"muscle vs. Fat"
Options
Replies
-
Sapphire_Elf wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »notnikkisixx wrote: »No. Muscle does not weigh more than fat. 1lb of muscle weighs the same as 1lb of fat. Muscle is, however, more dense than fat and takes up less space.
No. Muscle does not take up less space than fat. 1 cubic inch of muscle takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic inch of fat. Muscle is, however, more dense than fat and weighs more.
Sigh. No it DOESN'T! I think this is my absolute pet hate when people talk about muscle weighing more than fat, or from my female colleagues, that if they ve gained 10lbs in a month that it "must be muscle". Grrrrrrrrrrrr.
Unless you live in an alternate reality, 1lb of anything will weigh EXACTLY the same as 1lb of something else - ie 1lb of muscle weighs exactly the same as 1lb of fat as 1lb of feathers as 1lb of coal - the hint is in the fact that they are all 1lb! The volume of those things may be different but it will still be 1lb in weight.
You also directly contradict yourself in your post.... I don't understand how you can insist that 1 cubic inch of muscle and 1 cubic inch of fat are the same, and yet say that 1lb of muscle and 1lb of fat do not weigh the same!
We have muscle and fat as "blocks" for teaching aids and i can assure you that the muscle takes up a lot less space than the fat.
She's using the inverse of the "a pound is a pound" argument and is correct.
Yes, a pound is a pound.
Yes, a cubic inch is a cubic inch.
A pound of muscle takes up less space than a pound of fat.
A cubic inch of muscle weighs more than a cubic inch of fat.
^^ This, so much this^^0 -
Yes, muscle weighs more than fat. In the common vernacular, the "by volume" is understood.
Only on mfp have I seen people get twisted up over this and feel the need to point out that a lb of anything weighs the same as a lb of anything else. Maybe this "knowledge" has spilled over from the bodybuilding forums.
Gold weighs more than silver...0 -
Can't tell since there is no timeline, no way to judge intensity/quality of work, and no meaningful measurements to analyze, but here is food for thought:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/336162-how-many-weeks-to-build-muscle-mass/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/319061-the-timeline-for-building-muscle/
You can get an ideal on how slow/fast muscle rate of gain for advanced lifters (up to your genetic disposition) and judge whether you are in the same league.
based on the fact that OP is doing interval training and three to five days a week of cardio, I doubt she falls into these groups.
She never clarified if she was currently running a heavy lifting program where she progressively lifts heavier things.0 -
The reason people get overly pedantic about this is because of the context the phrase 'Muscle weighs more than fat' is used. Many times you'll get someone who hasn't lost any weight (normally because they're eating more than they think) and the comments always come back is 'Oh you must have gained muscle because muscle weighs more than fat'sgthaggard wrote: »
Not your fault. People just tend to be overly pedantic. Even those saying a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat knew what you were talking about.GlindaGoodwitch wrote: »For the record... I did not intentionally open this can of worms LOL
. That is why people feel the need to be overly pedantic. There seems to be a few thing that constantly come up this idea that you can easily build pounds of muscle in a couple of days weeks while eating at a calorie deficit. And the fact that if you don't lose weight it must be because you've gained muscle both which are pretty unlikely
So yes it may be pedantic but sometimes it just needs to be said0 -
Yes, muscle weighs more than fat. In the common vernacular, the "by volume" is understood.
Only on mfp have I seen people get twisted up over this and feel the need to point out that a lb of anything weighs the same as a lb of anything else. Maybe this "knowledge" has spilled over from the bodybuilding forums.
Gold weighs more than silver...
Yep. I always wonder if the people so anxious to explain that a pound=a pound were, at some point in time, actually confused about that rather obvious point. It seems the only explanation for them weirdly imagining that anyone else might be unaware of that fact and thus unable to understand that for most people muscle weights more than fat of course implies by volume.0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »That is why people feel the need to be overly pedantic. There seems to be a few thing that constantly come up this idea that you can easily build pounds of muscle in a couple of days weeks while eating at a calorie deficit. And the fact that if you don't lose weight it must be because you've gained muscle both which are pretty unlikely
All true, but then why do they get stupid (it's only pedantic if they are actually right) in correcting something that no one is confused about--a pound is a pound--and not the actual flaws in the "you must have gained muscle" claim.
After all, if someone (not the OP, this is totally off the topic) claims to have been eating 1200 and doing some stationary biking and yet has gained 3 lbs in the past two weeks and someone else says "don't worry, you probably just gained muscle, because muscle weights more than fat" the problem has nothing to do with how much a lb of muscle weighs. It's that clearly they didn't gain more than 3 lbs of muscle in 2 weeks, period, let alone from doing some light biking while eating at an extreme deficit. How much the muscle that they did not gain may or may not have weighed as compared to some random amount of fat really isn't the issue.
So why do people feel compelled to act of if anyone is stupid enough to think 1 lb of something weighs more than 1 lb. Obviously you don't exchange the same weight of muscle for fat or fat for muscle in any case. It doesn't work like that at all.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, muscle weighs more than fat. In the common vernacular, the "by volume" is understood.
Only on mfp have I seen people get twisted up over this and feel the need to point out that a lb of anything weighs the same as a lb of anything else. Maybe this "knowledge" has spilled over from the bodybuilding forums.
Gold weighs more than silver...
Yep. I always wonder if the people so anxious to explain that a pound=a pound were, at some point in time, actually confused about that rather obvious point. It seems the only explanation for them weirdly imagining that anyone else might be unaware of that fact and thus unable to understand that for most people muscle weights more than fat of course implies by volume.
Lol. Maybe that's it.0 -
I
this thread, and the many that have come before. 0 -
And I know Im not the only one. Its not a matter of being patronizing...and you cant just assume everyone knows how to do everything correctly just because you do, so if they say something wrong, they didnt actually mean it. Just...if you know something isnt quite right, at least say something to help the other person out. Some people appreciate that..I know I do!!!
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I find it best to assume people know what they mean, especially when it comes to commonly used figures of speech. Just going by my own past experiences, assuming people don't usually leads to embarrassing situations for me rather than them. YMMV.
Yup, absolutely.. though in fairness, I have heard people say something wrong, and not bother to correct them. Usually, its because I dont like them and could care less if they ever get it right LoL but also, some people are very sensitive, and will get upset if you give them info, will accuse you of being a know it all or attacking them. If I know someone is like that, I won't bother saying anything either. Only thing I assume is that they'll figure it out sooner or later. Or not. I guess I dont care in that instance either lol
But yeah, cant say that Ive encountered a situation of a chance to learn something that would be embarrassing...but Im not embarrassed to help people out, nor am I embarrassed to find out Im wrong about something...I am embarrassed with stuff like when my skirt is tucked into my underwear after I use the bathroom, but Im pretty good at avoiding that nowadays LoL0 -
Can't tell since there is no timeline, no way to judge intensity/quality of work, and no meaningful measurements to analyze, but here is food for thought:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/336162-how-many-weeks-to-build-muscle-mass/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/319061-the-timeline-for-building-muscle/
You can get an ideal on how slow/fast muscle rate of gain for advanced lifters (up to your genetic disposition) and judge whether you are in the same league.
based on the fact that OP is doing interval training and three to five days a week of cardio, I doubt she falls into these groups.
She never clarified if she was currently running a heavy lifting program where she progressively lifts heavier things.
No heavy lifting unless you count toddlers and six year olds
I am strictly doing interval training, and occasional Pilates/resistance band work. 0 -
I swear, I need an editor before posting so it doesn't unravel like this! LOL.
I did get great info along the lines I was looking for, but I certainly knew a pound was a pound, and that muscle takes up less space etc. What I did not know, was how water came into affect in healing muscles. So thank you to the posters who replied with information like that. I did find it, after sifting through all the dynamics of muscle mass
0 -
I think a simple chemistry 101 concept is what is missing here. 1 pound of muscle weighs more than 1 pound of fat per unit volume.0
-
scottwv2012 wrote: »I think a simple chemistry 101 concept is what is missing here. 1 pound of muscle weighs more than 1 pound of fat per unit volume.
Wrong! If the mass of the objects are the same and measured under the same gravity pull, they weight the same. One pound of muscle occupy less displacement than one pound of fat in the same location on earth, both still weight one pound. One pound of fat just take up more space. Or, per unit displacement (volume) muscle weights more than fat.
"In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity. Its magnitude (a scalar quantity), often denoted by an italic letter W, is the product of the mass m of the object and the magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration g; thus: W = mg. The unit of measurement for weight is that of force..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
0 -
scottwv2012 wrote: »I think a simple chemistry 101 concept is what is missing here. 1 pound of muscle weighs more than 1 pound of fat per unit volume.
Wrong! If the mass of the objects are the same and measured under the same gravity pull, they weight the same. One pound of muscle occupy less displacement than one pound of fat in the same location on earth, both still weight one pound. One pound of fat just take up more space. Or, per unit displacement (volume) muscle weights more than fat.
"In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity. Its magnitude (a scalar quantity), often denoted by an italic letter W, is the product of the mass m of the object and the magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration g; thus: W = mg. The unit of measurement for weight is that of force..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
You're right, what I meant to say was muscle weight more than fat per unit volume. It didn't sound right when I said it out loud adding the pound in there for both, lol.0 -
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I find it best to assume people know what they mean, especially when it comes to commonly used figures of speech.scottwv2012 wrote: »I think a simple chemistry 101 concept is what is missing here. 1 pound of muscle weighs more than 1 pound of fat per unit volume.
Im going to assume you know what you mean
Okay, Im being cheeky LoL but...the difference between weight and volume have been gone over and explained so many times already. And I am sort of poking a jab at you Pat, not meant to be mean...just...being cheeky and could not resist lol0 -
A trainer once demonstrated to me with a bread roll. 2 large rolls were weighed and both were the same weight at x amount. He explained that muscle is denser than fat so takes less space. He semonstrated this by placing the roll into a cryovac bag and sucked all the air out which compressed the roll. So now we had 2 rolls weighing the same but as one was denser it was smaller.
That made sense to me.0 -
Holy moses, the dumb is strong here.0
-
OP, I think you've already gotten the answer you needed, which is that you're probably not putting on muscle (though you might be making your leg muscles stronger through the running) and the weight gain you're seeing is the water from both muscle repair & glycogen storage.
It's hard for women (normal, natural women with normal hormones) to gain muscle, and nearly impossible to do so while eating fewer calories than your body needs to maintain weight.
.
I would greatly prefer that my weight loss be fat loss, but if I'm at 15% body fat and still overweight, I'm still overweight just as much as if I were the same weight and 50% body fat.AllanMisner wrote:Weight loss is a terrible goal. What I believe you want is fat loss.
I'll be healthier and look a whole lot better at the lower body fat...
That being said, having put my numbers into an online body fat calculator, I seem to be doing pretty darn good at maintaining (or even adding to) my lean body mass while losing lots of fat.
IIRC, it showed over 80 lb of fat lost with something like 4 lb of muscle gained from JAN14 - MAR15.
It's probably measurement error & I haven't really gained muscle, but I'm happy to simply be maintaining LBM while moving toward a healthy weight. And heck, maybe it's possible that some of those burned calories (and some of the food I've eaten) went into building a little new muscle to compensate for the weights I've been moving around.
0 -
At this point in my journey it's semantics (in my opinion) - I just want to NOT weight 160 and be 5'2. I would prefer to weigh less. Now if we get down to the nitty gritty sure, I would prefer to lose the fat, not the muscle, but seriously, I've got tires to spare - so whatever goes, goes. 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions