Muscle does not weight more then fat
Options
Replies
-
Sorry Carlis, I will remember that it is Kimney from now on.0
-
A pound is a pound... when people state "A pound of fat weighs more than a pound of muscle" they're wrongly interpreting the fact that muscle is more dense, therefore it's total weight to volume ratio is higher than fat.
In laymans terms, a pound of fat is larger in total volume than a pound of muscle.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/576481.html
Answers quoting research within the link above.1 -
lkpducky, yes I think muscle and fat are the same thing... What was that comment about? Do you think a car is the same thing as a swimming pool? Lol. I think you must be hungry.0
-
SymbolismNZ wrote: »A pound is a pound... when people state "A pound of fat weighs more than a pound of muscle" they're wrongly interpreting the fact that muscle is more dense, therefore it's total weight to volume ratio is higher than fat.
In laymans terms, a pound of fat is larger in total volume than a pound of muscle.
For instance, that's why Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has a 34" waist and 38" stomach despite weighing near 300lbs.
0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Since we're being pedantic, a pint of water does not weigh a pound. Not even that close.
?? I just weighed a pint of water (U.S. pint of 16 fl. oz. or approximately 480 ml) on my kitchen scale and got 1 lb, 3/4 oz. I was assuming some combination of inaccuracy in my eye-balling of the measurement, the cup itself, or the scale accounted for the extra 3/4 oz.
480ml of fresh water weighs 480g. A pound is 454g. Granted it's not a million miles off but it's quite far from being the same (about an ounce of difference).
An Imperial pint like we use in the UK is approx 570ml, so an Imperial pint of fresh water weighs 570g, which is miles off.
Thanks for the clarification. I wonder if they used different sized pints or pounds in the days when the saying originated, or if 5% to 6% difference didn't seem worth worrying about to them.
You mean "a pint's a pound the whole world round"? I only learned that phrase recently and it struck me as very odd since not only does a pint of water not weigh a pound anywhere, a pint isn't even the same thing in different places. It's got to win some kind of award for "most inaccurate proverb". I do wonder how it came about.1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
I think you misunderstood the comment.
That person was saying that by the logic that fat and muscle weigh the same, because 1 lb of fat weighs the same as 1 lb of muscle, everything weighs the same. 1 lb of me weighs the same as 1 lb of my sister, so by that logic it would be inaccurate to say she weighs less than me, one lb of a mouse weighs the same as one lb of elephant, so it's wrong to say an elephant weighs more than a mouse. (That this is a ridiculous conclusion was the whole point.) Yes, with a mouse and elephant it is implied that you mean the WHOLE mouse and the WHOLE elephant, but it is similarly implied when you compare the weights of anything that you mean equal volumes if they are not already discrete things.
IMO, no one doesn't know that a lb=a lb. They are not confused about that when saying muscle weighs more than fat, and it's puzzling that some think they are. Again, if we were comparing one lb of muscle and one lb of fat (vs. equal volumes of both), how could the muscle result in a higher number on the scale, which is generally part of the claim? Volume is implicit.
(It's wrong because why would you lose an inch of fat and gain an inch of muscle at the same time. The idea assumes that muscle is easier to gain that it really is, and that you gain much more than you do, even apart from the deficit and the supposed cause that exists in most cases where it's said.)
But if someone says "don't worry about the scale number to much, because someone with lots of muscle might weigh more than someone with more fat, because muscle weighs more than fat," that's basically true. The reason is that muscle is more dense than fat and takes up less space, so you can be heavier on the scale and yet smaller, but that's all implicit in what's being said and I'd bet known to the person saying it if you ask the right questions.2 -
donjtomasco wrote: »lemur, I can take two pics of myself right now and put a caption on each saying 220 and 195 and it would be believable.
I don't question that. I am still not sure what you are claiming you aren't convinced of -- that more muscle and less fat can result in a HIGHER weight on the scale and yet a physically smaller body? That's all the photos were intended to show.4 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »But that doesn't mean one lb of muscle weighs more than one lb of fat. The latter also gets said from time to time, and gets corrected (and rightfully so).
This is what I'm questioning. I have never seen anyone say that 1 lb of muscle weighs more than 1 lb of fat. I don't think it happens. It is too obviously ridiculous AND doesn't fit the situations where it usually comes up (someone complaining about the # of lb on the scale). I HAVE seen people assume they were saying it when they were not (including in this thread quite recently).1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
I'm assuming that the difference between you and the people who clicked like or awesome on my elephant and mice post is that their senses of humor are more in tune with mine, along with their recognition that I was undercutting the argument that "muscle weighs the same as fat because 1 lb of each weigh the same" by pointing out its logical absurdity when you apply it in other situations. Sorry that this has gotten you so riled up.
I've never seen anyone claim 10 lbs of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat. Never. So your mouse/elephant post is not the logical next step of saying one lb of muscle weighs the same as one lb of fat.
When people say muscle weighs more than fat, they mean muscle is more dense. The muscle takes up less space at the same weight. But that doesn't mean one lb of muscle weighs more than one lb of fat. The latter also gets said from time to time, and gets corrected (and rightfully so).
No? There was a zombie thread bumped this morning where someone claimed 1 pound of muscle weighed as much as 6 pounds of fat.0 -
Could someone link the thread?0
-
donjtomasco wrote: »Trigden, you don't need to participate in this post. It is your choice. I am glad you are so advanced and experienced to point out my lack of knowledge in the subject, but I am very happy with my weight loss and workouts so far.
Galgen, yes, I am getting stronger. I am adding weight on each exercise. I have my previous high on each exercise and my goal is to at least hit that number again. I will be amazed at 54 if I can do that again. If so, I will be super satisfied. If I don't I will just keep lifting and trying to get better.
Trigden, now go get back to your bench presses and flexing in the mirror for everyone. And work on your sentence structure and grammar, your wording showed a general lack of understanding.
Um... fyi, it's "muscle weighs more THAN fat," not "muscle weighs more THEN fat." Just saying.
Also, when someone says that muscle weighs more than fat, they are paying you the compliment of assuming that you can read for context and understand that they're talking about weight by volume. It's not an esoteric concept. Literally the only time I have ever heard someone say "a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat," they were saying it to debunk something stupid they thought they heard someone else say, when actually they were the one who was missing half the conversation.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
I'm assuming that the difference between you and the people who clicked like or awesome on my elephant and mice post is that their senses of humor are more in tune with mine, along with their recognition that I was undercutting the argument that "muscle weighs the same as fat because 1 lb of each weigh the same" by pointing out its logical absurdity when you apply it in other situations. Sorry that this has gotten you so riled up.
I've never seen anyone claim 10 lbs of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat. Never. So your mouse/elephant post is not the logical next step of saying one lb of muscle weighs the same as one lb of fat.
When people say muscle weighs more than fat, they mean muscle is more dense. The muscle takes up less space at the same weight. But that doesn't mean one lb of muscle weighs more than one lb of fat. The latter also gets said from time to time, and gets corrected (and rightfully so).
OK. You're still not understanding me. It doesn't seem worth trying to explain again.
I guess not. Sorry. :shrug:
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
I think you misunderstood the comment.
That person was saying that by the logic that fat and muscle weigh the same, because 1 lb of fat weighs the same as 1 lb of muscle, everything weighs the same. 1 lb of me weighs the same as 1 lb of my sister, so by that logic it would be inaccurate to say she weighs less than me, one lb of a mouse weighs the same as one lb of elephant, so it's wrong to say an elephant weighs more than a mouse. (That this is a ridiculous conclusion was the whole point.) Yes, with a mouse and elephant it is implied that you mean the WHOLE mouse and the WHOLE elephant, but it is similarly implied when you compare the weights of anything that you mean equal volumes if they are not already discrete things.
IMO, no one doesn't know that a lb=a lb. They are not confused about that when saying muscle weighs more than fat, and it's puzzling that some think they are. Again, if we were comparing one lb of muscle and one lb of fat (vs. equal volumes of both), how could the muscle result in a higher number on the scale, which is generally part of the claim? Volume is implicit.
(It's wrong because why would you lose an inch of fat and gain an inch of muscle at the same time. The idea assumes that muscle is easier to gain that it really is, and that you gain much more than you do, even apart from the deficit and the supposed cause that exists in most cases where it's said.)
But if someone says "don't worry about the scale number to much, because someone with lots of muscle might weigh more than someone with more fat, because muscle weighs more than fat," that's basically true. The reason is that muscle is more dense than fat and takes up less space, so you can be heavier on the scale and yet smaller, but that's all implicit in what's being said and I'd bet known to the person saying it if you ask the right questions.
Okay... That makes more sense. I guess I got confused because elephants and mice aren't homogenous substances, but you could certainly chop them up and compare 1lb of elephant to 1lb of mouse, lol. Since volume was never actually mentioned, it didn't click what the poster was getting at.
FWIW - I'm the same height and weight now as I was in high school, but I'm not quite exactly the same. Same clothing size, but my waist is a half inch bigger, as well as my hips. I blame my four kids
. But also I probably lost a tad of muscle over the years, so even at the same height and weight, I'm essentially "fatter" than I used to be.
@lynn_glenmont sorry I didn't quite get what you were getting at.
1 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Since we're being pedantic, a pint of water does not weigh a pound. Not even that close.
?? I just weighed a pint of water (U.S. pint of 16 fl. oz. or approximately 480 ml) on my kitchen scale and got 1 lb, 3/4 oz. I was assuming some combination of inaccuracy in my eye-balling of the measurement, the cup itself, or the scale accounted for the extra 3/4 oz.
480ml of fresh water weighs 480g. A pound is 454g. Granted it's not a million miles off but it's quite far from being the same (about an ounce of difference).
An Imperial pint like we use in the UK is approx 570ml, so an Imperial pint of fresh water weighs 570g, which is miles off.
Thanks for the clarification. I wonder if they used different sized pints or pounds in the days when the saying originated, or if 5% to 6% difference didn't seem worth worrying about to them.
You mean "a pint's a pound the whole world round"? I only learned that phrase recently and it struck me as very odd since not only does a pint of water not weigh a pound anywhere, a pint isn't even the same thing in different places. It's got to win some kind of award for "most inaccurate proverb". I do wonder how it came about.
It's a rule of thumb, used for estimation. And originated in a cultural context where people used the US-sized pint, not the Imperial pint; and at a time when cross-culture travel and communication were not as common as they are today.
Useful, potentially, where this is understood.
0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
I'm assuming that the difference between you and the people who clicked like or awesome on my elephant and mice post is that their senses of humor are more in tune with mine, along with their recognition that I was undercutting the argument that "muscle weighs the same as fat because 1 lb of each weigh the same" by pointing out its logical absurdity when you apply it in other situations. Sorry that this has gotten you so riled up.
I've never seen anyone claim 10 lbs of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat. Never. So your mouse/elephant post is not the logical next step of saying one lb of muscle weighs the same as one lb of fat.
When people say muscle weighs more than fat, they mean muscle is more dense. The muscle takes up less space at the same weight. But that doesn't mean one lb of muscle weighs more than one lb of fat. The latter also gets said from time to time, and gets corrected (and rightfully so).
No? There was a zombie thread bumped this morning where someone claimed 1 pound of muscle weighed as much as 6 pounds of fat.
I saw that, too (or maybe it was an assertion, written right out in words, that a pound of fat weighs less than a pound of muscle - couldn't quite recall)! Stunned, I was.
But, sadly, I can't remember what thread it was in . . . .0 -
lemurcat, your analogy is so off. Using your analogy it would be correct to say that 1 lb of fat is the same as 1 lb of muscle, but 2 lbs of fat does not weigh the same as 9 lbs of muscle. So, yes, 1 lb of you weighs the same as 1 lb of your sister, but you weigh more then her because you weigh 159 and she weighs 126, so you two do not weigh the same.0
-
Larissa, thank you fur the grammer/speling correction, which is very important two staying in shape. And know, I don't tend to assume that people do not really mean what they say, which is another way of putting what you jest said. Knot that I am trying to say that all of those compliments that you receive are not compliments, it is all a matter of perspective.0
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Since we're being pedantic, a pint of water does not weigh a pound. Not even that close.
?? I just weighed a pint of water (U.S. pint of 16 fl. oz. or approximately 480 ml) on my kitchen scale and got 1 lb, 3/4 oz. I was assuming some combination of inaccuracy in my eye-balling of the measurement, the cup itself, or the scale accounted for the extra 3/4 oz.
480ml of fresh water weighs 480g. A pound is 454g. Granted it's not a million miles off but it's quite far from being the same (about an ounce of difference).
An Imperial pint like we use in the UK is approx 570ml, so an Imperial pint of fresh water weighs 570g, which is miles off.
Thanks for the clarification. I wonder if they used different sized pints or pounds in the days when the saying originated, or if 5% to 6% difference didn't seem worth worrying about to them.
You mean "a pint's a pound the whole world round"? I only learned that phrase recently and it struck me as very odd since not only does a pint of water not weigh a pound anywhere, a pint isn't even the same thing in different places. It's got to win some kind of award for "most inaccurate proverb". I do wonder how it came about.
It's a rule of thumb, used for estimation. And originated in a cultural context where people used the US-sized pint, not the Imperial pint; and at a time when cross-culture travel and communication were not as common as they are today.
Useful, potentially, where this is understood.
It's the "whole world round" bit that seems so particularly daft.1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
I think you misunderstood the comment.
That person was saying that by the logic that fat and muscle weigh the same, because 1 lb of fat weighs the same as 1 lb of muscle, everything weighs the same. 1 lb of me weighs the same as 1 lb of my sister, so by that logic it would be inaccurate to say she weighs less than me, one lb of a mouse weighs the same as one lb of elephant, so it's wrong to say an elephant weighs more than a mouse. (That this is a ridiculous conclusion was the whole point.) Yes, with a mouse and elephant it is implied that you mean the WHOLE mouse and the WHOLE elephant, but it is similarly implied when you compare the weights of anything that you mean equal volumes if they are not already discrete things.
IMO, no one doesn't know that a lb=a lb. They are not confused about that when saying muscle weighs more than fat, and it's puzzling that some think they are. Again, if we were comparing one lb of muscle and one lb of fat (vs. equal volumes of both), how could the muscle result in a higher number on the scale, which is generally part of the claim? Volume is implicit.
(It's wrong because why would you lose an inch of fat and gain an inch of muscle at the same time. The idea assumes that muscle is easier to gain that it really is, and that you gain much more than you do, even apart from the deficit and the supposed cause that exists in most cases where it's said.)
But if someone says "don't worry about the scale number to much, because someone with lots of muscle might weigh more than someone with more fat, because muscle weighs more than fat," that's basically true. The reason is that muscle is more dense than fat and takes up less space, so you can be heavier on the scale and yet smaller, but that's all implicit in what's being said and I'd bet known to the person saying it if you ask the right questions.
Okay... That makes more sense. I guess I got confused because elephants and mice aren't homogenous substances, but you could certainly chop them up and compare 1lb of elephant to 1lb of mouse, lol. Since volume was never actually mentioned, it didn't click what the poster was getting at.
FWIW - I'm the same height and weight now as I was in high school, but I'm not quite exactly the same. Same clothing size, but my waist is a half inch bigger, as well as my hips. I blame my four kids. But also I probably lost a tad of muscle over the years, so even at the same height and weight, I'm essentially "fatter" than I used to be.
@lynn_glenmont sorry I didn't quite get what you were getting at.
No problem. I've worked as an editor and a copy editor, which requires you to put yourself in the reader's place and ferret out possible ambiguity, so I try to see both sides when there is miscommunication, but after the second try, I just couldn't figure out where the breakdown in our communication was. I'm glad @lemurcat12 was better able to explain my point.1 -
LOL, interesting take on this. Please add me as a friend! I can use all the support as I can get, post often, and love commenting on your posts.0
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
- 391 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
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions