Do you agree or disagree .....

AmberJo1984

I really don't see how muscle "weighs more" than fat. It's leaner than fat. It takes up less room than fat... but, I don't think it "weighs more" than fat.

kenazfehu

I thought everybody understood that what is meant by "muscle weighs more than fat" is that 5 pounds of muscle takes up a lot less room than 5 pounds of fat, so if you wanted enough muscle to take up the amount of space that 5 pounds of fat takes up, the muscle would weigh a lot more than 5 pounds.

sgthaggard

I really don't see how muscle "weighs more" than fat. It's leaner than fat. It takes up less room than fat... but, I don't think it "weighs more" than fat.

I could just as easily say - What do you mean it takes up less room than fat? - a cubic foot of fat takes up the same amount of room as a cubic foot of muscle.

We are talking about two different variables here - volume and weight. If you hold volume constant, muscle weighs more than fat. If you hold weight constant, fat has a greater volume (takes up more room) than muscle.

cherbapp

I hate when I see people thinking a few pound gain a week after a workout is from muscle gain. Lol

Yeah...you would have to convert literally 2 GALLONS of your fat into muscle to see just over two pounds difference in body weight. That means LOSING 15 pounds of fat and BUILDING 17.6 pounds of muscle.

A gallon of fat weighs 7.5 pounds and a gallon of muscle weighs 8.8 pounds. So if a 200 pound person is 35% body fat....they have a little less than 10 gallons of fat. Convert HALF of the fat into muscle, and they would be at 17% body fat....however they would now take up about 4% less space. And look like a football player. Lol

The numbers just aren't as drastic as people think they are. Or wish they were.

bathsheba_c

I think my favorite was when I told someone on the site that everyone knows that "per unit volume" is implied, and what everyone really means is that muscle is denser than fat. And then he called me a moron because everyone knows that muscle takes up less volume than fat (no mention of weight included).

cherbapp

I thought everybody understood that what is meant by "muscle weighs more than fat" is that 5 pounds of muscle takes up a lot less room than 5 pounds of fat, so if you wanted enough muscle to take up the amount of space that 5 pounds of fat takes up, the muscle would weigh a lot more than 5 pounds.

It would weigh about 6 pounds.

beckajw

I really don't see how muscle "weighs more" than fat. It's leaner than fat. It takes up less room than fat... but, I don't think it "weighs more" than fat.

A cubic inch of muscle does NOT take up less room than a cubic inch of fat.

--See how stupid this argument is??

jesse1379

chubbygirl253

a pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same. A pound. but a pound of muscle takes up less space than a pound of fat.

secretlobster

Finally, thanks to this post, this controversial topic will be put to rest, once and for all.

yarwell

I thought everybody understood that what is meant by "muscle weighs more than fat" is that 5 pounds of muscle takes up a lot less room than 5 pounds of fat,

Always simpler to be correct rather than be wrong and hope others see it from the same viewpoint :-) *kitten*-u-me nothing.

The link in the OP is about people who are not losing weight so where exactly does volume come into it ?

sillybeachgirl

muscle is more dense than fat, so for example a cup of muscle would weigh more than a cup of fat...so if you look at 5lbs of muscle vs 5lbs of fat, the fat will take up more space...source* http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/busting-the-muscle-weighs-more-than-fat-myth.aspx

sgthaggard

I thought everybody understood that what is meant by "muscle weighs more than fat" is that 5 pounds of muscle takes up a lot less room than 5 pounds of fat,

Always simpler to be correct rather than be wrong and hope others see it from the same viewpoint :-) *kitten*-u-me nothing.

The link in the OP is about people who are not losing weight so where exactly does volume come into it ?

The assumption is that most people here have a level of intelligence that doesn't require us to spell everything out for them like they are 5-year-olds. The idea that we can be smaller but weigh more due to the development of muscle is a very basic fitness concept. My bet is that even those parroting the tiresome mantra of "a pound weighs a pound" understand it.

hughtwalker

It would seem that brain is denser than fat too

jesse1379

It would seem that brain is denser than fat too

Actually if Im not mistaken brain matter is mostly fat lol.

PamelaKuz

The best post ever!

It would seem that brain is denser than fat too

chivalryder

Finally, thanks to this post, this controversial topic will be put to rest, once and for all.

If only...

chrishgt4

Finally, thanks to this post, this controversial topic will be put to rest, once and for all.

I can't help but reply to the pedants though...this is one thing the trolls will always win with for me.....

Pixi_Rex

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.

I agree with this 100%.

solyhhit

Finally, thanks to this post, this controversial topic will be put to rest, once and for all.

This might be the greatest comment I've seen on here yet.