Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat!!!

MaryLuvsTheLamb

Whether a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers. A pound is a pound is a pound. Muscle takes up less space than fat, but it does NOT weigh less. Another weight loss myth. I hate to see people deceived by this.

TheLegendaryBrandonHarris

It's just some kind of shorthand people use that means muscle is more dense than fat.
I wouldn't get too upset about it.

Now, folks constantly using LOOSE when they mean LOSE...THAT'S INFURIATING!!!

VeryKatie

A pound force and a pound mass are different if we're not on Earth

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Hornsby

Yes, nothing weighs more than anything else. That makes sense.

TheLegendaryBrandonHarris

Maybe it's got something to do with converting from the metric system?

usmcmp

A cubic foot of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat. That's what people mean. Muscle is more dense.

_Waffle_

A pound of muscle weighs more than .9999 pounds of fat.

dragon_girl26

This again? Isn't there at least a thread or two a day that spins off into this argument?

Muscle is denser than fat. Also, what was stated above by usmcmp ^^

diannethegeek

Muscle does NOT take up less space than fat!!! Whether a gallon of bricks or a gallon of feathers. A gallon is a gallon is a gallon. Muscle weighs more than fat, but it does NOT take up less space. Another weight loss myth. I hate to see people deceived by this.

Now, with that out of the way, muscle is denser than fat. When comparing equal volumes, the muscle will weigh more. When comparing equal weights, the muscle will take up less space. When people say that muscle weighs more than fat (or that muscle takes up less space), comparing them with all other variables equal is implied. No one ever suggests that it's only true if they're both under equal gravity conditions. If you can understand the one comparison then you can understand the other.

rainbowbow

Okay, but no one means it like that.

They are saying that for the same weight muscle is more dense and takes up less space. this is true.




If there were equal amounts (volume) of fat and muscle..... muscle would weight more because it's more dense.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this post is supposed to mean.... I also don't like it when people say "oh, i'm just gaining muscle" when in reality they've been sneaking cheeseburgers, but that doesn't change facts.

Mouse_Potato

I have never understood why this is a subject of such contention around here. When you compare two things, you must have a constant and it can't be the thing you are comparing. You can't take a pound of fat and a pound of muscle and ask which weighs more. It makes no sense to say I am as tall as Yao Ming because a meter of my body is as tall as a meter of his. That's not how comparisons work.

cwolfman13

maryhoule47 wrote: »

Whether a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers. A pound is a pound is a pound. Muscle takes up less space than fat, but it does NOT weigh less. Another weight loss myth. I hate to see people deceived by this.

When knowledgeable people say this, they aren't saying that 1 Lb of muscle weighs more than 1 Lb of fat, they are speaking in terms of volume...at the same volume, muscle would weigh more than fat because it is more dense. It's not a myth per sei...you just have to know what you're talking about.

Francl27

rainbowbow wrote: »

Okay, but no one means it like that.

They are saying that for the same weight muscle is more dense and takes up less space. this is true.




If there were equal amounts (volume) of fat and muscle..... muscle would weight more because it's more dense.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this post is supposed to mean.... I also don't like it when people say "oh, i'm just gaining muscle" when in reality they've been sneaking cheeseburgers, but that doesn't change facts.

THIS.

I don't understand why people are so anal about it. The bottom line is that if you lose 1 pound of fat and gain 1 pound of muscle, you'll be smaller.

auddii

Does high school science no longer discuss density?

uconnwinsnc1

An ounce of gold weighs more than an ounce of feathers, as gold is measured in troy ounces.

ShyShineGirl

*yawn*

vingogly

Not this again.

kagia48

Muscle DOES weigh more than fat!!! Our body may feel tighter but the scale climbs

stephanieluvspb

Mkay

Wynterbourne

OP. You really need to learn the phrase "equal volumes". Nobody is claiming that a pound of x is more than a pound of y. That's idiotic. We are talking about equal volumes. Are you going to argue with me and tell me I'm a liar if I tell you a 5 gallon bucket of bricks weighs more than a 5 gallon bucket of feathers?? I'm willing to bet money you'd agree with me without hesitation. Well the muscle/fat debate is the exact same thing. People say "muscle weighs more than fat" instead of "when comparing equal volumes of muscle and fat, muscle weighs more" because we assume you are intelligent enough and capable of determining the fact that it's a given that we are comparing equal volumes. "EQUAL VOLUMES"

lorrpb

I would rather have 50 lbs of muscle than 100 lbs of fat.

nutmegoreo

Y'all are so mean.

SLLRunner

maryhoule47 wrote: »

Whether a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers. A pound is a pound is a pound. Muscle takes up less space than fat, but it does NOT weigh less. Another weight loss myth. I hate to see people deceived by this.

I hear ya, a pound is a pound, except.......be open to this.....

If you compare one cubic inch of fat to one cubic inch of muscle, then the muscle would weigh more than the fat because it (the fat) is denser. This is generally what a lot of people think when they say muscle weighs more than fat.

However, there are people who take the muscle weighs more than fat literally and believe that is the reason they are not losing weight.

Wynterbourne

SLLRunner wrote: »

maryhoule47 wrote: »

Whether a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers. A pound is a pound is a pound. Muscle takes up less space than fat, but it does NOT weigh less. Another weight loss myth. I hate to see people deceived by this.

I hear ya, a pound is a pound, except.......be open to this.....

If you compare one cubic inch of fat to one cubic inch of muscle, then the muscle would weigh more than the fat because it (the fat) is denser. This is generally what a lot of people think when they say muscle weighs more than fat.

However, there are people who take the muscle weighs more than fat literally and believe that is the reason they are not losing weight.

You typo'd. The bolded should say (the muscle).

Alatariel75

It's simply an example of a concept that has been simplified to the point of inaccuracy. The majority of people know what is meant by the saying.

DetroitDarin

Anyone know - this is slightly related - the calories needed to BUILD a pound of muscle? We've heard 3000-3500 calories per pound of fat...but...

vespiquenn

DetroitDarin wrote: »

Anyone know - this is slightly related - the calories needed to BUILD a pound of muscle? We've heard 3000-3500 calories per pound of fat...but...

There are too many variables to this to give an accurate answer. However, many eat at a surplus to gain .5lb-1lb per week during a bulk. But factors of testosterone, age, genetics, and lifts all factor in. So what might aid in one male gaining 1lb of muscle might only be .5lbs for you, or vice versa.

LAMCDylan

nutmegoreo wrote: »

Y'all are so mean.

People want to act like know-it-alls. Everyone starts somewhere. There was a time when they were ignorant and had to learn from someone else.

Morgaen73

I had this very same discussion with someone the other day and his response was "You cant bring volume into it. You can only compare one measurable at a time. Therefore only weight, not weight and volume".

Morgaen73

nutmegoreo wrote: »

Y'all are so mean.

Arrogant stupidity should not be rewarded with kindness.