Muscle does not weight more then fat

@farrell16 It's inaccurate because you have to ensure that you are weighing the object(s) in the same environment. As has been mentioned previously, a pound here on earth will be different than a pound on the moon. Or, more accurately I suppose, what weighs one pound here on earth will weigh ~ 0.1 pounds on the moon.


Since this thread is silly and overly-pedantic in the first place, I'm just having some fun with it.

Wait - we can't agree. That's just not the MFP way...

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sijomial 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.

(Of course, the misunderstanding implicit in "don't worry, muscle weighs more than fat" is equally offbase, but probably less obviously so to most. It's the idea that if you lost a particular volume of fat you are likely to have gained a similar volume of muscle, and of course that's not so -- to gain that much muscle volume in the time involved would be extremely difficult--impossible, in fact--in most cases we are talking about.)

@lemurcat12
I cringe when I hear the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat" - same reaction when I see "I want to loose weight" or "when I weight myself", "I literally died of embarrassment", or using "like" as like punctuation, like...
(Yes I do a lot of cringing!)

But these are all different:

(1) Loose is a misspelling (one that I agree is cringeworthy, in fact).

(2) Weight myself is almost certainly just a typo.

(3) Literally is commonly misused today and may be shifting in meaning or have as an alternative meaning not literally in an emphatic way: there was a great discussion of this (with lots of bemoaning of the misuse) in the Slate Lexicon Valley podcast a couple of years ago.

(4) Like is simply a slangy way of speaking that is most used by a demographic group not your own or seems too informal for some more formal uses where it is employed.

"Muscle weighs more than fat" assumes (as too obvious to be stated) that it is implied that we are discussing two things of equal volume, as why would we ever compare the weights of two things of equal weight? Seriously, why?

To answer you question about what do I think....
Option 1 - they are genuinely ignorant about the difference between density and weight. With the poor standard of science education ignorance simply isn't uncommon - that's not judgemental just stating that many people lack knowledge. A "calorie isn't just a calorie" is another example.

I disagree that they are ignorant of density vs. weight in the way you seem to be assuming (they think a lb of something is heavier than a lb of something else). They may not be able to use the term density (although many who say the phrase probably could and would use it correctly), but they could explain that they mean the same volume of both. Like, obviously, you know? (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

When people are confused about a calorie=a calorie, I think they don't understand that a calorie is a unit of measurement (which is why I think this is worth explaining). I think they genuinely see "calorie" as a synonym for food, which it is used as even by many who should know better (as this is confusing).

Option 2 - they do mean to imply by volume but simply don't think using the appropriate terminology is important. A bit like saying "I weigh my food with spoons and cups". I happen to think using the right terminology only improves communication but am prepared to accept that I'm old-fashioned. There's not really a right and wrong on this. I think it's important to state things accurately but someone else might take the view "you know what I really mean so it doesn't matter". Wouldn't it be dull if we all thought the same way?

Okay, this I will accept, but then suggest that pedantically telling them something they probably already know isn't helpful and is insulting. Why not ask the question or make it clear the issue is not saying something you think needs to be said (and that I personally do not, and many others do not).

Option 3 - they are mindlessly parroting a common phrase they have seen or heard and repeat it without even thinking whether it makes sense of not. Road safety campaigns use the slogan "speed kills" and it becomes part of common language although speed alone clearly doesn't kill.

I do think this is part of it, but not because they think they are comparing one lb to one lb (no one thinks that) but because they think the things they are comparing would have equal volume when they obviously would not -- that's what people should be called on, as well as they assumptions about how easy it is to build muscle.

Just my opinion, of course!

Gosh this thread is still limping along. It's quite entertaining!
@lemurcat12 - missed your reply as you didn't tag me.

Ok I'm now perplexed.
In the context of you complaining about people being pedantic and making assumptions about people's knowledge, or lack of knowledge, the bolded part above comes across as a very pedantic explanation of the differences between the items I listed. Wondering why you would you assume that a list of items that elicit the cringe response are the same or alternatively that I think they are the same? Surely you aren't leaping to an assumption about me?
A list of foods I dislike would include cauliflower and caviar - you wouldn't respond "Aha! They aren't the same."

So I'm left pondering if this this a clever attempt at irony that doesn't come across too well in plain text perhaps?

By the way I don't correct people on the items listed, I've worked with too many people who are either dyslexic or simply just struggle to express themselves for myriad reasons (including ignorance) so tend to give people the benefit of the doubt or just let it go.
Ignorance being used as a descriptive term not a pejorative term in case you wonder. My beloved Grandfather was a truly ignorant man as he had virtually no education through no fault of his own.

I am rather pedantic about the misuse of absolute terms such as impossible, must, can't etc. When used inappropriately they lead to confusion and also the denial of people's own experience. Those I do challenge in these forums.

Who exactly are you directing this rant at? I hope it's a general rant not directed at me.
"Okay, this I will accept, but then suggest that pedantically telling them something they probably already know isn't helpful and is insulting."
That is part of what leads me to hope your bolded response was ironic!

donjtomasco wrote: »

TR0berts is a perfect example to your last comment Lemurcat. Did you read what he said? lol.

Which one? Because at this point I am positive you are misreading.

Serious question: do you not know how to quote someone?

sijomial wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sijomial 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.

(Of course, the misunderstanding implicit in "don't worry, muscle weighs more than fat" is equally offbase, but probably less obviously so to most. It's the idea that if you lost a particular volume of fat you are likely to have gained a similar volume of muscle, and of course that's not so -- to gain that much muscle volume in the time involved would be extremely difficult--impossible, in fact--in most cases we are talking about.)

@lemurcat12
I cringe when I hear the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat" - same reaction when I see "I want to loose weight" or "when I weight myself", "I literally died of embarrassment", or using "like" as like punctuation, like...
(Yes I do a lot of cringing!)

But these are all different:

(1) Loose is a misspelling (one that I agree is cringeworthy, in fact).

(2) Weight myself is almost certainly just a typo.

(3) Literally is commonly misused today and may be shifting in meaning or have as an alternative meaning not literally in an emphatic way: there was a great discussion of this (with lots of bemoaning of the misuse) in the Slate Lexicon Valley podcast a couple of years ago.

(4) Like is simply a slangy way of speaking that is most used by a demographic group not your own or seems too informal for some more formal uses where it is employed.

"Muscle weighs more than fat" assumes (as too obvious to be stated) that it is implied that we are discussing two things of equal volume, as why would we ever compare the weights of two things of equal weight? Seriously, why?

To answer you question about what do I think....
Option 1 - they are genuinely ignorant about the difference between density and weight. With the poor standard of science education ignorance simply isn't uncommon - that's not judgemental just stating that many people lack knowledge. A "calorie isn't just a calorie" is another example.

I disagree that they are ignorant of density vs. weight in the way you seem to be assuming (they think a lb of something is heavier than a lb of something else). They may not be able to use the term density (although many who say the phrase probably could and would use it correctly), but they could explain that they mean the same volume of both. Like, obviously, you know? (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

When people are confused about a calorie=a calorie, I think they don't understand that a calorie is a unit of measurement (which is why I think this is worth explaining). I think they genuinely see "calorie" as a synonym for food, which it is used as even by many who should know better (as this is confusing).

Option 2 - they do mean to imply by volume but simply don't think using the appropriate terminology is important. A bit like saying "I weigh my food with spoons and cups". I happen to think using the right terminology only improves communication but am prepared to accept that I'm old-fashioned. There's not really a right and wrong on this. I think it's important to state things accurately but someone else might take the view "you know what I really mean so it doesn't matter". Wouldn't it be dull if we all thought the same way?

Okay, this I will accept, but then suggest that pedantically telling them something they probably already know isn't helpful and is insulting. Why not ask the question or make it clear the issue is not saying something you think needs to be said (and that I personally do not, and many others do not).

Option 3 - they are mindlessly parroting a common phrase they have seen or heard and repeat it without even thinking whether it makes sense of not. Road safety campaigns use the slogan "speed kills" and it becomes part of common language although speed alone clearly doesn't kill.

I do think this is part of it, but not because they think they are comparing one lb to one lb (no one thinks that) but because they think the things they are comparing would have equal volume when they obviously would not -- that's what people should be called on, as well as they assumptions about how easy it is to build muscle.

Just my opinion, of course!

Gosh this thread is still limping along. It's quite entertaining!
@lemurcat12 - missed your reply as you didn't tag me.

Ok I'm now perplexed.
In the context of you complaining about people being pedantic and making assumptions about people's knowledge, or lack of knowledge, the bolded part above comes across as a very pedantic explanation of the differences between the items I listed.

Surely anyone who reads my posts knows that I am pedantic. ;-)

What I don't think I did (and what I am actually complaining about) was say anything that suggested that I thought you were an idiot.

Wondering why you would you assume that a list of items that elicit the cringe response are the same or alternatively that I think they are the same? Surely you aren't leaping to an assumption about me?

No, I wasn't. I thought the distinctions were interesting, though. (I do think your cringing at "muscle weighs more than fat" is based on an inaccurate assumption, that the person is unaware that 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat or even that the person might be so stupid. But at this point I cringe at "1 lb of muscle = 1 lb of fat," so we are all cringing, no matter what! Win-win!

A list of foods I dislike would include cauliflower and caviar - you wouldn't respond "Aha! They aren't the same."

I might pedantically discuss their differences if the discussion called for it, IMO.

More seriously, my detailed response to the things you mentioned was more because I find some of them cringeworthy too (although I wouldn't claim that was merited) and so thought pointing out shared reactions on some things might further a conversation on a friendly note. Seems the attempt failed!

Who exactly are you directing this rant at?

It's not a rant. If you read it as a rant we aren't communicating.

I do personally cringe and find insulting when people explain to me information that I believe (and think they probably believe are facts that any not stupid or not completely uneducated person would know). It's probably a quirk of my own, I agree, but it comes across as rude to me, kittens me off, and is something I try to avoid (although I am sure I don't always, and so I do try to mock my own pedantic tendencies offline and sometimes online). For example, if I were having a conversation with someone at work and he mentioned going to a Bears game and felt compelled to explain "it's a team in the NFL" (I'm in Chicago, I go to Bears games sometimes), I'd probably make a little fun of him and his sexist assumption (or whatever, depending on who it is). Same if someone explained that Beethoven is a composer or that France is a country or the like. Explaining that 1 lb = 1 lb if someone says: "oh, don't worry about a final goal weight, it might be higher than you think if you are working on building muscle, as muscle weighs more than fat" seems to me the same thing. In context the statement may or may not make sense, but I would not suggest to someone that I think they are so incredibly dumb that they think there are special muscle lbs that are heavier on the scale than fat lbs or whatever is supposedly meant in the minds of those who feel compelled to make this correction.

(This last sentence was kind of ranty if you are keeping track.)