Funny fitness misconceptions by people just starting out
Options
Replies
-
It always amazes me the number of "misconceptions" that people seem to have when it comes to losing weight. Most of them are just pathetic excuses not to get on with it. I used to be like that too.0
-
Not everyone, alas. Muscle is about 17% more dense than fat if memory serve me.Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »40andFindingFitness wrote: »"Muscle weighs more than fat." I hate when people say that. Since when does 5lbs not equal 5lbs? Weight is not same as density.
Semantics. The point of "muscle weighs more than fat" isn't that "a pound isn't a pound." That would be ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't take as much muscle (by volume) to make a pound as it does fat.
Trying to argue that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat is overcomplicating the issue. No one would pitch a fit if I said iron weighs more than jello.
Of course, a pound of water and a pound of whipped cream weigh the same but a gallon of water and a gallon of whipped cream do not. Likewise, a square inch of muscle is heavier than a square inch of fat.
And yes, weight and density are not the same. Nor are density and mass the same. Nor are mass and volume the same. However, density does determine the amount of mass in a given volume which determines the weight of the object/material. Thus weight is dependent on density.
Whenever I see someone argue this point, I think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, keep saying that muscle weighs more than fat." *sigh*
And I always think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, say that a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat...because, duh. We all know that."
But seriously, muscle is more dense, thus it weighs more per square inch. Three square inches of muscle weighs more than three square inches of fat. That's exactly what everyone means when they say muscle weighs more than fat and everyone knows that that's what they mean.
0 -
People who think being a vegetarian automatically makes someone healthy and fit. No, just no. I went out for wings last night and my vegetarian co-worker ordered a huge platter of fried stuff. eVERY SINGLE THING was fried. I was like wow!-1
-
Liftng4Lis wrote: »The "You're not losing, because you're not eating enough". On what planet does this make sense?
Maybe they want people to lose weight slower. Misery loves company. Lol joking-2 -
"I'm already skinny so I don't ever need to exercise, my body is fit and healthy etc etc..."0
-
I can't eat anymore than (some ridiculously low amount of calories like 800-1200) or I gain.0
-
"everybody means X when [silly folks wisdom point is ridiculously false]"
cuz, you know, sasquatsch!!!!!0 -
Walking fast is HIIT
HIIT is meaningful for otherwise untrained individuals
HRMs are the answer to understanding how many calories one expended
X is the "One True Way (tm)"
Afterburn...0 -
TopazCutie wrote: »People who think being a vegetarian automatically makes someone healthy and fit. No, just no. I went out for wings last night and my vegetarian co-worker ordered a huge platter of fried stuff. eVERY SINGLE THING was fried. I was like wow!
People who food shame0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »40andFindingFitness wrote: »"Muscle weighs more than fat." I hate when people say that. Since when does 5lbs not equal 5lbs? Weight is not same as density.
Semantics. The point of "muscle weighs more than fat" isn't that "a pound isn't a pound." That would be ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't take as much muscle (by volume) to make a pound as it does fat.
Trying to argue that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat is overcomplicating the issue. No one would pitch a fit if I said iron weighs more than jello.
Of course, a pound of water and a pound of whipped cream weigh the same but a gallon of water and a gallon of whipped cream do not. Likewise, a square inch of muscle is heavier than a square inch of fat.
And yes, weight and density are not the same. Nor are density and mass the same. Nor are mass and volume the same. However, density does determine the amount of mass in a given volume which determines the weight of the object/material. Thus weight is dependent on density.
Whenever I see someone argue this point, I think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, keep saying that muscle weighs more than fat." *sigh*
And I always think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, say that a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat...because, duh. We all know that."
But seriously, muscle is more dense, thus it weighs more per square inch. Three square inches of muscle weighs more than three square inches of fat. That's exactly what everyone means when they say muscle weighs more than fat and everyone knows that that's what they mean.
This isn't necessary semantics, it's physics -- and cannot be assumed. You assume that everyone understands that someone who is quite muscular can actually weigh more than a larger person who is out of shape.
With respect to body size and composition, a lot of people only see that "smaller must equal lighter". By definition, this is why density and volume MUST be included (mass = density * volume).
The same applies to why "mass" does not equal "weight". Weight is a force vector refelcting gravity's effect on the mass of an object.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »40andFindingFitness wrote: »"Muscle weighs more than fat." I hate when people say that. Since when does 5lbs not equal 5lbs? Weight is not same as density.
Semantics. The point of "muscle weighs more than fat" isn't that "a pound isn't a pound." That would be ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't take as much muscle (by volume) to make a pound as it does fat.
Trying to argue that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat is overcomplicating the issue. No one would pitch a fit if I said iron weighs more than jello.
Of course, a pound of water and a pound of whipped cream weigh the same but a gallon of water and a gallon of whipped cream do not. Likewise, a square inch of muscle is heavier than a square inch of fat.
And yes, weight and density are not the same. Nor are density and mass the same. Nor are mass and volume the same. However, density does determine the amount of mass in a given volume which determines the weight of the object/material. Thus weight is dependent on density.
Whenever I see someone argue this point, I think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, keep saying that muscle weighs more than fat." *sigh*
And I always think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, say that a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat...because, duh. We all know that."
But seriously, muscle is more dense, thus it weighs more per square inch. Three square inches of muscle weighs more than three square inches of fat. That's exactly what everyone means when they say muscle weighs more than fat and everyone knows that that's what they mean.
lol.
It's dangerous to assume people are as smart or smarter than they claim to be.0 -
"Pop isn't bad for you if it's diet..." This is a personal favourite. I hate pop altogether. lol0
-
Let's see.. I laugh at:
- Detox/Cleanse
- Jumpstart
- Starvation Mode
- "You're not eating enough!"
- Arbitrary 1,200 and 1,500 Calorie per day estimates
- Crossfit
- Plateau
- Stalled metabolism
- Magic pills
- Fad diets
- Dr. Oz and anything that he recommends
- "Quit eating carbs!"
- You HAVE to go Paleo, Vegan, Vegetarian, etc. b/c it's the only way!
- Muscle weighs more than fat
I'm know there are more, but that's what immediately comes to mind.0 -
CodeMonkey78 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »40andFindingFitness wrote: »"Muscle weighs more than fat." I hate when people say that. Since when does 5lbs not equal 5lbs? Weight is not same as density.
Semantics. The point of "muscle weighs more than fat" isn't that "a pound isn't a pound." That would be ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't take as much muscle (by volume) to make a pound as it does fat.
Trying to argue that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat is overcomplicating the issue. No one would pitch a fit if I said iron weighs more than jello.
Of course, a pound of water and a pound of whipped cream weigh the same but a gallon of water and a gallon of whipped cream do not. Likewise, a square inch of muscle is heavier than a square inch of fat.
And yes, weight and density are not the same. Nor are density and mass the same. Nor are mass and volume the same. However, density does determine the amount of mass in a given volume which determines the weight of the object/material. Thus weight is dependent on density.
Whenever I see someone argue this point, I think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, keep saying that muscle weighs more than fat." *sigh*
And I always think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, say that a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat...because, duh. We all know that."
But seriously, muscle is more dense, thus it weighs more per square inch. Three square inches of muscle weighs more than three square inches of fat. That's exactly what everyone means when they say muscle weighs more than fat and everyone knows that that's what they mean.
This isn't necessary semantics, it's physics -- and cannot be assumed. You assume that everyone understands that someone who is quite muscular can actually weigh more than a larger person who is out of shape.
With respect to body size and composition, a lot of people only see that "smaller must equal lighter". By definition, this is why density and volume MUST be included (mass = density * volume).
The same applies to why "mass" does not equal "weight". Weight is a force vector refelcting gravity's effect on the mass of an object.
I think it's quite safe to be charitable and assume that when someone says that muscle weighs more than fat, that their point isn't "one pound of muscle weighs more than one pound of fat, derpty-doo derpy derp"
Because... what's to be gleaned from such a statement? Why would anyone say something like that, what would be the point?
The charitable interpretation of "muscle weighs more than fat", on the other hand, is sensible and has a point and contributes something worthwhile to the conversation.
Anyone can sound like a drooling idiot if you interpret whatever they say in the most uncharitable manner possible.
0 -
The misconceptions are funny, but they're often held by long time dieters, not only beginners, and that's sad. Having to diet for decades, as a logical consequence of those misconceptions, is sad too.0
-
Lourdesong wrote: »CodeMonkey78 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »40andFindingFitness wrote: »"Muscle weighs more than fat." I hate when people say that. Since when does 5lbs not equal 5lbs? Weight is not same as density.
Semantics. The point of "muscle weighs more than fat" isn't that "a pound isn't a pound." That would be ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't take as much muscle (by volume) to make a pound as it does fat.
Trying to argue that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat is overcomplicating the issue. No one would pitch a fit if I said iron weighs more than jello.
Of course, a pound of water and a pound of whipped cream weigh the same but a gallon of water and a gallon of whipped cream do not. Likewise, a square inch of muscle is heavier than a square inch of fat.
And yes, weight and density are not the same. Nor are density and mass the same. Nor are mass and volume the same. However, density does determine the amount of mass in a given volume which determines the weight of the object/material. Thus weight is dependent on density.
Whenever I see someone argue this point, I think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, keep saying that muscle weighs more than fat." *sigh*
And I always think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, say that a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat...because, duh. We all know that."
But seriously, muscle is more dense, thus it weighs more per square inch. Three square inches of muscle weighs more than three square inches of fat. That's exactly what everyone means when they say muscle weighs more than fat and everyone knows that that's what they mean.
This isn't necessary semantics, it's physics -- and cannot be assumed. You assume that everyone understands that someone who is quite muscular can actually weigh more than a larger person who is out of shape.
With respect to body size and composition, a lot of people only see that "smaller must equal lighter". By definition, this is why density and volume MUST be included (mass = density * volume).
The same applies to why "mass" does not equal "weight". Weight is a force vector refelcting gravity's effect on the mass of an object.
I think it's quite safe to be charitable and assume that when someone says that muscle weighs more than fat, that their point isn't "one pound of muscle weighs more than one pound of fat, derpty-doo derpy derp"
Because... what's to be gleaned from such a statement? Why would anyone say something like that, what would be the point?
The charitable interpretation of "muscle weighs more than fat", on the other hand, is sensible and has a point and contributes something worthwhile to the conversation.
Anyone can sound like a drooling idiot if you interpret whatever they say in the most uncharitable manner possible.
I am not interpreting anything said in an uncharitable manner..
The topic of this thread is about "people just starting out". By supplying misinformation to someone at their beginning, who may be uninformed, how does this possibly contribute anything worthwhile to the conversation?
It cannot. It is illogical.
It would be the same as if I told you that: if you drop a feather and a bowling ball from the same height, at the same time, they would both hit the ground at the same time -- without mentioning that both objects would have to be in a vaccuum for this to happen.0 -
This was me when I first started haha. I ended up losing more weight eating more calories52cardpickup wrote: »"I HAVE to eat 1200 calories per day to lose weight even though it's way too far below my BMR/TDEE, I'm working out a buttload, and I have no other health issues."0 -
Should we also discuss where we are? Should we all start adding the words, "On the planet Earth..." to all statements discussing weight?CodeMonkey78 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »40andFindingFitness wrote: »"Muscle weighs more than fat." I hate when people say that. Since when does 5lbs not equal 5lbs? Weight is not same as density.
Semantics. The point of "muscle weighs more than fat" isn't that "a pound isn't a pound." That would be ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't take as much muscle (by volume) to make a pound as it does fat.
Trying to argue that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat is overcomplicating the issue. No one would pitch a fit if I said iron weighs more than jello.
Of course, a pound of water and a pound of whipped cream weigh the same but a gallon of water and a gallon of whipped cream do not. Likewise, a square inch of muscle is heavier than a square inch of fat.
And yes, weight and density are not the same. Nor are density and mass the same. Nor are mass and volume the same. However, density does determine the amount of mass in a given volume which determines the weight of the object/material. Thus weight is dependent on density.
Whenever I see someone argue this point, I think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, keep saying that muscle weighs more than fat." *sigh*
And I always think, "If you want to sound dumb, by all means, say that a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat...because, duh. We all know that."
But seriously, muscle is more dense, thus it weighs more per square inch. Three square inches of muscle weighs more than three square inches of fat. That's exactly what everyone means when they say muscle weighs more than fat and everyone knows that that's what they mean.
This isn't necessary semantics, it's physics -- and cannot be assumed. You assume that everyone understands that someone who is quite muscular can actually weigh more than a larger person who is out of shape.
With respect to body size and composition, a lot of people only see that "smaller must equal lighter". By definition, this is why density and volume MUST be included (mass = density * volume).
The same applies to why "mass" does not equal "weight". Weight is a force vector refelcting gravity's effect on the mass of an object.
Maybe we should just get congress to pass a law saying that nobody can say they're losing weight, since it isn't really accurate.
UPS and the post office will have to find new terms for how they charge.
Just outlaw the word so that nobody is, in the most technical sense, ever using inappropriate terminology. Because Egads, Mildred! Can't have that!
Or we could just let it go, since everyone knows what everyone is saying.0 -
jennycina93 wrote: »The people who claim they can't eat anywhere near 1200 calories b/c they get too full. Do they not realize they were most likely eating way above that to gain weight in the first place?
bugs me when people keep saying this. when someone changes their diet to include healthy nutritionally dense foods with less calories and cut out the carbs, it IS more difficult to get to 1200 calories. you get full on less. just a fact. why does this bother people so much? they aren't making it up. sure if they put the crap back into their diet, it will be super easy to reach 1200 calories and more, but that isn't the best idea.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions