# Muscle does weigh more than fat

21 to 40 of 43 messages
23/10/2013 at 14:32

23/10/2013 at 14:36

Yeah, I gathered.  Obviously he's bored today given his posts.

23/10/2013 at 14:37

Ah but wasn't the French kilo against which all other kilos are measured actually loosing weight too?

23/10/2013 at 14:52

Elizabeth Div X is right. The equations do not lie:

density = mass/volume

mass = density x volume

So 1 cubic metre of muscle weighs more than 1 cubic metre of fat.

A large amount of fat can be replaced by a smaller amount of muscle, with no apparent weight loss. Even though you look trimmer.

Here is tonights homework:

What happens if you drop a pound of fat and a pound of muscle off the leaning tower of Pisa? Do they land at the same time? And who will clear up the mess?

23/10/2013 at 14:58

I guess if we're talking about terminal velocity there will inevitably be losses, so technically would a Kilo of fat have some sort of sticking delay to the fall.

23/10/2013 at 14:59

and as for the mess, I'm sure there'll be an italian woman around

23/10/2013 at 15:14
Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)
TimR wrote (see)

When I started training about 5 years ago I lost 1.5 stone over 3months then started to put weight back on while still appearing to lose weight.

I weigh less than I did before. It's still me. Whether my volume is different or I'm more dense is a pointless observation and difficult to measure outside of a physics lab. I weigh less.

My guess is you watch Ster Trek

Dr Who. I'm heavier on the inside.

23/10/2013 at 15:37

If you do a google search on the 'relative density of muscle and fat' it comes up with:

density of skeletal muscle: 1.06g/cm3

density of fat:                     0.9g/cm3

Therefore, if 1kg of muscle has approximately 85% of the volume 1kg of fat (if the numbers are correct).

23/10/2013 at 16:04

That's all very well but the original question was about 1lb of fat and 1lb is less than 1kilo, has nobody realised this?

23/10/2013 at 16:18

It was actually about 5lbs of fat. Or more specifically it was about some unspecified amount of fat being lost and an unspecified amount of muscle gained with the balance being a net loss of 5lbs. Although due to accuracy limitations we don't know how many oz.

Time for some simultaneous equations.

Were the weights done at the same temperature and pressure?

Edited: 23/10/2013 at 16:20
23/10/2013 at 16:18

Is everyone bored today?

(Actually I found this really interesting)

23/10/2013 at 17:13
Taxi Driver wrote (see)
Cinders wrote (see)

A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat!  Muscle is just more dense than fat.

A pound of one thing always weighs exactly the same as a pound of anything else and, therefore, everything weighs exactly the same...  Or something...

Err, one pound of fat, or muscle, or feathers weighs more than one pound of gold....

23/10/2013 at 18:11

It's all Slugs to me

23/10/2013 at 19:33

Have you not realised it is not a debate about weight at all. It is a debate about volume. Smaller obviously means lighter.

23/10/2013 at 20:22

Let me start by saying I don't know what I'm talking about and CBA to check precisely.

can't the entire substance of everything in the known (and unknown) universe be, theoretically, compressed into a really, really, small space? That being the case, fat weighs more than the universe then?

Or something like that

23/10/2013 at 20:36
23/10/2013 at 21:47

A teaspoon of Neutron star weighs more than everyone on earth combined...

23/10/2013 at 21:53

Is that a level or a heaped teaspoon?

23/10/2013 at 21:54

Ah...you can't actually use the spoon, it would vapourise...

24/10/2013 at 11:27
Chimney wrote (see)

Let me start by saying I don't know what I'm talking about and CBA to check precisely.

can't the entire substance of everything in the known (and unknown) universe be, theoretically, compressed into a really, really, small space? That being the case, fat weighs more than the universe then?

Or something like that

theoretically - maybe.  if the big bang theory is correct then the known universe came from something called a singularity - basically something incredibly tiny that went KABOOOOOM and that created the universe.   if the theory is correct, the universe will eventually stop expanding and will shrink back to that singularity.

and given that the known laws of physics are unlikely to apply to the singularity, then weight would purely become an abstract concept - as would time, distance, and everything else we measure things by.

ain't science fun??

21 to 40 of 43 messages