'Muscle weighs more than fat' ???
Options
Replies
-
This is interesting.peachyfuzzle wrote: »
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
Muscle does not weight more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. Weight has nothing to do with density as it is not a measurement of mass, but rather a measurement of gravity.
0 -
This is interesting.peachyfuzzle wrote: »
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
Muscle does not weight more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. Weight has nothing to do with density as it is not a measurement of mass, but rather a measurement of gravity.
Why is it interesting?0 -
peachyfuzzle wrote: »
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
Muscle does not weight more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. Weight has nothing to do with density as it is not a measurement of mass, but rather a measurement of gravity.
And the denser an object is the more gravity pulls on it, so weight has everything to to with density......
-1 -
W= mg0
-
Nutritionist or dietician? Big difference.
Muscle does, in fact, weigh more than fat. You don't have to be a know-it-all to know that, lol.
People who begin dieting & exercising and gain weight after two weeks and are told, "That's because you exercised and built muscle!" are being misinformed. That's not the case.
But muscle does, of course, weigh more than fat.
Exactly. "Muscle weighs more than fat" is a colloquial way of saying muscle is denser than fat. It is--obviously--not a comparison of one lb of muscle with one lb of fat, because no one with an IQ high enough to breathe would make such a ridiculous comparison. (And similarly one can say that feathers weigh less than iron even though 1 lb of each are, of course, one lb. Also, my sister weighs less than me, even though 1 lb of me and 1 lb of her are, of course, identical in weight.) This is a total pet peeve of mine, because it generally involves people being pointlessly pedantic and treating others as if they are idiots about something that they are not in fact idiots about.
The reason "muscle weighs more than fat" is usually wrong, in context, is because of when it's said. Obviously there is 0 reason to think that someone trying to lose weight and exercising a bit has added significant muscle, let alone enough to cover up the fat losses which were expected. (Personally I suspect most people know this too and it's considered a nice and encouraging thing to say--along the lines of "no, those jeans make your butt look fabulous"--and not really something they actually think, but perhaps I'm too cynical.)
In any case, I would love for someone to identify a person who has ever thought that a lb of muscle weights more than a lb of fat, because absent that happening I don't believe that anyone in the world is that dumb. (And I believe there are a lot of dumb people.)
In fact, I kind of think that anyone who makes that "correction" is coming across as sort of dumb, just to think that others might be confused about such an obvious thing.
0 -
ThePhoenixIsRising wrote: »peachyfuzzle wrote: »
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
Muscle does not weight more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. Weight has nothing to do with density as it is not a measurement of mass, but rather a measurement of gravity.
And the denser an object is the more gravity pulls on it, so weight has everything to to with density......
Mass has to do with density, not weight.
Mass is a measurement of how much matter is in something. Density is how much mass there is contained in a certain space. Weight is the how hard gravity pulls on something.
You can weigh absolutely zero, but still have the same exact mass, and density.
I agree that the more dense something is, the more mass it has, but that doesn't mean it has more weight.
1lb of muscle = 1lb of fat = 1lb of iron = 1lb gold = 1lb horses = 1lb water, etc etc.
1 cubic inch of muscle does not weigh the same as 1 cubic inch of fat does not weigh the same as 1 cubic inch of iron, etc...
0 -
-
peachyfuzzle wrote: »ThePhoenixIsRising wrote: »peachyfuzzle wrote: »
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
Muscle does not weight more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. Weight has nothing to do with density as it is not a measurement of mass, but rather a measurement of gravity.
And the denser an object is the more gravity pulls on it, so weight has everything to to with density......
Mass has to do with density, not weight.
Mass is a measurement of how much matter is in something. Density is how much mass there is contained in a certain space. Weight is the how hard gravity pulls on something.
You can weigh absolutely zero, but still have the same exact mass, and density.
I agree that the more dense something is, the more mass it has, but that doesn't mean it has more weight.
1lb of muscle = 1lb of fat = 1lb of iron = 1lb gold = 1lb horses = 1lb water, etc etc.
1 cubic inch of muscle does not weigh the same as 1 cubic inch of fat does not weigh the same as 1 cubic inch of iron, etc...
Yeah but if you bring general relativity into it, gravity exists because of mass, and weight exists because of gravity, so weight does have quite a lot to do with mass.
Plus the more obvious fact that as long as the gravitational field is constant (which is pertinent to the fact that everyone discussing this is weighing themselves on Earth) having more mass means you weigh more.
And I was wrong in my earlier post. Understanding the term density does not mean that people won't get into stupid nitpicking arguments. I stand corrected. I forgot to take into account the fact that humans haven't really evolved past basic primate psychology. http://cavepeopleandstuff.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/why-cant-humans-just-disagree-nicely/0 -
peachyfuzzle wrote: »ThePhoenixIsRising wrote: »peachyfuzzle wrote: »
Kalikel didn't say that.ROFLMHO! Is Kalikel saying if I have one pound of muscles that is more in weight than one pound of fat? Hmmm!
Kalikel said muscle weighs more than fat.
Kalikel is accustomed to people telling her that they're laughing at her stupidity and she is the idiot when they are wrong.
It doesn't make her think she is the dumb one.
Muscle does not weight more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. Weight has nothing to do with density as it is not a measurement of mass, but rather a measurement of gravity.
And the denser an object is the more gravity pulls on it, so weight has everything to to with density......
Mass has to do with density, not weight.
Mass is a measurement of how much matter is in something. Density is how much mass there is contained in a certain space. Weight is the how hard gravity pulls on something.
You can weigh absolutely zero, but still have the same exact mass, and density.
I agree that the more dense something is, the more mass it has, but that doesn't mean it has more weight.
1lb of muscle = 1lb of fat = 1lb of iron = 1lb gold = 1lb horses = 1lb water, etc etc.
1 cubic inch of muscle does not weigh the same as 1 cubic inch of fat does not weigh the same as 1 cubic inch of iron, etc...
If you compare the weight of two of more things you compare by volume, if you compare the volume of two ore more things you compare by weight.
Weight is only measurable when there is gravity pulling on it. So in the same gravitational field something that is denser/has more mass per volume will weigh more than something that is less dense/has less mass per volume.
So if you compare by volume, in the same gravitational field, muscle weighs more than fat because it is denser. If you compare by weight, in the same gravitational field, muscle takes up less volume because it is denser.
1lb=1lb=1lb is a circular argument and isn't useful when trying to spread knowledge.0 -
Can we all just agree that it's a moot point aboit semantics and get back to arguing about whether or not you can put on muscle in a deficit? Because that's really the more important point when people use this phrase.
Also, muscle can't take up less space because an inch is an inch. So can we stop using that as a rebuttal too?0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Can we all just agree that it's a moot point aboit semantics and get back to arguing about whether or not you can put on muscle in a deficit? Because that's really the more important point when people use this phrase.
Also, muscle can't take up less space because an inch is an inch. So can we stop using that as a rebuttal too?
+10 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Can we all just agree that it's a moot point aboit semantics and get back to arguing about whether or not you can put on muscle in a deficit? Because that's really the more important point when people use this phrase.
Also, muscle can't take up less space because an inch is an inch. So can we stop using that as a rebuttal too?
This0 -
Yes, folks. You too can come spew the same thing we've heard 100 times already. What a circlejerk.0
-
"'Know-it-all' amateurs reply by saying...
"Yes but.... muscle weighs more than fat by volume"
Technically true, but since when are humans measured in terms of 'weight-by-volume'?"
So tired of this. It is not basically or even technically true.
Fat takes up more space than volume, but never, not in a million years, does one pound of something weigh more than one pound of something else.0 -
This is the most pedantic stupid argument in the world.0
-
47Jacqueline wrote: »"'Know-it-all' amateurs reply by saying...
"Yes but.... muscle weighs more than fat by volume"
Technically true, but since when are humans measured in terms of 'weight-by-volume'?"
So tired of this. It is not basically or even technically true.
Fat takes up more space than volume, but never, not in a million years, does one pound of something weigh more than one pound of something else.
I thought that was his/her point and most people fully understand this already. Occasionally someone posts the fat weighs more than muscle, but they are corrected on whatever thread it is. Btw the OP talks about it youd think he was the only one who knew this.0 -
Believe it or not, there was a poster on here in the past that argued (for pages) that a 10 pound ream of paper weighed more than a 10 pound dumbbell.lemurcat12 wrote: »
In any case, I would love for someone to identify a person who has ever thought that a lb of muscle weights more than a lb of fat, because absent that happening I don't believe that anyone in the world is that dumb. (And I believe there are a lot of dumb people.)
In fact, I kind of think that anyone who makes that "correction" is coming across as sort of dumb, just to think that others might be confused about such an obvious thing.
As for the original post. Love the absolute lack of logic. Let's put it a different way. One pound of elephant weighs exactly the same as one pound of me, so an elephant doesn't weigh more than me... Of course weight is a comparison of density and volume, to say that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat because 1 pound equals 1 pound means that nothing can ever weigh more than anything else, because a pound of anything equals a pound of anything else.
It's a silly, pointless, semantic argument that doesn't do anything but make the people arguing about it look silly.0 -
-
You can't really say that something weighs more than something else if you don't specify the size of what you're weighing. When people say muscle weighs more than fat, they mean that muscle in the size and shape of a particular human weighs more than fat forming that same size and shape.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 395 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions