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
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »New one for me, but aspartame is made of weed killer.
Is that because of the Monsanto connection?0 -
Diet coke makes you fat....I love Diet Coke, I'm pretty sure a drink with 0 calories does not make you fat. It might not be the best thing in the world to drink!! But it did not make me fat!!10
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »New one for me, but aspartame is made of weed killer.
Is that because of the Monsanto connection?
She brought that up. Every one of her posts are full of extreme exaggeration so I can see how she made that connection.0 -
The idea that certain techniques do not work...while they are clearly working for some. Also, the idea that because a certain technique works for some it will work for all.
Another issue which is not necessarily a myth is that while the science of a certain technique may be sound, the application of that technique may not practical for some.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »New one for me, but aspartame is made of weed killer.
My head hit my desk when I read that one. I just can't even with that whole thread today.2 -
While not the worst, in my opinion, one that annoys me is: someone else can give me "motivation" to succeed at weight loss.
Accountability, competition, and support can come from others. But if I'm not determined/committed to do what it takes, there is nothing someone else can say or do to make me succeed.13 -
French_Peasant wrote: »The Master Cleanse, where apparently all you drink for 10+ days is acetic acid, maple syrup and cayenne pepper, then take a laxative to blow it all out your kitten. I've heard a lot of stupid ideas, but this takes the cake for pure, sheer idiocy. I have to admit to a certain amount of schadenfreude over the sufferings of certain Master Cleansers as they scour their bowels. Does that make me a bad person?
I literally just spit tea out of my mouth when I read that! You should have put a disclaimer first, "Do not read while eating/drinking."1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Any of the fads/trends that are along the lines of do this one thing and you'll magically lose weight (IE sprinkle this stuff on your food, take this pill before you eat, drink this shake for breakfast, etc.). The myth that anything but actual hard work and effort will make you lose weight is just the worst.0
-
Starvation mode and meal timing! But actually starvation mode really does happen for those under 12% body fat as proved by the Army Doctors in a study that only the military can do because they literally own your butt. haha.2
-
Oh, and I'll throw my vote to: "carbs get stored directly as fat."
With a dishonorable mention to the general "junk food makes your body work less efficiently, so you store more fat" and its conjugate "eat clean to make your metabolism more efficient, so you lose more fat." Backwards, Francis: more efficient = less energy used. Less energy used = more energy stored as fat.3 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »New one for me, but aspartame is made of weed killer.
My head hit my desk when I read that one. I just can't even with that whole thread today.
As soon as I read it, I knew I had to add it here.0 -
That strength training prevents loose skin when losing a lot of weight.7
-
All of them2
-
Carbs are evil. Lifting is going to make you manly if you're a woman. If the scale isn't budging, you're not losing. Cardio is the only way to really burn fat.1
-
Lots of great contestants thrown into the ring... Are we going to debate which one is truly the worst?0
-
chocolate_owl wrote: »Lots of great contestants thrown into the ring... Are we going to debate which one is truly the worst?
I think the whole carbs/added sugar being evil is by far the most pervasive and inane. There are some close seconds though.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.
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."
This is the silly part though, because the equal volume is obviously implied.
If I say "Coke costs more than the no-name brand" no one comes along saying "nuh-uh, 1 dollar worth of coke costs the same as 1 dollar worth of no-name" either because everyone knows when you're making a statement like that the same size bottle is implied because you can't compare otherwise, so I don't know where the cognitive disconnect comes from here.14 -
That a pound of fat weighs more than a pound of muscle.
NO.
One pound = one pound. I don't care if it's a pound of feathers or a pound of rocks.
Muscle is more DENSE thus takes up less space. Just like the brains of some of the folks on this site.5 -
redheaddee1974 wrote: »That a pound of fat weighs more than a pound of muscle.
NO.
One pound = one pound. I don't care if it's a pound of feathers or a pound of rocks.
Muscle is more DENSE thus takes up less space. Just like the brains of some of the folks on this site.
Did you not read the post right above yours?7 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »redheaddee1974 wrote: »That a pound of fat weighs more than a pound of muscle.
NO.
One pound = one pound. I don't care if it's a pound of feathers or a pound of rocks.
Muscle is more DENSE thus takes up less space. Just like the brains of some of the folks on this site.
Did you not read the post right above yours?
Nope. Sure didn't. And didn't read 99% of the 5 pages of answers. Just answered the question. ZFG. But thanks for pointing out that apparently I can't have the same answer as someone else.0 -
redheaddee1974 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »redheaddee1974 wrote: »That a pound of fat weighs more than a pound of muscle.
NO.
One pound = one pound. I don't care if it's a pound of feathers or a pound of rocks.
Muscle is more DENSE thus takes up less space. Just like the brains of some of the folks on this site.
Did you not read the post right above yours?
Nope. Sure didn't. And didn't read 99% of the 5 pages of answers. Just answered the question. ZFG. But thanks for pointing out that apparently I can't have the same answer as someone else.
Except the answer above describe why it really shouldn't be considered a myth.6 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »redheaddee1974 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »redheaddee1974 wrote: »That a pound of fat weighs more than a pound of muscle.
NO.
One pound = one pound. I don't care if it's a pound of feathers or a pound of rocks.
Muscle is more DENSE thus takes up less space. Just like the brains of some of the folks on this site.
Did you not read the post right above yours?
Nope. Sure didn't. And didn't read 99% of the 5 pages of answers. Just answered the question. ZFG. But thanks for pointing out that apparently I can't have the same answer as someone else.
Except the answer above describe why it really shouldn't be considered a myth.
Well my physics professor would argue otherwise. Weight, density, and volume are three different things. But like I said, ZFG.0 -
redheaddee1974 wrote: »That a pound of fat weighs more than a pound of muscle.
Like I said before, it is a myth that anyone believes this.
stevencloser's post illustrates this particularly well.4 -
californiagirl2012 wrote: »Starvation mode and meal timing! But actually starvation mode really does happen for those under 12% body fat as proved by the Army Doctors in a study that only the military can do because they literally own your butt. haha.
Do you mean meal timing in terms of not being able to eat after xx time or that meal timing doesn't matter at all?
My favorite is mods can't have opinions on subjects.. nvm, that's just a pet peeve
Edited: my favorite thing is gluten intolerance do not exist.
Also love when people say CICO doesn't work, thinking its a diet, rather than an energy balance equation. And then compare a dinner of fish and veggiea vs a cookie. Like that is even an argument.8 -
Edited: my favorite thing is gluten intolerance do not exist.
My wife is gluten intolerant. I've seen her doubled over in pain from something she didn't think had gluten. She is also lactose, potatoe, bean, and intolerant of a few other things. No diagnoses as it can't be tested for, but she has restricted the foods that cause issues and id much happier.
So, yeah. I agree with you on this one.
0 -
All these gimmicks you see advertised on TV to help you lose weight.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions