Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

So. What's the worst weight loss myth?

Options
13468928

Replies

  • peaceout_aly
    peaceout_aly Posts: 2,018 Member
    Options
    Weight lifting makes you bulky or manly (and the idea that as soon as you start lifting you're gonna get a veiny, striated muscle body)

    I wish it were that easy, right???

    YES! Do you know how many times I've said this?! Girls at my office will be like, "Well I would lift but I don't want to look like a bodybuilder." And then I have to proceed to explain that bodybuilders eat a TON of food in order to achieve that look and if it were simple, everyone would be a bodybuilder. Here I am struggling to gain muscle and eating a ton and I still can't achieve that look LOL
  • lkpducky
    lkpducky Posts: 17,052 Member
    edited January 2017
    Options
    zamphir66 wrote: »
    Muscle weighs more than fat. Yes- a pound of feathers takes up more space than a pound of lead, but a pound is a pound is a pound.

    I don't think that's a myth so much as people not communicating well; I can't imagine anyone really thinks a pound somehow does not equal a pound.

    Do people get angry at that "Muscle weighs more than fat" statement because:
    1) The person who gained weight and thought it was muscle couldn't have gained muscle under his or her conditions?
    or
    2) They think that the scale is all that matters? Some folks are afraid to lift weights for fear the scale will go up.
    I don't know why someone would get so angry at an error in phrasing alone.
  • duchessnic
    duchessnic Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    Garcinia cambogia is bull. Don't buy it. Diet and exercise, People. Diet and exercise.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    It's also (as you note) correct and (IMO) helpful to say scale weight doesn't matter, look at how you look -- you could be smaller at a heavier weight if you change the composition of fat to muscle.

    Ack, that should say "change body composition, or the ratio of fat to muscle." I don't want to suggest that I buy into the dieting myth that one can turn fat into muscle!
  • tides57
    tides57 Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    FeraFilia wrote: »

    And "turning fat into muscle."

    Oh yeah!!! I'd forgotten that one!

  • tides57
    tides57 Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Muscle weighs more than fat. Yes- a pound of feathers takes up more space than a pound of lead, but a pound is a pound is a pound.
    Muscle does weigh more than fat. When comparing materials for density, you weigh the same amount of volume. So a liter of muscle would weigh more than a liter of fat. It makes NO sense to weigh a pound of some versus a pound of something to check it's weight.


    Okay, physics was never a strong point for me but does the communication/ comprehension problem stem from the word "weigh"? Volume is important, and I understand "density," but I haven't seen the word "mass" used in this debate. Does muscle have more mass than fat? (This is a genuine don't-know-the-answer question. I'm not debating. Can't. Don't know physics well enough.)

  • lkpducky
    lkpducky Posts: 17,052 Member
    Options
    tides57 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Muscle weighs more than fat. Yes- a pound of feathers takes up more space than a pound of lead, but a pound is a pound is a pound.
    Muscle does weigh more than fat. When comparing materials for density, you weigh the same amount of volume. So a liter of muscle would weigh more than a liter of fat. It makes NO sense to weigh a pound of some versus a pound of something to check it's weight.


    Okay, physics was never a strong point for me but does the communication/ comprehension problem stem from the word "weigh"? Volume is important, and I understand "density," but I haven't seen the word "mass" used in this debate. Does muscle have more mass than fat? (This is a genuine don't-know-the-answer question. I'm not debating. Can't. Don't know physics well enough.)

    It's that the question becomes How much muscle (in what units) weighs more than how much fat (in units)? People see the word "weigh" and assume that means the "how much" is in pounds.
    The missing piece is volume.
    For example, a cubic foot of muscle and a cubic foot of fat look the same in size, but that piece of muscle will weigh more. Some folks might not necessarily automatically think of it that way when they hear only "muscle weighs more than fat."
  • tides57
    tides57 Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    lkpducky wrote: »
    tides57 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Muscle weighs more than fat. Yes- a pound of feathers takes up more space than a pound of lead, but a pound is a pound is a pound.
    Muscle does weigh more than fat. When comparing materials for density, you weigh the same amount of volume. So a liter of muscle would weigh more than a liter of fat. It makes NO sense to weigh a pound of some versus a pound of something to check it's weight.


    Okay, physics was never a strong point for me but does the communication/ comprehension problem stem from the word "weigh"? Volume is important, and I understand "density," but I haven't seen the word "mass" used in this debate. Does muscle have more mass than fat? (This is a genuine don't-know-the-answer question. I'm not debating. Can't. Don't know physics well enough.)

    It's that the question becomes How much muscle (in what units) weighs more than how much fat (in units)? People see the word "weigh" and assume that means the "how much" is in pounds.
    The missing piece is volume.
    For example, a cubic foot of muscle and a cubic foot of fat look the same in size, but that piece of muscle will weigh more. Some folks might not necessarily automatically think of it that way when they hear only "muscle weighs more than fat."

    So when I tell someone that, pound for pound, muscle is going to take up less space in their jeans (ie they will be slimmer), I'm not leading them astray?
  • lkpducky
    lkpducky Posts: 17,052 Member
    Options
    tides57 wrote: »
    So when I tell someone that, pound for pound, muscle is going to take up less space in their jeans (ie they will be slimmer), I'm not leading them astray?

    You'd be correct :)
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,145 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Another gem: You can't eat after <x hour at night> because then your body won't go into it's intermittent fasting mode overnight and that's not good for you. :rolleyes:

    Lol, I just read that thread.
  • amandapleighse2
    amandapleighse2 Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    the idea that fruit and all carbs are bad.
  • MrsT1610
    MrsT1610 Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    Actually got asked today about "starvation mode".

    If starvation mode caused you to gain weight then anorexia would have the opposite effect and we wouldn't need so many charity workers risking their own lives and health to deliver food aid to war torn countries.

    Just be glad you have the luxury of being able to decide for yourself how much you eat today!
This discussion has been closed.