Muscle DOES Weigh More Than Fat
Options
End6ame
Posts: 903
Ok, so I am moving this from my blog to the forums because I have already seen a metric *kitten* load of inaccurate posts/comments on the topic.
There seems to be a lot of confusion on this topic thought, and I don’t understand why. Maybe it is just because of how my thought process works, but I don’t understand how people cannot see that muscle does, in fact, weigh more than fat. So I am going to make a naive attempt at trying to settle this debate once and for all (lol) using simple math and the fundamentals of physics. The results are pretty difficult to argue with and will hopefully give the “lb is a lb” group of people a new perspective on the topic at hand.
So, does muscle weight more than fat? The answer is yes, and here is why.
Weight is a measure of force (so technically it is measured in Newtons), specifically the force gravity has on an object. Whereas, mass is a measure of how much matter an object has (measured in mg, g, kg, etc…). Mass is constant, where as weight is variable; granted we are all on Earth so it should remain relatively constant. I think we can agree on all of this, or at least I hope so, because it is pretty fundamental to the laws of physics.
Furthermore, in order to compare two objects, you need to have both a constant and a variable, otherwise there is really no point in comparing them. Saying that 1lb of fat weighs the same as 1lb of muscle is a given because you are only comparing the two constants and ignoring the variable. That is no different than me saying that 100 calories of butter is the same as 100 calories of lettuce, however the quantities, or volume, of both will obviously differ. So when someone says that muscle weighs more or has more mass than fat it should be assumed that we are not referring to the two obvious constants alone, but are referring to their weights as a variable with respect to a constant volume.
Additionally, It is impossible to say that muscle weighs the same as fat and is, at the same time, denser than fat. When you refer to density you are, by definition, referring to both mass and volume simultaneously because both mass and volume are required to find density. So if Weight = Mass x Gravity and Density = Mass/Volume then we can combine these two equations into one by saying that Weight = (Density x Volume) x Gravity. This equation perfectly illustrates how all three components account for the weight of any given object. Gravity is constant because we are all on Earth, so if we also hold volume constant, and we all agree that muscle is denser than fat, then the outcome of the equation can only result in muscle having a greater weight than fat.
You can even use completely arbitrary numbers to prove this, without the need for specific units or measurements. Let’s say that gravity is represented by the number 5 and volume is represented by the number 2. Since we are holding these to values constant they will be the same for both muscle and fat. We will then give fat a density of 12 and muscle a density of 15. Here it goes:
• Muscle: (15 x 2) x 5 = 150
• Fat: (12 x 2) x 5 = 120
Now, unless we are going to argue about which number is higher, that pretty much settles it. When thinking in terms of this equation there should no longer be any question or debate on the matter. Muscle is heavier, period.
There seems to be a lot of confusion on this topic thought, and I don’t understand why. Maybe it is just because of how my thought process works, but I don’t understand how people cannot see that muscle does, in fact, weigh more than fat. So I am going to make a naive attempt at trying to settle this debate once and for all (lol) using simple math and the fundamentals of physics. The results are pretty difficult to argue with and will hopefully give the “lb is a lb” group of people a new perspective on the topic at hand.
So, does muscle weight more than fat? The answer is yes, and here is why.
Weight is a measure of force (so technically it is measured in Newtons), specifically the force gravity has on an object. Whereas, mass is a measure of how much matter an object has (measured in mg, g, kg, etc…). Mass is constant, where as weight is variable; granted we are all on Earth so it should remain relatively constant. I think we can agree on all of this, or at least I hope so, because it is pretty fundamental to the laws of physics.
Furthermore, in order to compare two objects, you need to have both a constant and a variable, otherwise there is really no point in comparing them. Saying that 1lb of fat weighs the same as 1lb of muscle is a given because you are only comparing the two constants and ignoring the variable. That is no different than me saying that 100 calories of butter is the same as 100 calories of lettuce, however the quantities, or volume, of both will obviously differ. So when someone says that muscle weighs more or has more mass than fat it should be assumed that we are not referring to the two obvious constants alone, but are referring to their weights as a variable with respect to a constant volume.
Additionally, It is impossible to say that muscle weighs the same as fat and is, at the same time, denser than fat. When you refer to density you are, by definition, referring to both mass and volume simultaneously because both mass and volume are required to find density. So if Weight = Mass x Gravity and Density = Mass/Volume then we can combine these two equations into one by saying that Weight = (Density x Volume) x Gravity. This equation perfectly illustrates how all three components account for the weight of any given object. Gravity is constant because we are all on Earth, so if we also hold volume constant, and we all agree that muscle is denser than fat, then the outcome of the equation can only result in muscle having a greater weight than fat.
You can even use completely arbitrary numbers to prove this, without the need for specific units or measurements. Let’s say that gravity is represented by the number 5 and volume is represented by the number 2. Since we are holding these to values constant they will be the same for both muscle and fat. We will then give fat a density of 12 and muscle a density of 15. Here it goes:
• Muscle: (15 x 2) x 5 = 150
• Fat: (12 x 2) x 5 = 120
Now, unless we are going to argue about which number is higher, that pretty much settles it. When thinking in terms of this equation there should no longer be any question or debate on the matter. Muscle is heavier, period.
0
Replies
-
Uh .... no.
A pound of muscle and a pound of fat both weigh a pound. No more, no less.
A pound is a pound whether it's a pound of rock or a pound of marshmallows..
:flowerforyou:0 -
I love this! I have tried to explain it before but have not been successful. This is a much better explanation! Great post!0
-
Uh .... no.
A pound of muscle and a pound of fat both weigh a pound. No more, no less.
a pound of muscle takes up less SPACE... But a pound is a pound whether it's a pound of rock or a pound of marshmallows..
:flowerforyou:
No.
You are in fact wrong. Greg's post is accurate.0 -
Uh .... no.
A pound of muscle and a pound of fat both weigh a pound. No more, no less.
a pound of muscle takes up less SPACE... But a pound is a pound whether it's a pound of rock or a pound of marshmallows..
:flowerforyou:
You obviously didn’t read or understand what I wrote. If it has greater density then it has greater weight.
Weight = (Density x Volume) x Gravity0 -
well done..this reminds me of the physics i took my first year of uni! ughh!0
-
You're so right. 1lb of fat does weigh the same as 1lb of muscle. 1lb = 1 lb, but it's the content of what that pound entails that matters. If I imagine what 1 pound of fat looks like (imagine a pound of butter or lard), compared to what 1 pound of lean muscle looks like - I choose the muscle!!
See also http://www.onemorebite-weightloss.com/muscle-to-fat.html for a picture of 5 Lb. Fat vs. 5 Lb. Muscle.0 -
Uh .... no.
A pound of muscle and a pound of fat both weigh a pound. No more, no less.
A pound is a pound whether it's a pound of rock or a pound of marshmallows..
:flowerforyou:
That is exactly what he is saying. A pounds IS a pound, but it takes MORE fat to weigh 1 lb than it does muscle. It's the same as asking which weighs more: a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks"... they WEIGH the same. But it will most definitely take MORE feathers than bricks to make up that ton. Therefore, if you replace one square foot of fat with one square foot of muscle, then the weight will go up. Get it now?!0 -
It's not logical that you can put an exact pound of muscle in an opaque container and an exact pound of fat in an opaque container and someone would be able to tell you the difference in a blind test based on the weight when they are the same weight. But maybe I'm just dumb - I guess I didnt read it right.0
-
Good one!
Personally I reckon people who nitpick at this have too much time on their hands. I'm a pretty damn pedantic guy but even I would let this one go...
It's heavier. It's denser. It has lower volume for the same mass. Whatever! Doesn't matter how you say it, I know what you mean.
NEXT!
0 -
It's not logical that you can put an exact pound of muscle in an opaque container and an exact pound of fat in an opaque container and someone would be able to tell you the difference in a blind test based on the weight when they are the same weight. But maybe I'm just dumb - I guess I didnt read it right.
You clearly don’t understand. You need both a constant and a variable to make a comparison. All you are comparing is the constant, which by definition… is constant.0 -
It's not logical that you can put an exact pound of muscle in an opaque container and an exact pound of fat in an opaque container and someone would be able to tell you the difference in a blind test based on the weight when they are the same weight. But maybe I'm just dumb - I guess I didnt read it right.
You clearly don’t understand. You need both a constant and a variable to make a comparison. All you are comparing is the constant, which by definition… is constant.
LOL
what I don't seem to understand is why it has to be that complicated. Sorry for boogering up your thread! 0 -
The people that argue that it isn't, KNOW what you mean, but for some reason want to argue about it.
I guess for all the people that want to get so technical about it. We should say it a different way.
Muscle is heavier than fat!0 -
Does it matter?
9 times out of 10 when people use the "muscle weighs more than fat" line its to make someone who is discouraged about not losing weight feel better. Chances are good they didn't gain the exact amount of muscle as fat they lost in their first week on MFP....gaining muscle mass while in a calorie deficit is hard enough as it is.
Move on.0 -
It's not logical that you can put an exact pound of muscle in an opaque container and an exact pound of fat in an opaque container and someone would be able to tell you the difference in a blind test based on the weight when they are the same weight. But maybe I'm just dumb - I guess I didnt read it right.
You clearly don’t understand. You need both a constant and a variable to make a comparison. All you are comparing is the constant, which by definition… is constant.
LOL what I don't seem to understand is why it has to be that complicated. Sorry for boogering up your thread!
It is actually not complicated. People use constants and variable in everyday life without even realizing it. If I am comparing two cars that cost the same, cost is the constant, where as their features and functionality become the variables. But for some reason, people seem to lose this logical thinking when it comes to fat and muscle.0 -
But when you step on the scale a pound is a pound...period.0
-
Because:
Weight= mass x gravity,
Then,
Muscle is more dense than fat.
But,
Saying it "weighs more" is completely arbitrary because for equal masses THEY HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT.0 -
Perhaps it helps to say that this is why I weigh about the same as before but my clothes are loose; through exercise (and nutrition) I have built muscle and am smaller as a result.0
-
Uh .... no.
A pound of muscle and a pound of fat both weigh a pound. No more, no less.
a pound of muscle takes up less SPACE... But a pound is a pound whether it's a pound of rock or a pound of marshmallows..
:flowerforyou:
You obviously didn’t read or understand what I wrote. If it has greater density then it has greater weight.
Weight = (Density x Volume) x Gravity
Actually, while your physics and math calculations are correct, your assessment of the argument is flawed. The common misconception is that a pound of fat is somehow lighter than a pound of muscle (i.e. "muscle weighs more than fat"). This statement is not true as "one pound" is a standard unit of measurement and, as such, is a constant. Your statement that muscle is denser is absolutely correct, thus a 100 pound person with a high ratio of muscle to fat will appear smaller than a 100 pound person with a high ratio of fat to muscle. The first individual will in fact have a smaller volume. In your calculations, you held volume as a constant which would be correct if the argument was that "muscle is denser than fat".0 -
I think the term "muscle is heavier than fat" is accurate. However, people get confused when they add poundage, when this is obviously a density issue.0
-
Because:
Weight= mass x gravity,
Then,
Muscle is more dense than fat.
But,
Saying it "weighs more" is completely arbitrary because for equal masses THEY HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT.
Yes, but Mass = Density x Volume, so for the same mass there would be a greater volume of muscle.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions