Fitness myth pet peeves...
Options
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.
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
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions