4 ms·
Muscle density does not really change from one animal to another, so more likely just the amount of muscle if the premise is true. And I am not sure that it is
by sachdevap 7y ago
Muscle density does not really change from one animal to another, so more likely just the amount of muscle if the premise is true.
And I am not sure that it is obvious that they have the same level of fat.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoIf there is more muscle on a creature of approximately the same volume, then the density of muscle has increased?
- sachdevap 7y agoBut how do you know that there is more muscle? You only know that there is more mass based on the premise. My point is that muscle cells across animals don't have significantly differing density. However, different individuals (of any species) may have different levels of glycogen and fat embedded in the muscle, which may contribute to your point of "muscle density". It is just a loser terminology of muscle density as such. Even then, I doubt that muscles mass for the same volume of muscle could change that much across individuals. All in all, I am just arguing for more specificity in your hypothesis, because I think in its current form, it isn't adding much clear detail.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoI’m not sure where the confusion lies https://www.quora.com/Are-male-African-lions-more-muscular-and-have-robust-built-than-the-tiger-From-the-picture-one-can-see-the-lion-s-muscle-more-easily-compared-to-the-tiger-s https://www.quora.com/Are-male-African-lions-more-muscular-a... This suggests tigers have 72% muscle mass vs 50% hence more density?