Muscle does not weight more then fat
Replies
-
Muscle doesn't weigh less than fat, but it does take up less space. How ironic. ::laugh::2
-
donjtomasco wrote: »Trigden, now go get back to your bench presses and flexing in the mirror for everyone. And work on your sentence structure and grammar, your wording showed a general lack of understanding.
Would it be wrong to point out the irony in this?
3 -
Muscle is denser than fat is the better way to look at it... it more like measuring volume not weight. A pound is a pound regardless of what it is but a pound of muscle is denser and therefore appears smaller. Its like the old pound of feathers vs pound of bricks comparison. Both weigh a pound but visually there are a lot more feathers
3 -
Scientifically when you compare density of materials, you don't weigh a pound against a pound. You weigh volume versus volume.
Just to be pedantic...
Or you weigh one molecule of one substance against one molecule of another substance. In this case, the volume may (probably would) be somewhat different, but it's a viable comparison.
But, yeah.
0 -
donjtomasco wrote: »lemurcat, your analogy is so off. Using your analogy it would be correct to say that 1 lb of fat is the same as 1 lb of muscle, but 2 lbs of fat does not weigh the same as 9 lbs of muscle. So, yes, 1 lb of you weighs the same as 1 lb of your sister, but you weigh more then her because you weigh 159 and she weighs 126, so you two do not weigh the same.
It would be helpful if you would quote so I know what you are talking about. You mean my response/explanation to tlflag?
Anyway, no, no one says that 1 lb of fat is the SAME as 1 lb of muscle. They weigh the same (that's a truism), but the muscle has less volume. (They also have other differences, like one being muscle and one being fat.)
I still don't believe that anyone thinks 2 lb of fat weighs the same as 9 lb of muscle. Honestly, that's crazy. That's why I want to see this other thread. I want know what someone could possibly mean by that or think it means.
I agree that 1 lb of me weighs the same as 1 lb of my sister, but that's NOT what I mean if I say I weigh more than her! That's the whole point. Similarly if someone says paper weighs more than feathers, they are assuming an equal volume not an equal weight.
For the record, I weigh around 125 and my sister weighs around 115.3 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »this is something that people say and its hard to stop it. i hear it all the time in real life
mfp should keep a muscle doesnt weigh more than fat sticky at the top of the forum
in the mean time why does it wind people up so much?
Because it is not true. Muscle DOES weigh more than fat. Or takes up less space. Tomato tomahto.
Anyway, the other question is one I would like a good answer to. It's often said on here that it's completely impossible to gain muscle mass while on a deficit, but other sources say that some beginner gains are possible, though after that first stage it flattens out. What is the truth?
Also, what is the story with gaining strength on a deficit? It's clearly possible to gain a lot of strength and muscle endurance while in a deficit, I've done it myself. How is that actually possible without gaining muscle mass? And if you can get stronger without gaining mass, why does bulking matter? Is it purely an aesthetic thing, or is there a ceiling to how strong you can get without adding mass?
I'm not sure but if you're eating a deficit (say 500 less than maintenance) your body fat counts as backup calories so while building up I'd say yes you need excess calories if you don't have those 'backup stores' so to speak.0 -
Well said farrell! And a nice simple summary to point out the simply most obvious points of this. Finally someone who is not defensive and is simply pointing out the obvious logic which others have pointed out in more wordy ways in this post.
Yet, some still think a pound does not equal a pound....1 -
donjtomasco wrote: »If you are lifting weights or doing 'muscle strengthening' exercises, the assumption would be that you are building muscle.
I am 5'10" and 202, down from 213. I need to be around 185. So are you saying that my every other day upper body weight training is not building ANY muscle while I am losing weight?
I am not arguing or disagreeing, I am trying to get an answer.
To carry that logic a bit further, if I am wanting to look like I looked before, which is tone with muscle, your logic says that I can't build muscle until I start eating more then my maintain weight, or when I am NOT in a deficit. Sorry, that just does not compute. Maybe someone can elaborate more on how this really is the case.
Why is it that I am already feeling muscle and some is already showing up? Is it just an illusion?
Everyone says that you can't build muscle and lose fat simultaneously, and that's kind of the accepted answer. As in all things, you need materials to build something. I feel for you, because a year ago I tried to ask this same question on the boards and got roasted for it. People love to get really worked up about these topics for no reason that I can understand, so I'll tell you what I figured out and what worked for me.
My goal a year ago was to reduce my body fat percentage, both by increasing my muscle mass and by decreasing my fat mass, and to find a way to do it simultaneously, and I did. I achieved it with intermittent fasting, or by feeding the body a surplus to fuel seriously heavy lifts, and then falling back into a deficit in between. Most of the time I do a 12/12 eating and fasting schedule, and I always work out in a fasted state. Sometimes I eat a big surplus (150% of TDEE with 50% protein macro) on heavy lift days and then eat at a high deficit the next day (maybe 25-30% of my TDEE.) My gains never slowed down and I consistently lost inches. There are a lot of different intermittent fasting schedules and protocols, and even more naysayers. Seriously, just wait for it. People love to attack me after I explain that I do this- especially about working out in a fasted state, but it has worked well for me.
I have found that a lot of the conventional "eating less than 1200 calories/day will put your body into starvation mode" and "fasting will ruin your metabolism" and "eat 5 meals a day! If you eat all your calories in one meal you will gain!" crap to be just myths (heavily repeated, but myths nonetheless). I often fast for 12-24 hours at a time, then feast and lift heavy, then fast again, and have never had a single issue.
I also find that I love being able to eat a surplus on refeed days and hold back the next day. I have always been the type that eats one mega meal a day and skips all my other meals, and that's what works for me. I feel great. I have found that with doing this I've never had a plateau in lifts OR losses, so take that as you will.
Just what I have found to work with my body type, but then again if people could be categorized into "bulldozers and ballerinas" I would definitely be a bulldozer.
0 -
Muscle is denser than fat is the better way to look at it... it more like measuring volume not weight. A pound is a pound regardless of what it is but a pound of muscle is denser and therefore appears smaller. Its like the old pound of feathers vs pound of bricks comparison. Both weigh a pound but visually there are a lot more feathers
Muscle would only appear smaller if you had same weight. And if we have same weight WTH would anyone say one weighs more? The very sentence "muscle weighs more than fat" proves that we do not have same weight. It implies that we have same volume.2 -
donjtomasco wrote: »Yet, some still think a pound does not equal a pound....
Then surely you can point to a post proving this?2 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Since we're being pedantic, a pint of water does not weigh a pound. Not even that close.
US pint or Imperial pint?
An African or a European swallow?2 -
Lemur, did you not read the other comments in this thread? I am not going to do this for you, you need to click on the past page numbers and just read. Your comment is like the mistake people make saying a pound does not equal a pound as it pertains to fat and muscle. Logic, logic, logic!
Need2Exercise, what was it you tried to say there? I think you contradicted yourself in your comment. You said one thing, then disagreed with yourself. But it sure sounded good.1 -
Muscle weighs more than fat *BY VOLUME.* It's pretty much understood by anyone and everyone who says "muscle weighs more than fat" that is the case, just nobody bothers to specify "by volume" because it's understood and doesn't need to be said. Pointing out the obvious in that case accomplishes nothing but make you look like a douche trying to troll people.2
-
Contingency, you are assuming what people think. Obviously not everyone thinks the obvious that you just pointed out, which is the reason why there are so many who disagree with the fact that one pound of fat equals one pound of muscle. If one pound of muscle in volume is smaller in volume then one pound of fat, which is true, then when we have more muscle and less fat, we can weigh the same but look "Less Fat".
You said "Pretty much understood by everyone" but "pretty much" leaves a lot of others out there who do not understand the obvious.
I am simply pointing out how wrong you are in what you said in your own your own words.
Does "Pretty much everyone thinks they burned calories today" mean that "Everyone thinks they burned calories today?" Based on your comment you would say yes, that the two statements are equal but they aren't. Therefore, you become the douche and the troll. LOL. Good luck with that one.....0 -
donjtomasco wrote: »Need2Exercise, what was it you tried to say there? I think you contradicted yourself in your comment. You said one thing, then disagreed with yourself. But it sure sounded good.
It sounded good because it's correct. 0 -
Whoa I'm just getting into this community board at there certainly is a lot of people posting in a very negative tone. We are all here to help each other just remember... its not a fight against others but a community.
Thank you for the kind words donjtomasco.
To clarify weight and volume are two completely different things... weight by definition is the the force of gravity on an object or mass times the acceleration of gravity (W = mg) while volume is simple a measurement of the physical space occupied by an object. Now density is the calculation that combines both... Density = mass/volume.
So muscle does not weigh more than fat, fat has a higher volume than muscle. And therefore the Muscle is denser than fat. But bottom line a pound is a pound regardless of what you are weighing.1 -
donjtomasco wrote: »Contingency, you are assuming what people think. Obviously not everyone thinks the obvious that you just pointed out, which is the reason why there are so many who disagree with the fact that one pound of fat equals one pound of muscle. If one pound of muscle in volume is smaller in volume then one pound of fat, which is true, then when we have more muscle and less fat, we can weigh the same but look "Less Fat".
You said "Pretty much understood by everyone" but "pretty much" leaves a lot of others out there who do not understand the obvious.
I am simply pointing out how wrong you are in what you said in your own your own words.
Does "Pretty much everyone thinks they burned calories today" mean that "Everyone thinks they burned calories today?" Based on your comment you would say yes, that the two statements are equal but they aren't. Therefore, you become the douche and the troll. LOL. Good luck with that one.....
Lol. I think pretty much everyone is aware of who the troll is in this thread.4 -
Whoa I'm just getting into this community board at there certainly is a lot of people posting in a very negative tone. We are all here to help each other just remember... its not a fight against others but a community.
Thank you for the kind words donjtomasco.
To clarify weight and volume are two completely different things... weight by definition is the the force of gravity on an object or mass times the acceleration of gravity (W = mg) while volume is simple a measurement of the physical space occupied by an object. Now density is the calculation that combines both... Density = mass/volume.
So muscle does not weigh more than fat, fat has a higher volume than muscle. And therefore the Muscle is denser than fat. But bottom line a pound is a pound regardless of what you are weighing.
You were doing well.
But, you may want to rethink or rephrase the bolded. Because it's inaccurate.
0 -
Whoa I'm just getting into this community board at there certainly is a lot of people posting in a very negative tone. We are all here to help each other just remember... its not a fight against others but a community.
Thank you for the kind words donjtomasco.
To clarify weight and volume are two completely different things... weight by definition is the the force of gravity on an object or mass times the acceleration of gravity (W = mg) while volume is simple a measurement of the physical space occupied by an object. Now density is the calculation that combines both... Density = mass/volume.
So muscle does not weigh more than fat, fat has a higher volume than muscle. And therefore the Muscle is denser than fat. But bottom line a pound is a pound regardless of what you are weighing.
You were doing well.
But, you may want to rethink or rephrase the bolded. Because it's inaccurate.
Please elaborate, as the definition of a pound(mass) is consistent. If we can all agree that a pound in the sense of a weight measurement is a measure of the force an object caused by a gravitational field. Then regardless of the object being weighed, a pound is a pound.
Please provide any link or evidence to help explain why you believe that statement is false as I am legitimately curious?
I certainly don't mind anyone disagreeing but if there is any evidence please provide so others including myself may see the source of this data being referenced.
Muscle is simply denser than fat... to be exact density of muscle in a mammal is 1.06g/ml while density of fat (adipose) is about 0.9 g/ml. But weight is still unaffected.
If you would like to see the data here are a couple of references for your own personal research.
-Mendez J, Keys A, 1960. Density and composition of mammalian muscle. Metabolism 9:184-188.
-Ross R, Léger L, Guardo R, De Guise J, Pike BG 1991 Adipose tissue volume measured by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography in rats. J Appl Physiol 70: 2164?2172
0 -
OMG, let this thread die. We are all violently agreeing at this point.5
-
@farrell16 Just wanted to say welcome, and please note you have wandered into a uniquely frustrating thread There are lots of super helpful people here, great conversations, and lots of great stuff to be learned, but on occasion specific threads will get a little ummmm... tense, LOL! 1
-
@farrell16 It's inaccurate because you have to ensure that you are weighing the object(s) in the same environment. As has been mentioned previously, a pound here on earth will be different than a pound on the moon. Or, more accurately I suppose, what weighs one pound here on earth will weigh ~ 0.1 pounds on the moon.
Since this thread is silly and overly-pedantic in the first place, I'm just having some fun with it.4 -
@farrell16 It's inaccurate because you have to ensure that you are weighing the object(s) in the same environment. As has been mentioned previously, a pound here on earth will be different than a pound on the moon. Or, more accurately I suppose, what weighs one pound here on earth will weigh ~ 0.1 pounds on the moon.
Since this thread is silly and overly-pedantic in the first place, I'm just having some fun with it.
Lol fair enough... but a pound of fat and a pound of muscle will still weigh the same on the moon. But one weighed on the moon and one weighed on Earth would vary haha. But I'm glad we can agree it is tied to the force of an object caused by gravity. So I'll add that Caveat a pound of muscle and a pound of fat will both weigh a pound as long as measured on the same celestial body 2 -
Wait - we can't agree. That's just not the MFP way...
3 -
TR0berts is a perfect example to your last comment Lemurcat. Did you read what he said? lol.
Dnarules, depends on what your definition of a troll is. And I think a true troll who made the post and is stating facts and has a lot of people agreeing with him, would not have anyone agreeing with him or her if he or she was truly a troll. So, good luck with that. But if you are calling me a logical and factually correct troll, then THANK YOU!!!
Welcome farrell and be careful, it is easy to get sucked into the murky world of "Believe what I say and think, not what it real and true."
annaskiski, this thread continues because there is 'violent disagreement', which truly confounds me.
I see nothing wrong with healthy debates that ferret out misconceptions and offer up valid truths that we can all learn from and better ourselves by. But hey, that's just my twisted trolling logic and take..... 1 -
Good point TR0berts, I will keep this in mind if I ever do my weigh-in on the moon...1
-
@farrell16 Just wanted to say welcome, and please note you have wandered into a uniquely frustrating thread There are lots of super helpful people here, great conversations, and lots of great stuff to be learned, but on occasion specific threads will get a little ummmm... tense, LOL!
Thank you Kimny72, glad to hear there are some good helpful people in the community as well. I haven't posted much until the last couple of weeks and you are correct it does seem like it can get quite heated. Although the people responding to my original post have been completely fine, different points of view but to each there own.
I'm a personal trainer by trade so really have the urge to assist others in this area, so if I can post once and awhile and maybe one post helps someone out then I'm good with that. The fitness industry is surrounded in fads and false advertisements so I encourage all to do their own research and come to your own conclusions but don't use youtube or random websites for that clinical data
Best of luck to all2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »To those who insist that muscle does not weigh more than fat because one LB of muscle is the same as one LB of fat (ignoring that volume is implied in the statement), I am truly curious:
Do you really think that other people are confused about whether one LB of something weighs the same as one LB of something else? When people say (incorrectly, obviously) that someone dieting for a few weeks and adding in some exercise might not have lost because muscle weighs more than fat, do you imagine that they think that 1 LB of muscle shows up as 2 LB on the scale or something?
Because it would never cross my mind that anyone could think something so weird. It's kind of insulting, really.
(Of course, the misunderstanding implicit in "don't worry, muscle weighs more than fat" is equally offbase, but probably less obviously so to most. It's the idea that if you lost a particular volume of fat you are likely to have gained a similar volume of muscle, and of course that's not so -- to gain that much muscle volume in the time involved would be extremely difficult--impossible, in fact--in most cases we are talking about.)
@lemurcat12
I cringe when I hear the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat" - same reaction when I see "I want to loose weight" or "when I weight myself", "I literally died of embarrassment", or using "like" as like punctuation, like...
(Yes I do a lot of cringing!)
But these are all different:
(1) Loose is a misspelling (one that I agree is cringeworthy, in fact).
(2) Weight myself is almost certainly just a typo.
(3) Literally is commonly misused today and may be shifting in meaning or have as an alternative meaning not literally in an emphatic way: there was a great discussion of this (with lots of bemoaning of the misuse) in the Slate Lexicon Valley podcast a couple of years ago.
(4) Like is simply a slangy way of speaking that is most used by a demographic group not your own or seems too informal for some more formal uses where it is employed.
"Muscle weighs more than fat" assumes (as too obvious to be stated) that it is implied that we are discussing two things of equal volume, as why would we ever compare the weights of two things of equal weight? Seriously, why?To answer you question about what do I think....
Option 1 - they are genuinely ignorant about the difference between density and weight. With the poor standard of science education ignorance simply isn't uncommon - that's not judgemental just stating that many people lack knowledge. A "calorie isn't just a calorie" is another example.
I disagree that they are ignorant of density vs. weight in the way you seem to be assuming (they think a lb of something is heavier than a lb of something else). They may not be able to use the term density (although many who say the phrase probably could and would use it correctly), but they could explain that they mean the same volume of both. Like, obviously, you know? (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)
When people are confused about a calorie=a calorie, I think they don't understand that a calorie is a unit of measurement (which is why I think this is worth explaining). I think they genuinely see "calorie" as a synonym for food, which it is used as even by many who should know better (as this is confusing).Option 2 - they do mean to imply by volume but simply don't think using the appropriate terminology is important. A bit like saying "I weigh my food with spoons and cups". I happen to think using the right terminology only improves communication but am prepared to accept that I'm old-fashioned. There's not really a right and wrong on this. I think it's important to state things accurately but someone else might take the view "you know what I really mean so it doesn't matter". Wouldn't it be dull if we all thought the same way?
Okay, this I will accept, but then suggest that pedantically telling them something they probably already know isn't helpful and is insulting. Why not ask the question or make it clear the issue is not saying something you think needs to be said (and that I personally do not, and many others do not).Option 3 - they are mindlessly parroting a common phrase they have seen or heard and repeat it without even thinking whether it makes sense of not. Road safety campaigns use the slogan "speed kills" and it becomes part of common language although speed alone clearly doesn't kill.
I do think this is part of it, but not because they think they are comparing one lb to one lb (no one thinks that) but because they think the things they are comparing would have equal volume when they obviously would not -- that's what people should be called on, as well as they assumptions about how easy it is to build muscle.
Just my opinion, of course!
Gosh this thread is still limping along. It's quite entertaining!
@lemurcat12 - missed your reply as you didn't tag me.
Ok I'm now perplexed.
In the context of you complaining about people being pedantic and making assumptions about people's knowledge, or lack of knowledge, the bolded part above comes across as a very pedantic explanation of the differences between the items I listed. Wondering why you would you assume that a list of items that elicit the cringe response are the same or alternatively that I think they are the same? Surely you aren't leaping to an assumption about me?
A list of foods I dislike would include cauliflower and caviar - you wouldn't respond "Aha! They aren't the same."
So I'm left pondering if this this a clever attempt at irony that doesn't come across too well in plain text perhaps?
By the way I don't correct people on the items listed, I've worked with too many people who are either dyslexic or simply just struggle to express themselves for myriad reasons (including ignorance) so tend to give people the benefit of the doubt or just let it go.
Ignorance being used as a descriptive term not a pejorative term in case you wonder. My beloved Grandfather was a truly ignorant man as he had virtually no education through no fault of his own.
I am rather pedantic about the misuse of absolute terms such as impossible, must, can't etc. When used inappropriately they lead to confusion and also the denial of people's own experience. Those I do challenge in these forums.
Who exactly are you directing this rant at? I hope it's a general rant not directed at me.
"Okay, this I will accept, but then suggest that pedantically telling them something they probably already know isn't helpful and is insulting."
That is part of what leads me to hope your bolded response was ironic!1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Could someone link the thread?
Found it! Here, @lemurcat12 , 7th reply.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/36640231#Comment_366402311 -
slj, wow, so well said.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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