Opinion on "set points", "big boned" and body size
Options
Replies
-
disasterman wrote: »Seriously. A lb of muscle weighs the same as a lb of fat. They both weigh a lb. Sick of that crap answer about muscle weighing more than fat. At 120, I am ripped almost everywhere (still working on 1 trouble area). Why do I have to weigh more because I'm muscular?
The same volume of muscle weighs more than fat. Like the way a styrofoam cup weighs less than a glass cup that is exactly the same size. Be sick of it all you want but it's the nature of things.
That is different from saying 1 lb of muscle weighs more than 1 lb of fat, which is what people say all the time who don't know the difference. The styrofoam cup does not weigh the same as the glass. Very different argument.0 -
I agree why does it have to be a number on the scale? I am 5'5 also and my goal is to weigh 145. I have played sports my entire life though and always weigh more than anyone thinks. To me it's more about knowing what my number should be not what a cookie cutter "range" says it should be. Just something to think about.
This.
I don't know about 'big boned', but 'well-muscled' is definitely a thing. Focus on looking and feeling how you want to look and feel and throw the scale out the window. I use weight to chart progress because I am weak and toneless. You are strong and toned and therefore don't have to
0 -
OP, 125-130 is probably achievable for you, but that doesn't mean anything. I'm 125 now and have been as low as 112, but it was not a good look for me. Forget about the scale number -- what do you want to look like, and what do you want your body to be able to do?0
-
disasterman wrote: »Seriously. A lb of muscle weighs the same as a lb of fat. They both weigh a lb. Sick of that crap answer about muscle weighing more than fat. At 120, I am ripped almost everywhere (still working on 1 trouble area). Why do I have to weigh more because I'm muscular?
The same volume of muscle weighs more than fat. Like the way a styrofoam cup weighs less than a glass cup that is exactly the same size. Be sick of it all you want but it's the nature of things.
I think people get this--but get hung up on the muscle weighs more than fat (when comparing 5 lbs fat to 5 lbs muscle). Muscle is more dense, so 5 lbs of fat is BIGGER in SIZE than 5 lbs of muscle because muscle is heavier per cubic centimeter than fat.
Now sitting back to hear all the arguments about this.0 -
Seriously. A lb of muscle weighs the same as a lb of fat. They both weigh a lb. Sick of that crap answer about muscle weighing more than fat. At 120, I am ripped almost everywhere (still working on 1 trouble area). Why do I have to weigh more because I'm muscular?
A pound of feathers weigh the same as a pound of lead. Would you say that feathers weigh the same as lead?
And FYI, just because you are ripped does not mean that you are muscular. It means that you are lean.
A lb is a lb is a lb. Some people really need to understand what they are arguing and be more precise in their speech.
-4 -
BMI isn't a good measure for individuals per se. it's for populations. throw that idea out to figure out your "ideal weight" with the BMI. there are better individualized measures that can be used as a help. Just not the BMI0
-
disasterman wrote: »Seriously. A lb of muscle weighs the same as a lb of fat. They both weigh a lb. Sick of that crap answer about muscle weighing more than fat. At 120, I am ripped almost everywhere (still working on 1 trouble area). Why do I have to weigh more because I'm muscular?
The same volume of muscle weighs more than fat. Like the way a styrofoam cup weighs less than a glass cup that is exactly the same size. Be sick of it all you want but it's the nature of things.
I think people get this--but get hung up on the muscle weighs more than fat (when comparing 5 lbs fat to 5 lbs muscle). Muscle is more dense, so 5 lbs of fat is BIGGER in SIZE than 5 lbs of muscle because muscle is heavier per cubic centimeter than fat.
Now sitting back to hear all the arguments about this.
I get why people find the phrase annoying, but I have to wonder if anyone actually thinks that a pound can ever not weigh a pound (on the same place on Earth, science bro)? Or if anyone actually thinks that anyone actually thinks that?
0 -
disasterman wrote: »Seriously. A lb of muscle weighs the same as a lb of fat. They both weigh a lb. Sick of that crap answer about muscle weighing more than fat. At 120, I am ripped almost everywhere (still working on 1 trouble area). Why do I have to weigh more because I'm muscular?
The same volume of muscle weighs more than fat. Like the way a styrofoam cup weighs less than a glass cup that is exactly the same size. Be sick of it all you want but it's the nature of things.
That is different from saying 1 lb of muscle weighs more than 1 lb of fat, which is what people say all the time who don't know the difference. The styrofoam cup does not weigh the same as the glass. Very different argument.
Nobody in this thread said that. The point is the density is different. And, the picture that you said earlier should be ignored illustrates the same weight fat versus the same weight muscle.
You personally dieted down to 120. In that process, you lost both fat and some muscle. It is possible for you to build muscle, weigh more but still be the same size (or smaller) than you are now. You don't HAVE to. If you like your weight and your size, that's great. But other people can benefit from knowing that they can get the look they want without necessarily losing a lot of weight on the scale.
0 -
-
disasterman wrote: »Seriously. A lb of muscle weighs the same as a lb of fat. They both weigh a lb. Sick of that crap answer about muscle weighing more than fat. At 120, I am ripped almost everywhere (still working on 1 trouble area). Why do I have to weigh more because I'm muscular?
The same volume of muscle weighs more than fat. Like the way a styrofoam cup weighs less than a glass cup that is exactly the same size. Be sick of it all you want but it's the nature of things.
That is different from saying 1 lb of muscle weighs more than 1 lb of fat, which is what people say all the time who don't know the difference. The styrofoam cup does not weigh the same as the glass. Very different argument.
Nobody in this thread said that. The point is the density is different. And, the picture that you said earlier should be ignored illustrates the same weight fat versus the same weight muscle.
You personally dieted down to 120. In that process, you lost both fat and some muscle. It is possible for you to build muscle, weigh more but still be the same size (or smaller) than you are now. You don't HAVE to. If you like your weight and your size, that's great. But other people can benefit from knowing that they can get the look they want without necessarily losing a lot of weight on the scale.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat" so I'm calling straw man on that one. Everyone over the age of 5 knows that 1 pound = 1 pound. I often hear people say "muscle weighs more than fat" and then this ridiculousness starts and people get all up in arms about it. The language is a little imprecise, I'll admit, but if you just add a little "..."for the same volume" at the end of it then everything makes quite perfect sense and we can stop arguing about this silly thing and argue about something Important like whether a calorie is really a calorie.
0 -
disasterman wrote: »Seriously. A lb of muscle weighs the same as a lb of fat. They both weigh a lb. Sick of that crap answer about muscle weighing more than fat. At 120, I am ripped almost everywhere (still working on 1 trouble area). Why do I have to weigh more because I'm muscular?
The same volume of muscle weighs more than fat. Like the way a styrofoam cup weighs less than a glass cup that is exactly the same size. Be sick of it all you want but it's the nature of things.
That is different from saying 1 lb of muscle weighs more than 1 lb of fat, which is what people say all the time who don't know the difference. The styrofoam cup does not weigh the same as the glass. Very different argument.
No one said a lb of fat weighs more than a lb of muscle. That picture shows the exact same weight of fat vs muscle and shows that muscle is denser than fat.
I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for people to understand. The glass cup vs Styrofoam cup example is valid. Same size, glass is denser than Styrofoam, therefore it weighs more. Make them both the same WEIGHT and the Styrofoam cup will be much bigger than the glass.0 -
There's no question that 125 is achievable for someone 5'5". It's up to you whether or not that's a desirable goal, or a goal that makes sense. And you're probably getting close to the point where body composition matters more than just weight.
0 -
I think people definitely have different frame sizes, naturally carry different amounts of fat/muscle, are curvier/not, etc.
Also, that picture of the fat is kind of making me want to claw my stomach open. Eeeeerrrgh.
0 -
disasterman wrote: »disasterman wrote: »Seriously. A lb of muscle weighs the same as a lb of fat. They both weigh a lb. Sick of that crap answer about muscle weighing more than fat. At 120, I am ripped almost everywhere (still working on 1 trouble area). Why do I have to weigh more because I'm muscular?
The same volume of muscle weighs more than fat. Like the way a styrofoam cup weighs less than a glass cup that is exactly the same size. Be sick of it all you want but it's the nature of things.
That is different from saying 1 lb of muscle weighs more than 1 lb of fat, which is what people say all the time who don't know the difference. The styrofoam cup does not weigh the same as the glass. Very different argument.
Nobody in this thread said that. The point is the density is different. And, the picture that you said earlier should be ignored illustrates the same weight fat versus the same weight muscle.
You personally dieted down to 120. In that process, you lost both fat and some muscle. It is possible for you to build muscle, weigh more but still be the same size (or smaller) than you are now. You don't HAVE to. If you like your weight and your size, that's great. But other people can benefit from knowing that they can get the look they want without necessarily losing a lot of weight on the scale.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat" so I'm calling straw man on that one. Everyone over the age of 5 knows that 1 pound = 1 pound. I often hear people say "muscle weighs more than fat" and then this ridiculousness starts and people get all up in arms about it. The language is a little imprecise, I'll admit, but if you just add a little "..."for the same volume" at the end of it then everything makes quite perfect sense and we can stop arguing about this silly thing and argue about something Important like whether a calorie is really a calorie.
Applause.
0 -
deleted my post
0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »Why does it have to be that number on the scale?
I just posted this in another thread, but I think it fits in here as well:
oh and:
***This isn't me. I just stumbled across it after searching " throw out the scale ". ***
Jesus christ is that the same person? Can we get one 'o them csi fellas to examine the pixels? God damn...
0 -
Oh and on the topic of "set point theory" in general, yes i believe its true to a certain extent. There was a documentary awhile back that detailed how highly acclaimed scientists are discovering that your body wants you to be a certain weight because of fat cells or something. Trying to remember the name of it. Maybe it was "why are thin people not fat"? Can't remember. But there is some science going into this topic and it is looking pretty likely.
Now does that mean just because your body wants you to be 150 that you can't get down to 130? Hell no. Of coarse you can. It's just going to be more difficult because your body is being a jerk and doesn't agree with you.0 -
Set points are good if your not losing weight, but when you bust through your set point you realize it was a convenient excuse......we love excuses......it drives the machine. The big boned people lived parallel to sapiens but died out 30,000 yrs ago. 0
-
muscle IS heavier than fat. you don't see a pound, but you see an inch. if you take 27 cubic inches of fat, and 27cubic inches of muscle, you will see a huge difference when you put the two on the scale.
i do believe big boned is a factor, but not as much a factor as some people think. set points can be altered. there is a range of healthy body weights for every height given because of different body compositions and shapes. i'm apple shaped. i need to lose more to be healthy than i would if i was pear shaped. i'm also big boned, so i know that the small end of "healthy" is probably an unrealistic goal. middle of the road will be fantastic.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 971 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions