Re: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven't lost a pound!

In article <[email hidden]>,

tessa said:

Jeannie,
I have had similar problems myself. I found though that even though I
did not lose weight right away, I did lose inches. I think it took
about 3 weeks before I actually started losing pounds. It is very
frustrating but we all know that muscle weighs more than fat.

Err, no. Think about what you just said and get back to us. What weighs
more, a lb of lead or a lb of feathers?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

I can't resist this one!!!

A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both a
lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then there
is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks, lead
or feathers!

Debbie

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

tessa said:

Jeannie,
I have had similar problems myself. I found though that even though I
did not lose weight right away, I did lose inches. I think it took
about 3 weeks before I actually started losing pounds. It is very
frustrating but we all know that muscle weighs more than fat.

Err, no. Think about what you just said and get back to us. What weighs
more, a lb of lead or a lb of feathers?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

"Deb in Northern California" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I can't resist this one!!!

The Krispy Kremes aren't surprised.

Quoted message said:

A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both a
lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then
there is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand,
bricks, lead or feathers!

Is she serious? Is she joking? <whack, whack> Damn this old Sarcastimometer!
Never working when you need it 🙁

David

Quoted message said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

tessa said:

Jeannie,
I have had similar problems myself. I found though that even though I
did not lose weight right away, I did lose inches. I think it took
about 3 weeks before I actually started losing pounds. It is very
frustrating but we all know that muscle weighs more than fat.

Err, no. Think about what you just said and get back to us. What weighs
more, a lb of lead or a lb of feathers?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Deb in Northern California said:

I can't resist this one!!!

A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both a
lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then there
is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks, lead
or feathers!

Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not given.

Quoted message said:

Debbie

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

tessa said:

Jeannie,
I have had similar problems myself. I found though that even though I
did not lose weight right away, I did lose inches. I think it took
about 3 weeks before I actually started losing pounds. It is very
frustrating but we all know that muscle weighs more than fat.

Err, no. Think about what you just said and get back to us. What weighs
more, a lb of lead or a lb of feathers?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

In article <[email hidden]>,

David Cohen said:

"Deb in Northern California" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I can't resist this one!!!

The Krispy Kremes aren't surprised.

Quoted message said:

A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both a
lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then
there is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand,
bricks, lead or feathers!

Is she serious? Is she joking? <whack, whack> Damn this old Sarcastimometer!
Never working when you need it 🙁

David

Quoted message said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"tessa" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Jeannie,
> I have had similar problems myself. I found though that even though I
> did not lose weight right away, I did lose inches. I think it took
> about 3 weeks before I actually started losing pounds. It is very
> frustrating but we all know that muscle weighs more than fat.

Err, no. Think about what you just said and get back to us. What weighs
more, a lb of lead or a lb of feathers?

Baby steps David, baby steps. At least it's not an RD telling people
muscle weighs more then fat.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Deb in Northern California said:

I can't resist this one!!!

A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both a
lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then there
is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks, lead
or feathers!

Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not given.

I thought volume was implied in the post (re-cited below). S/he talks
about losing inches but not pounds. Implied is the idea that volume is
being reduced, yet weight is staying the same. So the question arises:
how is this possible? The person's suggested solution: maybe your body
composition is changing to become more muscular. That would explain
decreased volume while weight stays the same.

Am I missing something here?

In article <[email hidden]>,

tessa said:

Jeannie,
I have had similar problems myself. I found though that even though I
did not lose weight right away, I did lose inches. I think it took
about 3 weeks before I actually started losing pounds. It is very
frustrating but we all know that muscle weighs more than fat.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Deb in Northern California said:

I can't resist this one!!!

A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both
a
lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then
there
is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks,
lead
or feathers!

Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not given.

I thought volume was implied in the post (re-cited below). S/he talks
about losing inches but not pounds. Implied is the idea that volume is
being reduced, yet weight is staying the same. So the question arises:
how is this possible? The person's suggested solution: maybe your body
composition is changing to become more muscular. That would explain
decreased volume while weight stays the same.

Am I missing something here?

Not at all, but the advice often given that "muscle weighs more then
fat" is incorrect. She, in a round about way, accounts for volume, but
many don't.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Deb in Northern California" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> I can't resist this one!!!
>
> A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both
> a
> lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then
> there
> is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks,
> lead
> or feathers!

Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not given.

I thought volume was implied in the post (re-cited below). S/he talks
about losing inches but not pounds. Implied is the idea that volume is
being reduced, yet weight is staying the same. So the question arises:
how is this possible? The person's suggested solution: maybe your body
composition is changing to become more muscular. That would explain
decreased volume while weight stays the same.

Am I missing something here?

Not at all, but the advice often given that "muscle weighs more then
fat" is incorrect. She, in a round about way, accounts for volume, but
many don't.

You know what they mean but you are just being pedantic, and
desperately trying not to be wrong again.

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Deb in Northern California" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> I can't resist this one!!!
>
> A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both
> a
> lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then
> there
> is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks,
> lead
> or feathers!

Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not given.

I thought volume was implied in the post (re-cited below). S/he talks
about losing inches but not pounds. Implied is the idea that volume is
being reduced, yet weight is staying the same. So the question arises:
how is this possible? The person's suggested solution: maybe your body
composition is changing to become more muscular. That would explain
decreased volume while weight stays the same.

Am I missing something here?

Not at all, but the advice often given that "muscle weighs more then
fat" is incorrect. She, in a round about way, accounts for volume, but
many don't.

I guess I thought volume was ALWAYS implied. Of course it doesn't make
sense to say that a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat. But
I doubt that's what the original poster intended. Don't most people mean
a "brick" (some undefined volume) of muscle weighs more than a "brick"
(the same undefined volume) of fat?

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Deb in Northern California said:

I can't resist this one!!!

A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then

there

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks,

lead

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or feathers!

Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not given.

This is 'heavy' stuff. Will, your 'old prof' would be proud of you!

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

WillBrink <[email hidden]> wrote:

> In article <[email hidden]>,
> "Deb in Northern California" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > I can't resist this one!!!
> >
> > A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are
> > both
> > a
> > lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then
> > there
> > is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks,
> > lead
> > or feathers!
>
> Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
> incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
> no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not
> given.

I thought volume was implied in the post (re-cited below). S/he talks
about losing inches but not pounds. Implied is the idea that volume is
being reduced, yet weight is staying the same. So the question arises:
how is this possible? The person's suggested solution: maybe your body
composition is changing to become more muscular. That would explain
decreased volume while weight stays the same.

Am I missing something here?

Not at all, but the advice often given that "muscle weighs more then
fat" is incorrect. She, in a round about way, accounts for volume, but
many don't.

I guess I thought volume was ALWAYS implied.

I wish that were true.

Quoted message said:

Of course it doesn't make
sense to say that a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat. But
I doubt that's what the original poster intended. Don't most people mean
a "brick" (some undefined volume) of muscle weighs more than a "brick"
(the same undefined volume) of fat?

Do you have any idea how many people fall for that simple trick
question, which i didn't invent, which is "what weighs more, a lb of
lead or a lb of feathers?" to which many answer "a lb of lead of
course!" Yes, it's that bad....

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink said:

Do you have any idea how many people fall for that simple trick
question, which i didn't invent, which is "what weighs more, a lb of
lead or a lb of feathers?" to which many answer "a lb of lead of
course!" Yes, it's that bad....

so are you saying it's really the feathers??

--
Jock

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Dunlop said:

WillBrink said:

Do you have any idea how many people fall for that simple trick
question, which i didn't invent, which is "what weighs more, a lb of
lead or a lb of feathers?" to which many answer "a lb of lead of
course!" Yes, it's that bad....

so are you saying it's really the feathers??

Of course!

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

In article <[email hidden]>,

WillBrink said:

Do you have any idea how many people fall for that simple trick
question, which i didn't invent, which is "what weighs more, a lb of
lead or a lb of feathers?" to which many answer "a lb of lead of
course!" Yes, it's that bad....

That's because you got it wrong. Lead isn't quite dense enough, and
most people have no experience with it. Try asking "Which weighs
more, a pound of goose feathers or a pound of gold?" and see who gets
the right answer.

Seth
--
"People that don't listen to me live to regret it." -- Will Brink

"Seth Breidbart" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

WillBrink said:

Do you have any idea how many people fall for that simple trick
question, which i didn't invent, which is "what weighs more, a lb of
lead or a lb of feathers?" to which many answer "a lb of lead of
course!" Yes, it's that bad....

That's because you got it wrong. Lead isn't quite dense enough, and
most people have no experience with it. Try asking "Which weighs
more, a pound of goose feathers or a pound of gold?" and see who gets
the right answer.

People in your circle of friends have experience with pounds of goose
feathers and pounds of gold?

You have weird friends, Seth.

David

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Seth Breidbart) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

WillBrink said:

Do you have any idea how many people fall for that simple trick
question, which i didn't invent, which is "what weighs more, a lb of
lead or a lb of feathers?" to which many answer "a lb of lead of
course!" Yes, it's that bad....

That's because you got it wrong. Lead isn't quite dense enough, and
most people have no experience with it.

I didn't invent the question, and i assumed who ever did use lead as
lead is known to be heavy as in "heavy as lead."

Quoted message said:

Try asking "Which weighs
more, a pound of goose feathers or a pound of gold?" and see who gets
the right answer.

I bet the same % will answer the lb of gold weighs more.

Quoted message said:

Seth

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Seth Breidbart) said:

In article

<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

WillBrink said:

Do you have any idea how many people fall for that simple trick
question, which i didn't invent, which is "what weighs more, a lb of
lead or a lb of feathers?" to which many answer "a lb of lead of
course!" Yes, it's that bad....

That's because you got it wrong. Lead isn't quite dense enough, and
most people have no experience with it.

I didn't invent the question, and i assumed who ever did use lead as
lead is known to be heavy as in "heavy as lead."

Quoted message said:

Try asking "Which weighs
more, a pound of goose feathers or a pound of gold?" and see who gets
the right answer.

I bet the same % will answer the lb of gold weighs more.

Your 'old prof' would be proud of you Brinks. Maybe that could be the
subject of your next seminar to the medical profession.

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Seth Breidbart) said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

WillBrink said:

Do you have any idea how many people fall for that simple trick
question, which i didn't invent, which is "what weighs more, a lb of
lead or a lb of feathers?" to which many answer "a lb of lead of
course!" Yes, it's that bad....

That's because you got it wrong. Lead isn't quite dense enough, and
most people have no experience with it.

I didn't invent the question, and i assumed who ever did use lead as
lead is known to be heavy as in "heavy as lead."

Quoted message said:

Try asking "Which weighs
more, a pound of goose feathers or a pound of gold?" and see who gets
the right answer.

I bet the same % will answer the lb of gold weighs more.

Stupid people. The feathers are heavier. An avoirdupois pound (in which
feathers are weighed) is heavier than a troy pound (in which gold is
weighed).

In article <[email hidden]>,

David Cohen said:

"Seth Breidbart" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

WillBrink said:

Do you have any idea how many people fall for that simple trick
question, which i didn't invent, which is "what weighs more, a lb of
lead or a lb of feathers?" to which many answer "a lb of lead of
course!" Yes, it's that bad....

That's because you got it wrong. Lead isn't quite dense enough, and
most people have no experience with it. Try asking "Which weighs
more, a pound of goose feathers or a pound of gold?" and see who gets
the right answer.

People in your circle of friends have experience with pounds of goose
feathers and pounds of gold?

Some.

Quoted message said:

You have weird friends, Seth.

Well, yes.

But it's a better trick question my way, independent of actual
experience.

Seth
--
Note to self: a powerlifting meet is not a recommended taper
for a track event. --Ted K.