Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat!!!
Replies
-
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.
The people who do what you're describing here are not misunderstanding the concept of "muscle weighs more than fat." They are misunderstanding the concept of how difficult it is to put on muscle mass.
Different things.
7 -
-
THANK YOU!!!! LOL!! I have had so many people tell me this and I say no, muscle is just leaner than fat. A pound is a pound no matter how you look at it. There was a trick question once that asked, "What weighs more a pound of bricks or a pound of feathers?" So many people said bricks for obvious reasons but the correct answer is they weight the same - A POUND of feathers and a POUND of bricks is still a pound
Not sure why everyone says this LOL!! 2 -
I think this was covered in 5th grade. Different mass at equal volume . . .3
-
OP always seems to have all the fun starting all the controversial threads. I feel like I need to join in on the fun.
Next up: I'm not losing weight even though I'm eating -245 calories and exercising for 27 hours a day.1 -
I sure seems like life would be easier if folks just actually said what they meant...1
-
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.
Good grief. People say that & just mean that 1# of muscle has less volume than 1# of fat.. ie. muscle tissue is more dense than fat globs. Regardless, just loose the fat & get on w/it. There's no myth about that !0 -
-
-
Just let it go. When someone says that to me, I just smile and nod and not give them any sharp objects.3
-
Density is a factor of mass to space. Muscle is more dense than fat.
Saying "muscle doesn't weigh more than fat" is a skewed one sided view and a dismissal of common colloquial usage of the word "weigh" as it is used in the English language. People say something floats because it is "lighter" than the water. What they mean is the density is lower but that is understood because that is the use of the word in the colloquial sense.
Muscle weighs more than fat if you are considering a piece of muscle and a piece of fat that occupy the same volume. That is the way it honestly makes sense to think about it. Otherwise nothing weighs more than anything else by your logic and therefore the very concept of "Weight" is rendered meaningless.
Saying a pound of muscle weighs as much as a pound of fat is a tautology that caries no information with it as a pound of anything weighs as much as a pound of anything else. Its a meaningless statement meant to sound intelligent that is really just a waste of breath.
The statement that muscle weighs more than fat however DOES convey meaning, it informs that the density of muscle is greater which is of use in picturing how losing 20 pounds of fat after gaining 20 pounds of muscle could make you appear considerably smaller and leaner.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Density is a factor of mass to space. Muscle is more dense than fat.
Saying "muscle doesn't weigh more than fat" is a skewed one sided view and a dismissal of common colloquial usage of the word "weigh" as it is used in the English language. People say something floats because it is "lighter" than the water. What they mean is the density is lower but that is understood because that is the use of the word in the colloquial sense.
Muscle weighs more than fat if you are considering a piece of muscle and a piece of fat that occupy the same volume. That is the way it honestly makes sense to think about it. Otherwise nothing weighs more than anything else by your logic and therefore the very concept of "Weight" is rendered meaningless.
Saying a pound of muscle weighs as much as a pound of fat is a tautology that caries no information with it as a pound of anything weighs as much as a pound of anything else. Its a meaningless statement meant to sound intelligent that is really just a waste of breath.
The statement that muscle weighs more than fat however DOES convey meaning, it informs that the density of muscle is greater which is of use in picturing how losing 20 pounds of fat after gaining 20 pounds of muscle could make you appear considerably smaller and leaner.
Then why not just say "muscle is more dense than fat" and be actually correct...?
0 -
sheldonz42 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Density is a factor of mass to space. Muscle is more dense than fat.
Saying "muscle doesn't weigh more than fat" is a skewed one sided view and a dismissal of common colloquial usage of the word "weigh" as it is used in the English language. People say something floats because it is "lighter" than the water. What they mean is the density is lower but that is understood because that is the use of the word in the colloquial sense.
Muscle weighs more than fat if you are considering a piece of muscle and a piece of fat that occupy the same volume. That is the way it honestly makes sense to think about it. Otherwise nothing weighs more than anything else by your logic and therefore the very concept of "Weight" is rendered meaningless.
Saying a pound of muscle weighs as much as a pound of fat is a tautology that caries no information with it as a pound of anything weighs as much as a pound of anything else. Its a meaningless statement meant to sound intelligent that is really just a waste of breath.
The statement that muscle weighs more than fat however DOES convey meaning, it informs that the density of muscle is greater which is of use in picturing how losing 20 pounds of fat after gaining 20 pounds of muscle could make you appear considerably smaller and leaner.
Then why not just say "muscle is more dense than fat" and be actually correct...?
Because colloquialisms are okay and in our language people generally refer to things as being "lighter" if they are less dense. Like how helium is lighter than air or styrofom is lighter than water.
Its because when we compare two objects we tend to think of them as being the same size because size is what our animal brains seem to consider important in terms of equality.
Thats okay, don't have to "correct" it everytime by saying "but a pound is a pound" which is just a tautological statement.
If we want to get nitpicky "weight" is not really a fundamental thing, its arbitrary and based on what source of gravity you happen to be near. Volume and mass however are more fundamental.
If you can convince the entire world to talk in more physics-accurate terms I'm on board but until then I'm just going to speak in such a way as to be understood by the majority of people so that I can best convey my meaning.
Honestly I think it makes more sense to say "Muscle weighs more than fat" and have it just be understood that you mean more dense than it is to say "Muscle weighs more than fat in the specific circumstance in which they share equal volume" because that just adds a lot of words that you probably didn't need to say to be understood.7 -
rainbowbow wrote: »
It's true, a zillion isn't a number, but muscle does weigh more than fat.Seriously, are we here again? Like this topic hasn't been posted here for the zillionth time. Oh no... a zillion is not a real number. Quick! Someone call me out on it.
There are lots and lots of repeated threads with the same questions over and over again. Answering them right isn't wrong.
Only if the muscle and fat are of equal sizes.
LOl! Awesome gif.0 -
Carlos_421 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.
The people who do what you're describing here are not misunderstanding the concept of "muscle weighs more than fat." They are misunderstanding the concept of how difficult it is to put on muscle mass.
Different things.
Good point.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Density is a factor of mass to space. Muscle is more dense than fat.
Saying "muscle doesn't weigh more than fat" is a skewed one sided view and a dismissal of common colloquial usage of the word "weigh" as it is used in the English language. People say something floats because it is "lighter" than the water. What they mean is the density is lower but that is understood because that is the use of the word in the colloquial sense.
Muscle weighs more than fat if you are considering a piece of muscle and a piece of fat that occupy the same volume. That is the way it honestly makes sense to think about it. Otherwise nothing weighs more than anything else by your logic and therefore the very concept of "Weight" is rendered meaningless.
Saying a pound of muscle weighs as much as a pound of fat is a tautology that caries no information with it as a pound of anything weighs as much as a pound of anything else. Its a meaningless statement meant to sound intelligent that is really just a waste of breath.
The statement that muscle weighs more than fat however DOES convey meaning, it informs that the density of muscle is greater which is of use in picturing how losing 20 pounds of fat after gaining 20 pounds of muscle could make you appear considerably smaller and leaner.
Then why not just say "muscle is more dense than fat" and be actually correct...?
Because colloquialisms are okay and in our language people generally refer to things as being "lighter" if they are less dense. Like how helium is lighter than air or styrofom is lighter than water.
Its because when we compare two objects we tend to think of them as being the same size because size is what our animal brains seem to consider important in terms of equality.
Thats okay, don't have to "correct" it everytime by saying "but a pound is a pound" which is just a tautological statement.
If we want to get nitpicky "weight" is not really a fundamental thing, its arbitrary and based on what source of gravity you happen to be near. Volume and mass however are more fundamental.
If you can convince the entire world to talk in more physics-accurate terms I'm on board but until then I'm just going to speak in such a way as to be understood by the majority of people so that I can best convey my meaning.
Honestly I think it makes more sense to say "Muscle weighs more than fat" and have it just be understood that you mean more dense than it is to say "Muscle weighs more than fat in the specific circumstance in which they share equal volume" because that just adds a lot of words that you probably didn't need to say to be understood.
I love you
In a purely "there's someone left on these boards to learn from" way3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Density is a factor of mass to space. Muscle is more dense than fat.
Saying "muscle doesn't weigh more than fat" is a skewed one sided view and a dismissal of common colloquial usage of the word "weigh" as it is used in the English language. People say something floats because it is "lighter" than the water. What they mean is the density is lower but that is understood because that is the use of the word in the colloquial sense.
Muscle weighs more than fat if you are considering a piece of muscle and a piece of fat that occupy the same volume. That is the way it honestly makes sense to think about it. Otherwise nothing weighs more than anything else by your logic and therefore the very concept of "Weight" is rendered meaningless.
Saying a pound of muscle weighs as much as a pound of fat is a tautology that caries no information with it as a pound of anything weighs as much as a pound of anything else. Its a meaningless statement meant to sound intelligent that is really just a waste of breath.
The statement that muscle weighs more than fat however DOES convey meaning, it informs that the density of muscle is greater which is of use in picturing how losing 20 pounds of fat after gaining 20 pounds of muscle could make you appear considerably smaller and leaner.
Then why not just say "muscle is more dense than fat" and be actually correct...?
Because colloquialisms are okay and in our language people generally refer to things as being "lighter" if they are less dense. Like how helium is lighter than air or styrofom is lighter than water.
Its because when we compare two objects we tend to think of them as being the same size because size is what our animal brains seem to consider important in terms of equality.
Thats okay, don't have to "correct" it everytime by saying "but a pound is a pound" which is just a tautological statement.
If we want to get nitpicky "weight" is not really a fundamental thing, its arbitrary and based on what source of gravity you happen to be near. Volume and mass however are more fundamental.
If you can convince the entire world to talk in more physics-accurate terms I'm on board but until then I'm just going to speak in such a way as to be understood by the majority of people so that I can best convey my meaning.
Honestly I think it makes more sense to say "Muscle weighs more than fat" and have it just be understood that you mean more dense than it is to say "Muscle weighs more than fat in the specific circumstance in which they share equal volume" because that just adds a lot of words that you probably didn't need to say to be understood.
I love you
In a purely "there's someone left on these boards to learn from" way
For real!0 -
Tell you what, OP. Next time I move, you can come help me. You can carry all my books and I'll carry all the pillows and you aren't allowed to complain about your boxes being heavier because a pound is a pound so that would be stupid.4
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Because colloquialisms are okay and in our language people generally refer to things as being "lighter" if they are less dense. Like how helium is lighter than air or styrofom is lighter than water.
Its because when we compare two objects we tend to think of them as being the same size because size is what our animal brains seem to consider important in terms of equality.
Thats okay, don't have to "correct" it everytime by saying "but a pound is a pound" which is just a tautological...
Stop. Right there. You had me at "tautological".0 -
Larissa_NY wrote: »Tell you what, OP. Next time I move, you can come help me. You can carry all my books and I'll carry all the pillows and you aren't allowed to complain about your boxes being heavier because a pound is a pound so that would be stupid.
I'm stealing this for the hundreds of future muscle/fat debates. I hope you don't mind. LOL2 -
I would be a gajillionaire if I had $1 for every patient that has said that to me (or "I really eat very little... just steamed veggies, a little chicken, and a little rice..." Or the standard "thyroid problem" b.s.).0
-
OMG you're soooo right! And it applies to so many things! Like, if you weighed 2 hydrogen particles against one helium particle, they'd totally weigh the same! So clearly, all that science stuff is just arbitrary bs and I can use this to get out of taking science in school. You're a genius.0
-
Wynterbourne wrote: »Larissa_NY wrote: »Tell you what, OP. Next time I move, you can come help me. You can carry all my books and I'll carry all the pillows and you aren't allowed to complain about your boxes being heavier because a pound is a pound so that would be stupid.
I'm stealing this for the hundreds of future muscle/fat debates. I hope you don't mind. LOL
Ha, go for it.
Hey, I have a game we can play. Let's take this same logic and apply it to other units of measurement.
- A decibel is a decibel, so jet engines aren't louder than whispers.
- One degree Farenheit is one degree Farenheit, so Death Valley isn't hotter than Antarctica.
- A mile is a mile, so Ferraris aren't faster than Yugos.
What else?2 -
Larissa_NY wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Larissa_NY wrote: »Tell you what, OP. Next time I move, you can come help me. You can carry all my books and I'll carry all the pillows and you aren't allowed to complain about your boxes being heavier because a pound is a pound so that would be stupid.
I'm stealing this for the hundreds of future muscle/fat debates. I hope you don't mind. LOL
Ha, go for it.
Hey, I have a game we can play. Let's take this same logic and apply it to other units of measurement.
- A decibel is a decibel, so jet engines aren't louder than whispers.
- One degree Farenheit is one degree Farenheit, so Death Valley isn't hotter than Antarctica.
- A mile is a mile, so Ferraris aren't faster than Yugos.
What else?
*bows repeatedly*
I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions