What terms/phrases wind you up about losing weight?
Options
Replies
-
2 more: when people use absolutes because they lost 20 lbs and they are now a weight loss expert. "You need to eat more." "You're eating too much carbs." "That's not sustainable." As if they KNOW.
Also, I know a few people who think their weight is effected by silly things. Like if they drink a glass of water before bed, they lose weight. Or if they eat a pickle with lunch, they always gain weight.1 -
"Eat clean", and pretty much nothing else. The signaling of virtue with food choices does not impress me as particularly virtuous.8
-
"There is a lot of research that shows" or "there are studies that show" when links to or titles of said research/studies are not provided.
It remains a mild irritation until someone claims that the woo they're spouting can significantly improve a major life condition. That's what gets me het up.4 -
Little bit of a tangent....but when someone starts a thread title with something totally generic. Like, "Losing Weight", or "Low Carb" or anything that has zero hint about what's in the post.
Don't know why, but it annoys me. Too bad I can't (at least completely) choose what to be annoyed by....10 -
In short? Yes.Alatariel75 wrote: »I don't get why people get so butthurt when someone corrects loose to lose. Are we so delicate as a society that is better to be allowed to be wrong than be corrected and learn? I'd rather learn of a misspelling on MFP than after i put the wrong word in a presentation at work....
There have been several books on the subject since the 60's.
"Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" & "The Age of American Unreason" in particular.
Other titles that I have not read don't come to mind right now.
Simply put, it has become not only "politically correct" and socially accepted to be ignorant (and/or outright stupid) in this country, but we have turned into a culture where ignorance is actually considered to be almost a virtue.
The trends were there early on for researchers to spot.
Robert A. Heinlein alluded to the direction we were headed in the book "Starship Troopers"* which he wrote in December 1959.
He even writes {in 1959} about how there would metal detectors in schools at the end of the 20th century, how sociologists would be influencing culture / government policy, etc. Nailed it.
Interesting and enlightening -if depressing- reads.
* The crappy MOVIE version of "Starship Troopers" is NOT the book. The director of the movie (Paul Verhoeven) deliberately twisted the book to fit a political agenda or something. He turned the good guys into Neo-Nazis, for instance.
The only adaption of a book that I have seen that is worse is the butchery they performed on "The Golden Compass" (aka "Northern Lights" in the UK)
14 -
"Clean eating." UGH.1
-
Yay!! This is almost like having friends!HeliumIsNoble wrote: »You are my favourite MFPer for the day, because the bolded is almost exactly the example I use when someone asks me to trust the general public's "common sense".
{I would imagine...}
6 -
kommodevaran wrote: »
IF is confusion, and the confusion is mythical. IF just not eating all the time, which can be good for adherance for those who prefer it. But lots of people are already not eating all the time, and thriving, without calling it IF. IF is sourrounded with ideas that you burn more fat by not eating, that it makes you live longer, that it is "skipping breakfast", but just skipping breakfast won't have the same effect (you have to call it IF), that certain foods and drinks magically breaks your fast, or not, and that it has any special meaning, which it has not, and that you have to eat a certain number of meals, which you don't.Ironandwine69 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Way too many. Trying to lose weight (and loose weight, even), intermittent fasting. Not so much journeys, as tracks, horses and wagons (even bandwagons). The last X pounds, healthy food is expensive, healthy recipes, cheating, confusing CICO with calorie counting, motivation, willpower, foods to make you feel full, healthy snacks. I'm not full of hate, but I'm bitter and enthusiastic - because believing in these kinds of myths and confusion made it impossible for me to reach my goals, and exposing them to daylight made it virtually effortless. I don't want others to go through the same as me, but I can't do anything to stop a person who has made up their mind, and that makes me frustrated. I usually burn out after a few years, so I hope I some day can just roll my eyes
How is IF a myth?
I don't believe any of those things you say about IF, except maybe that you might live longer, but it's completely unfair to describe IF as a myth, just because some myths may have grown up around it. I say "may" because, to be honest, your post is the first time I've ever heard about half of those myths. IF works for weight loss because all you have to remember is to eat no more than a single light meal, 2 days a week. It is easy to understand and stick to. And despite you labelling it as a myth, there is evidence that it has beneficial effects on the body's workings that go beyond weight loss, which makes it seem likely that it could increase longevity.
I ditched it when I started exercising daily, as I hated exercising fasted knowing that I couldn't refuel afterwards. But it works, and has a growing body of evidence to support it. It is not a myth.1 -
lilolilo920 wrote: »"Toning"
"Muscle weighs more than fat"
Ugh just thinking about this makes me angry.
People who deny that muscle weights more than fat really get my goat. OK, let's go for a run, you carry a gallon of muscle and I'll carry a gallon of fat. Let's see which one of us drops first!
I'm not denying that it is often said in a way that is unhelpful or that demonstrates ignorance, but it is a scientific fact.3 -
Yay!! This is almost like having friends!HeliumIsNoble wrote: »You are my favourite MFPer for the day, because the bolded is almost exactly the example I use when someone asks me to trust the general public's "common sense".
{I would imagine...}
Maybe someday you'll have a few 2 -
clicketykeys wrote: »"There is a lot of research that shows" or "there are studies that show" when links to or titles of said research/studies are not provided.
It remains a mild irritation until someone claims that the woo they're spouting can significantly improve a major life condition. That's what gets me het up.
I'm confused, do you object when people "spout woo" and claim that it's backed up by research, or do you insist that every post on MFP that mentions research should have a bibliography and be peer-reviewed?!3 -
I have learned to keep my expectations low.nutmegoreo wrote: »
Yay!! This is almost like having friends!HeliumIsNoble wrote: »You are my favourite MFPer for the day, because the bolded is almost exactly the example I use when someone asks me to trust the general public's "common sense".
{I would imagine...}
Maybe someday you'll have a few
3 -
When people lose weight and than refuse to tell you how they did it. Like, why are you keeping the secret. That's so mean. Don't you want other people to feel good too?
Also, I think it's funny and interesting that some of my major motivations are other people's pet peeves.8 -
A GALLON is a measure of VOLUME, NOT WEIGHT.rightoncommander wrote: »lilolilo920 wrote: »"Toning"
"Muscle weighs more than fat"
Ugh just thinking about this makes me angry.
People who deny that muscle weights more than fat really get my goat. OK, let's go for a run, you carry a gallon of muscle and I'll carry a gallon of fat. Let's see which one of us drops first!
I'm not denying that it is often said in a way that is unhelpful or that demonstrates ignorance, but it is a scientific fact.
Therefore defining DENSITY instead of weight is preferable.
If people said a GALLON of muscle weighs more than a GALLON of fat then we would not have as much confusion or disagreement. But that is NOT what is being stated.
But even a GALLON of water weighs differently and is a different VOLUME in the US (231 cubic inches, approx 3.78 kg) compared to the UK (about 277.42 cubic inches, approximately 4.54 kg).
Yes, it is pedantic. The truth usually is so and science must be so.23 -
I have learned to keep my expectations low.nutmegoreo wrote: »
Yay!! This is almost like having friends!HeliumIsNoble wrote: »You are my favourite MFPer for the day, because the bolded is almost exactly the example I use when someone asks me to trust the general public's "common sense".
{I would imagine...}
Maybe someday you'll have a few
Always good to have low expectations. It diminishes disappointment.PinkCuddleMonster wrote: »When people lose weight and than refuse to tell you how they did it. Like, why are you keeping the secret. That's so mean. Don't you want other people to feel good too?
Also, I think it's funny and interesting that some of my major motivations are other people's pet peeves.
I have a couple thoughts about why people won't tell you. 1) They have done it in an unhealthy or less accepted way, and they don't want to be judged for it. 2) They have done it through something like calorie counting and have found that when they tell people their eyes will glaze over and be given a bunch of excuses, so feel it isn't worth the time and effort. 3) They have an illness that they don't wish to discuss.15 -
I was thinking the same thing.nutmegoreo wrote: »I have a couple thoughts about why people won't tell you. 1) They have done it in an unhealthy or less accepted way, and they don't want to be judged for it. 2) They have done it through something like calorie counting and have found that when they tell people their eyes will glaze over and be given a bunch of excuses, so feel it isn't worth the time and effort. 3) They have an illness that they don't wish to discuss.
People get different reactions based on the methodologies used.
Saying you had surgery instead of doing the work earns you less respect from me, but at least you admitted that you had surgery instead of acting like you worked as hard as everyone else.
2 -
I'm not a big fan of "weight loss is not linear". I wholeheartedly agree with the concept but there must be different ways of expressing it.
You just reminded me of another peeve I've got!
<geek>
When people say "Weight loss is not linear", what they often mean is "Weight loss is not monotonic." Linear means falling on a line, i.e. rate of weight loss stays the same. Monotonic means that the slope never changes sign, that is you never gain when you're trying to lose.
</geek>
Yeah, it's kinda too bad that both people in a conversation have to understand all the words, in order for communication to happen. If that weren't true, we could be so much more accurate.
This is in the same vein that @cqbkaju has been addressing. Precise language is better than imprecise language.
I work in a technical field where precise communication is important. If someone told me that something was linear, when what they meant was that it was monotonic, that would be a potentially damaging miscommunication.
Here on MFP, I understand what the speaker is saying, and the intended recipient usually understands also. It's a more casual venue. I wouldn't inject myself into a thread with this complaint, and I wouldn't normally even comment on it. But in a thread dedicated to what terms and phrases "wind you up", I think I'm justified in airing my grievance.I have said to you before that we should understand each other," she said.
"I meant you should understand me. I already understand you.
- Jessica of Arrakis11 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »I don't get why people get so butthurt when someone corrects loose to lose. Are we so delicate as a society that is better to be allowed to be wrong than be corrected and learn? I'd rather learn of a misspelling on MFP than after i put the wrong word in a presentation at work....
Yes...yes we are.
Triggered...safe spaces...we're *kittened*9 -
They should, presuming they are above a 5th grade English reading level.In future I will simply say "Due to the difference in density, the volume of muscle required to achieve a specific weight is much less than the volume of fat required to achieve the same weight and therefore when your body loses volume while retaining it's weight it is likely that your muscle volume has increased proportionality in relation to a decrease in fat volume".
I think the general public will get that.
It isn't like you intentionally used any words that are complicated.
Maybe having less of a run-on sentence could help people who would otherwise lose the thread.
The point is pandering to the stupidity and/or ignorance of people is not helping, obviously.
If it was helping then why are so many people overweight?
ESL may be a different story.
Non-native English speakers could always look it up in their native tongue(s) if comprehension is a problem.
1 -
Every time I see a thread titled "can't eat enough calories, please help". Are you *kitten* kidding me? The sole reason you're on here is because you managed to eat more than enough for an extended period of time to get fat in the first place, makes me rage.31
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions