Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat.
lvfunandfit
Posts: 654 Member
That saying drives me crazy. A woman I work with today was trying to tell another co work that muscle weighs more than fat. I don't like to come off like a know it all. So I didn't butt in, but I did email the person who was getting the wrong info to explain.
A pound is a pound no matter what you are weighing. A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of bricks. You will need less bricks to make a pound. This goes for muscle and fat. Muscle is more dense and takes up less room than fat. If you think of a lb of muscle about the size of your fist and a lb of fat about the size of a loaf of bread, then you it makes sense. That is why people can do an exchange and have the number be the same on the scale for weeks but still lose inches. If you gain a lb of muscle but loose a pound of fat then you are going to get smaller but your weight will be the same.
Sorry.... that just frustrates me when people say muscle weighs more. A pound is a pound regardless of what you are measuring.
A pound is a pound no matter what you are weighing. A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of bricks. You will need less bricks to make a pound. This goes for muscle and fat. Muscle is more dense and takes up less room than fat. If you think of a lb of muscle about the size of your fist and a lb of fat about the size of a loaf of bread, then you it makes sense. That is why people can do an exchange and have the number be the same on the scale for weeks but still lose inches. If you gain a lb of muscle but loose a pound of fat then you are going to get smaller but your weight will be the same.
Sorry.... that just frustrates me when people say muscle weighs more. A pound is a pound regardless of what you are measuring.
0
Replies
-
it drives me crazy too. Glad you posted this.
http://www.onemorebite-weightloss.com/muscle-to-fat.html
this link has a picture and a great explanation.0 -
Yes, but muscle is denser than fat so a square inch of muscle is going to weigh more than a square inch of fat. It is all a matter of how you look at it.
**edit for type-o**0 -
Yes, but muscle is denser than fat so a square inch of muscle is going to weigh more than a square inch of fat. It is all a matter of how you look at it.
**edit for type-o**
This is how I think of it too- technically, muscle does weigh more than fat. A pound is a pound, but a square inch of one is not a square inch of another. A pound of muscle takes up less room than a pound of fat.0 -
I agree, there are lots of says that are commonplace that don't actually mean what they say. In this case, the meaning behind the incorrect facts is that 2 people can be the same size, but one can be unhealty and fat while the other is heathy and muscular. I am sure that you knew that but since we are pointing out the obvious I just thought i would weigh in (lol..get it weigh in)0
-
This drives me ape as well. It's just plain wrong! A pound is a pound. I realize muscle is smaller and more dense than fat, but that's not what you're saying when you say "muscle weighs more than fat".0
-
Yes, but muscle is denser than fat so a square inch of muscle is going to weigh more than a square inch of fat. It is all a matter of how you look at it.
**edit for type-o**
This is how I think of it too- technically, muscle does weigh more than fat. A pound is a pound, but a square inch of one is not a square inch of another. A pound of muscle takes up less room than a pound of fat.
That is not weight, that difference is volume. There is a difference between volume and weight. So technically muscle still does not weigh more than fat.0 -
Thank you! That drives me nuts. Yes muscle is more dense, but I thought we all learned in elementary school that a pound is a pound.0
-
So yes, if you took a pound of muscle and a pound of fat, it is common sence that they would weigh.... a pound!!!
However if you looked at a pound of muscle and a pound of fat they would be quite different in size!
So for arguments sake....
you could look at a big old pound of fat & then compare it to a small lean pound of muscle & therefore determine that muscle does in fact weigh more than fat.... sorry
I'd take a pound of muscle over a pound of fat any day.....it might not make me any lighter on the scale, but it will make me look & feel way better!!0 -
Wow.... who the hell cares?!!!! Sounds like your nit-picking!! :laugh: :laugh: Generally speaking, we all want more muscle than fat...
PotAto : Potato
Anyway....continue your discussion... just had to throw my two cents in there :happy:
Yeah... had to fix my type-o too
0 -
Yes, but muscle is denser than fat so a square inch of muscle is going to weigh more than a square inch of fat. It is all a matter of how you look at it.
**edit for type-o**
This is how I think of it too- technically, muscle does weigh more than fat. A pound is a pound, but a square inch of one is not a square inch of another. A pound of muscle takes up less room than a pound of fat.
That is not weight, that difference is volume. There is a difference between volume and weight. So technically muscle still does not weigh more than fat.
I said that's how *I* think of it.
0 -
Yes, but muscle is denser than fat so a square inch of muscle is going to weigh more than a square inch of fat. It is all a matter of how you look at it.
**edit for type-o**
This is how I think of it too- technically, muscle does weigh more than fat. A pound is a pound, but a square inch of one is not a square inch of another. A pound of muscle takes up less room than a pound of fat.
That is not weight, that difference is volume. There is a difference between volume and weight. So technically muscle still does not weigh more than fat.
I said that's how *I* think of it.
I guess those of us with mathematical backgrounds and think technically are a bit anal about weights and measures.0 -
This drives me ape as well. It's just plain wrong! A pound is a pound. I realize muscle is smaller and more dense than fat, but that's not what you're saying when you say "muscle weighs more than fat".
Exactly!0 -
I'm going to disagree just a tad here:
By unit volume, muscle does weigh more than fat... because muscle is more dense.
But the average person doesn't know or care to know about density and it's relation to mass.
There's no need to get frustrated over this miscommunication.
edit: looks like by the time I wrote this, it has already been said.0 -
Well, of course! We all want more muscle and If I weighed 10 lbs more than I do now but was at 15% body fat I'd be happy! In this case we are talking about volume and how much space muscle takes up vs. the amount of space fat uses. But I agree.... We all want MORE muscle and less fat. It's just a pet peeve of mine. Probably because I taught math for 7 yrs and units of measurement shouldn't be confused (IMO).
This wasn't meant to be a debate or cause an argument. I was just sayin'!0 -
Well, of course! We all want more muscle and If I weighed 10 lbs more than I do now but was at 15% body fat I'd be happy! In this case we are talking about volume and how much space muscle takes up vs. the amount of space fat uses. But I agree.... We all want MORE muscle and less fat. It's just a pet peeve of mine. Probably because I taught math for 7 yrs and units of measurement shouldn't be confused (IMO).
This wasn't meant to be a debate or cause an argument. I was just sayin'!
Don't you know you can't make a statement on MFP these days without it becoming a debate.
0 -
I'm going to disagree just a tad here:
By unit volume, muscle does weigh more than fat... because muscle is more dense.
agreed0 -
Well, of course! We all want more muscle and If I weighed 10 lbs more than I do now but was at 15% body fat I'd be happy! In this case we are talking about volume and how much space muscle takes up vs. the amount of space fat uses. But I agree.... We all want MORE muscle and less fat. It's just a pet peeve of mine. Probably because I taught math for 7 yrs and units of measurement shouldn't be confused (IMO).
This wasn't meant to be a debate or cause an argument. I was just sayin'!
Don't you know you can't make a statement on MFP these days without it becoming a debate.
Apparently I didn't get that memo. LOL :noway:0 -
The problem is the reference to Muscle or Fat as a singular entity having a particular weight.
Take for example this statement: "Elephants weigh more than humans." Is it true? Well it can be, if we make certain assumptions, particular that the avg weight of adult elephants is heavier than the avg weight of adult humans. One could assume that the statement implies 2 newborn baby elephants weigh more than 100 adult humans, but most rational human beings make the correct assumption given the limited amount of information in that statement.
For the case of muscle weighing more than fat, once again the statement but itself is lacking enough detail, if we are assuming that 1 lb of muscle weighs more than 1 lb of fat, then the statement is invalid. Maybe it's 1 muscle fiber, or 1 muscle group, compared to the fat in my belly, I can make a ton of assumptions but the most common assumption is with regards to volume. So in regards to volume (e.g. physical space that is taken up by the substance in question), given equal volumes of muscle to fat, the muscle weighs more than fat.
We make assumptions in communication, these are shortcuts we take so that we don't need to be overly explicit about every detail in order to make a point, that's all it is.0 -
Well, of course! We all want more muscle and If I weighed 10 lbs more than I do now but was at 15% body fat I'd be happy! In this case we are talking about volume and how much space muscle takes up vs. the amount of space fat uses. But I agree.... We all want MORE muscle and less fat. It's just a pet peeve of mine. Probably because I taught math for 7 yrs and units of measurement shouldn't be confused (IMO).
This wasn't meant to be a debate or cause an argument. I was just sayin'!
Don't you know you can't make a statement on MFP these days without it becoming a debate.
Apparently I didn't get that memo. LOL :noway:
Every time this comes up it's a debate. Here's how I keep myself sane. When someone types "muscle weighs more than fat" I mentally tack on "by volume" and move on. Helps the brain cells not spaz too much!0 -
Yes, but muscle is denser than fat so a square inch of muscle is going to weigh more than a square inch of fat. It is all a matter of how you look at it.
**edit for type-o**
This is how I think of it too- technically, muscle does weigh more than fat. A pound is a pound, but a square inch of one is not a square inch of another. A pound of muscle takes up less room than a pound of fat.
That is not weight, that difference is volume. There is a difference between volume and weight. So technically muscle still does not weigh more than fat.
I said that's how *I* think of it.
I guess those of us with mathematical backgrounds and think technically are a bit anal about weights and measures.
Ok i might not have a "mathematical background" but I *think* I remember enough of my highschool math to know that 1 cubic inch of fat & 1 cubic inch of muscle are the same volume correct? and one cubic inch of fat weighs less than 1 cubin inch of muscle correct? and that 1 pound of muscle has less volume than 1 pound of fat correct? so... doesnt that mean muscle weighs more than fat? I mean... again I'm sure I'm not the most "educated" person on this board, so I might be completely off base... so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...0 -
Yes, but muscle is denser than fat so a square inch of muscle is going to weigh more than a square inch of fat. It is all a matter of how you look at it.
**edit for type-o**
This is how I think of it too- technically, muscle does weigh more than fat. A pound is a pound, but a square inch of one is not a square inch of another. A pound of muscle takes up less room than a pound of fat.
That is not weight, that difference is volume. There is a difference between volume and weight. So technically muscle still does not weigh more than fat.
I said that's how *I* think of it.
I guess those of us with mathematical backgrounds and think technically are a bit anal about weights and measures.
Ok i might not have a "mathematical backgroun" but I *think* I remember enough of my highschool math to know that 1 cubic inch of fat & 1 cubic inch of muscle are the same volume correct? and one cubic inch of fat weighs less than 1 cubin inch of muscle correct? and that 1 pound of muscle has less volume than 1 pound of fat correct? so... doesnt that mean muscle weighs more than fat? I mean... again I'm sure I'm not the most "educated" person on this board, so I might be completely off base... so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...
I think you need volume as a definer otherwise you're just stating a basic mathematical fact- a pound is a pound. Then again I, neither, have a mathematical background. :ohwell:0 -
See, all I was doing was explaining a pet peeve of mine. Not putting down anyone's level of education.
Yes, you are correct. The way my co worker was explaining it was incorrect. The common sentence people say is incorrect in the context it is mostly used. The girl had gained 5 lbs and couldn't button her jeans (she was complaining at lunch) and she said, "It's probably muscle since muscle weighs more than fat." It's just not the case and in that instance, how she was explaining it was wrong. I'm sorry to have started a debate here.0 -
See, all I was doing was explaining a pet peeve of mine. Not putting down anyone's level of education.
Yes, you are correct. The way my co worker was explaining it was incorrect. The common sentence people say is incorrect in the context it is mostly used. The girl had gained 5 lbs and couldn't button her jeans (she was complaining at lunch) and she said, "It's probably muscle since muscle weighs more than fat." It's just not the case and in that instance, how she was explaining it was wrong. I'm sorry to have started a debate here.
Don't be sorry!!! It's not your fault people take venting so seriously around here Sometimes you just have to vent and let the debate rage on. In the specific case you just detailed - obviously that was some seriously bad advice! If you gain weight and your pants are looser, that could be an increase in muscle mass, but . . . :ohwell: 0 -
THANK YOU for posting this! It is definitely not the proper thing to be saying. And for those who get frustrated by the scale being stuck- take measurements!!
You'll see that even though the scale stays the same, your clothes will be fitting better and you will look tighter. Cause like it was pointed out a lb of muscle takes up less space than a lb of fat. 0 -
wow i think you all just need some chocolate and a hug 0
-
See, all I was doing was explaining a pet peeve of mine. Not putting down anyone's level of education.
Yes, you are correct. The way my co worker was explaining it was incorrect. The common sentence people say is incorrect in the context it is mostly used. The girl had gained 5 lbs and couldn't button her jeans (she was complaining at lunch) and she said, "It's probably muscle since muscle weighs more than fat." It's just not the case and in that instance, how she was explaining it was wrong. I'm sorry to have started a debate here.
LMAO! really? she actually thought she'd gained muscle since her jeans wouldnt fit??
I wasnt so much answering you as I was the "mathematical background" comment. I was reading BrendaLee's comment and nodding cause it was how I thought of it and felt kinda like my intelligence had been put down when her theory was shot down in that way. maybe thats not how Lioness meant it but thats how I read it.... eh maybe I'm just feeling sensative today :laugh:0 -
I don't have a problem distinguishing between muscle and fat.
Now--what about the toilet paper roll? Over or under?0 -
I lol'ed when I read this.
Muscle weighs more than fat, just like lead weighs more than feathers.
You can always debate what the expression itself means, but the point is (and I think most people understand it) that you can be thin and muscular and weigh the same as someone who has a lot of fat.
What annoys me is people who SAY "Muscle weighs more than fat!" without knowing what that means, and how that applies to the human body. I see it all the time- someone starts up a new fitness regime. They work out for maybe a week or two, and don't see any results right away. They complain. Some well-meaning person steps up and says, "Oh, muscle weighs more than fat! You're just losing fat, but gaining muscle."
The problem is, they don't have a REAL understanding of how a human body actually builds muscle mass, how long it takes, etc. They're repeating a 'catch phrase' and, in the process, spreading misinformation.0 -
One pound of fat weighs the same as one pound of muscle, which weighs the same as one pound of feathers, which weighs the same as one pound of brinks. They all weigh one pound. Like the childhood riddle, "Which weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of brinks". They both way a pound, of course.
However, "Muscle is heavier by volume than fat."
MFP can be entertaining and informative. Keep up the lively discussions, which are full of the hope for better health to all!! :flowerforyou:0 -
I don't have a problem distinguishing between muscle and fat.
Now--what about the toilet paper roll? Over or under?
Oooh, now that's a debate you don't want to start!
Over.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions