'Muscle weighs more than fat' ???
qifitness
Posts: 49 Member
I'm posting this as a professionally qualified nutritionist and exercise physiologist.
This statement is repeated over and over as 'knowledge' when people aren't losing weight, but exercising.
It's one of countless myths based on misunderstanding.
So, to put things straight....
1lb of muscle = 1lb of fat.
1kg of muscle = 1 kg of fat.
'Know-it-all' amateurs reply by saying...
"Yes but.... muscle weighs more than fat by volume"
Technically true, but since when are humans measured in terms of 'weight-by-volume'?
Does anyone here have scales that measure 'weight-by-volume'?
No, of course not.
This 'knowledgeable statement' is just stupid and irrelevant.
'General ignorance'.
It comes from misunderstanding of a method of assessing body composition....'hydrostatic weighing'.
It's a laboratory procedure involving weighing a person immersed in water. Due to the greater density of muscle tissue over fat tissue, a person seems to weigh more when immersed. The results from water displacement are used to calculate body composition..... lean tissue compared to fat tissue.
So next time you consider why you haven't lost 'weight' while you've been exercising, don't bother saying "well, muscle weighs more than fat"......unless you have unique scales that measure you 'weight-by-volume'.
Lastly, exercising does not mean that you will automatically gain muscle.
The exercise has to be specifically designed to generate muscle growth through resistance training, and this must also be specific. Not all resistance training will result in muscle growth. Genetics also have a major influence. People respond differently to training.
So, next time you think "muscle weighs more than fat".....what exactly are you trying to convince yourself?!
As stated at the outset, these comments are from a professionally qualified and certified exercise physiologist and nutritionist.
If any unqualified know-it-all-amateurs would like to argue, state your 'accreditations' (if any), and convince fellow members here that you 'know' better.
And please....don't reply by simply trying to impress others by stating your 'years-of-experience'.
That counts for nothing.
Professional accreditations are reliable evidence of genuine knowledge.
This statement is repeated over and over as 'knowledge' when people aren't losing weight, but exercising.
It's one of countless myths based on misunderstanding.
So, to put things straight....
1lb of muscle = 1lb of fat.
1kg of muscle = 1 kg of fat.
'Know-it-all' amateurs reply by saying...
"Yes but.... muscle weighs more than fat by volume"
Technically true, but since when are humans measured in terms of 'weight-by-volume'?
Does anyone here have scales that measure 'weight-by-volume'?
No, of course not.
This 'knowledgeable statement' is just stupid and irrelevant.
'General ignorance'.
It comes from misunderstanding of a method of assessing body composition....'hydrostatic weighing'.
It's a laboratory procedure involving weighing a person immersed in water. Due to the greater density of muscle tissue over fat tissue, a person seems to weigh more when immersed. The results from water displacement are used to calculate body composition..... lean tissue compared to fat tissue.
So next time you consider why you haven't lost 'weight' while you've been exercising, don't bother saying "well, muscle weighs more than fat"......unless you have unique scales that measure you 'weight-by-volume'.
Lastly, exercising does not mean that you will automatically gain muscle.
The exercise has to be specifically designed to generate muscle growth through resistance training, and this must also be specific. Not all resistance training will result in muscle growth. Genetics also have a major influence. People respond differently to training.
So, next time you think "muscle weighs more than fat".....what exactly are you trying to convince yourself?!
As stated at the outset, these comments are from a professionally qualified and certified exercise physiologist and nutritionist.
If any unqualified know-it-all-amateurs would like to argue, state your 'accreditations' (if any), and convince fellow members here that you 'know' better.
And please....don't reply by simply trying to impress others by stating your 'years-of-experience'.
That counts for nothing.
Professional accreditations are reliable evidence of genuine knowledge.
-10
Replies
-
muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. Muscle is MORE DENSE than fat.0
-
And muscle is more aesthetically pleasing!
0 -
Nutritionist or dietician? Big difference.
Muscle does, in fact, weigh more than fat. You don't have to be a know-it-all to know that, lol.
People who begin dieting & exercising and gain weight after two weeks and are told, "That's because you exercised and built muscle!" are being misinformed. That's not the case.
But muscle does, of course, weigh more than fat.-4 -
Errr if you bothered to read the forums then you will see that people who say this are always corrected but normal posters who know the difference between weight comparisons and density ones. You sound as though you think you have invented the wheel. It doesnt take any form of professional qualifications to know the difference as many many people on these forums already know and point out as needed.
Nice challenge though.
Oh dear Kalikel.0 -
I totally agree. 1lb is 1lb is 1lb no matter how you slice it. I think the confusion comes from muscles being denser than fat and taking up less space.
So someone might weigh the same but find their clothes fitting looser because they have lost some fat tissue and gained muscle tissue.0 -
WanderingBomb wrote: »muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. Muscle is MORE DENSE than fat.
^^^^ this
this whole "muscle is heavier than fat" "yes it is" "no it isn't" "yes it is you know I meant the same volume" blah blah blah blah blah ongoing stupid debate would never arise if people would just learn what density means.
muscle is denser than fat.
0 -
ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!0
-
Not really a debate though is it, just someone elses lack of knowledge and understanding.0
-
I'm posting this as a professionally qualified nutritionist and exercise physiologist.
This statement is repeated over and over as 'knowledge' when people aren't losing weight, but exercising.
It's one of countless myths based on misunderstanding.
So, to put things straight....
1lb of muscle = 1lb of fat.
1kg of muscle = 1 kg of fat.
'Know-it-all' amateurs reply by saying...
"Yes but.... muscle weighs more than fat by volume"
Technically true, but since when are humans measured in terms of 'weight-by-volume'?
Does anyone here have scales that measure 'weight-by-volume'?
No, of course not.
This 'knowledgeable statement' is just stupid and irrelevant.
'General ignorance'.
It comes from misunderstanding of a method of assessing body composition....'hydrostatic weighing'.
It's a laboratory procedure involving weighing a person immersed in water. Due to the greater density of muscle tissue over fat tissue, a person seems to weigh more when immersed. The results from water displacement are used to calculate body composition..... lean tissue compared to fat tissue.
So next time you consider why you haven't lost 'weight' while you've been exercising, don't bother saying "well, muscle weighs more than fat"......unless you have unique scales that measure you 'weight-by-volume'.
Lastly, exercising does not mean that you will automatically gain muscle.
The exercise has to be specifically designed to generate muscle growth through resistance training, and this must also be specific. Not all resistance training will result in muscle growth. Genetics also have a major influence. People respond differently to training.
So, next time you think "muscle weighs more than fat".....what exactly are you trying to convince yourself?!
As stated at the outset, these comments are from a professionally qualified and certified exercise physiologist and nutritionist.
If any unqualified know-it-all-amateurs would like to argue, state your 'accreditations' (if any), and convince fellow members here that you 'know' better.
Overly rude and angry much?
0 -
Angry?
No.
This ever-repeated statement misleads an confuses people, without understanding.
No.
Not angry.
Just trying to unravel the confusion.-1 -
neandermagnon wrote: »WanderingBomb wrote: »muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. Muscle is MORE DENSE than fat.
^^^^ this
this whole "muscle is heavier than fat" "yes it is" "no it isn't" "yes it is you know I meant the same volume" blah blah blah blah blah ongoing stupid debate would never arise if people would just learn what density means.
muscle is denser than fat.
-1 -
Exactly.
Stupid debate, but there are countless people desperate to lose 'weight' who still believe it's relevant.
Humans are not measured 'weight-by-volume'.0 -
Angry?
No.
This ever-repeated statement misleads an confuses people, without understanding.
No.
Not angry.
Just trying to unravel the confusion.
You arent though. Plenty of people who come to this site are new to dieting, they pick up on some knowledge and misinform themselves. Its not a debate its just a misunderstanding from a few. You really are making a drama out of it. Why nopt be like the rest of us and just correct people when you see it on a thread as manu other people do. You dont have to shove your qualifications in their face, just explain. Many people do so just by showing them the gif of 1lb of fat and 1lb of muscle.0 -
AmigaMaria001 wrote: »I'm posting this as a professionally qualified nutritionist and exercise physiologist.
This statement is repeated over and over as 'knowledge' when people aren't losing weight, but exercising.
It's one of countless myths based on misunderstanding.
So, to put things straight....
1lb of muscle = 1lb of fat.
1kg of muscle = 1 kg of fat.
'Know-it-all' amateurs reply by saying...
"Yes but.... muscle weighs more than fat by volume"
Technically true, but since when are humans measured in terms of 'weight-by-volume'?
Does anyone here have scales that measure 'weight-by-volume'?
No, of course not.
This 'knowledgeable statement' is just stupid and irrelevant.
'General ignorance'.
It comes from misunderstanding of a method of assessing body composition....'hydrostatic weighing'.
It's a laboratory procedure involving weighing a person immersed in water. Due to the greater density of muscle tissue over fat tissue, a person seems to weigh more when immersed. The results from water displacement are used to calculate body composition..... lean tissue compared to fat tissue.
So next time you consider why you haven't lost 'weight' while you've been exercising, don't bother saying "well, muscle weighs more than fat"......unless you have unique scales that measure you 'weight-by-volume'.
Lastly, exercising does not mean that you will automatically gain muscle.
The exercise has to be specifically designed to generate muscle growth through resistance training, and this must also be specific. Not all resistance training will result in muscle growth. Genetics also have a major influence. People respond differently to training.
So, next time you think "muscle weighs more than fat".....what exactly are you trying to convince yourself?!
As stated at the outset, these comments are from a professionally qualified and certified exercise physiologist and nutritionist.
If any unqualified know-it-all-amateurs would like to argue, state your 'accreditations' (if any), and convince fellow members here that you 'know' better.
Overly rude and angry much?
OP is living the smug life.
Mostly in to find later and read up on the arguing. inb4 I get flagged.0 -
I'm posting this as a professionally qualified nutritionist and exercise physiologist.
This statement is repeated over and over as 'knowledge' when people aren't losing weight, but exercising.
It's one of countless myths based on misunderstanding.
So, to put things straight....
1lb of muscle = 1lb of fat.
1kg of muscle = 1 kg of fat.
'Know-it-all' amateurs reply by saying...
"Yes but.... muscle weighs more than fat by volume"
Technically true, but since when are humans measured in terms of 'weight-by-volume'?
Does anyone here have scales that measure 'weight-by-volume'?
No, of course not.
This 'knowledgeable statement' is just stupid and irrelevant.
'General ignorance'.
It comes from misunderstanding of a method of assessing body composition....'hydrostatic weighing'.
It's a laboratory procedure involving weighing a person immersed in water. Due to the greater density of muscle tissue over fat tissue, a person seems to weigh more when immersed. The results from water displacement are used to calculate body composition..... lean tissue compared to fat tissue.
So next time you consider why you haven't lost 'weight' while you've been exercising, don't bother saying "well, muscle weighs more than fat"......unless you have unique scales that measure you 'weight-by-volume'.
Lastly, exercising does not mean that you will automatically gain muscle.
The exercise has to be specifically designed to generate muscle growth through resistance training, and this must also be specific. Not all resistance training will result in muscle growth. Genetics also have a major influence. People respond differently to training.
So, next time you think "muscle weighs more than fat".....what exactly are you trying to convince yourself?!
As stated at the outset, these comments are from a professionally qualified and certified exercise physiologist and nutritionist.
If any unqualified know-it-all-amateurs would like to argue, state your 'accreditations' (if any), and convince fellow members here that you 'know' better.
And please....don't reply by simply trying to impress others by stating your 'years-of-experience'.
That counts for nothing.
Professional accreditations are reliable evidence of genuine knowledge.
The issue I have is the myth that you aren't losing weight because you are packing on muscle displacing the fat is most likely an untruth and not helping anyone.
No particular nutrition accreditation.
I still think rocks weigh more than feathers even if a ton of each weigh the same.0 -
For muscle weighs more than fat the "by volume" is implied
Stop being a pedant0 -
There are times when being factual is less important than getting your point across. Like this entire site and most of the world being devoted to ´weight loss´.. which shouldn´t be anyone´s goal. Your goal should be to lose fat. As soon as you start talking about ´losing weight´... then you also have to explain that the first month or two of exercising, you are very likely to gain weight (if you are doing it correctly) because muscle weighs more than fat (sic). If you talk about losing weight, then you also have to talk about water retention and salt, because water retention plays a huge part in weight loss the first few months.
Because we talk about ´weight loss´.. it presents two big problems
1. People can spend two months doing everything perfectly, and actually gain weight (muscle). this is hugely discouraging to people.
2. People can lose a ton of weight in a few months without losing any fat ( water retention). This creates a false sense of accomplishment.-1 -
So much this. So many people have no idea that weight is not the same thing as density.
1lb of muscle = 1lb of fat. Same weight measurement.
1 cubic inch of muscle is not the same weight as 1 cubic inch of fat.
Simple.0 -
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
-1 -
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
Muscle does not weight more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. Weight has nothing to do with density as it is not a measurement of mass, but rather a measurement of gravity.
0 -
This is interesting.peachyfuzzle wrote: »
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
Muscle does not weight more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. Weight has nothing to do with density as it is not a measurement of mass, but rather a measurement of gravity.
0 -
This is interesting.peachyfuzzle wrote: »
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
Muscle does not weight more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. Weight has nothing to do with density as it is not a measurement of mass, but rather a measurement of gravity.
Why is it interesting?0 -
peachyfuzzle wrote: »
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
Muscle does not weight more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. Weight has nothing to do with density as it is not a measurement of mass, but rather a measurement of gravity.
And the denser an object is the more gravity pulls on it, so weight has everything to to with density......
-1 -
W= mg0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Nutritionist or dietician? Big difference.
Muscle does, in fact, weigh more than fat. You don't have to be a know-it-all to know that, lol.
People who begin dieting & exercising and gain weight after two weeks and are told, "That's because you exercised and built muscle!" are being misinformed. That's not the case.
But muscle does, of course, weigh more than fat.
Exactly. "Muscle weighs more than fat" is a colloquial way of saying muscle is denser than fat. It is--obviously--not a comparison of one lb of muscle with one lb of fat, because no one with an IQ high enough to breathe would make such a ridiculous comparison. (And similarly one can say that feathers weigh less than iron even though 1 lb of each are, of course, one lb. Also, my sister weighs less than me, even though 1 lb of me and 1 lb of her are, of course, identical in weight.) This is a total pet peeve of mine, because it generally involves people being pointlessly pedantic and treating others as if they are idiots about something that they are not in fact idiots about.
The reason "muscle weighs more than fat" is usually wrong, in context, is because of when it's said. Obviously there is 0 reason to think that someone trying to lose weight and exercising a bit has added significant muscle, let alone enough to cover up the fat losses which were expected. (Personally I suspect most people know this too and it's considered a nice and encouraging thing to say--along the lines of "no, those jeans make your butt look fabulous"--and not really something they actually think, but perhaps I'm too cynical.)
In any case, I would love for someone to identify a person who has ever thought that a lb of muscle weights more than a lb of fat, because absent that happening I don't believe that anyone in the world is that dumb. (And I believe there are a lot of dumb people.)
In fact, I kind of think that anyone who makes that "correction" is coming across as sort of dumb, just to think that others might be confused about such an obvious thing.
0 -
ThePhoenixIsRising wrote: »peachyfuzzle wrote: »
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
Muscle does not weight more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. Weight has nothing to do with density as it is not a measurement of mass, but rather a measurement of gravity.
And the denser an object is the more gravity pulls on it, so weight has everything to to with density......
Mass has to do with density, not weight.
Mass is a measurement of how much matter is in something. Density is how much mass there is contained in a certain space. Weight is the how hard gravity pulls on something.
You can weigh absolutely zero, but still have the same exact mass, and density.
I agree that the more dense something is, the more mass it has, but that doesn't mean it has more weight.
1lb of muscle = 1lb of fat = 1lb of iron = 1lb gold = 1lb horses = 1lb water, etc etc.
1 cubic inch of muscle does not weigh the same as 1 cubic inch of fat does not weigh the same as 1 cubic inch of iron, etc...
0 -
-
peachyfuzzle wrote: »ThePhoenixIsRising wrote: »peachyfuzzle wrote: »
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
Muscle does not weight more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. Weight has nothing to do with density as it is not a measurement of mass, but rather a measurement of gravity.
And the denser an object is the more gravity pulls on it, so weight has everything to to with density......
Mass has to do with density, not weight.
Mass is a measurement of how much matter is in something. Density is how much mass there is contained in a certain space. Weight is the how hard gravity pulls on something.
You can weigh absolutely zero, but still have the same exact mass, and density.
I agree that the more dense something is, the more mass it has, but that doesn't mean it has more weight.
1lb of muscle = 1lb of fat = 1lb of iron = 1lb gold = 1lb horses = 1lb water, etc etc.
1 cubic inch of muscle does not weigh the same as 1 cubic inch of fat does not weigh the same as 1 cubic inch of iron, etc...
Yeah but if you bring general relativity into it, gravity exists because of mass, and weight exists because of gravity, so weight does have quite a lot to do with mass.
Plus the more obvious fact that as long as the gravitational field is constant (which is pertinent to the fact that everyone discussing this is weighing themselves on Earth) having more mass means you weigh more.
And I was wrong in my earlier post. Understanding the term density does not mean that people won't get into stupid nitpicking arguments. I stand corrected. I forgot to take into account the fact that humans haven't really evolved past basic primate psychology. http://cavepeopleandstuff.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/why-cant-humans-just-disagree-nicely/0 -
peachyfuzzle wrote: »ThePhoenixIsRising wrote: »peachyfuzzle wrote: »
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
Muscle does not weight more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. Weight has nothing to do with density as it is not a measurement of mass, but rather a measurement of gravity.
And the denser an object is the more gravity pulls on it, so weight has everything to to with density......
Mass has to do with density, not weight.
Mass is a measurement of how much matter is in something. Density is how much mass there is contained in a certain space. Weight is the how hard gravity pulls on something.
You can weigh absolutely zero, but still have the same exact mass, and density.
I agree that the more dense something is, the more mass it has, but that doesn't mean it has more weight.
1lb of muscle = 1lb of fat = 1lb of iron = 1lb gold = 1lb horses = 1lb water, etc etc.
1 cubic inch of muscle does not weigh the same as 1 cubic inch of fat does not weigh the same as 1 cubic inch of iron, etc...
If you compare the weight of two of more things you compare by volume, if you compare the volume of two ore more things you compare by weight.
Weight is only measurable when there is gravity pulling on it. So in the same gravitational field something that is denser/has more mass per volume will weigh more than something that is less dense/has less mass per volume.
So if you compare by volume, in the same gravitational field, muscle weighs more than fat because it is denser. If you compare by weight, in the same gravitational field, muscle takes up less volume because it is denser.
1lb=1lb=1lb is a circular argument and isn't useful when trying to spread knowledge.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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