What terms/phrases wind you up about losing weight?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »LadyLilion wrote: »"It's not a diet it's a lifestyle change"
I wonder if in a few years people will be saying "no dessert for me, I'm lifestyling"
But it IS a lifestyle change. Going from sitting in front of the TV and eating Dairy Queen 3x a week to taking evening walks and cooking healthy food and actually paying attention to your diet (noun, not verb) while avoiding 1300 calorie desserts you freaking LOVE - takes a considerable change in your actual lifestyle - believe me. And if you go back to your former lifestyle, you gain it back.
Hmm. Related to this, I do hate the term "journey" for reasons others mentioned, but I have 0 issues if someone says "I needed a lifestyle change" or "for me, this is a lifestyle change," for the types of reasons you mentioned. For me, when I first figured out how to cook regularly and fit exercise into my life, that was a lifestyle change somewhat -- not completely, most of my lifestyle remained the same, but somewhat. Back at the beginning of '14 when I got active again, however, I saw it as regaining my active lifestyle, not a change.
What bugs me is when people say "it's not a diet, it's a lifestyle change" as if that applied to everyone successful. Or "diets fail, lifestyle changes don't" or some such. Because the truth is that not everyone goes from sedentary to active or was eating lots of fast food or not paying attention to nutrition. The main reason I gained (beyond the activity thing, which was a factor) was that I'd stress eat stupid stuff at my office and I'd carelessly not pay attention to portions much, including of foods I don't much care about, like starchy sides. So what I really needed to do was cut out the extra-meal eating at the office and watch portions. It really didn't feel like that much of a change at all, other than learning to deal with stress better. So it's not true that it can't succeed unless it's a lifestyle change.
Good points. FOR ME it's most definitely HAS TO BE a lifestyle change - for the reasons mentioned. I'm somewhat horrified when I think of the amount of calories I was previously putting in my body on a regular basis. And it HAS to be a permanent change. Because I've done it before...and opposite of what you did, I regained my previously inactive/over-indulgent lifestyle...and virtually all the weight I lost before.
2 -
crooked_left_hook wrote: »"Clean eating". There are children literally starving to death in Venezuela. Mothers are picking scraps out of trash cans to keep their babies alive. Meanwhile the developed world is yapping about their "clean eating diet". I'm so sick of hearing about people's first world elitist food snobbery. Just shut it and be happy you have food at all, let alone the choice to decide if it's "clean" or not. I'll just be over here losing weight eating what ever the *kitten* I want and being grateful for the privilege to do so.
Love love love this!!!
0 -
LadyLilion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LadyLilion wrote: »"It's not a diet it's a lifestyle change" I wonder if in a few years people will be saying "no dessert for me, I'm lifestyling"
But it IS a lifestyle change. Going from sitting in front of the TV and eating Dairy Queen 3x a week to taking evening walks and cooking healthy food and actually paying attention to your diet (noun, not verb) while avoiding 1300 calorie desserts you freaking LOVE - takes a considerable change in your actual lifestyle - believe me. And if you go back to your former lifestyle, you gain it back.
Hmm. Related to this, I do hate the term "journey" for reasons others mentioned, but I have 0 issues if someone says "I needed a lifestyle change" or "for me, this is a lifestyle change," for the types of reasons you mentioned. For me, when I first figured out how to cook regularly and fit exercise into my life, that was a lifestyle change somewhat -- not completely, most of my lifestyle remained the same, but somewhat. Back at the beginning of '14 when I got active again, however, I saw it as regaining my active lifestyle, not a change.
What bugs me is when people say "it's not a diet, it's a lifestyle change" as if that applied to everyone successful. Or "diets fail, lifestyle changes don't" or some such. Because the truth is that not everyone goes from sedentary to active or was eating lots of fast food or not paying attention to nutrition. The main reason I gained (beyond the activity thing, which was a factor) was that I'd stress eat stupid stuff at my office and I'd carelessly not pay attention to portions much, including of foods I don't much care about, like starchy sides. So what I really needed to do was cut out the extra-meal eating at the office and watch portions. It really didn't feel like that much of a change at all, other than learning to deal with stress better. So it's not true that it can't succeed unless it's a lifestyle change.
Good points. FOR ME it's most definitely HAS TO BE a lifestyle change - for the reasons mentioned. I'm somewhat horrified when I think of the amount of calories I was previously putting in my body on a regular basis. And it HAS to be a permanent change. Because I've done it before...and opposite of what you did, I regained my previously inactive/over-indulgent lifestyle...and virtually all the weight I lost before.
Truth.0 -
Lately, "the fat burning zone".
I don't so much get annoyed at the people deceived by it as I am at the 'gurus' who ought to know better espousing it and at the ding-dong\s that came up with that terminology in the first place.
It wouldn't have taken a crystal ball to foresee how it would be misinterpreted. I am thankful that it's at least not encouraging anything harmful.6 -
Lately, "the fat burning zone".
I don't so much get annoyed at the people deceived by it as I am at the 'gurus' who ought to know better espousing it and at the ding-dong\s that came up with that terminology in the first place.
It wouldn't have taken a crystal ball to foresee how it would be misinterpreted. I am thankful that it's at least not encouraging anything harmful.
And people doing HIIT 7 days a week for an hour...14 -
Yeah, fat burning zone is a good one. I seriously had someone tell me that it was useless to run or do other cardio if your heart rate was too high, as you wouldn't burn fat.
It's similar to people thinking they must exercise fasted or it's not doing any good, which is another weird claim I've run into.5 -
- this one is slightly irrational on my part, but I find it incredibly frustrating: it irritates me that as a 5'5, 139 lbs woman aged 41, I need to consistently walk about 11,000 steps a day to bring my calorie expenditure just to 2,000 or so calories. I am intensely jealous of taller, heavier and more muscular people who can eat more and not gain weight. Because I love eating. I also want to scream when older shorter women mention their total daily calorie expenditure is 1,500, just because of the sheer injustice of it.
For what it's worth, I'm quite a bit taller than you, 5'9" but used to be 5'11". I average 14,500 steps a day and am maintaining 156 lbs on 2,000 calories.
Life isn't fair, but at least I know the rules that my body is operating under.7 -
I hate it when people say ''you aren't on a diet, you are making a lifestyle change"- umm, a diet is just the food that you eat, technically everyone is on a diet.2
-
When people respond to requests about "Spot reduction" with "Just keep on losing, eventually the fat will come off your X."
Yes, eventually the fat WILL come off your "X," but because you can't spot reduce, it may require that you drop to unsustainably low bodyfat percentages to do that, so telling people that they "just" need to do that is misleading at best.
The answer to "you can't spot reduce" is exactly that: "YOU CANNOT SPOT REDUCE."
5 -
For me the watch fruit, it will make you fat!
I can only speak for myself but eating fruit did not make me overweight. I am sure that it was more the overindulgence in fast food (sometimes two times a day), evening snacking on chips, chocolate, etc., eating when not hungry, as well as I will start fresh tomorrow so better go on a binge today so might as well eat all the stuff you crave today, etc.4 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Lately, "the fat burning zone".
I don't so much get annoyed at the people deceived by it as I am at the 'gurus' who ought to know better espousing it and at the ding-dong\s that came up with that terminology in the first place.
It wouldn't have taken a crystal ball to foresee how it would be misinterpreted. I am thankful that it's at least not encouraging anything harmful.
And people doing HIIT 7 days a week for an hour...
The whole love affair the fitness industry seems to have with HIIT drives me nuts.5 -
nosebag1212 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Lately, "the fat burning zone".
I don't so much get annoyed at the people deceived by it as I am at the 'gurus' who ought to know better espousing it and at the ding-dong\s that came up with that terminology in the first place.
It wouldn't have taken a crystal ball to foresee how it would be misinterpreted. I am thankful that it's at least not encouraging anything harmful.
And people doing HIIT 7 days a week for an hour...
The whole love affair the fitness industry seems to have with HIIT drives me nuts.
It bugs me too because it is not for everyone, I don't really enjoy it myself. I would much rather do an hour long walk/hike with the dog. Way more enjoyable for me. But according to HIIT fanatics why do a hike/walk when you can do HIIT and spend less time even though I hate HIIT.5 -
highwood125 wrote: »For me the watch fruit, it will make you fat!
I can only speak for myself but eating fruit did not make me overweight. I am sure that it was more the overindulgence in fast food (sometimes two times a day), evening snacking on chips, chocolate, etc., eating when not hungry, as well as I will start fresh tomorrow so better go on a binge today so might as well eat all the stuff you crave today, etc.
I could eat a whole lot of apple's for the calories in a double cheeseburger, large onion rings, and a midnight truffle blizzard.1 -
dale050467 wrote: »using loose instead of lose
English speaking grammer Nazis who seem to assume that everyone who communicates in English speaks English as a first language and must therefore be perfect at it.
I corrected my mistake Herr Generaloberst.
Huh. Loose and lose. See the thing is they are two different words with two different meanings. It's nothing to do with grammar Nazism - because it isn't grammar. The opposite of loose is tight, the opposite of lose is gain. You might as well say " I want to apricot weight" because it makes as much sense.
I bolded your statement because I fail to understand why you took offence to learning something new - if English is indeed a second language for you then you now know the difference and can use either word correctly in the future. "Ich bien ein berliner" if you see what I mean?
As a mother of two kids with learning disabilities who used to be a grammar Nazi, lighten up. It's not as easy for everybody as it is for you. You know what they mean; let it go. Nobody likes to be mocked in a public setting.
6 -
The automatic "1200 calories is too low! You're starving yourself and it's not healthy!" response to any poster that wants to discuss anything involving eating 1200 calories. Just stop it until you learn enough about OP's situation to give rational advice.
For many of us 1200 calories is NOT too low - there are plenty of us older, shorter women on these boards who lose weight at the rate of .5 lbs or less a week on 1200 calories, even those of us who are moderately active. And I really resent it when the poster goes on to boast "I'm 5'1" and I eat 2500 calories just to MAINTAIN!"
Well, how nice for you, and thanks for throwing it in my face.
Edited to fix a word19 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Nicholas_39 wrote: »"Starvation mode"
Also when people claim cardio is bad for aesthetics so you should be doing weight lifting instead.
Cardio is bad for aesthetics... compare a marathoner to a judoka or gymnast
Not to pick on you @stanmann571, I agree that resistance training is important, but here is what irritates me about MFP at times- people stating their opinions like they are hard and fast facts. Aesthetics are highly subjective don't you think? In my opinion cardio isn't bad for aesthetics anymore than gymnastics is- they just develop different physiques.
Personally I'd rather look like Shalane Flanagan (marathon runner) than Jordyn Wieber (gymnast). I also think Hal Koerner (ultra runner) looks a far sight better than Asley Gonsalez (judoka). Not because either can be empirically proven to be better looking than the other, they are all incredibly fit people, but because Flanagan and Koerner are my preferred aesthetic for myself. If I wanted to look like Wieber or Misty Copeland or whatever then yeah, high volume long distance running would be counter-productive to that goal, but I don't. If someone else would rather look like them they aren't more or less right in their preferences than I am.
People should train for the physiques they want to attain. I'm a runner, I identify with runner aesthetic and therefore am training for that aesthetic. You want to look like a gymnast or a dancer then train like one. But no one fitness or physique goal is superior to all the others (to my mind anyway). Much like how no one way of eating is the one "to rule them all"
26 -
- Loose/lose, it just annoys the heck out of me.
- What the heck is up with the "fat burn zone"? I just don't understand it.
- When people say "I'm only on 1,200 calories a day but I'm not losing any weight. Oh and I don't use scales I just eyeball my portions but I know my tracking is perfect." Ummmm... doooooubtful.
- Or "I've hit a plateau! The scale hasn't moved for 3 days! Should I eat more??"
- OR "Oh my god i ate 100 calories over my goal last night and I gained 5 pounds! By the way it's my TOM. Oh and I ate a ton of carbs and soy sauce yesterday. Oh and I worked out and my muscles or sore. Oh, and I haven't pooped in 3 days..." Oh my god, dude, it's freakin water weight and waste just chiiiiiiiill.
- Omg and if I see one more thread asking if cheat days are ok. Do a freakin search! Soooo many people have given really thoughtful responses to that question time and time again.
I try to just mind my own business but when the first two pages are like, 6 threads with the SAME questions that the most cursory of searches would answer... aaaaarg!9 -
Oh yeah this just happened....
I open my diary to share ideas. If something needs correcting, kindly point it out and I'll fix it. No need to be a judgemental jerk about it. Maybe I made an innocent mistake, or there are reasons, preferences, and other motivations driving my food and exercise choices. Anyway, someone has been aggressively questioning my every calorie burn (I really do burn 1000 plus calories spread over 2 workouts) and today it was my choice of seasonings. He has been removed.
Don't decide to ask people "friend me if you have an open diary" just to rip the crap out of them over minutiae. That's baiting.16 -
Sorry you had to deal with that. 1 -
nosebag1212 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Lately, "the fat burning zone".
I don't so much get annoyed at the people deceived by it as I am at the 'gurus' who ought to know better espousing it and at the ding-dong\s that came up with that terminology in the first place.
It wouldn't have taken a crystal ball to foresee how it would be misinterpreted. I am thankful that it's at least not encouraging anything harmful.
And people doing HIIT 7 days a week for an hour...
The whole love affair the fitness industry seems to have with HIIT drives me nuts.
I think it's just an example of a much larger tendency: Taking a concept or term from an advanced level (of athletic training in this case, but it happens with other fields, too); misunderstanding or at least mis-framing the term/concept; then popularizing the resulting nonsense (often for profit). That way, everyone can do the same things the cool kids do. (In this case, the cool kids are more advanced athletes, obviously.)
For some athletic goals, high-intensity work is an essential training element. It's gonna be done as intervals, because it can't be done as a long, continuous workout, by definition, right? And it certainly isn't done (for any sport I'm aware of) as one's sole, main everyday workout, by people at that athletic level. But some fitness celeb can trumpet it as a secret of the elites, now available to you.
Same basic deal with "fat burning zone". For some athletic goals, it can be important to know your main fuel source(s) at particular intensities, for training or performance reasons. But mis-framing that into a concern for people who simply want to lose fat . . . that's nonsense.
You see people do this with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, when they apply it to macro-scale events in ways that have little to do with physics, to suggest just one non-fitness example.
Don't get me wrong: I don't think actual HIIT has zero value for regular people, nor do I think Susie weight-loser is intentionally trying to pose as a cool kid by doing "HIIT" for an hour every day . . . but I think someone in the diffuse lineage preceding Susie was probably a poser, an ignoramus, or both.8 -
I just restrained myself on another thread. A food is not "yuck". It happens to be a food I like. Everybody else on the thread does too. Plus, what are you a toddler!
I don't like olives. If olives come up, I will either say nothing or if I can answer the olive-related question I will do so but remark that I do not care for olives.3 -
2 -
MsHarryWinston wrote: »- Loose/lose, it just annoys the heck out of me.
- What the heck is up with the "fat burn zone"? I just don't understand it.
- When people say "I'm only on 1,200 calories a day but I'm not losing any weight. Oh and I don't use scales I just eyeball my portions but I know my tracking is perfect." Ummmm... doooooubtful.
- Or "I've hit a plateau! The scale hasn't moved for 3 days! Should I eat more??"
- OR "Oh my god i ate 100 calories over my goal last night and I gained 5 pounds! By the way it's my TOM. Oh and I ate a ton of carbs and soy sauce yesterday. Oh and I worked out and my muscles or sore. Oh, and I haven't pooped in 3 days..." Oh my god, dude, it's freakin water weight and waste just chiiiiiiiill.
- Omg and if I see one more thread asking if cheat days are ok. Do a freakin search! Soooo many people have given really thoughtful responses to that question time and time again.
I try to just mind my own business but when the first two pages are like, 6 threads with the SAME questions that the most cursory of searches would answer... Aaaaarg!
Simply put, it's being in the aerobic zone where the body burns more fat than glycogen, which is an important zone for training for endurance athletes. Any women's magazine talk beyond that is balderdash.5 -
JessicaMcB wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Nicholas_39 wrote: »"Starvation mode"
Also when people claim cardio is bad for aesthetics so you should be doing weight lifting instead.
Cardio is bad for aesthetics... compare a marathoner to a judoka or gymnast
Not to pick on you @stanmann571, I agree that resistance training is important, but here is what irritates me about MFP at times- people stating their opinions like they are hard and fast facts. Aesthetics are highly subjective don't you think? In my opinion cardio isn't bad for aesthetics anymore than gymnastics is- they just develop different physiques.
Personally I'd rather look like Shalane Flanagan (marathon runner) than Jordyn Wieber (gymnast). I also think Hal Koerner (ultra runner) looks a far sight better than Asley Gonsalez (judoka). Not because either can be empirically proven to be better looking than the other, they are all incredibly fit people, but because Flanagan and Koerner are my preferred aesthetic for myself. If I wanted to look like Wieber or Misty Copeland or whatever then yeah, high volume long distance running would be counter-productive to that goal, but I don't. If someone else would rather look like them they aren't more or less right in their preferences than I am.
People should train for the physiques they want to attain. I'm a runner, I identify with runner aesthetic and therefore am training for that aesthetic. You want to look like a gymnast or a dancer then train like one. But no one fitness or physique goal is superior to all the others (to my mind anyway). Much like how no one way of eating is the one "to rule them all"
*slow claps of approval*9 -
My personal #1 is "How do I find motivation?" or anything along those lines...7
-
Lately, "the fat burning zone".
I don't so much get annoyed at the people deceived by it as I am at the 'gurus' who ought to know better espousing it and at the ding-dong\s that came up with that terminology in the first place.
It wouldn't have taken a crystal ball to foresee how it would be misinterpreted. I am thankful that it's at least not encouraging anything harmful.
Isn't it funny how far we've come in understanding of what's true vs. what's just BS? Like, I'm thinking back to when I was a kid.. my mom was all about the low fat diet. Nothing else matters, because fat is what makes you fat. The list goes on. Not eating after a certain time, eating lots of small meals, can't eat certain foods, heavy lifting makes you bulkty (women), etc.
Makes me even more grateful I found MFP and learned what it really takes.2 -
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.
You don't know how weight loss surgery works. Nobody I know who has had it is having a nice easy time losing their weight and keeping it off.
Btw, one of my pet peeves.6 -
"the fat burning zone".
Makes me even more grateful I found MFP and learned what it really takes.
I asked about this one on the fitness board because I totally didn't know what the heck they meant. I knew my Fitbit shows my activity as either out of zone, fat-burning, cardio, and peak. I figured that HAD to mean something with respect to my weight loss...I mean, why else show it? It even tags it with how many calories per minute you are burning at the various levels. I have a very low heart rate - resting is about 50 bpm and I have a hard time getting it higher. I don't know if it's my medication or what, but I can be sweating my behind off and out of breath and really, not able to work any harder, and it'll get to cardio or peak for a hot second and then back down. I have a lot of "out of zone" time.
I'm also really grateful to MFP. You don't know if you don't ask.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »Things like "per say" and "walla" really set my teeth on edge, but that's not only generic, but also elitist of me, so I never mention it. ("Walla" in constructs like "I started weighing food and - walla! - I finally started losing weight.)
So glad you clarified. I was worried that my first middle name was problematic somehow.
It's spelled Voila'
I know. Not sure why you quoted me.1
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