Muscle does not weight more then fat
Options
Replies
-
donjtomasco wrote: »CatOfTheGa...-LOL. Fact, NO muscle does not weigh more then fat? Weight is weight. How can you say that after first saying you have 'a degree' in this "stuff"? I think you are now trolling this post.......no other explanation.
I bet you would also say that "It was on sale, so I made money on the purchase".
*sigh*.
I have an honours degree in Naval Architecture. If you tell me what you are building, I can tell you if it will float, and which way up. Density is more important to me than to almost any other kind of engineer. I have worked as a stability specialist doing calculations for new and existing vessels and I currently teach cadets training to be marine engineers about density, buoyancy and stability.
I can say it because it is true. Some substances are heavier than others. Gold is heavier than silver. Rock is heavier than cheese. Steel is heavier than aluminium. And muscle is heavier than fat. If you say "heavier" in relation to a substance, not an object, it is an expression of density. Before I came on this forum I had never encountered anyone who did not understand it as such and it had never crossed my mind that anyone would argue about it.
I don't know what else to say to you. If I'm a troll, I'm a very patient one who has been hanging around these forums an awful long time giving boringly helpful answers to other threads.16 -
Scientifically when you compare density of materials, you don't weigh a pound against a pound. You weigh volume versus volume.
So a liter of muscle DOES WEIGH MORE than a liter of fat when comparing equal volume.
People trying to decipher the whole "muscle weighs more than fat" is usually when someone is dismayed at not losing weight or gained weight and this statement is said to help them understand why.
Which BTW, while the statement is true, the likely reason people aren't losing or are gaining weight is likely due more to either calorie intake or water fluctuation in the body.
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
3 -
Which BTW, while the statement is true, the likely reason people aren't losing or are gaining weight is likely due more to either calorie intake or water fluctuation in the body.
And that is ultimately the most important thing. The point that's worth arguing isn't "does muscle weigh more than fat?" it's "is that statement relevant and helpful?" - to which the answer is almost always "no".
The whole argument about the meaning of density is a complete rabbit trail.
8 -
donjtomasco wrote: »I think these kinds of photos need to show the person in the same outfit, with the same expression, with the same hair, both with or without glasses, same lighting, showing same side, just identical in every way pics, otherwise I don't buy it. Kind of like those weight loss before and after photos, where there are so many obvious silly things wrong with the comparison, could have even been the same person in each at the same time of shooting.
So how exactly do you think it works, then? What part of the concept are you having difficulty with?1 -
donjtomasco wrote: »I think these kinds of photos need to show the person in the same outfit, with the same expression, with the same hair, both with or without glasses, same lighting, showing same side, just identical in every way pics, otherwise I don't buy it. Kind of like those weight loss before and after photos, where there are so many obvious silly things wrong with the comparison, could have even been the same person in each at the same time of shooting.
well for me I went from a sz 16/18 at 209lbs to a 6/8 now and Im 168 lbs(5'6 1/2), now when I was 140 lbs(before I got fat,even after I had kids I went back to this weight). I was a sz 10. I look bigger now than I did(at least to me I do). but at 140 lbs I wore a bigger size than I do now, the difference is I have less fat and look a lot leaner than I was at 140. I still have some fat left to lose but I weigh more and am smaller in size.cant show pics because I dont like having my picture taken(especially when I was fat). so I dont have much to compare it to. but I can say I am proof that lifting does change your body and you can weigh more and be a smaller size.1 -
0
-
Since we're being pedantic, a pint of water does not weigh a pound. Not even that close.1
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Since we're being pedantic, a pint of water does not weigh a pound. Not even that close.
Be that as it may, would you say the rest of it is ok to get the question of volume across?0 -
A bucket of muscle weighs more than a bucket of fat. Just like a bucket of nails weighs more than a bucket of cotton balls. This used to be joke back in 5th grade or so.1
-
If only there were some property that we could use to compare mass and volume at the same time. If only...
5 -
-
I think this thread could be in the diet soda and fake sugar thread lol .
to the OP it sounds like your on point with direction your heading ,, good job and good luck0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »To those who insist that muscle does not weigh more than fat because one LB of muscle is the same as one LB of fat (ignoring that volume is implied in the statement), I am truly curious:
Do you really think that other people are confused about whether one LB of something weighs the same as one LB of something else? When people say (incorrectly, obviously) that someone dieting for a few weeks and adding in some exercise might not have lost because muscle weighs more than fat, do you imagine that they think that 1 LB of muscle shows up as 2 LB on the scale or something?
Because it would never cross my mind that anyone could think something so weird. It's kind of insulting, really.
You would think so, wouldn't you? But I've browsed several of the "muscle weighs more than fat" discussions here where it's clear that at least one person does not understand mass or volume, which is why I brace myself a bit when someone says "of course a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle" - there are some folks for whom that is not an obvious statement.
I don't know, I really have not seen anyone for whom that is so in these discussions. I've seen lots of people assuming that is so, and I am genuinely wondering why they assume that.
I wish before pedantically correcting someone it would at least be asked "do you mean that you think 1 lb of muscle weighs more than 1 lb of fat," because I am close to 100% certain that the answer would be "of course not, I mean given the same amount of both (volume, that is, although they might not add this), the muscle would weigh more.
IMO that is ALWAYS implicit in the statement.
Someone in this thread did just that tho - claimed that by the logic of 1lb of anything is equal to 1 lb of anything else that mice and elephants weigh the same. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that "logic". And her post got "liked" and "awesomed"
which means at least a few people agreed.
That's why it gets pointed out that a lb is a lb.
0 -
I don' t really have an opinion on this debate. All I know is that I am trying to lose weight but I am certainly still going to do my strength training days, because if you don't have any strength, it's a lot more difficult to do cardio exercises.0
-
+1If only there were some property that we could use to compare mass and volume at the same time. If only...
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
0 -
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Since we're being pedantic, a pint of water does not weigh a pound. Not even that close.
Be that as it may, would you say the rest of it is ok to get the question of volume across?
She certainly makes the point that measurements can be a better guide than weight in some cases. I'm still scratching my head over "weight is an optical illusion", though.0 -
Since you seem to have completely missed the humor in my first post, I'll take a stab at responding seriously.tlflag1620 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »By the logic behind the argument that "muscle does not weigh more than fat because one pound of muscles weighs the same as one pound of fat," nothing weighs more than anything. An elephant doesn't weigh more than a mouse, because one pound of elephant weigh the same as one pound of mouse (or mice, I guess, unless we're talking about a rodent of unusual size). I don't weigh any more now than I did in high school, because one pound of me now weighs the same as one pound of me in high school. Yeah! I weigh the same as I did in high school! I guess I can stop watching my weight!
Not really. One lb of anything is one lb. One lb of muscle is one lb. One lb of fat is one lb. One lb of elephant meat is one lb. A one lb mouse is one lb.
Exactly what I said, so how is what you're saying "not really"?What is meant by 'muscle weighs more than fat' is that one lb of muscle takes up less space than one lb of fat (muscle is more dense). One lb of you now DOES weigh the same as one lb of you did in high school (assuming you keep the composition of whatever part we cut off the same). There are more TOTAL lbs of you now, so you are bigger now (presumably). But a lb is still a lb (unless the gravitational pull of the earth changed?).
Well, no, the composition of the part of me you cut off doesn't matter, because both will be one pound.An elephant is heavier than a mouse, not because one lb of elephant is heavier than one lb of mouse (that makes no logical sense). An elephant is heavier than a mouse because elephants are far bigger than mice. I don't know what their relative densities are though, so I don't know which would take up less volume, a lb of mouse or a lb of elephant... I'd guess the mouse, they seem like they'd be leaner, but I could be wrong
I was responding to the logic of people who compare one pound of muscle to one pound of fat to say that muscle weighs the same as fat. By that logic, everything in the universe weighs the same, because one pound of anything weighs the same as one pound of anything else. I was attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of their approach to the discussion by pointing out the logical consequences of applying their argument across the board.You can easily see the difference between weight and density at the grocery store. Go grab a 5 lb sack of flour. Then go into produce and grab a 5 lb sack of potatoes. Are they the same size? No. They weigh the same, but they are not the same size. Why? Density. Flour doesn't weigh less than potatoes, but it is more dense, so it takes up less space, at any given weight.
You forgot to tell me where to find the sacks of flour and explain what a grocery store is.1 -
When people say "Muscle weighs more than fat" they are talking in terms of two parts of equal mass. The muscle would weigh more because it is more dense. Context is important.1
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Since we're being pedantic, a pint of water does not weigh a pound. Not even that close.
US pint or Imperial pint?
3
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozt-V0PPJaw
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions