Muscle Weighs more than Fat?

fatcity66

Eudoxy wrote: »

fatcity66 wrote: »

Virgiree21 wrote: »

Me right now ---> (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻ I meant in volume people, but thanks for the needed and unneeded help.

So, you also didn't really mean "replace fat with muscle," right? Just to clarify.

She was clearly talking about - if she stayed the same weight but changed her body composition then would she be smaller?

"Replace fat with muscle" and "lose fat and gain muscle" strikes me as the same concept.

Yep, which is why I said this...

"See, now, if the "muscle weighs more than fat" issue is just about semantics, why isn't the statement "replace fat with muscle" as well? I mean, we all know that the fat is not going to magically turn into muscle. She will have to work to lose the fat, as well as to build muscle. Don't we already know what she means? Just saying...you could use that logic with a lot of things..."

Eudoxy

fatcity66 wrote: »

Eudoxy wrote: »

fatcity66 wrote: »

Virgiree21 wrote: »

Me right now ---> (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻ I meant in volume people, but thanks for the needed and unneeded help.

So, you also didn't really mean "replace fat with muscle," right? Just to clarify.

She was clearly talking about - if she stayed the same weight but changed her body composition then would she be smaller?

"Replace fat with muscle" and "lose fat and gain muscle" strikes me as the same concept.

Yep, which is why I said this...

"See, now, if the "muscle weighs more than fat" issue is just about semantics, why isn't the statement "replace fat with muscle" as well? I mean, we all know that the fat is not going to magically turn into muscle. She will have to work to lose the fat, as well as to build muscle. Don't we already know what she means? Just saying...you could use that logic with a lot of things..."

I wasn't clear, but I was agreeing with you. So I could've just said "good point" to the above.

lalawaterlala

Muscle doesn't weigh more than fat, it just takes up less space because it's more dense. It's also a lot healthier to have a bunch of muscle weight than fat weight. If you do cardio and strength training at the gym you will see results, but you also have to watch what you eat because your body loses fat from having a calorie deficit of what your body needs. Calculating your BMR with this equation should help you figure out how many calories your body needs to survive:
(9.99 x weight in kg) + (6.25 x height in cm) - (4.92 x age in years) - 161

You will see results with patience and positivity in yourself. Good luck on your journey.

Wiseandcurious

For everyone saying it doesn't *weigh* more, it's just more *dense* ... Density is *defined* as mass per volume, so yes, if it's denser, it does weigh more for the same volume! And I would never assume anyone above the age of 9 means by "x weighs more than y" anything other than "weighs more for the same volume". It's a classic egg or chicken debate to argue over the terminology of this... And a pet peeve of mine

The short answer is that, yes, people with lower BF% at your weight will in general be slimmer than you, but there are also factors in play like the size of your frame, bone density and weight, etc... But yes, replacing (in the sense of throwing out x and getting some y, which is also what I expect anyone above 9 means by "replacing" - I see no reason to think she meant she would transfigure it by magic) fat with muscle will make you slimmer for the same weight for *you* (but not necessarily as slim as your friend and with the same proportions of hips thighs, tummy etc as her).

sgthaggard

fatcity66 wrote: »

arditarose wrote: »

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.

See, now, if the "muscle weighs more than fat" issue is just about semantics, why isn't the statement "replace fat with muscle" as well? I mean, we all know that the fat is not going to magically turn into muscle. She will have to work to lose the fat, as well as to build muscle. Don't we already know what she means? Just saying...you could use that logic with a lot of things...

Replacing fat with muscle is a matter of semantics too except for those who mistakenly believe that replacing is synonymous with 'turning into'.

If I say I replaced my old running shoes would you infer that I magically transformed them into new ones?

If I say I replaced the carbs in my diet with protein would you need me to hold your hand through a step-by-step explanation of how I decreased my carb consumption and increased my protein so that you wouldn't think that I had physically turned my pasta into a steak?

sgthaggard

fatcity66 wrote: »

arditarose wrote: »

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.

See, now, if the "muscle weighs more than fat" issue is just about semantics, why isn't the statement "replace fat with muscle" as well? I mean, we all know that the fat is not going to magically turn into muscle. She will have to work to lose the fat, as well as to build muscle. Don't we already know what she means? Just saying...you could use that logic with a lot of things...

Replacing fat with muscle is a matter of semantics too except for those who mistakenly believe that replacing is synonymous with 'turning into'.

If I say I replaced my old running shoes would you infer that I magically transformed them into new ones?

If I say I replaced the carbs in my diet with protein would you need me to hold your hand through a step-by-step explanation of how I decreased my carb consumption and increased my protein so that you wouldn't think that I had physically turned my pasta into a steak?

arditarose

Okay, well I'm glad we are all clear.