Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat!!!

Options
245

Replies

  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,464 Member
    Options
    I would rather have 50 lbs of muscle than 100 lbs of fat.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    Options
    maryhoule47 wrote: »
    Whether a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers. A pound is a pound is a pound. Muscle takes up less space than fat, but it does NOT weigh less. Another weight loss myth. I hate to see people deceived by this.

    I hear ya, a pound is a pound, except.......be open to this.....

    If you compare one cubic inch of fat to one cubic inch of muscle, then the muscle would weigh more than the fat because it (the fat) is denser. This is generally what a lot of people think when they say muscle weighs more than fat.

    However, there are people who take the muscle weighs more than fat literally and believe that is the reason they are not losing weight.



  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,208 Member
    Options
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    maryhoule47 wrote: »
    Whether a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers. A pound is a pound is a pound. Muscle takes up less space than fat, but it does NOT weigh less. Another weight loss myth. I hate to see people deceived by this.

    I hear ya, a pound is a pound, except.......be open to this.....

    If you compare one cubic inch of fat to one cubic inch of muscle, then the muscle would weigh more than the fat because it (the fat) is denser. This is generally what a lot of people think when they say muscle weighs more than fat.

    However, there are people who take the muscle weighs more than fat literally and believe that is the reason they are not losing weight.




    You typo'd. The bolded should say (the muscle). :wink:

  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 17,959 Member
    Options
    It's simply an example of a concept that has been simplified to the point of inaccuracy. The majority of people know what is meant by the saying.
  • DetroitDarin
    DetroitDarin Posts: 955 Member
    Options
    Anyone know - this is slightly related - the calories needed to BUILD a pound of muscle? We've heard 3000-3500 calories per pound of fat...but...
  • vespiquenn
    vespiquenn Posts: 1,455 Member
    Options
    DetroitDarin wrote: »
    Anyone know - this is slightly related - the calories needed to BUILD a pound of muscle? We've heard 3000-3500 calories per pound of fat...but...

    There are too many variables to this to give an accurate answer. However, many eat at a surplus to gain .5lb-1lb per week during a bulk. But factors of testosterone, age, genetics, and lifts all factor in. So what might aid in one male gaining 1lb of muscle might only be .5lbs for you, or vice versa.

  • LAMCDylan
    LAMCDylan Posts: 1,215 Member
    Options
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Y'all are so mean.

    People want to act like know-it-alls. Everyone starts somewhere. There was a time when they were ignorant and had to learn from someone else.
  • Morgaen73
    Morgaen73 Posts: 2,818 Member
    Options
    I had this very same discussion with someone the other day and his response was "You cant bring volume into it. You can only compare one measurable at a time. Therefore only weight, not weight and volume".

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    Morgaen73 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Y'all are so mean.

    Arrogant stupidity should not be rewarded with kindness.

    You know where you're posting, right?

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    TheBigFb wrote: »
    See now this is the reason I stay away from forums.

    I will say this one thing. A tonne of feathrs is HEAVIER than a tonne of coal, as a tonne of feathers comes with the weight of the guilt of killing all those ducks

    You remind me of my son

    Says he does one thing, while blatantly doing another :)

    Duck pancakes ...omnomnom
  • ew_david
    ew_david Posts: 3,473 Member
    Options
    I don't think this has ever been mentioned here.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    Mouse_Potato wrote: »
    I have never understood why this is a subject of such contention around here. When you compare two things, you must have a constant and it can't be the thing you are comparing. You can't take a pound of fat and a pound of muscle and ask which weighs more. It makes no sense to say I am as tall as Yao Ming because a meter of my body is as tall as a meter of his. That's not how comparisons work.

    the only reason it gets contentious is when someone says they are not losing on a 1200 calories a day deficit and they are walking three times a week and someone comes in and says "well muscle weighs more than fat, so you are gaining muscle, which is why you are not losing" ...ummm no, that is not what is going on ...
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    In a vacuum I can drop a pound of feathers and a pound of bricks at the same time and they will both hit the ground at the same time. Oh, are we not just saying random science facts now?
  • JrKing1123
    JrKing1123 Posts: 5 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    maryhoule47 wrote: »
    Whether a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers. A pound is a pound is a pound. Muscle takes up less space than fat, but it does NOT weigh less. Another weight loss myth. I hate to see people deceived by this.

    That saying of muscle weighing more has to do with the visual representation if you had the same amount of volume of both, the volume of muscle will have more weight to it than that of equal volume of fat.

    So by visual aide, muscle does weigh more than fat, no myth there.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,565 Member
    Options
    auddii wrote: »
    Does high school science no longer discuss density?
    I'm sure they do. It's just that as kids, we never saw any reason to use it in real life. I'm happy I was a science geek.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,565 Member
    Options
    DetroitDarin wrote: »
    Anyone know - this is slightly related - the calories needed to BUILD a pound of muscle? We've heard 3000-3500 calories per pound of fat...but...
    Approximation of calories for a pound of muscle is 600. However, BUILDING muscle isn't just about counting the calories for muscle. In other words, since protein is the only macro that builds muscle, you just can't eat 600 calories worth of protein over your TDEE and hope that turns into 1lb of muscle. It's much more complicated than that. Just like weight loss, weight gain will be a gain in fat and muscle.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

Categories