PSA: Muscles do not weigh more than fat.

1235789

Replies

  • KatKatatrophic
    KatKatatrophic Posts: 448 Member
    Why was this started up again?

    tumblr_ls3b169U2i1qggbj7.gif
  • wdwithers
    wdwithers Posts: 36
    Either way, the solution is obvious:

    Eat 1200 daily calories.

    The only question remaining is, what is the effect of eating back all, some, or none of my exercise calories?

    If you eat it all back you maintain the weight, If you eat none of it back, you lose weight. If you eat that amount and then some you gain.
  • rprussell2004
    rprussell2004 Posts: 870 Member
    What I don't understand is how I can eat a pound of potato chips and gain FIVE pounds of ME.
  • legendary781
    legendary781 Posts: 62 Member
    What's the average air speed of a swallow?

    African or European?

    It could be African.
  • Rae6503
    Rae6503 Posts: 6,294 Member
    Um, a pound of MUSCLE does weigh MORE than a pound of FAT.

    If you put a pound of fat and a pound of muscle in water, only the muscle is going to sink because it's HEAVIER.

    It's simple psychics, asimov's second law of motion. duh.


    christ on a cracker

    it sinks due to density, not weight.

    Actually, something floats or sinks based on how much water is displaced. If the object has greater mass than the water it displaces it sink. It it doesn't it floats. So really, it has more to do with shape than density. If you are going to be insulting and pretend you are smarter than someone make sure you are correct.

    ACTUALLY actually...

    What you've described - mass per volume - is EXACTLY density.

    Smarter is as smarter does.

    Nope. Not density. If I lay on my back I float. If I try to sit on water I sink. My density is the same in both instances.
  • MoveTheMountain
    MoveTheMountain Posts: 764
    Ah man!!! Not again!!

    Beating_A_Dead_Horse.gif

    Best. Smiley. Ever.
  • robin52077
    robin52077 Posts: 4,383 Member
    What's the average air speed of a swallow?

    African or European?

    It could be African.

    It depends if it is gripping a coconut by the husk...a pound of coconut is heavier than a pound of swallow so that could affect it....
  • rob1976
    rob1976 Posts: 1,328 Member
    It depends if it is gripping a coconut by the husk...a pound of coconut is heavier than a pound of swallow so that could affect it....
    Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?!?!
  • Hownow37
    Hownow37 Posts: 14 Member
    LMAO...
  • rprussell2004
    rprussell2004 Posts: 870 Member
    Nope. Not density. If I lay on my back I float. If I try to sit on water I sink. My density is the same in both instances.

    Hmmm...

    I maintain that it now comes down to your center of mass and that if you let yourself bob around and come to rest, you'd end up floating in a sitting position as well.

    That is - if you lay on your back, your center of mass is going to be somewhere in the plane that is your body, and you are floating centered around it.

    If you "sit" on the water, your center of mass is somewhere else, and you will still end up floating around it, although it will almost certainly be under the surface.

    [edit] Actually you wouldn't float in a sitting position, you'd prbly spin or topple or something such that the lightest part of your body is pointing up.

    [edit edit] Not LIGHTEST - least dense :)
  • RachFace1000
    RachFace1000 Posts: 154 Member
    Um, a pound of MUSCLE does weigh MORE than a pound of FAT.

    If you put a pound of fat and a pound of muscle in water, only the muscle is going to sink because it's HEAVIER.

    It's simple psychics, asimov's second law of motion. duh.

    SIMPLE PHYSICS will tell us a POUND is a POUND...it's the density that causes it to sink/float...muscle is more dense than fat...not heavier. The amount of water displaced is dependent on the size, shape, and density of the object immersed....


    At least that's what my physics teacher taught me :)

    also Asimov's laws are about robotics...aren't they?



    i do believe she was being sarcastic (:
  • Rae6503
    Rae6503 Posts: 6,294 Member
    Nope. Not density. If I lay on my back I float. If I try to sit on water I sink. My density is the same in both instances.

    Hmmm...

    I maintain that it now comes down to your center of mass and that if you let yourself bob around and come to rest, you'd end up floating in a sitting position as well.

    That is - if you lay on your back, your center of mass is going to be somewhere in the plane that is your body, and you are floating centered around it.

    If you "sit" on the water, your center of mass is somewhere else, and you will still end up floating around it, although it will almost certainly be under the surface.

    [edit] Actually you wouldn't float in a sitting position, you'd prbly spin or topple or something such that the lightest part of your body is pointing up.

    [edit edit] Not LIGHTEST - least dense :)

    If you want to get nerdy, it has to do with the forces acting upon an object. Gravity pulls us down. If we fold, the water is actually pushing you up. When you are flat, there is more water underneath you to fight that gravity. When there is less water (we are sitting) gravity wins and we sink.
  • legendary781
    legendary781 Posts: 62 Member
    It depends if it is gripping a coconut by the husk...a pound of coconut is heavier than a pound of swallow so that could affect it....
    Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?!?!

    Does a 1 lb laden swallow weigh the same as a 1lb unladen swallow?
  • beckajw
    beckajw Posts: 1,728 Member
    A pound of muscles equals a pound of fat. However, muscle is denser than fat; therefore a pound of muscle takes up less space than a pound of fat.

    Have a blessed day!

    As such, a square inch of muscle does, in fact, weigh more than a square inch of fat.
  • rprussell2004
    rprussell2004 Posts: 870 Member
    Nope. Not density. If I lay on my back I float. If I try to sit on water I sink. My density is the same in both instances.

    Hmmm...

    I maintain that it now comes down to your center of mass and that if you let yourself bob around and come to rest, you'd end up floating in a sitting position as well.

    That is - if you lay on your back, your center of mass is going to be somewhere in the plane that is your body, and you are floating centered around it.

    If you "sit" on the water, your center of mass is somewhere else, and you will still end up floating around it, although it will almost certainly be under the surface.

    [edit] Actually you wouldn't float in a sitting position, you'd prbly spin or topple or something such that the lightest part of your body is pointing up.

    [edit edit] Not LIGHTEST - least dense :)

    If you want to get nerdy, it has to do with the forces acting upon an object. Gravity pulls us down. If we fold, the water is actually pushing you up. When you are flat, there is more water underneath you to fight that gravity. When there is less water (we are sitting) gravity wins and we sink.

    :huh:

    Sink to the bottom, then?

    Because by changing your shape you're suddenly (for lack of a better word in this conversation) "heavier" in the water?

    I got nuthin' then.
  • rprussell2004
    rprussell2004 Posts: 870 Member
    A pound of muscles equals a pound of fat. However, muscle is denser than fat; therefore a pound of muscle takes up less space than a pound of fat.

    Have a blessed day!

    As such, a square inch of muscle does, in fact, weigh more than a square inch of fat.

    Depends on how thick that square is.
  • Chipmaniac
    Chipmaniac Posts: 642 Member
    Um, a pound of MUSCLE does weigh MORE than a pound of FAT.

    If you put a pound of fat and a pound of muscle in water, only the muscle is going to sink because it's HEAVIER.

    It's simple psychics, asimov's second law of motion. duh.



    christ on a cracker

    it sinks due to density, not weight.

    Actually, something floats or sinks based on how much water is displaced. If the object has greater mass than the water it displaces it sink. It it doesn't it floats. So really, it has more to do with shape than density. If you are going to be insulting and pretend you are smarter than someone make sure you are correct.

    ACTUALLY actually...

    What you've described - mass per volume - is EXACTLY density.

    Smarter is as smarter does.

    Nope. Not density. If I lay on my back I float. If I try to sit on water I sink. My density is the same in both instances.
    Wrong. Floating on your back has nothing to do with whether you sink or not. If you were to simply hold your breath and orientate yourself verticallly in the water, you would still float just like when you are on your back. The same mass of you would be above the water as when you were on your back. The reason floating on your back is preferred is because it keeps your face out of the water.

    Humans, when their lungs are full, do not sink. It's when you exhale or worse displace the air in your lungs with water that you sink as you have changed your density since the air in your lungs was lowering your average density. Try it sometime in a pool.
  • Chipmaniac
    Chipmaniac Posts: 642 Member
    Nope. Not density. If I lay on my back I float. If I try to sit on water I sink. My density is the same in both instances.

    Hmmm...

    I maintain that it now comes down to your center of mass and that if you let yourself bob around and come to rest, you'd end up floating in a sitting position as well.

    That is - if you lay on your back, your center of mass is going to be somewhere in the plane that is your body, and you are floating centered around it.

    If you "sit" on the water, your center of mass is somewhere else, and you will still end up floating around it, although it will almost certainly be under the surface.

    [edit] Actually you wouldn't float in a sitting position, you'd prbly spin or topple or something such that the lightest part of your body is pointing up.

    [edit edit] Not LIGHTEST - least dense :)

    If you want to get nerdy, it has to do with the forces acting upon an object. Gravity pulls us down. If we fold, the water is actually pushing you up. When you are flat, there is more water underneath you to fight that gravity. When there is less water (we are sitting) gravity wins and we sink.
    That has nothing to do with it. However, at least you are trying to use logic, flawed as it is, to reason it out. That's better than most.
  • susannamarie
    susannamarie Posts: 2,148 Member
    I think you know what people mean when they say it.

    I don't see what's wrong about saying "muscle weighs more than fat" ... if you take a blob of fat and then take a blob of muscle of the same size, the muscle will weigh more. I wish people would stop nit picking everything that is said on here.

    Yes. I really, really don't get the continual belittlement of people who say this.
  • tungsten93
    tungsten93 Posts: 76 Member
    A pound of muscles equals a pound of fat. However, muscle is denser than fat; therefore a pound of muscle takes up less space than a pound of fat.

    Have a blessed day!

    I don't think anyone ever said a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat.

    No, I'm on this site a lot and I've never, ever seen that. But it truly amazes me how many people can't think in terms of anything other than 1 pound. It's incredibly odd how often "A pound of muscles equals a pound of fat" is posted. It's an American phenomenon I guess, because I've never seen "A kg of muscles equals a kg of fat" posted.

    So true!
  • Rae6503
    Rae6503 Posts: 6,294 Member
    Wrong. Floating on your back has nothing to do with whether you sink or not. If you were to simply hold your breath and orientate yourself verticallly in the water, you would still float just like when you are on your back. The same mass of you would be above the water as when you were on your back. The reason floating on your back is preferred is because it keeps your face out of the water.

    Humans, when their lungs are full, do not sink. It's when you exhale or worse displace the air in your lungs with water that you sink as you have changed your density since the air in your lungs was lowering your average density. Try it sometime in a pool.

    It's called buoyancy. Please google it. I am apparently not doing a good job explaining it. Yes, density plays a factor but shape is more important. This is why iron ships float, yet a chunk of iron does not.
  • kylTKe
    kylTKe Posts: 146 Member
    Personally I think you're completely wrong. It seems that from your perspective, it would be incorrect to say anything weighs more than anything else. Or at least it would be incorrect to compare weights without specifying volume first. In the phrase "Muscle weighs more than fat" it is implied that we're referencing equivalent volume measurements.

    For example, could you say: "A 10lb dumbbell weighs more than a 5lb dumbbell." On the surface it appears to make sense, but according to you it doesn't since 1lb of a 10lb dumbbell is equal to 1lb of a 5lb dumbbell. However, it's implied that we mean exactly 1 full 10lb dumbbell and exactly 1 full 5lb dumbbell.

    So yes, when someone says "Muscle weighs more than fat" they really mean "Muscle is more dense than fat" but because of the implication that we're discussing equal volumes, it amounts to the exact same meaning.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    I think you know what people mean when they say it.

    I don't see what's wrong about saying "muscle weighs more than fat" ... if you take a blob of fat and then take a blob of muscle of the same size, the muscle will weigh more. I wish people would stop nit picking everything that is said on here.

    Yes. I really, really don't get the continual belittlement of people who say this.

    Then you'll really be blown away when they belittle you for not getting it.
  • rprussell2004
    rprussell2004 Posts: 870 Member
    It's called buoyancy. Please google it. I am apparently not doing a good job explaining it. Yes, density plays a factor but shape is more important. This is why iron ships float, yet a chunk of iron does not.

    And you are "buoyant" if you are less dense than the stuff you're floating in.

    A ship is buoyant (boy that's hard to type) when it's enclosing enough air to lower its overall density to less than that of the water it's resting on.

    The chunk of iron is clearly enclosing nothing but more iron, therefore is more dense and not buoyant at all.

    People are buoyant when their lungs are full of air, regardless of their physical position.

    We're talking about the same thing here.

    Also: If you took your chunk of iron and flattened it out to super-wide but only paper thin and laid it gingerly on top of the water...?

    It would still sink.
  • rob1976
    rob1976 Posts: 1,328 Member
    I think you know what people mean when they say it.

    I don't see what's wrong about saying "muscle weighs more than fat" ... if you take a blob of fat and then take a blob of muscle of the same size, the muscle will weigh more. I wish people would stop nit picking everything that is said on here.

    Yes. I really, really don't get the continual belittlement of people who say this.
    If we belittled them, then wouldn't their fat weigh even less than their muscle?

    YOU'RE WELCOME!
  • Chipmaniac
    Chipmaniac Posts: 642 Member
    When people say "muscle weighs more than fat" there is an implied "by volume". If I say gold weighs more than feathers, everyone knows what that means and the "by volume" is completely unnecessary.

    By the OP's logic, one couldn't say "The Eiffel Tower weighs more than my house". After all, a pound of Eiffel Tower equals a pound of my house. Extend the logic to people. I could say that I don't weigh any more than any other person. After all, a pound of them and a pound of me both weigh a pound. We could even apply it to food. Don't you dare say bread has more calories than celery. After all, 100 calories of bread and 100 calories of celery have the same number of calories!
  • Chipmaniac
    Chipmaniac Posts: 642 Member
    It's called buoyancy. Please google it. I am apparently not doing a good job explaining it. Yes, density plays a factor but shape is more important. This is why iron ships float, yet a chunk of iron does not.

    And you are "buoyant" if you are less dense than the stuff you're floating in.

    A ship is buoyant (boy that's hard to type) when it's enclosing enough air to lower its overall density to less than that of the water it's resting on.

    The chunk of iron is clearly enclosing nothing but more iron, therefore is more dense and not buoyant at all.

    People are buoyant when their lungs are full of air, regardless of their physical position.

    We're talking about the same thing here.

    Also: If you took your chunk of iron and flattened it out to super-wide but only paper thin and laid it gingerly on top of the water...?

    It would still sink.
    Thanks for doing that so I wouldn't have to.
  • JNick77
    JNick77 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Glad we can re-hash this topic for the millionth time.

    1lb of substance "A" isn't heavier than 1lb of substance "B"??? NO WAY!!! GET OUT ----> !!!
  • rprussell2004
    rprussell2004 Posts: 870 Member
    Thanks for doing that so I wouldn't have to.

    duty_calls.png

    Sometimes I still fall prey to this.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Glad we can re-hash this topic for the millionth time.

    1lb of substance "A" isn't heavier than 1lb of substance "B"??? NO WAY!!! GET OUT ----> !!!

    Maybe the forum search function was down?

    Or maybe all of the other 999,999 times this has been discussed before, it spiraled out of control and was mod-deleted so search couldn't find it.

    Or more likely, OP was just bored and she knew exactly how this thread would play out.

    Yeah, I'm going with that last theory.

Categories