This is a newbie question, but whats the muscle weighs more than fat deal?

fitchlets

Wouldn't a pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same? I'm thinking muscle may take up less "space", but does it actually really weigh more? This confuses me so much.

Faithful_Chosen

Haha! It weights exactly the same. As you say, muscle just takes up less 'space' so you look leaner when you 'replace' (not how it works in practice) fat weight with muscle weight. People tend to quote this incorrectly, but this is what they mean.

Timelordlady85

a pound is a pound is a pound, muscle is denser and therefore takes up less space but its still a pound. say for example someone that has more muscle mass will appear thinner then someone with more body fat on them.

amyr271

You are correct, 1lb of muscles takes up less space than 1lb of fat. That is were the 'muscle weighs more than fat' comes from

fitchlets

ahhhhh, ok, thanks guys!

Graymanstole

When people say muscle weighs more than fat it is in reference to volume of each which is why it's confusing. If you have 3 cubic inches of muscle and 3 cubic inches of fat the muscle would weigh more because of density as said earlier.

unrelentingminx

There is a good photo illustrating the difference in density here: http://bamboocorefitness.com/one-pound-of-fat-versus-one-pound-of-muscle-clearing-up-the-misconception/

Whitezombiegirl

Muscle does indeed weight more than fat BY VOLUME. The last bit is the bit that people tend to miss. 100cubic centrimetres of muscle would weight more than a 100 cubic centimetres of fat. So you are right- it's about the space they take up.

Just realised Graymanstole said the same thing above me.

DeguelloTex

Muscle is denser and even though it is very common for people to say "heavier" when "denser" is more accurate, people like to make a big deal about it. It seems very helpful.

SergeantSausage

Density much?

snowflake954

It's just a joke on here---muscle weighs more than fat---you must be putting on muscle. This is said to make people feel good about themselves. The "oldtimers" on here snicker.

SingRunTing

But, but... a cubic centimeter is a cubic centimeter, so muscle can't take up less space than fat.

This argument always grinds my gears. It's so stupid both ways.

Muscle is denser than fat. Density is a measure of weight per volume. It doesn't take up less space or weigh more unless you constrain one of the variables. It's just denser.

So if the volumes are equal - the muscle will weigh more.
If the weights are equal - the muscle has less volume.

I know I'm just restating what others have stated. It just drives me crazy when people start piping in with the "a pound is a pound" argument when they don't see that "a cc is a cc". It's the same thing in reverse, you have to specify that you're assuming equal volume or equal weight.

DeguelloTex

SingRunTing wrote: »

But, but... a cubic centimeter is a cubic centimeter, so muscle can't take up less space than fat.

This argument always grinds my gears. It's so stupid both ways.

Muscle is denser than fat. Density is a measure of weight per volume. It doesn't take up less space or weigh more unless you constrain one of the variables. It's just denser.

So if the volumes are equal - the muscle will weigh more.
If the weights are equal - the muscle has less volume.

I know I'm just restating what others have stated. It just drives me crazy when people start piping in with the "a pound is a pound" argument when they don't see that "a cc is a cc". It's the same thing in reverse, you have to specify that you're assuming equal volume or equal weight.

Exactly. And, it seems to me, the default assumption in everyday language is equal volume. When someone says "lead weighs more than styrofoam" I think it's reasonable to infer their meaning without giving a lecture on density or "informing" him that a pound of lead weighs the same as a pound of styrofoam.

Ninkyou

1 lb muscle = 1 lb fat

They weigh the same.

1 lb muscle takes up less space than 1 lb fat. Density.

SingRunTing

DeguelloTex wrote: »

SingRunTing wrote: »

But, but... a cubic centimeter is a cubic centimeter, so muscle can't take up less space than fat.

This argument always grinds my gears. It's so stupid both ways.

Muscle is denser than fat. Density is a measure of weight per volume. It doesn't take up less space or weigh more unless you constrain one of the variables. It's just denser.

So if the volumes are equal - the muscle will weigh more.
If the weights are equal - the muscle has less volume.

I know I'm just restating what others have stated. It just drives me crazy when people start piping in with the "a pound is a pound" argument when they don't see that "a cc is a cc". It's the same thing in reverse, you have to specify that you're assuming equal volume or equal weight.

Exactly. And, it seems to me, the default assumption in everyday language is equal volume. When someone says "lead weighs more than styrofoam" I think it's reasonable to infer their meaning without giving a lecture on density or "informing" him that a pound of lead weighs the same as a pound of styrofoam.

Yup, in general the "by volume" is assumed when people are comparing weight.