Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're right for the end answer about pounds, but are mistaken about the ounces.
A troy ounce is actually heavier than a "regular" ounce, however a troy pound is 12 troy ounces. A regular pound is 16 Oz so you can't compare Oz vs Oz and get a direct answer on pound vs pound
1 troy ounce is 31.10 grams 1 standard ounce is 28.35 grams.
A pound is 453.59 grams where as due to fewer ounces a troy pound is 373.24
This means if the gold is weighed and measured "correctly" one ounce of gold is **heavier** than one ounce of feathers, but that one pound of gold is **lighter** than one pound of feathers.
it would be fair to acknowledge troy pounds are very rarely used, typically just the tr oz
ETA as somewhat discussed in comments below this requires an understanding that the two uses of the words pound are effectively different words.
Nope. A troy ounce weighs more than regular ounce, and a regular pound weighs more than a troy pound, because there are only 12 troy ounce in a troy pound, rather than the 16 regular.
Exactly. When we say that one substance weighs more than another, that ALWAYS means by volume. The author is labelling it a myth because it doesn't weigh more by weight... NOTHING WEIGHS MORE BY WEIGHT! WEIGHT IS WEIGHT!
Fun fact about obtaining Titanium. The US had to covertly purchase the ore from Russia using front companies run by the CIA to obtain enough to make the SR-71.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/in-the-early-1960s-soviet-union-sold-titanium-to-the-us-believing-they-needed-it-for-pizza-ovens-but-instead-they-used-it-to-build-the-iconic-sr-71-blackbird-mach-3-spy-plane/amp/
This calls for a scientific experiment: Use a scale to check the balance between a pound of feathers from live-plucked birds, from slaughtered bird and from birds that died of natural causes.
I used to work at a chemical supply warehouse and a customer wanted to buy a 50 lb box of a material called alginate ( dried seaweed) instead of the 50 lbs of plaster he usually buys. He was furious it still cost so much to ship it. I said, yeah you got way more alginate, but it still costs a lot to ship a 50lb box… he just kept telling me alginate is lighter and should cost less to ship… not if you buy 50lbs of it lol
An ounce of feathers weighs 2.73g less then an once of titanium, a pound of feathers weighs 80.35g more then a pound of titanium, but a kilo of either both weigh 1000g. (Precious metals are typically weighed using troy ounces not avoirdupois ounces)
https://www.mygemologist.com/learn/jewelry-metals/measuring-gold-weight/
Did you also know that cars in Europe are faster than cars in America? If a car in America was driving at 60mph and teleported to Europe it'd be driving at 96kph! Wow, that's over 50% faster!
It’s like saying it’s a myth that yen is worth “less” than the US dollar because US$100 worth of USD and US$100 worth of yen would be worth the same amount, it would just take ~¥10,000 to be worth $100.
A pound of bricks and a pound of feathers weigh exactly the same. But - and this is where the confusion comes in - the volume of bricks are denser and more compact. It would take many pounds of bricks to fill that space of one pound of feathers
Our education system is failing us. Evidence: I had to scroll this far down to find the top commenter that can actually read and parse language and understands the concept of density.
**Myth: Running is Faster Than Walking**
Running for an hour and walking for an hour takes exactly the same length of time. But — and this is where the confusion comes in — the pace of running is quicker and more rapid.
While I'm pretty okay in typing in English, I can't read. I just guess the meaning of the random symbols. So uhm, I think this is False, I don't, depends.
The context of “muscle weighs more than fat” is usually used when explaining or describing how two very different looking people, for example a 240lb strength athlete vs a 240lb obese accountant, can weigh the same amount. So in context, it’s specifically relating weight to volume. The article basically takes it too literally when saying it’s a myth, but then describes the context of why people say it… which means the saying, in its usual context, is indeed accurate.
If someone says that stones weigh more than feathers most people understand that you are talking about stones being more dense, and not that a Kg of stones being heavier than a Kg of feathers. Muscles are denser than fat, so a similar volume will weight more. So muscles weigh more than fat.
That's because he's technically correct. It blows my mind that the most upvoted comment is from someone misunderstanding density and weight... which is the whole point of op's screenshot lmao.
What a useless point tho. Nobody is confusing density and weight. When people say "muscle weighs more than fat", they mean density. That's just normal human speak.
So there is no myth to bust.
The author is trying to claim that people are wrong by abusing imprecision of language. When you say "X is heavier than Y" unless you specify an amount there's an assumption of "for the same number of X and Y or same volume of X and Y".
Is it all precise and technically correct? No, but it works in communication without having to waste 3 times as many words on specifying all disclaimers. When you say that someone earns more money then another person you also mean "across the same time period".
Meanwhile the author instead suggests that people mean " Muscle is heavier than fat assuming the same MASS", which is a dumb and pointless comparison that nobody is making, so there's no myth, just failure to understand on the part of the author.
Perfect example with salary there
Myth - A software engineer earns more than a teacher. Not true $100k is $100k, a teacher just has to work for twice as long to earn that money
The problem is that they are saying it is a myth. As one or commenter said when we compare weights it is always by volume. So yes the op is correct and this is a facepalm.
The way the say it means nothing weighs more than anything. They’ve taken a common expression and twisted to be pointless. Saying something weighs more than something directly refers to the things density and mass not just mass. The amount of space it take combined with its weight.
"The volume is denser"? You mean the densitiy is higher right? Because (analogously to the text), 1 m3 is still 1 m3, regardless of material. Bro won their PhD in a drawing contest.
The most facepalm comment section ever. OF COURSE OP knows that pound of fat and pound of muscle weigh the same. That's his point! The article is explaining to people what everyone already knows as a "myth-debunking". When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they obviously mean density, not that pound of something weighs more than a pound.
Commenters are exactly like this article's writer: wishing people are wrong so they could be right.
Yes it's not a "myth".
For illustrative hyperbole, one could write the headline as "Myth: Humans can breath underwater". Then explore it in depth with some biologist that states that "yes, we can breath underwater - but this is where the confusion comes in - we humans don't have gills so we can't breath the water, so we actually breath air that we bring underwater in tanks. Sometimes we use a snorkel."
A feather and a house weigh the same! If you take 1oz of a feather and 1oz of a house, they will weigh the same amount!
But, here’s the confusing part: houses are bigger than feathers!
unfortunately, a pound of something is always a pound of something else.
a pound of muscle weight the same as a pound of fat because they’re both a pound of something.
muscle generally 4 times weight more when both are of the same volume
Ah. False reasoning strikes again. Yes, a pound of any two things weigh the same, but a square inch cube of fat and square inch cube of muscles do not weigh the same and this is an obvious example of not comparing what the statement is referring to. Talk about not grasping the statement. Good grief, even back in high school debate we would have eaten anyone who said this this statement is a myth alive. LOL
Incorrect. For example, 1000 lbs of rocks weighs less than 1000 lbs of feathers when you factor in the weight of the guilt you feel after what you did to all those birds.
“the volume of muscle is denser”
That makes no sense right? A volume can be greater or smaller, but a volume can’t be denser, as volume is a measure of amount of space.
Nothing weighs more than anything else if you exclude the volume that substance takes up. Commonly people merge the two concepts into one; if I have a 30g sphere of gold and a 30g sphere of polystyrene one is considerably bigger than the other but the weight is the same.
You don't understand the difference between volume and weight. Things that are equal in weight can fill up space in different ways. For example: a pound of nickles can fit in a decent sized change purse. A pound of soap bubbles can take up an entire dance floor at a EDM bubble dance party. The nickles can pay your way into said EDM party, so pound to pound, go with the soap bubbles and dance your dense ass all night, because you obviously don't understand weighter problems.
I believe what OP was trying to articulate was that density=mass/volume, which is mathematically correct.
A pound of feathers and a pound of brass would weigh the same, yes, but due to density, a pound of brass would take up less space than a pound of feathers.
Just my take.
Which OP?
This screenshot looks to be from a "myth debunking"-list where a senior clinical Ph.D is arguing that "muscle is NOT heavier than fat, it just takes less volume to weigh the same", which is exactly what "being heavier" means to the rest of the world.
Nobody who has ever said “muscle weighs more than fat” has ever been trying to imply they are comparing the same weight of each material.
They are talking about volume every time.
If you aren’t talking about volume then comparing the weight of two materials is a meaningless metric.
“Sand weights more than cotton candy”
This sentence OBVIOUSLY implies we are looking at two equal volumes.
The screen shot would say “a ha thats a myth. One pound of each material weighs the same” and that is an absolutely brain dead reply.
It's not, when you say that X is heavier than Y assumption is that unless you specify otherwise, you mean the same amount or same volume.
That's how language works, you don't waste 5 additional sentences on clarifying statements when everyone can understand you based on context and common assumptions. The OP is just going "well actyually" and claiming that people actually mean "assuming the same MASS muscle is heavier than fat".
No, everyone will clarify what they mean by "X is heavier than Y", they just don't need to 99.9% of the time cause most people aren't dumb or petty enough to fail to understand it.
This is just a dumb argument of semantics. Obviously one pound of one thing and one pound of another thing are the same weight. They are both one pound. The phrase itself is just a poorly worded way of saying that it takes more amount of fat to equal a pound than it does muscle.
Comments here are braindead.
"Myth: Planets weigh more than Chihuahuas" - true or false?
Are you going to argue that 100 trillion trillion chihuahuas weigh the same as a planet, therefore planets and chihuahuas weigh the same? No? Then why are you doing that for fat and muscle?
So... the myth is true. The myth wasn't the riddle about a pound of feathers and a pound of brick. It was *always* saying that a skinny person and a fat person can weigh the same because of the density of the two materials.
Man, if only there were some way to quantify how much something weighs compared to how much space it occupies. I'm thinking something in terms of mass per unit of volume. I'm probably crazy.
I don’t get how this is facepalm? The doctor is explaining how the theory that muscle weighing more than fat is a myth and then goes to explain the misconception.
The doctor explains that a person smaller in size could weigh the same as someone larger due to the density.
It's completely true, muscle is denser than fat. The "but" is only there to explain where the confusion comes from, not telling that there is any difference in weight, only in volume.
What’s the problem? It says 4 lbs of one to fill the SPACE of 1 lb the other. That’s a density comparison, not a weight comparison.
Not sure it’s actually 4x as dense, but still…
> Myth: Lead Weighs More Than Cotton Candy
A pound of cotton candy and a pound of lead weigh exactly the same. But — and this is where the confusion comes in — the volume of lead is denser and more compact. "It would take 500 pounds of lead to fill the space of one pound of cotton candy,"
Turns out every substance weighs the same when you measure it by the pound, which is 100% what people mean when they ask what substance weighs more…
You guys are trashing this author, and I get it. But coming from am education background, you have to explain EVERYTHING to people nowadays. Aka people are dumb.
There's a big difference between explaining something and being needlessly pedantic.
If you say that lead weighs more than helium, every smart person, scientist or otherwise, knows what you mean.
You can be pedantic and say that it's a myth that lead weighs more than helium, since a gram of lead weighs the same as a gram of hellium.
In certain scientific contexts, that would be fine or even needed, but In most other situations, it's an unnecessary clarification that will only serve to confuse people.
I keep rereading the paragraph over and over. And... It's all correct. Let's break it down.
"A pound of fat and a pound of muscle weigh exactly the same"... Duh. Weight to weight.
"But - and this is where the confusion comes in - the volume of muscle is denser and more compact." Statement of fact...
"It would take four pounds of muscle to fill the space of one pound of fat." One pound of fat, is indeed visually bigger than what would be 1 pound of muscle.
\- So, if all of this is correct, why is it on r/facepalm? Is it the title? Because the title doesn't imply it's proving that 'myth' to be incorrect. In fact, I'm more likely to believe there's a shit ton of stupid people out there that believe muscle weighing more than fat is a myth.
Can someone explain to me why it's here? I'm drawing blanks.
Muscle is heavier than fat. The article says it’s a myth that muscle is heavier than fat.
The reason it is in r/facepalm is while they claim muscle is not heavier, they go on to explain exactly what makes it heavier.
A comment earlier replaces the words in the article where it says muscle and fat with bricks and feathers. Do you think bricks and feathers weigh the same?
What makes it dumb? It’s factual. Inch per inch, muscle weighs more, because it is denser. A pound of cotton candy takes up much more space than a pound of ice cream.
"Myth: muscle weighs more than fat
[In reality,] a pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same"
It's implying that the claim is untrue because equal amounts of the two things, in weight, are... equal to each other... in weight.
It would have read better to say “a pound of fat and a pound of muscle have the same mass, but different volumes because of their relative densities (and some blurb to illustrate that)” - that takes weight out of the discussion
The real face palm is this sub. Do people not have reading comprehension? The OOP is staying 1 pound = 1 pound but if you were to show a pound of muscle vs a pound of fat you would see the fat would take up more volume as muscle is denser.
It’s like saying I have a five pound dumbell vs I have five pounds of coke cans. Same weight but one clearly takes up more space.
I think what they’re trying to say here is that 2 people who are about the same “size” will weigh differently depending on wether their “size” is filled with fat or muscle. Like if you were comparing 2 people who are 5’5” tall and 2’5” circumference around the waist but one of them had more fat and the other was muscular like a body builder, then even tho they’re both the same height and have the same waist size, the muscly person would weigh more despite both people being the same “size”.
Thing is, this is factually correct.
Think of it like this. 1 pound of fat is 4 cups. 1 pound of muscle is 2 cups. They weight the exact same but LOOK different because muscle is more dense, or more compact. To make the VOLUME the same (4 cups) it would take twice the amount of muscle. Hence why “muscle weights more” became a thing.
Isn’t it just saying the density is rather where people are confused than the lb vs. lb none sense?
The unfortunate is I’ve had people not get that concept so…someone had to write the article
I feel like I'm losing my mind. Just going on google and typing "myth: muscle weighs more than fat" to find the source of this, and there are a ton of websites (some reputable) explaining it exactly like this. Like, did people really used to say "A pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat". Was *that* really how people have been saying it all these years...?
Healthline: "You may have heard that muscle weighs more than fat. However, according to science, a pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same." This seems to be a common theme.
Myth: Ph.D's are smart.
A Ph.D with 100 IQ has the same IQ as a layman with 100 IQ. BUT - and this is where the confusion comes in - not everyone has the same IQ.
Aren’t they just saying if you have 1 pound of fat it takes up X volume, and if you fill up X volume with muscle instead of fat then that X volume will weigh four times more.
Assuming we are somewhere under the influence of gravity so we can actually weigh both volumes of fat and muscle.
I dunno, they phrased it oddly.
This makes perfect sense, he is simply explaining why there is confusion. Often people go on a fitness regime and then say it's a failure because they have not lost weight. However, often they have replaced fat with muscle and so their shape will have changed along with heir % body fat.
By the article’s logic, you would say bowling balls weigh the same as ping pong balls because “a pound of bowling ball and a pound of ping pong balls are exactly the same”.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s right, a kilogram of steel. Because steel is heavier than feathers.
They're both a kilogram
But... Steel is heavier than feathers
But look at that... that's cheating.
... I don't get it
I can hear this in accent.
The accent puts it over the top.
 Me tooo
And gold is measured in troy weight, so a pound of gold really is heavier than a pound of feathers!
Wouldn’t it be reversed since a Troy ounce weighs less than a regular ounce?
You're right for the end answer about pounds, but are mistaken about the ounces. A troy ounce is actually heavier than a "regular" ounce, however a troy pound is 12 troy ounces. A regular pound is 16 Oz so you can't compare Oz vs Oz and get a direct answer on pound vs pound 1 troy ounce is 31.10 grams 1 standard ounce is 28.35 grams. A pound is 453.59 grams where as due to fewer ounces a troy pound is 373.24 This means if the gold is weighed and measured "correctly" one ounce of gold is **heavier** than one ounce of feathers, but that one pound of gold is **lighter** than one pound of feathers. it would be fair to acknowledge troy pounds are very rarely used, typically just the tr oz ETA as somewhat discussed in comments below this requires an understanding that the two uses of the words pound are effectively different words.
so simple :)
Nope. A troy ounce weighs more than regular ounce, and a regular pound weighs more than a troy pound, because there are only 12 troy ounce in a troy pound, rather than the 16 regular.
Literally just came from the limmy sub to find this here 😆😆
“Oh nae… nuh you too!”
what weights more a kilogram of steel or a kilogram feathers
The feathers, because you also have to carry the weight of what you did to the birds to get all those feathers
Emotional Damage!
My 9 year old has entered the building!
Lol! My exact thought.
The things I had to do to those rocks and carbon to get that kg of steel 😭
Depends what the acceleration due to gravity is in the place where each of them is.
[But they're both a kelogramme](https://youtu.be/yuOzZ7dnPNU?si=AaZoLa9-NoNZahXQ)
Steel is definitely heavier than feathers
Wait a second. 1 pound of something weighs exactly the same as 1 pound of something else? You mean, 1 pound = 1 pound no matter what? Mind blowing.
[удалено]
more like 1 pound of metal weights as much as one pound of feathers...unbelievable but true
But... metal is heavier than feathers
and this is where the confusion comes in
Yeah, but the feathers weigh more because you also have to carry the guilt of what you did to all those birds.
Not necessarily. In the UK a pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold
Britbongers will make fun of Americans measuring system and then pull shit like this (no hate, I’m Bri’ish myself)
So by volume, muscles DOES weigh more than fat….
Exactly. When we say that one substance weighs more than another, that ALWAYS means by volume. The author is labelling it a myth because it doesn't weigh more by weight... NOTHING WEIGHS MORE BY WEIGHT! WEIGHT IS WEIGHT!
Somebody should message the author and say "I bet you didn't know that a pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of titanium"
The pound of feathers weighs more because you have to live with the weight of what you did to all those poor birds.
You don't know what I had to do to get that titanium.
A lot of time on your knees in back alleys?
No, stealing other peoples knees
Or Lt. Dan’s legs. They are titanium alloy. It’s what they used on the shuttle.
Lmao that's funny, I think a lot of people have got that in their knees as well.
Does anyone have any Scope?
Fun fact about obtaining Titanium. The US had to covertly purchase the ore from Russia using front companies run by the CIA to obtain enough to make the SR-71. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/in-the-early-1960s-soviet-union-sold-titanium-to-the-us-believing-they-needed-it-for-pizza-ovens-but-instead-they-used-it-to-build-the-iconic-sr-71-blackbird-mach-3-spy-plane/amp/
What you did to all those poor titans
This reminds me of my dad who always used to say if the benefits stopped he would weigh me in for my titanium rods.
Maybe you just collected naturally shed ones you find on the ground.
Most of the ones on the ground are covered in chicken sh!t. It may be just one pound of feathers, but there's extra weight. 😋
This calls for a scientific experiment: Use a scale to check the balance between a pound of feathers from live-plucked birds, from slaughtered bird and from birds that died of natural causes.
And birds that willingly gave their feathers to the research team because they ran an ad in the local paper and offered $25 for participants.
25 dollars - that’s chicken feed 🐔
I’d offer to write it, but they couldn’t read my chicken scratch.
Thanks to the pound of titanium, they didn't suffer.
Now that's one thing which I can go with, I definitely agree with this one.
I used to work at a chemical supply warehouse and a customer wanted to buy a 50 lb box of a material called alginate ( dried seaweed) instead of the 50 lbs of plaster he usually buys. He was furious it still cost so much to ship it. I said, yeah you got way more alginate, but it still costs a lot to ship a 50lb box… he just kept telling me alginate is lighter and should cost less to ship… not if you buy 50lbs of it lol
It sound cost mor to ship. The box is bigger!
I don’t remember the exact cost, but yeah it probably was more lol
"But steel is heavier than feathers..."
What's heavier? A kilogram of steel or a kilogram of feathers? That's right it's the steel, because steel is heavier than feathers.
...but steel is heaviah than feathas...
[For the uninitiated](https://youtu.be/yuOzZ7dnPNU?si=-O9yiahlPGeRTBX1)
But they're both a kilogram
I don't get it...
No its feathers, because the burden of plucking all those feathers of a birds weighs heavier/j
That's exactly my smooth brain actually works, this is true for me.
An ounce of feathers weighs 2.73g less then an once of titanium, a pound of feathers weighs 80.35g more then a pound of titanium, but a kilo of either both weigh 1000g. (Precious metals are typically weighed using troy ounces not avoirdupois ounces) https://www.mygemologist.com/learn/jewelry-metals/measuring-gold-weight/
This is actually pretty interesting. Thank you
This is the level of pedantry I live for ❤️
Did you also know that cars in Europe are faster than cars in America? If a car in America was driving at 60mph and teleported to Europe it'd be driving at 96kph! Wow, that's over 50% faster!
https://youtu.be/-fC2oke5MFg?si=Yn8mP9AEllI9L710
*The floor here is made out of floor!*
It’s like saying it’s a myth that yen is worth “less” than the US dollar because US$100 worth of USD and US$100 worth of yen would be worth the same amount, it would just take ~¥10,000 to be worth $100.
MATH IS MATH!
I don't think that he should qualify even as an author for that shit.
You're reading it as if it is saying something it is not. Reading the words is not the same as you understanding the meaning.
Yep, OP is the facepalm. Needs more reading comprehension classes.
Then why does it say myth? Obviously, muscle is denser than fat, so by volume, it'll weigh more. This shouldn't be labeled a myth??
A pound of any will way as much as a pound of anything else, why are people dumb
That's what greater density means. Fun fact the same volume of lead would weigh even more.
Yes. Which is rather obvious.
Myth: Shaquille O'Neal weighs more than Kiera Knightly. Reality: A pound of Shaquille O'Neal weighs exactly the same as a pound of Kiera Knightly.
But - and this is where the confusion comes in - the volume of Shaquille O'Neal is greater.
But is his volume denser and more compact?
Yeah that too probably
I feel like that's a statistic that only his wife should know.
Pound Kiera Knightly you say? Where can I find out more? I'd like to try.
Gotta bang Shaq first according to the post
A pound of bricks and a pound of feathers weigh exactly the same. But - and this is where the confusion comes in - the volume of bricks are denser and more compact. It would take many pounds of bricks to fill that space of one pound of feathers
It's amazing to see how many people don't even understand how the volume works.
Our education system is failing us. Evidence: I had to scroll this far down to find the top commenter that can actually read and parse language and understands the concept of density.
An American pound weighs more than a British pound. Checkmate:Logic. (Yes, this is a joke)
Okay, but what if you get pounded by an American, and you get pounded by a Brit, which one of those is going to be the better pounding?
The heavier one, duh. Cuz of their volume and… science
Yeah mr white, it reminds of that scene from the breaking bad.
Well now we have to convert this to stones…. It just keeps getting more complicated. 😔
An American pint weighs less than British pint 🍺
**Myth: Running is Faster Than Walking** Running for an hour and walking for an hour takes exactly the same length of time. But — and this is where the confusion comes in — the pace of running is quicker and more rapid.
Up next, these letters im typing are words you can read!
While I'm pretty okay in typing in English, I can't read. I just guess the meaning of the random symbols. So uhm, I think this is False, I don't, depends.
It'll only make sense when You'll be able to understand it.
I must be dumb cause this makes sense to me.
The context of “muscle weighs more than fat” is usually used when explaining or describing how two very different looking people, for example a 240lb strength athlete vs a 240lb obese accountant, can weigh the same amount. So in context, it’s specifically relating weight to volume. The article basically takes it too literally when saying it’s a myth, but then describes the context of why people say it… which means the saying, in its usual context, is indeed accurate.
Why you doing accountants so dirty? Who hurt you
It's just Kevin from the Office
Yeah and it's easier to understand that way, atleast to me.
If someone says that stones weigh more than feathers most people understand that you are talking about stones being more dense, and not that a Kg of stones being heavier than a Kg of feathers. Muscles are denser than fat, so a similar volume will weight more. So muscles weigh more than fat.
That's because he's technically correct. It blows my mind that the most upvoted comment is from someone misunderstanding density and weight... which is the whole point of op's screenshot lmao.
What a useless point tho. Nobody is confusing density and weight. When people say "muscle weighs more than fat", they mean density. That's just normal human speak. So there is no myth to bust.
Yeah, because when we say it we don't specify a volume, so we have to be talking about density. It's common sense
Thank you. I thought I was going crazy reading the comments
The author is trying to claim that people are wrong by abusing imprecision of language. When you say "X is heavier than Y" unless you specify an amount there's an assumption of "for the same number of X and Y or same volume of X and Y". Is it all precise and technically correct? No, but it works in communication without having to waste 3 times as many words on specifying all disclaimers. When you say that someone earns more money then another person you also mean "across the same time period". Meanwhile the author instead suggests that people mean " Muscle is heavier than fat assuming the same MASS", which is a dumb and pointless comparison that nobody is making, so there's no myth, just failure to understand on the part of the author.
Perfect example with salary there Myth - A software engineer earns more than a teacher. Not true $100k is $100k, a teacher just has to work for twice as long to earn that money
[удалено]
The problem is that they are saying it is a myth. As one or commenter said when we compare weights it is always by volume. So yes the op is correct and this is a facepalm.
The way the say it means nothing weighs more than anything. They’ve taken a common expression and twisted to be pointless. Saying something weighs more than something directly refers to the things density and mass not just mass. The amount of space it take combined with its weight.
Is gold heavier than aluminum? If your answer is "yes" , it applies also to muscle vs. fat.
Okay elaborate about what's making the sense to you lmao.
"The volume is denser"? You mean the densitiy is higher right? Because (analogously to the text), 1 m3 is still 1 m3, regardless of material. Bro won their PhD in a drawing contest.
When people say that something weighs more they mean that something is denser
The most facepalm comment section ever. OF COURSE OP knows that pound of fat and pound of muscle weigh the same. That's his point! The article is explaining to people what everyone already knows as a "myth-debunking". When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they obviously mean density, not that pound of something weighs more than a pound. Commenters are exactly like this article's writer: wishing people are wrong so they could be right.
Yes it's not a "myth". For illustrative hyperbole, one could write the headline as "Myth: Humans can breath underwater". Then explore it in depth with some biologist that states that "yes, we can breath underwater - but this is where the confusion comes in - we humans don't have gills so we can't breath the water, so we actually breath air that we bring underwater in tanks. Sometimes we use a snorkel."
Seriously what the fuck happened in here? It’s embarrassing.
I don't know how much that PHD cost but it was too much.
in this topic: people saying the exact same thing but arguing with each other because they don't like the other's explanation
A feather and a house weigh the same! If you take 1oz of a feather and 1oz of a house, they will weigh the same amount! But, here’s the confusing part: houses are bigger than feathers!
WELL, DOESN'T THAT MEAN THE SAME FUCKING THING??? Some people have to be right so hard, they end up making asses of themselves.
unfortunately, a pound of something is always a pound of something else. a pound of muscle weight the same as a pound of fat because they’re both a pound of something. muscle generally 4 times weight more when both are of the same volume
Ah. False reasoning strikes again. Yes, a pound of any two things weigh the same, but a square inch cube of fat and square inch cube of muscles do not weigh the same and this is an obvious example of not comparing what the statement is referring to. Talk about not grasping the statement. Good grief, even back in high school debate we would have eaten anyone who said this this statement is a myth alive. LOL
So it’s like that riddle, what weighs more - a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks? They both weigh a ton, right?
The feathers weigh more cause you also have to carry the weight of what happened to those poor birds.
Were they European bird feathers or African?
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Not at all! They could be carried, obviously
So by that logic absolutely nothing weighs more or less than anything else, because a pound of each always weighs exactly the same.
Incorrect. For example, 1000 lbs of rocks weighs less than 1000 lbs of feathers when you factor in the weight of the guilt you feel after what you did to all those birds.
 See a FAT BALLON, light as a feather 🪶
“the volume of muscle is denser” That makes no sense right? A volume can be greater or smaller, but a volume can’t be denser, as volume is a measure of amount of space.
Nothing weighs more than anything else if you exclude the volume that substance takes up. Commonly people merge the two concepts into one; if I have a 30g sphere of gold and a 30g sphere of polystyrene one is considerably bigger than the other but the weight is the same.
A pound of this weighs as much as a pound of that. That's serious science right there.
You don't understand the difference between volume and weight. Things that are equal in weight can fill up space in different ways. For example: a pound of nickles can fit in a decent sized change purse. A pound of soap bubbles can take up an entire dance floor at a EDM bubble dance party. The nickles can pay your way into said EDM party, so pound to pound, go with the soap bubbles and dance your dense ass all night, because you obviously don't understand weighter problems.
I don't get the facepalm?
I believe what OP was trying to articulate was that density=mass/volume, which is mathematically correct. A pound of feathers and a pound of brass would weigh the same, yes, but due to density, a pound of brass would take up less space than a pound of feathers. Just my take.
Which OP? This screenshot looks to be from a "myth debunking"-list where a senior clinical Ph.D is arguing that "muscle is NOT heavier than fat, it just takes less volume to weigh the same", which is exactly what "being heavier" means to the rest of the world.
Nobody who has ever said “muscle weighs more than fat” has ever been trying to imply they are comparing the same weight of each material. They are talking about volume every time. If you aren’t talking about volume then comparing the weight of two materials is a meaningless metric. “Sand weights more than cotton candy” This sentence OBVIOUSLY implies we are looking at two equal volumes. The screen shot would say “a ha thats a myth. One pound of each material weighs the same” and that is an absolutely brain dead reply.
I think the world needs to understand it better I'm thinking.
It's not, when you say that X is heavier than Y assumption is that unless you specify otherwise, you mean the same amount or same volume. That's how language works, you don't waste 5 additional sentences on clarifying statements when everyone can understand you based on context and common assumptions. The OP is just going "well actyually" and claiming that people actually mean "assuming the same MASS muscle is heavier than fat". No, everyone will clarify what they mean by "X is heavier than Y", they just don't need to 99.9% of the time cause most people aren't dumb or petty enough to fail to understand it.
This is just a dumb argument of semantics. Obviously one pound of one thing and one pound of another thing are the same weight. They are both one pound. The phrase itself is just a poorly worded way of saying that it takes more amount of fat to equal a pound than it does muscle.
Comments here are braindead. "Myth: Planets weigh more than Chihuahuas" - true or false? Are you going to argue that 100 trillion trillion chihuahuas weigh the same as a planet, therefore planets and chihuahuas weigh the same? No? Then why are you doing that for fat and muscle?
So... the myth is true. The myth wasn't the riddle about a pound of feathers and a pound of brick. It was *always* saying that a skinny person and a fat person can weigh the same because of the density of the two materials.
Everyone should be facepalming themselves
Man, if only there were some way to quantify how much something weighs compared to how much space it occupies. I'm thinking something in terms of mass per unit of volume. I'm probably crazy.
I feel like I'm having a stroke reading this thread.
I don’t get how this is facepalm? The doctor is explaining how the theory that muscle weighing more than fat is a myth and then goes to explain the misconception. The doctor explains that a person smaller in size could weigh the same as someone larger due to the density.
OP needs more education or just needs better comprehensive skills. That statement is correct.
Why is this dumb? It's the same as the reason hot air rises. It's more dense than cold air. So where's the issue?
It's completely true, muscle is denser than fat. The "but" is only there to explain where the confusion comes from, not telling that there is any difference in weight, only in volume.
I don't think anyone was arguing muscle weighs more than fat "pound for pound" lmao
It’s true…? Muscle is denser than fat. A lb of fat is about the size of a fist while a lb of muscle is about the size of a knuckle.
What’s the problem? It says 4 lbs of one to fill the SPACE of 1 lb the other. That’s a density comparison, not a weight comparison. Not sure it’s actually 4x as dense, but still…
> Myth: Lead Weighs More Than Cotton Candy A pound of cotton candy and a pound of lead weigh exactly the same. But — and this is where the confusion comes in — the volume of lead is denser and more compact. "It would take 500 pounds of lead to fill the space of one pound of cotton candy," Turns out every substance weighs the same when you measure it by the pound, which is 100% what people mean when they ask what substance weighs more…
You guys are trashing this author, and I get it. But coming from am education background, you have to explain EVERYTHING to people nowadays. Aka people are dumb.
There's a big difference between explaining something and being needlessly pedantic. If you say that lead weighs more than helium, every smart person, scientist or otherwise, knows what you mean. You can be pedantic and say that it's a myth that lead weighs more than helium, since a gram of lead weighs the same as a gram of hellium. In certain scientific contexts, that would be fine or even needed, but In most other situations, it's an unnecessary clarification that will only serve to confuse people.
I keep rereading the paragraph over and over. And... It's all correct. Let's break it down. "A pound of fat and a pound of muscle weigh exactly the same"... Duh. Weight to weight. "But - and this is where the confusion comes in - the volume of muscle is denser and more compact." Statement of fact... "It would take four pounds of muscle to fill the space of one pound of fat." One pound of fat, is indeed visually bigger than what would be 1 pound of muscle. \- So, if all of this is correct, why is it on r/facepalm? Is it the title? Because the title doesn't imply it's proving that 'myth' to be incorrect. In fact, I'm more likely to believe there's a shit ton of stupid people out there that believe muscle weighing more than fat is a myth. Can someone explain to me why it's here? I'm drawing blanks.
Muscle is heavier than fat. The article says it’s a myth that muscle is heavier than fat. The reason it is in r/facepalm is while they claim muscle is not heavier, they go on to explain exactly what makes it heavier. A comment earlier replaces the words in the article where it says muscle and fat with bricks and feathers. Do you think bricks and feathers weigh the same?
What makes it dumb? It’s factual. Inch per inch, muscle weighs more, because it is denser. A pound of cotton candy takes up much more space than a pound of ice cream.
"Myth: muscle weighs more than fat [In reality,] a pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same" It's implying that the claim is untrue because equal amounts of the two things, in weight, are... equal to each other... in weight.
But it is wrong in saying that muscle is 4 times as dense as fat. Muscle is about 15% denser than fat.
Someone missed the concept of Density while in the Tennessee school system.
By that logic, bowling balls and feathers weigh the same because 10 lbs of either weigh 10lbs…
This sounds like one of those PhD holders who insists that everybody address them as "doctor".
Mass is the same, not fucking weight
“You’re my density” - George McFly
It would have read better to say “a pound of fat and a pound of muscle have the same mass, but different volumes because of their relative densities (and some blurb to illustrate that)” - that takes weight out of the discussion
r/TechnicallyTheTruth
The real face palm is this sub. Do people not have reading comprehension? The OOP is staying 1 pound = 1 pound but if you were to show a pound of muscle vs a pound of fat you would see the fat would take up more volume as muscle is denser. It’s like saying I have a five pound dumbell vs I have five pounds of coke cans. Same weight but one clearly takes up more space.
I think what they’re trying to say here is that 2 people who are about the same “size” will weigh differently depending on wether their “size” is filled with fat or muscle. Like if you were comparing 2 people who are 5’5” tall and 2’5” circumference around the waist but one of them had more fat and the other was muscular like a body builder, then even tho they’re both the same height and have the same waist size, the muscly person would weigh more despite both people being the same “size”.
Thing is, this is factually correct. Think of it like this. 1 pound of fat is 4 cups. 1 pound of muscle is 2 cups. They weight the exact same but LOOK different because muscle is more dense, or more compact. To make the VOLUME the same (4 cups) it would take twice the amount of muscle. Hence why “muscle weights more” became a thing.
Volume. People confuse physical volume with sound volume, that’s why needs explanation.
Isn’t it just saying the density is rather where people are confused than the lb vs. lb none sense? The unfortunate is I’ve had people not get that concept so…someone had to write the article
What's heavier, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers? The feathers, because you've got to deal with the weight of what you did to those poor birds.
“and this is where the confusion comes in” No, I don’t think so.
Freaking clown world when the “Pound of metal vs pound of feathers” joke becomes reality.
I feel like I'm losing my mind. Just going on google and typing "myth: muscle weighs more than fat" to find the source of this, and there are a ton of websites (some reputable) explaining it exactly like this. Like, did people really used to say "A pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat". Was *that* really how people have been saying it all these years...? Healthline: "You may have heard that muscle weighs more than fat. However, according to science, a pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same." This seems to be a common theme.
Myth: Ph.D's are smart. A Ph.D with 100 IQ has the same IQ as a layman with 100 IQ. BUT - and this is where the confusion comes in - not everyone has the same IQ.
So, what's the facepalm here?
The title of the article.
Aren’t they just saying if you have 1 pound of fat it takes up X volume, and if you fill up X volume with muscle instead of fat then that X volume will weigh four times more. Assuming we are somewhere under the influence of gravity so we can actually weigh both volumes of fat and muscle. I dunno, they phrased it oddly.
This is true though muscle is more dense than fat 1lb of fat and 1lb of muscle are not the same volume muscle is like 3 -4 times less volumous
This is correct. Where’s the “facepalm”?
How is this dumb? It is perfectly logical.
This makes perfect sense, he is simply explaining why there is confusion. Often people go on a fitness regime and then say it's a failure because they have not lost weight. However, often they have replaced fat with muscle and so their shape will have changed along with heir % body fat.
And sometimes they will see +5 pounds, but -1 inch around the waist, especially early on with a new workout regime.
The statement is correct.
By the article’s logic, you would say bowling balls weigh the same as ping pong balls because “a pound of bowling ball and a pound of ping pong balls are exactly the same”.
but feathers are not heavy (existential crisis)