Fitness myth pet peeves...
Replies
-
To contribute my myth pet peeves...
This diet that requires you to eat in this fashion (paleo, not mixing fat and carbs, not eating during a certain time of the day) is the perfect diet and will help you lose weight. (It probably will, but it's because the gimmick makes you eat less.)
Losing weight THEN getting toned. ("Toned" is a misnomer anyhow.)
If you eat too much, go for a walk/jog/eliptical/etc.0 -
"Muscle weighs more than fat."
Anytime I read/hear this, it is like nails on a chalkboard. A pound of dirt weighs as much as a pound of feathers. Muscle is more DENSE than fat, so you can have more of it, but the two weigh EXACTLY the same.
We all know a pound is a pound is a pound.
But you hit the nail on the head, Muscle is more DENSE than fat, so by definition, a cubic foot of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat, just like a cubic foot of dirt weighs more than a cubic foot of feathers.
THANK YOU. Whenever anyone says that muscle weighs more than fat, I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are talking about volume. The same volume of muscle weighs more than the same volume of fat. That is true.
I just posted literally the same response and then saw this and had to take my response down. So glad other people know the difference.0 -
the yolk thing is not really a myth IMO.
when I am lifting heavy but am also a runner, I have to try to keep my macros in check and the yolk is simply a waste of calories with very little value to me. (L) protein = egg whites.
Yeah, i eat one whole egg and add 3 egg whites and scramble them since the protein is in the egg whites and that's generally why i'm eating eggs in the first place haha
What do you do with all the yolks?0 -
No but that's the point, for some the only way to avoid "repetitive motion over the wrong planes" is to not run.
Not everybody has ideal conformation. There isn't a single answer that's true for everyone.Running will wreck your knees / joints.
Drives me insane when I read this.............
This angers me to no end! The only reasons my knees and joints work correctly is because I ran and lost the fat that was crushing them!! The same people say, "Oh, I can't run because I have bad knees." Whatever. It's ok if you don't know about running shoes or are self conscious but don't give me the bad knees bullsh*t.
But what if martial arts ruined your knees, combined with getting older, THEN you try to run? Yeah, that's why I don't run. Plus, it's mind numbingly boring to me.
Running isn't what's killing your joints. Repetitive motion over the wrong planes is killing your joints, Throw that sucker in a brace or learn better form - you're in good alignment and the pain goes away.
I know that. However, it's the repetitive motion over the wrong planes - whether it's from genetics or old sports injuries - that is probably the underlying problem with running in this instance. I really hope that my example here isn't being used for sports medicine advice.
I usually tell people who give me the "bad knees" answer "that's why God make bicycles." Then they roll their eyes and walk away.
I should also add I have:
flat feet/no arches whatsoever (I wear lifts in my shoes at all times)
hammer toes (since 5th grade)
little to no bend in the small of my back from years of my spine being out of alignment (little mobility left)
Asymmetrical muscle firing, leaving me with an unbalanced muscular system which puts undue stress on the skeletal and muscular systems of the right side of my body
Sooo, add that all up and you have one person who should NOT be running, ever. I just don't hate running, the act of running hates me. I'm much better at riding bikes, or doing Zumba or climbing stairs.
Running is NOT for everyone for a wide variety of reasons. If you try an exercise, and it hurts too badly to continue, then STOP and find something else that doesn't make you want to cry.0 -
Not necessarily fitness myth but rather a forum posts...the "Im having a hard time eating 1200 calories a day" posts really get to me.
Really? You have a hard time eating 1200 calories? Now explain to me how in the *kitten* you got to where you are today?
Blows my effin mind.0 -
Good grief. The first two examples are not myths.Deadlifts are bad for your back.
Squats are bad for your knees.
Older people (i.e, those of us over 40) shouldn't lift heavy.
And not really a myth but definitely a peeve: I'm lifting heavy with these 5 lb dumbbells.
If you do squats with proper form then its not bad for your knees. If you deadlift with proper form then its not bad for your back.
They're only myths if you do them badly.0 -
Not necessarily fitness myth but rather a forum posts...the "Im having a hard time eating 1200 calories a day" posts really get to me.
Really? You have a hard time eating 1200 calories? Now explain to me how in the *kitten* you got to where you are today?
Blows my effin mind.
I do not understand why this is so hard for so many on here to understand.
Look at it this way...
If a person has spent years over eating say 3000 or 6000 or even more calories a day (hypothetical numbers there) in the form of cream cakes, pizzas, pies and french fries or any other junk food you care to mention and then suddenly change to a diet of fresh vegetables and very lean meats etc., they really might struggle to meet 1200 calories in a day. It takes a HUGE amount of vegetation to meet those calories especially if they are avoiding starchy ones like potatoes, pumpkins and such, but such a tiny amount of unhealthy food to reach huge caloric intakes.
See what I mean?0 -
What blows my mind is the consistent belief posted here by some - and I'm not pointing fingers - that they must give up foods they like in order to lose weight. They may well have to give up the PORTIONS they're accustomed to of the foods they like, but barring specific medical issues, intentionally depriving ones' self of beloved foods in order to lose weight sounds like a recipe for yo-yo dieting, if not outright failure, from here.Not necessarily fitness myth but rather a forum posts...the "Im having a hard time eating 1200 calories a day" posts really get to me.
Really? You have a hard time eating 1200 calories? Now explain to me how in the *kitten* you got to where you are today?
Blows my effin mind.
I do not understand why this is so hard for so many on here to understand.
Look at it this way...
If a person has spent years over eating say 3000 or 6000 or even more calories a day (hypothetical numbers there) in the form of cream cakes, pizzas, pies and french fries or any other junk food you care to mention and then suddenly change to a diet of fresh vegetables and very lean meats etc., they really might struggle to meet 1200 calories in a day. It takes a HUGE amount of vegetation to meet those calories especially if they are avoiding starchy ones like potatoes, pumpkins and such, but such a tiny amount of unhealthy food to reach huge caloric intakes.
See what I mean?0 -
Lol0
-
"Muscle weighs more than fat."
Anytime I read/hear this, it is like nails on a chalkboard. A pound of dirt weighs as much as a pound of feathers. Muscle is more DENSE than fat, so you can have more of it, but the two weigh EXACTLY the same.
yea but who keeps weight constant, usually you keep volume constant so cubic inch of muscle doesnt weight the same as cubic inch of fat....0 -
Not necessarily fitness myth but rather a forum posts...the "Im having a hard time eating 1200 calories a day" posts really get to me.
Really? You have a hard time eating 1200 calories? Now explain to me how in the *kitten* you got to where you are today?
Blows my effin mind.
I do not understand why this is so hard for so many on here to understand.
Look at it this way...
If a person has spent years over eating say 3000 or 6000 or even more calories a day (hypothetical numbers there) in the form of cream cakes, pizzas, pies and french fries or any other junk food you care to mention and then suddenly change to a diet of fresh vegetables and very lean meats etc., they really might struggle to meet 1200 calories in a day. It takes a HUGE amount of vegetation to meet those calories especially if they are avoiding starchy ones like potatoes, pumpkins and such, but such a tiny amount of unhealthy food to reach huge caloric intakes.
See what I mean?
Exactly this happened to me. When I first started out I went 80% vegetarian. I also burned ~400 calories working out every day. So to hit a net of 1,200 calories, I was trying to consume 1,600 calories of veges. That's not easily done, and does leave you very, very full.
I take a less extreme approach now, and have no problem. Ice cream is my friend
0 -
lol I so want to keep reading this, but its getting late so Bump!0
-
Not necessarily fitness myth but rather a forum posts...the "Im having a hard time eating 1200 calories a day" posts really get to me.
Really? You have a hard time eating 1200 calories? Now explain to me how in the *kitten* you got to where you are today?
Blows my effin mind.
It's really not rocket science.
Some foods are calorie dense. Some aren't. If you don't eat calorie dense foods, you get fewer calories regardless of similar portion sizes.
Today I had a very filling breakfast from a restaurant for 380 cals.
6 months ago I would've eaten the same amour of food from the SAME restaurant, but what I would've picked would've been 650 calories.
I'm making a conscious effort to try to eat healthier, not to eat as many French fries as I can for 1200 calories.0 -
What blows my mind is the consistent belief posted here by some - and I'm not pointing fingers - that they must give up foods they like in order to lose weight. They may well have to give up the PORTIONS they're accustomed to of the foods they like, but barring specific medical issues, intentionally depriving ones' self of beloved foods in order to lose weight sounds like a recipe for yo-yo dieting, if not outright failure, from here.Not necessarily fitness myth but rather a forum posts...the "Im having a hard time eating 1200 calories a day" posts really get to me.
Really? You have a hard time eating 1200 calories? Now explain to me how in the *kitten* you got to where you are today?
Blows my effin mind.
I do not understand why this is so hard for so many on here to understand.
Look at it this way...
If a person has spent years over eating say 3000 or 6000 or even more calories a day (hypothetical numbers there) in the form of cream cakes, pizzas, pies and french fries or any other junk food you care to mention and then suddenly change to a diet of fresh vegetables and very lean meats etc., they really might struggle to meet 1200 calories in a day. It takes a HUGE amount of vegetation to meet those calories especially if they are avoiding starchy ones like potatoes, pumpkins and such, but such a tiny amount of unhealthy food to reach huge caloric intakes.
See what I mean?
I think a lot of people go from one extreme to the other. They don't think that eating "healthy" should be able to include things like bread, pasta, chocolate etc. I agree with you, but that's the attitude I see a lot. When someone posts this question and someone else replies with "so eat some peanut butter, or ice cream, or a piece of bread" then they respond "I want to do it with HEALTHY calories." The idea that some have of what constitutes healthy (only non starchy veggies and lean cuts of white meat) is the reason why they can't reach their calorie goal.0 -
Good grief. The first two examples are not myths.Deadlifts are bad for your back.
Squats are bad for your knees.
Older people (i.e, those of us over 40) shouldn't lift heavy.
And not really a myth but definitely a peeve: I'm lifting heavy with these 5 lb dumbbells.
If you do squats with proper form then its not bad for your knees. If you deadlift with proper form then its not bad for your back.
They're only myths if you do them badly.
Agreed. I've got joint problems and lifting heavy has actually helped with my pain/fatigue. You just have to do the exercises with proper form.0 -
Not really. Look at it the other way around, which is how most people do: take a certain volume. Muscle of that volume will weight more than if that same volume were made up of fat. Since most people are really talking about volume when they talk about weight loss--they want to be a smaller size, they wouldn't really mind if they weighed 50 more pounds if they fit into small size clothes--that makes a lot of sense.Muscle weighs more than fat.
Definitely bothers me when people say that, to be accurate it should be states that 1 lb of muscle is smaller in volume than 1lb of fat. Not that it weighs differently. IT WEIGHS THE SAME, it's the volume that changes.0 -
so meanwhile....you really can't lose fat at the same time that you gain muscle? can someone please cite some science on that, because it's a new one for me. also because I've put on some nice new muscle while losing 42 pounds. So if I have more muscle, which I definitely do, where did the 42 pounds come from if not from fat? I can't find any authoritative sources online to back up this assertion, very interested in anything you could show me.0
-
so meanwhile....you really can't lose fat at the same time that you gain muscle? can someone please cite some science on that, because it's a new one for me. also because I've put on some nice new muscle while losing 42 pounds. So if I have more muscle, which I definitely do, where did the 42 pounds come from if not from fat? I can't find any authoritative sources online to back up this assertion, very interested in anything you could show me.
This is long but it's a good read:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
The author is Lyle McDonald who is a pretty well-respected source.
There are certain circumstances in which a person can gain muscle on a deficit. If you're a newbie or an obese person it's possible, although newbie gains are limited. A lot of people mistake gaining strength for gaining mass. You can increase your strength quite a bit without gaining muscle mass, and that can definitely happen in a deficit. As you lose fat you'll uncover you muscle as well, which is why a lot of people think they're gaining muscle. It's not new muscle, it's just that it's a lot more visible because the fat is gone. And also you'll see water retention for muscle repair when you start lifting, which can make the muscles look bigger temporarily.0 -
so meanwhile....you really can't lose fat at the same time that you gain muscle? can someone please cite some science on that, because it's a new one for me. also because I've put on some nice new muscle while losing 42 pounds. So if I have more muscle, which I definitely do, where did the 42 pounds come from if not from fat? I can't find any authoritative sources online to back up this assertion, very interested in anything you could show me.
This is long but it's a good read:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
The author is Lyle McDonald who is a pretty well-respected source.
There are certain circumstances in which a person can gain muscle on a deficit. If you're a newbie or an obese person it's possible, although newbie gains are limited. A lot of people mistake gaining strength for gaining mass. You can increase your strength quite a bit without gaining muscle mass, and that can definitely happen in a deficit. As you lose fat you'll uncover you muscle as well, which is why a lot of people think they're gaining muscle. It's not new muscle, it's just that it's a lot more visible because the fat is gone. And also you'll see water retention for muscle repair when you start lifting, which can make the muscles look bigger temporarily.
