Where Does All the Misinformation Come From?
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »
This fits perfect with the resveratrol in wine bit.1 -
clicketykeys wrote: »From that infographic, I would be wondering why the journal's peer-review group didn't do a better job of vetting the submission.
The import, or lack thereof, of small pilot studies that even under the best of circumstances can do nothing more than suggest a promising avenue for future research, would be very clear to anyone in the field who actually reads the paper. The problems don't begin until it hits the media and gets promoted with much more certainty than it actually carries by hucksters like Dr. Oz.6 -
I blame Google. Seriously, how many posts do we see that give some really bad information followed by "just Google it, you'll see it's true"?
... but then again, how hard is it to google "nutrition macros" as opposed to logging into MFP, asking here and waiting 2 hours for an answer? People will google the strangest *kitten* but won't use the same tool to learn about the most basic concepts.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »A lot of it is the media blowing things out of proportion. A single study suggests something and they report it as fact. Several studies show most people should eat less of <whatever> and they report it as <whatever> is unhealthy with no mention of amount. And people are lazy. They read the headline, maybe even skim the article but make no effort to find out what the actual study said or if it's been confirmed by f/u studies.
Many people believe everything they read regardless of whether the source is credible.
And, then they spread that 'information' saying things like, "I read somewhere that . . . "1 -
Thanks so much everyone. There were a lot of interesting answers.
My first thought was money, honestly, but I do think there's a lot of people that just hear or read something and spread it without intending to do any harm.
1 -
MontyMuttland wrote: »No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
? Am I missing something? There is such thing as weight per unit volume: it's called density.
Yes, they weren't clear. The objection is that weight-relative terms are used when it's density that's really being compared.
The counter-argument is that 'everybody knows' that when you say X is heavier than Y that you mean equal volumes of X and Y.
Now personally, I'd be ripped a new one if I use heavier and lighter in that way but I came up through a biochemistry and physics track and am still in a branch of science where assumptions and inaccurate terminology are frowned upon.
So would I. But then, I also understand the difference between a casual expression where, in context, the meaning is clear, and technical contexts where absolute clarity is important. I don't know why this should be so difficult for some people, except perhaps they enjoy the opportunity for needless pedantry.
What really kills me is when somebody complains that 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat...
...and then goes on to claim that an acceptable alternative expression is "muscle takes up less space than fat"!
Because, apparently, it goes without saying that all comparisons involve equal masses of substance.
Sorry, but if you're going to be so pedantic as to require that people clarify that 1 pint of muscle weighs more than 1 pint of fat, you'd darn well better be equally pedantic in requiring that people clarify that 1 pound of fat occupies more volume than 1 pound of muscle. Can't have it both ways!
The acceptable alternative for pedantic people is "muscle is denser than fat".4 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »MontyMuttland wrote: »No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
? Am I missing something? There is such thing as weight per unit volume: it's called density.
Yes, they weren't clear. The objection is that weight-relative terms are used when it's density that's really being compared.
The counter-argument is that 'everybody knows' that when you say X is heavier than Y that you mean equal volumes of X and Y.
Now personally, I'd be ripped a new one if I use heavier and lighter in that way but I came up through a biochemistry and physics track and am still in a branch of science where assumptions and inaccurate terminology are frowned upon.
So would I. But then, I also understand the difference between a casual expression where, in context, the meaning is clear, and technical contexts where absolute clarity is important. I don't know why this should be so difficult for some people, except perhaps they enjoy the opportunity for needless pedantry.
What really kills me is when somebody complains that 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat...
...and then goes on to claim that an acceptable alternative expression is "muscle takes up less space than fat"!
Because, apparently, it goes without saying that all comparisons involve equal masses of substance.
Sorry, but if you're going to be so pedantic as to require that people clarify that 1 pint of muscle weighs more than 1 pint of fat, you'd darn well better be equally pedantic in requiring that people clarify that 1 pound of fat occupies more volume than 1 pound of muscle. Can't have it both ways!
The acceptable alternative for pedantic people is "muscle is denser than fat".
I really thought all that about muscle not weighing more than fat was a joke. Then I read a little bit more and realized people were serious about it. I am kind of wondering how they'd handle a question like "Which has more calories, lettuce or butter?"6 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »MontyMuttland wrote: »No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
? Am I missing something? There is such thing as weight per unit volume: it's called density.
Yes, they weren't clear. The objection is that weight-relative terms are used when it's density that's really being compared.
The counter-argument is that 'everybody knows' that when you say X is heavier than Y that you mean equal volumes of X and Y.
Now personally, I'd be ripped a new one if I use heavier and lighter in that way but I came up through a biochemistry and physics track and am still in a branch of science where assumptions and inaccurate terminology are frowned upon.
So would I. But then, I also understand the difference between a casual expression where, in context, the meaning is clear, and technical contexts where absolute clarity is important. I don't know why this should be so difficult for some people, except perhaps they enjoy the opportunity for needless pedantry.
What really kills me is when somebody complains that 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat...
...and then goes on to claim that an acceptable alternative expression is "muscle takes up less space than fat"!
Because, apparently, it goes without saying that all comparisons involve equal masses of substance.
Sorry, but if you're going to be so pedantic as to require that people clarify that 1 pint of muscle weighs more than 1 pint of fat, you'd darn well better be equally pedantic in requiring that people clarify that 1 pound of fat occupies more volume than 1 pound of muscle. Can't have it both ways!
The acceptable alternative for pedantic people is "muscle is denser than fat".
I really thought all that about muscle not weighing more than fat was a joke. Then I read a little bit more and realized people were serious about it. I am kind of wondering how they'd handle a question like "Which has more calories, lettuce or butter?"
Yeah, such idiots who say butter has more calories given that 1000 calories of lettuce has the same calories as 1000 calories of butter, derp derp.5 -
JerSchmare wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »It comes from people selling things. But, it also comes from people wanting magic to be true. It's a hard pill to swallow to say, "you eat too much. So, stop doing that." It's much easier to sell a system that makes it complicated, but if you follow it, it works. A good example is Weight Watchers.
I get a good laugh from weight watchers. I am glad that it works for some people but i just do NOT understand why you would put all that effort into learning a points system instead of just learning the calories.
It's because people honestly don't know. And, they want losing weight to be difficult. The truth is harsh to many people.
They want it to be difficult in the ways it is easy and easy in the parts that are hard (self control.).0 -
Intellectual laziness. How does the premier democracy in the world end up voting in a populist leader who has a barely tenuous hold on the truth?
All information good and bad is equally available these days. The discerning reader must learn to vet sources.
Read Darwin Awards and Snopes.1 -
Well, not all vintage info is good. I have a 1940's cookbook that has similar menus but recommends to use mineral oil in place of the oil in dressings and mayonnaise.rainbowbow wrote: »Someone mentioned the 60's. Can i just say, atleast back then when companies were trying to sell you something they still provided you (somewhat) reasonable information.
0 -
human nature. almost everyone would prefer to hear: eat everything you want in this particular food category instead of eat less.1
-
Well yeah, you can do it that way too.
If you understand how to "weigh" things, you weigh materials of SAME VOLUME to determine it's WEIGHT DENSITY. That's how science works.MontyMuttland wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »Muscle does weigh more than fat so that one isn't misinformation.
A pound weighs a pound. But by volume, muscle weighs more than fat. Rarely does anyone specify volume in the "muscle weighs more than fat" truism because we figure your smart enough to figure out the obvious.
I'm quite certain the idea of starvation mode comes from people's experience. They cut calories drastically and exercise intensely and they get stuck at the same weight for months at a time. Or they diet and lose weight, then when they try to add back even a tiny bit more calories than their calories, they gain huge amounts of weight very quickly.
No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
These are two totally different measurements.
Weight is a measure of how heavy something is.
Volume is a measure of how much space something takes up.
They are not the same thing.
They are not interchangeable.
A kilo of fat weighs the same as a kilo of muscle and a kilo of feathers, but each of them takes up a different amount of physical space.
However, it's stuff like this where people confidently put forward ideas that are factually incorrect which leads to widespread nonsense getting believed by so many others.
People cling to notions they like the sound of, regardless of truth.
But facts remain true whether you like them or not, that's just the way it is!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
No, actually you typically don't - there's no need to make sure two materials are the same volume before weighing and it often adds an extra time-consuming step. Imagine trying to excise a precise cubic centimeter (or inch, or whatever) of material from a larger block, especially if the block is irregular in shape. It's not always a simple thing to do.
You weigh a piece of material, you measure it's volume (in any order you choose) and from those you calculate its density. I was addressing when weighing 2 materials against each other because of the initial response. (kilo of fat versus kilo of muscle)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »It comes from people selling things. But, it also comes from people wanting magic to be true. It's a hard pill to swallow to say, "you eat too much. So, stop doing that." It's much easier to sell a system that makes it complicated, but if you follow it, it works. A good example is Weight Watchers.
I get a good laugh from weight watchers. I am glad that it works for some people but i just do NOT understand why you would put all that effort into learning a points system instead of just learning the calories.
The answer to this one is historical (note: I'm old, and remember stuff).
Weight Watchers spread to become a big deal in the 1960s. Calorie counting wasn't practical then for everyday people (no apps, limited info on food labels, etc.). WW put forth point counting because it achieved some of the advantages of a quantified, reliable system in a practical way, before calorie counting was at all practical.
Once there was good product labeling, internet calorie databases, calorie counting apps, etc , it left WW scrambling for relevance.6 -
When I did WW for the first time, it was the 80s and they were doing 'exchanges'. So a protein exchange was 1 oz of chicken or 2 oz of fish or 1 egg, etc. You were given so many proteins, carbs, milk, fruits, veggies, and fat as well as some 'extra' calories for stuff that didn't fit so neatly. (Example: a dessert might be 2 carbs, 2 fats and 75 calories.)1
-
Misinformation comes from lack of critical thinking from those who hear something and parrot the misinformation as undisputed fact. This applies to so many things in life, not just nutrition.4
-
clicketykeys wrote: »From that infographic, I would be wondering why the journal's peer-review group didn't do a better job of vetting the submission.
@rainbowbow I love how the menu very carefully specifies that the lettuce leaves MUST be "small." Because if you put four LARGE lettuce leaves in that dinner salad, you'll just keep gaining weight. XD
Dem lettucegainz, bro!2 -
-
Intellectual laziness. How does the premier democracy in the world end up voting in a populist leader who has a barely tenuous hold on the truth?
All information good and bad is equally available these days. The discerning reader must learn to vet sources.
Read Darwin Awards and Snopes.
Intellectual laziness--what a lovely politically correct way to say "stupidity". 5 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »A lot of it is the media blowing things out of proportion. A single study suggests something and they report it as fact. Several studies show most people should eat less of <whatever> and they report it as <whatever> is unhealthy with no mention of amount. And people are lazy. They read the headline, maybe even skim the article but make no effort to find out what the actual study said or if it's been confirmed by f/u studies.
Many people believe everything they read regardless of whether the source is credible.
The "Biggest Loser" study is an excellent example of this! All of a sudden, permanent weight-loss is "hopeless." Only specific and out of context parts were reported. But rarely the fact that the study's authors said it was specific to people of this size who lost weight under these extreme conditions and that it wasn't generalizable to the masses.3 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Science changes as new research emerges and new facts discovered. Einstein disproved some of Newton's theories. Pluto is no longer a planet. But by and large the worst information comes from companies trying to sell something. We laugh at the old time snake oil sales men going from town to town selling cocaine laced cough syrup but go out and buy the newest "magic" weight loss pill.
I thought it was, again.
https://futurism.com/pluto-reclassified-as-a-major-planet/
WRITTEN BY
Jolene Creighton
@sciencejolene Website
April 1, 20170 -
JerSchmare wrote: »It comes from people selling things. But, it also comes from people wanting magic to be true. It's a hard pill to swallow to say, "you eat too much. So, stop doing that." It's much easier to sell a system that makes it complicated, but if you follow it, it works. A good example is Weight Watchers.
What's funny about this is checking in on my WW friends and seeing that they're double tracking calories and points, and arguing over counting fruit. Just count the dang calories and keep it simple.4 -
Yeah, I pointed that out earlier.JeromeBarry1 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Science changes as new research emerges and new facts discovered. Einstein disproved some of Newton's theories. Pluto is no longer a planet. But by and large the worst information comes from companies trying to sell something. We laugh at the old time snake oil sales men going from town to town selling cocaine laced cough syrup but go out and buy the newest "magic" weight loss pill.
I thought it was, again.
https://futurism.com/pluto-reclassified-as-a-major-planet/
WRITTEN BY
Jolene Creighton
@sciencejolene Website
April 1, 2017
0 -
MontyMuttland wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »Muscle does weigh more than fat so that one isn't misinformation.
A pound weighs a pound. But by volume, muscle weighs more than fat. Rarely does anyone specify volume in the "muscle weighs more than fat" truism because we figure your smart enough to figure out the obvious.
I'm quite certain the idea of starvation mode comes from people's experience. They cut calories drastically and exercise intensely and they get stuck at the same weight for months at a time. Or they diet and lose weight, then when they try to add back even a tiny bit more calories than their calories, they gain huge amounts of weight very quickly.
No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
These are two totally different measurements.
Weight is a measure of how heavy something is.
Volume is a measure of how much space something takes up.
They are not the same thing.
They are not interchangeable.
A kilo of fat weighs the same as a kilo of muscle and a kilo of feathers, but each of them takes up a different amount of physical space.
However, it's stuff like this where people confidently put forward ideas that are factually incorrect which leads to widespread nonsense getting believed by so many others.
People cling to notions they like the sound of, regardless of truth.
But facts remain true whether you like them or not, that's just the way it is!
I should call the people who invented the concept of density and tell them they were wrong because weight and volume are different things so you can't possible put them in relation.6 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »MontyMuttland wrote: »No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
? Am I missing something? There is such thing as weight per unit volume: it's called density.
Yes, they weren't clear. The objection is that weight-relative terms are used when it's density that's really being compared.
The counter-argument is that 'everybody knows' that when you say X is heavier than Y that you mean equal volumes of X and Y.
Now personally, I'd be ripped a new one if I use heavier and lighter in that way but I came up through a biochemistry and physics track and am still in a branch of science where assumptions and inaccurate terminology are frowned upon.
So would I. But then, I also understand the difference between a casual expression where, in context, the meaning is clear, and technical contexts where absolute clarity is important. I don't know why this should be so difficult for some people, except perhaps they enjoy the opportunity for needless pedantry.
What really kills me is when somebody complains that 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat...
...and then goes on to claim that an acceptable alternative expression is "muscle takes up less space than fat"!
Because, apparently, it goes without saying that all comparisons involve equal masses of substance.
Sorry, but if you're going to be so pedantic as to require that people clarify that 1 pint of muscle weighs more than 1 pint of fat, you'd darn well better be equally pedantic in requiring that people clarify that 1 pound of fat occupies more volume than 1 pound of muscle. Can't have it both ways!
The acceptable alternative for pedantic people is "muscle is denser than fat".
* if observed at equal pressure and temperatures.
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »MontyMuttland wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »Muscle does weigh more than fat so that one isn't misinformation.
A pound weighs a pound. But by volume, muscle weighs more than fat. Rarely does anyone specify volume in the "muscle weighs more than fat" truism because we figure your smart enough to figure out the obvious.
I'm quite certain the idea of starvation mode comes from people's experience. They cut calories drastically and exercise intensely and they get stuck at the same weight for months at a time. Or they diet and lose weight, then when they try to add back even a tiny bit more calories than their calories, they gain huge amounts of weight very quickly.
No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
These are two totally different measurements.
Weight is a measure of how heavy something is.
Volume is a measure of how much space something takes up.
They are not the same thing.
They are not interchangeable.
A kilo of fat weighs the same as a kilo of muscle and a kilo of feathers, but each of them takes up a different amount of physical space.
However, it's stuff like this where people confidently put forward ideas that are factually incorrect which leads to widespread nonsense getting believed by so many others.
People cling to notions they like the sound of, regardless of truth.
But facts remain true whether you like them or not, that's just the way it is!
I should call the people who invented the concept of density and tell them they were wrong because weight and volume are different things so you can't possible put them in relation.
Isn't the textbook definition of a gram 1 mL water at sea level?
OK, Wikipedia says it isn't that anymore.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MontyMuttland wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »Muscle does weigh more than fat so that one isn't misinformation.
A pound weighs a pound. But by volume, muscle weighs more than fat. Rarely does anyone specify volume in the "muscle weighs more than fat" truism because we figure your smart enough to figure out the obvious.
I'm quite certain the idea of starvation mode comes from people's experience. They cut calories drastically and exercise intensely and they get stuck at the same weight for months at a time. Or they diet and lose weight, then when they try to add back even a tiny bit more calories than their calories, they gain huge amounts of weight very quickly.
No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
These are two totally different measurements.
Weight is a measure of how heavy something is.
Volume is a measure of how much space something takes up.
They are not the same thing.
They are not interchangeable.
A kilo of fat weighs the same as a kilo of muscle and a kilo of feathers, but each of them takes up a different amount of physical space.
However, it's stuff like this where people confidently put forward ideas that are factually incorrect which leads to widespread nonsense getting believed by so many others.
People cling to notions they like the sound of, regardless of truth.
But facts remain true whether you like them or not, that's just the way it is!
I should call the people who invented the concept of density and tell them they were wrong because weight and volume are different things so you can't possible put them in relation.
Isn't the textbook definition of a gram 1 mL water at sea level?
OK, Wikipedia says it isn't that anymore.
No, but it's still close enough. Not that it really establishes an equivalence between mass and volume for anything but water. Other liquids with other densities won't have this equivalence.0 -
I feel like it's half people over-simplifying things and half people selling things.3
-
stevencloser wrote: »MontyMuttland wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »Muscle does weigh more than fat so that one isn't misinformation.
A pound weighs a pound. But by volume, muscle weighs more than fat. Rarely does anyone specify volume in the "muscle weighs more than fat" truism because we figure your smart enough to figure out the obvious.
I'm quite certain the idea of starvation mode comes from people's experience. They cut calories drastically and exercise intensely and they get stuck at the same weight for months at a time. Or they diet and lose weight, then when they try to add back even a tiny bit more calories than their calories, they gain huge amounts of weight very quickly.
No, no, no no no, nonononononono, nooooooooooo !!
There is no such thing as weight by volume.
These are two totally different measurements.
Weight is a measure of how heavy something is.
Volume is a measure of how much space something takes up.
They are not the same thing.
They are not interchangeable.
A kilo of fat weighs the same as a kilo of muscle and a kilo of feathers, but each of them takes up a different amount of physical space.
However, it's stuff like this where people confidently put forward ideas that are factually incorrect which leads to widespread nonsense getting believed by so many others.
People cling to notions they like the sound of, regardless of truth.
But facts remain true whether you like them or not, that's just the way it is!
I should call the people who invented the concept of density and tell them they were wrong because weight and volume are different things so you can't possible put them in relation.
I should have worded my post better. You (and others) are right to point out I've denied the existence of density the way I wrote it, which is pretty dumb.
I was trying to make the point that in the context of healthy living and weight-loss it's not good to interchange weight and volume.
For example, "weighing" foods by the cupful rather than taking a physical weight on the scales results in a lot of variation.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K 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