Muscle Weighs more than Fat?
Virgiree21
Posts: 71 Member
So i know this chick who is the same height as me (5'5) and weighs about the same (180). The only difference is i have fat thighs and a belly and she has a pretty flat stomach and slim thighs. Nice's arms ect. She lifts weight's. With that being said if I continue to lift weights and do cardio should I be less concerned about the scale and more focused on the measurements? I plan on replacing most of my fat with muscle.
0
Replies
-
Muscle does not weigh more than fat. A pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle.
Muscle is more dense, taking up less space in the body hence a muscular person could weigh the same as a person who is flabby but look completely different. Fat is spread out further in the body.0 -
No. A pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same. What most people mean when they say that is that muscle is more compact and dense than fat. And yes, if you focus on body recomposition you can trim the fat down.0
-
Virgiree21 wrote: »So i know this chick who is the same height as me (5'5) and weighs about the same (180). The only difference is i have fat thighs and a belly and she has a pretty flat stomach and slim thighs. Nice's arms ect. She lifts weight's. With that being said if I continue to lift weights and do cardio should I be less concerned about the scale and more focused on the measurements? I plan on replacing most of my fat with muscle.
If you continue to lift weights using progressively heavier weight, and do cardio, and are not eating at a surplus, you will let smaller looking. If you are also eating at a small deficit (small, to support your maintaining muscle mass), you will reduce body fat as well. The key to the weight training, as I see it, is to move beyond a gazillion repetitions of light weights that isolate muscle groups and into full body lifts.
0 -
You can't replace fat with muscle.0
-
Yes, for a given volume, muscle weighs more than fat.
If you are eating at a deficit, the scale is a fairly good meter of how you are doing in terms of fat loss. If you are eating at maintenance (or surplus) and lifting heavy, I would rely more heavily on the tape measure.0 -
People are all about semantics today.0
-
http://myfitnesscyprus.com/3-most-common-mistakes/
Sharing this for the images. I haven't checked the text0 -
Yes muscle, by volume, weighs more than fat, by volume.
Since you compare things of the same volume to determine if something weighs more than something else the "by volume" is implied.
All this means is that muscle has a higher density than fat.
Because of this fact
Muscle, by weight, takes up less volume than fat, by weight.
In this case I can take 1lb of muscle and 1lb of fat and observe that the lb of muscle looks smaller even though it weighs the same.
These are two sides to finding the same information which is which object is denser. In this case it is still the muscle.0 -
One day this thread is going to happen and people aren't going to correct what doesn't need correcting
PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE OP MEANS BY VOLUME ...
eat at a calorie defecit and lift heavy
Once you've lost enough body fat, eat at or above maintenance and lift heavy0 -
+1 to all of that but especially the first part.One day this thread is going to happen and people aren't going to correct what doesn't need correcting
PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE OP MEANS BY VOLUME ...
eat at a calorie defecit and lift heavy
Once you've lost enough body fat, eat at or above maintenance and lift heavy
0 -
Will people please get over this thing of telling people that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat? It does no good to point out that a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle. That's like saying that a pound of lead weighs the same as a pound of feathers. Of course that is true, but they take up different amounts of space. That is all people mean when they say muscle weighs more.0
-
Virgiree21 wrote: »I plan on replacing most of my fat with muscle.
if only it were that simple.0 -
-
0
-
This content has been removed.
-
-
0
-
-
Muscles is MORE DENSE than fat.
/thread
You're welcome.0 -
I'm happy to read the replies in this thread, it's so ridiculous when people correct people on this. Everybody knows that when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" the "by volume" is understood. That's how people talk, it's perfectly acceptable.0
-
I'm happy to read the replies in this thread, it's so ridiculous when people correct people on this. Everybody knows that when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" the "by volume" is understood. That's how people talk, it's perfectly acceptable.
I think you're giving the general pubic too much credit.
0 -
OP didn't say a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat, and nothing in her post indicates that she thinks this either. The lb for lb argument is a strawman erected by people that are little too impressed with themselves over the dull insight that a lb is a lb, and then go out of their way to get all nerdlinger on the room.0
-
I'm happy to read the replies in this thread, it's so ridiculous when people correct people on this. Everybody knows that when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" the "by volume" is understood. That's how people talk, it's perfectly acceptable.
AMEN.
I shouldn't have clicked on this thread. Now I need to punch something.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »I'm happy to read the replies in this thread, it's so ridiculous when people correct people on this. Everybody knows that when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" the "by volume" is understood. That's how people talk, it's perfectly acceptable.
I think you're giving the general pubic too much credit.
Yet this only seems to happen when discussing muscle/fat. If I said steel weights more than wood, nobody would correct that because volume is understood.0 -
-
Lourdesong wrote: »OP didn't say a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat, and nothing in her post indicates that she thinks this either. The lb for lb argument is a strawman erected by people that are little too impressed with themselves over the dull insight that a lb is a lb, and then go out of their way to get all nerdlinger on the room.
It wasn't OP, it was the ensuing comments.
0 -
jennifershoo wrote: »Muscles is MORE DENSE than fat.
/thread
You're welcome.
^^THIS. If people would just use the proper terms, we wouldn't have this issue.
0 -
0
-
Virgiree21 wrote: »With that being said if I continue to lift weights and do cardio should I be less concerned about the scale and more focused on the measurements? I plan on replacing most of my fat with muscle.
You can't replace fat with muscle. You can lose fat to reveal the muscle you have, and keep that muscle by hitting your protein goal and lifting. Or you can gain muscle, along with fat. If you eat at a deficit and lift, you'll lose fat and save muscle. If you eat at maintenance and lift, you'll recomp (if you're luckily), slowly losing fat, adding a bit of muscle. Long process.
Either way, lift. You'll look smaller.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions