Muscle, fat, density, weight, mass...oh my!

Acnwgirl

Wow... this conversation is hilarious. First of all, I don't think anyone is going to "understand science" by reading any of this. 2nd, people are going to believe the fitness and diet world hype forever because as long as you promise the world, you can sell anything to anyone. Yes, people may say scientifically incorrect things to eachother in an effort to communicate on MFP, but who cares? The point is, they are communicating and working towards common goals. If it bothers you that much to have a conversation with others who aren't as educated as you think you are, don't participate in social media. Or just let it go and realize that EVERYONE on this earth has something they can teach you, as long as you are willing to learn from them.

lemurcat12

There are few things more annoying on the MFP boards than the "a pound weighs the same as a pound" correction (incomplete as it may be!). No one is actually confused on that point. Everyone knows what muscle weighs more than fat means, and it is correct. That we are talking about same volumes is implied. It would obviously make no sense (and be idiotic) for someone to say that a lb of muscle weights more than a lb of fat, so why assume that someone means that or is saying that. It's basically insulting or suggests that it's the person doing the correcting who doesn't understand how dumb that is, in that he or she thinks someone could actually be misunderstanding that. (Now, it's possible I'm overestimating the average intelligence of people, I've done that before, but in the absence of evidence of such vast stupidity, I think it's rude to assume it.) Similarly, a lb of me weighs the same as a lb of my sister, but it's still accurate to say that she weighs less than me. Also, helium and air, feathers and iron, etc.

What is especially annoying about the pedantic and unnecessary "no, a lb equals a lb" correction is that is misses the actual reason why the person explaining that muscle weighs more than fat is probably wrong. Not because muscle and fat are equal in weight (they are not, given the unstated understood aspects of the statement), but because that fact is almost certainly irrelevant to what is being discussed. The statement is typically made when someone is not losing weight and someone else says "maybe you gained muscle, muscle weighs more...." What is wrong with that statement is not that a lb = a lb -- what would that have to do with anything? -- but that there is no earthly reason to think that the person gained lbs of muscle in the short period of time that is usually being discussed, while eating at a deficit and often basically just doing some light cardio.

On the other hand, when people say that you can look better while being at the same or even a higher weight if you recomp and decrease your body fat percentage, because muscle weighs more than fat, they are quite correct.

azymth99

You took the words out of my mouth. I cringe visibly when I hear people say:

"muscle isn't heavier than fat, a pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same."

Of course they do! A pound of ANYTHING weighs the same as a pound of anything else. That's like asking which weighs more: a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks! Its a circular argument. Now, if you compare the same VOLUME for instance, a cubic foot of muscle vs. a cubic foot of fat- the muscle will absolutely weigh more.

To put it in fitness terms: Let's assume a body builder has a 30-inch bicep and Fatty McFatovich has a 30 inch bingo wing. If you cut both of their arms off at the shoulder and weigh them- whom do you think will have the heavier arm?

What confuses people is when it comes to weight loss. Losing a pound of either doesn't matter- you are still losing a pound. And fat loss (or reduction to be more correct- because the fat cells just shrink) occurs much more rapidly than muscle growth. So it is certainly false to assume that while at a calorie deficit, working out and cardio that you lose a pound of fat but gain a pound of muscle so you break even is a fallacy. Muscle growth is much slower than fat loss (depending on your age, fitness level etc. I know all of the factors) and is very difficult at a calorie deficit. So, the two happening simultaneously is not likely.

But I'm with you, I hate the BS arguments when folks don't understand the concepts of Volume, Mass, Density etc. and then try to argue based off of an incomplete understanding of what they're talking about.

FrenchMob

No. We are f'ed as a species because people still believe global warming is a hoax. We are f'ed as a species because people still reject evolution. We are f'ed as a species because people still think vaccines are not necessary and cause more harm than good.

I could care less what wording people use. I've stated this multiple times. I suggest you go back and read my whole post. I will be the first one to admit that I have a horrible grasp on the English language. I suck at public speaking, but try to improve. I'm bad at writing, but try to improve.

One thing I know I am good at is engineering and science. Notice I said good. I am by no means a expert yet, but I am on my way.

When I see people arguing over the fat and muscle thing and both "sides" of the argument are demonstrating a complete lack of BASIC scientific principles I get scared. I get scared because I wonder what there understanding of global warming is. I wonder what there understanding of vaccines is. I DO NOT CARE HOW THEY SAY IT. I care about their understanding of it.

Since you went there - it's not global warming, but climax change now. And for many people including myself, believe there is climate change, but don't believe it's man-made, more of cyclic event the earth goes through. Earth's been around longer than man, and will outlive man.

sheermomentum

Hey, you put it out there, and some people will find it interesting and informative. I think most of us do know what is meant in casual conversation, and most of us overlook little errors in exactitude most of the time (and then go and ***** about it somewhere else).

I look at it this way: if you speak or write in a completely precise way all of the time, someone is going to say that you're pedantic or pretentious, and if you do not, then someone is going to say that you're wrong. So, pretty much damned if you do and damned if you don't. And yet we somehow muddle along understanding enough of each others' thoughts to live in communal societies. So language is more or less doing its job.

Peloton73

I realize I've only been here a month but I've dug fairly deep in the threads to read. With that said, can someone point me in the direction of a post where a poster actually said "a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat" and actually meant it?

Instead what I keep seeing are threads such as this or threads about "most annoying fitness myths" or something of that sort.

LiminalAscendance

and if we didnt spend so much time arguing over simple miscommunications then maybe those problems wouldnt exist.

i did read your whole post, but it comes back to the same thing. like i said before, nobody thinks a pound weighs more than a pound unless they have the mental capacity of a basketball. its just unnecessary drabbling at this point. is stating the difference between weight and density really going to fix any of the problems you mentioned?

edited to remove the wall of quotes

I am not arguing over "simple miscommunications." I am arguing over peoples misunderstanding of basic scientific principles.

Yes. I do think that effectively teaching children (and ignorant adults) basic science and math will help these problems. It's not "unnecessary drabbling" when it comes to that. Are you saying all the people throughout history that have contributed amazing scientific advances didn't care about or understood basic science?

I guess my communication is terrible because you still don't understand my point even though I've explained over and over again that I don't really care about the semantics. It's the understanding. How about we talk about peoples understanding of Calories? Would that be less controversial for you? I was using the muscle fat thing as an example.

Are you saying you believe everyone on these forums alone have a pretty good understanding of basic science?

I use the statement "muscle weighs more than fat" all the time. It bothers me when people say that I am "wrong" and when I ask why they say things like "a pound equals a pound." This is a tell tale sign that they don't fully understand the concept and probably are just reiterating something they read on the Internets in an attempt to appear smart and important.

By the way, we are agreeing and you don't even realize it.

If someone states "a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat" (for sake of argument, but I have no idea who would say this), yes, that statement can be refuted. I really don't see the need to explain why.

If someone alternatively states "muscle weighs more than fat," and an individual responds with "a pound equals a pound," well, that's a bit puzzling. However, if such a thing did happen to you (and I think you may have confused what was being actually said), I would think (being an engineer and all) you would've had enough experience in life dealing with all those poor ignorant souls that it wouldn't bunch you up quite so badly.

Oh, and you're justifiably proud of knowing the difference between mass and weight, although I don't think it's quite the secret you make it out to be.

jemhh

I realize I've only been here a month but I've dug fairly deep in the threads to read. With that said, can someone point me in the direction of a post where a poster actually said "a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat" and actually meant it?

Instead what I keep seeing are threads such as this or threads about "most annoying fitness myths" or something of that sort.

I can't say that such a thread has never existed but such threads are at least as rare as hens' teeth. You'd think they were common based on how often people comment on the phrasing though.

Hornsby

I have no idea how a replying to "muscles weighs more than fat" with "a pound is a pound" is a tell tale sign that they don't understand the concept.

Again, if I am talking to a fellow engineer, I will say things like "titanium is lighter than steel." We both understand what that means because we both have a pretty high level of confidence in each other's understanding.

Look up in the sky. It's a bird? It's a plane? Nope, it's your credibility flying away.

stevencloser

I have no idea how a replying to "muscles weighs more than fat" with "a pound is a pound" is a tell tale sign that they don't understand the concept.

Again, if I am talking to a fellow engineer, I will say things like "titanium is lighter than steel." We both understand what that means because we both have a pretty high level of confidence in each other's understanding.

Look up in the sky. It's a bird? It's a plane? Nope, it's your credibility flying away.

How so? He's right.

maidentl

I realize I've only been here a month but I've dug fairly deep in the threads to read. With that said, can someone point me in the direction of a post where a poster actually said "a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat" and actually meant it?

Instead what I keep seeing are threads such as this or threads about "most annoying fitness myths" or something of that sort.

It's been a long time, but there used to be a woman here who would indeed argue this. She was fun.

gotolam

I have no idea how a replying to "muscles weighs more than fat" with "a pound is a pound" is a tell tale sign that they don't understand the concept.

Because in an attempt to nitpick the statement they are being incomplete themselves. Are they talking about mass or weight? If it is mass they are 100% correct. If they are talking about weight (which is the assumption) they are not 100% correct (1 lbf on Earth =/= 1lbf on the moon). Therefore, they are making the same mistake as the original speaker by not being complete or providing a clear context. Not only do they sound like pretentious a**holes, but they are demonstrating that they don't completely understand the difference between mass and weight.

Again, if I am talking to a fellow engineer, I will say things like "titanium is lighter than steel." We both understand what that means because we both have a pretty high level of confidence in each other's understanding.

LOL @ calling someone a pretentious *kitten* and then turning around and saying "if I'm talking to a fellow engineer....we both have a pretty high level of confidence in each other's understanding.

I'm obviously not as smart as you so can't tell if that is an ironic or moronic statement.


Also LOL @ your powers of deduction whereby you can determine "that is a tell-tale sign..." just by reading one sentence of an anonymous internet post.

So...now a serious question (I really want to know the answer to this). If someone says, "the sky is blue"; do you take the time to explain to them about how they sky isn't really blue and that what they see is a reflection of light across the spectrum? Because if not...well....global warming.

stevencloser

Jesus Christ, 90% of the people in here didn't get what OP was trying to say at all, it's frustrating.

gotolam

Jesus Christ, 90% of the people in here didn't get what OP was trying to say at all, it's frustrating.

Maybe because we're not all engineers?

Actually, we get it. We just don't care.

yopeeps025

Jesus Christ, 90% of the people in here didn't get what OP was trying to say at all, it's frustrating.

Maybe because we're not all engineers?

Actually, we get it. We just don't care.

Steve_Rance

Just as an aside, it's kilocalories, not calories if we're getting scientificalogicly correct about everything.

So we're all wrong and stoopid.

BigT555

Jesus Christ, 90% of the people in here didn't get what OP was trying to say at all, it's frustrating.

actually i think most of us did, it was just unnecessary information bringing up a topic that has been dissected time and time again here. arbitrary distinctions for the most part

what OP doesn't seem to realize is that with any statement certain implications are going to be made regarding constants (i.e. volume when referring to weight) and in the process brought in crap that has next to nothing to do with anything. mass vs. volume? i think its fair to say that most of us here are not typing from the ISS and dont really need to worry about it

stevencloser

I don't think you do or else you wouldn't have written that last paragraph in your other post.

So let me restate it shorter and simpler.
Person A says Muscle weighs more than fat.
Person B says Nuh-uh, a pound is a pound. or Nuh-uh muscle is more DENSE than fat.

OP is trying to say that Person B's sentence is equally "wrong" as Person A's, which is to say it's not, it just leaves out details that the listener gets out of the implication, see my first post in this thread if you want to, or don't, I'm not your boss.
That is pretty much all there is to it.

juggernaut1974

So after reading through this thread - I just have one question...

If I'm standing on the top of a mountain with an elevation of 13,000 feet above sea level on the planet Vespa...

Which weighs more? A metric ton of bricks or a metric ton of feathers?

Don't ask me how I got a metric ton of feathers up the mountain - assume it's irrelevant to the analysis.

BigT555

I don't think you do or else you wouldn't have written that last paragraph in your other post.

So let me restate it shorter and simpler.
Person A says Muscle weighs more than fat.
Person B says Nuh-uh, a pound is a pound. or Nuh-uh muscle is more DENSE than fat.

OP is trying to say that Person B's sentence is equally "wrong" as Person A's, which is to say it's not, it just leaves out details that the listener gets out of the implication, see my first post in this thread if you want to, or don't, I'm not your boss.
That is pretty much all there is to it.

so it was all basically an "i know more than you do" post. got it

like i said, arbitrary distinctions. you could literally go on and on like this for hours if your going to nitpick every variable that hasnt been explicitly stated