PSA: Muscles do not weigh more than fat.

Options
1…79111213

Replies

  • Chipmaniac
    Chipmaniac Posts: 642 Member
    Options
    Wrong. Floating on your back has nothing to do with whether you sink or not. If you were to simply hold your breath and orientate yourself verticallly in the water, you would still float just like when you are on your back. The same mass of you would be above the water as when you were on your back. The reason floating on your back is preferred is because it keeps your face out of the water.

    Humans, when their lungs are full, do not sink. It's when you exhale or worse displace the air in your lungs with water that you sink as you have changed your density since the air in your lungs was lowering your average density. Try it sometime in a pool.

    It's called buoyancy. Please google it. I am apparently not doing a good job explaining it. Yes, density plays a factor but shape is more important. This is why iron ships float, yet a chunk of iron does not.
    To push a V-hull boat under water, you have to submerge not just the material in the hull but the air and material contained within it. The density is all of these masses combined divided by volume. It still comes down to density, plain and simple. Perhaps your Google is broken.

    What about boats without enclosed hulls? I maintain that floatation is not only dictated by density but by the shape of an object. Pretty sure I learned this in elementary school. I found this on a kids' website:
    The object is buoyed up (pushed up) by a force that is equal to the weight of the water that the object occupies that was previously occupied by the water. If you shape the object is in such a way that it occupies a volume of water whose weight equals that of the object, the object will float. If it occupies a volume of water whose weight is less than the weight of the object, the object will sink.

    You can show this to yourself by taking a piece of aluminum foil and making a water-tight boat out of it. If you carefully put the boat in a dish or pan of water, you will see it float.

    Now take the aluminum foil boat and crumple it up into a ball and put it back on the water. It sinks! There is the same amount of aluminum foil in both cases, but in the case of the boat, you shaped it so that it displaced a lot of water compared to the amount of water that is displaced when you crumpled the aluminum foil into a ball.
    You are misinterpreting it. The shape of a standard hull forces the air inside it to be a part of its density calculation, thus lowering it's average density below that of the water that would displace it. If you made a boat of solid iron with the same exact shape it would sink like a rock as there would be no air or other lighter material (even wood is less dense than water) to lower its average density.

    From your citation:
    If you shape the object is in such a way that it occupies a volume of water whose weight equals that of the object, the object will float. If it occupies a volume of water whose weight is less than the weight of the object, the object will sink.
    This is density stated in another way.
  • rob1976
    rob1976 Posts: 1,328 Member
    Options
    7 pages on this? Seriously?

    Some people take their densities very seriously.

    I mean... destinies...

    I believe Obi-Wan once said, "You cannot escape your density."
    No, that was Vader and he said "Luke, you need dentistry"
  • JNick77
    JNick77 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Options
    This debate will never go away! You just get used to it after a while :ohwell:

    I don't even know what the debate is about if you think about it. A pound is a pound is a pound... 16oz's = 1lb / 1lb = 16oz, it doesn't matter what substance it is. Now if you want to say for instance that 16 cubic-centimeters of substance "A" is heavier than 16 cubic centimeters of substance "B", no you're on to something. My favorite analogy is, if you were forced to choose between the two; would you rather get smacked in the face with a 36-inch aluminum baseball bat or 36-inch nerf baseball bat?
  • ZeroWoIf
    ZeroWoIf Posts: 588 Member
    Options
    Muscle and Fat weight about the same. If you are talking about density then that is a different subject.
  • ElizabethRoad
    ElizabethRoad Posts: 5,138 Member
    Options
    Isn't there a rule against divisive topics? Seriously, this topic should be banned. Each side knows what the other side means and the whole purpose of the thread is to start an argument. (At least I hope that's it, because otherwise people are even stupider than I thought.)
  • Chipmaniac
    Chipmaniac Posts: 642 Member
    Options
    Muscle and Fat weight about the same. If you are talking about density then that is a different subject.
    You and I must weigh the same as well. After all, a pound of me weighs the same as a pound of you.

    "Muscle weighs more than fat" is not wrong, it's just a bit imprecise as the fixed constant (volume) is not specified. However, we imply things all the time in the English language and the world keeps right on turning.

    Guess what? The statement "Muscle does not weigh more than fat" is equally imprecise as it also is missing context, in this case the constant is weight.

    Of course, making the weight itself the constant when you are comparing weight is absurd. That's why the OP and others are completely off base with their assertion.
  • jillica
    jillica Posts: 554 Member
    Options
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
  • hiker359
    hiker359 Posts: 577 Member
    Options
    Thank you, Captain Obvious!
  • KaidaKantri
    KaidaKantri Posts: 401
    Options
    Silly Taso, everyone knows that copy paper is lighter than a dumbbell even if they weigh the same!

    If they weight the same then one cannot be lighter than the other. Logic people.
  • Pimpmonkey
    Pimpmonkey Posts: 566
    Options
    By this logic there is no difference between a feather and a pile of poop.

    Oh, there's a difference. Has someone ever tried to tickle you with the latter?


    Awesome!
  • amyowens08
    amyowens08 Posts: 107 Member
    Options
    I'm going to go pull my hair out now.
  • Canadien
    Canadien Posts: 122 Member
    Options
    Ah-ha! Excellent point my friend, but a challenger appears! Take a piece each of fat and muscle, portioning equal volume betwixt the two. A square inch of muscle would indeed exert more gravitational force than a square inch of fat!

    I have no idea why I typed like that, but I was really into it.

    I applaud you, Miss.
  • KaidaKantri
    KaidaKantri Posts: 401
    Options
    Isn't there a rule against divisive topics? Seriously, this topic should be banned. Each side knows what the other side means and the whole purpose of the thread is to start an argument. (At least I hope that's it, because otherwise people are even stupider than I thought.)

    Ever hear of debate?
  • Pedal_Pusher
    Pedal_Pusher Posts: 1,166 Member
    Options
    I think this was already posted a while back. Could be wrong...............
  • Pimpmonkey
    Pimpmonkey Posts: 566
    Options
    Isn't there a rule against divisive topics? Seriously, this topic should be banned. Each side knows what the other side means and the whole purpose of the thread is to start an argument. (At least I hope that's it, because otherwise people are even stupider than I thought.)

    LOL!!!
  • Lennox497
    Lennox497 Posts: 242 Member
    Options
    Yup I second the notion....Eat more than 1200 calories you're a man!
    Either way, the solution is obvious:

    Eat 1200 daily calories.

    The only question remaining is, what is the effect of eating back all, some, or none of my exercise calories?

    please, eat more than that.
  • KittieLea
    KittieLea Posts: 1,156 Member
    Options
    Does a pound of dog crap weigh more than a pound of human crap?
  • future_runner
    future_runner Posts: 136 Member
    Options
    What about about a lb of copy paper vs a 1 lb dumbbell?

    This... inquiring minds never got the answer to this one so long ago...
  • IronmanPanda
    IronmanPanda Posts: 2,083 Member
    Options
    A pound of muscles equals a pound of fat. However, muscle is denser than fat; therefore a pound of muscle takes up less space than a pound of fat.

    Very interesting... I have never seen this topic here before.
  • JNick77
    JNick77 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Options
    Isn't there a rule against divisive topics? Seriously, this topic should be banned. Each side knows what the other side means and the whole purpose of the thread is to start an argument. (At least I hope that's it, because otherwise people are even stupider than I thought.)

    Ever hear of debate?

    Debating on anything but Christianity is perfectly fine. But if you touch upon the Christian faith because of course that's the only religion in the world :noway: then the topic will get banned.

Categories