Muscle DOES Weigh More Than Fat

Options
1356

Replies

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,672 Member
    Options
    While I agree with the OP, in terms on a weight loss forum, people thinking they aren't losing and "gaining muscle" and being told by people on this forum that "muscle weighs more than fat" are getting snowed job. If they didn't lose weight it's usually because of diet, sodium intake and/or exercise causing water retention. While there are others, like hormonal issues, gaining muscle on a calorie deficit isn't the likely answer.
  • LyneaS
    LyneaS Posts: 22
    Options
    I love this post! About 6 years ago I lost weight and was 148 pounds and a size 12. (Gained it all back.) This time, I've exercised and built muscle and I weight 147 and I'm a size 6.
  • chuisle
    chuisle Posts: 1,052 Member
    Options


    I solved the equation for weight, I did not hold it constant. Gravity and volume were held constant.

    That's the point. People are taking about when W is constant (ie, W1=1 lbs, W2= 1 lbs, them M1 is not equal to M2).

    Let's not tell people they don't understand because they can't work through the equation. Their intuition is right. 1 lbs = 1lbs = 1lbs.

    But you are right on the mass issue of course.
  • byukid
    byukid Posts: 55
    Options
    Because:
    Weight= mass x gravity,
    Then,
    Muscle is more dense than fat.
    But,
    Saying it "weighs more" is completely arbitrary because for equal masses THEY HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT.

    Yes, but Mass = Density x Volume, so for the same mass there would be a greater volume of muscle.

    Sorry, I misstated what I meant to say. It's not difficult.

    Mass is different than weight. If I have two equally massed (let's say 5 kg) portions of muscle and fat, they will be very different in volume (the fat will take up much more volume). The same will actually happen with weight since weight would just be mass * gravity or roughly 50 N. Regardless, if they weigh the same, they weigh the same. If you change the volume, then of course they don't weigh the same.

    You're arbitrarily holding volume constant- why? That's not real life. Unless you're trying to say that people measure weight loss in cubic centimeters.

    I am holding volume constant to make the comparison clearer, showing that if you have to objects of equal volume and different densities, they will not weigh the same.

    Well duh, but that's true comparing almost anything to anything. However, If i was to say that a candy bar weighs more than a box of packing peanuts because the candy bar was denser, people would question why I chose to frame it that way, because it's arbitrary.
  • End6ame
    End6ame Posts: 903
    Options
    While I agree with the OP, in terms on a weight loss forum, people thinking they aren't losing and "gaining muscle" and being told by people on this forum that "muscle weighs more than fat" are getting snowed job. If they didn't lose weight it's usually because of diet, sodium intake and/or exercise causing water retention. While there are others, like hormonal issues, gaining muscle on a calorie deficit isn't the likely answer.

    I completely agree. That type of “advice” that is thrown around is a result of the improper understanding of the topic in this post as well as an improper understanding of what it actually takes to build muscle.
  • Qarol
    Qarol Posts: 6,171 Member
    Options
    I am holding volume constant to make the comparison clearer, showing that if you have to objects of equal volume and different densities, they will not weigh the same.
    OK...THIS is correct. But the title of your post says weight. If the volume is the same, then yes, muscle will weigh more. But one pound = one pound. So if you have a pound of muscle and a pound of fat, they will both register as one pound on the scale. *sigh*
  • Trig0r
    Trig0r Posts: 47
    Options
    I solved the equation for weight, I did not hold it constant. Gravity and volume were held constant.

    So what your saying is under certain conditions muscle weighs more than fat.

    Is that not like asking which is faster a Ferarri or a tractor and then changing where they are tested?
    Put the tractor on the road and suddenly its faster than the Ferarri thats in a plowed field....
  • End6ame
    End6ame Posts: 903
    Options
    Because:
    Weight= mass x gravity,
    Then,
    Muscle is more dense than fat.
    But,
    Saying it "weighs more" is completely arbitrary because for equal masses THEY HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT.

    Yes, but Mass = Density x Volume, so for the same mass there would be a greater volume of muscle.

    Sorry, I misstated what I meant to say. It's not difficult.

    Mass is different than weight. If I have two equally massed (let's say 5 kg) portions of muscle and fat, they will be very different in volume (the fat will take up much more volume). The same will actually happen with weight since weight would just be mass * gravity or roughly 50 N. Regardless, if they weigh the same, they weigh the same. If you change the volume, then of course they don't weigh the same.

    You're arbitrarily holding volume constant- why? That's not real life. Unless you're trying to say that people measure weight loss in cubic centimeters.

    I am holding volume constant to make the comparison clearer, showing that if you have to objects of equal volume and different densities, they will not weigh the same.

    Well duh, but that's true comparing almost anything to anything. However, If i was to say that a candy bar weighs more than a box of packing peanuts because the candy bar was denser, people would question why I chose to frame it that way, because it's arbitrary.

    You need to have a constant to make a valid comparison. (I understand this isn’t true in all cases, but for most it is). If I compared them both with different volumes, the conclusion would not be as clear, you could still get there, but it would require more analysis. And since many are having a hard time grasping this, I don’t think throwing in additional analysis of the results would have been beneficial.
  • healthychelsea
    healthychelsea Posts: 62
    Options
    Uh .... no.

    A pound of muscle and a pound of fat both weigh a pound. No more, no less.

    A pound is a pound whether it's a pound of rock or a pound of marshmallows..

    :flowerforyou:

    did you even read this post at all?
  • baisleac
    baisleac Posts: 2,019 Member
    Options
    I'm just replying so I can follow the lulz. Good try Grglandr, but some just don't want to follow logic/math/physics.
  • slimmer189
    slimmer189 Posts: 135 Member
    Options
    thanks for this - I was also told also lb for lb but that it just looked different
  • pghfan
    pghfan Posts: 119
    Options
    not-this-again.jpg


    Well done! Let's move on. :laugh:
  • byukid
    byukid Posts: 55
    Options
    But you see, this debate is an example of begging the question- by declaring that muscle weighs more than fat, you arbitrarily include the assumption that we're comparing two equal volumes. That is an assumption you make before the declaration, which is not beholden upon anyone else to assume.

    If your declaration was, simply, that "For equal volumes of substance, muscle would weight more than fat." Then it would be true and logical. Your failure to stipulate the condition is the crux of this whole argument.
  • End6ame
    End6ame Posts: 903
    Options
    I solved the equation for weight, I did not hold it constant. Gravity and volume were held constant.

    So what your saying is under certain conditions muscle weighs more than fat.

    Is that not like asking which is faster a Ferarri or a tractor and then changing where they are tested?
    Put the tractor on the road and suddenly its faster than the Ferarri thats in a plowed field....

    I know what you are getting at. While you don’t NEED to hold volume constant to make the comparison, it makes it easier to understand. I could have used different volumes and then resorted solely to density comparisons and achieved the same results, but honestly, that gets convoluted and I am already losing people with the given explanation.
  • Persipan
    Persipan Posts: 85 Member
    Options
    In my entirely untechnical world view, if I say that something weighs more than something else, what I mean is that if I took the same cubic volume of the two things (say, lead and feathers), one would weigh more than the other.
  • byukid
    byukid Posts: 55
    Options
    Saying "Muscle is more dense than fat" gets convoluted?
  • BeeElMarvin
    BeeElMarvin Posts: 2,086 Member
    Options
    Ok, so I am moving this from my blog to the forums because I have already seen a metric *kitten* load of inaccurate posts/comments on the topic.

    There seems to be a lot of confusion on this topic thought, and I don’t understand why. Maybe it is just because of how my thought process works, but I don’t understand how people cannot see that muscle does, in fact, weigh more than fat. So I am going to make a naive attempt at trying to settle this debate once and for all (lol) using simple math and the fundamentals of physics. The results are pretty difficult to argue with and will hopefully give the “lb is a lb” group of people a new perspective on the topic at hand.

    So, does muscle weight more than fat? The answer is yes, and here is why.

    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, where as weight is variable; granted we are all on Earth so it should remain relatively constant. I think we can agree on all of this, or at least I hope so, because it is pretty fundamental to the laws of physics.

    Furthermore, in order to compare two objects, you need to have both a constant and a variable, otherwise there is really no point in comparing them. 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 100 calories of butter is the same as 100 calories of lettuce, however the quantities, or volume, of both will obviously differ. 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, It is impossible to say that muscle weighs the same as fat and is, at the same time, denser than fat. When you refer to density you are, by definition, referring to both mass and volume simultaneously because both mass and volume are required to find density. So if Weight = Mass x Gravity and Density = Mass/Volume then we can combine these two equations into one by saying that Weight = (Density x Volume) x Gravity. This equation perfectly illustrates how all three components account for the weight of any given object. Gravity is constant because we are all on Earth, so if we also hold volume constant, and we all agree that muscle is denser than fat, then the outcome of the equation can only result in muscle having a greater weight than fat.

    You can even use completely arbitrary numbers to prove this, without the need for specific units or measurements. Let’s say that gravity is represented by the number 5 and volume is represented by the number 2. Since we are holding these to values constant they will be the same for both muscle and fat. We will then give fat a density of 12 and muscle a density of 15. Here it goes:

    • Muscle: (15 x 2) x 5 = 150
    • Fat: (12 x 2) x 5 = 120

    Now, unless we are going to argue about which number is higher, that pretty much settles it. When thinking in terms of this equation there should no longer be any question or debate on the matter. Muscle is heavier, period.

    Bravo! (but don't expect to put it to rest...).
  • Shalimarmandy
    Shalimarmandy Posts: 409 Member
    Options
    Your explaination is perfect and scientific! Unfortunately I have noticed that some people don't care about the science behind a principle. For example I answered (based on nutrition and my degree) the question is a calorie a calorie (same basic concept) and after a perfectly scientific explanation that made sense and was sound other still posted that "No a calorie was not a calorie." I was like "WHAT?!?!?! Didn't you just read my logical and scientific explaination" But I didn't bother to respond further but it was clear that they didn't get it. They seemed like intelligent people that are just holding so tight onto their own ideas that they can't see the truth.

    So I say a calorie is a calorie and a pound is a pound but muscle still weighs more than fat :laugh:

    Thanks for trying!
  • End6ame
    End6ame Posts: 903
    Options
    But you see, this debate is an example of begging the question- by declaring that muscle weighs more than fat, you arbitrarily include the assumption that we're comparing two equal volumes. That is an assumption you make before the declaration, which is not beholden upon anyone else to assume.

    If your declaration was, simply, that "For equal volumes of substance, muscle would weight more than fat." Then it would be true and logical. Your failure to stipulate the condition is the crux of this whole argument.

    Understood, however I did stipulate the conditions prior to performing the calculations and also emphasized that this type of assumption should be made, because saying that two constants are the same, is a given.
  • byukid
    byukid Posts: 55
    Options
    So why not put that in the title? Why not say, "Muscle is more dense than fat." ? It's much simpler, requires no explanation, and requires no self-completing arguments.

Categories