Muscle weighs more than fat (?!!!)

Options
1…45679

Replies

  • digitalbath11
    digitalbath11 Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    [Weight (w) = Mass (m) * Gravity (g)
    Density (d) = Mass / Volume (V)

    Therefore,
    m = w/g
    and
    m = dV

    From this, we can say that
    w/g = dV

    Now solve for w..
    w=dVg

    This is why "muscle weighs more than fat".

    So now you've got physics and science disagreeing with you, too. ]



    Math...

    Hurts people's eyes!
  • mojohowitz
    mojohowitz Posts: 900 Member
    Options
    It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
  • jilliew
    jilliew Posts: 255 Member
    Options
    Oh, I would also like to add another "stupid" post. I would argue that people DO measure themselves by volume. All the time. The space you take up in the environment around you is volume, is it not? Do people not measure their waistlines in inches? Do people not observe the volume they take up with they look in the mirror? Or the amount of material it takes to cover their bodies?
  • BrotherBill913
    BrotherBill913 Posts: 661 Member
    Options
    Wrong. Muscle DOES weigh more than fat. 1 cubic inch of muscle WEIGHS MORE than 1 cubic inch of fat. Period.

    You don't weigh yourself by cubic inches.

    Yeahhhh!!!! What she said!!! ^^^^ :):)
  • WandaWoman41
    WandaWoman41 Posts: 153 Member
    Options
    Saving for later
  • jilliew
    jilliew Posts: 255 Member
    Options
    In reply to members here who insist on believing this ridiculous idea...

    Read the original post properly before replying.

    If you can't manage that, bear this in mind....

    Humans are not 'weighed' by volume, so 'weight by volume' is completely irrelevant.
    'Weight' is a measurement of the effect of gravity on mass. Nothing to do with 'volume'.

    Do bathroom scales measure volume? No.

    This ridiculous idea ("muscle weighs more than fat") is, unfortunately, entrenched in societal belief and regularly quoted as 'profound knowledge', misleading people with an excuse as to why they haven't lost 'weight'.
    (The explanation of the origin of this is clearly explained in the original post.)

    1lb of muscle = 1lb of fat........ by weight.

    Weight by 'volume' is completely irrelevant.

    Does anyone have scales that measure body composition by volume?
    Simple answer.....No.

    Many studies have conclusively proven that weight (fat) loss is best achieved through a combination of healthy diet, activity/aerobic exercise, and resistance training.

    Resistance training preserves muscle mass but doesn't always mean gain. The method of training determines if muscle mass will be gained. It's more difficult for women that men, due to levels of testosterone. Muscle is the body tissue that burns fat as fuel.

    Rather than using scales, use a tape measure.
    That will indicate fat loss by showing loss of circumference, and body fat, particularly visceral fat in the torso.

    So, let's say that you work out. The number on the scale does not go down. The inches in your butt DO go down. How, then, would you explain this with your vast logic?
  • ambrosij
    ambrosij Posts: 317 Member
    Options
    Actually...he is partially right on the Afro-Carribean comment. African Americans, in general, have a greater bone density than Caucasians. Therefore, they are more apt to sink than float...this means that they would have to work harder to swim than someone who is more buoyant. There are of course exceptions to the rule and at the elite level of Olympic swimmers to their muscle mass is so great I'm not sure the 300 gram bone density would make much of a difference.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9024231
  • abberbabber
    abberbabber Posts: 972 Member
    Options
    It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.

    It could grip it by the husk!
  • abberbabber
    abberbabber Posts: 972 Member
    Options
    Rather than using scales, use a tape measure.
    That will indicate fat loss by showing loss of circumference, and body fat, particularly visceral fat in the torso.

    But you said that's not possible since muscle doesn't weigh more than fat...
  • VorJoshigan
    VorJoshigan Posts: 1,106 Member
    Options
    Seriously? This is still going on?!
    Does anyone have scales that measure body composition by volume?
    Simple answer.....No.
    Yes. It's called a mirror. Or a tape measure. Or clothes. If the tape measurements are getting smaller, but the scale number is not, then I know that my weight per unit volume is increasing. i.e. I am getting denser.
    Many studies have conclusively proven that weight (fat) loss is best achieved through a combination of healthy diet, activity/aerobic exercise, and resistance training.
    Is somebody disputing that fact here?
    Rather than using scales, use a tape measure.
    That will indicate fat loss by showing loss of circumference, and body fat, particularly visceral fat in the torso.
    Exactly! Because muscles weighs more per unit volume than fat does and your tape measures volume (indirectly).
  • Ecce_Signum
    Ecce_Signum Posts: 226 Member
    Options
    <snip>muscles weighs more per unit volume than fat does </snip>

    Surely this is the statement to end this? Am new here and guess this type of thread is a weekly occurrence but by weight everything weighs the same surely? one pound of X weighs the same as one pound of Y. Now, when you suffix your statement with 'by volume' then you can say "one pound of X weighs more than one pound of Y"
  • NRSPAM
    NRSPAM Posts: 961 Member
    Options
    Hahaha!!! Weekly occurence??? No! More like every 2 second occurence!!! Lololol.. Welcome to the threads..stay away!!! Bahahahaha
  • NRSPAM
    NRSPAM Posts: 961 Member
    Options
    People just like to post stuff like this to make everyone crazy n get P'd off! Lolol..
  • Hadabetter
    Hadabetter Posts: 941 Member
    Options
    <snip>muscles weighs more per unit volume than fat does </snip>

    Surely this is the statement to end this? Am new here and guess this type of thread is a weekly occurrence but by weight everything weighs the same surely? one pound of X weighs the same as one pound of Y. Now, when you suffix your statement with 'by volume' then you can say "one pound of X weighs more than one pound of Y"
    Correct! According to these idiots everything weighs the same!
  • Mexicanbigfoot
    Mexicanbigfoot Posts: 520 Member
    Options
    I am really glad to see someone break this down. I never understood when people told me "a pound of muscle weights more than a pound of fat" Ummm...a pound is a pound :)
  • brunetteavoxgirl
    brunetteavoxgirl Posts: 88 Member
    Options
    But "fat" takes up more space. If you are composed by a high% of fat you will be BIGGER than a person who weighs the same as you that is composed of more muscle. Therefore, the fact that fat is less dense than muscle is an issue if you are trying to lose inches.
    This.
    I legitimately do not care about the number on the scale. I care about the number in my jeans.
    I only set myself a goal weight to give me something to track for. If I never reach it, but am at a healthy fat percentage and stuff, then that is cool with me.
  • tross0924
    tross0924 Posts: 909 Member
    Options
    Weight (w) = Mass (m) * Gravity (g)
    Density (d) = Mass / Volume (V)

    Therefore,
    m = w/g
    and
    m = dV

    From this, we can say that
    w/g = dV

    Now solve for w..
    w=dVg

    This is why "muscle weighs more than fat".

    So now you've got physics and science disagreeing with you, too.

    w=d*(m/d)*g

    w=mg

    Oh look, I eliminated a variable and simplified the equation.

    This is entirely an argument of semantics. Yes, when people say muscle weighs more than fat it does imply an equal volume. (Except for a few really really not so bright people who think a pound of feathers when put on the scale will weigh less than a pound of rocks)

    The people that have a problem with this are "grammatically correcting" your science.
  • Macstraw
    Macstraw Posts: 896 Member
    Options
    Weight (w) = Mass (m) * Gravity (g)
    Density (d) = Mass / Volume (V)

    Therefore,
    m = w/g
    and
    m = dV

    From this, we can say that
    w/g = dV

    Now solve for w..
    w=dVg

    This is why "muscle weighs more than fat".

    So now you've got physics and science disagreeing with you, too.

    w=d*(m/d)*g

    w=mg

    Oh look, I eliminated a variable and simplified the equation.

    This is entirely an argument of semantics. Yes, when people say muscle weighs more than fat it does imply an equal volume. (Except for a few really really not so bright people who think a pound of feathers when put on the scale will weigh less than a pound of rocks)

    The people that have a problem with this are "grammatically correcting" your science.

    & that's the crux of it - the "I have to use semantics to be more correct than everybody else" thing just to stir people up......
  • CrazyTrackLady
    CrazyTrackLady Posts: 1,337 Member
    Options
    Maybe people are getting confused between mass and weight. Mass is the amount of matter that takes up a known space (and is represented by volume). Weight is in reference to the amount of gravity forced upon an object. Let's think of it this way: I would WEIGH less on the moon, and in a pool, than I would on earth's surface. However, I have the same MASS in all three locations.


    BTW, I taught this very concept to my 6th graders. They got it.
  • nsblue
    nsblue Posts: 331 Member
    Options
    what's the difference really? give me a pound a muscle any-day over a pound a fat... for muscle burns calories just existing:)

Categories