wtf with the muscle vs. fat discussion

bprague
bprague Posts: 564 Member
edited September 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
I don't get it! Everyone goes on a rant about how muscle doesn't actually weigh more than fat it's just "more dense". Okay, yeah, it's more dense... but if you take 1 cubic inch of muscle and compare it to 1 cubic inch of fat... the muscle weighs more. So doesn't this make muscle weigh more than fat? Maybe I'm just "dense" here, but using my brain... this says that BECAUSE muscle is more dense than fat... it weighs more than an equal sized portion of FAT.

Right?

Replies

  • voluptas63
    voluptas63 Posts: 602 Member
    but if you take 1 cubic inch of muscle and compare it to 1 cubic inch of fat... the muscle weighs more.


    Right there. You're not comparing weight. You're comparing volume. Volume is NOT weight.
  • bprague
    bprague Posts: 564 Member
    the volume is the constant so that I can compare the weight.
  • dipsl19
    dipsl19 Posts: 317 Member
    I don't get it! Everyone goes on a rant about how muscle doesn't actually weigh more than fat it's just "more dense". Okay, yeah, it's more dense... but if you take 1 cubic inch of muscle and compare it to 1 cubic inch of fat... the muscle weighs more. So doesn't this make muscle weigh more than fat? Maybe I'm just "dense" here, but using my brain... this says that BECAUSE muscle is more dense than fat... it weighs more than an equal sized portion of FAT.

    Right?

    sure, arguably, but what is the real point here? its still better to have more muscle than fat....
  • bprague
    bprague Posts: 564 Member
    I don't get it! Everyone goes on a rant about how muscle doesn't actually weigh more than fat it's just "more dense". Okay, yeah, it's more dense... but if you take 1 cubic inch of muscle and compare it to 1 cubic inch of fat... the muscle weighs more. So doesn't this make muscle weigh more than fat? Maybe I'm just "dense" here, but using my brain... this says that BECAUSE muscle is more dense than fat... it weighs more than an equal sized portion of FAT.

    Right?

    sure, arguably, but what is the real point here? its still better to have more muscle than fat....

    Lol, I'm basically just frustrated every time someone is corrected when they say muscle weighs more than fat. No... they are right. and yeah... muscle is more dense.. so that's right too- but it seems like it's said in a "you're wrong, you sadly misinformed person" (usually by trainers). haha, and no, I've never been the corrected person, so this isn't personal, just one of those pet peeves
  • rairye
    rairye Posts: 27
    Check it out: http://www.fitsugar.com/You-Asked-Muscle-vs-Fat-2471712
  • amewha
    amewha Posts: 25 Member
    It goes back to the old question:

    "Which weighs more, a tonne of Feathers or a tonne of Rocks?"

    The answer is that they weigh the same but the feathers will have a much larger volume.

    I am sure that everyone understands when someone says that muscle weighs more than fat, that they mean that if you have more muscle and less fat you will look leaner but have the same overall body weight. However just saying "muscle weights more than fat" is an incomplete description of the effect.
  • bprague
    bprague Posts: 564 Member
    I guess the real issue here is that I ALWAYS assume that you are comparing the same volume in order to get the difference in weight. It seems like the most unnecessary thing to make the distinction of the old cliche ton of feathers vs a ton of bricks, particularly when people are being corrected by something that is fundamentally true. 1 liter of fat is always lighter than 1 liter of muscle. *throws up hands* I give up, I'm all worked up about the stupidest thing. Apologies to everyone.
  • rybo
    rybo Posts: 5,424 Member
    I guess the real issue here is that I ALWAYS assume that you are comparing the same volume in order to get the difference in weight. It seems like the most unnecessary thing to make the distinction of the old cliche ton of feathers vs a ton of bricks, particularly when people are being corrected by something that is fundamentally true. 1 liter of fat is always lighter than 1 liter of muscle. *throws up hands* I give up, I'm all worked up about the stupidest thing. Apologies to everyone.

    I'm with you. Maybe it's just because I'm in the science field but when you compare things and say one is heavier than other, it is understood that you are comparing the densities. No one EVER throws out the ton of feathers/ton of bricks trick.
    aluminum is lighter than steel. lead is heavier than titanium. Helium is lighter than carbon dioxide. muscle is heavier than fat.
  • Maggie_Pie1
    Maggie_Pie1 Posts: 322 Member
    I'm with you. Maybe it's just because I'm in the science field but when you compare things and say one is heavier than other, it is understood that you are comparing the densities. No one EVER throws out the ton of feathers/ton of bricks trick.
    aluminum is lighter than steel. lead is heavier than titanium. Helium is lighter than carbon dioxide. muscle is heavier than fat.

    Same here. I think people are just being nitpicky. We ALL know what people mean when they say that.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    but if you take 1 cubic inch of muscle and compare it to 1 cubic inch of fat... the muscle weighs more.


    Right there. You're not comparing weight. You're comparing volume. Volume is NOT weight.

    Yeah, it kind of is. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weight

    weight   /weɪt/
    [weyt]
    –noun
    1. the amount or quantity of heaviness or mass; amount a thing weighs.


    When someone says something weighs more than something else they generally mean that given the same amount (volume) of the two things one would be heavier. When those two things are muscle and fat, the muscle is weighs more, therefore it is heavier.
  • Matiara
    Matiara Posts: 377 Member
    When someone says that muscle weighs more than fat, it doesn't bother me because I understand the meaning behind it. The thing that drives me crazy is when people say that their fat *turned into* muscle, which is physiologically impossible. That one makes my right eyelid twitch. :)
  • Matiara
    Matiara Posts: 377 Member
    I'm with you. Maybe it's just because I'm in the science field but when you compare things and say one is heavier than other, it is understood that you are comparing the densities. No one EVER throws out the ton of feathers/ton of bricks trick.
    aluminum is lighter than steel. lead is heavier than titanium. Helium is lighter than carbon dioxide. muscle is heavier than fat.

    Same here. I think people are just being nitpicky. We ALL know what people mean when they say that.

    Kind of like the word "tone". I understand what people mean when they say they want to get toned, but it can set other people off.
  • jram70
    jram70 Posts: 91 Member
    Muscle does weigh more than fat when you factor in another measurement like "per square inch" because it is more dense. 1lb of muscle and 1lb of fat do weigh the same, but 1lb of muscle takes up less "space" than 1 lb of fat just like a ton of lead has a smaller footprint than a ton of feathers.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    When someone says that muscle weighs more than fat, it doesn't bother me because I understand the meaning behind it. The thing that drives me crazy is when people say that their fat *turned into* muscle, which is physiologically impossible. That one makes my right eyelid twitch. :)

    Maybe it's like exchanging a pair of pants. You "turn it in" at the exchange counter for a new pair. Just like you exchange fat for muscle, so you've turned it in. :laugh:
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Muscle DOES weigh more than fat per unit volume, which is the only way anyone sanely measures anything. Saying it doesn't is stupid nitpicking IMO. Muscle weighs more than fat. End of. A lb of muscle may weigh the same as a lb of fat, but the fat will take up 4 times the volume, so it's a stupid, non sensical argument made by people trying to make themselves sound clever, when they are in fact proving exactly how stupid they are.


    Sorry. I get irate about this. Weight per unit volume. All that matters.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories