If I'm not allowed to use the word 'tone'...

jonnythan

Sorry, but as an example, people will simply say that muscle weighs more than fat. That is not strictly true as a stand alone statement. Muscle weighs more by volume than fat due to its higher density.

By unit, in this case volume, is implied.

Trucks weigh more than bicycles is true. Because one unit of trucks weigh more than one unit of bicycles. While one pound of bicycles weighs the same as one pound of trucks, no rational person would assume that we are comparing pounds to pounds.

Similarly no rational person would assume that you were comparing pounds of muscle to pounds of fat. Muscle does weigh more than fat in the same way that trucks weigh more than bicycles.

A truck is a single unit. A bicycle is a single unit.

There's no such thing as "a fat." Fat is a mass noun. Its base unit is generally pounds, not liters or cubic inches. We talk about pounds of fat, not quarts of fat. Same with muscle: pounds of muscle, not units of volume.

So if we spoke about fat and muscle in terms of units of volume, then one unit of fat would weigh less than one unit of muscle. However, the units are almost always units of mass. Therefore, one unit of fat weighs the same as one unit of muscle.

The other side of the coin is that one unit if fat is larger than one unit of muscle. So, if anything, we should be saying "fat is more bulky than muscle" or "fat takes up more space than muscle." This makes infinitely more sense, since one unit (pound) of fat has a larger volume than one unit (pound) of muscle.

BurtHuttz

A truck is a single unit. A bicycle is a single unit.

There's no such thing as "a fat." Fat is a mass noun. Its base unit is generally pounds, not liters or cubic inches. We talk about pounds of fat, not quarts of fat. Same with muscle: pounds of muscle, not units of volume.

So if we spoke about fat and muscle in terms of units of volume, then one unit of fat would weigh less than one unit of muscle. However, the units are almost always units of mass. Therefore, one unit of fat weighs the same as one unit of muscle.

The other side of the coin is that one unit if fat is larger than one unit of muscle. So, if anything, we should be saying "fat is more bulky than muscle" or "fat takes up more space than muscle." This makes infinitely more sense, since one unit (pound) of fat has a larger volume than one unit (pound) of muscle.

We agree that "a truck" is a quantity and unit as is "a bicycle".

You can insist that people are saying that pounds of muscle weigh more than pounds of fat, but you know that to be untrue.

"By volume" is implied quite clearly.

Edited to add: A brick weighs more than a feather, and by volume, bricks weigh more than feathers. It needn't be specified that you're talking about volume when the only reason for differential weight is density.

jonnythan

A truck is a single unit. A bicycle is a single unit.

There's no such thing as "a fat." Fat is a mass noun. Its base unit is generally pounds, not liters or cubic inches. We talk about pounds of fat, not quarts of fat. Same with muscle: pounds of muscle, not units of volume.

So if we spoke about fat and muscle in terms of units of volume, then one unit of fat would weigh less than one unit of muscle. However, the units are almost always units of mass. Therefore, one unit of fat weighs the same as one unit of muscle.

The other side of the coin is that one unit if fat is larger than one unit of muscle. So, if anything, we should be saying "fat is more bulky than muscle" or "fat takes up more space than muscle." This makes infinitely more sense, since one unit (pound) of fat has a larger volume than one unit (pound) of muscle.

We agree that "a truck" is a quantity and unit as is "a bicycle".

You can insist that people are saying that pounds of muscle weigh more than pounds of fat, but you know that to be untrue.

"By volume" is implied quite clearly.

Edited to add: A brick weighs more than a feather, and by volume, bricks weigh more than feathers. It needn't be specified that you're talking about volume when the only reason for differential weight is density.

Again, a brick is itself a unit the way a truck is. We measure bricks in number of bricks. We measure feathers in number of feathers. A unit of bricks does indeed weigh more than a unit of feathers, because one brick weighs more than one feather.

We don't measure fat in number of fat. We measure fat in pounds. One fat doesn't weigh more than one muscle. That's meaningless. One pound of fat doesn't weigh more than one pound of muscle.

However, fat is more bulky than muscle. That's a comparison with meaning, rooted in the way we talk about fat and muscle. (One pound of) fat is more bulky than (one pound of) muscle. That makes a lot more sense than (one liter of) muscle weighs more than (one liter of) fat. When talking about quantities of fat, the implied part is weight, not volume. So the comparison makes much more sense to compare the volumes since the weight is the implied part.

BurtHuttz

Again, a brick is itself a unit the way a truck is. We measure bricks in number of bricks. We measure feathers in number of feathers. A unit of bricks does indeed weigh more than a unit of feathers, because one brick weighs more than one feather.

We don't measure fat in number of fat. We measure fat in pounds. One fat doesn't weigh more than one muscle. That's meaningless. One pound of fat doesn't weigh more than one pound of muscle.

However, fat is more bulky than muscle. That's a comparison with meaning, rooted in the way we talk about fat and muscle. (One pound of) fat is more bulky than (one pound of) muscle. That makes a lot more sense than (one liter of) muscle weighs more than (one liter of) fat. When talking about quantities of fat, the implied part is weight, not volume. So the comparison makes much more sense to compare the volumes since the weight is the implied part.

So everyone else in a vast majority that understands exactly what is being implied when someone compares the relative weight of fat versus muscle is wrong. Let me reiterate that only someone with a learning disability would contrast a unit of measurement against itself. But funny enough you go on to describe fat volumetrically ("bulky"), meaning that you understand precisely what is said when someone describes the relative weight of fat and muscle. So, you're either playing devil's advocate or you have a really strong belief about this, and are thus wasting my time.

jonnythan

Again, a brick is itself a unit the way a truck is. We measure bricks in number of bricks. We measure feathers in number of feathers. A unit of bricks does indeed weigh more than a unit of feathers, because one brick weighs more than one feather.

We don't measure fat in number of fat. We measure fat in pounds. One fat doesn't weigh more than one muscle. That's meaningless. One pound of fat doesn't weigh more than one pound of muscle.

However, fat is more bulky than muscle. That's a comparison with meaning, rooted in the way we talk about fat and muscle. (One pound of) fat is more bulky than (one pound of) muscle. That makes a lot more sense than (one liter of) muscle weighs more than (one liter of) fat. When talking about quantities of fat, the implied part is weight, not volume. So the comparison makes much more sense to compare the volumes since the weight is the implied part.

So everyone else in a vast majority that understands exactly what is being implied when someone compares the relative weight of fat versus muscle is wrong. Let me reiterate that only someone with a learning disability would contrast a unit of measurement against itself. But funny enough you go on to describe fat volumetrically ("bulky"), meaning that you understand precisely what is said when someone describes the relative weight of fat and muscle. So, you're either playing devil's advocate or you have a really strong belief about this, and are thus wasting my time.

The vast majority of people think "begs the question" means the same thing as "raises the question." That doesn't mean it's right. Furthermore, "muscle weighs more than fat" does actually confuse people sometimes, because it's literally incorrect.

The better thing to do is make the comparison between the volume of a unit (pound) of fat versus the volume of a unit (pound) of muscle.

"Fat is more bulky than muscle" simply makes more sense than "muscle weighs more than fat" because units of weight are implied. The first amounts to "pounds of x are more bulky than pounds of y" while the second is basically "pounds of x weigh more than pounds of y."

soldier4242

Sorry, but as an example, people will simply say that muscle weighs more than fat. That is not strictly true as a stand alone statement. Muscle weighs more by volume than fat due to its higher density.

It is impossible to compare the weight of any two things if you don't know how much of each thing you have. This is why you have to assume equal quantity in order to compare the weights of two substances.

Think of it like this. If we had two scales and we were trying to put 100 pounds on each scale. On one scale we can place
1" cubes of fat and on the other scale we place 1" cubes of muscle. We place the cubes one at a time keeping everything equal. The scale which is being filled with 1" cubes of muscle will reach 100 pounds first because the muscle weighs more than the fat. Anytime anyone is telling you that X weighs more than Y they are claiming that if you had equal quantities of both X would weigh more. Mass is a part of the definition of weight.

Now if you were to place one pound of muscle and one pound of fat on to each scale obviously both scales would reach 100 pounds at the same time. Take notice however that you are not placing 1" cubes you are place whatever quantity equals a pound. At the end when you look at the two scales both being at 100 you would see that the scale with 100 pounds of fat would have a lot more mass on top of it.

This is not bro science. This is just science. I hope I have done a satisfactory job of explaining this.

BurtHuttz

This is not bro science. This is just science. I hope I have done a satisfactory job of explaining this.

No point. Helium and atmosphere weigh the same, granite and water weigh the same, lead and aluminum weigh the same, everything weighs the same as everything else.

soldier4242

This is not bro science. This is just science. I hope I have done a satisfactory job of explaining this.

No point. Helium and atmosphere weigh the same, granite and water weigh the same, lead and aluminum weigh the same, everything weighs the same as everything else.

I sense that this is sarcasm. So in the spirit of good humor I choose to laugh with you. :laugh:

sheldonz42

This is not bro science. This is just science. I hope I have done a satisfactory job of explaining this.

No point. Helium and atmosphere weigh the same, granite and water weigh the same, lead and aluminum weigh the same, everything weighs the same as everything else.

I sense that this is sarcasm. So in the spirit of good humor I choose to laugh with you. :laugh:

Sorry, guys, but one pound of anything DOES weigh the same as one pound of anything else AS BOTH WEIGH ONE POUND. Physics and real science does apply here. The problem is English I suppose... I know the implication that is meant when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat." That doesn't make the statement true as it stands. Call it semantics if you like. Call me a moron if you choose. Neither changes the facts.

muchadoaboutme2000

you are over thirty, and not avril lavigne. don't use sk8 either.

But what if she meets a sk8tr boi? Should she say "See ya later boi."?

kuntry_navy

**** diesel

alright it starred out the word, but the name of a rooster chicken or the name of a man's penis starting with a c

AnninStPaul

Use 'epididymis'

Nobody will have any idea what you're talking about, but it's a terribly fun word to say

Why would she reference the male reproductive system?

ninerbuff

Defined, conditioned, firm, solid, adamantine, etc.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

runningagainstmyself

Use 'epididymis'

Nobody will have any idea what you're talking about, but it's a terribly fun word to say

HA! I know what you're talking about. ~took biology~ :P

runningagainstmyself

This is not bro science. This is just science. I hope I have done a satisfactory job of explaining this.

No point. Helium and atmosphere weigh the same, granite and water weigh the same, lead and aluminum weigh the same, everything weighs the same as everything else.

I sense that this is sarcasm. So in the spirit of good humor I choose to laugh with you. :laugh:

Sorry, guys, but one pound of anything DOES weigh the same as one pound of anything else AS BOTH WEIGH ONE POUND. Physics and real science does apply here. The problem is English I suppose... I know the implication that is meant when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat." That doesn't make the statement true as it stands. Call it semantics if you like. Call me a moron if you choose. Neither changes the facts.

I agree. 1lb muscle weighs the same as 1lb of fat. HOWEVER~ I think what people try to say, without saying it correctly, is that 1lb muscle takes up less room (i.e., it's more dense) in the human body than 1lb of fat does.