What terms/phrases wind you up about losing weight?
Replies
-
SusanMFindlay wrote: »WendyLeigh1119 wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »WendyLeigh1119 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
To be fair, at least they're only misunderstanding rather than spewing nonsense. Higher intensity cardio DOES burn less calories from fat specifically, but it still burns fat (and creates the afterburn continuing after exercise is completed, which the "fat burn zone" never will).
Technically, it still burns more calories of fat; it's just that a lower percentage of the calories burned come from fat. (Lower percentage of a bigger total can still be a bigger number.) So, it sucks that the media misrepresents it.
I blame Fitbit for keeping that alive. Their explanation of exercise zones completely reinforces the whole "don't do intense cardio unless you're training for endurance thing.
I agree with this. In my head I translate "fat burning zone" to "steady state zone" when I'm cycling.
That works! I call it the "not sitting on my butt" zone. I try to be in it several hours a day so that I'm getting a good amount of NEAT. So, I like that Fitbit shows me my time in each zone for the day, but not for the reason they think.
Sitting on your butt would actually put you further into the "fat burning zone"2 -
The phrase I hate the most is one I say myself, " Kitten! I don't have room in my calories for any wine."11
-
The humble-brag. "Help! I have disgusting stomach fat and need tips on how to get rid of it!". Accompanied by 6 pictures of a very fit person with no visible body fat.33
-
'burn' bothers me a little. as in 'great burn!' but then i'm just generally not a type who enjoys too much of the rah-rah stuff in the first place.
and i have to look away when i see what's being done to the word 'squats' all over certain parts of the broternet.1 -
I've seen most of these on this thread, but will repeat for my own edification.
- I need to "loose" weight. Grrrrrr.
- Muscle weighs more than fat. Makes me screech loudly and it scares the dogs.
- Starvation mode. Nope.
- Anything related to FA or HAES. Seriously, get real.
- Women sharing about being on their periods as an excuse for any *kitten*. Haven't you seen those tampax commercials where you can scuba dive or mountain climb or salsa dance? I'm a woman and that's not something I would share with most people in my life, let alone the internet community.
- I have calories left at the end of the day. What should I do?
6 -
"It's easy for you."9
-
Not a word/phrase, but I get very annoyed when someone asks for help or asks a question and then ignores every piece of sound advice or answer in favor of the 1 or 2 posts in a thread of 50 that just back up their pre-conceived ideas.
Or the OP never comes back at all and people keep on posting advice for who? or is that whom?
6 -
Not a term/phrase but I get really sad seeing people bust their *kitten* in the gym, working so hard, then they go to the shops and get a "reward" for all their hard work that is 6x their calorie burn.
(Very aware you can fit in treats in calorie counting, but you can pick the ones that really don't realise that they would have been better off staying at home instead of "rewarding" themselves)0 -
"Transformation"
"Journey"
Not weight related, but it happens here more often than anywhere else I go: Mothers who refer to themselves as "mommies" or other baby talk names when talking to other adults.
But, to each their own. It's convenient when the words are in the subject line, because then I can just skip those threads.
OMG this is something that really really bugs me, not just on here but IRL. Same as when people refer to their kids as "Little Miss 3" or "Master 5" or who describe their children as being like "36 months" old1 -
The humble-brag. "Help! I have disgusting stomach fat and need tips on how to get rid of it!". Accompanied by 6 pictures of a very fit person with no visible body fat.
^^ This!! This annoys the *kitten* outta me cos you just know that the poster KNOWS everyone is gonna be all like "Oh, you're so perfect, I wish I was like you" and they get the attention they want!! And the "I need to lose 100lb but I can't eat more than 800cals a day, I'm just soooo full, is this ok?" How in the name of *kitten* did you get to a point where you need to lose 100lb if you can only manage 800cals a day??Not a term/phrase but I get really sad seeing people bust their *kitten* in the gym, working so hard, then they go to the shops and get a "reward" for all their hard work that is 6x their calorie burn.
(Very aware you can fit in treats in calorie counting, but you can pick the ones that really don't realise that they would have been better off staying at home instead of "rewarding" themselves)
^^ I use to work in a gym and the amount of people that would do a half an hour in the gym (every day) then come to reception and get the big calorie bomb coffees with a muffin and a chocolate bar and sit with their friends saying they "deserved it" after their work out and a month later would tear the gym staff a new one cos they weren't losing weight and obviously the trainers weren't doing their jobs right and were showing them the "wrong work outs". never mind that a 400 calorie coffee, a 300 calorie muffin and a 300 calorie chocolate bar does not equal a 100 calorie walk on the treadmill!!
9 -
Not a term/phrase but I get really sad seeing people bust their *kitten* in the gym, working so hard, then they go to the shops and get a "reward" for all their hard work that is 6x their calorie burn.
(Very aware you can fit in treats in calorie counting, but you can pick the ones that really don't realise that they would have been better off staying at home instead of "rewarding" themselves)
That's what I did years ago, lol. That's why when I started MFP I didn't exercise for the first 10 days, I wanted to get the diet part under control first.3 -
It's not so much on here (although, yes, sometimes by commenters on success threads) but mostly on weight loss success stories throughout the internet, when the headline will say someone 'now looks like a completely different person.' I just looked at one where the woman lost 100+ lbs., which is freakin' awesome of course, but clearly looks like the same person. Same facial structure, same eyes, forehead, hair, even smile...no, she does not look like a completely different person. She looks like the same person, albeit 100+ lbs. lighter and happier. Quit with the false statements just to get people to click on a link. Grrr. And "Grrr" to me for clicking on the dang link. Will I ever learn? (Probably not.)5
-
RaeBeeBaby wrote: »I've seen most of these on this thread, but will repeat for my own edification.
- I need to "loose" weight. Grrrrrr.
- Muscle weighs more than fat. Makes me screech loudly and it scares the dogs.
- Starvation mode. Nope.
- Anything related to FA or HAES. Seriously, get real.
- Women sharing about being on their periods as an excuse for any *kitten*. Haven't you seen those tampax commercials where you can scuba dive or mountain climb or salsa dance? I'm a woman and that's not something I would share with most people in my life, let alone the internet community.
- I have calories left at the end of the day. What should I do?
YYYAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of bricks. However, guess which will hurt more when I throw it at your head because it is more dense. Makes me nuts.
6 -
What winds me up is when people insist on interpreting "muscle weighs more than fat" (which is just a shorthand and implies per equal volume) as if the person was saying "a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat," which I don't believe anyone thinks or means.
The PROBLEM, almost always, when someone says "oh, don't worry about not losing on 1200 calories, because I understand you started zumba last week and probably built muscle and muscle weighs more than fat" is that (1) you aren't building significant muscle doing zumba while eating 1200 calories (or, like, any), and (2) no matter what you aren't building significant muscle in a week. Focusing on "no, if you added a lb of muscle it weighs the same as a lb of fat" isn't the point, and neither is this idea that if you lost a cubic inch of fat and added a cubic inch of muscle you would weigh more. You aren't adding muscle and there's no reason to assume that you lost and gained the same volume of fat and muscle OR the same weight of fat and muscle, period.
Sigh, now I feel better!20 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »What winds me up is when people insist on interpreting "muscle weighs more than fat" (which is just a shorthand and implies per equal volume) as if the person was saying "a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat," which I don't believe anyone thinks or means.
The PROBLEM, almost always, when someone says "oh, don't worry about not losing on 1200 calories, because I understand you started zumba last week and probably built muscle and muscle weighs more than fat" is that (1) you aren't building significant muscle doing zumba while eating 1200 calories (or, like, any), and (2) no matter what you aren't building significant muscle in a week. Focusing on "no, if you added a lb of muscle it weighs the same as a lb of fat" isn't the point, and neither is this idea that if you lost a cubic inch of fat and added a cubic inch of muscle you would weigh more. You aren't adding muscle and there's no reason to assume that you lost and gained the same volume of fat and muscle OR the same weight of fat and muscle, period.
Sigh, now I feel better!
I put the misinterpretation of "muscle weighs more than fat" in the same annoying pile as when people rage against "you can eat whatever you want as lose weight as long as your in a deficit."
NO ONE is saying eat only twinkies to lose all your weight and you will be strong and healthy and have all the vitamins and nutrients you need. The science for weightloss is CICO. It's just about losing weight not health or nutrition.
And almost everyone adds the disclaimer, of eat nutrient dense food but work treats into your calories, you don't have to cut out entire foods forever if you don't want to."
I think of these arguments of willful misinterpretation of what is being said and I find it annoying and a bit @$$y to be perfectly honest, because the people arguing it must have some true idea of what is being said, they can't be THAT out of the loop to the true meaning of the shorthand.13 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »What winds me up is when people insist on interpreting "muscle weighs more than fat" (which is just a shorthand and implies per equal volume) as if the person was saying "a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat," which I don't believe anyone thinks or means.
Sorry, but I must disagree to a point. SOME people may be using it as shorthand implying equal volume, but I don't know why they would say that in the first place. I know plenty of people who actually do believe it as stated. They haven't stopped to really think about weights and measurements, heard that phrase from someone else and therefore think it applies somehow to the dynamics of weight loss in their favor. Last time a friend of mine said it (meaning it quite literally), I gently used the feathers vs. bricks analogy and actually watched the realization dawning on her face. I think it was a "doh" moment and we both had a chuckle over it.
2 -
MsHarryWinston wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What winds me up is when people insist on interpreting "muscle weighs more than fat" (which is just a shorthand and implies per equal volume) as if the person was saying "a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat," which I don't believe anyone thinks or means.
The PROBLEM, almost always, when someone says "oh, don't worry about not losing on 1200 calories, because I understand you started zumba last week and probably built muscle and muscle weighs more than fat" is that (1) you aren't building significant muscle doing zumba while eating 1200 calories (or, like, any), and (2) no matter what you aren't building significant muscle in a week. Focusing on "no, if you added a lb of muscle it weighs the same as a lb of fat" isn't the point, and neither is this idea that if you lost a cubic inch of fat and added a cubic inch of muscle you would weigh more. You aren't adding muscle and there's no reason to assume that you lost and gained the same volume of fat and muscle OR the same weight of fat and muscle, period.
Sigh, now I feel better!
I put the misinterpretation of "muscle weighs more than fat" in the same annoying pile as when people rage against "you can eat whatever you want as lose weight as long as your in a deficit."
NO ONE is saying eat only twinkies to lose all your weight and you will be strong and healthy and have all the vitamins and nutrients you need. The science for weightloss is CICO. It's just about losing weight not health or nutrition.
And almost everyone adds the disclaimer, of eat nutrient dense food but work treats into your calories, you don't have to cut out entire foods forever if you don't want to."
I think of these arguments of willful misinterpretation of what is being said and I find it annoying and a bit @$$y to be perfectly honest, because the people arguing it must have some true idea of what is being said, they can't be THAT out of the loop to the true meaning of the shorthand.
Agree on both counts.0 -
RaeBeeBaby wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What winds me up is when people insist on interpreting "muscle weighs more than fat" (which is just a shorthand and implies per equal volume) as if the person was saying "a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat," which I don't believe anyone thinks or means.
Sorry, but I must disagree to a point. SOME people may be using it as shorthand implying equal volume, but I don't know why they would say that in the first place.
They say it, because size per lb is exactly what people care about when it comes to weight loss. Just think of those photos used to illustrate the point -- of the woman who weighs the same or more but looks smaller. What people care about is that you can be 130 and look heavy (with a high fat percentage) or the same weight and look super thin and fit (with a low fat percentage, and more muscle) -- implicit in this is that for the same weight fat takes up more space. In vernacular English it is common to convey this as "muscle weighs more than fat" and as MsHarryWinston said, I think the meaning is clear. (Similarly, if I say "my sister weighs less than me, I don't mean "one lb of my sister weighs less than one lb of me." And if I say "gold weighs more than cotton," I don't mean one lb of gold weighs more than one lb of cotton. I mean, WHY would you compare equal weights of things? They obviously weigh the same, that's what equal means. You implicitly are comparing equal VOLUMES of them or, in the case of my sister and I, the whole of two distinct entities.)I know plenty of people who actually do believe it as stated. They haven't stopped to really think about weights and measurements, heard that phrase from someone else and therefore think it applies somehow to the dynamics of weight loss in their favor.
But it does in that 130 made up of 80% lean mass looks different from 130 made up of 65% lean mass. That's how it applies to weight loss. That one lb of one equals one lb of another is rather obviously irrelevant, since there's no reason to assume that you'd replace one lb of one with the other anyway (unless recomping perfectly, I suppose). Muscle weighs more than fat is a silly thing to say if explaining why someone eating (she thinks) at a deficit is not losing weight, but not because a lb is a lb.
I do believe people haven't thought this through, but I don't believe they think one lb is heavier than another lb, since what would that even mean? Oh, I'm still 200, but a lighter 200? No, the idea is that being a 200 that's 40% fat LOOKS worse than being 200 that's 35% fat, and that's true, but fact is that if you are 200 and not losing and you think you are eating 1200, the answer is not that you are gaining so much muscle.
Like I said, it's a pet peeve, since it's kind of insulting to assume that someone who refers, correctly, to the fact that an inch of muscle weighs more than an inch of fat using a common English expression that is generally understood must instead be too stupid to get that a lb is a lb (and again, what would be the alternative, NO ONE trying to lose weight is cool with staying the same weight so long as they are lighter, because that means nothing, it's contradictory -- they might be okay with staying the same weight but being SMALLER, however).11 -
RaeBeeBaby wrote: »Not a word/phrase, but I get very annoyed when someone asks for help or asks a question and then ignores every piece of sound advice or answer in favor of the 1 or 2 posts in a thread of 50 that just back up their pre-conceived ideas.
Or the OP never comes back at all and people keep on posting advice for who? or is that whom?
Whom 3 -
This content has been removed.
-
I forgot to include that, whenever I see "journey," this is what I picture (seriously):
16 -
LaceyBirds wrote: »I forgot to include that, whenever I see "journey," this is what I picture (seriously):
Oh, hilarious, I will too now.1 -
MsHarryWinston wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What winds me up is when people insist on interpreting "muscle weighs more than fat" (which is just a shorthand and implies per equal volume) as if the person was saying "a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat," which I don't believe anyone thinks or means.
The PROBLEM, almost always, when someone says "oh, don't worry about not losing on 1200 calories, because I understand you started zumba last week and probably built muscle and muscle weighs more than fat" is that (1) you aren't building significant muscle doing zumba while eating 1200 calories (or, like, any), and (2) no matter what you aren't building significant muscle in a week. Focusing on "no, if you added a lb of muscle it weighs the same as a lb of fat" isn't the point, and neither is this idea that if you lost a cubic inch of fat and added a cubic inch of muscle you would weigh more. You aren't adding muscle and there's no reason to assume that you lost and gained the same volume of fat and muscle OR the same weight of fat and muscle, period.
Sigh, now I feel better!
I put the misinterpretation of "muscle weighs more than fat" in the same annoying pile as when people rage against "you can eat whatever you want as lose weight as long as your in a deficit."
NO ONE is saying eat only twinkies to lose all your weight and you will be strong and healthy and have all the vitamins and nutrients you need. The science for weightloss is CICO. It's just about losing weight not health or nutrition.
