Muscle weighs more then fat?

I'm stealing this analogy from a very smart friend on here.

If someone said to you "Gold costs more than tinfoil" would you correct them because $1 = $1 and start an argument about it, or would you just agree because you know that they're talking about cost per unit weight?

I don't feel that analogy works here...gold cost vs tinfoil cost?

When someone says the word weighs more it means weight...not volume...
If someone says takes up less space that means volume....not weight...

devil is in the details..you will have to excuse my OCT

This drives me crazy. Everyone knows what everyone else is saying here. Everyone is correct. "Per unit volume" is implied when people say muscle weighs more than fat and the unit of volume everyone is talking about is the human body.

I feel like people just argue about this to pontificate.

You couldn't be more wrong

False, she is spot on. Most people understand the concept but some people are just anal about the wording of the phrase.

Please tell me you heard a "whooshing" noise overhead when you clicked the "post reply" button.

Sarcasm is tough to spot on the internets sometimes. Plus, I'm slow.

I'm stealing this analogy from a very smart friend on here.

If someone said to you "Gold costs more than tinfoil" would you correct them because $1 = $1 and start an argument about it, or would you just agree because you know that they're talking about cost per unit weight?

I don't feel that analogy works here...gold cost vs tinfoil cost?

When someone says the word weighs more it means weight...not volume...
If someone says takes up less space that means volume....not weight...

devil is in the details..you will have to excuse my OCT

So what does the word "cost" mean?

seriously?

If you guys want to continue on down this path go ahead...as I said I am not going to argue the point any further as it is just getting obtuse and doltish. Along with derailing this thread with an off topic conversation.

All I have to say is I take words at face value and don't "assume" someone means something other than what was said or typed....

I'm stealing this analogy from a very smart friend on here.

If someone said to you "Gold costs more than tinfoil" would you correct them because $1 = $1 and start an argument about it, or would you just agree because you know that they're talking about cost per unit weight?

I don't feel that analogy works here...gold cost vs tinfoil cost?

When someone says the word weighs more it means weight...not volume...
If someone says takes up less space that means volume....not weight...

devil is in the details..you will have to excuse my OCT

Not to knock your feelings on it, but the analogy is perfect.

Cost is the required payment for something. In the sense that it's used, the fact that you're talking about equivalent amounts of the item is implied. It's exactly the same as comparing the muscle and fat weight, an equivalent volume is implied.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: sure if you say so...see above post.

I saw it. You got trapped in a corner and then used the words "obtuse and doltish."

Impressive.

I'm stealing this analogy from a very smart friend on here.

If someone said to you "Gold costs more than tinfoil" would you correct them because $1 = $1 and start an argument about it, or would you just agree because you know that they're talking about cost per unit weight?

I don't feel that analogy works here...gold cost vs tinfoil cost?

When someone says the word weighs more it means weight...not volume...
If someone says takes up less space that means volume....not weight...

devil is in the details..you will have to excuse my OCT

Not to knock your feelings on it, but the analogy is perfect.

Cost is the required payment for something. In the sense that it's used, the fact that you're talking about equivalent amounts of the item is implied. It's exactly the same as comparing the muscle and fat weight, an equivalent volume is implied.

Totally makes sense!!! If you don't mind if I ask...where did you get your scale? I was wondering how people find out there body fat percentage .

Most people who think they have a lot of muscle, don't. Until you get to a lowish BF% it is actually pretty hard to tell unless you have been lean before and know how much you carry.

Even if you did, that has nothing to do with not being able to lose weight now.

You may well be retaining water if you started exercising which is masking 'real' weight loss. Either that or you are not at a deficit.

I like this post...

Also, the more I read, the more I become to believe that there's a myth around muscle performance and metabolism...Really, a person who has a slightly lower body fat percentage can burn much more than the one with slightly higher one? say 5lb difference?

Yeah the numbers get greatly exaggerated- muscle burns something like 6cal/day/lb and fat is 2cal/day/lb at rest. So all other things equal your person with 5lbs of muscle will burn like 20 extra calories a day.

But, on the other hand, if you're lifting weights, the muscle tissue gets torn up and additional calories are used over a couple day period to repair the tears- so that accounts for some additional calories not tied specifically to movement. There's also lifestyle trends that would suggest that the more muscular person is generally less sedentary so they burn more NEAT calories and that the more muscular person's CNS system is trained to fire more tissue through the day. But, those are just trends and there's obviously exceptions to the rule. Like, an ultramarathoner with lower muscle mass (because extra muscle is a hindrance in their sport) probably isn't a sedentary individual so they would defy those trends.