Please stop telling people that muscle weighs more than fat

2

Replies

  • KarenECunningham
    KarenECunningham Posts: 419 Member
    I can see both sides to the argument. However, I agree that muscle looks better than fat. I feel it is a good idea to take measurements because when I am not losing pounds I am usually losing inches which in a way does support the idea of muscle weighing more than fat. It really doesn't matter in the long run because I still need to eat healthy, exercise, drink water, get enough sleep, and do anything else that supports being in good condition. Hopefully the weight will eventually come off. :ohwell:
  • Yurippe
    Yurippe Posts: 850 Member
    In one way you are right but I disagree, a pound is a pound but the same volume muscle weighs quite a bit more than fat, hence muscle weighs more than fat. This is what people mean when they say muscle weighs more than fat.

    For some reason people like to go to your argument just to say someone is wrong, which completely misses the point the other one was saying. In other words if you loose inches and not weight, most likely you gained some muscle as, for the same volume, muscle weighs more than fat.

    If you read the OP it states:

    The correct way to state the muscle weighs more than fat scenario is, "Muscle is heavier by volume than fat."

    You just said I was wrong, then repeated me. :laugh:
    Do you also get annoyed when people claim that bricks are heavier than feathers? :tongue:

    Only if they were trying to convince me that 1 lb of bricks weighed more than 2 lbs of feathers.
  • questionablemethods
    questionablemethods Posts: 2,174 Member
    In one way you are right but I disagree, a pound is a pound but the same volume muscle weighs quite a bit more than fat, hence muscle weighs more than fat. This is what people mean when they say muscle weighs more than fat.

    For some reason people like to go to your argument just to say someone is wrong, which completely misses the point the other one was saying. In other words if you loose inches and not weight, most likely you gained some muscle as, for the same volume, muscle weighs more than fat.

    If you read the OP it states:

    The correct way to state the muscle weighs more than fat scenario is, "Muscle is heavier by volume than fat."

    You just said I was wrong, then repeated me. :laugh:

    It's ellipsis. It happens all the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_(linguistics) ). I don't know why people get so annoyed by this particular example.
  • Yurippe
    Yurippe Posts: 850 Member
    Get ready for a quote heavy post! I'm going to try to answer several of the points brought up in one responce.
    Semantics. There's no use to argue over them. The saying, "muscle weighs more than fat," is not literal, it's referring to density obviously. I don't think anyone is actually under the impression that a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat.

    agreed. I think lots of times it's a nice way of making someone feel a lil better about gaining 2#. As stated before, the weight is equal but it takes longer than a week to gain muscle! The best way to monitor progress is with the use of the scale AND the measuring tape. :wink:

    Very often it is someone's "nice" way of trying to make another person feel better about not losing weight. Let me give you a specific example that was on the message boards today:

    OP:
    Once again I've gained another pound in weight, so that's three wekks running now. I am very very annoyed. I calculated my BMR and it said I needed 1405 caloried per day. As I'm trying to lose weight I reduced my calories to 1200. I have done at least 4 hrs of exercise so far this week and I've only exceeded my calories once this week and that wasn't by much? How come I'm still gaining weight???? It's really getting me down. I now weigh 152lb!!!!!!! and I want to get down to 140lbs or less. I really need help and advice on this one as I'm truly fed up and on the verge of giving up.

    Response:
    If you're exercising, you could be replacing fat with muscle...and since muscle weighs more than fat you'd gain some weight. Maybe instead of going by the weight on the scale, take some measurements (of your waist, chest, arms, legs, etc.) and then use the measurements to see how you're doing.

    The person that responded was trying to be nice. She encouraged someone that was eating under their BMR with "muscle weighs more than fat". Dangerous to encourage someone that is undereating with this statement and not really nice at all.

    The reason this particular ellipsis annoys the hell out of me is because it is constantly repeated on these threads. It annoys me because even though it is very difficult to both burn fat and build muscle at the same time people read it once, beleive that it is the answer to everyone's problem, and use it as the answer to everything.

    Article on burning fat while building muscle:
    http://www.sparkpeople.com/community/ask_the_experts.asp?q=70

    Also, the semantics. LOL
  • jzbaby626
    jzbaby626 Posts: 466
    LoL I made a post just like this the other day.!!
  • whyflysouth
    whyflysouth Posts: 308 Member
    LoL I made a post just like this the other day.!!

    Yeah, this forum post is repeated roughly once every two weeks. It's funny, in the beginning you feel the need to address it politely, then it comes back and you are more terse, then it comes back and you're annoyed, and I've finally resigned to the fact that this kind of post will be repeated continuously until the end of the internet.

    I think I'll put one reply together which just has a link to every "1 lb of muscle doesn't weigh more than 1 lb of fat" post that's been sent to this site to let the original poster realize he's not the first genius to come to such a revelation on MFP.

    I guess I should just let people have their fun...
  • AmandaB4588
    AmandaB4588 Posts: 655
    Are people really arguing about this? :laugh:

    We all know what the saying is implying, and it's not that 5lbs of muscle weighs more than 5lbs of fat.
  • whyflysouth
    whyflysouth Posts: 308 Member
    Are people really arguing about this? :laugh:

    We all know what the saying is implying, and it's not that 5lbs of muscle weighs more than 5lbs of fat.

    Exactly! Volume is ALWAYS implied. If I were to say "Joe weighs more than Larry" nobody would come and correct me and say, "actually 1 lb of Joe weighs the same as 1 lb of Larry, you fool." C'mon, plz I'm sure that the reason so many people have weight problems in this country is because they don't realize that a lb of muscle weighs the same as a lb of fat.
  • sweetoblivion314
    sweetoblivion314 Posts: 55
    Nowhere in the statement "muscle weighs more then fat" are you comparing a given weight of fat to a given weight of muscle. There is nothing grammatically or logically wrong with this statement. One quart of muscle does indeed weigh more then one quart of fat. The statement does not qualify the means of comparison, so to add weight as a qualification is your error. You transformed a perfectly sound statement into an illogical statement.
  • iguanaliz
    iguanaliz Posts: 95 Member
    Are people really arguing about this? :laugh:

    We all know what the saying is implying, and it's not that 5lbs of muscle weighs more than 5lbs of fat.

    Exactly! Volume is ALWAYS implied. If I were to say "Joe weighs more than Larry" nobody would come and correct me and say, "actually 1 lb of Joe weighs the same as 1 lb of Larry, you fool." C'mon, plz I'm sure that the reason so many people have weight problems in this country is because they don't realize that a lb of muscle weighs the same as a lb of fat.
    Volume is perhaps always implied, but I don't think it's always understood. It's just my opinion, but I do think that when people say "muscle weighs more than fat" they are implying the volume aspect, but not intentionally. I was actually annoyed by this thread at first because it seemed sort of condescending, for no apparent reason but it rubbed me wrong. But having read all the posts and re-read the original, I think it's a great thread because it really is clearing up a myth in a way that pretty much everyone can understand.

    We need to stop thinking about fat vs. muscle weight and starting thinking about why that pound of muscle is better than that pound of fat. As has already been pointed out, muscle takes up less room, it also burns energy more efficiently. Most importantly, it doesn't jiggle!

    I've only lost 10 pounds, but I've been working out since November. I'm wearing clothes that I last wore when I was 20 pounds lighter. And my *kitten* looks great :wink:

    And being able to work that into a conversation about weight vs. volume? Priceless.
  • dragonfly74
    dragonfly74 Posts: 1,382 Member
    Please! If you don't get the point of "muscle weighs more than fat" you belong doing something else. Of course a pound is a pound, an ounce is an ounce. Seriously?

    When you are working out and you are losing inches but not pounds that is where the saying comes in.

    Isn't that what we all want here. Quit the semantics. MUSCLE IS BETTER THAN FAT.
  • StuAblett
    StuAblett Posts: 1,141 Member
    One pound of muscle is certainly more welcome than one pound of fat :)

    I had always heard it with the qualification of volume, like "One cubic inch of muscle weighs more than one cubic inch of fat" I think that has been simplified down to the "Muscle weighs more than fat" statement.

    More muscle less fat is a good thing!
  • hiddensecant
    hiddensecant Posts: 2,446 Member
    Only if they were trying to convince me that 1 lb of bricks weighed more than 2 lbs of feathers.
    No one has ever claimed that 1lb of muscle weighs more than 2lbs of fat. eye_rolling_smiley.gif
  • beMyself
    beMyself Posts: 29
    I visited the link and the muscle IS much nicer to look at. Probably where the myth came from that it weighed more, because it is very condensed. the same size of muscle (physical diameter) would weigh more)
  • beMyself
    beMyself Posts: 29
    Nowhere in the statement "muscle weighs more then fat" are you comparing a given weight of fat to a given weight of muscle. There is nothing grammatically or logically wrong with this statement. One quart of muscle does indeed weigh more then one quart of fat. The statement does not qualify the means of comparison, so to add weight as a qualification is your error. You transformed a perfectly sound statement into an illogical statement.


    Yes, if you got two equal containers and filled one with muscle and one with fat, the one with muscle might be heavier... :)

    Thats why when you go to the link she provides it takes a bigger piece of fat to equal the same weight as the piece of muscle.
  • dinos
    dinos Posts: 1,390 Member
    This is what i found in Wikipedia:

    The density of mammalian skeletal muscle tissue is about 1.06 kg/liter. This can be contrasted with the density of adipose tissue (fat), which is 0.9196 kg/liter. This makes muscle tissue approximately 15% denser than fat tissue. :grumble:

    At rest, skeletal muscle consumes 13.0 kcal/kg per day. This is larger than adipose tissue (fat) at 4.5 kcal/kg, and bone at 2.3 kcal/kg. In other words lean muscle burns 3x as many cals/day than fat does. :happy:
  • LotusF1ower
    LotusF1ower Posts: 1,259 Member
    http://www.onemorebite-weightloss.com/muscle-to-fat.html

    Muscle Does Not Weigh More Than Fat (five pounds is five pounds), but it is Much Nicer to Look at

    5 Lb. Fat vs. 5 Lb. Muscle (picture in link above)
    As you can see, the 5 lbs. of fat is much bulkier than the 5 lbs. of muscle, but five pounds is still five pounds. Muscle does not weigh more than fat.

    Fat is bulky and lumpy so if you carry an extra five pounds of fat, you'll be lumpier than with five pounds more muscle. A five pound pile of fat will take up more space (volume) than a five pound pile of muscle; but five pounds is still five pounds, so for those of you that don't "get" English, you cannot say one thing weighing a certain weight weighs more than another thing at that same weight. It's a common joke to play on an 8-year old. The correct way to state the muscle weighs more than fat scenario is, "Muscle is heavier by volume than fat."

    A woman weighing 150 pounds with 19% fat will look much smaller (and be much healthier) than a woman at 150 pounds with 35% fat. They weigh the same, yet the composition is different. Because muscle is more dense than fat the person with less fat and more muscle will look smaller.

    Stop being so obsessed with body weight and start paying attention to body composition. How much body fat do you have compared to muscle? Simply seeing how much you weigh isn't very helpful.

    Very interesting article and your post too! It certainly makes a lot of sense when people say they have not had any weight loss but their clothes are fitting better!

    I do think when people say muscle weighs more than fat they actually mean that if both the fat and the muscle were the same size, the muscle will weigh more, well that's what I've meant when I've said it anyway :laugh:
  • antiadipose
    antiadipose Posts: 447
    is this a joke?!
    sry im not trying to be rude but its such a simple concept... just different wording.
  • SaveTheDrama
    SaveTheDrama Posts: 62
    I am sorry but I will continue to say muscle weighs more than fat. I know what I mean when I make that statement, I mean by volume and I would hope anyone with a lick of since has the same understanding.
  • xxquzme
    xxquzme Posts: 157 Member
    I think that you are taking the idea of weight the wrong way. Take that five pounds of fat and put it next to 5 pounds of muscle and tell me what pile is bigger. Any idea? Yup its the fat. hence that muscle weighs more than fat. If you are using your theory than you could compare anything to anything. Not the idea here. Its weight loss with support of others. If you are building muscle than your weight loss will be less but you will doing it the right way and have a better chance of keeping it off. So all i have to say is ....muscle weighs more than fat.
  • jzbaby626
    jzbaby626 Posts: 466
    LoL I made a post just like this the other day.!!

    Yeah, this forum post is repeated roughly once every two weeks. It's funny, in the beginning you feel the need to address it politely, then it comes back and you are more terse, then it comes back and you're annoyed, and I've finally resigned to the fact that this kind of post will be repeated continuously until the end of the internet.

    I think I'll put one reply together which just has a link to every "1 lb of muscle doesn't weigh more than 1 lb of fat" post that's been sent to this site to let the original poster realize he's not the first genius to come to such a revelation on MFP.

    I guess I should just let people have their fun...

    Yeah, wasn't implying I was the "1st genius" to come to the revelation. Just sayin I agreed. Smart *kitten*.
  • Ms_Natalie
    Ms_Natalie Posts: 1,030 Member
    In one way you are right but I disagree, a pound is a pound but the same volume muscle weighs quite a bit more than fat, hence muscle weighs more than fat. This is what people mean when they say muscle weighs more than fat.

    For some reason people like to go to your argument just to say someone is wrong, which completely misses the point the other one was saying. In other words if you loose inches and not weight, most likely you gained some muscle as, for the same volume, muscle weighs more than fat.

    SPOT ON! :flowerforyou:
    to the OP: why does this bother you so much? :ohwell:
  • Ms_Natalie
    Ms_Natalie Posts: 1,030 Member
    In one way you are right but I disagree, a pound is a pound but the same volume muscle weighs quite a bit more than fat, hence muscle weighs more than fat. This is what people mean when they say muscle weighs more than fat.

    For some reason people like to go to your argument just to say someone is wrong, which completely misses the point the other one was saying. In other words if you loose inches and not weight, most likely you gained some muscle as, for the same volume, muscle weighs more than fat.

    SPOT ON! :flowerforyou:
    to the OP: why does this bother you so much? :ohwell:
  • LotusF1ower
    LotusF1ower Posts: 1,259 Member
    Get ready for a quote heavy post! I'm going to try to answer several of the points brought up in one responce.
    Semantics. There's no use to argue over them. The saying, "muscle weighs more than fat," is not literal, it's referring to density obviously. I don't think anyone is actually under the impression that a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat.

    agreed. I think lots of times it's a nice way of making someone feel a lil better about gaining 2#. As stated before, the weight is equal but it takes longer than a week to gain muscle! The best way to monitor progress is with the use of the scale AND the measuring tape. :wink:

    Very often it is someone's "nice" way of trying to make another person feel better about not losing weight. Let me give you a specific example that was on the message boards today:

    OP:
    Once again I've gained another pound in weight, so that's three wekks running now. I am very very annoyed. I calculated my BMR and it said I needed 1405 caloried per day. As I'm trying to lose weight I reduced my calories to 1200. I have done at least 4 hrs of exercise so far this week and I've only exceeded my calories once this week and that wasn't by much? How come I'm still gaining weight???? It's really getting me down. I now weigh 152lb!!!!!!! and I want to get down to 140lbs or less. I really need help and advice on this one as I'm truly fed up and on the verge of giving up.

    Response:
    If you're exercising, you could be replacing fat with muscle...and since muscle weighs more than fat you'd gain some weight. Maybe instead of going by the weight on the scale, take some measurements (of your waist, chest, arms, legs, etc.) and then use the measurements to see how you're doing.

    The person that responded was trying to be nice. She encouraged someone that was eating under their BMR with "muscle weighs more than fat". Dangerous to encourage someone that is undereating with this statement and not really nice at all.

    The reason this particular ellipsis annoys the hell out of me is because it is constantly repeated on these threads. It annoys me because even though it is very difficult to both burn fat and build muscle at the same time people read it once, beleive that it is the answer to everyone's problem, and use it as the answer to everything.

    Article on burning fat while building muscle:
    http://www.sparkpeople.com/community/ask_the_experts.asp?q=70

    Also, the semantics. LOL

    I too made a posting like that reply, in fact that reply could very well be me. I have tried to find the posting but cannot.

    Well, just in case it was my reply, I need to put the record straight and make it publicly known that the OP had no idea whatsoever re my motives in that reply, no I was not trying to be nice, but was voicing my opinion. You don't mind do you OP??

    Also, to the OP, I do not think, for one minute that a lump of fat and a lump of muscle if they both weigh, say a pound each, that the muscle weighs more than the fat. How the hell could it if they both weigh a pound??

    The fact remains however, that a lump of fat and a lump of muscle that are exactly the same in size, the muscle WILL weigh more and this is what is meant by myself at least.

    You totally misunderstood that reply, whether it was by me or another poster and what you think it meant was not that at all going by your own post quoted.
  • lilmissy2
    lilmissy2 Posts: 595 Member
    Hmm I hadn't read through that section until that last post... but I see what you mean. The 'replier' whether it was you or not, suggested that the OP take other measurements to help track whether they were losing body fat, they didn't imply that you should just assume you are gaining muscle and live happily ever after.

    I do think that for people to advise to just ignore the scales without advising to take any other measurements would be a bad thing (although I can't say I've ever seen that happen on here, usually people always suggest tracking inches etc as well as weight)... unless of course you were trying to focus your effort elsewhere for a while, for example on simply eating better foods or exercising more.
  • LotusF1ower
    LotusF1ower Posts: 1,259 Member
    Hmm I hadn't read through that section until that last post... but I see what you mean. The 'replier' whether it was you or not, suggested that the OP take other measurements to help track whether they were losing body fat, they didn't imply that you should just assume you are gaining muscle and live happily ever after.

    I do think that for people to advise to just ignore the scales without advising to take any other measurements would be a bad thing (although I can't say I've ever seen that happen on here, usually people always suggest tracking inches etc as well as weight)... unless of course you were trying to focus your effort elsewhere for a while, for example on simply eating better foods or exercising more.

    Ironically, I just found that post and the replier wasn't me. Strange though, because I made a very similar posting like that on some other topic LOL!

    I am going to headbutt the fridge now or maybe make a cup of tea - yes I think the tea is a better option :laugh:
  • Yurippe
    Yurippe Posts: 850 Member
    Volume is perhaps always implied, but I don't think it's always understood. It's just my opinion, but I do think that when people say "muscle weighs more than fat" they are implying the volume aspect, but not intentionally. I was actually annoyed by this thread at first because it seemed sort of condescending, for no apparent reason but it rubbed me wrong. But having read all the posts and re-read the original, I think it's a great thread because it really is clearing up a myth in a way that pretty much everyone can understand.

    I certainly didn't mean it to be condescending. I didn't even write it!

    This article is copied and posted into the thread so that others wouldn't have to open a new browser to read the article (only if they wanted to see the attached picture).
  • Yurippe
    Yurippe Posts: 850 Member
    I too made a posting like that reply, in fact that reply could very well be me. I have tried to find the posting but cannot.

    Well, just in case it was my reply, I need to put the record straight and make it publicly known that the OP had no idea whatsoever re my motives in that reply, no I was not trying to be nice, but was voicing my opinion. You don't mind do you OP??

    Also, to the OP, I do not think, for one minute that a lump of fat and a lump of muscle if they both weigh, say a pound each, that the muscle weighs more than the fat. How the hell could it if they both weigh a pound??

    The fact remains however, that a lump of fat and a lump of muscle that are exactly the same in size, the muscle WILL weigh more and this is what is meant by myself at least.

    You totally misunderstood that reply, whether it was by me or another poster and what you think it meant was not that at all going by your own post quoted.

    No I don't mind anyone posting their opinion on any given topic and absolutely never meant to offend anyone.

    You have missed the point I was trying to make in the above post so let me try to clarify. The OP in that thread mentioned that she was eating under her BMR. The reply posted suggests that she check her measurement because muscle weighs more than fat while completely ignoring the fact that the OP isn't eating enough. The intention is to be nice and to encourage, but in the long run you are setting someone up for failure if you ignore the fact that they are eating under their BMR and zero of their exercise calories. I'm refering only to this specific example, although I've seen it used as misplaced encouragement in others, and has nothing to do with your response in a thread I haven't seen and have no way of knowing in what context you used it.

    Edited for horrific typos. I've probably missed as many as I corrected.
  • kerry1968
    kerry1968 Posts: 9
    That is what is meant by 'muscle wieghs more than fat'. A smaller amount of muscle will wiegh more than the amount of fat at the same weight. But again, pay attention to what your body looks like, clothes fit, and how you feel when exercising. Those are key factors in whether or not you are becoming a healthier you.
  • LotusF1ower
    LotusF1ower Posts: 1,259 Member
    I too made a posting like that reply, in fact that reply could very well be me. I have tried to find the posting but cannot.

    Well, just in case it was my reply, I need to put the record straight and make it publicly known that the OP had no idea whatsoever re my motives in that reply, no I was not trying to be nice, but was voicing my opinion. You don't mind do you OP??

    Also, to the OP, I do not think, for one minute that a lump of fat and a lump of muscle if they both weigh, say a pound each, that the muscle weighs more than the fat. How the hell could it if they both weigh a pound??

    The fact remains however, that a lump of fat and a lump of muscle that are exactly the same in size, the muscle WILL weigh more and this is what is meant by myself at least.

    You totally misunderstood that reply, whether it was by me or another poster and what you think it meant was not that at all going by your own post quoted.

    No I don't mind anyone posting their opinion on any given topic and absolutely never meant to offend anyone.

    You have missed the point I was trying to make in the above post so let me try to clarify. The OP in that thread mentioned that she was eating under her BMR. The reply posted suggests that she check her measurement because muscle weighs more than fat while completely ignoring the fact that the OP isn't eating enough. The intention is to be nice and to encourage, but in the long run you are setting someone up for failure if you ignore the fact that they are eating under their BMR and zero of their exercise calories. I'm refering only to this specific example, although I've seen it used as misplaced encouragement in others, and has nothing to do with your response in a thread I haven't seen and have no way of knowing in what context you used it.

    Edited for horrific typos. I've probably missed as many as I corrected.

    No, I apologise actually, ironically, it wasn't me that was replying to that post you are talking about, but strangely I had made one very similar on another thread, hence my confusion (it doesn't take much to confuse me at times :laugh:

    So sorry about that :embarassed:
This discussion has been closed.

Categories