Muscle does not weight more then fat
Replies
-
donjtomasco wrote: »Lemur, did you not read the other comments in this thread?
Yes, I did, and since no one said that 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat, I am pretty sure you are misreading whatever it is you are referring to. If you'd quote it, we could discuss whatever it is.
0 -
donjtomasco wrote: »TR0berts is a perfect example to your last comment Lemurcat. Did you read what he said? lol.
Which one? Because at this point I am positive you are misreading.
Serious question: do you not know how to quote someone?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »donjtomasco wrote: »TR0berts is a perfect example to your last comment Lemurcat. Did you read what he said? lol.
Which one? Because at this point I am positive you are misreading.
Serious question: do you not know you to quote someone?
I think he was pointing to the tongue-in-cheek banter I was having with farrell regarding the weight for the same item being different on different planets/moons.0 -
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.
Surely anyone who reads my posts knows that I am pedantic. ;-)
What I don't think I did (and what I am actually complaining about) was say anything that suggested that I thought you were an idiot.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?
No, I wasn't. I thought the distinctions were interesting, though. (I do think your cringing at "muscle weighs more than fat" is based on an inaccurate assumption, that the person is unaware that 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat or even that the person might be so stupid. But at this point I cringe at "1 lb of muscle = 1 lb of fat," so we are all cringing, no matter what! Win-win!A list of foods I dislike would include cauliflower and caviar - you wouldn't respond "Aha! They aren't the same."
I might pedantically discuss their differences if the discussion called for it, IMO.
More seriously, my detailed response to the things you mentioned was more because I find some of them cringeworthy too (although I wouldn't claim that was merited) and so thought pointing out shared reactions on some things might further a conversation on a friendly note. Seems the attempt failed!Who exactly are you directing this rant at?
It's not a rant. If you read it as a rant we aren't communicating.
I do personally cringe and find insulting when people explain to me information that I believe (and think they probably believe are facts that any not stupid or not completely uneducated person would know). It's probably a quirk of my own, I agree, but it comes across as rude to me, kittens me off, and is something I try to avoid (although I am sure I don't always, and so I do try to mock my own pedantic tendencies offline and sometimes online). For example, if I were having a conversation with someone at work and he mentioned going to a Bears game and felt compelled to explain "it's a team in the NFL" (I'm in Chicago, I go to Bears games sometimes), I'd probably make a little fun of him and his sexist assumption (or whatever, depending on who it is). Same if someone explained that Beethoven is a composer or that France is a country or the like. Explaining that 1 lb = 1 lb if someone says: "oh, don't worry about a final goal weight, it might be higher than you think if you are working on building muscle, as muscle weighs more than fat" seems to me the same thing. In context the statement may or may not make sense, but I would not suggest to someone that I think they are so incredibly dumb that they think there are special muscle lbs that are heavier on the scale than fat lbs or whatever is supposedly meant in the minds of those who feel compelled to make this correction.
(This last sentence was kind of ranty if you are keeping track.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »donjtomasco wrote: »TR0berts is a perfect example to your last comment Lemurcat. Did you read what he said? lol.
Which one? Because at this point I am positive you are misreading.
Serious question: do you not know you to quote someone?
I think he was pointing to the tongue-in-cheek banter I was having with farrell regarding the weight for the same item being different on different planets/moons.
Hmm.0 -
lemur cat: CattofTheGa wrote
"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?0 -
donjtomasco wrote: »lemur cat: CattofTheGa wrote
"Because it is not true. Muscle DOES weigh more than fat." Or takes up less space. Tomato tomahto.
Right. What this means:
(1) If you have equal volumes of fat and muscle, the muscle weighs more.
(2) If you have equal weights of fat and muscle, the fat takes up more space.
What is does not mean:
(1) 1 lb of muscle weighs more than 1 lb of fat.2 -
lemur, was that clear enough? I am not doing anymore of your reading for you and will not try and help you understand this anymore. But I wanted to back up what I said and tell you what you refused to go back and read from someone else. Pretty sure there are more too, but that came off the first page. You can look through the rest yourself.
I will wait to see if you try and tell me that Catt did not say "Because it is not true. Muscle DOES weigh more than fat."
I read it several times, there are only 11 words, but maybe you can correct me on this as well. 0 -
donjtomasco wrote: »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 answered this upthread -- yes, you can get stronger without adding mass.
Yes, there's a limit on it.
For more details, I defer to one of the many people in this thread with more knowledge than me about strength training and muscle building.0 -
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?
you will get newbie gains but that fizzles out after about six months to a year...and as you continue eating in a deficit you will more than likely lose more muscle, so more than likely they cancel each other out....
just remember that strength gains do not equal muscle gains...
the reason your "muscles" are showing more is less body fat + water retention = appearance of more muscle0 -
lemur, what if that person in your office was not a football fan, had just attended their first game ever, and had just recently learned on their own that the Bears were actually an NFL team? Maybe he was just proud to let you know that he was now more knowledgeable in an area he was not schooled in before? Your attitude towards that person is pretty severe and harsh.
Do you know that thing about assuming? I think you are doing this. Not everyone who does not think like you are "uneducated", but your last comment certainly said a lot of what you think about yourself and others who do not participate on your same level of intelligence, whatever that might be.0 -
donjtomasco wrote: »lemur cat: CattofTheGa wrote
"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?
strength gains does not equal muscle gains..
you are just training your muscles to work more efficiently with same amount of muscle mass ...
its like getting more productivity out of your workers without hiring any more staff.1 -
lemur, I simply did you a favor by pointing out a particular post that said just what I told you a post (probably more) said. And yes, you are welcome. Your comment is probably the closest you will ever come to saying thank you to anyone. Oh, and it appears that you are never wrong either. These threads seem to expose who people really are.-4
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »donjtomasco wrote: »TR0berts is a perfect example to your last comment Lemurcat. Did you read what he said? lol.
Which one? Because at this point I am positive you are misreading.
Serious question: do you not know how to quote someone?
I have to assume he does not know how to quote, and I am starting to lean towards willful misreading.2 -
This article addresses it all. http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/weight-loss-plateau-myth-muscle-weighs-more-than-fat/0
-
donjtomasco wrote: »lemur, I simply did you a favor by pointing out a particular post that said just what I told you a post (probably more) said. And yes, you are welcome. Your comment is probably the closest you will ever come to saying thank you to anyone. Oh, and it appears that you are never wrong either. These threads seem to expose who people really are.
4 -
donjtomasco wrote: »lemur, what if that person in your office was not a football fan, had just attended their first game ever, and had just recently learned on their own that the Bears were actually an NFL team?
This is Chicago. Seems implausible. No matter how bad they are.Maybe he was just proud to let you know that he was now more knowledgeable in an area he was not schooled in before? Your attitude towards that person is pretty severe and harsh.
This is a pretend situation, so I know 100% that he was assuming that I would not know who the Bears are in the context of "going to a Bears game."Do you know that thing about assuming? I think you are doing this. Not everyone who does not think like you are "uneducated", but your last comment certainly said a lot of what you think about yourself and others who do not participate on your same level of intelligence, whatever that might be.
Huh? I said I was probably overly sensitive to this, that it's a pet peeve.
But yeah, I think it's rude to explain something really obvious to someone else as if they wouldn't know it. I think it's better to wait for them to ask, and I tend to err on the side of them knowing, unless the context indicates otherwise. I am sure that despite this being what I think I do that I sometimes don't.
I did not say that anyone was uneducated for not thinking like me.
I believe that the POINT of my comment was that it's more polite to assume that others know things that you do unless you have reason to believe they wouldn't be common knowledge. I think that's treating them with respect and not assuming (with no reason) that I am way smarter or more educated than they are. Or that they don't know local sports teams.1 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Since we're being pedantic, a pint of water does not weigh a pound. Not even that close.
?? I just weighed a pint of water (U.S. pint of 16 fl. oz. or approximately 480 ml) on my kitchen scale and got 1 lb, 3/4 oz. I was assuming some combination of inaccuracy in my eye-balling of the measurement, the cup itself, or the scale accounted for the extra 3/4 oz.
480ml of fresh water weighs 480g. A pound is 454g. Granted it's not a million miles off but it's quite far from being the same (about an ounce of difference).
An Imperial pint like we use in the UK is approx 570ml, so an Imperial pint of fresh water weighs 570g, which is miles off.
Depends on the temperature of the water. Water density changes with temperature, which will change the weight of a given volume.2 -
Thanks Kimmy! I have not mastered the in's and out's of quoting people but the copy paste was actually delivering the same comment just in a different way. I like that there are a few hall monitors in MFP, I just hope that I don't start getting fined by you and the others.0
-
lemur, I give up. You are being defensive again about your assuming. I realize you have to be right about everything.1
-
How to quote:
Go to the post you want to quote and look at the bottom and hit the quote button.
The quoted bit will show up between something with the person's name and quote and a number, surrounded by square brackets and [ / quote ] at the end, without the spaces.
You can edit it to remove the parts you are not responding to or to bold part of it.
Then after it you can type a response.
Hope that helps!0 -
donjtomasco wrote: »lemur, I simply did you a favor by pointing out a particular post that said just what I told you a post (probably more) said.
But it doesn't. As I suspected. Do you have a response to my post?Your comment is probably the closest you will ever come to saying thank you to anyone.
Why don't you search for posts by me and the words "thank" or "thanks"?Oh, and it appears that you are never wrong either.
Thanks! I appreciate that. You are too kind, though, as I am most certainly sometimes wrong.These threads seem to expose who people really are.
Agreed! I insightful-ed you for this.1 -
donjtomasco wrote: »lemur, I give up. You are being defensive again about your assuming. I realize you have to be right about everything.
Anyone that says the statement "muscle weighs more than fat" is incorrect has made an assumption. You are assuming they have equal weights of muscle of fat and are either lying about it or are too stupid to realize it.4 -
this thread is now a black hole of misquotations...3
-
This is my favorite thread of the day.1
-
Can I just say I'm not liking the word pedantic?
It angers me for some reason:).1 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Could someone link the thread?
Found it! Here, @lemurcat12 , 7th reply.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/36640231#Comment_36640231
Yay! Yes, that's it: Not imaginary, I knew I'd read something like that somewhere, someone really said a pound of muscle weighs the same as 6 pounds of fat. Just wow.2 -
"What"?" '0
-
I can't believe I just read through this entire post. In, to find out how lemurcat is rude and presumptive and always has to be right about everything. Maybe in the Twilight Zone, 1 lb of muscle weighs more than 1 lb of fat?
4 -
THANK YOU ANNPT77 and BLESS YOU!!! There is another one lemurcat. Do you need more? How many more will it take? Or will you somehow say that the comment is not saying what it is saying.....?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