Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat!!!

Options
135

Replies

  • RobD520
    RobD520 Posts: 420 Member
    Options
    When people say this, I think they mean:

    At the same volume, muscle weighs more than fat.

    And this is clearly accurate.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Options
    Tweaking_Time wrote: »
    OP - But the whole earth is floating in space - so since the earth is floating, does fat weigh anything at all?

    bz6yvmjv2mgu.jpg



    cvqd002ce7t3.jpeg

  • sculli123
    sculli123 Posts: 1,221 Member
    Options
    A pound is a pound no matter the material. However, by volume muscle is more dense than fat.

    Look at it this way....Take a brick that weighs 10 lbs and then take a bag of feathers that weighs 10 lbs. They both weigh the same but that bag of feathers is going to be way bigger than the brick.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    Options
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    maryhoule47 wrote: »
    Whether a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers. A pound is a pound is a pound. Muscle takes up less space than fat, but it does NOT weigh less. Another weight loss myth. I hate to see people deceived by this.

    I hear ya, a pound is a pound, except.......be open to this.....

    If you compare one cubic inch of fat to one cubic inch of muscle, then the muscle would weigh more than the fat because it (the fat) is denser. This is generally what a lot of people think when they say muscle weighs more than fat.

    However, there are people who take the muscle weighs more than fat literally and believe that is the reason they are not losing weight.




    You typo'd. The bolded should say (the muscle). :wink:

    Yowsa!

    You're right. :)
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Mouse_Potato wrote: »
    I have never understood why this is a subject of such contention around here. When you compare two things, you must have a constant and it can't be the thing you are comparing. You can't take a pound of fat and a pound of muscle and ask which weighs more. It makes no sense to say I am as tall as Yao Ming because a meter of my body is as tall as a meter of his. That's not how comparisons work.

    the only reason it gets contentious is when someone says they are not losing on a 1200 calories a day deficit and they are walking three times a week and someone comes in and says "well muscle weighs more than fat, so you are gaining muscle, which is why you are not losing" ...ummm no, that is not what is going on ...

    Yup.
  • TheLegendaryBrandonHarris
    TheLegendaryBrandonHarris Posts: 502 Member
    Options
    Iron weighs more than Styrofoam.

    o:)
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    Options
    TheLegendaryBrandonHarris wrote: »
    Iron weighs more than Styrofoam.

    o:)

    Unless the sytrofoam has bricks in it, and the iron is made out of feathers.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    Tweaking_Time wrote: »
    OP - But the whole earth is floating in space - so since the earth is floating, does fat weigh anything at all?

    bz6yvmjv2mgu.jpg


    Sure. Since atoms are mostly empty space, shouldn't we be traslucent?
  • 143tobe
    143tobe Posts: 620 Member
    Options
    Seriously, are we here again? Like this topic hasn't been posted here for the zillionth time. Oh no... a zillion is not a real number. Quick! Someone call me out on it.
  • thatdesertgirl777
    thatdesertgirl777 Posts: 269 Member
    Options
    Kthnx
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    maryhoule47 wrote: »
    Whether a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers. A pound is a pound is a pound. Muscle takes up less space than fat, but it does NOT weigh less. Another weight loss myth. I hate to see people deceived by this.

    How is this a weight loss myth?

    And how are people being deceived by this "myth"?

    I'm just having some trouble wrapping my head around how people are being duped by confusing equal pounds of two different things.

    And how is the whole argument motivational or supportive?

    That Earth post has me questioning my existence today. :confounded:
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,526 Member
    Options
    143tobe wrote: »
    Seriously, are we here again? Like this topic hasn't been posted here for the zillionth time. Oh no... a zillion is not a real number. Quick! Someone call me out on it.
    It's true, a zillion isn't a number, but muscle does weigh more than fat.
    There are lots and lots of repeated threads with the same questions over and over again. Answering them right isn't wrong.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Options
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    Muscle does NOT take up less space than fat!!! Whether a gallon of bricks or a gallon of feathers. A gallon is a gallon is a gallon. Muscle weighs more than fat, but it does NOT take up less space. Another weight loss myth. I hate to see people deceived by this.

    Beat me to it.
    :'(
  • xmichaelyx
    xmichaelyx Posts: 883 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    maryhoule47 wrote: »
    Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat!!!

    It's denser, and therefore weighs more by volume.

    Being deliberately obtuse doesn't help anyone, particularly yourself.

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    143tobe wrote: »
    Seriously, are we here again? Like this topic hasn't been posted here for the zillionth time. Oh no... a zillion is not a real number. Quick! Someone call me out on it.

    you must be new here...
  • mbaker566
    mbaker566 Posts: 11,233 Member
    Options
    that's not being obtuse
    that's explaining what people mean when they say muscle weighs more than fat
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    143tobe wrote: »
    Seriously, are we here again? Like this topic hasn't been posted here for the zillionth time. Oh no... a zillion is not a real number. Quick! Someone call me out on it.
    It's true, a zillion isn't a number, but muscle does weigh more than fat.
    There are lots and lots of repeated threads with the same questions over and over again. Answering them right isn't wrong.

    Only if the muscle and fat are of equal sizes.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    Options
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    143tobe wrote: »
    Seriously, are we here again? Like this topic hasn't been posted here for the zillionth time. Oh no... a zillion is not a real number. Quick! Someone call me out on it.
    It's true, a zillion isn't a number, but muscle does weigh more than fat.
    There are lots and lots of repeated threads with the same questions over and over again. Answering them right isn't wrong.

    Only if the muscle and fat are of equal sizes.

    holy-sht.gif
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Options
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    143tobe wrote: »
    Seriously, are we here again? Like this topic hasn't been posted here for the zillionth time. Oh no... a zillion is not a real number. Quick! Someone call me out on it.
    It's true, a zillion isn't a number, but muscle does weigh more than fat.
    There are lots and lots of repeated threads with the same questions over and over again. Answering them right isn't wrong.

    Only if the muscle and fat are of equal sizes.

    Well, not only. I mean, if there's a higher volume of muscle, then it's still gonna weigh more. ;)

Categories