|
|
Post by stampbooker on Dec 27, 2016 16:12:26 GMT
Hey! I haven't posted here for a while, but this is really bugging me, so of course I had to come here to discuss it! This was debated a few times on the old board, and has recently come up in a discussion on facebook.
So one of my FB friends (she is a shakeology distributor) posted yesterday and she made an infographic where she stated: "did you know #truthbomb muscle does NOT weigh more than fat."
I posted my disagreement and she responded and we back and forth a few posts and she posted a few articles in her favor. Then I just dropped it because I felt kind of bad for disagreeing and arguing with her in front of her friends and family.
I just don't understand why people can not understand this. I decided to google "muscle weighs more than fat" to see what others thought and surprisingly about 99% of the articles, blogs, etc, also state that muscle does not weigh more than fat because a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat. Duh! Of course that is true. A pound of anything weighs the same as a pound of anything else. That is obvious, but it is meaningless for comparison. It is so utterly illogical to look at it that way. I simply do not understand how in 10 pages of google search all but about 3 web pages make the same illogical argument. I simply don't get it!
Opinions?
Julie
|
|
|
|
Post by iteach3rdgrade on Dec 27, 2016 16:16:31 GMT
It's all about mass.
|
|
freebird
Drama Llama
'cause I'm free as a bird now
Posts: 6,927 
|
Post by freebird on Dec 27, 2016 16:22:59 GMT
Tell her that, yes, a pound of fat does equal a pound of muscle in weight. HOWEVER, a liter of muscle will weight more than a liter of fat. It's just scientific fact. A liter of fat weighs 1.98 lbs A liter of muscle weighs 2.3 lbs  |
|
perumbula
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,439
Location: Idaho
|
Post by perumbula on Dec 27, 2016 16:24:15 GMT
You are rights on both counts. 3 cubic inches of fat weighs less than 3 cubic inches of muscle, however, you were also right that it's not worth arguing with her over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Susie_Homemaker on Dec 27, 2016 16:28:09 GMT
You said yourself that a lb of this is equal to a lb of this. What is illogical about that?
A lb of fat will have more volume than the lb of muscle, true. Since it is denser, muscle does weigh more than fat if you compare *same-size* portions.
|
|
ellen
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,129
|
Post by ellen on Dec 27, 2016 16:31:10 GMT
I have read that a pound of muscle looks like a baseball and a pound of fat is the size of a softball.
|
|
|
|
Post by secondlife on Dec 27, 2016 16:39:37 GMT
This is why using language well matters sometimes.
Things that weigh the same may have different volumes.
It is more correct to say that two people with the same height and weight may have different body composition ratios and therefore be different sizes, or that an individual may lose fat and gain muscle and therefore weigh the same but be smaller.
|
|
|
|
Post by stampbooker on Dec 27, 2016 16:39:40 GMT
You said yourself that a lb of this is equal to a lb of this. What is illogical about that? A lb of fat will have more volume than the lb of muscle, true. Since it is denser, muscle does weigh more than fat if you compare *same-size* portions. It is illogical to say that because a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle it follows that muscle does not weigh more than fat. A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of rocks, but no one would try to argue that rocks do not weigh more than feathers. It is illogical because you do not compare the weight of two things by using the same weight. That makes no sense and is meaningless. You compare the weight of 2 items by volume or by piece. A bushel of rocks vs a bushel of feathers or one rock vs one feather. Julie Save |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:24:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2016 16:43:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cakediva on Dec 27, 2016 16:44:33 GMT
You said yourself that a lb of this is equal to a lb of this. What is illogical about that? A lb of fat will have more volume than the lb of muscle, true. Since it is denser, muscle does weigh more than fat if you compare *same-size* portions. It is illogical to say that because a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle it follows that muscle does not weigh more than fat. A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of rocks, but no one would try to argue that rocks do not weigh more than feathers. It is illogical because you do not compare the weight of two things by using the same weight. That makes no sense and is meaningless. You compare the weight of 2 items by volume or by piece. A bushel of rocks vs a bushel of feathers or one rock vs one feather. Julie SaveA pound is a pound is a pound. A pound of butter weighs the same as a pound of feathers. A pound of flour weighs the same as a pound of water. The space that pound takes up is completely different for everything. But a pound is a pound. The scale doesn't magically change because fat is on it over muscle, or feathers over rocks. the blanket statement "muscle weighs more that fat" is not correct - because a pound of muscle and a pound of fat are both still only a pound. But the volume of that pound is where the difference lies. |
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Dec 27, 2016 16:48:31 GMT
You said yourself that a lb of this is equal to a lb of this. What is illogical about that? A lb of fat will have more volume than the lb of muscle, true. Since it is denser, muscle does weigh more than fat if you compare *same-size* portions. It is illogical to say that because a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle it follows that muscle does not weigh more than fat. A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of rocks, but no one would try to argue that rocks do not weigh more than feathers. It is illogical because you do not compare the weight of two things by using the same weight. That makes no sense and is meaningless. You compare the weight of 2 items by volume or by piece. A bushel of rocks vs a bushel of feathers or one rock vs one feather. Julie SaveThis paragraph is completely convoluted. If *you* use more precise language you will present your argument better. She's right. A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat. There is nothing illogical about that. It's a fact. If you want to argue with her, use more precise language. You can't win if you just keep using the word weight over and over because that isn't really what you mean. |
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Dec 27, 2016 16:49:37 GMT
I'm with you. Yes, a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat but I expect people to be a little bit less pedantic and understand that 'at a given volume' is implied without having to spell it out for them every freaking time!
|
|
|
|
Post by compwalla on Dec 27, 2016 16:49:48 GMT
An equal volume of muscle takes up much less space than the same volume of fat. That is the way to phrase it but that's assuming your audience understands what volume vs weight is and as I've pointed out here before, a large number of people are rather stupid so good luck with that.  |
|
|
|
Post by secondlife on Dec 27, 2016 16:53:40 GMT
An equal volume of muscle takes up much less space than the same volume of fat. That is the way to phrase it but that's assuming your audience understands what volume vs weight is and as I've pointed out here before, a large number of people are rather stupid so good luck with that. No, an equal volume of one thing doesn't take up less space than the same volume of another thing. |
|
|
|
Post by stampbooker on Dec 27, 2016 16:53:50 GMT
It is illogical to say that because a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle it follows that muscle does not weigh more than fat. A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of rocks, but no one would try to argue that rocks do not weigh more than feathers. It is illogical because you do not compare the weight of two things by using the same weight. That makes no sense and is meaningless. You compare the weight of 2 items by volume or by piece. A bushel of rocks vs a bushel of feathers or one rock vs one feather. Julie SaveA pound is a pound is a pound. A pound of butter weighs the same as a pound of feathers. A pound of flour weighs the same as a pound of water. The space that pound takes up is completely different for everything. But a pound is a pound. The scale doesn't magically change because fat is on it over muscle, or feathers over rocks. the blanket statement "muscle weighs more that fat" is not correct - because a pound of muscle and a pound of fat are both still only a pound. But the volume of that pound is where the difference lies. Of course a pound is a pound is a pound. However when the question is which weighs more...it isn't about comparing a pound each of 2 different things because that would be stupid and pointless question. The obvious implication in the question is comparing the weight of 2 different volumes of 2 different items. Julie Save |
|
|
|
Post by stampbooker on Dec 27, 2016 16:57:25 GMT
It is illogical to say that because a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle it follows that muscle does not weigh more than fat. A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of rocks, but no one would try to argue that rocks do not weigh more than feathers. It is illogical because you do not compare the weight of two things by using the same weight. That makes no sense and is meaningless. You compare the weight of 2 items by volume or by piece. A bushel of rocks vs a bushel of feathers or one rock vs one feather. Julie SaveThis paragraph is completely convoluted. If *you* use more precise language you will present your argument better. She's right. A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat. There is nothing illogical about that. It's a fact. If you want to argue with her, use more precise language. You can't win if you just keep using the word weight over and over because that isn't really what you mean. That wasn't her original statement that I disagreed with. The statement was that "muscle does not weigh more than fat." That is not true. The same volume of muscle does indeed weigh more than the same volume of fat. That is a proper comparison. It is simply ridiculous to compare the same weight of 2 different items to decide which weighs more. Julie Save |
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Dec 27, 2016 16:58:31 GMT
Having had this discussion here before, I remember a pea teling me that what I actually mean is that fat takes up more space than muscle.  Apparently her logic of a pound equaling a pound didn't extend to a litre equalling a litre. |
|
|
|
Post by compwalla on Dec 27, 2016 16:59:20 GMT
An equal volume of muscle takes up much less space than the same volume of fat. That is the way to phrase it but that's assuming your audience understands what volume vs weight is and as I've pointed out here before, a large number of people are rather stupid so good luck with that. No, an equal volume of one thing doesn't take up less space than the same volume of another thing. Ok, you got me! An equal volume of muscle WEIGHS more than an equal volume of fat. And a pound of fat has greater volume that a pound of muscle. I think that's better. |
|
|
|
Post by littlefish on Dec 27, 2016 17:10:03 GMT
I think considering the motivation behind her post is important too. The fact she is a Shakeology distributor means that she's going to post things that she thinks will help her recruit more people to do Shakeology (hopefully through her) and so on and so on.
That doesn't necessarily make her well-informed or educated on the subject of fat vs. muscle or mass vs. volume.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonrefugee on Dec 27, 2016 17:15:46 GMT
I'm with you. Yes, a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat but I expect people to be a little bit less pedantic and understand that 'at a given volume' is implied without having to spell it out for them every freaking time! With this logic, we wouldn't have NSBR discussions. |
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Dec 27, 2016 17:16:26 GMT
My husband works out almost every day. He played football in college and trained athletes for competitions. When it came time to get a different life insurance policy, his weight (10 lbs over) was a factor in giving him a higher premium. He argued with several people about the fat vs. muscle debate and finally they put him through to a doctor. It was agreed upon and he got the better premium.
|
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Dec 27, 2016 17:26:31 GMT
This paragraph is completely convoluted. If *you* use more precise language you will present your argument better. She's right. A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat. There is nothing illogical about that. It's a fact. If you want to argue with her, use more precise language. You can't win if you just keep using the word weight over and over because that isn't really what you mean. That wasn't her original statement that I disagreed with. The statement was that "muscle does not weigh more than fat." That is not true. The same volume of muscle does indeed weigh more than the same volume of fat. That is a proper comparison. It is simply ridiculous to compare the same weight of 2 different items to decide which weighs more. Julie SaveWith the way you write here it's easy to see how you couldn't win the FB argument. You can't just say the words "weigh" and "illogical" over and over and expect someone to see your point. There is more precise language to help you explain what you mean. |
|
|
|
Post by malibou on Dec 27, 2016 17:29:30 GMT
My husband works out almost every day. He played football in college and trained athletes for competitions. When it came time to get a different life insurance policy, his weight (10 lbs over) was a factor in giving him a higher premium. He argued with several people about the fat vs. muscle debate and finally they put him through to a doctor. It was agreed upon and he got the better premium. Same thing for my husband. He is very dense, but to look at him you see a trim fit man. J |
|
|
|
Post by stampbooker on Dec 27, 2016 18:27:44 GMT
That wasn't her original statement that I disagreed with. The statement was that "muscle does not weigh more than fat." That is not true. The same volume of muscle does indeed weigh more than the same volume of fat. That is a proper comparison. It is simply ridiculous to compare the same weight of 2 different items to decide which weighs more. Julie SaveWith the way you write here it's easy to see how you couldn't win the FB argument. You can't just say the words "weigh" and "illogical" over and over and expect someone to see your point. There is more precise language to help you explain what you mean. "The same volume of muscle does indeed weigh more than the same volume of fat. " That sees pretty precise and clear to me. Maybe you could help me out though. The point of my post wasn't about winning a facebook argument. It was about my surprise that a facebook search of the subject showed that there were so many people putting out illogical information. Julie Save |
|
blue tulip
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,049
|
Post by blue tulip on Dec 27, 2016 18:30:17 GMT
My husband works out almost every day. He played football in college and trained athletes for competitions. When it came time to get a different life insurance policy, his weight (10 lbs over) was a factor in giving him a higher premium. He argued with several people about the fat vs. muscle debate and finally they put him through to a doctor. It was agreed upon and he got the better premium. Same thing for my husband. He is very dense, but to look at him you see a trim fit man. J and same thing for my 9 yr old. he's always been above 95th percentile for height and weight. apparently our insurance now requires that when a child is above x percentile, the doctor has to give a warning to the parents, talk about proper nutrition, and then follow up in 6 months to see if the weight has improved. but this boy is just as you described- dense! can hardly pinch an inch on him, but can see his musculature when he takes his shirt off. is insanely energetic and active. he's just a tall, dense boy.
our doctor just shook her head and said she'd call them and let them know that no, this boy's weight is perfectly fine and nothing further was needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by malibou on Dec 27, 2016 23:33:22 GMT
My friend's son is like that. She was horrified when the note came home the first time.
J
|
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Dec 28, 2016 4:34:07 GMT
I think when discussing muscle vs fat there are a lot of mistaken beliefs. You need to be as specific as possible when discussing this. People say things like, "muscle turns to fat" and do truly believe that a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat (and that you can build muscle in just a few workouts). So if someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" I would not assume that they mean "a lb of muscle takes up less space than a lb of fat" or that they were referring to the volume of fat vs muscle.
|
|
Apparently her logic of a pound equaling a pound didn't extend to a litre equalling a litre. 
