1. Originally Posted by Rodja
Density, volume, and weight are different. Muscle is more dense than fat and will occupy less volume, but one pound of each will weigh the same amount.
Which is again comparing a pound to a pound.

A cubic foot of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat. When quantified, muscle is heavier. I don't disagree that a pound weighs a pound, however.

2. Originally Posted by Celorza
Let's see if the Bro-science master of Texas understands it from an Engineer:

-Mass = the amount of MATTER , a measurement of inertia in mechanics.
-Volume = three dimensional space occupied by said matter, be it in liquid, solid, gas form (3 of the states of MATTER)
-Weight = UNIT OF FORCE , not the same as mass kg are NOT equal to Newtons and Pounds are NOT equal to SLUGS. Forces are MASS TIMES ACCELERATION , the acceleration of this particular FORCE is GRAVITY.
-Density = the amount of VOLUME (three dimensional space) occupied by said MASS (meaning matter) thus an example: kg/m^3

1 kg of fat = 1 kg of muscle , their densities will NOT be the same but their WEIGHT (meaning force) will still be 9.8 kg*m/s^2 (NEWTONS). Density is different as the APF (atomic packaging factor) within muscle cells and fat cells is different...thus they need more volume.

That should make it easier to understand, in case Mr. TexasGuy doesn't get it or tries to refute it with a "study" one can always quote simple Newtonian Physics...
Lol, I post studies when they are called for by people telling me I'm wrong and don't have a study to back up things I say. Then the studies are either ignored, as in the most recent protein conversation, or disregarded as the conversation takes a semantical twist.

I appreciate the text book definitions of weight, volume et cetera.

We are again on a semantical twist, however.

A cubic foot of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat. The gravitational pull on a cubic foot of muscle will be greater than the gravitational pull on a cubic foot of fat.

Failing to quantify amounts doesn't give an accurate comparison given that a human body requires volumetric measurement in context.

I'm not going to go down a semantical tangent again. We are discussing the subjects of volume and weight from opposite sides of the fence. Yes, 1 lb is 1 lb though more of one substance is required to reach one pound but that isn't the point I'm making. It's an unqualified comparison.
•

3. Originally Posted by TexasGuy
Which is again comparing a pound to a pound.

A cubic foot of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat. When quantified, muscle is heavier. I don't disagree that a pound weighs a pound, however.
I didn't realize the saying was, "a cubic foot of fat of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat." Volume is not being discussed; you're the one that brought that in to try to save face saying that muscle weighs more than fat.

4. This argument is ridiculous. You're all saying the same thing when you get down to it. If volume was treated as a constant than of course muscle would weigh more than fat due to its density. If you had equivalent masses then fat would take up more space. This isn't even really worth a discussion.

5. ya'll hijacked her thread... lol
•

6. Originally Posted by Rodja
I didn't realize the saying was, "a cubic foot of fat of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat." Volume is not being discussed; you're the one that brought that in to try to save face saying that muscle weighs more than fat.
No, I clarified my misunderstood comment. Now you know.

7. Originally Posted by TexasGuy
No, I clarified my misunderstood comment. Now you know.
You still don't understand density and mass; they are not interchangeable.

8. Originally Posted by LikeClockwork
This argument is ridiculous. You're all saying the same thing when you get down to it. If volume was treated as a constant than of course muscle would weigh more than fat due to its density. If you had equivalent masses then fat would take up more space. This isn't even really worth a discussion.
Now put that in the context of a human body where volume is a constant.

I agree though, this is even more ridiculous than usual.

For the record, I thought about not replying but couldn't help myself. There was context to clarify and all. But I agree, one pound equals one pound.

To the OP, I am sorry your thread was hijacked. Great progress. The point I was making was that on a scale you will show a certain weight, but because muscle weighs more with volume (body size) in mind, you still look fantastic at 170 pounds, where an untrained 170 pound woman wouldn't, because she would be carrying around more fat, would have a bigger, lumpy body as more fat is required to reach the same weight as muscle et cetera.

This is why scale weight isn't the best idea for a goal. Body composition is. Hopefully the weird challenge on vernacular will at least go to some use where goals are concerned.

9. 45pound barbell plates weight more than 45 pound dumbells.

45pound barbell plates weight more than 45 pound dumbells.

No, but a 45 pound barbell plate weighs more than a 15 pound dumbell, unless you put 3 dumbells together which is what we are doing in this thread.

The context is a human body though, and volume was being accounted for when I made a comment that was misunderstood and spun in to an out of context argument, an argument where I don't disagree a pound is a pound.

11. Well Gentlemen, Thank-You for clarifying the muscle mass vs body fat.. Makes sense regarding density wise.Now for a question: I want to continue building muscle but yet I want to lose body fat- Doing more reps at a light weight would result in fat loss, correct? Impossible to gain more muscle on a light weight, for a like to challenge myself to fail when in comes to weight lifting, how would I go about this one?OFF TO SMASH JIM.

12. Originally Posted by SarahLou
Well Gentlemen, Thank-You for clarifying the muscle mass vs body fat.. Makes sense regarding density wise.Now for a question: I want to continue building muscle but yet I want to lose body fat- Doing more reps at a light weight would result in fat loss, correct? Impossible to gain more muscle on a light weight, for a like to challenge myself to fail when in comes to weight lifting, how would I go about this one?OFF TO SMASH JIM.
It's all kind of grey and there will be more arguments based around these questions.

Ultimately, bodies are not all made the same and what works best for one person may not work best for another.

You can build muscle with light weight but generally speaking lifting heavier will produce better results.

Lifting heavy requires energy of course, which will burn calories. I realize I'm setting myself up for a potential argument with the next comment but I am speaking in very general terms: compare light weight work with high reps to endurance cardio activities and heavy weight sessions to sprints. Both will build muscle (though extensive cardio can become catabolic, just throwing this in here to head off a senseless tangent), cut fat et cetera, but sprints hit particular muscle fibers conducive to your goal endurance cardio won't, and so will heavy lifting. Google Olympic gold medalist sprinters and long distance runners and compare bodies, both trained to run, yet run differently.

Not only will lifting heavy burn calories and stimulate beneficial fibers for growth, it will cause significant damage to your muscles which will require energy to repair. And as your muscles repair, they grow, requiring additional energy for upkeep, all of which leads to a faster metabolism that will eat away at your fat, assuming your diet is in check and designed to preserve muscle.

Lifting heavy will also give you much faster strength gains, which will in turn allow you to work out with heavier weight sooner, burning more calories as more energy is required to lift more weight.

High volume (relatively light weight) routines build muscles and burn calories too but won't increase your strength as quickly, slowing your ultimate progress.

Most of the arguments that may or may not come will center around volume doing the same thing heavy weight will do with your particular goal in mind which is true, with the exception of rapid strength gain that will essentially expedite everything else.

You can train to failure where both volume and heavy sets are concerned.

Jim sounds awfully lucky in the middle of the afternoon.

13. You'll burn more calories with higher volume and you'll also trigger a larger growth hormone response as well. Both equate to more success in cutting down. You can have some heavy lifting in there as well, but honestly the 12-20 rep range with short breaks in b/w sets would maximize the intensity and increase your likelihood of success.

On a side note, it is absolutely sad that there is always someone who comes onto a thread being a smart aleck rather than just making a simple, educated assumption when another person makes a mistake in regards to a post. EVERYONE KNEW what he meant about muscle and fat. There ought to be mandatory grace-oriented classes offered on this board for the members who are always controversial (regardless of their accuracy or experience in something). Too many people feed off controversy on this board. If someone is wrong, prove it in a professional and courteous way. Your degree doesn't qualify your opinion any more than my experience qualifies me. Plus, stop high-jacking a thread and take OT arguments to PM instead.

I also reserve an agreement with Texas' previous post however, there is a specific uniqueness to lactic acid build-up - causing continuous aerobic metabolism, which causes more calories burned in the long run which is why I would strive for higher volume with high-intensity training.

Go to failure or near failure at every set = lactic acid build-up
Lactic Acid build-up = aerobic activity
aerobic activity = hard breathing
hard breathing = oxidation
oxidation = more fat burning

yeah it is over-simplified for all you phys ed majors. I realize there are a host of other more details that could be included but for simplicity sake the reasoning does add to up to a basic fact.

14. I agree that volume will ellicit a better hormonal response and is very effective for body recomp purposes. Weight training is effective for body recomposition in general. And most bodybuilders and fitness models utilize high volume routines for what it is worth to the OP. That said, they most likely did build strength to a certain level allowing decent gains first.

The following is in no way an argument from me and I'm not speaking directly to fueledpassion, only using his post to further a constructive conversation:

People see excellent results with a variety of training protocols as mentioned in the discussion point that best practice for one person may not be for another.

I personally respond well to routines built to capitalize on frequency and heavy loads. I get the best gains from DoggCrapp training, Big Beyond Belief et cetera. High volume traditionally doesn't deliver as well for me. Hitting a muscle group hard and fast 4 times per week as opposed to once or twice just gives me the best results.

My recommendation for strength gains is based on an assumption though, so it could be completely debased. You, the OP, may be at a strength level you are comfortable with and willing to work with, which is fine. As long as you are lifting and progressing you will see favorable recomp results. My only tip would be that repping out at 400 pounds as opposed to 200 on a given lift provides more benefits within the same routine.

Regarding the drama queens, volume must be considered in the context of a human body. I'm only sorry context had to be reiterated when it should've been assumed. I still agree that one pound equals one pound, for the record. I have no contention with the obvious.

For the OP, this board seems to be pretty dramatic. I've only been here a few months myself but what I've noticed is a handful of people will argue dogmatically until they are wrong, or more accurately are shown their stance isn't the only correct stance, in which case they either go out of context or dissappear from a conversation they can't "win" because it isn't winnable for anyone really (usually both, in that order) but show up later with a personal vendetta they try to avenge on some other topic where they see a potential opening; often leading to more out of context and misquoted tangents that derail more threads. Over all though, you can learn a lot here if you stay objective and realize that while various body building methodologies carry many cross over benefits to all, best practice is often unique to each individual. This includes training, diet, supplement and recovery methods. Be leery of anyone pushing a "one and only" solution for anything, there isn't one as variables are so wide that best practice usually boils down to the individual.

Originally Posted by fueledpassion
You'll burn more calories with higher volume and you'll also trigger a larger growth hormone response as well. Both equate to more success in cutting down. You can have some heavy lifting in there as well, but honestly the 12-20 rep range with short breaks in b/w sets would maximize the intensity and increase your likelihood of success.

On a side note, it is absolutely sad that there is always someone who comes onto a thread being a smart aleck rather than just making a simple, educated assumption when another person makes a mistake in regards to a post. EVERYONE KNEW what he meant about muscle and fat. There ought to be mandatory grace-oriented classes offered on this board for the members who are always controversial (regardless of their accuracy or experience in something). Too many people feed off controversy on this board. If someone is wrong, prove it in a professional and courteous way. Your degree doesn't qualify your opinion any more than my experience qualifies me. Plus, stop high-jacking a thread and take OT arguments to PM instead.

15. Texas, I think I just learned something from your last post. I'm speechless, lol.

16. Originally Posted by fueledpassion
Texas, I think I just learned something from your last post. I'm speechless, lol.
What would that be?

17. The last paragraph was the reality check.

18. Originally Posted by fueledpassion
The last paragraph was the reality check.
Gotcha. Just something I've noticed. I don't have a double blind, placebo controlled study to prove it but the pattern certainly repeats itself consistently.

19. So much irony....

20. Originally Posted by Rodja
So much irony....
Nope. Just a mirror. So far it isn't me completely disregarding methods for the sake of some kind of "victory", it isn't me ranting about science and then ignoring inconvenient studies or limitations in an on topic conversation (best practice vs. doable acknowledges both arguments), nor am I de-railing threads to pull people in to weird and out of context, not to mention off topic side arguments.

I post to an OP and the same scenario as this thread plays out from training to nutrition and even general chat political sub-forums. Some of the same characters either happen to have uncannily similar interests or an awkard and contrary chip on their shoulder and will ignore context and common sense to play it. It's weird.

21. Originally Posted by TexasGuy
Nope. Just a mirror. So far it isn't me completely disregarding methods for the sake of some kind of "victory", it isn't me ranting about science and then ignoring inconvenient studies or limitations in an on topic conversation (best practice vs. doable acknowledges both arguments), nor am I de-railing threads to pull people in to weird and out of context, not to mention off topic side arguments.

I post to an OP and the same scenario as this thread plays out from training to nutrition and even general chat political sub-forums. Some of the same characters either happen to have uncannily similar interests or an awkard and contrary chip on their shoulder and will ignore context and common sense to play it. It's weird.
Irony is not the word to describe this...I'm sorry dude but I must admit even I missed it. You suffer from Dunning-Kruger...

22. Originally Posted by Celorza
Irony is not the word to describe this...I'm sorry dude but I must admit even I missed it. You suffer from Dunning-Kruger...
If you'll go back through conversations you'll see I've acknowledged the efficacy of IF diets while pointing out limitations, most of which were ignored or avoided altogether, the ability to gain muscle with relatively low levels of protein intake though science shows higher levels to be beneficial to the vast majority of lifters, the importance of biceps which can't really be denied and probably some other arguments Rodja most likely initiated and you and judojosh swing in "randomly" to ride his coat tails or simply start a flame war, every time. My only mistake is to carry on with your bull**** but sometimes it is fun.

Oh, I remember another, aesthetic balance argued on planar terms. It's always semantical bull**** and I don't initiate it, this thread is a perfect example.

23. Originally Posted by TexasGuy
If you'll go back through conversations you'll see I've acknowledged the efficacy of IF diets while pointing out limitations, most of which were ignored or avoided altogether, the ability to gain muscle with relatively low levels of protein intake though science shows higher levels to be beneficial to the vast majority of lifters, the importance of biceps which can't really be denied and probably some other arguments Rodja most likely initiated and you and judojosh swing in "randomly" to ride his coat tails or simply start a flame war, every time. My only mistake is to carry on with your bull**** but sometimes it is fun.

Oh, I remember another, aesthetic balance argued on planar terms. It's always semantical bull**** and I don't initiate it, this thread is a perfect example.
yup that is exactly what I do on this board.

24. Originally Posted by JudoJosh
yup that is exactly what I do on this board.
Among other things.

You've posted decent stuff too and I've said so.

On topic here though, the proof is in the pudding. The other threads can be re-read for reference.

•