OK, thanks for this. I certainly see the sense in saying that it's virtually impossible to do a pound-for-pound "exchange" if you will of losing a pound of fat while gaining a pound of muscle. But certainly the idea of losing weight while gaining muscle is not a myth at all. I understand about strength vs. muscle mass and also loss of fat making muscles more apparent....but I've been doing a lot of exercise of various types oriented toward gaining muscle, and there's no two ways about it...there's more muscle.0 -
.0
-
so meanwhile....you really can't lose fat at the same time that you gain muscle? can someone please cite some science on that, because it's a new one for me. also because I've put on some nice new muscle while losing 42 pounds. So if I have more muscle, which I definitely do, where did the 42 pounds come from if not from fat? I can't find any authoritative sources online to back up this assertion, very interested in anything you could show me.
This is long but it's a good read:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
The author is Lyle McDonald who is a pretty well-respected source.
There are certain circumstances in which a person can gain muscle on a deficit. If you're a newbie or an obese person it's possible, although newbie gains are limited. A lot of people mistake gaining strength for gaining mass. You can increase your strength quite a bit without gaining muscle mass, and that can definitely happen in a deficit. As you lose fat you'll uncover you muscle as well, which is why a lot of people think they're gaining muscle. It's not new muscle, it's just that it's a lot more visible because the fat is gone. And also you'll see water retention for muscle repair when you start lifting, which can make the muscles look bigger temporarily.
OK, thanks for this. I certainly see the sense in saying that it's virtually impossible to do a pound-for-pound "exchange" if you will of losing a pound of fat while gaining a pound of muscle. But certainly the idea of losing weight while gaining muscle is not a myth at all. I understand about strength vs. muscle mass and also loss of fat making muscles more apparent....but I've been doing a lot of exercise of various types oriented toward gaining muscle, and there's no two ways about it...there's more muscle.
I'll give you the context in which I would tell someone that they are not gaining muscle.
Often someone will post that it's their second week and they've run for an hour a day, eaten 1200 calories every day, and they haven't lost weight (or they've gained a pound or two). Someone will inevitably say "muscle weighs more than fat! You're gaining muscle!" In that case I would say no, eating 1200 calories and not doing any strength training, in two weeks, that is not going to be muscle gain.
Or it will be someone who is relatively lean already talking about how they get hyuge from running on the elliptical. That's most likely someone who is seeing definition and thinking it means muscle building.
Also newbie gains are pretty finite and minimal. You're not going to see 10 lbs of newbie gains in a month, for example. If a person is gaining weight like that then they are either retaining water or they are eating too much.0 -
By what means are you measuring this?...but I've been doing a lot of exercise of various types oriented toward gaining muscle, and there's no two ways about it...there's more muscle.0 -
Not necessarily fitness myth but rather a forum posts...the "Im having a hard time eating 1200 calories a day" posts really get to me.
Really? You have a hard time eating 1200 calories? Now explain to me how in the *kitten* you got to where you are today?
Blows my effin mind.
I do not understand why this is so hard for so many on here to understand.
Look at it this way...
If a person has spent years over eating say 3000 or 6000 or even more calories a day (hypothetical numbers there) in the form of cream cakes, pizzas, pies and french fries or any other junk food you care to mention and then suddenly change to a diet of fresh vegetables and very lean meats etc., they really might struggle to meet 1200 calories in a day. It takes a HUGE amount of vegetation to meet those calories especially if they are avoiding starchy ones like potatoes, pumpkins and such, but such a tiny amount of unhealthy food to reach huge caloric intakes.
See what I mean?
Add some FAT to those fresh vegetables, it should be easy to get to at least 1200, and they'll actually absorb their fat-soluable vitamins from all those fresh leafy greens.
Seriously. I think it may be FAT FEAR that peeves me more than anything. "I"m eating so CLEAN! Nonfat everything!! I just can't eat enough calories!" When an ounce of almonds or a couple of tablespoons of guacamole or a nice glug of olive oil will put them well over 1200.0 -
all you have to do is this 6 minute work out. and you can eat what ever you wish!!!!
yeahhhhh.....0 -
You don't have to rerack the weights :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:0
-
Not a "myth" but a pet peeve is when people log log things like "burned 6 calories walking to mailbox"
And then others comment with "everything adds up, way to go" or "great burn"
Please, just consider that apart of your normal routine. That's not exercise.
This and those posts logging six hours of 'insert activity' for an MFP calculated burn of @2500 calories then posts how they went to the pool/park/zoo with their kid that day. Hello? Six hours implies you spent six hours intensely involved in that activity. Don't get me wrong if you spent all day walking around the zoo I'm sure you burned some calories but you also stopped to look at every animal, probably stopped to eat, maybe sat a bit while the kids played. Then to top it off they have an 2000 calorie dinner to "make up for it". Sigh - These are inevitably the same people who complain they don't lose weight
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions