muscle DOES NOT weigh more than fat!!!!
Replies
-
lol i love thatI'm not a violent man but this topic makes me all:
0 -
If you want to see starvation look on line at pictures of starving children in Africa or some other 3rd world countries, I doubt many of you are in danger of looking like that because you skipped breakfast or lunch on Tuesday!
This is completely wrong, that is just starvation!! There is such a thing as starvation mode but its nothing that you will ever see on this fourm.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/pros-cons-of-high-protein-diets I have many links that i can post that referance is and are written by doctors, also the US Military warns us as we go through some of our more specialized training that its possible because of the lack of calories for days at a time and then when you return to home statoin you eat everything and just get....well fat if you dont exercise.0 -
If you look at five pounds of muscle and five pounds of fat side by side, the fat takes up more volume, or space, than the muscle. Also when people first start working out - they gain muscle faster than they lose fat - which causes a weight gain. Some people get frusterated and give up. The real measure should be in your pants size. Take before and after photos to see true results.0
-
Semantics
Well said.. who cares as long as you're healthy or working towards being healthy... all the specifics is just fluff....0 -
But it does. Say you have a cubic foot of muscle and a cubic foot of fat. The muscle will weigh more.
A cubic foot is a measurement of volume, not of weight. A pound is a measurement of weight. One pound of fat weighs exactly the same as one pound of anything else, be it muscle, lead, or feathers. They all weigh one pound.
You are correct, if you fill one cubic foot of space with fat and weigh it, it's going to weigh in at fewer pounds than one cubic foot of muscle. But you cannot mistake that for muscle weighing more than fat. It's just more compact.0 -
But it does. Say you have a cubic foot of muscle and a cubic foot of fat. The muscle will weigh more.
exactly, this is what people mean. A pound of muscle is the same as a pound of fat but when people say muscle weighs more than fat then mean if you replace the space the fat was taking up with muscle it would weigh more
Then it should be "muscle has more volume...so the same pound of muscle will actually be a smaller amount...but as far as weight, it doesn't weigh more than fat.0 -
I semi-retract my previous statement, because I do have plenty of pet peeves about commonly accepted but still technically incorrect phrases. This does not happen to be one of the ones that bugs me too much, but if it does you I can totally understand.
What if the argument was that muscle (on Jupiter) weighs more than fat (on Earth)????0 -
I see nothing wrong with saying fat weighs less than muscle. It is inferred that you are referring to a proportionate volume.
If someone said "a pound of fat weighs less than a pound of muscle," well then we have an issue.
Coincidentally I see this a lot though...so I think that is where some people get irked...
Because many people don't accept the fact that they should be talking about muscle in volume, not pounds, when comparing it to fat and using the world "pounds".
lol at the end of the day whatever, just replace your fat with muscle and be healthy and the whole world will continue to spin
0 -
If you want to be accurate about it, Muscle is more dense than fat so therefore a smaller volume of muscle will weigh more.
Hence, how you can lose inches but not weight....
:drinker:0 -
But it does. Say you have a cubic foot of muscle and a cubic foot of fat. The muscle will weigh more.
exactly, this is what people mean. A pound of muscle is the same as a pound of fat but when people say muscle weighs more than fat then mean if you replace the space the fat was taking up with muscle it would weigh more
Then it should be "muscle has more volume...so the same pound of muscle will actually be a smaller amount...but as far as weight, it doesn't weigh more than fat.
That is incorrect. Muscle is denser than fat so an equal portion of muscle will weigh more than fat.0 -
how about, muscle weighs more by volume than fat does.0
-
More rambling.
On a similar note, weight and mass are not interchangeable in the first place, which is the foundation of all of these other technical inaccuracies.
Everyone says "I weigh 100 kg." That is technically incorrect, because a kilogram is a unit of mass, NOT weight in scientific terms.
It should be, "I have a mass of 100 kg, and a WEIGHT (a measurement of force) of ~980 Newtons."
Again, it is so comman that no one really cares, but those of a scientific mind are sure to be offput by the misconception.0 -
i love how so many people ASSUME that whenever this statement is used the person is silently implying the volume caveat that's needed! the whole reason i posted this particular rant is because i'm sure there are more people who DON'T know the difference between volume and weight than people who do. with a statement like this being thrown around so liberally, the odds of having more people without a clear understanding is pretty high.
i guess i'm just a petty person for having a pet peeve about inaccurate statements. i have to say i'm quite surprised at the amount of venom that my rant has elicited. GOD FORBID any of the people who reacted so violently receive the same kind of reaction to any of thier pet peeves. gotta love the internet, we can all be as verbally aggressive as we want without fear of appearing socially inappropriate! yes, we can insult, call names and be condescending while chastising the OTHER PERSON for calling names, being insulting and condescending.
who knew my rant would elicit the same amount of venom as talking about diet soda, paleo/primal diets and the nefarious miscreants who don't eat back exercise calories! yep, my job is done! happy friday all!0 -
i don't rant often, but this is just IRKING MY NERVES!!! UGH!!!
I found this article helpful in the debate. http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/busting-the-muscle-weighs-more-than-fat-myth.aspx0 -
i love how so many people ASSUME that whenever this statement is used the person is silently implying the volume caveat that's needed! the whole reason i posted this particular rant is because i'm sure there are more people who DON'T know the difference between volume and weight than people who do. with a statement like this being thrown around so liberally, the odds of having more people without a clear understanding is pretty high.
i guess i'm just a petty person for having a pet peeve about inaccurate statements. i have to say i'm quite surprised at the amount of venom that my rant has elicited. GOD FORBID any of the people who reacted so violently receive the same kind of reaction to any of thier pet peeves. gotta love the internet, we can all be as verbally aggressive as we want without fear of appearing socially inappropriate! yes, we can insult, call names and be condescending while chastising the OTHER PERSON for calling names, being insulting and condescending.
who knew my rant would elicit the same amount of venom as talking about diet soda, paleo/primal diets and the nefarious miscreants who don't eat back exercise calories! yep, my job is done! happy friday all!
I might need to re-read the thread, but I didn't think anyone was getting nasty about it. I thought it was just a good-natured, friendly debate.0 -
More rambling.
On a similar note, weight and mass are not interchangeable in the first place, which is the foundation of all of these other technical inaccuracies.
Everyone says "I weight 100 kg." That is technically incorrect, because a kilogram is a unit of mass, NOT weight in scientific terms.
It should be, "I have a mass of 100 kg, and a WEIGHT (a measurement of force) of ~980 Newtons."
Again, it is so comman that no one really cares, but those of a scientific mind are sure to be offput by the misconception.
Absolutely! I do shipping paperwork for my job and there was a form I had to fill out that asked for the density of something, which was very uncommon for the paperwork I fill out. When I tried talking to the woman who was supposed to explain it to me, she thought I was nuts. She had no idea what I was talking about, about the units. She did not understand that the form was even asking for density. Being a bio/chem student, it drove me bananas.0 -
I would say this thread is relatively tame compared to a lot of what you can stumble across out there haha.
Pet peeves are such for a reason. If everyone were irked by the same things, none of them would exist. Things that annoy the holy hell out of me might be the entire foundation of someone elses life. (not going to go into specifics, but I'm sure you can take some guesses...)
As for assumptions, a large part of language is based on assumptions and context. When you see the word "present" you don't really know what it means unless you see what context it is used in. Hell, with ANYthing you have to assume that the listener has the same information and is capable of reaching the same conclusions. Your comprehension of every single word I am writing is based on my assumption that you understand the english language.
I like this thread, I'm bored at work and its nice to refresh myself on the joys of science and the ways of my fellow humans.0 -
edited because qoute wouldnt work0
-
i love how so many people ASSUME that whenever this statement is used the person is silently implying the volume caveat that's needed! the whole reason i posted this particular rant is because i'm sure there are more people who DON'T know the difference between volume and weight than people who do. with a statement like this being thrown around so liberally, the odds of having more people without a clear understanding is pretty high.
i guess i'm just a petty person for having a pet peeve about inaccurate statements. i have to say i'm quite surprised at the amount of venom that my rant has elicited. GOD FORBID any of the people who reacted so violently receive the same kind of reaction to any of thier pet peeves. gotta love the internet, we can all be as verbally aggressive as we want without fear of appearing socially inappropriate! yes, we can insult, call names and be condescending while chastising the OTHER PERSON for calling names, being insulting and condescending.
who knew my rant would elicit the same amount of venom as talking about diet soda, paleo/primal diets and the nefarious miscreants who don't eat back exercise calories! yep, my job is done! happy friday all!
sorry, what I meant to say is I have no opinion except "kumbaya"0 -
THANK YOU!! Is all I have to say for this post!!0
-
Really the ONLY time I have seen this phrase (muscle weighs more than fat) is when someone says something like this; “I’m losing inches but not weight”, and the response is, well you might be adding muscle and losing fat, because,,,,,, wait for it,,,, muscle weighs more than fat. THAT is the only time I see it used. Which very strongly implies the volume side of the equation. If however you have seen it used in a context other than that, I can see how that would bother a person.0
-
But it does. Say you have a cubic foot of muscle and a cubic foot of fat. The muscle will weigh more.
exactly, this is what people mean. A pound of muscle is the same as a pound of fat but when people say muscle weighs more than fat then mean if you replace the space the fat was taking up with muscle it would weigh more
Then it should be "muscle has more volume...so the same pound of muscle will actually be a smaller amount...but as far as weight, it doesn't weigh more than fat.
That is incorrect. Muscle is denser than fat so an equal portion of muscle will weigh more than fat.
lol damn...denser...volume...Im getting my measurements all messed up...and this thread is going in circles so I just want muscle, no fat....and peace be with you!...and you! and you!:flowerforyou:0 -
...and this thread is going in circles......
Ya'll are old school.. we have mp3 players now... there's no reason for a broken record! =-p0 -
...and this thread is going in circles......
Ya'll are old school.. we have mp3 players now... there's no reason for a broken record! =-p
LOL0 -
Amen! And while we're at it QUIT USING THE WORD LOOSE FOR LOSE, and QUIT INSISTING THAT YOUR BODY WILL GO INTO "STARVATION MODE" if you don't eat back your exercise calories! Do what works for you, come here for motivation and support and the tools this site provides, but don't think any one way is THE way! Thanks, rant over.
[/quote]
Loose for lose, love that one...:)0 -
...and this thread is going in circles......
Ya'll are old school.. we have mp3 players now... there's no reason for a broken record! =-p
I am just amused... and very distracted by the pic in your signature. LOL!0 -
God! How I love hearing other word nerds rant about the misuse of our language! It brings joy to my heart! Irregardless of the affects. [that was a double-hit word nerd joke...just in case you missed it] :laugh:
Hollycat
:flowerforyou:0 -
Its true, muscle weighs more than fat
my *kitten* weighs more than her *kitten* cause my *kitten* is all muscle, baybeeeeee!
kidding
I had to get a joke in somewhere0 -
Its true, muscle weighs more than fat
my *kitten* weighs more than her *kitten* cause my *kitten* is all muscle, baybeeeeee!
kidding
I had to get a joke in somewhere
LMAO!!0 -
Will someone please call Bob or Jillian and get a video taped answer of Dr. Oz , Dr. Phil, Oprah, Barack Obama George Bush or the Easter Bunny, This topic is way over played ! Enough Already !0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions