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?
Replies
-
JoeMacCready wrote: »peaceout_aly wrote: »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 LOL3 -
-
dramaqueen45 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.2 -
dramaqueen45 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.
I would say that the claim that people believe a lb of fat weighs less than a lb of muscle is a silly diet myth.
People rightfully think the "muscle weighs more than fat" statement is off-base when it's used because it usually is trotted out to say "don't worry that you were eating 1200 and gained, as you probably gained muscle from walking 3 miles a day and muscle weighs more than fat." It also presumes an absurd amount of muscle gain, especially if one is in a deficit. The proper answer in those cases it generally either "sometimes weight fluctuates, you retain water, it takes time" or else "you aren't actually eating 1200."
The problem with it, though, is not that it's claimed that muscle weighs more than fat. It does. (Volume is implied.)
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.9 -
Garcinia cambogia is bull. Don't buy it. Diet and exercise, People. Diet and exercise.4
-
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!0 -
For me, as someone who eats low-carb (for medical reasons) I think the worst is this:
It drives me crazy when people think (or worse, repeat) things like that.With LCHF (low-carb, high-fat) you can eat as much as you want and STILL lose weight!
It's based on the idea that *IF* you only eat when hungry, and *IF* the LCHF diet helps curb your appetite, you'll likely eat a caloric deficit ... But in reality it just doesn't work that way for SO many people, and it's incredibly misleading to even remotely suggest.6 -
When CICO "doesn't work, so there must be something else going on."
"I need to lose weight so I'm going to start walking." And doing nothing else.
"Just eat less. "
That you can track calories in without bothering with accurate weighing.
My top vote goes to the idea that being a bit hungry, even quite a lot hungry, will cause a first world person to suffer beyond reason, or that being hungry is going to cause a first world person some kind of lasting damage. People in less fortunate places than ours function for their entire lives with more hunger every day than you'd ever experience on a weight loss diet. They live. We will. When I woke up to that perspective I started to lose weight successfully.11 -
People in less fortunate places than ours function for their entire lives with more hunger every day than you'd ever experience on a weight loss diet. They live. We will. When I woke up to that perspective I started to lose weight successfully.
And, now I see where that last bit might be misinterpreted. I hope it isn't. What I'm saying is, when I got the right perspective, I stopped feeling so sorry for myself when I was dieting and just got on with it. When your problem is that you have too much to eat, then life ain't so tough.
12 -
The slower you lose the weight, the slower it comes back. So not true!7
-
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.dramaqueen45 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.
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.)
0 -
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.dramaqueen45 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.
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."0 -
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.dramaqueen45 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.
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?
2 -
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:7
-
the idea that fruit and all carbs are bad.3
-
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!
2 -
New one for me, but aspartame is made of weed killer.8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 386 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions