Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat!!

[FitnessMom]

ok, I am not new here. I have mostly lurked and occasionally posted as stinkerbeans' mom for the last 2 years. I changed my username a while back. I love the new board, BTW

Anyhow, I just had to post one of my pet peeves, something that I hear *way* too often-"Muscle weighs more than fat". It does not!! A pound is a pound is a pound. One pound of fat is equal to one pound of muscle. The difference lies in density. Muscle is more dense than fat, thus it takes up less space than an equal amount of fat. A good analogy(?) is comparing a pound of lead(muscle) to a pound of feathers(fat). The pound of lead would be a small brick and the pound of feathers would be equal to a pillow or two.


There I feel better LOL

Sorry about my first post in this forum being a mini vent. I promise I will behave in the future

Oh, and I will probably be around more often now that this forum is here. Fitness is my passion .

[momadance]

I think the density issue is what people are refering to. Generally, when your speaking about the fat to muscle ratio, your concerned about size. Well, a lb. off muscle is smaller than a lb. of fat. I think it's easier for folks just to say muscle weighs more than fat.

[MamaSoleil]

The pound of lead would be a small brick and the pound of feathers would be equal to a pillow or two.

Lead weighs more than a feather? I hear what you are saying, but seems to me it's just another way of saying, muscle weighs more than fat.

[1jooj]

I read your OP and gave it some good hard thought. You're right--a pound of muscle weighs a pound. So does fat.

But a cubic inch of muscle weighs more than a cubic inch of fat, right? If muscle denser (which it is)? Therefore, if you lay out the two cubes, the muscle cube weighs more. Hence, muscle DOES weigh more than fat.

On my body, though, fat weighs more than muscle. Because there's more of it.

[FitnessMom]

Originally posted by 1jooj
I read your OP and gave it some good hard thought. You're right--a pound of muscle weighs a pound. So does fat.

But a cubic inch of muscle weighs more than a cubic inch of fat, right? If muscle denser (which it is)? Therefore, if you lay out the two cubes, the muscle cube weighs more. Hence, muscle DOES weigh more than fat.

On my body, though, fat weighs more than muscle. Because there's more of it.

You are right, when you are comparing equal volumes of muscle and fat, the muscle weighs more.

Like I said, it is just my pet peeve, and I felt the need to say it LOL

Last week at work, one of the other fitness consultants said that muscle weighs more than fat. I said "No it doesn't!" He gave me a quizzical look. When I told him my explanation, he says, "Oh, I know that!! Don't get so technical!!" LOL

[Quirky]

Well, I know I don't say that a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat, but I do say that it a) takes up less space and b) burns more calories at rest than does a pound of fat.

If I've said otherwise, please let me know and I'll edit my posts!

[FitnessMom]

Well said Quirky

I am not pointing fingers at anyone. I have read that on-line many times, at various sites. I have also heard it many times IRL. I just felt the need to say something yesterday

[MidnightCafe]

I don't know why I'm lurking on this board today, but I just wanted to say that according to your logic nothing can weigh more or less than anything else...because one pound always equals one pound. One ounce always equals one ounce, etc... So, a pound of wood weighs the same as a pound of water, which weighs the same as a pound of fabric, a pound of muscles, and a pound of fat. A pound is a pound is a pound.

To be technical: Weight is the measure of mass times the gravitational pull on an object. Mass is a measure of how much space something takes up. So, to compare the weights of two different things you must compare two equal masses and how they relate to gravity. If you take equal masses of muscle and fat, muscle (being more dense) has a greater gravitational pull than fat, and, therefore, weighs more.

Sorry, I just had to jump in.

[MamaSoleil]

:

[FitnessMom]

Originally posted by MidnightCafe

To be technical: Weight is the measure of mass times the gravitational pull on an object. Mass is a measure of how much space something takes up. So, to compare the weights of two different things you must compare two equal masses and how they relate to gravity. If you take equal masses of muscle and fat, muscle (being more dense) has a greater gravitational pull than fat, and, therefore, weighs more.

Sorry, I just had to jump in.

Whoo Hoo!!! I love a good debate!!

I see where you are going with this, but mass= density x volume, right?

so isn't density already accounted for when comparing two objects with equal masses? therefore they would have the same weight??

[MamaSoleil]

:

[FitnessMom]

ok, I am thinking that didn't make sense now. I am really tired, and not thinking clearly. Give some more time to think about it. I am off to the zoo with my dd. I will be back later.

[FitnessMom]

I haven't left for the zoo yet, but I have given it some more thought. I stand by my response.

however, using your logic, if equal masses of muscle and fat are used, muscle does weigh more than fat *if* they are weighed in two different locations, and the gravitational pull is greater on the muscle, than the fat.


sorry for being a smart ass

[MrsBone]

[MidnightCafe]

NAK

It's ok. I'm a smart ass, too.

Nope, you don't have to weigh things in two different places for one to have more gravitational pull than another. An object with greater density is going to be acted upon by gravity more than an object with a lower density because there's more there for gravity to act on...which is why two objects of the same size can have different weights...

Ok. I admit I was throwing the word mass around...and my explanation was not all that great. I knew what I was trying to say, but my scientific brain was not plugged in. I was thinking of mass as volume. Scratch that explanation & start here. This one is more thought out!!

Mass is pretty equivalent to weight as long as you are talking about two objects on the same planet. Here's the deal then: mass or weight = density x volume. So, if you want to find out if one thing weighs more than another the weight part of the equation cannot be a fixed number already. You must instead compare two things of the same density or two things of the same volume. Do you see what I mean? If you have an equation & you want to solve for weight, you can't start with a fixed weight because then you're not solving for weight anymore, you're solving for density or volume.

So, we agree that muscle has a greater density than fat. That rules out comparing two things of equal density in this case. Which leaves only one thing we can compare. We can compare an equal volume of muscle to an equal volume of fat in order to find out which weighs more. Volume = length x width x height. So, if you have 3x3x3 of fat & 3x3x3 of muscle, muscle is going to weigh more because you multiply it by a higher density.

Now, of course, a pound of muscle equals a pound of fat. You have already set/fixed/determined the weight part of the equation. That's like saying, "If I take 3 pounds of this & 3 pounds of that, both equal 3 pounds." Well, of course, because you measured equal weights of each. (In other words, you cannot compare a pound of fat and a pound of muscle in order to find out which weighs more. You would already know.) But if you want to know which of the two things you have actually has more mass/weight compared to the other thing, you have to compare equal volumes (assuming the the densities are different & you can't chage the density of the objects).

Clear as mud?

[FitnessMom]

yes it is as clear as mud:LOL

I'll have to admit I have been feeling rather feisty the last couple of days, and was looking for a good debate.

You have explained it extremely well, especially this part:

Now, of course, a pound of muscle equals a pound of fat. You have already set/fixed/determined the weight part of the equation. That's like saying, "If I take 3 pounds of this & 3 pounds of that, both equal 3 pounds." Well, of course, because you measured equal weights of each. But if you want to know which of the two things you have actually has more mass/weight compared to the other thing, you have to compare equal volumes (assuming the the densities are different & you can't chage the density of the objects).

You must have missed my post in response to 1jooj on this thread where I said:

You are right, when you are comparing equal volumes of muscle and fat, the muscle weighs more.

.

So, we basically agree with one another This topic boils down to sematics and I was just being petty

You sure got me thinking though!! my head hurt this morning:LOL

[MidnightCafe]

Nah, I didn't miss you're point. I'm just saying that if you are going to *compare* the weights of two different things you can't start with equal weights.

[MidnightCafe]

BTW, I'm just being feisty & silly, too! Don't take me seriously, ok? I don't mind a good debate now & then...and I'm totally aware that we both know our facts & are saying the same thing.

Peace!

[daylily]

You know, I'm glad you brought this up, Fitness Mom. About a year ago, while trying to lose weight, I spent an enormous amount of time walking because I subscribed to two erroneous theories: 1.) That I'd burn more fat by working out at a lower intensity for a longer time period and 2.) That running would give me big, bulky, heavy thigh muscles, causing the numbers on the scale to stay the same.

Then I read Ultimate Fitness by Gina ???, a science writer for the NY Times and she blows both those myths out of the water. So I started running and I ended up weighing less and my legs did *not* get all big and bulky.

I should get that book from the library so I can quote from it in this thread. She does some sort of calculation, perhaps using pounds per square inch of both muscle and fat and the muscle is a bit heavier per square inch, but only marginally so--certainly not enough to blame a scale that won't budge on the fact that you're gaining heavier muscle tissue.

[BusyMommy]

:
Oh baby, we're burning calories now!

Well, I say strong fat weighs less than fat fat.
I just carried my 30# son, w/picnic bag attached to backpack) for 3 hours. It's there...but it's strong! :LOL