muscle DOES NOT weigh more than fat!!!!

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.

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.

Cris

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!

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

No, I am very much serious (well, as serious as I can be in such a situation).

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.

!-The Muscle Maximizer-!
http://2ed00twiwbspt676-chkr8h80q.hop.clickbank.net/?tid=IMPROVE

i don't rant often, but this is just IRKING MY NERVES!!! UGH!!!

I didn't know nerves could be irked. Hmm. I guess I learn something new every day. :laugh:

No wonder I'm so heavy. I must have been weighing myself in muscle lb rather than fat lb.

The issue is really that the science/maths have been simplified into catchphrase language. The people who use the phrase (myself included) know exactly what it means and tend to use it with people who are like-minded. It's not like it's an everyday term.

Head over to a wedding forum one day. They will drive you crazy with their use of isle instead of aisle. :grumble:

That’s ridiculous. Nobody thinks a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat. Surely not? Inch per inch, muscle does weigh more. I think that is what people mean when they say that.

I'm pretty sure this is what everyone means when they say a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat. Simmer down. lol!

Here is my question:

If you have a pound of fat, and a chunk of muscle that is the same size & volume as the 1 pound of fat, how much does that chunk of muscle weigh?

I have read that muscle weighs 2.5 times heavier by volume so I assume that would make 1 pound fat = 2.5 pounds muscle for the same volume.

I was catching up on the UK biggest loser and it was rather annoying when one of the trainers saying the person probably didn't lose weight because muscle weighs more than fat. Nothing about being more dense or by volume.

Five dollars worth of manure costs the same as five dollars worth of gold, but not many will argue with me if I say gold is more expensive than cow poop.

The "by volume" is implied.