Do you agree or disagree .....

jasperuk

....with the web sites assumption on the muscle weights more than fat scenario .... ????


http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/weight-loss-plateau-myth-muscle-weighs-more-than-fat/

yarwell

"And please, for the love of God, can we all stop saying this nonsensical phrase? Seriously. Muscle weighs more than fat… WTF does that even mean?"

agreed.

If someone was declining in volume and staying the same weight the increase in dense muscle at the expense of fluffy fat might be something to do with it, but I doubt anyone not covered in marker pen or tattoos can measure that accurately.

chrishgt4

"And please, for the love of God, can we all stop saying this nonsensical phrase? Seriously. Muscle weighs more than fat… WTF does that even mean?"

agreed.

People disagreeing with that statement is a bug bear of mine...

I understand why people disagree with the statement 'muscle weighs more than fat' but really, those people are either being deliberately objective or are incapable of making appropriate assumptions given conversational context.

Clearly, in the above statement, the person saying it is assuming that we are intelligent enough to know that they are referring to weight by volume. It speaks to a person's intelligence if, when they are confronted with that statement, they assume that they are talking about equal weights being different.

Also, the person didn't say "A pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat", so why did you make that assumption? You have intentionally made the wrong context assumption to be deliberately awkward.

In the same way; if I were to say "humans weigh more than pigeons". You wouldn't argue I was wrong because 200lbs of humans is the same as 200lbs of pigeons (or maybe you would).

The sentence isn't wrong, it is just incomplete because humans have the intelligence to fill in the gaps.

TheRoadDog

Muscle is denser than fat.. That work for you?

Juliejustsaying

ummm, a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat...i don't get it. :grumble: :noway:

jesse1379

I always looked at it like this. A pound of feathers compared to a pound of sand...they both weigh the same but look extremely opposite in terms of size and volume. Pretty simple to me.

MrsGSR

This reminds me of the joke: "What weighs more, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?"

The sentance itself isn't incorrect, if you have the same volume of muscle and fat, the muscle weighs more. That is a fact. I think what the article is disagreeing with is the fact people use 'muscle weighs more than fat' to excuse why they haven't lost weight.
Thats crap. As the article states, you can lose fat much, much faster than you can gain muscle.

In 99% of cases using 'muslce weighs more than fat' as an excuse is wrong and not the reason someone isn't losing weight. But the fact remains that muscle DOES weigh more than fat in equal volumes.

LorinaLynn

In the almost 2 years I've been here, I've only encountered ONE deluded person who actually believed that one pound of something weighted more than one pound of something else, and mercifully, she doesn't post any more.

Everyone else who uses that phrase understands that the words "by volume" are implied.

If you ask someone, "What's more valuable, gold or cow manure?" no one is going to say that $1000 of gold is worth the same as $1000 of cow poop.

I'm more annoyed that people think they're "gaining muscle" from doing two days of the 30DS on 1200 calories.

ChrisRS87

I agree with the article as a whole, but

"And please, for the love of God, can we all stop saying this nonsensical phrase? Seriously. Muscle weighs more than fat… WTF does that even mean?"

agreed.

I think people who make this argument are just pedantic nazis. Obviously its a comparison in density, where 1 lb of muscle has less volume then 1 lb of fat.

The sky is blue! No, the sky only appears blue because of the polarization of the sunlight entering the atmosphere.
Seriously? :grumble:

MinnieInMaine

I agree that we should stop saying it! Forgetting the whole volume/weight argument... I think it's a myth and a poor excuses that people use to justify weight fluctuations. For women especially, it's very difficult to gain muscle unless you're on a regimented diet and exercise routine, and even then, you're lucky to gain 1/4 pound of muscle in a month. What is usually happening is either you're eating more than you think you are, eating far less than you should (causing plateau) or you're retaining water (either through high sodium intake or muscle fiber water/glycogen retention during DOMS).

untouchable86

I always looked at it like this. A pound of feathers compared to a pound of sand...they both weigh the same but look extremely opposite in terms of size and volume. Pretty simple to me.

^^^^^this^^^^^

sgthaggard

"And please, for the love of God, can we all stop saying this nonsensical phrase? Seriously. Muscle weighs more than fat… WTF does that even mean?"

agreed.

People disagreeing with that statement is a bug bear of mine...

I understand why people disagree with the statement 'muscle weighs more than fat' but really, those people are either being deliberately objective or are incapable of making appropriate assumptions given conversational context.

Clearly, in the above statement, the person saying it is assuming that we are intelligent enough to know that they are referring to weight by volume. It speaks to a person's intelligence if, when they are confronted with that statement, they assume that they are talking about equal weights being different.

Also, the person didn't say "A pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat", so why did you make that assumption? You have intentionally made the wrong context assumption to be deliberately awkward.

In the same way; if I were to say "humans weigh more than pigeons". You wouldn't argue I was wrong because 200lbs of humans is the same as 200lbs of pigeons (or maybe you would).

The sentence isn't wrong, it is just incomplete because humans have the intelligence to fill in the gaps.

I'm warming this bench. It irritates me to hear people say "A pound of fat weighs as much as a pound of muscle". Really? No kidding. :yawn: And a pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of lead and a pound of me weighs the same as a pound of you.

A person capable of making intuitive leaps would assume that what is meant is that fat weighs less than the same volume of muscle.

AlsDonkBoxSquat

how about everyone who says this also states the implied "per volume" instead of assuming that everyone who reads that has the sense to understand that those two words are implied? Would that unwad your panties?

Sick_Beard

There is a serious lack of common sense on this site...

AlsDonkBoxSquat

I agree with the article as a whole, but

"And please, for the love of God, can we all stop saying this nonsensical phrase? Seriously. Muscle weighs more than fat… WTF does that even mean?"

agreed.

I think people who make this argument are just pedantic nazis. Obviously its a comparison in density, where 1 lb of muscle has less volume then 1 lb of fat.

The sky is blue! No, the sky only appears blue because of the polarization of the sunlight entering the atmosphere.
Seriously? :grumble:

What's an atmosphere?

sgthaggard

What's an atmosphere?

The pressure that will support a column of mercury 760 mm high at sea level and 0 degrees centigrade under standard gravity.

shimewazaMan

Muscle is denser than fat.. That work for you?

Thank you!!!!! Been saying that to people for years!

bsgkid

Muscle is denser than fat.. That work for you?

This fixes the problem without insulting anyone's intelligence....:flowerforyou:

thr33martins

"And please, for the love of God, can we all stop saying this nonsensical phrase? Seriously. Muscle weighs more than fat… WTF does that even mean?"

agreed.

People disagreeing with that statement is a bug bear of mine...

I understand why people disagree with the statement 'muscle weighs more than fat' but really, those people are either being deliberately objective or are incapable of making appropriate assumptions given conversational context.

Clearly, in the above statement, the person saying it is assuming that we are intelligent enough to know that they are referring to weight by volume. It speaks to a person's intelligence if, when they are confronted with that statement, they assume that they are talking about equal weights being different.

Also, the person didn't say "A pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat", so why did you make that assumption? You have intentionally made the wrong context assumption to be deliberately awkward.

In the same way; if I were to say "humans weigh more than pigeons". You wouldn't argue I was wrong because 200lbs of humans is the same as 200lbs of pigeons (or maybe you would).

The sentence isn't wrong, it is just incomplete because humans have the intelligence to fill in the gaps.

I am going to copy this for future use. Never have I seen this argument made in such an articulate and complete manner. You are ABSOLUTELY correct. THANK YOU!!

elka67

Muscle is denser than fat.. That work for you?

This fixes the problem without insulting anyone's intelligence....:flowerforyou:

But some people are denser than others ;-)

LuckyMe381

I pound is a pound however....if you take a bucket full of muscle and a bucket full of fat - the bucket full of muscle will weigh more...it takes more fat to equal a lbs than it does muscle....make sence?