muslce weighs more than fat....hear me out!

You're still incorrect. Muscle is DENSER than fat. Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat.

Because muscle is more dense, the earth's gravitational force causes it to be heavier than the less dense fat. The more dense something is the more it weighs.

How are you measuring this without gravity? I believe all measurements are done on Earth.

There are several ways to measure mass without gravity (notice I said mass not weight. Weight is dependent upon gravity mass is not.) Water displacement is typically the easiest to understand method but another method it to use a balance device designed for this purpose.

The weight of an object is the force of gravity on the object and may be defined as the mass times the acceleration of gravity. Since the weight is a force, its unit of measure is technically the newton. Density is mass/volume.

Unfortunately altering the question and applying a more convenient or rehearsed answer does not answer the question of how one caused an item to "weigh" more than another item of the same weight due to its density. However this is not a debate or logic site so I'll withdraw from the conversation.

I am not following you. Two items that weigh the same… weigh the same, regardless of density. No one was saying otherwise. All that was said is that because muscle is more dense (i.e. has more mass per volume) it weighs more than the same volume of fat.

Ok, I noticed a comment about "muscle does not weigh more than fat" and googled and found all the many articles on the subject. But the fact of the matter is that muscle DOES weigh more than fat. I realize a pound is a pound is a pound so a pound of anything is a pound. That is not the issue I am arguing.

If you hold one feather in your hand, it does not weigh the same as if you were to hold a quarter. They are both small, there is only one of each, but you will feel the quarter in your hand and not feel the feather. Just because a pound of feathers and a pound of quarters is still a pound does not mean the feather and the quarter weigh the same. It would take a lot more feathers to make up a pound than quarters.

So lets look at this from a more reasonable (in my opinion) perspective. If you were to take a square inch of muscle, and a square inch of fat, the muscle would weigh more and so....

muscle weighs more than fat

You're still incorrect. Muscle is DENSER than fat. Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat.

Because muscle is more dense, the earth's gravitational force causes it to be heavier than the less dense fat. The more dense something is the more it weighs.

Thank you!

It seems people are forgetting the concepts of high school physics. Mass and weight are not the same thing. Muscle has more mass then fat and therefore weighs more on earth.

Oh so close and yet so very far away.

And I am wrong how?

Well the argument is one of semantics so Weight = Mass X Gravity, Notice that there is no Density in that equation. Saying muscle has more mass than fat is exactly the same as saying it weighs more than fat. There's the so far away part.

Two items that weigh the same… weigh the same, regardless of density. No one was saying otherwise. All that was said is that because muscle is more dense (i.e. has more mass per volume) it weighs more than the same volume of fat.

And there's the so close part. That's correct, but the blanket statement of muscle weighs more or has more mass than fat is incorrect. Only because you haven't defined the statement enough. It's kinda like saying X is bigger than Y, without saying what 2 numbers you're talking about.

It's pretty well understood that when people say it here they are referring to density and saying weight. But again it's an issue of semantics. Saying it weighs more is technically incorrect, and so is saying it's has more mass. The correct term is muscle is more dense than fat, because that defines the volume and places the parameters on the statement.

And I am wrong how?

Well the argument is one of semantics so Weight = Mass X Gravity, Notice that there is no Density in that equation. Saying muscle has more mass than fat is exactly the same as saying it weighs more than fat. There's the so far away part.

Two items that weigh the same… weigh the same, regardless of density. No one was saying otherwise. All that was said is that because muscle is more dense (i.e. has more mass per volume) it weighs more than the same volume of fat.

And there's the so close part. That's correct, but the blanket statement of muscle weighs more or has more mass than fat is incorrect. Only because you haven't defined the statement enough. It's kinda like saying X is bigger than Y, without saying what 2 numbers you're talking about.

It's pretty well understood that when people say it here they are referring to density and saying weight. But again it's an issue of semantics. Saying it weighs more is technically incorrect, and so is saying it's has more mass. The correct term is muscle is more dense than fat, because that defines the volume and places the parameters on the statement.

Saying muscle has more mass than fat is exactly the same as saying it weighs more than fat.

Yes and no. You’re right, it is semantics, but it is an important point, none the less. Weight is a measure of force (so technically it is measured in newtons), specifically the force gravity has on an object. Whereas, mass is a measure of how much matter an object has (measured in mg, g, kg, etc…). Mass is constant, weight is variable (granted I think all of us are on Earth). I think we can agree on all of this, at least I hope so.

Furthermore, in order to compare two objects scientifically, you need to have both a constant and a variable. Saying that 1lb of fat weighs the same as 1lb of muscle is a given because you are only comparing the two constants and ignoring the variable. That is no different than me saying that a red apple is the same color as a red car, this is obvious and not worth stating. So when someone says that muscle weighs more or has more mass than fat it should be assumed that we are not referring to the two obvious constants alone, but are referring to their weights as a variable with respect to a constant volume.

Additionally, when you refer to density you are, by definition, referring to mass and volume simultaneously since density = mass/volume. You cannot know a specific density without knowing both the mass and volume of an object.

I love this....all this other crap is confusing me and driving me nuts....thanks! There should be no argument after this posting!

Wishful thinking I'm afraid. This theme pops up over and over and over again. There is a fix, but it requires the use of machine guns

OK, I just have to chip in here:

If you're of the view point that muscle weighs the same as fat...

You can't tell anyone "butter has more Calories than celery" anymore. They have the same nutritional content!

Why?

100 Calories of butter = 100 Calories of celery.

Just making sure you're being consistent, that's all.

*LOVE!*

A grocery bag full of bread weighs less than a grocery bag full of soup cans, even though a pound of bread weighs the same as a pound of soup cans.

An 8 pound bag of corn-based cat litter takes up the same amount of space as a 25 pound bag of clay-based cat litter. A pound is a pound is a pound, but one definitely weighs more than the other!

A 16 oz beaker full of mercury weighs more than a 16 oz beaker of water. The mercury will weigh about 11 pounds.

did I leave my dead horse in here?

OMG IT is only 9:18 am and already My head is spinning !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO does that mean I am actualy lighter than I think ??? wow now theres a concept !!!

STOP IT ALREADY !!!!!!!!!!!

Oh boy, seems like most of MFP slept through science classes!

No, by volume (e.g. a square inch of each), the muscle would be heavier.

Square inch is a measurement unit of area, not volume. You are probably thinking of a cubic inch?

muscle has a heavier mass than the same mass of fat