Usage of minimum and maximum
Options
kommodevaran
Posts: 17,890 Member
Is minimum and maximum used differently across cultures? For me, "minimum" can mean both "as much as" AND "more than", and "maximum" means "as much as" AND "less than". In here, I'm often corrected when I recommend a weekly weight loss rate of "no more than 1% of your body weight", and several people chime in to suggest that that number is too high unless you are obese. Yesterday, I said that a food scale should have a capacity of at least one kg, and then two people said that "this may not be enough".
I have never been impressed or convinced by phrases like Chewing Gum Removes up to 100 Million Bacteria. It could mean "removes nothing at all", too.
I find this interesting, so I'm curious if anyone has run across the same, and/or has any insight.
I have never been impressed or convinced by phrases like Chewing Gum Removes up to 100 Million Bacteria. It could mean "removes nothing at all", too.
I find this interesting, so I'm curious if anyone has run across the same, and/or has any insight.
2
Replies
-
There are different uses for similar phrases, and I guess how we interpret depends on what we know. When I was living in the UK, studying and living with lots of Europeans, we would often have hilarious conversations that required explanations and questioning.
One in particular was how they responded to something like "that's not very nice". I would agree by saying no (as in, no, it's not very nice) whereas they translated their own response to yes (as in, yes I agree with your statement that it's not very nice)
In response to your statement about the scale, I would have likely gone by saying "look for a scale than can weigh up to X" rather than "look for a scale that does at least Y". In terms of a scale, the ability to weigh more is better than not enough.1 -
To follow up, I want to be able to communicate efficiently, so I need to know how to express myself functionally, not just correctly. I have a tendency to go for "correctly"
3 -
I just look at it as a duracell battery.
The ones with the tester, to be clear.0 -
Minimum to me means that you should have no less than..but can go higher than.
Maximum to me means that is the most you can go but can go less.
I feel these words work best used together.
"A 2 drink minimum is required at the bar but a maximum limit of 6 per customer" .. this gives people enough information to know they need at least 2 drinks.. but can choose to drink 3,4,5 or 6 but no more then 6.11 -
Also.. in regards to people chiming in.. I think it's not YOU who is not communicating properly.. you're saying it right.. but I think the person getting the advice needs more.
Like.. let's say I'm new and asking a question about wright loss.. and someone says to me no more then 1% of body weight.
While this sentence does indicate that you CAN go lower.. 1% can be too high for some.. but as a new person.. I'm gonna see 1% and go with that regardless of if the sentence indicates possibility of lower rates of loss.
Where as if you said ".5% but no more then 1% if you are X pounds" it would be more clear that 1% probably isn't for me and I should aim lower.
I think that's why I choose to use the
25lbs or less = .5lbs per week
25-50lbs = 1lbs per week
Etc thing.. it gives people a range of body weight to select an appropriate rate of loss for them. Instead of people with 15lbs to lose selecting 2lbs per week.. and wondering why it's not working7 -
First of all kommodevaran, I enjoy your posts and can't recall your meaning ever being unclear. I understand "maximum" and "minimum" exactly as you describe and have never noticed a different meaning implied by those of other cultures. In the I need recs thread started yesterday by booty rubs and tacos, I don't think lynn_glenmont meant to contradict your advice and I know that I certainly did not. Rather I think Lynn was just pointing out a feature that might be worth considering but probably not obvious to someone unfamiliar with using a kitchen scale as an MFP logging tool. In my clumsy way, I tried to point out another feature that while not essential, could be useful under the same circumstances.kommodevaran wrote: »Is minimum and maximum used differently across cultures? For me, "minimum" can mean both "as much as" AND "more than", and "maximum" means "as much as" AND "less than". In here, I'm often corrected when I recommend a weekly weight loss rate of "no more than 1% of your body weight", and several people chime in to suggest that that number is too high unless you are obese. Yesterday, I said that a food scale should have a capacity of at least one kg, and then two people said that "this may not be enough".
I have never been impressed or convinced by phrases like Chewing Gum Removes up to 100 Million Bacteria. It could mean "removes nothing at all", too.
I find this interesting, so I'm curious if anyone has run across the same, and/or has any insight.
Please forgive any offense created by my inartful use of language.0 -
Yes, that was the thread that made me start this one. I don't feel offended, I'm just curious - ok, maybe have been a bit frustrated, lol - I didn't see your and Lynn's replies as contradicting mine, per se, just as "overlooking" my use of "at least". I meant to say something like "a scale that can't weigh a kilo, is useless; the more, the better, but a kilo would be enough for most instances, at least if you're willing to make some workarounds, like transferring your prepared dish to a serving bowl, but it may not be enough if you batch cook for a whole week and/or family". I also, possibly falsely, assume that the greater capacity, increases the possibility for errors, and if you want both high capacity and great accuracy, you would have to buy a more expensive item - and booty rubs specifically asked for an affordable scale.
First of all kommodevaran, I enjoy your posts and can't recall your meaning ever being unclear. I understand "maximum" and "minimum" exactly as you describe and have never noticed a different meaning implied by those of other cultures. In the I need recs thread started yesterday by booty rubs and tacos, I don't think lynn_glenmont meant to contradict your advice and I know that I certainly did not. Rather I think Lynn was just pointing out a feature that might be worth considering but probably not obvious to someone unfamiliar with using a kitchen scale as an MFP logging tool. In my clumsy way, I tried to point out another feature that while not essential, could be useful under the same circumstances.kommodevaran wrote: »Is minimum and maximum used differently across cultures? For me, "minimum" can mean both "as much as" AND "more than", and "maximum" means "as much as" AND "less than". In here, I'm often corrected when I recommend a weekly weight loss rate of "no more than 1% of your body weight", and several people chime in to suggest that that number is too high unless you are obese. Yesterday, I said that a food scale should have a capacity of at least one kg, and then two people said that "this may not be enough".
I have never been impressed or convinced by phrases like Chewing Gum Removes up to 100 Million Bacteria. It could mean "removes nothing at all", too.
I find this interesting, so I'm curious if anyone has run across the same, and/or has any insight.
Please forgive any offense created by my inartful use of language.
Heh, I often rely heavily on others being able to read my mind
4 -
kommodevaran wrote: »
Yes, that was the thread that made me start this one. I don't feel offended, I'm just curious - ok, maybe have been a bit frustrated, lol - I didn't see your and Lynn's replies as contradicting mine, per se, just as "overlooking" my use of "at least". I meant to say something like "a scale that can't weigh a kilo, is useless; the more, the better, but a kilo would be enough for most instances, at least if you're willing to make some workarounds, like transferring your prepared dish to a serving bowl, but it may not be enough if you batch cook for a whole week and/or family". I also, possibly falsely, assume that the greater capacity, increases the possibility for errors, and if you want both high capacity and great accuracy, you would have to buy a more expensive item - and booty rubs specifically asked for an affordable scale.
First of all kommodevaran, I enjoy your posts and can't recall your meaning ever being unclear. I understand "maximum" and "minimum" exactly as you describe and have never noticed a different meaning implied by those of other cultures. In the I need recs thread started yesterday by booty rubs and tacos, I don't think lynn_glenmont meant to contradict your advice and I know that I certainly did not. Rather I think Lynn was just pointing out a feature that might be worth considering but probably not obvious to someone unfamiliar with using a kitchen scale as an MFP logging tool. In my clumsy way, I tried to point out another feature that while not essential, could be useful under the same circumstances.kommodevaran wrote: »Is minimum and maximum used differently across cultures? For me, "minimum" can mean both "as much as" AND "more than", and "maximum" means "as much as" AND "less than". In here, I'm often corrected when I recommend a weekly weight loss rate of "no more than 1% of your body weight", and several people chime in to suggest that that number is too high unless you are obese. Yesterday, I said that a food scale should have a capacity of at least one kg, and then two people said that "this may not be enough".
I have never been impressed or convinced by phrases like Chewing Gum Removes up to 100 Million Bacteria. It could mean "removes nothing at all", too.
I find this interesting, so I'm curious if anyone has run across the same, and/or has any insight.
Please forgive any offense created by my inartful use of language.
Heh, I often rely heavily on others being able to read my mind
I'm all for clear communication.
I think your statement in the other thread ("Just get one that has a tare button, displays weight in grams, has 1 gram increments, and can weigh at least 1000 grams") is compatible with, but doesn't necessarily imply, "a scale that can't weigh a kilo, is useless; the more, the better, but a kilo would be enough for most instances, at least if you're willing to make some workarounds, like transferring your prepared dish to a serving bowl, but it may not be enough if you batch cook for a whole week and/or family".
To me, the plain meaning of your original statement in the other thread is that if the scale can give you an accurate weight for an object that weighs 1000 grams, but is not designed to weigh objects that weigh 1001 grams or more, it would be OK. And I don't disagree that it would be OK if you mostly use it to weigh single servings of foods, rather than weighing whole batches of dense foods. I just thought it was worth pointing out to the OP on the other thread that there are use case where a 1 kilo capacity scale would not be sufficient.
I'm sorry for being a cause of frustration. Sadly, MFP no longer has a smiley with a flower to offer as apology. Maybe that's what the hug is for.
2 -
Possibly (on the scale thing) it's not a miscommunication of what you said but maybe a disagreement. In that 1 kg capacity is simply not enough and the other poster thinks 5kg should be the minimum. Honestly, I don't think 1 kg is enough. Maybe 2-2.5K. I wouldn't recommend one with 1 kg limit.
Anyway, I also enjoy your posts and have a flowerforyou
:flowerforyou:2 -
Thank you for all the flowers and hugs (I don't feel I need them right now, but I'll save them )
I think "is compatible with, but doesn't necessarily imply" is a good way of explaining this. I have thought about other situations that use limitations, compared them, and tried to figure out what the situations I have had no problems understanding/accepting maximums/minimums, have in common, and what hinders that understanding. It appears that "what I can control" and "scarcity" are important factors.
Like this:
A. If I have 100 dollars, I can buy food for 100 dollars.
B. If I have 100 dollars, I can buy 500 apples; but only if the apples are small enough, and the store has that many - it's not just up to me if I want to spend all my money on apples, or if I have enough hands and bags to carry them home.
For me, it's reasonable to assume that "no more than 1% of your body weight per week" is an amount that a person doesn't have complete control over. But - when I think about it - it's just as reasonable to assume that a (desperate) dieter would assume that this amount is something he or she can control.
When it comes to scales, we just have to weigh the pros and cons
1 -
Yeah I think most people signing up for mfp in the very beginning see something like “how much do you want to lose per week?” And think it’s asking like...well, how hard do you wanna work? And you’re signing up for mfp so you’re all rah rah “hard as hell! TWO POUNDS A WEEK” and it’s not until you really start digging that you figure out that it’s not so much about how hard you’re willing to work, but what’s realistic for your current size.5
-
kommodevaran wrote: »Is minimum and maximum used differently across cultures? For me, "minimum" can mean both "as much as" AND "more than", and "maximum" means "as much as" AND "less than". In here, I'm often corrected when I recommend a weekly weight loss rate of "no more than 1% of your body weight", and several people chime in to suggest that that number is too high unless you are obese. Yesterday, I said that a food scale should have a capacity of at least one kg, and then two people said that "this may not be enough".
I use it just like you did (and would have no disagreement with either bit of advice). I think it's more likely that people read quickly and gloss over or miss the qualifiers or want to stress that 1% can be too much for some.1 -
Hmm, reading Lynn's comment, I think one possible clarification is that I'd read "no more than 1% of your body weight" to suggest either (1) anyone can lose safely between 0 and 1% of their body weight per week or (2) that someone can safely lose an amount that COULD be as high as 1% depending. I'd probably read it as (1), and I think you might have meant (2).
If you said a food scale should have a capacity of at least one kg, I would similarly think it could mean that 1 kg is enough for anyone or that less than that is probably NOT enough for most, and more is usually (but not always) not needed.
I would not see someone adding "sometimes you might want more than 1 kg" or "some people probably should not even lose 1% per week" and then explaining to be a disagreement (unless phrased as such, and that I would find a bit confusing). I'd see it as a further explanation/elaboration.
Sometimes I think posts get read as disagreements when they aren't. I know I do this, and I often (not always) try to say "that's true, and" or some such to deal with that issue, but I know often doing a response causes people to assume disagreement.
(Not saying this happened here, just musing.)1 -
Where's @AnnPT77 with her "words" thingy?
Here it is:
Oh, wait, it doesn't apply since we can't hear you.
Oh well, no matter, I'm leaving it because it's so true that we just don't communicate all that well.
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »Where's @AnnPT77 with her "words" thingy?
Here it is:
Oh, wait, it doesn't apply since we can't hear you.
Oh well, no matter, I'm leaving it because it's so true that we just don't communicate all that well.
In practice, I've argued that it's one step worse when we then start using little scratchy marks to stand for the noises . . . let alone arrange electrons to depict the scratchy marks.
As an aside, it's a bit dislocating to see one's own personal journal page be used like a meme. (I don't mind . . . kinda wish I'd watermarked it, though. I almost stuck a different page (about microbiome) in another thread, then remembered the watermark caveat . . .!) 0 -
Back on topic: It can be hard to tell whether a reader has missed qualifier words, vs. believes in higher minima/lower maxima. In the referenced threads, it sounds like it may've been more the latter, at least in some circumstance: Recommending a lower maximum loss rate for non-obese people specifically, for example.
To me, the point is not so much what individual words mean, but rather whether communication has happened. Because the latter inherently involves two (or more) people, sometimes we need to collectively wade around in a word-swamp for a while, before we reach that destination.
When we're collectively lucky, that process results in a clearer or more nuanced understanding for everyone.
At the other (worst) extreme, discussion participants feel insulted that others disagree with them (when that may not have been the intent at all - and disagreement really isn't any kind of insult anyway ), Then aggrieved folks start the ad hominem and reductio ad absurdum fog-machines going, and get the thread shut down.
Most often, the results of miscommunication fall somewhere in between, of course.0 -
@AnnPT77
I won't use it again.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »@AnnPT77
I won't use it again.
No, no. Like I said, I don't mind: Truly. And I appreciate the credit.
I'm just admitting that it "feels funny" to see it. If I didn't want you to post it, I'd say so. I'm glad you liked it! 0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »Is minimum and maximum used differently across cultures? For me, "minimum" can mean both "as much as" AND "more than", and "maximum" means "as much as" AND "less than". In here, I'm often corrected when I recommend a weekly weight loss rate of "no more than 1% of your body weight", and several people chime in to suggest that that number is too high unless you are obese. Yesterday, I said that a food scale should have a capacity of at least one kg, and then two people said that "this may not be enough".
I have never been impressed or convinced by phrases like Chewing Gum Removes up to 100 Million Bacteria. It could mean "removes nothing at all", too.
I find this interesting, so I'm curious if anyone has run across the same, and/or has any insight.
How you say it makes sense to me. I wouldnt be going around correcting you..
Here's one that i don't understand, and that's how people use the word "several". Several of anything is THREE, people tend to use it to describe anything more than One thing. For some reason it really gets on my nerves!!!!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions