Fitness Misconceptions that drive you nuts?

Running will make your uterus fall out!!! It's a classic!

This would be epic. I'm totally done with the darned thing anyway.

It had more to do with the fact it's the ONLY word you've been drawing on.
And I see nothing wrong with using TV to learn new words though- why begrudge someone from learning something new?
PS: nice passive aggressive- I don't get my vocabulary from Family Guy- it's just next to them, you're the only one I know who uses that word SO much.

You were the one who was trying to be insulting by bringing up Family Guy. You don't get to whine about me responding to it. If you didn't like it, you shouldn't have gone there. It was your choice.

My behavior isn't at question here honestly- you're making what's tantamount to a personal (this is the second one by the way you've made) attack on someone- that is NOT relevant to the discussion, so good job for completely side stepping the ACTUAL issue of dealing with people using the wrong words to properly explain a concept. Either you understand the concept or you do not.

And yes- as someone who is in a scientific field- It is/was relevant to the conversation.

1) No it wasn't. It was a complete logical fallacy - appeal to authority. I have my own credentials I bring to the table. The difference between us is that my argument isn't so weak that I felt the only way to bolster it was by bringing them up. Being an engineer means you took some science classes in college. So did a lot of people. Including me. You don't like having been called out on it. But it doesn't change the fact that you did it in the first place.

2) I didn't make any personal attacks. I responded to *your* statement. I said it was irrelevant. And this is what you regard as a personal attack? Really? You should really brush up on what the words mean if that's what you believe it to be.

Actually- you haven't made ANY point- other than you don't understand how it's important to use the proper terms to explain concepts to people.
You've done a great job at circumventing ANYTHING relevant to discussing why it's important (or not for your argument) and simple discussed that you think we are being petty.

Actually, *I* was the one who brought up the point. So the original point was mine to begin with. You responded with the intellectual equivalent of "nuh uh, because I'm an engineer and I say so." If that's what you regard as making a point or presenting an argument, then we truly are done here.

But thanks for trying!!!
[/quote]

actually that is very possible if they are still over eating or building muscle at the same rate as losing fat. 5lbs muscle is the same weight as 5lbs of fat. but I've seen to many use it as an excuse instead of what is actually happening.

You can't build muscle and lose fat at the same time. You have to eat at a surplus to build muscle and you have to eat at a deficit to lose fat. If you're trying to lose, you might see strength gains as you're lifting but mostly you're burning the fat covering the muscle you do have so you can see it.

"I don't want to lift, 'cos I don't want to have muscle . . . or get bulky"

And I'm driven nuts by the people, who yell about science, proper science, citing the right places, calculating TDEE and all its components, shooting down anything and everything "alternative", but who fail totally to defend chemistry on high-school level (yeah, it isn't even taught on uni level). I'm a scientist and wouldn't dream of pushing this "yeah just call mass and density the same thing" message here, so I don't participate in the muscle/fat discussions anymore. It is as dense (pun very much intended) as to insist distance equals volume or time is the same as speed. Science is precise and in every other context that message is pushed here, but not when it comes to density. Pathetically hypocritical.

I suppose you're equally as pedantic about people making the equivalance between mass and weight despite the fact that they are entirely different measurements? Because you just made that equivalance by using the terms interchangeably. (Because we were talking about weight, not mass.)

See how annoyingly pedantic it is to nitpick what someone says by vainly attempting to intellectually "one up" somebody by attempting to parse every single word they say?

Yeah. I understood what you meant. But that's not what you *said*. Should I now make hundreds of posts about how people think that mass and weight are the same thing? No. Because I'm not a pedantic jerk. Just pointing out your hypocrisy.

Thank you for making my point for me.

You must be *loads* of fun at a cocktail party.

I will avoid both you.

If you're dieting and seeing the numbers going down, is it not true you are in fact losing both mass and weight? You lose mass from your body and subsequently your weight (mass times gravitational acceleration) also goes down...

they are proportional but they are not the same thing, weight depends on the gravitational pull of the celestial body you are on
mass on earth = mass on mars
weight on earth =/= weight on mars

Lets say you take 2 people X and Y.

X says something snarky to Y and Y ignores them.
- everybody thinks X is a jerk

Y says something snarky to X
- everybody thinks Y is a jerk

X says something snarky to Y and Y replies with something snarky back
- everybody thinks "what a couple of ****s"

My ex-Mother In Law (who is a wonderful person) genuinely worried about my lungs freezing from running outside in cold weather. :laugh:

actually that is very possible if they are still over eating or building muscle at the same rate as losing fat. 5lbs muscle is the same weight as 5lbs of fat. but I've seen to many use it as an excuse instead of what is actually happening.

You can't build muscle and lose fat at the same time. You have to eat at a surplus to build muscle and you have to eat at a deficit to lose fat. If you're trying to lose, you might see strength gains as you're lifting but mostly you're burning the fat covering the muscle you do have so you can see it.

You can do it if you are eating at the top of your maintenance range so that you are wobbling between over and under eating. I did it for 12 weeks, started and ended bang on the same weight and lost a pathetic 2.5 pounds of fat and gained 2.5 pounds of muscle (according to a hydrostatic assessment). During the 12 weeks, I went up a couple of pounds and then down a couple of pounds a couple times.

You can't do it if you are eating at a deficit, unless you are a newbie or extremely overweight.