muscle DOES NOT weigh more than fat!!!!
Replies
-
CHILL:drinker:0
-
Muscle ways more then fat? I hope I don't loose it.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.
Not quite true...unless you're messing with time/space lol. A human being can only gain roughly 1lb of lean mass per month...and that's on a bodybuilder diet and exercise routine. Most of the time they are losing fat, but their bodies are retaining water to fuel the repair for all of the new work their muscles are doing.
Cris0 -
Why do I have to keep reading posts like this? Muscle does weigh more than fat based on MATH.
Ready?
Weight = Mass * Gravity
Mass = Density * Volume
Because the gravity on Earth is relatively constant we are left with 2 variables, Density and Volume. In order to compare 2 substances we need to eliminate as many variables as possible which we can do by using the same volume of each substance, let's say 1 cup. This only leaves us with Density and since we know that muscle is more dense than fat we must conclude that muscle weighs more than fat.
SO please stop saying that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat because IT DOES!0 -
1lb of muscle weighs the same as 1lb of fat...im just saying :laugh: :laugh:
0 -
Mine do. They're "special" muscles! :bigsmile:
(Sorry, just couldn't help myself. )0 -
i don't rant often, but this is just IRKING MY NERVES!!! UGH!!!
if i read the statement "muscle weighs more than fat" ONE.MORE.TIME i will probably scream!!! is anyone else miffed about this widespread misrepresentation for weightloss? i mean WTH?!? A POUND IS A FREAKING POUND. the actual difference is in the volume, or space, muscle and fat occupy. fat takes up more space than muscle. so you could have two ppl with the EXACT SAME weight, but one look much trimmer simply because they have LESS fat.
please baby, please baby, baby, baby PLEASE spread the word! correct your friends and help end the spread of this myth.
only YOU can help prevent the spread of fitness myths!
who told you that? do your research first before making this silly post. what you're saying as myth is already proven to be true0 -
i don't rant often, but this is just IRKING MY NERVES!!! UGH!!!.......
so you could have two ppl with the EXACT SAME weight, but one look much trimmer simply because they have LESS fat.
you're ranting your doubts but here you proved it that you're WRONG!!!0 -
Just being the devil's advoacate here, a kilo is a kilo (is a kilo)
The volume of the mass may be different (I believe muscle to be denser than fat, so a KILO of MUSCLE would take up LESS space and therefore make you look fitter) but the WEIGHT stays the same.
Why will people always try to find an outcome they like, rather than shrug it off and accept the truth?
It makes me feel like OMG WTF BBQ!
Ruben
PS: I am still welcoming new friends.
PPS: lost 3KG out of my target 20 already, YES!0 -
It makes me feel like OMG WTF BBQ!
OMGosh, I haven't heard that in forever!0 -
Why do I have to keep reading posts like this? Muscle does weigh more than fat based on MATH.
Ready?
Weight = Mass * Gravity
Mass = Density * Volume
Because the gravity on Earth is relatively constant we are left with 2 variables, Density and Volume. In order to compare 2 substances we need to eliminate as many variables as possible which we can do by using the same volume of each substance, let's say 1 cup. This only leaves us with Density and since we know that muscle is more dense than fat we must conclude that muscle weighs more than fat.
SO please stop saying that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat because IT DOES!
You ASSUMING the same volume,but that IS NEVER EXPLICITLY STATED in the problem of "muscle weighs more than fat.
If we want to really be smart-*kitten* about it, are they even located in the same place? What if the muscle is sitting on top of Everest and the fat is at sea level? the force of gravity would act differently on them...is force "REALLY" a constant?
My point is that the original statement "muscle weighs more than fat" is scientifically impossible to prove as far as I can tell because far too many variables are not explicitly laid out.0 -
♪♫♬♪0
-
Just being the devil's advoacate here, a kilo is a kilo (is a kilo)
The volume of the mass may be different (I believe muscle to be denser than fat, so a KILO of MUSCLE would take up LESS space and therefore make you look fitter) but the WEIGHT stays the same.
Why will people always try to find an outcome they like, rather than shrug it off and accept the truth?
It makes me feel like OMG WTF BBQ!
Ruben
PS: I am still welcoming new friends.
PPS: lost 3KG out of my target 20 already, YES!
And what exactly is the truth that people won't accept?
Your example proves nothing, in fact it leads me to believe that you don't know the definition of Mass.0 -
If you took a pound of rocks. And a pound of marbles. It's always going to weight the same. But that is a unfair comparison.What you need to look at is how many rocks vs how many marbles you are actually weighting. Same thing has to be done here. And until there is scientific proof done one way or the other, I'm not going to say anybody is right or wrong.0
-
Why do I have to keep reading posts like this? Muscle does weigh more than fat based on MATH.
Ready?
Weight = Mass * Gravity
Mass = Density * Volume
Because the gravity on Earth is relatively constant we are left with 2 variables, Density and Volume. In order to compare 2 substances we need to eliminate as many variables as possible which we can do by using the same volume of each substance, let's say 1 cup. This only leaves us with Density and since we know that muscle is more dense than fat we must conclude that muscle weighs more than fat.
SO please stop saying that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat because IT DOES!
You ASSUMING the same volume,but that IS NEVER EXPLICITLY STATED in the problem of "muscle weighs more than fat.
If we want to really be smart-*kitten* about it, are they even located in the same place? What if the muscle is sitting on top of Everest and the fat is at sea level? the force of gravity would act differently on them...is force "REALLY" a constant?
My point is that the original statement "muscle weighs more than fat" is scientifically impossible to prove as far as I can tell because far too many variables are not explicitly laid out.
I was going to type out a long explanation as to why you are wrong but it is obvious that you are not being serious.0 -
If you took a pound of rocks. And a pound of marbles. It's always going to weight the same. But that is a unfair comparison.What you need to look at is how many rocks vs how many marbles you are actually weighting. Same thing has to be done here. And until there is scientific proof done one way or the other, I'm not going to say anybody is right or wrong.
The worst part is the implication that there are a large number of people who don't now that a pound of anything is equal to a pound of anything else.
The OP and many others in this thread seem to think this is a widespread problem.0 -
Why do I have to keep reading posts like this? Muscle does weigh more than fat based on MATH.
Ready?
Weight = Mass * Gravity
Mass = Density * Volume
Because the gravity on Earth is relatively constant we are left with 2 variables, Density and Volume. In order to compare 2 substances we need to eliminate as many variables as possible which we can do by using the same volume of each substance, let's say 1 cup. This only leaves us with Density and since we know that muscle is more dense than fat we must conclude that muscle weighs more than fat.
SO please stop saying that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat because IT DOES!
You ASSUMING the same volume,but that IS NEVER EXPLICITLY STATED in the problem of "muscle weighs more than fat.
If we want to really be smart-*kitten* about it, are they even located in the same place? What if the muscle is sitting on top of Everest and the fat is at sea level? the force of gravity would act differently on them...is force "REALLY" a constant?
My point is that the original statement "muscle weighs more than fat" is scientifically impossible to prove as far as I can tell because far too many variables are not explicitly laid out.
I was going to type out a long explanation as to why you are wrong but it is obvious that you are not being serious.
No, I think they're serious, but just mistaking gravity for pressure.0 -
Why do I have to keep reading posts like this? Muscle does weigh more than fat based on MATH.
Ready?
Weight = Mass * Gravity
Mass = Density * Volume
Because the gravity on Earth is relatively constant we are left with 2 variables, Density and Volume. In order to compare 2 substances we need to eliminate as many variables as possible which we can do by using the same volume of each substance, let's say 1 cup. This only leaves us with Density and since we know that muscle is more dense than fat we must conclude that muscle weighs more than fat.
SO please stop saying that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat because IT DOES!
You ASSUMING the same volume,but that IS NEVER EXPLICITLY STATED in the problem of "muscle weighs more than fat.
If we want to really be smart-*kitten* about it, are they even located in the same place? What if the muscle is sitting on top of Everest and the fat is at sea level? the force of gravity would act differently on them...is force "REALLY" a constant?
My point is that the original statement "muscle weighs more than fat" is scientifically impossible to prove as far as I can tell because far too many variables are not explicitly laid out.
I was going to type out a long explanation as to why you are wrong but it is obvious that you are not being serious.
No, I think they're serious, but just mistaking gravity for pressure.
Or the opposite. I'm getting tired.0 -
It annoys me even more when people rant about things like this. Who cares? We know what we mean, and you know what we mean. Only a perfectionist would complain about this. Here's an idea--spend your time doing something that's actually profitable.0
-
Why do I have to keep reading posts like this? Muscle does weigh more than fat based on MATH.
Ready?
Weight = Mass * Gravity
Mass = Density * Volume
Because the gravity on Earth is relatively constant we are left with 2 variables, Density and Volume. In order to compare 2 substances we need to eliminate as many variables as possible which we can do by using the same volume of each substance, let's say 1 cup. This only leaves us with Density and since we know that muscle is more dense than fat we must conclude that muscle weighs more than fat.
SO please stop saying that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat because IT DOES!
You ASSUMING the same volume,but that IS NEVER EXPLICITLY STATED in the problem of "muscle weighs more than fat.
If we want to really be smart-*kitten* about it, are they even located in the same place? What if the muscle is sitting on top of Everest and the fat is at sea level? the force of gravity would act differently on them...is force "REALLY" a constant?
My point is that the original statement "muscle weighs more than fat" is scientifically impossible to prove as far as I can tell because far too many variables are not explicitly laid out.
I was going to type out a long explanation as to why you are wrong but it is obvious that you are not being serious.
No, I think they're serious, but just mistaking gravity for pressure.
Scary0 -
No, I am very much serious (well, as serious as I can be in such a situation).Why do I have to keep reading posts like this? Muscle does weigh more than fat based on MATH.
Ready?
Weight = Mass * Gravity
Mass = Density * Volume
Because the gravity on Earth is relatively constant we are left with 2 variables, Density and Volume. In order to compare 2 substances we need to eliminate as many variables as possible which we can do by using the same volume of each substance, let's say 1 cup. This only leaves us with Density and since we know that muscle is more dense than fat we must conclude that muscle weighs more than fat.
SO please stop saying that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat because IT DOES!
You ASSUMING the same volume,but that IS NEVER EXPLICITLY STATED in the problem of "muscle weighs more than fat.
If we want to really be smart-*kitten* about it, are they even located in the same place? What if the muscle is sitting on top of Everest and the fat is at sea level? the force of gravity would act differently on them...is force "REALLY" a constant?
My point is that the original statement "muscle weighs more than fat" is scientifically impossible to prove as far as I can tell because far too many variables are not explicitly laid out.
I was going to type out a long explanation as to why you are wrong but it is obvious that you are not being serious.
No, I think they're serious, but just mistaking gravity for pressure.
Scary
I would love a long explanation.
My point was not that a hypothesis could not be made that proves that in a controlled environment fat weighs less than muscle...that's easy, as you pointed out. I'm just saying that when taken from a "literal" viewpoint, the OPs quote does not offer enough information.
Yes, I know that equal volume is implied when people make this statement. Yes I know that muscle is more dense, and therefore weighs more than fat all else equal..
How am I confusing weight with pressure? Weight is mass times acceleration (a unit of force). Pressure is force (IE weight) per unit area.
edit- posting from my phone, attempting to fix errors and likely failing.0 -
My point was not that a hypothesis could not be made that proves that in a controlled environment fat weighs less than muscle...that's easy, as you pointed out. I'm just saying that when taken from a "literal" viewpoint, the OPs quote does not offer enough information.
Yes, I know that equal volume is implied when people make this statement. Yes I know that muscle is more dense, and therefore weighs more than fat all else equal..
How am I confusing weight with pressure? Weight is mass times acceleration (a unit of force). Pressure is force (IE weight) per unit area.
edit- posting from my phone, attempting to fix errors and likely failing.
In a controlled environment... Which is what is required if we are to truly compare the weight of 2 substances.
These people would have you believe that nothing could ever weigh more than anything else, it would just take up a different amount of volume. As if volume itself is not part of the formula to determine weight.
They know that an equal volume is implied yet they insist on pushing the ridiculous notion that there are a large number of us who believe a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat. I thought this was only a joke I used on my children which may have worked for a few seconds until they realized what I had said.
In the end, they are wrong, no matter how much they try to rationalize their argument.0 -
It annoys me even more when people rant about things like this. Who cares? We know what we mean, and you know what we mean. Only a perfectionist would complain about this. Here's an idea--spend your time doing something that's actually profitable.
Seriously! Unless you have a Phd in Anatomy and Physiology/Kinesiology then opinions here are irrelevant!0 -
In a controlled environment... Which is what is required if we are to truly compare the weight of 2 substances.
These people would have you believe that nothing could ever weigh more than anything else, it would just take up a different amount of volume. As if volume itself is not part of the formula to determine weight.
They know that an equal volume is implied yet they insist on pushing the ridiculous notion that there are a large number of us who believe a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat. I thought this was only a joke I used on my children which may have worked for a few seconds until they realized what I had said.
In the end, they are wrong, no matter how much they try to rationalize their argument.
LOL well said =D. A bit abrupt...but it's all truth. When you discuss comparitive weight, without stating equal poundage (what would be the point in discussing comparitive weight if you know the poundage is equal?????), equal volume is assumed, otherwise there could be no comparison.
Seriously guys...is that so hard to get your mind around?? We all KNOW one pound of something weighs the same as one pound of something else. Why even bother to discuss the weight of one object versus another if that's what you believe? Ohhh...right! Because the same volume is clearly implied lol.
Cris0 -
i don't rant often, but this is just IRKING MY NERVES!!! UGH!!!
if i read the statement "muscle weighs more than fat" ONE.MORE.TIME i will probably scream!!! is anyone else miffed about this widespread misrepresentation for weightloss? i mean WTH?!? A POUND IS A FREAKING POUND. the actual difference is in the volume, or space, muscle and fat occupy. fat takes up more space than muscle. so you could have two ppl with the EXACT SAME weight, but one look much trimmer simply because they have LESS fat.
please baby, please baby, baby, baby PLEASE spread the word! correct your friends and help end the spread of this myth.
only YOU can help prevent the spread of fitness myths!
I'm sorry to ruin your rant, but you're wrong.... ask any personal trainer or nutritionist that you come across. Take any volume of fat vs any volume of muscle, the muscle will weigh more.... possibly because more muscle can be packed into that volume since it's leaner. I don't know the scientific reason but I DO know that muscle does weigh more than fat.0 -
and the reason you hear it so often, is because more muscle=more fat burn, but when people see #'s on the scale some of them shy away from food. That's why personal trainers will tell you to pay attention to how you look, feel and how your clothes fit more than paying attention to the scale. Instead of getting caught up in numbers and debates, our energy would be better expended doing something to burn calories... and yet, here I sit also debating when I should be exercising. as an example: when a friend of mine and I both had our babies back in the day, I lost more "weight" than her, by diet alone. She "weighed" 9 lbs. more than me, but she lost her baby weight by diet and weight training... She looked FABULOUS and I looked flabby. I weighed 109 lbs. and still looked overweight. She weighed 120 and looked like one of those swimsuit models. She had more muscle... coincidence?? probably not... I'm off to do "Tabata Inferno" for S90 now.... have a great debate!0
-
Exactly!!But it does. Say you have a cubic foot of muscle and a cubic foot of fat. The muscle will weigh more.0
-
No, I am very much serious (well, as serious as I can be in such a situation).Why do I have to keep reading posts like this? Muscle does weigh more than fat based on MATH.
Ready?
Weight = Mass * Gravity
Mass = Density * Volume
Because the gravity on Earth is relatively constant we are left with 2 variables, Density and Volume. In order to compare 2 substances we need to eliminate as many variables as possible which we can do by using the same volume of each substance, let's say 1 cup. This only leaves us with Density and since we know that muscle is more dense than fat we must conclude that muscle weighs more than fat.
SO please stop saying that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat because IT DOES!
You ASSUMING the same volume,but that IS NEVER EXPLICITLY STATED in the problem of "muscle weighs more than fat.
If we want to really be smart-*kitten* about it, are they even located in the same place? What if the muscle is sitting on top of Everest and the fat is at sea level? the force of gravity would act differently on them...is force "REALLY" a constant?
My point is that the original statement "muscle weighs more than fat" is scientifically impossible to prove as far as I can tell because far too many variables are not explicitly laid out.
I was going to type out a long explanation as to why you are wrong but it is obvious that you are not being serious.
No, I think they're serious, but just mistaking gravity for pressure.
Scary
I would love a long explanation.
My point was not that a hypothesis could not be made that proves that in a controlled environment fat weighs less than muscle...that's easy, as you pointed out. I'm just saying that when taken from a "literal" viewpoint, the OPs quote does not offer enough information.
Yes, I know that equal volume is implied when people make this statement. Yes I know that muscle is more dense, and therefore weighs more than fat all else equal..
How am I confusing weight with pressure? Weight is mass times acceleration (a unit of force). Pressure is force (IE weight) per unit area.
edit- posting from my phone, attempting to fix errors and likely failing.
Actually, you are quite right about gravity in this case, it's not constant depending on where it is. My misunderstanding.
However, you would really need to be comparing things at the same altitude for any fair comparison, making the technically a constant in the situation, for all intents and purposes.
EDIT: My understanding was definitely flawed. Thanks for the opportunity to learn something new.0 -
I just would love if everyone did their research on exactly how long/how hard you actually have to work to gain actual muscle mass. It doesn't happen in a weeks time or cause an overnight gain. Get real and stop saying "muscle weighs more than fat" with Jane Doe posts that her weight is 2 lbs more than 3 days ago. It doesn't work like that.0
-
!-The Muscle Maximizer-!
http://2ed00twiwbspt676-chkr8h80q.hop.clickbank.net/?tid=IMPROVE0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions