Funny fitness misconceptions by people just starting out
Replies
-
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.
why does this bother you? everyone knows that 5lbs is 5lbs. it is a convenient way to say that muscle is less dense than fat. it doesn't mean they don't understand the concept.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.
Nut's are fairly dense in nutrients and low carb. I can hit 1200 calories pretty easy with that.
1200 calories is low generally speaking. Most people can stand to lose at a reasonable pace with a number a few hundred calories higher.
0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »The "You're not losing, because you're not eating enough". On what planet does this make sense?
yep, hate this one!0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »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.
Nut's are fairly dense in nutrients and low carb. I can hit 1200 calories pretty easy with that.
1200 calories is low generally speaking. Most people can stand to lose at a reasonable pace with a number a few hundred calories higher.
yes, you can force yourself to get to 1200 on nuts, but if you're full on less than 1200 by eating something like steamed vegetables, it is silly and unncessary to then load up on nuts just to reach some number. my point is, that it IS possible to actually be full on less than 1200 calories, not that it is impossible to reach 1200 calories. of course it's possible.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.
Wouldn't that be nice.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »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.
Nut's are fairly dense in nutrients and low carb. I can hit 1200 calories pretty easy with that.
1200 calories is low generally speaking. Most people can stand to lose at a reasonable pace with a number a few hundred calories higher.
yes, you can force yourself to get to 1200 on nuts, but if you're full on less than 1200 by eating something like steamed vegetables, it is silly and unncessary to then load up on nuts just to reach some number. my point is, that it IS possible to actually be full on less than 1200 calories, not that it is impossible to reach 1200 calories. of course it's possible.
I suppose it depends on your size and activity level. If you're very tiny and not active, maybe.0 -
missylectro wrote: »"You still get sore? You should be used to it by now."
This isn't really a misconception. DOMS does go away once your body adjusts. Unless I take a few weeks or so off, I very rarely get sore. If you're sore every time you work out, you're doing it wrong.0 -
my cousin says, "you shouldn't eat carbs in the evening"
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »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.
Nut's are fairly dense in nutrients and low carb. I can hit 1200 calories pretty easy with that.
1200 calories is low generally speaking. Most people can stand to lose at a reasonable pace with a number a few hundred calories higher.
yes, you can force yourself to get to 1200 on nuts, but if you're full on less than 1200 by eating something like steamed vegetables, it is silly and unncessary to then load up on nuts just to reach some number. my point is, that it IS possible to actually be full on less than 1200 calories, not that it is impossible to reach 1200 calories. of course it's possible.
I suppose it depends on your size and activity level. If you're very tiny and not active, maybe.
not just that, but if you go from crap food like bread, cookies, soda, etc, to only eating healthy foods like steamed vegetables and lean meat, you are naturally going to eat less. you are likely getting the same or more nutritional value for the less, thus you aren't as hungry. that's what happened to me when i first started dieting. i didn't make a thread to ask for advice though because it just results in people giving silly advice such as force yourself to eat more. i just went with it.0 -
People often think they will either need to do nearly nothing and they'll suddenly look like Arnold in his prime, or that they'll need to become cultish'ly devoted to fitness to make any sort of improvement.0
-
not just that, but if you go from crap food like bread, cookies, soda, etc, to only eating healthy foods like steamed vegetables and lean meat, you are naturally going to eat less. you are likely getting the same or more nutritional value for the less, thus you aren't as hungry. that's what happened to me when i first started dieting. i didn't make a thread to ask for advice though because it just results in people giving silly advice such as force yourself to eat more. i just went with it.
I think this is a really good example of some of the guff that comes up in GD&WL.
CICO, and hitting 1200 cals isn't difficult. I'll do 600 cals on breakfast, all of which is "healthy".0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »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.
Nut's are fairly dense in nutrients and low carb. I can hit 1200 calories pretty easy with that.
1200 calories is low generally speaking. Most people can stand to lose at a reasonable pace with a number a few hundred calories higher.
yes, you can force yourself to get to 1200 on nuts, but if you're full on less than 1200 by eating something like steamed vegetables, it is silly and unncessary to then load up on nuts just to reach some number. my point is, that it IS possible to actually be full on less than 1200 calories, not that it is impossible to reach 1200 calories. of course it's possible.
I suppose it depends on your size and activity level. If you're very tiny and not active, maybe.
not just that, but if you go from crap food like bread, cookies, soda, etc, to only eating healthy foods like steamed vegetables and lean meat, you are naturally going to eat less. you are likely getting the same or more nutritional value for the less, thus you aren't as hungry. that's what happened to me when i first started dieting. i didn't make a thread to ask for advice though because it just results in people giving silly advice such as force yourself to eat more. i just went with it.
I understand nutrient density and satiety. Still wouldn't fly with people who have high activity levels however.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »not just that, but if you go from crap food like bread, cookies, soda, etc, to only eating healthy foods like steamed vegetables and lean meat, you are naturally going to eat less. you are likely getting the same or more nutritional value for the less, thus you aren't as hungry. that's what happened to me when i first started dieting. i didn't make a thread to ask for advice though because it just results in people giving silly advice such as force yourself to eat more. i just went with it.
I think this is a really good example of some of the guff that comes up in GD&WL.
CICO, and hitting 1200 cals isn't difficult. I'll do 600 cals on breakfast, all of which is "healthy".
of course it isn't difficult. my point is, they are full on less, so no point in eating more just to hit some target. people question how they could be full on less in the first place and use the fact that they got fat as a reason why they are lying, or whatever, which is a bad argument.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »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.
Nut's are fairly dense in nutrients and low carb. I can hit 1200 calories pretty easy with that.
1200 calories is low generally speaking. Most people can stand to lose at a reasonable pace with a number a few hundred calories higher.
yes, you can force yourself to get to 1200 on nuts, but if you're full on less than 1200 by eating something like steamed vegetables, it is silly and unncessary to then load up on nuts just to reach some number. my point is, that it IS possible to actually be full on less than 1200 calories, not that it is impossible to reach 1200 calories. of course it's possible.
I suppose it depends on your size and activity level. If you're very tiny and not active, maybe.
not just that, but if you go from crap food like bread, cookies, soda, etc, to only eating healthy foods like steamed vegetables and lean meat, you are naturally going to eat less. you are likely getting the same or more nutritional value for the less, thus you aren't as hungry. that's what happened to me when i first started dieting. i didn't make a thread to ask for advice though because it just results in people giving silly advice such as force yourself to eat more. i just went with it.
I understand nutrient density and satiety. Still wouldn't fly with people who have high activity levels however.
the people who claim to be full on 1200 calories probably don't have high activity levels.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »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.
Nut's are fairly dense in nutrients and low carb. I can hit 1200 calories pretty easy with that.
1200 calories is low generally speaking. Most people can stand to lose at a reasonable pace with a number a few hundred calories higher.
yes, you can force yourself to get to 1200 on nuts, but if you're full on less than 1200 by eating something like steamed vegetables, it is silly and unncessary to then load up on nuts just to reach some number. my point is, that it IS possible to actually be full on less than 1200 calories, not that it is impossible to reach 1200 calories. of course it's possible.
I suppose it depends on your size and activity level. If you're very tiny and not active, maybe.
not just that, but if you go from crap food like bread, cookies, soda, etc, to only eating healthy foods like steamed vegetables and lean meat, you are naturally going to eat less. you are likely getting the same or more nutritional value for the less, thus you aren't as hungry. that's what happened to me when i first started dieting. i didn't make a thread to ask for advice though because it just results in people giving silly advice such as force yourself to eat more. i just went with it.
I understand nutrient density and satiety. Still wouldn't fly with people who have high activity levels however.
the people who claim to be full on 1200 calories probably don't have high activity levels.
I know, I already mentioned that...
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »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.
Nut's are fairly dense in nutrients and low carb. I can hit 1200 calories pretty easy with that.
1200 calories is low generally speaking. Most people can stand to lose at a reasonable pace with a number a few hundred calories higher.
yes, you can force yourself to get to 1200 on nuts, but if you're full on less than 1200 by eating something like steamed vegetables, it is silly and unncessary to then load up on nuts just to reach some number. my point is, that it IS possible to actually be full on less than 1200 calories, not that it is impossible to reach 1200 calories. of course it's possible.
I suppose it depends on your size and activity level. If you're very tiny and not active, maybe.
not just that, but if you go from crap food like bread, cookies, soda, etc, to only eating healthy foods like steamed vegetables and lean meat, you are naturally going to eat less. you are likely getting the same or more nutritional value for the less, thus you aren't as hungry. that's what happened to me when i first started dieting. i didn't make a thread to ask for advice though because it just results in people giving silly advice such as force yourself to eat more. i just went with it.
I understand nutrient density and satiety. Still wouldn't fly with people who have high activity levels however.
the people who claim to be full on 1200 calories probably don't have high activity levels.
I know, I already mentioned that...
uh, okay0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »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.
Nut's are fairly dense in nutrients and low carb. I can hit 1200 calories pretty easy with that.
1200 calories is low generally speaking. Most people can stand to lose at a reasonable pace with a number a few hundred calories higher.
yes, you can force yourself to get to 1200 on nuts, but if you're full on less than 1200 by eating something like steamed vegetables, it is silly and unncessary to then load up on nuts just to reach some number. my point is, that it IS possible to actually be full on less than 1200 calories, not that it is impossible to reach 1200 calories. of course it's possible.
I suppose it depends on your size and activity level. If you're very tiny and not active, maybe.
not just that, but if you go from crap food like bread, cookies, soda, etc, to only eating healthy foods like steamed vegetables and lean meat, you are naturally going to eat less. you are likely getting the same or more nutritional value for the less, thus you aren't as hungry. that's what happened to me when i first started dieting. i didn't make a thread to ask for advice though because it just results in people giving silly advice such as force yourself to eat more. i just went with it.
I understand nutrient density and satiety. Still wouldn't fly with people who have high activity levels however.
the people who claim to be full on 1200 calories probably don't have high activity levels.
I know, I already mentioned that...
uh, okay
You asked why it bothered people. I gave perspective, as someone who maintains on higher calories. Generally people don't take context into consideration, that's why it bothers people to see 1200 calories mentioned, let alone fullness on 1200.0 -
Eat right and exercise....end of story. We all know what eating right means! No Brainer folks!0
-
In some ways you just can't blame folks when they see magic solutions on magazine covers as they stand in the checkout line. Today, one cover said you could lose 18 pounds in 72 hours by including some magic protein in your diet. About the only way you can lose 18 pounds in 72 hours is if you have a severe case of edema and are in a hospital bed receiving IV diuretics!0
-
so no point in eating more just to hit some target
You mean the levels essentially recommended by most significant medical authorities as appropriate for continued health.
1200 isn't much, and I'm generally sceptical of anyone claiming that they can't consume that much energy in a day.0 -
eat clean to lose weight0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »I'm happy to look like I sound dumb to some. Muscle DOES weigh more than fat. Sand does weigh more than sawdust. Iron does weigh more than tin. Fiberglass boats weigh more than wood. No one adds the volume/size to the sentence because the meaning is clear. "But the ark weighs more than a dinghy so you're wrong!" Silly.
bolded part = mission accomplished-2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »so no point in eating more just to hit some target
You mean the levels essentially recommended by most significant medical authorities as appropriate for continued health.
1200 isn't much, and I'm generally sceptical of anyone claiming that they can't consume that much energy in a day.
meh, i think those levels aren't exactly right. you can't just give one broad number for absolutely everyone on every day of their life. forcing yourself to get there is silly. if you're 100 calories under for a couple days, it ain't gonna kill you. what if you didn't even log and were 100 calories under naturally? you would not know it in order to force it. all around silly.
you're skeptical because it never happened to you. doesn't mean that it's unheard of for anyone else.0 -
Muscle does not weight more than fat. 5 pounds of muscle and 5 pounds of fat weight the same. Fat is more voluminous per gram when compared to muscle might be more accurate. I am going to go into the chemistry of it tonight cause its bugging me, i need to find out the molecular weight of each. That also depends on the content of the muscle *__* sorry molecular biology student here.0
-
you're skeptical because it never happened to you. doesn't mean that it's unheard of for anyone else.
At 1600 cals pd, net, I was so underfuelled I was virtually inert. I was also miserably hungry at the time.
Anyway, the key point was the assertion that eating "healthy" is somehow more filling.
I note that you're shifting towards this being a couple of days. Many people who post here saying they can't hit 1200 cals are talking about consistent undereating, not a deviation below their normal consumption.
My bugbear is the idea that chronic undereating is a good way to lose weight in a healthy way.
Reflecting back to the point early in the thread about "not losing because your not eating enough" is reasonable if one is undereating and it's affecting one's base activity level. BTDT, adding about 400 cals per day led me to be more active.
0 -
.
0 -
mollymarionet wrote: »Muscle does not weight more than fat. 5 pounds of muscle and 5 pounds of fat weight the same. Fat is more voluminous per gram when compared to muscle might be more accurate.
I don't think the point that muscle is denser than fat is in dispute. People seem to be agitated that other people don't know that.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »mollymarionet wrote: »Muscle does not weight more than fat. 5 pounds of muscle and 5 pounds of fat weight the same. Fat is more voluminous per gram when compared to muscle might be more accurate.
I don't think the point that muscle is denser than fat is in dispute. People seem to be agitated that other people don't know that.
it just gets old because it comes up a lot ..
someone tried saying in another thread that some inches are different than other inches..really?0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »you're skeptical because it never happened to you. doesn't mean that it's unheard of for anyone else.
At 1600 cals pd, net, I was so underfuelled I was virtually inert. I was also miserably hungry at the time.
Anyway, the key point was the assertion that eating "healthy" is somehow more filling.
I note that you're shifting towards this being a couple of days. Many people who post here saying they can't hit 1200 cals are talking about consistent undereating, not a deviation below their normal consumption.
My bugbear is the idea that chronic undereating is a good way to lose weight in a healthy way.
Reflecting back to the point early in the thread about "not losing because your not eating enough" is reasonable if one is undereating and it's affecting one's base activity level. BTDT, adding about 400 cals per day led me to be more active.
you're a man. your minimum is therefore at least 300 more than a woman, so you can't compare yourself to women at all.
i lost weight consistently on around 1200 net calories most days. never stalled. didn't gain it back. it worked for me. i now eat more, but i kept most of it off for close to 2 years now.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions