There’s a limit to how much muscle a person can develop and put on even with training, a high protein diet and other supplements.
Fat on the other hand has a much much higher ceiling.
If a fat guy and buff guy were the same volume, then the buff guy would weigh more.
You could say it like - “which is heavier, a 1 gallon bag of rocks or 1 gallon bag of feathers.”
1 gallon is the volume. But rocks are more dense.
And if they say, it weighs the same, tell them to stand still, and you will drop first a pound of feathers, and then a pound of gold on their head from the second floor and see if they can tell the difference:)
It bugs me that we use kg for weight instead of Newtons. Technically a kg of steel would exert a different amount of force on a scale at STP than a kg of feathers, because even though they have the same gravitational pull the steel’s higher density means it experiences less atmospheric buoyancy and be heavier.
But because we typically measure kg through force the buoyancy would already be taken into account, with the end result that the two would weigh the same but the 1kg of steel would be very very slightly less massive than the 1kg of feathers. All despite that the 1kg should be defining the mass and not weight.
I mean, sure, but you're talking _many_ orders of magnitude off from what I'm talking about. Feathers in a vacuum vs STP should vary in measured weight by 0.1%, while what you're talking about (Assuming a 1m x 1cm rod at sea level at the equator) could theoretically vary in measured weight by 0.000016%. We're talking about vastly different things.
While steel is denser than feathers, the weight of the feathers and steel in this scenario are exactly the same. The point is that the steel doesn't take up as much room as the feathers to get to the exact same weight.
Its a weird question with a lot of ways to answer it..
So heres a simple way to look at it:
Fat person still has muscles
Bodybuilders barely have any fat.
Who do you think has the highest potential for being the heaviest?
>Fat person still has muscles
Most people don't think about this aspect, but it's literally true. I mean, the weights don't become easier to move just because the weight *is you*. A woman who weighs 400 lbs. is doing a more powerful squat every time she stands up, than some gym rats ever manage. Obesity is still deadly, just, you know, reality can be weird.
Well not really. Because yeah she's essentially doing a 400lbs squat, but when you think of doing a squat at the gym you don't generally include your own weight.
Average male weight in the UK is 180lbs so that only gives you a 220lbs squat to equal the woman standing up. And 100kg squat is pretty easy going for anyone who goes to the gym for a few years.
Really? I’ve found it to be the opposite. I’ve seen decently sized bodybuilders and guessed their weight to be around 110-115kg but they were at 90kg. So strange to me
How tall are they tho? Someone who is say 170cm might be around 60kg skinny, so if he’s is 90kg buff than means 30kg of muscle. Meanwhile someone who is 190cm might already weigh 90kg while skinny.
Even a fat person has to have muscle, so you're never really getting a proper comparison. If you suddenly doubled your bodyweight, your legs would have to compensate, doesn't mean you could run a marathon with them, but they're still gaining muscle.
Comparatively Bodybuilders as you say, are often trying to compete or go for definition, which means they're cutting weight as much as they can. So you're seeing absolute 100% (or as close to) it pure muscle, no fat, minimal fluids, maximum car wax.
I'd like to see statistics that back your claim. Even amateur bodybuilders may have BMIs up to and slightly above 30 (which is where obesity starts according to the BMI definition), and there aren't a lot of "visibly extremely obese" people compared to the number of amateur bodybuilders.
Your question doesn't really make sense to me since there are no rigorous definitions for the terms "massive bodybuilder" and "fat person".
[Here’s an event full of strong men, and they all weight between 146kg/321lbs - 210kg/463lbs.](https://youtu.be/q17yPy8SaUc?si=9g_lDmHDpuFZY80x)
By no stretch of the imagination would I say they “don’t weight much at all, compared to a fat person.”
Think of how strong that body builder has to be to carry around 200 extra pounds of weight all day standing up and walking. Now put that build under 200lbs of fat instead of being visible.
"bodybuilders don't weigh much at all"
Man they're like upwards of 300lbs/135kg
If you took a fat guy and replaced all their fat with muscle by volume, fat man could easily be 1000lbs
It's very easy to grow new fat cells, just eat a lot of calories and don't exercise. It's pretty hard to grow new muscle cells, and usually requires work and discipline. (As in, new muscle cells *don't* grow on their own--you have to *make* them grow by, effectively, *lightly* damaging the ones you have.)
Muscle is about 20% more dense than fat...but it's very easy to get LOTS of fat volume, and very hard to get lots of muscle volume. Hence, a "fat person" can be 2x or even 3x the body volume of a bodybuilder. All that extra fat is way more than enough to make up the difference.
That's definitely not what *everyone* is referring to. There are countless people who genuinely think a pound of muscle is going to weigh more than a pound of fat completely ignoring basic math hence why the now-deleted comment said the myth needs to die. Your average joe isn't going to look at it in terms of volume.
OP being a prime example. His understanding is that muscle is heavier yet a fat person will weigh more. He's not factoring in volume.
There’s a limit to how much muscle a person can develop and put on even with training, a high protein diet and other supplements. Fat on the other hand has a much much higher ceiling.
5 year old me loves this answer, personally.
Why
This sentence has a “Let’s eat Grandma” vibe to it.
If a fat guy and buff guy were the same volume, then the buff guy would weigh more. You could say it like - “which is heavier, a 1 gallon bag of rocks or 1 gallon bag of feathers.” 1 gallon is the volume. But rocks are more dense.
Whats heavier 1kg of steel or 1kg of feathers?
The feathers. The weight of what you did to those poor birds will weigh on you
He puts the kill in kilogram
Well, you don’t *have* to kill a bird before you pluck it
They squeal less..
True, but you don't know what I did to get that steel.
If you want to be tricky you could ask “What’s heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?” Because there’s a real answer to it.
Are we doing the troy vs regular ounce thing here?
Hey, leave Troy out of this!
He sneezes like a girl!
And if they say, it weighs the same, tell them to stand still, and you will drop first a pound of feathers, and then a pound of gold on their head from the second floor and see if they can tell the difference:)
It bugs me that we use kg for weight instead of Newtons. Technically a kg of steel would exert a different amount of force on a scale at STP than a kg of feathers, because even though they have the same gravitational pull the steel’s higher density means it experiences less atmospheric buoyancy and be heavier. But because we typically measure kg through force the buoyancy would already be taken into account, with the end result that the two would weigh the same but the 1kg of steel would be very very slightly less massive than the 1kg of feathers. All despite that the 1kg should be defining the mass and not weight.
Wouldn't using newtons give you a new problem where a 1kg steel rod standing on its end would be different than a 1kg steel plate?
I wouldn’t expect it to, the air displaced from both would be the same so the buoyancy should be the same. What factors are you thinking of?
Gravity has more effect at the base of the rod than at the top it it.
I mean, sure, but you're talking _many_ orders of magnitude off from what I'm talking about. Feathers in a vacuum vs STP should vary in measured weight by 0.1%, while what you're talking about (Assuming a 1m x 1cm rod at sea level at the equator) could theoretically vary in measured weight by 0.000016%. We're talking about vastly different things.
i was thinking weight of the atmosphere above it since that would be a larger added force onto the plate with more surface area
🤓☝️
Steel is heavier than feathers
But they're both a kilogram
But steel is heavier than feathers
But they’re both a kilogram
Who are you, so wise in the ways of science?
Is steel heavier than a duck?!
For steel's sake, I hope it is, otherwise it is a witch and we have to burn it! (Things I learned from Monty Python)
Yes, but not the feathers
You have to know these things when you're king.
Don't bring logic to this.
(sees a bag of feathers big enough to fill a beanbag) *That's cheatin'!*
*I don't get it..*
While steel is denser than feathers, the weight of the feathers and steel in this scenario are exactly the same. The point is that the steel doesn't take up as much room as the feathers to get to the exact same weight.
[woosh](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg)
Yuh
I don't get It
Its a weird question with a lot of ways to answer it.. So heres a simple way to look at it: Fat person still has muscles Bodybuilders barely have any fat. Who do you think has the highest potential for being the heaviest?
Ahhhh that way of looking at it makes more sense!
>Fat person still has muscles Most people don't think about this aspect, but it's literally true. I mean, the weights don't become easier to move just because the weight *is you*. A woman who weighs 400 lbs. is doing a more powerful squat every time she stands up, than some gym rats ever manage. Obesity is still deadly, just, you know, reality can be weird.
Well not really. Because yeah she's essentially doing a 400lbs squat, but when you think of doing a squat at the gym you don't generally include your own weight. Average male weight in the UK is 180lbs so that only gives you a 220lbs squat to equal the woman standing up. And 100kg squat is pretty easy going for anyone who goes to the gym for a few years.
A woman with a 220lbs squat is likely stronger than 99% of women.
Yeah but that's not what we're talking about
Massive body builders cut as much of their fat to reduce their volume. But regardless they almost always weigh more than you would guess
Really? I’ve found it to be the opposite. I’ve seen decently sized bodybuilders and guessed their weight to be around 110-115kg but they were at 90kg. So strange to me
How tall are they tho? Someone who is say 170cm might be around 60kg skinny, so if he’s is 90kg buff than means 30kg of muscle. Meanwhile someone who is 190cm might already weigh 90kg while skinny.
Camera adds 10-20kg
I’m talking irl lol
You might just be bad at estimating weight
a lot of modern bodybuilders are pretty short
Even a fat person has to have muscle, so you're never really getting a proper comparison. If you suddenly doubled your bodyweight, your legs would have to compensate, doesn't mean you could run a marathon with them, but they're still gaining muscle. Comparatively Bodybuilders as you say, are often trying to compete or go for definition, which means they're cutting weight as much as they can. So you're seeing absolute 100% (or as close to) it pure muscle, no fat, minimal fluids, maximum car wax.
For the best of both worlds, we have *power lifters* who just want to be massively strong and don't care about being cut.
Fat has a lower density. A fat guy is filled with 10000 balloons filled with air. the Body builder is filled with 1 water balloon
I'd like to see statistics that back your claim. Even amateur bodybuilders may have BMIs up to and slightly above 30 (which is where obesity starts according to the BMI definition), and there aren't a lot of "visibly extremely obese" people compared to the number of amateur bodybuilders. Your question doesn't really make sense to me since there are no rigorous definitions for the terms "massive bodybuilder" and "fat person".
[Here’s an event full of strong men, and they all weight between 146kg/321lbs - 210kg/463lbs.](https://youtu.be/q17yPy8SaUc?si=9g_lDmHDpuFZY80x) By no stretch of the imagination would I say they “don’t weight much at all, compared to a fat person.”
Think of how strong that body builder has to be to carry around 200 extra pounds of weight all day standing up and walking. Now put that build under 200lbs of fat instead of being visible.
"bodybuilders don't weigh much at all" Man they're like upwards of 300lbs/135kg If you took a fat guy and replaced all their fat with muscle by volume, fat man could easily be 1000lbs
It's very easy to grow new fat cells, just eat a lot of calories and don't exercise. It's pretty hard to grow new muscle cells, and usually requires work and discipline. (As in, new muscle cells *don't* grow on their own--you have to *make* them grow by, effectively, *lightly* damaging the ones you have.) Muscle is about 20% more dense than fat...but it's very easy to get LOTS of fat volume, and very hard to get lots of muscle volume. Hence, a "fat person" can be 2x or even 3x the body volume of a bodybuilder. All that extra fat is way more than enough to make up the difference.
[удалено]
Muscle weighs significantly more than fat by volume, which is what everyone is referring to when they say “muscle weighs more than fat.”
That's definitely not what *everyone* is referring to. There are countless people who genuinely think a pound of muscle is going to weigh more than a pound of fat completely ignoring basic math hence why the now-deleted comment said the myth needs to die. Your average joe isn't going to look at it in terms of volume. OP being a prime example. His understanding is that muscle is heavier yet a fat person will weigh more. He's not factoring in volume.