Muscle Weighs more than Fat?
Options
Replies
-
I'm happy to read the replies in this thread, it's so ridiculous when people correct people on this. Everybody knows that when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" the "by volume" is understood. That's how people talk, it's perfectly acceptable.0
-
I'm happy to read the replies in this thread, it's so ridiculous when people correct people on this. Everybody knows that when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" the "by volume" is understood. That's how people talk, it's perfectly acceptable.
I think you're giving the general pubic too much credit.
0 -
OP didn't say a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat, and nothing in her post indicates that she thinks this either. The lb for lb argument is a strawman erected by people that are little too impressed with themselves over the dull insight that a lb is a lb, and then go out of their way to get all nerdlinger on the room.0
-
I'm happy to read the replies in this thread, it's so ridiculous when people correct people on this. Everybody knows that when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" the "by volume" is understood. That's how people talk, it's perfectly acceptable.
AMEN.
I shouldn't have clicked on this thread. Now I need to punch something.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »I'm happy to read the replies in this thread, it's so ridiculous when people correct people on this. Everybody knows that when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" the "by volume" is understood. That's how people talk, it's perfectly acceptable.
I think you're giving the general pubic too much credit.
Yet this only seems to happen when discussing muscle/fat. If I said steel weights more than wood, nobody would correct that because volume is understood.0 -
-
Lourdesong wrote: »OP didn't say a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat, and nothing in her post indicates that she thinks this either. The lb for lb argument is a strawman erected by people that are little too impressed with themselves over the dull insight that a lb is a lb, and then go out of their way to get all nerdlinger on the room.
It wasn't OP, it was the ensuing comments.
0 -
jennifershoo wrote: »Muscles is MORE DENSE than fat.
/thread
You're welcome.
^^THIS. If people would just use the proper terms, we wouldn't have this issue.
0 -
0
-
Virgiree21 wrote: »With that being said if I continue to lift weights and do cardio should I be less concerned about the scale and more focused on the measurements? I plan on replacing most of my fat with muscle.
You can't replace fat with muscle. You can lose fat to reveal the muscle you have, and keep that muscle by hitting your protein goal and lifting. Or you can gain muscle, along with fat. If you eat at a deficit and lift, you'll lose fat and save muscle. If you eat at maintenance and lift, you'll recomp (if you're luckily), slowly losing fat, adding a bit of muscle. Long process.
Either way, lift. You'll look smaller.0 -
arditarose wrote: »Virgiree21 wrote: »With that being said if I continue to lift weights and do cardio should I be less concerned about the scale and more focused on the measurements? I plan on replacing most of my fat with muscle.
You can't replace fat with muscle. You can lose fat to reveal the muscle you have, and keep that muscle by hitting your protein goal and lifting. Or you can gain muscle, along with fat. If you eat at a deficit and lift, you'll lose fat and save muscle. If you eat at maintenance and lift, you'll recomp (if you're luckily), slowly losing fat, adding a bit of muscle. Long process.
Either way, lift. You'll look smaller.
See, now, if the "muscle weighs more than fat" issue is just about semantics, why isn't the statement "replace fat with muscle" as well? I mean, we all know that the fat is not going to magically turn into muscle. She will have to work to lose the fat, as well as to build muscle. Don't we already know what she means? Just saying...you could use that logic with a lot of things...0 -
I'm happy to read the replies in this thread, it's so ridiculous when people correct people on this. Everybody knows that when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" the "by volume" is understood. That's how people talk, it's perfectly acceptable.
Except this still happens all the time around here...
Person 1: I gained a pound this week! What am I doing wrong?
Person 2: Oh, you're gaining muscle, and muscle weighs more than fat!0 -
That's what I clearly meant. I guess not clearly because most thought differently. You live and learn. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Packerjohn wrote: »I'm happy to read the replies in this thread, it's so ridiculous when people correct people on this. Everybody knows that when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" the "by volume" is understood. That's how people talk, it's perfectly acceptable.
I think you're giving the general pubic too much credit.
0 -
Me right now ---> (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻ I meant in volume people, but thanks for the needed and unneeded help.0
-
I'm happy to read the replies in this thread, it's so ridiculous when people correct people on this. Everybody knows that when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" the "by volume" is understood. That's how people talk, it's perfectly acceptable.
Except this still happens all the time around here...
Person 1: I gained a pound this week! What am I doing wrong?
Person 2: Oh, you're gaining muscle, and muscle weighs more than fat!
IKR?0 -
Virgiree21 wrote: »Me right now ---> (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻ I meant in volume people, but thanks for the needed and unneeded help.
So, you also didn't really mean "replace fat with muscle," right? Just to clarify.
0 -
I'm happy to read the replies in this thread, it's so ridiculous when people correct people on this. Everybody knows that when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" the "by volume" is understood. That's how people talk, it's perfectly acceptable.
Except this still happens all the time around here...
Person 1: I gained a pound this week! What am I doing wrong?
Person 2: Oh, you're gaining muscle, and muscle weighs more than fat!
Silly, but they would still be trying to reassure them on the grounds of "volume" there.
0 -
Virgiree21 wrote: »Me right now ---> (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻ I meant in volume people, but thanks for the needed and unneeded help.
So, you also didn't really mean "replace fat with muscle," right? Just to clarify.
She was clearly talking about - if she stayed the same weight but changed her body composition then would she be smaller?
"Replace fat with muscle" and "lose fat and gain muscle" strikes me as the same concept.
0 -
Virgiree21 wrote: »Me right now ---> (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻ I meant in volume people, but thanks for the needed and unneeded help.
So, you also didn't really mean "replace fat with muscle," right? Just to clarify.
Lol correct.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions