Whats going wrong?
Replies
-
I_Will_End_You wrote: »eppslynne88 wrote: »That's a lot of cardio and not a lot of calories. Cut back on the cardio, up the calories. Do you take diet breaks? Maybe eat at maintenance for awhile. Also maybe don't rely on scale weight so much. How much protein are you eating? You want to eat plenty of protein to decrease muscle loss.
I came across this yesterday on Tim Ferriss website.
Rule #1: Avoid “white” starchy carbohydrates (or those that can be white). This means all bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, and grains. If you have to ask, don’t eat it.
Rule #2: Eat the same few meals over and over again, especially for breakfast and lunch. You already do this; you’re just picking new default meals.
Rule #3: Don’t drink calories. Exception: 1-2 glasses of dry red wine per night is allowed.
Rule #4: Don’t eat fruit. (Fructose –> glycerol phosphate –> more bodyfat, more or less.) Avocado and tomatoes are excepted.
Rule #5: Take one day off per week and go nuts. I choose and recommend Saturday.
http://fourhourworkweek.com/2012/07/12/how-to-lose-100-pounds/
More Lyle McDonald. Lots of good information on fat loss on his website.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK4_rSFdkTo
Terrible advice.
+1
Lyle McDonald's book (The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook) is all about dangerous crash dieting (encouraging the practice) and promises to help you lose 20lb in two weeks among various other ridiculous claims. You wont find a reputable scientist in the same field that considers this to be healthy. Just because Lyle claims to be scientific doesn't make it so. His reliance on anecdotal evidence is partial proof of this.
0 -
Maybe someday someone can explain to me why exactly we have the term 'density' if when I say X weighs more than Y it means for the same volumes of X and Y. Or why physicists, chemists, and the like insist on showing the complete units (like g/mL) rather than just the masses being compared (g).
Anyway, OP, most of the people replying to you are correct. Most likely source of your trouble is from eating more than the plan intended because you are using the containers you were provided and it's been shown over and over again that is pretty error prone. Check that first, and if that's not the problem, then people help you figure out what else might be causing the problem.0 -
Muscle weighs more than fat. The way it looks, you are building muscle. The scale won't necessarily show a loss, but your clothes will. Use that as your criteria. See how things fit and how many inches you're losing. You also might be over doing the exercise. My doctor told me one of the reasons I wasn't losing was because I am exercising too much. I cut back and have shown a weight loss.
Actually, NO.0 -
OP, your rate of loss is fine. Your not weighing your food however, will catch up to you. Container stuffing is not accurate.0
-
eppslynne88 wrote: »That's a lot of cardio and not a lot of calories. Cut back on the cardio, up the calories. Do you take diet breaks? Maybe eat at maintenance for awhile. Also maybe don't rely on scale weight so much. How much protein are you eating? You want to eat plenty of protein to decrease muscle loss.
I came across this yesterday on Tim Ferriss website.
Rule #1: Avoid “white” starchy carbohydrates (or those that can be white). This means all bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, and grains. If you have to ask, don’t eat it.
Rule #2: Eat the same few meals over and over again, especially for breakfast and lunch. You already do this; you’re just picking new default meals.
Rule #3: Don’t drink calories. Exception: 1-2 glasses of dry red wine per night is allowed.
Rule #4: Don’t eat fruit. (Fructose –> glycerol phosphate –> more bodyfat, more or less.) Avocado and tomatoes are excepted.
Rule #5: Take one day off per week and go nuts. I choose and recommend Saturday.
http://fourhourworkweek.com/2012/07/12/how-to-lose-100-pounds/
More Lyle McDonald. Lots of good information on fat loss on his website.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK4_rSFdkTo
No. This is ridiculous advice. Ignore this OP.
0 -
1200 seems low to be doing that for 6/7x week.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I increased everything to see if I'd see the scale would start dropping...
It appears my body is holding onto me
When you up exercise a lot of times you do retain water. It will go away, but you likely don't want to get too impatient and exercise super hard on 1200.
If you like podcasts at all, one I like is Sigma Nutrition (some are better than others, depending on the guest). One that might be relevant to you is this interview with Lyle McDonald: http://sigmanutrition.com/episode65/. It talks about some of the hormonal things that can make weight loss harder or slower sometimes when people don't have too much to lose and exercise like crazy on low calories.
Also, again, I really don't think you should be freaking out. At your weight 1 lb a week is really good. Better just to aim for that, on average, and not make yourself miserable. In the meantime, as you get more fit you'll look even better, regardless of the scale.
Interesting podcast. The cortisol influence was new to me.
0 -
I didn't read all the other replies, but my thought is....maybe the scale isn't moving like you want it to (although I think you're doing very well), but you're seeing progress in inches lost. Everyone seems to get so fixated on the number staring back at them, but isn't losing inches what's really getting you closer to being the size you want to be?0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »Muscle weighs more than fat. The way it looks, you are building muscle. The scale won't necessarily show a loss, but your clothes will. Use that as your criteria. See how things fit and how many inches you're losing. You also might be over doing the exercise. My doctor told me one of the reasons I wasn't losing was because I am exercising too much. I cut back and have shown a weight loss.
Just to clarify, muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle is equal to 5 lbs of fat...they both weigh 5 lbs. The difference is that muscle is denser than fat, therefore you'd look leaner. Can we please get away from this false notion?
When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they mean per volume. 5lb of fat weighs the same as 5lb of muscle, yes (obviously), but they are far from equal. A cup of muscle will weigh more than a cup of fat. So, muscle absolutely does weigh more than fat... per volume.
AMEN @peggyasp
So we're clear. Muscle absolutely weighs more than fat. We know this is true because @emily_fox inadvertantly proved her own argument wrong when she said "muscle is denser than fat."
More density = More mass per volume.
More mass = More weight (here on planet Earth).
It's physics. You can't fight physics. So now ... can we please put this 1lb = 1lb argument to rest? It is insulting to ALMOST everyone's intelligence.
You made an assumption that volume remains the same when the statement is a comparison of only weight. Therefore your rant fails a simple logic check.
The logic is solid, and based on the simplest rule of variables in scientific experimentation (the dependent variable is what you observe). The weight varies in response to changes in the independent variable, which is volume. You will increase or decrease the volume in order to observe how that affects weight. Observing the differences in the weights of fat and muscle at the same volume is the only way to determine which is heavier. As a comparison of "only weight", the statement (that 5lb of one equals 5lb of the other) is useless.
Put as simply as possible, in order to compare the weight of two things, you need an equal volume of those two things. You can't just leave out volume as a factor.
The statement made above about it being irrelevant in OP's case is also true, though. In such a short amount of time, the issue is more likely as simple as water (since the measurements are changing).0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »Muscle weighs more than fat. The way it looks, you are building muscle. The scale won't necessarily show a loss, but your clothes will. Use that as your criteria. See how things fit and how many inches you're losing. You also might be over doing the exercise. My doctor told me one of the reasons I wasn't losing was because I am exercising too much. I cut back and have shown a weight loss.
Just to clarify, muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle is equal to 5 lbs of fat...they both weigh 5 lbs. The difference is that muscle is denser than fat, therefore you'd look leaner. Can we please get away from this false notion?
When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they mean per volume. 5lb of fat weighs the same as 5lb of muscle, yes (obviously), but they are far from equal. A cup of muscle will weigh more than a cup of fat. So, muscle absolutely does weigh more than fat... per volume.
AMEN @peggyasp
So we're clear. Muscle absolutely weighs more than fat. We know this is true because @emily_fox inadvertantly proved her own argument wrong when she said "muscle is denser than fat."
More density = More mass per volume.
More mass = More weight (here on planet Earth).
It's physics. You can't fight physics. So now ... can we please put this 1lb = 1lb argument to rest? It is insulting to ALMOST everyone's intelligence.
You made an assumption that volume remains the same when the statement is a comparison of only weight. Therefore your rant fails a simple logic check.
The logic is solid, and based on the simplest rule of variables in scientific experimentation (the dependent variable is what you observe). The weight varies in response to changes in the independent variable, which is volume. You will increase or decrease the volume in order to observe how that affects weight. Observing the differences in the weights of fat and muscle at the same volume is the only way to determine which is heavier. As a comparison of "only weight", the statement (that 5lb of one equals 5lb of the other) is useless.
Put as simply as possible, in order to compare the weight of two things, you need an equal volume of those two things. You can't just leave out volume as a factor.
The statement made above about it being irrelevant in OP's case is also true, though. In such a short amount of time, the issue is more likely as simple as water (since the measurements are changing).
Volume of the humans in question is not a controlled variable in any of these cases.
0 -
You said you were toning up and I'm guessing that's why you're not seeing much results on the scale. I recently gained muscle and with that, 20 lbs. It sounds like a huge weight gain but it's totally muscle, not fat! I don't even use the scale anymore to measure my progress. You said you use calipers which is what I use too. I would focus on that and how you feel. If you can see changes, I wouldn't worry about it.0
-
ntinkham88 wrote: »You said you were toning up and I'm guessing that's why you're not seeing much results on the scale. I recently gained muscle and with that, 20 lbs. It sounds like a huge weight gain but it's totally muscle, not fat! I don't even use the scale anymore to measure my progress. You said you use calipers which is what I use too. I would focus on that and how you feel. If you can see changes, I wouldn't worry about it.
This isn't good advice. OP seems to be in maintenance or a tiny deficit, not doing any real heavy weight training-therefore not gaining muscle. She wants to lose fat, even training heavy and in a deficit, she should be seeing the scale go down.
It is extremely difficult for a woman to gain muscle, let alone in maintenance..without a heavy weight training program.0 -
Lyle McDonald's book (The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook) is all about dangerous crash dieting (encouraging the practice) and promises to help you lose 20lb in two weeks among various other ridiculous claims.
Have to disagree. First, he argues *against* losing fast. Second, the approach he suggests for people who insist on doing it anyway is extremely well grounded in medical science.
PSMFs are hard to live with, and few can stick to them for very long. But they are safe, relatively easy to understand, and will maximize the rate of fat loss while minimizing the rate of muscle loss.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »Muscle weighs more than fat. The way it looks, you are building muscle. The scale won't necessarily show a loss, but your clothes will. Use that as your criteria. See how things fit and how many inches you're losing. You also might be over doing the exercise. My doctor told me one of the reasons I wasn't losing was because I am exercising too much. I cut back and have shown a weight loss.
Just to clarify, muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle is equal to 5 lbs of fat...they both weigh 5 lbs. The difference is that muscle is denser than fat, therefore you'd look leaner. Can we please get away from this false notion?
When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they mean per volume. 5lb of fat weighs the same as 5lb of muscle, yes (obviously), but they are far from equal. A cup of muscle will weigh more than a cup of fat. So, muscle absolutely does weigh more than fat... per volume.
AMEN @peggyasp
So we're clear. Muscle absolutely weighs more than fat. We know this is true because @emily_fox inadvertantly proved her own argument wrong when she said "muscle is denser than fat."
More density = More mass per volume.
More mass = More weight (here on planet Earth).
It's physics. You can't fight physics. So now ... can we please put this 1lb = 1lb argument to rest? It is insulting to ALMOST everyone's intelligence.
You made an assumption that volume remains the same when the statement is a comparison of only weight. Therefore your rant fails a simple logic check.
The logic is solid, and based on the simplest rule of variables in scientific experimentation (the dependent variable is what you observe). The weight varies in response to changes in the independent variable, which is volume. You will increase or decrease the volume in order to observe how that affects weight. Observing the differences in the weights of fat and muscle at the same volume is the only way to determine which is heavier. As a comparison of "only weight", the statement (that 5lb of one equals 5lb of the other) is useless.
Put as simply as possible, in order to compare the weight of two things, you need an equal volume of those two things. You can't just leave out volume as a factor.
The statement made above about it being irrelevant in OP's case is also true, though. In such a short amount of time, the issue is more likely as simple as water (since the measurements are changing).
Volume of the humans in question is not a controlled variable in any of these cases.
No, not on a human body, but weighed on a scale like the one pictured above.0 -
It reduces the independent variables. You can't have more than one, or the test is invalid.
If you compare 5lb to 5lb to 5lb, you're not really testing weight. If you're comparing a cup of A to a cup of B to a cup of C to see what each will weigh, then you're comparing weight.
Or just look at the picture above...0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »Muscle weighs more than fat. The way it looks, you are building muscle. The scale won't necessarily show a loss, but your clothes will. Use that as your criteria. See how things fit and how many inches you're losing. You also might be over doing the exercise. My doctor told me one of the reasons I wasn't losing was because I am exercising too much. I cut back and have shown a weight loss.
Just to clarify, muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle is equal to 5 lbs of fat...they both weigh 5 lbs. The difference is that muscle is denser than fat, therefore you'd look leaner. Can we please get away from this false notion?
When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they mean per volume. 5lb of fat weighs the same as 5lb of muscle, yes (obviously), but they are far from equal. A cup of muscle will weigh more than a cup of fat. So, muscle absolutely does weigh more than fat... per volume.
AMEN @peggyasp
So we're clear. Muscle absolutely weighs more than fat. We know this is true because @emily_fox inadvertantly proved her own argument wrong when she said "muscle is denser than fat."
More density = More mass per volume.
More mass = More weight (here on planet Earth).
It's physics. You can't fight physics. So now ... can we please put this 1lb = 1lb argument to rest? It is insulting to ALMOST everyone's intelligence.
You made an assumption that volume remains the same when the statement is a comparison of only weight. Therefore your rant fails a simple logic check.
The logic is solid, and based on the simplest rule of variables in scientific experimentation (the dependent variable is what you observe). The weight varies in response to changes in the independent variable, which is volume. You will increase or decrease the volume in order to observe how that affects weight. Observing the differences in the weights of fat and muscle at the same volume is the only way to determine which is heavier. As a comparison of "only weight", the statement (that 5lb of one equals 5lb of the other) is useless.
Put as simply as possible, in order to compare the weight of two things, you need an equal volume of those two things. You can't just leave out volume as a factor.
The statement made above about it being irrelevant in OP's case is also true, though. In such a short amount of time, the issue is more likely as simple as water (since the measurements are changing).
Volume of the humans in question is not a controlled variable in any of these cases.
No, not on a human body, but weighed on a scale like the one pictured above.
The issue is that the argument that "muscle weighs more than fat" is used to describe weight of humans where volume is not controlled. Since the only part measured is weight, and volume is not controlled, your entire argument is moot.
That is without factoring in the difficulty in creating new muscle mass in the human body ... especially for women due to the lack of testosterone.0 -
I'm buying a bike for triathlons. I don't need to know anything about the volume of the bikes I'm looking at to compare the weights of the bikes I'm looking at.
I have no idea what you're actually trying to say...0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »Muscle weighs more than fat. The way it looks, you are building muscle. The scale won't necessarily show a loss, but your clothes will. Use that as your criteria. See how things fit and how many inches you're losing. You also might be over doing the exercise. My doctor told me one of the reasons I wasn't losing was because I am exercising too much. I cut back and have shown a weight loss.
Just to clarify, muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle is equal to 5 lbs of fat...they both weigh 5 lbs. The difference is that muscle is denser than fat, therefore you'd look leaner. Can we please get away from this false notion?
When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they mean per volume. 5lb of fat weighs the same as 5lb of muscle, yes (obviously), but they are far from equal. A cup of muscle will weigh more than a cup of fat. So, muscle absolutely does weigh more than fat... per volume.
AMEN @peggyasp
So we're clear. Muscle absolutely weighs more than fat. We know this is true because @emily_fox inadvertantly proved her own argument wrong when she said "muscle is denser than fat."
More density = More mass per volume.
More mass = More weight (here on planet Earth).
It's physics. You can't fight physics. So now ... can we please put this 1lb = 1lb argument to rest? It is insulting to ALMOST everyone's intelligence.
You made an assumption that volume remains the same when the statement is a comparison of only weight. Therefore your rant fails a simple logic check.
The logic is solid, and based on the simplest rule of variables in scientific experimentation (the dependent variable is what you observe). The weight varies in response to changes in the independent variable, which is volume. You will increase or decrease the volume in order to observe how that affects weight. Observing the differences in the weights of fat and muscle at the same volume is the only way to determine which is heavier. As a comparison of "only weight", the statement (that 5lb of one equals 5lb of the other) is useless.
Put as simply as possible, in order to compare the weight of two things, you need an equal volume of those two things. You can't just leave out volume as a factor.
The statement made above about it being irrelevant in OP's case is also true, though. In such a short amount of time, the issue is more likely as simple as water (since the measurements are changing).
Volume of the humans in question is not a controlled variable in any of these cases.
No, not on a human body, but weighed on a scale like the one pictured above.
The issue is that the argument that "muscle weighs more than fat" is used to describe weight of humans where volume is not controlled. Since the only part measured is weight, and volume is not controlled, your entire argument is moot.
That is without factoring in the difficulty in creating new muscle mass in the human body ... especially for women due to the lack of testosterone.
Wow. No. The argument is not moot. It holds. The whole point of conducting a test is to gather data in an environment where you CAN control the variables so that you can then APPLY the information to situations where you can't exert the same control. Measuring exactly how much muscle is on a human body is not so easy without dissecting the body, but we know that a muscular 130 lb is going to be slimmer than 130 lb that has a higher fat ratio. This is true of men and women, cats, rats, elephants... And we know this for certain because of controlled tests.
What does testosterone have to do with whether muscle weighs more than fat? We already know that men develop more muscle than women, just like some women have more muscle than other women and some men have more than other men. However, it is
You are over complicating it. Fewer pounds of muscle will simply take up less space than the same number of pounds of fat. We can all agree to that. Whether that's on a human, in a cup, on a scale, or anywhere else isn't relevant.0 -
I'm buying a bike for triathlons. I don't need to know anything about the volume of the bikes I'm looking at to compare the weights of the bikes I'm looking at.
I have no idea what you're actually trying to say...
No, you certainly don't.
I'm pointing out that weight is not something to measure independently in the context of whether two things weigh the same.
If one bike weighs less because it only has one wheel, then that would certainly affect your decision to buy, wouldn't it? Are you going to compare only the weights of the bikes without considering WHY one weighs more or less than another? No; you will look at other factors that directly affect the weight. If one bike was constructed of lead, you would not buy it because lead would obviously be ridiculously heavy. If a bike was constructed of lead, but was the exact weight you are looking for, it would have to be ridiculously small (less volume), so you wouldn't want that one, either, despite the perfect weight.
In your case, there are more variables since the weight of the bike will depend on the material the bike frame is made of, among other things.
You might not have to think hard about the volume of the bike, but someone did. Someone worked out how they can get the necessary size and strength of the materials without adding unnecessary weight.0 -
If one bike weighs less because it only has one wheel, then that would certainly affect your decision to buy, wouldn't it? Are you going to compare only the weights of the bikes without considering WHY one weighs more or less than another? No; you will look at other factors that directly affect the weight. If one bike was constructed of lead, you would not buy it because lead would obviously be ridiculously heavy. If a bike was constructed of lead, but was the exact weight you are looking for, it would have to be ridiculously small (less volume), so you wouldn't want that one, either, despite the perfect weight.
One wheeled bike? Bike made from lead?
I give up.
0 -
If one bike weighs less because it only has one wheel, then that would certainly affect your decision to buy, wouldn't it? Are you going to compare only the weights of the bikes without considering WHY one weighs more or less than another? No; you will look at other factors that directly affect the weight. If one bike was constructed of lead, you would not buy it because lead would obviously be ridiculously heavy. If a bike was constructed of lead, but was the exact weight you are looking for, it would have to be ridiculously small (less volume), so you wouldn't want that one, either, despite the perfect weight.
One wheeled bike? Bike made from lead?
I give up.
It's a hypothetical... Sorry for the big word.0 -
One wheeled bike? Bike made from lead?
Do I dare to try to put an end to this? Some people write "a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat". That is obviously laughably wrong.
Some people write "You might be gaining muscle, and it weighs more than fat". This is true, in several dimensions. The most important being that if you stay the same size, but have a lower fat %age, which is what most people mean when they say "you are gaining muscle", you will weigh more. It is correct to say that muscle weighs more than fat in the same way it is correct to say that steel weighs more than helium, or feathers. Now, 1lb of steel weighs the same as 1lb of helium, even though the latter will float away very fast if you put it in a balloon. But in general, I suggest you'll have trouble convincing anybody that steel and helium are the same weight. In the same way, fat and muscle are not the same weight.
The logical way to compare a single variable is to control all the other variables that are irrelevant to the decision. This is why you don't consider bikes with one wheel; because the number of wheels is relevant. Also it's why you don't by a small frame bike if you require a large one, even though you know that a small frame bike can be made lighter; you need a bike that fits.
In the same way, when talking of fat and muscle, you don't talk of comparing a pound of fat to a pound of muscle, unless you're comparing volume, like this:OsricTheKnight wrote: »
(Yes I do realize I am quoting myself). If you control the weight, then you compare the volume.
If you compare the weight, you control the volume; you don't let the volume vary so that the weight comparison contains no info.
It simply doesn't make sense to say "muscle weighs the same as fat because you vary the volume to make it so". By that argument, everything weighs the same as everything else.
That said, it stands to reason that 1lb of anything weighs the same as 1lb of anything else; because in this case the mass is specified.
Osric
P.S. Why am I picking on you? Because you don't seem to understand that fixing volume makes sense, even though elsewhere in the thread you talk sense. This:
implies you don't get it, and this:
I'm buying a bike for triathlons. I don't need to know anything about the volume of the bikes I'm looking at to compare the weights of the bikes I'm looking at.
I have no idea what you're actually trying to say...
is where you introduce a whole bunch of confounding variables to confuse what ought to be simple to understand.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »Muscle weighs more than fat. The way it looks, you are building muscle. The scale won't necessarily show a loss, but your clothes will. Use that as your criteria. See how things fit and how many inches you're losing. You also might be over doing the exercise. My doctor told me one of the reasons I wasn't losing was because I am exercising too much. I cut back and have shown a weight loss.
Just to clarify, muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle is equal to 5 lbs of fat...they both weigh 5 lbs. The difference is that muscle is denser than fat, therefore you'd look leaner. Can we please get away from this false notion?
When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they mean per volume. 5lb of fat weighs the same as 5lb of muscle, yes (obviously), but they are far from equal. A cup of muscle will weigh more than a cup of fat. So, muscle absolutely does weigh more than fat... per volume.
AMEN @peggyasp
So we're clear. Muscle absolutely weighs more than fat. We know this is true because @emily_fox inadvertantly proved her own argument wrong when she said "muscle is denser than fat."
More density = More mass per volume.
More mass = More weight (here on planet Earth).
It's physics. You can't fight physics. So now ... can we please put this 1lb = 1lb argument to rest? It is insulting to ALMOST everyone's intelligence.
You made an assumption that volume remains the same when the statement is a comparison of only weight. Therefore your rant fails a simple logic check.
The logic is solid, and based on the simplest rule of variables in scientific experimentation (the dependent variable is what you observe). The weight varies in response to changes in the independent variable, which is volume. You will increase or decrease the volume in order to observe how that affects weight. Observing the differences in the weights of fat and muscle at the same volume is the only way to determine which is heavier. As a comparison of "only weight", the statement (that 5lb of one equals 5lb of the other) is useless.
Put as simply as possible, in order to compare the weight of two things, you need an equal volume of those two things. You can't just leave out volume as a factor.
The statement made above about it being irrelevant in OP's case is also true, though. In such a short amount of time, the issue is more likely as simple as water (since the measurements are changing).
Volume of the humans in question is not a controlled variable in any of these cases.
No, not on a human body, but weighed on a scale like the one pictured above.
The issue is that the argument that "muscle weighs more than fat" is used to describe weight of humans where volume is not controlled. Since the only part measured is weight, and volume is not controlled, your entire argument is moot.
That is without factoring in the difficulty in creating new muscle mass in the human body ... especially for women due to the lack of testosterone.
Wow. No. The argument is not moot. It holds. The whole point of conducting a test is to gather data in an environment where you CAN control the variables so that you can then APPLY the information to situations where you can't exert the same control. Measuring exactly how much muscle is on a human body is not so easy without dissecting the body, but we know that a muscular 130 lb is going to be slimmer than 130 lb that has a higher fat ratio. This is true of men and women, cats, rats, elephants... And we know this for certain because of controlled tests.
What does testosterone have to do with whether muscle weighs more than fat? We already know that men develop more muscle than women, just like some women have more muscle than other women and some men have more than other men. However, it is
You are over complicating it. Fewer pounds of muscle will simply take up less space than the same number of pounds of fat. We can all agree to that. Whether that's on a human, in a cup, on a scale, or anywhere else isn't relevant.
Do you even read what is in the threads before going off on a tangent? People try to claim that muscle weighs more than fat ... without regard to volume ... in an attempt to claim that they are somehow gaining enough muscle in a short amount of time to equal the amount of fat they are losing. In reality, they are not gaining the muscle due to the difficulty of building new muscle mass ... they simply are not losing the fat they hoped.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »Muscle weighs more than fat. The way it looks, you are building muscle. The scale won't necessarily show a loss, but your clothes will. Use that as your criteria. See how things fit and how many inches you're losing. You also might be over doing the exercise. My doctor told me one of the reasons I wasn't losing was because I am exercising too much. I cut back and have shown a weight loss.
Just to clarify, muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle is equal to 5 lbs of fat...they both weigh 5 lbs. The difference is that muscle is denser than fat, therefore you'd look leaner. Can we please get away from this false notion?
When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they mean per volume. 5lb of fat weighs the same as 5lb of muscle, yes (obviously), but they are far from equal. A cup of muscle will weigh more than a cup of fat. So, muscle absolutely does weigh more than fat... per volume.
AMEN @peggyasp
So we're clear. Muscle absolutely weighs more than fat. We know this is true because @emily_fox inadvertantly proved her own argument wrong when she said "muscle is denser than fat."
More density = More mass per volume.
More mass = More weight (here on planet Earth).
It's physics. You can't fight physics. So now ... can we please put this 1lb = 1lb argument to rest? It is insulting to ALMOST everyone's intelligence.
You made an assumption that volume remains the same when the statement is a comparison of only weight. Therefore your rant fails a simple logic check.
The logic is solid, and based on the simplest rule of variables in scientific experimentation (the dependent variable is what you observe). The weight varies in response to changes in the independent variable, which is volume. You will increase or decrease the volume in order to observe how that affects weight. Observing the differences in the weights of fat and muscle at the same volume is the only way to determine which is heavier. As a comparison of "only weight", the statement (that 5lb of one equals 5lb of the other) is useless.
Put as simply as possible, in order to compare the weight of two things, you need an equal volume of those two things. You can't just leave out volume as a factor.
The statement made above about it being irrelevant in OP's case is also true, though. In such a short amount of time, the issue is more likely as simple as water (since the measurements are changing).
Volume of the humans in question is not a controlled variable in any of these cases.
No, not on a human body, but weighed on a scale like the one pictured above.
The issue is that the argument that "muscle weighs more than fat" is used to describe weight of humans where volume is not controlled. Since the only part measured is weight, and volume is not controlled, your entire argument is moot.
That is without factoring in the difficulty in creating new muscle mass in the human body ... especially for women due to the lack of testosterone.
Wow. No. The argument is not moot. It holds. The whole point of conducting a test is to gather data in an environment where you CAN control the variables so that you can then APPLY the information to situations where you can't exert the same control. Measuring exactly how much muscle is on a human body is not so easy without dissecting the body, but we know that a muscular 130 lb is going to be slimmer than 130 lb that has a higher fat ratio. This is true of men and women, cats, rats, elephants... And we know this for certain because of controlled tests.
What does testosterone have to do with whether muscle weighs more than fat? We already know that men develop more muscle than women, just like some women have more muscle than other women and some men have more than other men. However, it is
You are over complicating it. Fewer pounds of muscle will simply take up less space than the same number of pounds of fat. We can all agree to that. Whether that's on a human, in a cup, on a scale, or anywhere else isn't relevant.
Do you even read what is in the threads before going off on a tangent? People try to claim that muscle weighs more than fat ... without regard to volume ... in an attempt to claim that they are somehow gaining enough muscle in a short amount of time to equal the amount of fat they are losing. In reality, they are not gaining the muscle due to the difficulty of building new muscle mass ... they simply are not losing the fat they hoped.
I have experienced disappointing scale readings when starting a new diet/fitness routine that I had previously attributed to gaining muscle. What probably happened was that I was retaining fluids related to all that heavy exercise.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »Muscle weighs more than fat. The way it looks, you are building muscle. The scale won't necessarily show a loss, but your clothes will. Use that as your criteria. See how things fit and how many inches you're losing. You also might be over doing the exercise. My doctor told me one of the reasons I wasn't losing was because I am exercising too much. I cut back and have shown a weight loss.
Just to clarify, muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle is equal to 5 lbs of fat...they both weigh 5 lbs. The difference is that muscle is denser than fat, therefore you'd look leaner. Can we please get away from this false notion?
When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they mean per volume. 5lb of fat weighs the same as 5lb of muscle, yes (obviously), but they are far from equal. A cup of muscle will weigh more than a cup of fat. So, muscle absolutely does weigh more than fat... per volume.
AMEN @peggyasp
So we're clear. Muscle absolutely weighs more than fat. We know this is true because @emily_fox inadvertantly proved her own argument wrong when she said "muscle is denser than fat."
More density = More mass per volume.
More mass = More weight (here on planet Earth).
It's physics. You can't fight physics. So now ... can we please put this 1lb = 1lb argument to rest? It is insulting to ALMOST everyone's intelligence.
You made an assumption that volume remains the same when the statement is a comparison of only weight. Therefore your rant fails a simple logic check.
The logic is solid, and based on the simplest rule of variables in scientific experimentation (the dependent variable is what you observe). The weight varies in response to changes in the independent variable, which is volume. You will increase or decrease the volume in order to observe how that affects weight. Observing the differences in the weights of fat and muscle at the same volume is the only way to determine which is heavier. As a comparison of "only weight", the statement (that 5lb of one equals 5lb of the other) is useless.
Put as simply as possible, in order to compare the weight of two things, you need an equal volume of those two things. You can't just leave out volume as a factor.
The statement made above about it being irrelevant in OP's case is also true, though. In such a short amount of time, the issue is more likely as simple as water (since the measurements are changing).
Volume of the humans in question is not a controlled variable in any of these cases.
No, not on a human body, but weighed on a scale like the one pictured above.
The issue is that the argument that "muscle weighs more than fat" is used to describe weight of humans where volume is not controlled. Since the only part measured is weight, and volume is not controlled, your entire argument is moot.
That is without factoring in the difficulty in creating new muscle mass in the human body ... especially for women due to the lack of testosterone.
Wow. No. The argument is not moot. It holds. The whole point of conducting a test is to gather data in an environment where you CAN control the variables so that you can then APPLY the information to situations where you can't exert the same control. Measuring exactly how much muscle is on a human body is not so easy without dissecting the body, but we know that a muscular 130 lb is going to be slimmer than 130 lb that has a higher fat ratio. This is true of men and women, cats, rats, elephants... And we know this for certain because of controlled tests.
What does testosterone have to do with whether muscle weighs more than fat? We already know that men develop more muscle than women, just like some women have more muscle than other women and some men have more than other men. However, it is
You are over complicating it. Fewer pounds of muscle will simply take up less space than the same number of pounds of fat. We can all agree to that. Whether that's on a human, in a cup, on a scale, or anywhere else isn't relevant.
Do you even read what is in the threads before going off on a tangent? People try to claim that muscle weighs more than fat ... without regard to volume ... in an attempt to claim that they are somehow gaining enough muscle in a short amount of time to equal the amount of fat they are losing. In reality, they are not gaining the muscle due to the difficulty of building new muscle mass ... they simply are not losing the fat they hoped.
Yes. Do you? I have already agreed that it does not explain OP's situation.
The thread did go off topic, but that happens in conversations. I am responding to the claim that volume isn't a factor in whether muscle weighs more. I have explained why it absolutely is. This isn't an off-the-cuff opinion of mine. It's a scientific fact. You can't claim that they do not weigh the same without claiming that everything weighs the same if you just have the right AMOUNT of it (5lb of feathers weighs the same as 5lb of bricks, 5lb of fat, 5lb of grass, etc.) which, AGAIN, brings volume back in as a factor. And, certainly, when people refer to the differences between the two with regard to weight loss, they invariably mean the weight-volume ratio. It's why we find it significant in the first place. I didn't bring up this tangent subject, but it came up, nonetheless.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »Muscle weighs more than fat. The way it looks, you are building muscle. The scale won't necessarily show a loss, but your clothes will. Use that as your criteria. See how things fit and how many inches you're losing. You also might be over doing the exercise. My doctor told me one of the reasons I wasn't losing was because I am exercising too much. I cut back and have shown a weight loss.
Just to clarify, muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle is equal to 5 lbs of fat...they both weigh 5 lbs. The difference is that muscle is denser than fat, therefore you'd look leaner. Can we please get away from this false notion?
When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they mean per volume. 5lb of fat weighs the same as 5lb of muscle, yes (obviously), but they are far from equal. A cup of muscle will weigh more than a cup of fat. So, muscle absolutely does weigh more than fat... per volume.
AMEN @peggyasp
So we're clear. Muscle absolutely weighs more than fat. We know this is true because @emily_fox inadvertantly proved her own argument wrong when she said "muscle is denser than fat."
More density = More mass per volume.
More mass = More weight (here on planet Earth).
It's physics. You can't fight physics. So now ... can we please put this 1lb = 1lb argument to rest? It is insulting to ALMOST everyone's intelligence.
You made an assumption that volume remains the same when the statement is a comparison of only weight. Therefore your rant fails a simple logic check.
The logic is solid, and based on the simplest rule of variables in scientific experimentation (the dependent variable is what you observe). The weight varies in response to changes in the independent variable, which is volume. You will increase or decrease the volume in order to observe how that affects weight. Observing the differences in the weights of fat and muscle at the same volume is the only way to determine which is heavier. As a comparison of "only weight", the statement (that 5lb of one equals 5lb of the other) is useless.
Put as simply as possible, in order to compare the weight of two things, you need an equal volume of those two things. You can't just leave out volume as a factor.
The statement made above about it being irrelevant in OP's case is also true, though. In such a short amount of time, the issue is more likely as simple as water (since the measurements are changing).
Volume of the humans in question is not a controlled variable in any of these cases.
No, not on a human body, but weighed on a scale like the one pictured above.
The issue is that the argument that "muscle weighs more than fat" is used to describe weight of humans where volume is not controlled. Since the only part measured is weight, and volume is not controlled, your entire argument is moot.
That is without factoring in the difficulty in creating new muscle mass in the human body ... especially for women due to the lack of testosterone.
Wow. No. The argument is not moot. It holds. The whole point of conducting a test is to gather data in an environment where you CAN control the variables so that you can then APPLY the information to situations where you can't exert the same control. Measuring exactly how much muscle is on a human body is not so easy without dissecting the body, but we know that a muscular 130 lb is going to be slimmer than 130 lb that has a higher fat ratio. This is true of men and women, cats, rats, elephants... And we know this for certain because of controlled tests.
What does testosterone have to do with whether muscle weighs more than fat? We already know that men develop more muscle than women, just like some women have more muscle than other women and some men have more than other men. However, it is
You are over complicating it. Fewer pounds of muscle will simply take up less space than the same number of pounds of fat. We can all agree to that. Whether that's on a human, in a cup, on a scale, or anywhere else isn't relevant.
Do you even read what is in the threads before going off on a tangent? People try to claim that muscle weighs more than fat ... without regard to volume ... in an attempt to claim that they are somehow gaining enough muscle in a short amount of time to equal the amount of fat they are losing. In reality, they are not gaining the muscle due to the difficulty of building new muscle mass ... they simply are not losing the fat they hoped.
Yes. Do you? I have already agreed that it does not explain OP's situation.
The thread did go off topic, but that happens in conversations. I am responding to the claim that volume isn't a factor in whether muscle weighs more. I have explained why it absolutely is. This isn't an off-the-cuff opinion of mine. It's a scientific fact. You can't claim that they do not weigh the same without claiming that everything weighs the same if you just have the right AMOUNT of it (5lb of feathers weighs the same as 5lb of bricks, 5lb of fat, 5lb of grass, etc.) which, AGAIN, brings volume back in as a factor. And, certainly, when people refer to the differences between the two with regard to weight loss, they invariably mean the weight-volume ratio. It's why we find it significant in the first place. I didn't bring up this tangent subject, but it came up, nonetheless.
I believe the point is that it is known that there not enough volume to be gained in hypertrophy because the conditions for it in a deficit are so limited to account for the weight.
I'm jumping in at the end here, because nitpicking tends to drive me nuts. You're trying very hard to make a point just for the sake of ... what? In practical purposes for weight loss situations, your point is pointless.
0 -
You're trying to argue one half of the discussion without putting the entire thing in context. People claim that muscle weighs more than fat in order to explain why they aren't losing ... the assumption being that they are building muscle mass to offset the fat loss. They are not accounting for volume and they are not accounting for the difficulty in building new muscle mass.brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »Muscle weighs more than fat. The way it looks, you are building muscle. The scale won't necessarily show a loss, but your clothes will. Use that as your criteria. See how things fit and how many inches you're losing. You also might be over doing the exercise. My doctor told me one of the reasons I wasn't losing was because I am exercising too much. I cut back and have shown a weight loss.
Just to clarify, muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle is equal to 5 lbs of fat...they both weigh 5 lbs. The difference is that muscle is denser than fat, therefore you'd look leaner. Can we please get away from this false notion?
When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they mean per volume. 5lb of fat weighs the same as 5lb of muscle, yes (obviously), but they are far from equal. A cup of muscle will weigh more than a cup of fat. So, muscle absolutely does weigh more than fat... per volume.
AMEN @peggyasp
So we're clear. Muscle absolutely weighs more than fat. We know this is true because @emily_fox inadvertantly proved her own argument wrong when she said "muscle is denser than fat."
More density = More mass per volume.
More mass = More weight (here on planet Earth).
It's physics. You can't fight physics. So now ... can we please put this 1lb = 1lb argument to rest? It is insulting to ALMOST everyone's intelligence.
You made an assumption that volume remains the same when the statement is a comparison of only weight. Therefore your rant fails a simple logic check.
The logic is solid, and based on the simplest rule of variables in scientific experimentation (the dependent variable is what you observe). The weight varies in response to changes in the independent variable, which is volume. You will increase or decrease the volume in order to observe how that affects weight. Observing the differences in the weights of fat and muscle at the same volume is the only way to determine which is heavier. As a comparison of "only weight", the statement (that 5lb of one equals 5lb of the other) is useless.
Put as simply as possible, in order to compare the weight of two things, you need an equal volume of those two things. You can't just leave out volume as a factor.
The statement made above about it being irrelevant in OP's case is also true, though. In such a short amount of time, the issue is more likely as simple as water (since the measurements are changing).
Volume of the humans in question is not a controlled variable in any of these cases.
No, not on a human body, but weighed on a scale like the one pictured above.
The issue is that the argument that "muscle weighs more than fat" is used to describe weight of humans where volume is not controlled. Since the only part measured is weight, and volume is not controlled, your entire argument is moot.
That is without factoring in the difficulty in creating new muscle mass in the human body ... especially for women due to the lack of testosterone.
Wow. No. The argument is not moot. It holds. The whole point of conducting a test is to gather data in an environment where you CAN control the variables so that you can then APPLY the information to situations where you can't exert the same control. Measuring exactly how much muscle is on a human body is not so easy without dissecting the body, but we know that a muscular 130 lb is going to be slimmer than 130 lb that has a higher fat ratio. This is true of men and women, cats, rats, elephants... And we know this for certain because of controlled tests.
What does testosterone have to do with whether muscle weighs more than fat? We already know that men develop more muscle than women, just like some women have more muscle than other women and some men have more than other men. However, it is
You are over complicating it. Fewer pounds of muscle will simply take up less space than the same number of pounds of fat. We can all agree to that. Whether that's on a human, in a cup, on a scale, or anywhere else isn't relevant.
Do you even read what is in the threads before going off on a tangent? People try to claim that muscle weighs more than fat ... without regard to volume ... in an attempt to claim that they are somehow gaining enough muscle in a short amount of time to equal the amount of fat they are losing. In reality, they are not gaining the muscle due to the difficulty of building new muscle mass ... they simply are not losing the fat they hoped.
Yes. Do you? I have already agreed that it does not explain OP's situation.
The thread did go off topic, but that happens in conversations. I am responding to the claim that volume isn't a factor in whether muscle weighs more. I have explained why it absolutely is. This isn't an off-the-cuff opinion of mine. It's a scientific fact. You can't claim that they do not weigh the same without claiming that everything weighs the same if you just have the right AMOUNT of it (5lb of feathers weighs the same as 5lb of bricks, 5lb of fat, 5lb of grass, etc.) which, AGAIN, brings volume back in as a factor. And, certainly, when people refer to the differences between the two with regard to weight loss, they invariably mean the weight-volume ratio. It's why we find it significant in the first place. I didn't bring up this tangent subject, but it came up, nonetheless.
It is, at its core, a fallacy used as an excuse.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »Muscle weighs more than fat. The way it looks, you are building muscle. The scale won't necessarily show a loss, but your clothes will. Use that as your criteria. See how things fit and how many inches you're losing. You also might be over doing the exercise. My doctor told me one of the reasons I wasn't losing was because I am exercising too much. I cut back and have shown a weight loss.
Just to clarify, muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle is equal to 5 lbs of fat...they both weigh 5 lbs. The difference is that muscle is denser than fat, therefore you'd look leaner. Can we please get away from this false notion?
When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they mean per volume. 5lb of fat weighs the same as 5lb of muscle, yes (obviously), but they are far from equal. A cup of muscle will weigh more than a cup of fat. So, muscle absolutely does weigh more than fat... per volume.
AMEN @peggyasp
So we're clear. Muscle absolutely weighs more than fat. We know this is true because @emily_fox inadvertantly proved her own argument wrong when she said "muscle is denser than fat."
More density = More mass per volume.
More mass = More weight (here on planet Earth).
It's physics. You can't fight physics. So now ... can we please put this 1lb = 1lb argument to rest? It is insulting to ALMOST everyone's intelligence.
You made an assumption that volume remains the same when the statement is a comparison of only weight. Therefore your rant fails a simple logic check.
The logic is solid, and based on the simplest rule of variables in scientific experimentation (the dependent variable is what you observe). The weight varies in response to changes in the independent variable, which is volume. You will increase or decrease the volume in order to observe how that affects weight. Observing the differences in the weights of fat and muscle at the same volume is the only way to determine which is heavier. As a comparison of "only weight", the statement (that 5lb of one equals 5lb of the other) is useless.
Put as simply as possible, in order to compare the weight of two things, you need an equal volume of those two things. You can't just leave out volume as a factor.
The statement made above about it being irrelevant in OP's case is also true, though. In such a short amount of time, the issue is more likely as simple as water (since the measurements are changing).
Volume of the humans in question is not a controlled variable in any of these cases.
No, not on a human body, but weighed on a scale like the one pictured above.
The issue is that the argument that "muscle weighs more than fat" is used to describe weight of humans where volume is not controlled. Since the only part measured is weight, and volume is not controlled, your entire argument is moot.
That is without factoring in the difficulty in creating new muscle mass in the human body ... especially for women due to the lack of testosterone.
Wow. No. The argument is not moot. It holds. The whole point of conducting a test is to gather data in an environment where you CAN control the variables so that you can then APPLY the information to situations where you can't exert the same control. Measuring exactly how much muscle is on a human body is not so easy without dissecting the body, but we know that a muscular 130 lb is going to be slimmer than 130 lb that has a higher fat ratio. This is true of men and women, cats, rats, elephants... And we know this for certain because of controlled tests.
What does testosterone have to do with whether muscle weighs more than fat? We already know that men develop more muscle than women, just like some women have more muscle than other women and some men have more than other men. However, it is
You are over complicating it. Fewer pounds of muscle will simply take up less space than the same number of pounds of fat. We can all agree to that. Whether that's on a human, in a cup, on a scale, or anywhere else isn't relevant.
Do you even read what is in the threads before going off on a tangent? People try to claim that muscle weighs more than fat ... without regard to volume ... in an attempt to claim that they are somehow gaining enough muscle in a short amount of time to equal the amount of fat they are losing. In reality, they are not gaining the muscle due to the difficulty of building new muscle mass ... they simply are not losing the fat they hoped.
Yes. Do you? I have already agreed that it does not explain OP's situation.
The thread did go off topic, but that happens in conversations. I am responding to the claim that volume isn't a factor in whether muscle weighs more. I have explained why it absolutely is. This isn't an off-the-cuff opinion of mine. It's a scientific fact. You can't claim that they do not weigh the same without claiming that everything weighs the same if you just have the right AMOUNT of it (5lb of feathers weighs the same as 5lb of bricks, 5lb of fat, 5lb of grass, etc.) which, AGAIN, brings volume back in as a factor. And, certainly, when people refer to the differences between the two with regard to weight loss, they invariably mean the weight-volume ratio. It's why we find it significant in the first place. I didn't bring up this tangent subject, but it came up, nonetheless.
I believe the point is that it is known that there not enough volume to be gained in hypertrophy because the conditions for it in a deficit are so limited to account for the weight.
I'm jumping in at the end here, because nitpicking tends to drive me nuts. You're trying very hard to make a point just for the sake of ... what? In practical purposes for weight loss situations, your point is pointless.
Your last line is ironic, sinceyouare nitpicking as well. The reason I am nitpicking is simply that the general notion was challenged that muscle weighs more than fat. I was more than willing to leave it at that, but people started arguing that volume is irrelevant, yada, yada... This, while not relevant to OP, which I fully agree with, is relevant to anyone wanting to add strength training to their fitness routine and wondering how it is advantageous.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
You're trying to argue one half of the discussion without putting the entire thing in context. People claim that muscle weighs more than fat in order to explain why they aren't losing ... the assumption being that they are building muscle mass to offset the fat loss. They are not accounting for volume and they are not accounting for the difficulty in building new muscle mass.brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »Muscle weighs more than fat. The way it looks, you are building muscle. The scale won't necessarily show a loss, but your clothes will. Use that as your criteria. See how things fit and how many inches you're losing. You also might be over doing the exercise. My doctor told me one of the reasons I wasn't losing was because I am exercising too much. I cut back and have shown a weight loss.
Just to clarify, muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle is equal to 5 lbs of fat...they both weigh 5 lbs. The difference is that muscle is denser than fat, therefore you'd look leaner. Can we please get away from this false notion?
When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they mean per volume. 5lb of fat weighs the same as 5lb of muscle, yes (obviously), but they are far from equal. A cup of muscle will weigh more than a cup of fat. So, muscle absolutely does weigh more than fat... per volume.
AMEN @peggyasp
So we're clear. Muscle absolutely weighs more than fat. We know this is true because @emily_fox inadvertantly proved her own argument wrong when she said "muscle is denser than fat."
More density = More mass per volume.
More mass = More weight (here on planet Earth).
It's physics. You can't fight physics. So now ... can we please put this 1lb = 1lb argument to rest? It is insulting to ALMOST everyone's intelligence.
You made an assumption that volume remains the same when the statement is a comparison of only weight. Therefore your rant fails a simple logic check.
The logic is solid, and based on the simplest rule of variables in scientific experimentation (the dependent variable is what you observe). The weight varies in response to changes in the independent variable, which is volume. You will increase or decrease the volume in order to observe how that affects weight. Observing the differences in the weights of fat and muscle at the same volume is the only way to determine which is heavier. As a comparison of "only weight", the statement (that 5lb of one equals 5lb of the other) is useless.
Put as simply as possible, in order to compare the weight of two things, you need an equal volume of those two things. You can't just leave out volume as a factor.
The statement made above about it being irrelevant in OP's case is also true, though. In such a short amount of time, the issue is more likely as simple as water (since the measurements are changing).
Volume of the humans in question is not a controlled variable in any of these cases.
No, not on a human body, but weighed on a scale like the one pictured above.
The issue is that the argument that "muscle weighs more than fat" is used to describe weight of humans where volume is not controlled. Since the only part measured is weight, and volume is not controlled, your entire argument is moot.
That is without factoring in the difficulty in creating new muscle mass in the human body ... especially for women due to the lack of testosterone.
Wow. No. The argument is not moot. It holds. The whole point of conducting a test is to gather data in an environment where you CAN control the variables so that you can then APPLY the information to situations where you can't exert the same control. Measuring exactly how much muscle is on a human body is not so easy without dissecting the body, but we know that a muscular 130 lb is going to be slimmer than 130 lb that has a higher fat ratio. This is true of men and women, cats, rats, elephants... And we know this for certain because of controlled tests.
What does testosterone have to do with whether muscle weighs more than fat? We already know that men develop more muscle than women, just like some women have more muscle than other women and some men have more than other men. However, it is
You are over complicating it. Fewer pounds of muscle will simply take up less space than the same number of pounds of fat. We can all agree to that. Whether that's on a human, in a cup, on a scale, or anywhere else isn't relevant.
Do you even read what is in the threads before going off on a tangent? People try to claim that muscle weighs more than fat ... without regard to volume ... in an attempt to claim that they are somehow gaining enough muscle in a short amount of time to equal the amount of fat they are losing. In reality, they are not gaining the muscle due to the difficulty of building new muscle mass ... they simply are not losing the fat they hoped.
Yes. Do you? I have already agreed that it does not explain OP's situation.
The thread did go off topic, but that happens in conversations. I am responding to the claim that volume isn't a factor in whether muscle weighs more. I have explained why it absolutely is. This isn't an off-the-cuff opinion of mine. It's a scientific fact. You can't claim that they do not weigh the same without claiming that everything weighs the same if you just have the right AMOUNT of it (5lb of feathers weighs the same as 5lb of bricks, 5lb of fat, 5lb of grass, etc.) which, AGAIN, brings volume back in as a factor. And, certainly, when people refer to the differences between the two with regard to weight loss, they invariably mean the weight-volume ratio. It's why we find it significant in the first place. I didn't bring up this tangent subject, but it came up, nonetheless.
It is, at its core, a fallacy used as an excuse.
As I said before, I agree that it does not explain short term weight loss/gain. Over time, though, it can make a0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions