Body fat percentage
Options
Replies
-
colors_fade wrote: »
Yes, it does. If you compare a similar volume of muscle and fat, the muscle will weigh more, precisely because it is denser.
In the specific context you used, that of comparing mass rather than volume, you're right, they weigh the same. But that's not the only valid comparison, and your very specific context certainly doesn't warrant the accusation that Longshot520 is misusing the language.
You have got to be kidding me.
Here's the quote: "Considering muscle weighs more than fat"
There's no context there. Just a flat statement that is clearly, scientifically, factually, false.
There is no qualification to that statement.
Defend it all you want. He's using the wrong words.
The only correct statements, without qualifying, is:
a) Muscle is more dense than fat, or Fat is less dense than muscle.
b) Fat takes up more volume than muscle, or muscle takes up less volume than fat.
Density. Volume. These are the words that should be used.
Otherwise, you have to use qualifying language to create context for the comparison. Like, "The same volume of muscle weighs more than fat."
There was no qualification to that statement he made.
Don't perpetuate ignorance.
0 -
I am a scientist and understand what educated trainers mean when they say muscle weighs > fat. The implication is by volume.
I can appreciate precision but generally don't get too upset when people don't speak that way.
In a published paper or magazine article, on the other hand, the precision matters. ..0 -
colors_fade wrote: »Defend it all you want. He's using the wrong words.
No, he's not. If the only valid way of comparing two solids is by mass, then "heavier" is a useless term.Density. Volume. These are the words that should be used.
Volume is implied in his comment. He's talking about equal volumes. You're not. That doesn't mean he was wrong however, it just means that the assumptions and implications were not made explicit, so you're both talking about different things.Otherwise, you have to use qualifying language to create context for the comparison. Like, "The same volume of muscle weighs more than fat."
Yeah, no. Just because there is an assumption doesn't mean it needs to be spelt out every time. On the odd occasion where confusion does occur, it's a simple matter to provide clarity. At least until someone jumps in and accuses someone else of "misusing the language" for the crime of having differing assumptions.There was no qualification to that statement he made.
Yet everyone but you understand the implied qualifications in his statement...Don't perpetuate ignorance.
Rest assured, I won't.
0 -
I do something called inbody through my gym and have found it to be really helpful--I have gained a pound in the last two months, but I've lost 5 pounds of fat and gained three pounds of muscle and the rest is water--I've gone from 22.8% to 18.7% body fat. I was really bummed by the scale and was starting to not trust the mirror...thinking it was in my head.
Now they can be very inconsistent though so choose the same person for caliper tests or arrange for water displacement or inbody testing. Otherwise just know it can fluctuate 2-4%...
Hi Beth, that's fantastic! I'm so glad their is people on here that do track bodyfat% I'm having my bodyfat tested at the gym in the morning and im praying ive lost fat and gained some muscle ive not had it done in a month and ive stalled and not lost in 2 weeks and its so discouraging, can I ask if you was lifting weights or just cardio when you achieved this? I'm only doing cardio atm because I want to see the loss on the scale I really need to get it out my head and stopped being obsessed with scales I just don't get it because when I went to the gym a few years ago and dieted the weight dropped off me but its not this time
0 -
Body fat scales, inbody scans, calipers and basically all other methods of determining body fat % are unreliable. They can be right, but they are often (very) wrong. This includes the ones where the salesperson says "99% accurate!!" and the ones that provide you with a professional and scientific looking printout of your results. They are based on estimates that are accurate for groups, but can be wildly inaccurate for the individuals that comprise those groups.
Scales and inbody scans can also be wrong as a measure of progress, because they react differently as your body composition changes.
I think they can still be worthwhile to do (i got a dexa scan last week), but i will never put my faith in them. I think of them as just another opinion, to be weighed against your own estimate looking in the mirror and the guesses you get when you post a pic on a forum.
I think your idea of measuring progress based on body fat % is a great one in theory though
0 -
There is no crime in letting them speak like a average human being. The same volume of fat and muscle is what their talking about.colors_fade wrote: »Longshot520 wrote: »Considering muscle weighs more than fat
No it does not.
It's more dense. It does not "weigh more." A pound of fat weighs exactly the same as a pound of muscle.
Muscle is more dense. It takes up less space; it has lower volume.
There is no crime in using English words properly.
It's okay. If someone doesn't understand. It'll be cleared up.
Retaining muscle is nice. I learned you still had to lift the hard way. Thankfully I figured it out early on.colors_fade wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »I went from 35% to ~16%. Once I started tracking body fat, then my whole mentality changed. It's a good way to prepare yourself for strength training and proper nutrition - the scale isn't the only way one can gauge true progress.
I totally agree.
There are some pretty impressive photos floating around that show how "weight" doesn't necessarily correspond well to physique. Muscle is more dense, so losing body fat while retaining muscle is ideal. This is why the recommended approach is simple: eat at a calorie deficit, and lift heavy to retain lean muscle mass.
Those pictures say mine is about accurate. Wouldn't say completely. Down from 28% body fat to 27%.
I want 20%. Then we'll see how I look. Then I'll decide if I'll go lower. (Subject to change IF needed.)
By my measurements.
And I agree with the poster who said they are not always reliable. I used one different than my preferred one and it said 50% body fat. Umm that does not match the photos anywhere. I can see two abs when laying.
And I can't pinch much more than my stomach to get a bunch of fat. (And even then it isn't too much.) More than I like though.
So my advice is make sure you compare and use one that seems accurate as possible to you. You have to be honest with yourself.
0 -
colors_fade wrote: »
No it does not.
It's more dense. It does not "weigh more." A pound of fat weighs exactly the same as a pound of muscle.
Muscle is more dense. It takes up less space; it has lower volume.
There is no crime in using English words properly.
There is no crime in letting them speak like a average human being. The same volume of fat and muscle is what their talking about.
It is refreshing to find someone who understands and can communicate without picking nits.0 -
colors_fade wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »
Yes, it does. If you compare a similar volume of muscle and fat, the muscle will weigh more, precisely because it is denser.
In the specific context you used, that of comparing mass rather than volume, you're right, they weigh the same. But that's not the only valid comparison, and your very specific context certainly doesn't warrant the accusation that Longshot520 is misusing the language.
The only correct statements, without qualifying, is:
a) Muscle is more dense than fat, or Fat is less dense than muscle.
b) Fat takes up more volume than muscle, or muscle takes up less volume than fat.
Density. Volume. These are the words that should be used
By your own argument, (b) is not correct because a cubic inch of fat takes up the same volume as a cubic inch of muscle. Since density is defined by both mass and volume, you have to use both of them to be completely accurate. You would need a qualifier for that statement.
If you're going to call people out for using the English language improperly , you should be sure you're using it correctly yourself.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 976 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions