Fitness Misconceptions that drive you nuts?

Nice thread, didn't have a chance to read all. These aren't all misconceptions, but things that just generally irritate me.

- Do a cleanse to improve your health: Yeah, nothing says "health" like lemon juice and maple syrup.

- Pilates makes your muscles longer / elongated: Nnnnoooo... muscles have fixed insertion points that could only be surgically changed and no surgeon would do that without a really good health-related reason. You can become more flexible, but not longer. LOL

- You need to Squat 2 1/2 times your weight to advance to an "intermediate" program. No. Most people will NEVER EVER see a 2 1/2 times body-weight squat or deadlift. There is nothing wrong in moving on to a well defined "intermediate" strength program or system when you feel ready.

- You need to Leg Press 2 1/2 times your weight before you can do plyometrics, especially with kids. NO, you should be sensible about your application of plyo but there's nothing wrong with it, even with kids. If there is then we better out-law basketball, volleyball, jump-rope, football, or anything else that requires our children to jump.

- Aspartame: Not really misconception but when I hear somebody say that it affects your brain, meanwhile they have no problem tossing back tons of alcohol; it bothers me a little.

- Keto diets are bad: No, they are incredibly restrictive and unrealistic long-term (years) for most people, but there's nothing wrong.

- Carbs are bad... Sure, if you live off of pop-tarts, hot pockets, cookies, and pepsi.

- Paleo and our ancestors didn't eat grain: Kidding right? Not everybody had buffalo and whatever the hell else people are saying available to them. Depending on what part of the world our ancestors lived in they had different meat options, or even little to none at all. Fossil records are even finding evidence of GRAINS being consumed. What? Oh noz not da' gluten...

- CrossFit is horrible: No, the strength programming is generally horrible depending on the box's coach, but CF is a good way for somebody to achieve good all-around conditioning. People have ****ty form in CF, Oly, PL, and general gym-goers, chill on CF folks. Kipping pull-ups not withstanding of course...

- Studies cited out of context: Don't tell somebody they should eat or do XYZ and base your comment on research that was conducted on senior citizens (if the OP isn't a senior) or on a test group that had a certain nutrient deficiency (assuming OP is healthy).

- HRM's & Eating-Back calories: Why go through all the hassle for something that isn't even very precise, something that can vary by 300 to 500 calories? Dieting is hard, simplify your lives and use a more basic approach that doesn't require calorie burn monitoring and eating back what was supposedly "burned."

- Cardio on various machines: "Today I did 20-min's on a treadmill at a moderate pace, then 20-min's on a elliptical at a moderate pace, and then 20-min's on a bike at a moderate pace." Seriously, why the hell didn't you just stay on the treadmill for an hour?

- "Newb Gainz": It's called neural adaptation folks and you can make solid progress doing any well structured program. StrongLifts5x5 is not the end-all be-all to strength training, seriously...

Gosh! There are a ton, but right now the one that drives me nuts, simply b/c I had someone just post it was..........

"Belly Fat Burning Foods" , don't get me wrong all of the foods on the list ARE important to a HEALTHY well- balanced diet.

However, you CAN NOT "Spot Reduce" areas of fat on the body. You will reduce them with proper diet, and exercise, but you do not get the choose the areas it disappears from first.

Your rhetoric is sad. Instead of sticking to the topic at hand, you make it personal and insult me. I'm a blast at parties and I'm also the one, who avoids your type, the one that needs to insult others to boost their ego.

No. I pointed out that you claimed to be a scientist, and yet confused extraordinarily basic concepts like mass and weight WHILE you were criticizing people for not expressly differentiating between weight and density.

My point, which I'm sure you got very clearly, was that - despite your obvious inability to distinguish between mass and weight - I understood your point. I extended to you a courtesy you are unwilling to show others.

I stuck to the topic at hand. What you didn't like is that you embarrassed yourself by mixing up weight and mass and therefore made my point for me. I didn't insult you: I merely pointed out the petard upon which you hoisted yourself.

Well, weight is mass times the acceleration of gravity. However it gets a little confusing when you compare kg to lbs. Pounds are a unit of force (mass x gravity), whereas kg is a unit of mass. Now, if people weighed themselves in Newtons, we'd be comparing apples to apples. I guess I weigh 569 (rounded) Newtons (had to look that one up). If we did the same using imperial units, I apparently "weigh" 4.04 slugs. (Had to look that one up, too. )

Seems like a very silly argument to me considering the way we "weigh" things.

@Jo_Rocka, I'm another bellydancing engineer who lifts weights. I knew there was a reason I liked you.

While that may be true in some cases, there are women whose breasts are almost entirely mammary tissue. Losing weight and body fat isn't going to effect breast size by any large degree in these cases.

And given that large breasts run in her family- all the women of which appear to have fairly low body fat- it's highly likely she's one of these cases.

You made my point for me. I never stated any particular degree by which the size of the breast would be affected, because that depends on many factors including genetics, the degree of obesity to start with, the final ending weight, etc. I simply stated the fact that they would be affected by fat loss.

The supposed misconception was whether or not breast size would be affected. It is and will be if there is any amount of significant weight loss involved. Period.

So it's not a misconception at all.

Now who's being pedantic?

From her explanations, clearly the poster means that a friend believes that if she runs at all her bewbs will magically shrink up disproportionately. (And, TBH, I think most readers could figure this out anyway)

But you're focusing on the mechanics of why it could be technically true. Kind of like those who complain about the muscle weighs more than fat.

Running without underpants will make your Penis grow

I will let my husband know! He needs to start working out again anyway!

When you are asked which weighs more: steel or feathers, do you ask about their volume?

No. Of course not. Because every idiot on the planet understands that you're talking about equivalent volumes in your question.

You overestimate the intelligence of quite a bit of the population.

running does makes my boobs smaller, that is not a misconception

running does not make your boobs smaller… you lose fat, all around… you jus notice it there… lol!!! nursing a baby for 2 years and doing it 2x! makes your boobs smaller!!!! lol!!!

I will get shot here - The belief that you must eat 6 meals a day!!!

This is funny, but I can say that whenever I lose weight, that's the part it comes from first. I've lost 10 lbs in this go-round and dropped from a 38B to a 38A. It's one of those things that is not true for everyone, but does happen to some of us, so the rumor continues...

I went from a 38B to a 36C...so far.