muscle DOES NOT weigh more than fat!!!!

Options
145791012

Replies

  • ronda_gettinghealthy
    ronda_gettinghealthy Posts: 777 Member
    Options
    CHILL:drinker:
  • mynameisnutz
    mynameisnutz Posts: 123
    Options
    Muscle ways more then fat? I hope I don't loose it.
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    Options
    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.

    Cris
  • Chuckw40
    Chuckw40 Posts: 201
    Options
    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!
  • almonds1
    almonds1 Posts: 642 Member
    Options
    1lb of muscle weighs the same as 1lb of fat...im just saying :laugh: :laugh: :wink:
  • knittnponder
    knittnponder Posts: 1,954 Member
    Options
    Mine do. They're "special" muscles! :bigsmile:

    (Sorry, just couldn't help myself. )
  • LaMujerMasBonitaDelMundo
    LaMujerMasBonitaDelMundo Posts: 3,634 Member
    Options
    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 true
  • LaMujerMasBonitaDelMundo
    LaMujerMasBonitaDelMundo Posts: 3,634 Member
    Options
    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!!!
  • QTWolf
    QTWolf Posts: 2
    Options
    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!
  • bunchesonothing
    bunchesonothing Posts: 1,015 Member
    Options


    It makes me feel like OMG WTF BBQ!

    OMGosh, I haven't heard that in forever!
  • Dcgfeller
    Dcgfeller Posts: 83
    Options
    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.
  • katschi
    katschi Posts: 689 Member
    Options
    ♪♫♬♪
  • Chuckw40
    Chuckw40 Posts: 201
    Options
    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.
  • Spitfirex007
    Spitfirex007 Posts: 749 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Chuckw40
    Chuckw40 Posts: 201
    Options
    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.
  • Chuckw40
    Chuckw40 Posts: 201
    Options
    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.
  • bunchesonothing
    bunchesonothing Posts: 1,015 Member
    Options
    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.
  • bunchesonothing
    bunchesonothing Posts: 1,015 Member
    Options
    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.
  • HaleyAlli
    HaleyAlli Posts: 911 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Chuckw40
    Chuckw40 Posts: 201
    Options
    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