Trying and failing to lose. #frustratedfemale

13

Replies

  • tiffanylacourse
    tiffanylacourse Posts: 2,985 Member
    1. Regarding the first reply: Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat. The difference lies in the amount of space they take up - as 1 pound of muscle will take up less space on your body than 1 pound of fat. BUT, you can do a search on that, as it's been debated on here for... well forever basically.
    2. It's almost impossible for anyone to give you advice if you don't open your diary.
    3. Definitely always weigh your food. This is imperative - as a "cup" of something measured with measuring cups is almost always more than a cup by weight.

    Best of luck! :flowerforyou:
  • What's working for me is clean eating - no processed foods, dairy, gluten along with 2 Zumba classes a week and crossfit once a week (plus short daily workouts) good luck! x

    I am also doing clean eating, and exercising daily with great results. It's amazing how our bodies can transform when we only put pure natural foods in it!
  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,575 Member
    nurse3794 wrote: »
    What's working for me is clean eating - no processed foods, dairy, gluten along with 2 Zumba classes a week and crossfit once a week (plus short daily workouts) good luck! x

    I am also doing clean eating, and exercising daily with great results. It's amazing how our bodies can transform when we only put pure natural foods in it!

    Mine transformed eating whatever I wanted though. Bodies are amazing in general. And you can eat hot dogs and still look hot.
  • @vsummersgill Do you restrict calories on the clean eating diet? What does your daily intake consist of?
  • Can anyone recommend a make/brand of scale?
  • tiffanylacourse
    tiffanylacourse Posts: 2,985 Member
    edited January 2015
    I have this one: (Taylor Digital Kitchen Scale)
    http://www.walmart.com/ip/23162534?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0&adid=22222222227016543101&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=40345798952&wl4=&wl5=pla&wl6=78311540912&veh=sem
    and I LOVE it! Very easy to use and goes up to 11lbs. - so you can even use it for recipes and stuff! :flowerforyou:

    ETA: Brand/Model Name
  • Hi I've tried various diets but I've found that the five to two diets does work well hope it helps
  • cathipa
    cathipa Posts: 2,991 Member
    edited January 2015
    clf1284 wrote: »
    Have you taken measurements? Muscle weighs more than fat!

    nw1famrddk2v.jpg

    #debunkedmyth

  • leggup
    leggup Posts: 2,942 Member
    1. Regarding the first reply: Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat. The difference lies in the amount of space they take up - as 1 pound of muscle will take up less space on your body than 1 pound of fat. BUT, you can do a search on that, as it's been debated on here for... well forever basically.

    And yet, after all this time, you don't get it. Muscle weighs more than fat. Of course 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat. 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat weighs the same as 1 lb of feathers and 1 lb of bricks. All are 1 lb. We do not determine what weighs more by picking two items of the same weight. To determine which of two items weighs more, we grab equal volumes. 1 cm square of muscle weighs more than 1 cm square of fat. That is comparing equal volumes. Of course 100 grams of fat weighs the same as 100 grams of fat... because the premise includes a set weight.
  • 1. Regarding the first reply: Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat. The difference lies in the amount of space they take up - as 1 pound of muscle will take up less space on your body than 1 pound of fat. BUT, you can do a search on that, as it's been debated on here for... well forever basically.

    And yet, after all this time, you don't get it. Muscle weighs more than fat. Of course 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat. 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat weighs the same as 1 lb of feathers and 1 lb of bricks. All are 1 lb. We do not determine what weighs more by picking two items of the same weight. To determine which of two items weighs more, we grab equal volumes. 1 cm square of muscle weighs more than 1 cm square of fat. That is comparing equal volumes. Of course 100 grams of fat weighs the same as 100 grams of fat... because the premise includes a set weight.

    I'm confused. Aren't you two arguing the same point, just describing it differently?
  • tiffanylacourse
    tiffanylacourse Posts: 2,985 Member
    BinkyBonk wrote: »
    1. Regarding the first reply: Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat. The difference lies in the amount of space they take up - as 1 pound of muscle will take up less space on your body than 1 pound of fat. BUT, you can do a search on that, as it's been debated on here for... well forever basically.

    And yet, after all this time, you don't get it. Muscle weighs more than fat. Of course 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat. 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat weighs the same as 1 lb of feathers and 1 lb of bricks. All are 1 lb. We do not determine what weighs more by picking two items of the same weight. To determine which of two items weighs more, we grab equal volumes. 1 cm square of muscle weighs more than 1 cm square of fat. That is comparing equal volumes. Of course 100 grams of fat weighs the same as 100 grams of fat... because the premise includes a set weight.

    I'm confused. Aren't you two arguing the same point, just describing it differently?

    Agreed. Thank you. :wink:
  • leggup
    leggup Posts: 2,942 Member
    BinkyBonk wrote: »
    1. Regarding the first reply: Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat. The difference lies in the amount of space they take up - as 1 pound of muscle will take up less space on your body than 1 pound of fat. BUT, you can do a search on that, as it's been debated on here for... well forever basically.

    And yet, after all this time, you don't get it. Muscle weighs more than fat. Of course 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat. 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat weighs the same as 1 lb of feathers and 1 lb of bricks. All are 1 lb. We do not determine what weighs more by picking two items of the same weight. To determine which of two items weighs more, we grab equal volumes. 1 cm square of muscle weighs more than 1 cm square of fat. That is comparing equal volumes. Of course 100 grams of fat weighs the same as 100 grams of fat... because the premise includes a set weight.

    I'm confused. Aren't you two arguing the same point, just describing it differently?

    Nope. Her first line was "1. Regarding the first reply: Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat." This is incorrect. I agreed with everything else about volume.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    BinkyBonk wrote: »
    1. Regarding the first reply: Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat. The difference lies in the amount of space they take up - as 1 pound of muscle will take up less space on your body than 1 pound of fat. BUT, you can do a search on that, as it's been debated on here for... well forever basically.

    And yet, after all this time, you don't get it. Muscle weighs more than fat. Of course 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat. 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat weighs the same as 1 lb of feathers and 1 lb of bricks. All are 1 lb. We do not determine what weighs more by picking two items of the same weight. To determine which of two items weighs more, we grab equal volumes. 1 cm square of muscle weighs more than 1 cm square of fat. That is comparing equal volumes. Of course 100 grams of fat weighs the same as 100 grams of fat... because the premise includes a set weight.

    I'm confused. Aren't you two arguing the same point, just describing it differently?

    The problem arises when someone insists that muscle does not weight less than fat, it just takes up less space. Usually it's phrased as 1 lb of muscle = 1 lb of fat. By that same logic, muscle doesn't take up less space. Because 1 cubic inch of muscle = 1 cubic inch of fat, it's just that the muscle weighs more.

    Muscle is more dense than fat.
    Muscle takes up less space than fat (when comparing equal weights).
    Muscle weighs more than fat (when comparing equal volumes).

    They're three different ways of saying the same thing. People often try to "correct" someone by rephrasing it, but it's unnecessarily pedantic.

  • BinkyBonk wrote: »
    1. Regarding the first reply: Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat. The difference lies in the amount of space they take up - as 1 pound of muscle will take up less space on your body than 1 pound of fat. BUT, you can do a search on that, as it's been debated on here for... well forever basically.

    And yet, after all this time, you don't get it. Muscle weighs more than fat. Of course 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat. 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat weighs the same as 1 lb of feathers and 1 lb of bricks. All are 1 lb. We do not determine what weighs more by picking two items of the same weight. To determine which of two items weighs more, we grab equal volumes. 1 cm square of muscle weighs more than 1 cm square of fat. That is comparing equal volumes. Of course 100 grams of fat weighs the same as 100 grams of fat... because the premise includes a set weight.

    I'm confused. Aren't you two arguing the same point, just describing it differently?

    The problem arises when someone insists that muscle does not weight less than fat, it just takes up less space. Usually it's phrased as 1 lb of muscle = 1 lb of fat. By that same logic, muscle doesn't take up less space. Because 1 cubic inch of muscle = 1 cubic inch of fat, it's just that the muscle weighs more.

    Muscle is more dense than fat.
    Muscle takes up less space than fat (when comparing equal weights).
    Muscle weighs more than fat (when comparing equal volumes).


    They're three different ways of saying the same thing. People often try to "correct" someone by rephrasing it, but it's unnecessarily pedantic.
    Agreed.
    And thanks for the bolded part - I wish I could copy-paste that every time there is a thread about the topic!

  • tiffanylacourse
    tiffanylacourse Posts: 2,985 Member
    BinkyBonk wrote: »
    1. Regarding the first reply: Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat. The difference lies in the amount of space they take up - as 1 pound of muscle will take up less space on your body than 1 pound of fat. BUT, you can do a search on that, as it's been debated on here for... well forever basically.

    And yet, after all this time, you don't get it. Muscle weighs more than fat. Of course 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat. 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat weighs the same as 1 lb of feathers and 1 lb of bricks. All are 1 lb. We do not determine what weighs more by picking two items of the same weight. To determine which of two items weighs more, we grab equal volumes. 1 cm square of muscle weighs more than 1 cm square of fat. That is comparing equal volumes. Of course 100 grams of fat weighs the same as 100 grams of fat... because the premise includes a set weight.

    I'm confused. Aren't you two arguing the same point, just describing it differently?

    The problem arises when someone insists that muscle does not weight less than fat, it just takes up less space. Usually it's phrased as 1 lb of muscle = 1 lb of fat. By that same logic, muscle doesn't take up less space. Because 1 cubic inch of muscle = 1 cubic inch of fat, it's just that the muscle weighs more.

    Muscle is more dense than fat.
    Muscle takes up less space than fat (when comparing equal weights).
    Muscle weighs more than fat (when comparing equal volumes).


    They're three different ways of saying the same thing. People often try to "correct" someone by rephrasing it, but it's unnecessarily pedantic.

    I think you [clearly] misunderstood me. The reason I said "Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat." is because a lot of {misguided} people use this as an excuse when they are not losing weight, when usually the real reason they're not losing weight is because they are simply eating too much and/or eating more than they think they are.

    I think I could avoid further misunderstandings of this nature if I re-worded that portion of my response as you'd typed above "Muscle weighs more than fat only when comparing equal volumes of each" I agree with everything you said above in that muscle is more dense, takes up less space when at equal weight, and weighs more at equal volumes. 100% agree there. I guess I should have went into much more scientific explanation to satisfy the masses of MFP members who are clearly more eloquent than I am. I'm sorry if you found my brief explanation pedantic, but it's no worse than being unnecessarily pedagogic.

  • jasonmh630
    jasonmh630 Posts: 2,850 Member
    MplsJones wrote: »
    I don't weigh my food but I do track calories. I've been told to up my protein and lower carbs. I'm a vegetarian so that has proven somewhat difficult. @c

    Unless you're weighing your food, you can't track calories. It won't be accurate, sometimes by a long shot.
  • jasonmh630
    jasonmh630 Posts: 2,850 Member
    arditarose wrote: »
    BinkyBonk wrote: »
    iliajones wrote: »
    thanks everyone! I am more than convinced that a food scale is a necessity.

    I'm so glad you listened :) It's such a rarity around here.
    Check back in a couple weeks and let us know if you're seeing results.

    Right? That was easy lol

    Yep. The open minded ones are always easier to spot lol. They actually consider advice given, instead of rage quit because what was told to them wasn't what they wanted to hear.
  • slucki01
    slucki01 Posts: 284 Member
    clf1284 wrote: »
    Have you taken measurements? Muscle weighs more than fat!

    Muscle does not weigh more than fat, it just takes up less space.
    4h06wzefp7uj.jpg

  • BinkyBonk wrote: »
    1. Regarding the first reply: Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat. The difference lies in the amount of space they take up - as 1 pound of muscle will take up less space on your body than 1 pound of fat. BUT, you can do a search on that, as it's been debated on here for... well forever basically.

    And yet, after all this time, you don't get it. Muscle weighs more than fat. Of course 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat. 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat weighs the same as 1 lb of feathers and 1 lb of bricks. All are 1 lb. We do not determine what weighs more by picking two items of the same weight. To determine which of two items weighs more, we grab equal volumes. 1 cm square of muscle weighs more than 1 cm square of fat. That is comparing equal volumes. Of course 100 grams of fat weighs the same as 100 grams of fat... because the premise includes a set weight.

    I'm confused. Aren't you two arguing the same point, just describing it differently?

    The problem arises when someone insists that muscle does not weight less than fat, it just takes up less space. Usually it's phrased as 1 lb of muscle = 1 lb of fat. By that same logic, muscle doesn't take up less space. Because 1 cubic inch of muscle = 1 cubic inch of fat, it's just that the muscle weighs more.

    Muscle is more dense than fat.
    Muscle takes up less space than fat (when comparing equal weights).
    Muscle weighs more than fat (when comparing equal volumes).


    They're three different ways of saying the same thing. People often try to "correct" someone by rephrasing it, but it's unnecessarily pedantic.

    I'm sorry if you found my brief explanation pedantic, but it's no worse than being unnecessarily pedagogic.
    To be fair, I don't think that comment was directed toward you.

  • jasonmh630
    jasonmh630 Posts: 2,850 Member
    nurse3794 wrote: »
    What's working for me is clean eating - no processed foods, dairy, gluten along with 2 Zumba classes a week and crossfit once a week (plus short daily workouts) good luck! x

    I am also doing clean eating, and exercising daily with great results. It's amazing how our bodies can transform when we only put pure natural foods in it!

    Whether you eat "clean" or not doesn't determine if you lose weight. Being in a calorie deficit is the ONLY thing that determines if you lose weight. Regardless, "clean eating" doesn't actually exist. EVERYTHING is processed to some extent.