Fitness myth pet peeves...

Options
1111214161723

Replies

  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....

    You mean it's more dense. ;)
    Our language has multiple ways to express the same thing.
  • ModoVincere
    ModoVincere Posts: 530 Member
    Options
    Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....
    technically, what you are saying is that muscle is denser than fat.
    1 lbs of each weighs 1lbs.
    however, 1 lbs of muscle takes up less space than 1 lbs or fat.

    Well of course a lb. weighs a lb. Consequently one would assume it's like volume being compared.

    Sorry, I'm an accountant, which means I'm anal about things.
    Weight and density are two different things, and trying to equate them is inaccurate at best.
  • concordancia
    concordancia Posts: 5,320 Member
    Options
    Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....

    You mean it's more dense. ;)
    Our language has multiple ways to express the same thing.

    Not in this case: weight is a function of mass and gravity; density is a function of mass and volume.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    "You can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time"

    Ohhh that hurt me to my heart when I found that out. :(


    Actually you can. It just takes longer. This is what I did and it worked, per the advice of the director of fitness at my gym.



    but wait..to build muscle you have to eat at a surplus..to lose fat you have to eat at deficit....how the hell...head explodes...BOOM!

    Lyle Mcdonald says that the "obese beginner" may be able to lose fat and build some muscle intially but that after a while it is not possible to add muscle while eating in a deficit to lose fat....bodyrecompisition.com...
    I should clarify, i think what happenned was that i turned my fat into muscle. I don't understand it too well, but I know that I wasn't eating at a deficit, (I was eating at maintenance, around 2,000 cals), and yet in the span of a year i went form doing 0 pullups to being able to do 2-3, I can lift more, and bench press alot more, and I still managed to lose 8 lbs.

    Fat cannot turn into muscle, they are 2 different substances, just like you can't turn silver into gold. and just because you got stronger does not mean you added muscle, it means you got more efficient at doing that movement and using the muscles you already have, otherwise a power lifter would have larger muscles than a bodybuilder, but they don't.


    But before I couldn't see any definition or individual muscles and now i can?

    that is because you more than likely dropped body fat% which made your mucles show more...
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    "You can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time"

    Ohhh that hurt me to my heart when I found that out. :(


    Actually you can. It just takes longer. This is what I did and it worked, per the advice of the director of fitness at my gym.

    but wait..to build muscle you have to eat at a surplus..to lose fat you have to eat at deficit....how the hell...head explodes...BOOM!

    Lyle Mcdonald says that the "obese beginner" may be able to lose fat and build some muscle intially but that after a while it is not possible to add muscle while eating in a deficit to lose fat....bodyrecompisition.com...

    Look up Kris Gethin. He has created a system called DTP that does this. He uses this for himself and his clients, and he is a competitive natural bodybuilder. I did his 12 week system, followed by his rotating 4 week trainer and it works fine for me.
    i will check this out..thanks..

    how did it work for you?
  • RhodRhod
    RhodRhod Posts: 109
    Options
    Wow! This thread has certainly been an eye opener. I believe I'll go back to the internet with my questions. You people are scarey. LOL
  • sseubers
    sseubers Posts: 29 Member
    Options
    One of the things I cannot hear or read about anymoren is STARVATION MODE...
    I do like to work out in the morning, pre breakfast and then afterwards feel like I earned my protein rich meal. I DON'T starve, my body DOESN'T use my muscles as fuel and I AM getting results!! I know I know, it's very personal! But come on! Stop telling people that they need breakfast before their work outs, no golden standards here as well!
  • Matt_Wild
    Matt_Wild Posts: 2,673 Member
    Options
    "You can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time"

    Ohhh that hurt me to my heart when I found that out. :(


    Actually you can. It just takes longer. This is what I did and it worked, per the advice of the director of fitness at my gym.

    but wait..to build muscle you have to eat at a surplus..to lose fat you have to eat at deficit....how the hell...head explodes...BOOM!

    Lyle Mcdonald says that the "obese beginner" may be able to lose fat and build some muscle intially but that after a while it is not possible to add muscle while eating in a deficit to lose fat....bodyrecompisition.com...

    Look up Kris Gethin. He has created a system called DTP that does this. He uses this for himself and his clients, and he is a competitive natural bodybuilder. I did his 12 week system, followed by his rotating 4 week trainer and it works fine for me.
    i will check this out..thanks..

    how did it work for you?

    You can't burn fat and build muscle at the same time.

    You can carb cycle so on some days you are building muscle and other days burning fat but it is a slow process.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    Muscle unquestionably weighs more than fat. Weigh a liter of each and you'll see....

    You mean it's more dense. ;)
    Our language has multiple ways to express the same thing.

    Not in this case: weight is a function of mass and gravity; density is a function of mass and volume.
    The distinction you are drawing is irrelevant in the context of the discussions, and that's why it is pedantic. Everyone is weighing themselves in the same gravitational field, and is talking about the same volume, so the only factor remaining is mass which is as you can see the same in both definitions. Unless you want to get even more ridiculous and talk about variations in g at different places on Earth. I'm sure that would be almost as helpful in a "why am I stuck" discussion on a weightloss site as is the difference between density and weight.
  • Ph4lanx
    Ph4lanx Posts: 213 Member
    Options
    "You can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time"

    Ohhh that hurt me to my heart when I found that out. :(


    Actually you can. It just takes longer. This is what I did and it worked, per the advice of the director of fitness at my gym.

    but wait..to build muscle you have to eat at a surplus..to lose fat you have to eat at deficit....how the hell...head explodes...BOOM!

    Lyle Mcdonald says that the "obese beginner" may be able to lose fat and build some muscle intially but that after a while it is not possible to add muscle while eating in a deficit to lose fat....bodyrecompisition.com...

    Look up Kris Gethin. He has created a system called DTP that does this. He uses this for himself and his clients, and he is a competitive natural bodybuilder. I did his 12 week system, followed by his rotating 4 week trainer and it works fine for me.
    i will check this out..thanks..

    how did it work for you?

    I dropped 3 jean sizes, went from a XXL t-shirt to L, my shoulders exploded along with my pecs and arms, hehe. I doubled my bench up to about 80kg and my leg press is over double my weight now. That was in the 12 week trainer. It's a strict system though, includes nutrition, supplementation and training. After that I rotate the 4-week DTP system Kris made along with mixing in part of Neil Hill's Y3T. So far so good, and my bodyfat % keeps dropping at a steady rate.
  • BigDougie1211
    BigDougie1211 Posts: 3,530 Member
    Options
    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.
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    Options
    Edited : Deleting pointless argument.
  • SnicciFit
    SnicciFit Posts: 967 Member
    Options
    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!
  • ModoVincere
    ModoVincere Posts: 530 Member
    Options
    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.
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    Options
    To 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.
    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't :smile: 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.
  • BigDougie1211
    BigDougie1211 Posts: 3,530 Member
    Options
    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.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    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.
  • ModoVincere
    ModoVincere Posts: 530 Member
    Options
    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.
  • BigDougie1211
    BigDougie1211 Posts: 3,530 Member
    Options
    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.
  • lorenzoinlr
    lorenzoinlr Posts: 338 Member
    Options
    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....