One of my pet peeves is people who like to be pedantic and say
" actually, muscle and fat weight the same, after all a pound of each... "
Well, yes if you have enough of them both to make a pound of each. But by that same definition a pound of Lead and a pound of Feathers...do feathers weight the same as lead? No.
If someone is comparing the weight of 2 different substances it should go without saying that they're comparing weight by volume, otherwise it just opens the door for reductio ad absurdum and nothing could be considered heavier than anything else.
People like to assume that other people are stupid and don't understand about density. It makes them feel smarter.
no...words have meaning....it's best to use the correct words to convery what one is saying.
I undewrstand what you're saying, but surely in any conversation involving the difference in weight between 2 substances it's a given that we're discussing the wegiht by volume. fter al, as I said, if this isn't a given, then no solid substance can ever be considered as heavier than another without adding this qualification. The given comparison is simply an accepted linguistic norm.0 -
People only believing something to be true after they receive a link to an article.
Because Spinach didnt make Popeye strong until a study confirmed it. Before then it was just Broscience.
In the age of information and technology, i, personally like to do my research before automatically believing something. Besides, so many people are misinformed, or, a game of telephone happens (theyu recieve the information but they pass it on and it gets misunderstood and twisted), that i think it's better to play it safe by doing your research, no?
Theoretically that's a good idea, but the problem is that a lot of the studies that get linked to have poor methodology or the people linking to them ascribe values to them that aren't supported by the study. And most people don't actually read the study, they just assume since the person told them something and then provided a link, it must be true.
The other problem is that even if a person reads the entire study, if they have no training background they are unable to realize the flaws in the study. There are so many studies linked on this Site that I read in depth and my reaction is "who the **** trains like that???" It might have made sense to a scientist in a lab but no one in the gym works that way.
My favorite example is study that I've seen linked to about 200 times that proves nutrient timing doesn't exist..... except it mentions specific times that absorbtion is increased and it seems to assume a 1 day per week workout plan.0 -
Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....
You mean it's more dense.
Or, it weighs more per volume.
Or it weighs more.
One of my pet peeves is people who like to be pedantic and say
" actually, muscle and fat weight the same, after all a pound of each... "
Well, yes if you have enough of them both to make a pound of each. But by that same definition a pound of Lead and a pound of Feathers...do feathers weight the same as lead? No.
If someone is comparing the weight of 2 different substances it should go without saying that they're comparing weight by volume, otherwise it just opens the door for reductio ad absurdum and nothing could be considered heavier than anything else.
People like to assume that other people are stupid and don't understand about density. It makes them feel smarter.
no...words have meaning....it's best to use the correct words to convery what one is saying.
I undewrstand what you're saying, but surely in any conversation involving the difference in weight between 2 substances it's a given that we're discussing the wegiht by volume. fter al, as I said, if this isn't a given, then no solid substance can ever be considered as heavier than another without adding this qualification. The given comparison is simply an accepted linguistic norm.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm an accountant. I have worked on putting together documents that require precise wording, as people make decisions based on what's in those documents (think 8K's, 10K's, 10Q's, etc). Correct wording is important to me and many people like me.0 -
Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....
You mean it's more dense.
Or, it weighs more per volume.
Or it weighs more.
One of my pet peeves is people who like to be pedantic and say
" actually, muscle and fat weight the same, after all a pound of each... "
Well, yes if you have enough of them both to make a pound of each. But by that same definition a pound of Lead and a pound of Feathers...do feathers weight the same as lead? No.
If someone is comparing the weight of 2 different substances it should go without saying that they're comparing weight by volume, otherwise it just opens the door for reductio ad absurdum and nothing could be considered heavier than anything else.
People like to assume that other people are stupid and don't understand about density. It makes them feel smarter.
no...words have meaning....it's best to use the correct words to convery what one is saying.
I undewrstand what you're saying, but surely in any conversation involving the difference in weight between 2 substances it's a given that we're discussing the wegiht by volume. fter al, as I said, if this isn't a given, then no solid substance can ever be considered as heavier than another without adding this qualification. The given comparison is simply an accepted linguistic norm.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm an accountant. I have worked on putting together documents that require precise wording, as people make decisions based on what's in those documents (think 8K's, 10K's, 10Q's, etc). Correct wording is important to me and many people like me.
That's fair enpough, but you also have to recognise that linguistic norms and figures of speech have evolved over many years to allow for a universally understood " spoken shorthand ".
While there may be many people like you who place massive emphasis on the the impotance of technically correct wording, I'd be surprised if there aren't many more who recognise, without careful consideraion, the actual meaning when one of our spoken shortcuts is used. I'd also suggest that there are a hell of a lot of people out there ( and I don't include you in this as you've made your position clear ) who genuinely just like to correct people and will go for the " actually muscle and fat weigh the same.... " argument purely as a means to that end.0 -
Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....
You mean it's more dense.
Or, it weighs more per volume.
Or it weighs more.
One of my pet peeves is people who like to be pedantic and say
" actually, muscle and fat weight the same, after all a pound of each... "
Well, yes if you have enough of them both to make a pound of each. But by that same definition a pound of Lead and a pound of Feathers...do feathers weight the same as lead? No.
If someone is comparing the weight of 2 different substances it should go without saying that they're comparing weight by volume, otherwise it just opens the door for reductio ad absurdum and nothing could be considered heavier than anything else.
People like to assume that other people are stupid and don't understand about density. It makes them feel smarter.
no...words have meaning....it's best to use the correct words to convery what one is saying.
I undewrstand what you're saying, but surely in any conversation involving the difference in weight between 2 substances it's a given that we're discussing the wegiht by volume. fter al, as I said, if this isn't a given, then no solid substance can ever be considered as heavier than another without adding this qualification. The given comparison is simply an accepted linguistic norm.
Seems kind of obvious doesn't it....
To the accountant: You using the wrong form....0 -
Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....
You mean it's more dense.
Or, it weighs more per volume.
Or it weighs more.
One of my pet peeves is people who like to be pedantic and say
" actually, muscle and fat weight the same, after all a pound of each... "
Well, yes if you have enough of them both to make a pound of each. But by that same definition a pound of Lead and a pound of Feathers...do feathers weight the same as lead? No.
If someone is comparing the weight of 2 different substances it should go without saying that they're comparing weight by volume, otherwise it just opens the door for reductio ad absurdum and nothing could be considered heavier than anything else.
People like to assume that other people are stupid and don't understand about density. It makes them feel smarter.
no...words have meaning....it's best to use the correct words to convery what one is saying.
I undewrstand what you're saying, but surely in any conversation involving the difference in weight between 2 substances it's a given that we're discussing the wegiht by volume. fter al, as I said, if this isn't a given, then no solid substance can ever be considered as heavier than another without adding this qualification. The given comparison is simply an accepted linguistic norm.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm an accountant. I have worked on putting together documents that require precise wording, as people make decisions based on what's in those documents (think 8K's, 10K's, 10Q's, etc). Correct wording is important to me and many people like me.
That's fair enpough, but you also have to recognise that linguistic norms and figures of speech have evolved over many years to allow for a universally understood " spoken shorthand ".
While there may be many people like you who place massive emphasis on the the impotance of technically correct wording, I'd be surprised if there aren't many more who recognise, without careful consideraion, the actual meaning when one of our spoken shortcuts is used. I'd also suggest that there are a hell of a lot of people out there ( and I don't include you in this as you've made your position clear ) who genuinely just like to correct people and will go for the " actually muscle and fat weigh the same.... " argument purely as a means to that end.
you do realise that much miscommunication occurs when you make assumptions as to what others will assume?0 -
Edited : Deleting pointless argument.0
-
Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....
You mean it's more dense.
Or, it weighs more per volume.
Or it weighs more.
One of my pet peeves is people who like to be pedantic and say
" actually, muscle and fat weight the same, after all a pound of each... "
Well, yes if you have enough of them both to make a pound of each. But by that same definition a pound of Lead and a pound of Feathers...do feathers weight the same as lead? No.
If someone is comparing the weight of 2 different substances it should go without saying that they're comparing weight by volume, otherwise it just opens the door for reductio ad absurdum and nothing could be considered heavier than anything else.
People like to assume that other people are stupid and don't understand about density. It makes them feel smarter.
no...words have meaning....it's best to use the correct words to convery what one is saying.
I undewrstand what you're saying, but surely in any conversation involving the difference in weight between 2 substances it's a given that we're discussing the wegiht by volume. fter al, as I said, if this isn't a given, then no solid substance can ever be considered as heavier than another without adding this qualification. The given comparison is simply an accepted linguistic norm.
Seems kind of obvious doesn't it....
To the accountant: You using the wrong form....
Lol.
On a related note, the Irony of my spelling over the previous few posts while defending linguistic norms is not lost on me. And I thank the others involved for recognising that it's purely a typing deficiency and not making play of it in an attempt to discredit the actual points.0 -
sure...but then again, how many threads are in this forum where people are asking about how to do this or that because they misunderstand the "colloquiallism"?Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....
You mean it's more dense.
Or, it weighs more per volume.
Or it weighs more.
One of my pet peeves is people who like to be pedantic and say
" actually, muscle and fat weight the same, after all a pound of each... "
Well, yes if you have enough of them both to make a pound of each. But by that same definition a pound of Lead and a pound of Feathers...do feathers weight the same as lead? No.
If someone is comparing the weight of 2 different substances it should go without saying that they're comparing weight by volume, otherwise it just opens the door for reductio ad absurdum and nothing could be considered heavier than anything else.
People like to assume that other people are stupid and don't understand about density. It makes them feel smarter.
no...words have meaning....it's best to use the correct words to convery what one is saying.
I undewrstand what you're saying, but surely in any conversation involving the difference in weight between 2 substances it's a given that we're discussing the wegiht by volume. fter al, as I said, if this isn't a given, then no solid substance can ever be considered as heavier than another without adding this qualification. The given comparison is simply an accepted linguistic norm.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm an accountant. I have worked on putting together documents that require precise wording, as people make decisions based on what's in those documents (think 8K's, 10K's, 10Q's, etc). Correct wording is important to me and many people like me.
I write company policy documents, and previous to that I was writing legal ordering documents. So I understand that.
But surely you can draw the distinction between an online chit-chat forum, and a legal document? Conversation with you must be terribly dry and even frustrating if you cannot accept contextual clues as to someone's meaning.
I can imagine that most people would walk away the first time they said it rained 4 inches yesterday and you corrected them because it was actually 3.5 inches of rain, and .5 inches of sleet, so technically they should say 4 inches of precipitation. Can you see how that makes you sound?
Everyone involved in this discussion knows full well what is meant by 'muscle weighs more than fat'. Insisting that they are wrong just makes you sound like a pedant, and like you are trying to elevate yourself above others.
It's very easy for some to get confused, and you should recognize that a) accurate wording to convery the meaning is important and b) reducing misunderstandings is much more productive.0 -
Edited : Deleting pointless argument.0
-
I think the thread is getting a bit off-track, discussing semantics and what-not. Both parties have made their points. Let's move on, eh?
Also, I see a lot of people are mentioning that they are annoyed by the myth that drinking water helps in weight loss.
It indirectly, DOES help indeed. NOt that it burns calories directly, but rather, we often times mistake thirst for hunger and so unnecessarily take in more calories when what we really needed was water. Also, drinking water can help people who have problems with mindless eating and binging and eating out of boredom and emotional issues. For example, if I get a false hunger cue because I am bored or frustrated, I drink 2-4 glasses of water. This fills me up to the point where I'm so bloated that I don't want to consume anything else.0 -
"cardio makes you look good in clothes, heavy lifting makes you look good naked"
"more than 30 min of cardio is a waste"
"you'll never get the body you want without heavy lifting"
"light weights and high reps do nothing"0 -
Are you suggesting uncritical acceptance of everything we see in cartoons? :laugh:People only believing something to be true after they receive a link to an article.
Because Spinach didnt make Popeye strong until a study confirmed it. Before then it was just Broscience.0 -
That you need to make 3,8765 forum posts to prove that you've read fitness articles.0
-
party pooper.I think the thread is getting a bit off-track, discussing semantics and what-not. Both parties have made their points. Let's move on, eh? 0 -
Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....
You mean it's more dense.
Or, it weighs more per volume.
Or it weighs more.
One of my pet peeves is people who like to be pedantic and say
" actually, muscle and fat weight the same, after all a pound of each... "
Well, yes if you have enough of them both to make a pound of each. But by that same definition a pound of Lead and a pound of Feathers...do feathers weight the same as lead? No.
If someone is comparing the weight of 2 different substances it should go without saying that they're comparing weight by volume, otherwise it just opens the door for reductio ad absurdum and nothing could be considered heavier than anything else.
People like to assume that other people are stupid and don't understand about density. It makes them feel smarter.
no...words have meaning....it's best to use the correct words to convery what one is saying.
I undewrstand what you're saying, but surely in any conversation involving the difference in weight between 2 substances it's a given that we're discussing the wegiht by volume. fter al, as I said, if this isn't a given, then no solid substance can ever be considered as heavier than another without adding this qualification. The given comparison is simply an accepted linguistic norm.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm an accountant. I have worked on putting together documents that require precise wording, as people make decisions based on what's in those documents (think 8K's, 10K's, 10Q's, etc). Correct wording is important to me and many people like me.
That's fair enpough, but you also have to recognise that linguistic norms and figures of speech have evolved over many years to allow for a universally understood " spoken shorthand ".
While there may be many people like you who place massive emphasis on the the impotance of technically correct wording, I'd be surprised if there aren't many more who recognise, without careful consideraion, the actual meaning when one of our spoken shortcuts is used. I'd also suggest that there are a hell of a lot of people out there ( and I don't include you in this as you've made your position clear ) who genuinely just like to correct people and will go for the " actually muscle and fat weigh the same.... " argument purely as a means to that end.
you do realise that much miscommunication occurs when you make assumptions as to what others will assume?
I suppose a good example of that would be when I make the perfectly acceptable and defensible statement that X weighs more than Y and someone decides to correct me, assuming that I'm in the wrong and don't kow what I mean.
Flippancy aside though - linguistic norms that have been fashioned over hundreds of years operate under their own set of rules.
If I say something is taller than another, we know I'm measuring it from top to base.
If I say something is wider than another we know that I'm measuring from side to side.
If I say somethng is faster than another we know I'm comparing distance covered relative to the time taken to cover it.
If I say something is heavier than something else, we know I'm talking about weight relative to volume.
These are all assumptions though and as dictated by our own coversational norms, they are all pefectly acceptable and correct.
In these cases, assumption and knowledge / understanding are pretty much the same thing.0 -
Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....
You mean it's more dense.
Or, it weighs more per volume.
Or it weighs more.
One of my pet peeves is people who like to be pedantic and say
" actually, muscle and fat weight the same, after all a pound of each... "
Well, yes if you have enough of them both to make a pound of each. But by that same definition a pound of Lead and a pound of Feathers...do feathers weight the same as lead? No.
If someone is comparing the weight of 2 different substances it should go without saying that they're comparing weight by volume, otherwise it just opens the door for reductio ad absurdum and nothing could be considered heavier than anything else.
People like to assume that other people are stupid and don't understand about density. It makes them feel smarter.
no...words have meaning....it's best to use the correct words to convery what one is saying.
I undewrstand what you're saying, but surely in any conversation involving the difference in weight between 2 substances it's a given that we're discussing the wegiht by volume. fter al, as I said, if this isn't a given, then no solid substance can ever be considered as heavier than another without adding this qualification. The given comparison is simply an accepted linguistic norm.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm an accountant. I have worked on putting together documents that require precise wording, as people make decisions based on what's in those documents (think 8K's, 10K's, 10Q's, etc). Correct wording is important to me and many people like me.
That's fair enpough, but you also have to recognise that linguistic norms and figures of speech have evolved over many years to allow for a universally understood " spoken shorthand ".
While there may be many people like you who place massive emphasis on the the impotance of technically correct wording, I'd be surprised if there aren't many more who recognise, without careful consideraion, the actual meaning when one of our spoken shortcuts is used. I'd also suggest that there are a hell of a lot of people out there ( and I don't include you in this as you've made your position clear ) who genuinely just like to correct people and will go for the " actually muscle and fat weigh the same.... " argument purely as a means to that end.
you do realise that much miscommunication occurs when you make assumptions as to what others will assume?
I suppose a good example of that would be when I make the perfectly acceptable and defensible statement that X weighs more than Y and someone decides to correct me, assuming that I'm in the wrong and don't kow what I mean.
Flippancy aside though - linguistic norms that have been fashioned over hundreds of years operate under their own set of rules.
If I say something is taller than another, we know I'm measuring it from top to base.
If I say something is wider than another we know that I'm measuring from side to side.
If I say somethng is faster than another we know I'm comparing distance covered relative to the time taken to cover it.
If I say something is heavier than something else, we know I'm talking about weight relative to volume.
These are all assumptions though and as dictated by our own coversational norms, they are all pefectly acceptable and correct.
In these cases, assumption and knowledge / understanding are pretty much the same thing.
all these examples are using comparable measurements....wherease the one that started this is not using comparable measurments.....volume and weight are two different measurements with two different meanings.
suit yourself as to your choice of miscommunications....if it floats your boat, keep doing it. Do recognize you may be causing someone else confusion.0 -
I think the thread is getting a bit off-track, discussing semantics and what-not. Both parties have made their points. Let's move on, eh?
Fair enough.
Modo Vincere - Hug?0 -
I think the thread is getting a bit off-track, discussing semantics and what-not. Both parties have made their points. Let's move on, eh?
Fair enough.
Modo Vincere - Hug?
ehh....hand shake?0 -
[
all these examples are using comparable measurements....wherease the one that started this is not using comparable measurments.....volume and weight are two different measurements with two different meanings.
suit yourself as to your choice of miscommunications....if it floats your boat, keep doing it. Do recognize you may be causing someone else confusion.
[/quote]
To be fair now, that's a tad patronising.0 -
sure...but then again, how many threads are in this forum where people are asking about how to do this or that because they misunderstand the "colloquiallism"?Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....
You mean it's more dense.
Or, it weighs more per volume.
Or it weighs more.
One of my pet peeves is people who like to be pedantic and say
" actually, muscle and fat weight the same, after all a pound of each... "
Well, yes if you have enough of them both to make a pound of each. But by that same definition a pound of Lead and a pound of Feathers...do feathers weight the same as lead? No.
If someone is comparing the weight of 2 different substances it should go without saying that they're comparing weight by volume, otherwise it just opens the door for reductio ad absurdum and nothing could be considered heavier than anything else.
People like to assume that other people are stupid and don't understand about density. It makes them feel smarter.
no...words have meaning....it's best to use the correct words to convery what one is saying.
I undewrstand what you're saying, but surely in any conversation involving the difference in weight between 2 substances it's a given that we're discussing the wegiht by volume. fter al, as I said, if this isn't a given, then no solid substance can ever be considered as heavier than another without adding this qualification. The given comparison is simply an accepted linguistic norm.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm an accountant. I have worked on putting together documents that require precise wording, as people make decisions based on what's in those documents (think 8K's, 10K's, 10Q's, etc). Correct wording is important to me and many people like me.
I write company policy documents, and previous to that I was writing legal ordering documents. So I understand that.
But surely you can draw the distinction between an online chit-chat forum, and a legal document? Conversation with you must be terribly dry and even frustrating if you cannot accept contextual clues as to someone's meaning.
I can imagine that most people would walk away the first time they said it rained 4 inches yesterday and you corrected them because it was actually 3.5 inches of rain, and .5 inches of sleet, so technically they should say 4 inches of precipitation. Can you see how that makes you sound?
Everyone involved in this discussion knows full well what is meant by 'muscle weighs more than fat'. Insisting that they are wrong just makes you sound like a pedant, and like you are trying to elevate yourself above others.
It's very easy for some to get confused, and you should recognize that a) accurate wording to convery the meaning is important and b) reducing misunderstandings is much more productive.
Mr. or Ms. Accountant: I'm of your party. Of course precision matters. But there are people here who literally do not know the difference between "lose" and "loose."0 -
I love when typos have multiple meanings. That one was awesome. Well played, even if it wasn't on purpose.the impotance of technically correct wording 0 -
One of my friends that some how implies that any kind of exercise isn't enough -.- probably does it to make himself feel better since he is huge and does nothing all day0
-
[
all these examples are using comparable measurements....wherease the one that started this is not using comparable measurments.....volume and weight are two different measurements with two different meanings.
suit yourself as to your choice of miscommunications....if it floats your boat, keep doing it. Do recognize you may be causing someone else confusion.
To be fair now, that's a tad patronising.
[/quote]
not trying to be patronising....just recognizing that people will continue to do as the wish.
I feel I've made my point about accuracy in what we're saying....and I do understand the desire to use shortcuts. However, I also recognize that it leads to confusion.
Hope you have a good day, and that this discussion hasn't caused any stress.0 -
No, they are using the same measurements: they are asking why the number on their scale isn't changing. They are not asking why they are displacing more or less water when they are submerged. At least not in any of the threads I've seen.all these examples are using comparable measurements....wherease the one that started this is not using comparable measurments.....volume and weight are two different measurements with two different meanings.
(If you've found any such threads link them, otherwise I'll just assume it's just a broscience claim. :laugh: )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