And almost everyone adds the disclaimer, of eat nutrient dense food but work treats into your calories, you don't have to cut out entire foods forever if you don't want to."
I think of these arguments of willful misinterpretation of what is being said and I find it annoying and a bit @$$y to be perfectly honest, because the people arguing it must have some true idea of what is being said, they can't be THAT out of the loop to the true meaning of the shorthand.
Someone with the user name $$y is wondering why he's getting a notification that someone mentioned him in this thread.12 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Just think of those photos used to illustrate the point
and actually . . . those photos have started to bother me because i looked it up. muscle isn't THAT much more dense than fat anyway. it's about a 4::5 ratio, if i understand it properly.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »What winds me up is when people insist on interpreting "muscle weighs more than fat" (which is just a shorthand and implies per equal volume) as if the person was saying "a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat," which I don't believe anyone thinks or means.
THIS!!!
0 -
This may not fit, but I am really tired of hearing people I work with say "Look at you eating all healthy."9
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »MsHarryWinston wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What winds me up is when people insist on interpreting "muscle weighs more than fat" (which is just a shorthand and implies per equal volume) as if the person was saying "a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat," which I don't believe anyone thinks or means.
The PROBLEM, almost always, when someone says "oh, don't worry about not losing on 1200 calories, because I understand you started zumba last week and probably built muscle and muscle weighs more than fat" is that (1) you aren't building significant muscle doing zumba while eating 1200 calories (or, like, any), and (2) no matter what you aren't building significant muscle in a week. Focusing on "no, if you added a lb of muscle it weighs the same as a lb of fat" isn't the point, and neither is this idea that if you lost a cubic inch of fat and added a cubic inch of muscle you would weigh more. You aren't adding muscle and there's no reason to assume that you lost and gained the same volume of fat and muscle OR the same weight of fat and muscle, period.
Sigh, now I feel better!
I put the misinterpretation of "muscle weighs more than fat" in the same annoying pile as when people rage against "you can eat whatever you want as lose weight as long as your in a deficit."
NO ONE is saying eat only twinkies to lose all your weight and you will be strong and healthy and have all the vitamins and nutrients you need. The science for weightloss is CICO. It's just about losing weight not health or nutrition.
And almost everyone adds the disclaimer, of eat nutrient dense food but work treats into your calories, you don't have to cut out entire foods forever if you don't want to."
I think of these arguments of willful misinterpretation of what is being said and I find it annoying and a bit @$$y to be perfectly honest, because the people arguing it must have some true idea of what is being said, they can't be THAT out of the loop to the true meaning of the shorthand.
Someone with the user name $$y is wondering why he's getting a notification that someone mentioned him in this thread.
Ha! It's my workaround for *kitten*. Good thing that person doesn't exist.2 -
MarissaCVT wrote: »This may not fit, but I am really tired of hearing people I work with say "Look at you eating all healthy."
Or, someone saying, "Are you on a diet?" because I'm eating healthy, or don't eat certain things. Ugh.1 -
MarissaCVT wrote: »This may not fit, but I am really tired of hearing people I work with say "Look at you eating all healthy."
Or, someone saying, "Are you on a diet?" because I'm eating healthy, or don't eat certain things. Ugh.
I have to say it makes me sad when someone asks if I'm on a diet because I'm eating something with salad/veggies. EErm... even if I wasn't trying to lose weight, is a salad so unusual?6 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »MarissaCVT wrote: »This may not fit, but I am really tired of hearing people I work with say "Look at you eating all healthy."
Or, someone saying, "Are you on a diet?" because I'm eating healthy, or don't eat certain things. Ugh.
I have to say it makes me sad when someone asks if I'm on a diet because I'm eating something with salad/veggies. EErm... even if I wasn't trying to lose weight, is a salad so unusual?
So true.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions