What is the daftest weight related thing someone has ever said to you?

CooCooPuff wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

A person on the bus the other day: milk will make your calves fat because it's designed to grow calves.

Just when I thought the milk-calf argument couldn't get any sillier.

I suppose I'll have to feed my calf soy milk

Yeah, good luck trying to milk those soybeans.

elisa123gal wrote: »

MFP posts seeking advice on the struggles of trying to eat 1200 or 1000 calories. "I feel so full I'm stuffed how can i get my daily calories in?" Just who do they think they're talking to?

Those are hilarious. If they were stuffed after eating 1200 calories a day they wouldn't be overweight and wouldn't have ever heard of this site.

This content has been removed.

sonic_corset wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

"You lose weight in the kitchen, not by exercising."

i guess that kind of makes sense, in a 'you can't outrun your fork' kind of thing. Diet is the most important factor in weight loss, not exercise. Exercise helps with strength and endurance, but the vast majority of people can simply lower their caloric intake and do just fine losing weight.

This. I lose weight when I increase my calorie burn without increasing calorie intake. I will never be somebody who can just drop to 1200 cals/day and not want to kill the world because I'm so hangry. So, the kitchen is important - but, for me, so is physical activity (which is, admittedly, mostly walking).

Madwife2009 wrote: »

CattOfTheGarage wrote: »

MontyMuttland wrote: »

Them: You've lost so much weight! You must be in the gym every day.
Me: I've not set foot in a gym, I just walk a lot.
Them: I wish I could do that.
Me: You can, just go for a walk whenever and wherever you happen to be.
Them: I can't do that, I always have to look after my grand-daughter.
Me: What? Your grand-daughter doesn't have legs?
Them: She doesn't like to walk.
Me: Don't you have a buggy for her?
Them: She won't sit in it for long, she gets bored.
Me: ... (gives up)

"She doesn't like to walk".

Kids don't like a lot of things until you make them do it, and then they enjoy themselves. Getting a kid to like walking means taking them walking and ignoring the whining. They learn to love it and it is one of the greatest gifts you can give them, imo.

I will never understand the idea that we express our love to our kids by encouraging them to be unhealthy, whether it's "kid food" or sitting on their backsides all day. Everyone likes a duvet day or chicken nuggets once in a while, but making that the routine is not an expression of love. Get the kids out in the rain. They'll thank you for it one day.

Agree.

My four year old daughter LOVES to walk, cycle, run, jump, bounce around. She never sits still and one of her favourite things is to take a walk to feed the ducks. In fact, today we walked 2.5 miles to a cycling session, cycled for an hour and then walked home. Half of that time was through a gale and my daughter loved it.

What alarms me more than anything is parents who fight with their children to get them into a pushchair, why not let the child walk, for goodness sake?

Because the parents don't want to run around chasing their child. Mine thought running from me was a game even while I screamed at her to stop while she ran into traffic.

sarahbums wrote: »

at first this thread had me cracking up, but now there's 6 pages of these "alternative facts" and i'm just losing faith in humanity

I keep thinking "some people shouldn't have children"

gotu52 wrote: »

This was said to me at a dance class by a stranger, "you have such a pretty face, you shouldn't eat after 6:00."

Oh jee gahd.

Evening restrictions on food always make me think of Gremlins. That movie in the collective consciousness could explain why this view lingers.

I could see this technique helping *some* people from a strategic standpoint, but the idea that it's a biological necessity is quintessential daft.

There are sooo many ridiculous things said about weight loss, but probably the one that irks me most is that weight is almost all due to eating, not activity. It really depends on *why* that person is carrying extra weight. That is, it depends on which part of the CICO equilibrium they're really screwing up, so creating a poor balance.

Another thing I find daft is the idea that *big* changes are needed for weight loss and maintenance. The difference between being fit and fat can be small, like an excess 200 calories a day, for example. Creating the proper balance doesn't require dramatic change, just consistency.

Chunkahlunkah wrote: »

gotu52 wrote: »

This was said to me at a dance class by a stranger, "you have such a pretty face, you shouldn't eat after 6:00."

Oh jee gahd.

Evening restrictions on food always make me think of Gremlins. That movie in the collective consciousness could explain why this view lingers.

I could see this technique helping *some* people from a strategic standpoint, but the idea that it's a biological necessity is quintessential daft.

There are sooo many ridiculous things said about weight loss, but probably the one that irks me most is that weight is almost all due to eating, not activity. It really depends on *why* that person is carrying extra weight. That is, it depends on which part of the CICO equilibrium they're really screwing up, so creating a poor balance.

Another thing I find daft is the idea that *big* changes are needed for weight loss and maintenance. The difference between being fit and pudgy can be small, like an excess 200 calories a day, for example. Creating the proper balance doesn't require dramatic change, just consistency.

I find this to be true. People believe they need to uproot their life and run the other way, when the best and most sustainable thing to do is to work with the habits and preferences they already have and tweak them where needed to create change. I'm saying this and the difference between my highest maintenance and my goal weight is more than 1000 calories, so one would think I need big changes for that. Not true.

blabrecque_xo wrote: »

Someone once told me that if I wanted to lose weight, all I needed to do was go to bed hungry every night. Where I come from, that sounds like an eating disorder.

I remember my own father telling me this when I was younger. No wonder I ended up overweight, I had developed such an unhealthy relationship to food and exercise. Food is not the enemy, it's really your best ally. Exercise is not a punishment, it's a gift for and from your body (and mind!).

Chunkahlunkah wrote: »

@amusedmonkey "People believe they need to uproot their life and run the other way, when the best and most sustainable thing to do is to work with the habits and preferences they already have and tweak them where needed to create change."

Exactly! I believe some people thrive on doing a complete overhaul, and good for them, but it's not necessary and for so many not an effective method. I hear lots of people avoiding weight loss or thinking they'll fail at it because they view the cost of changing as too high, but they're overestimating the cost of a healthy weight.

For example, some overweight people will genuinely believe being a healthy weight requires eating only salads or "health" food. Meanwhile, their TDEE at that weight would allow for, say, 2000 calories. You can fit a daily diet that includes burgers, pizza, bacon etc at that level. The all or nothing view is daft to me bc it ignores the actual math. I guess it comes down to people being ignorant about TDEE, calories, and meal planning.

Most people I've told about MFP just don't want to do the math.

need2belean wrote: »

RollTideTri wrote: »

elisa123gal wrote: »

MFP posts seeking advice on the struggles of trying to eat 1200 or 1000 calories. "I feel so full I'm stuffed how can i get my daily calories in?" Just who do they think they're talking to?

Those are hilarious. If they were stuffed after eating 1200 calories a day they wouldn't be overweight and wouldn't have ever heard of this site.

I think about that ALLL THE TIME! If you have trouble eating that little, you wouldn't be overweight. Those are people who don't open up their diary and/or don't log anything correctly.

See, this one I can understand. Satiety, for some people, is strongly linked to *what* they eat, just as much or moreso than *how much* they eat. So if these people have changed their diet to the foods that sate them and limited/removed the ones that rev up their appetite, I find it totally believable that they're experiencing a genuine reduction in their appetite to a suppressing degree.

For example, I've leaned that when I eat a large amount of protein on an empty stomach, it kills my appetite for many hours. And by kills, I mean it makes even the thought of food unappealing and nearly gag-inducing. The feeling kicks in about 2 hours after eating, and my appetite doesn't return for about 8 or more hours. And this can happen on relatively few calories, like in the 300s. Some brief googling suggested I'm probably super sensitive to the hormone Peptide YY, but I'd be curious to learn more about this.

I think for some people, the suppressed appetite they experience is primarily psychologically motivated, but from my own experiences I have no doubt that foods themselves can have a dramatic impact on some people's appetite.

amusedmonkey wrote: »

A person on the bus the other day: milk will make your calves fat because it's designed to grow calves.

Just when I thought the milk-calf argument couldn't get any sillier.

I was about to make the comment that all adult humans are the only adult animals who drink milk. Obviously they've never raised Guinea pigs. Other adults in the cage with a nursing momma will often try to nurse, and usually the momma allows it.
Why does a portion of the population have genetics that allow us to drink milk as adults then?

Also "if you just followed-insert fad diet here- all your health problems would be gone." Never mind that at the time I was at the bottom of the healthy BMI scale, I'd been underweight for most of my teens and 20's, and the conditions are genetic and congenital.