Is muscle heavier than fat?
Options
Replies
-
Per volume, yes. So, using myself as an example, a lean 135 will be smaller than a fat 135 and will be dress sizes 4-6 or 8-10 respectively.
Mass per volume is called density. Muscle is more dense than fat, it does not weigh more.
Remember, words mean things.
/sigh
Per equal volumes(which was implied in the first statement), muscle is heavier than fat. Your density equation only backed my statement up.
Remember, words can make you look foolish if you don't use them wisely.
I'm not the one replying with incorrect terms to the OP's question. Perhaps you should take your final sentence to heart.
You cite an equation that is not in my post then claim it "backed" your "statement up." Was your statement backed into a corner or did it just backtrack to it's point of flawed origin?
Again ... words mean things.
The bolded is the equation you mentioned in your post, the equation for density. It backed up the fact that at equal volumes, muscle weighs more than fat. That's what the OP asked, if muscle weighed more than fat. I gave an example of wearing different dress sizes at equal body weights because now I have far more muscle despite being the same weight I was four years ago. I did this in order to illustrate my point and make it clear to anyone that read it. I see I failed to simplify my point enough for everyone.
Maybe you're not making your position clear because I have no idea why you're debating this semantic point. Make it clear to me.
What you highlighted with a bold font is a definition, not an equation.
The OP asked a weight question. You answered with density, a different physical characteristic. We could get into the physiological aspects where most women don't build the requisite muscle to fill the same volume as the fat they hope to burn so a density discussion is moot to begin with, but based on your replies so far I believe you would use the wrong characteristics and then redefine words yet again.
Why is it always those who mix terms and concepts that accuse others of semantics?0 -
brb, just heading off to the gym.Ditto. The weight is the same, but the size:
0 -
Per volume, yes. So, using myself as an example, a lean 135 will be smaller than a fat 135 and will be dress sizes 4-6 or 8-10 respectively.
Mass per volume is called density. Muscle is more dense than fat, it does not weigh more.
Remember, words mean things.
/sigh
Per equal volumes(which was implied in the first statement), muscle is heavier than fat. Your density equation only backed my statement up.
Remember, words can make you look foolish if you don't use them wisely.
I'm not the one replying with incorrect terms to the OP's question. Perhaps you should take your final sentence to heart.
You cite an equation that is not in my post then claim it "backed" your "statement up." Was your statement backed into a corner or did it just backtrack to it's point of flawed origin?
Again ... words mean things.
The bolded is the equation you mentioned in your post, the equation for density. It backed up the fact that at equal volumes, muscle weighs more than fat. That's what the OP asked, if muscle weighed more than fat. I gave an example of wearing different dress sizes at equal body weights because now I have far more muscle despite being the same weight I was four years ago. I did this in order to illustrate my point and make it clear to anyone that read it. I see I failed to simplify my point enough for everyone.
Maybe you're not making your position clear because I have no idea why you're debating this semantic point. Make it clear to me.
What you highlighted with a bold font is a definition, not an equation.
The OP asked a weight question. You answered with density, a different physical characteristic. We could get into the physiological aspects where most women don't build the requisite muscle to fill the same volume as the fat they hope to burn so a density discussion is moot to begin with, but based on your replies so far I believe you would use the wrong characteristics and then redefine words yet again.
Why is it always those who mix terms and concepts that accuse others of semantics?
Oh look...a semantic argument. Those always end sensibly, and rationally, with good feelings all around.
0 -
my guess is you've put on a tiny bit of muscle, lots of water and glycogen AND fat.
You've been eating too much because of the exercise. Time to reign it in.
Cardio makes people eat far more than they burn unfortunately. It doesnt build muscle, but it does make you hold on to water for repair.0 -
No its more dense then fat. One pound of fat is the same as one pound of muscle. This means a small amount of muscle is heavier then a larger amount of fat.0
-
Ditto. The weight is the same, but the size:
this is a fabulous photo!0 -
Muscle is more dense, takes up less space.
The feminine physique is naturally more rounded than the male. Generally, Nature makes more potential demands of Woman's body than it does of a man's.
I wonder why you are married to someone for whom you have no compassion. I'd not stick about to be the brunt for your insults. But who needs friends in this or any other life. It seems you don't.0 -
I already wrote my two cents, but this discussion is ridiculous, so here goes:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/AglaeaC/view/density-mass-and-volume-of-muscle-and-adipose-tissues-658320
It is chemistry, basic highschool chemistry. No, it is not semantics. If we want to teach things correctly here, then I suggest we are a united front also when it comes to various forms of non-physiologic science, including chemistry.0 -
No. One pound of fat = one pound of muscle = one pound of concrete = one pound of feathers = one pound of gold.
Muscles however are denser than fat, so you might weight the same or even more, but to be fitter - smaller size-wise. So if you want to make sure that you are getting fitter - along with the scale measure yourself with measuring tape.
LOL. Yes, sometimes one pound is not a pound.0 -
Per volume, yes. So, using myself as an example, a lean 135 will be smaller than a fat 135 and will be dress sizes 4-6 or 8-10 respectively.
Mass per volume is called density. Muscle is more dense than fat, it does not weigh more.
Remember, words mean things.
/sigh
Per equal volumes(which was implied in the first statement), muscle is heavier than fat. Your density equation only backed my statement up.
Remember, words can make you look foolish if you don't use them wisely.
I'm not the one replying with incorrect terms to the OP's question. Perhaps you should take your final sentence to heart.
You cite an equation that is not in my post then claim it "backed" your "statement up." Was your statement backed into a corner or did it just backtrack to it's point of flawed origin?
Again ... words mean things.
The bolded is the equation you mentioned in your post, the equation for density. It backed up the fact that at equal volumes, muscle weighs more than fat. That's what the OP asked, if muscle weighed more than fat. I gave an example of wearing different dress sizes at equal body weights because now I have far more muscle despite being the same weight I was four years ago. I did this in order to illustrate my point and make it clear to anyone that read it. I see I failed to simplify my point enough for everyone.
Maybe you're not making your position clear because I have no idea why you're debating this semantic point. Make it clear to me.
What you highlighted with a bold font is a definition, not an equation.
The OP asked a weight question. You answered with density, a different physical characteristic. We could get into the physiological aspects where most women don't build the requisite muscle to fill the same volume as the fat they hope to burn so a density discussion is moot to begin with, but based on your replies so far I believe you would use the wrong characteristics and then redefine words yet again.
Why is it always those who mix terms and concepts that accuse others of semantics?
Do you see that picture of a lb of fat an a lb of lean muscle in this thread? If you took away enough from the fat pile so that the two piles were of equal volume, which pile one would weigh more? You know the answer and have known the answer the entire time. In fact, you knew that the OP wasn't asking if a pound of one thing weighs more than a pound of another and had no desire to actually answer the OP. You just wanted to debate an obvious, overly debated and ridiculous semantic point.
Thanks for ensuring that people understand that things that weigh the same, weigh the same.0 -
Dwayne Johnson does not weigh more than Calista Flockhart, because 1 lb. of Dwayne = 1 lb. of Calista.
Nothing weighs more than anything else.
Everything is meaningless.0 -
Dwayne Johnson does not weigh more than Calista Flockhart, because 1 lb. of Dwayne = 1 lb. of Calista.
Nothing weighs more than anything else.
Everything is meaningless.
Damn Nietzsche! Pull your spurs in hopalong! I'm not ready to start wearing eye-liner and listening to the Cure just yet!0 -
You, sir, are responsible for me snorting loudly at work. Thankfully, I was able to play it off as a sneeze.Dwayne Johnson does not weigh more than Calista Flockhart, because 1 lb. of Dwayne = 1 lb. of Calista.
Nothing weighs more than anything else.
Everything is meaningless.
Damn Nietzsche! Pull your spurs in hopalong! I'm not ready to start wearing eye-liner and listening to the Cure just yet!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions