Muscle does not weight more then fat
donjtomasco
Posts: 790 Member
How interesting. I always heard muscle weighs more then fat, and maybe life was to busy to read a little on the subject to find out how simply logistical it is how this works. Regardless, I think I get it now.
Muscle takes up less space then fat. I read a great analogy comparing the look of a pound of raw potatoes vs a pound of mashed potatoes. When I pictured my muscles being the raw and my fat being the mashed potatoes, that visual really worked for me. Fat takes up more room and is jiggly vs muscles which are compact and more tightly together, so, if you put side by side two people with identical everythings except one works out and the other maintains their wait with calorie watching alone, the work out person will appear thinner then the other person, since they are simply storing the body weight in different ways.
This really helped this morning reading this. And at the end of the day if the clothes are fitting a little looser while the scale is not moving like we want, BUT if we are burning calories and building muscle when we can, then we are on the right track.
So, muscle does not weight more then fat, it just makes us look less fat when our weight has not moved on the scale.
Yep, a pound of gold weight the same as a pound of feathers, but imagine the different space each takes up, now I can imagine muscles being the gold and feathers being the fat, visuals are so important.
Muscle takes up less space then fat. I read a great analogy comparing the look of a pound of raw potatoes vs a pound of mashed potatoes. When I pictured my muscles being the raw and my fat being the mashed potatoes, that visual really worked for me. Fat takes up more room and is jiggly vs muscles which are compact and more tightly together, so, if you put side by side two people with identical everythings except one works out and the other maintains their wait with calorie watching alone, the work out person will appear thinner then the other person, since they are simply storing the body weight in different ways.
This really helped this morning reading this. And at the end of the day if the clothes are fitting a little looser while the scale is not moving like we want, BUT if we are burning calories and building muscle when we can, then we are on the right track.
So, muscle does not weight more then fat, it just makes us look less fat when our weight has not moved on the scale.
Yep, a pound of gold weight the same as a pound of feathers, but imagine the different space each takes up, now I can imagine muscles being the gold and feathers being the fat, visuals are so important.
9
Replies
-
But at the same time a lot of people who get that "oh don't worry you're probably building muscle" line aren't actually doing anything that would build muscle. It's hard to build muscle in a deficit. Most of them in truth are just gaining more fat.
But yes, if you truly are gaining the muscle you'll be a lot smaller than if you weigh the same but it's fat. I have a weight goal for if I just lose weight but a higher goal for if I decide to actually bust my *kitten* in the gym and actually get fit and get some muscle.3 -
The correct term is "density" -- muscle is more dense than fat. I think people get that mixed up with "weight" but is what they really mean when saying muscle weighs more than fat.12
-
"muscle weighs more than fat" and "muscle takes up less space than fat" is saying the same thing two different ways. Gold weighs more than chocolate, so the same weight of gold takes up less space. The idea being expressed is density. It's a concept I lecture on, and I would have no problem with the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat". It's a perfectly reasonable way to express it.
However, the way it is normally used - as a way of explaining weight fluctuations - is not super helpful, as fluctuations in a person who is losing weight are more often a result of water retention.20 -
When people say "muscle weighs more than fat" they mean by volume and by volume it's true. It's just another way of saying that it's more dense. Volume is implied when talking about weight. (I was a physicist for over a decade before changing careers and it was not uncommon to hear my colleagues say this weights more than that. We all understood the implied volume.)
The problem arises when someone says "muscle weighs more than fat" and another person hears "one pound of muscle weighs more than one pound of fat". That's on the listener not the speaker.
It's funny you never here someone correct another when it's something other than fat. If I said steel weighs more than wood, it would be ignored because it's obvious what is meant.
17 -
Please stop jumping on people's case for saying this.
The argument that muscle doesn't weigh more than fat, is arguing that nothing weighs more than anything else.
Yes, a lb of battleship weighs the same as a lb of feathers, but its downright ridiculous to assume that that's what someone meant when they said that a battleship weighs more than feathers.22 -
If you are lifting weights or doing 'muscle strengthening' exercises, the assumption would be that you are building muscle.
I am 5'10" and 202, down from 213. I need to be around 185. So are you saying that my every other day upper body weight training is not building ANY muscle while I am losing weight?
I am not arguing or disagreeing, I am trying to get an answer.
To carry that logic a bit further, if I am wanting to look like I looked before, which is tone with muscle, your logic says that I can't build muscle until I start eating more then my maintain weight, or when I am NOT in a deficit. Sorry, that just does not compute. Maybe someone can elaborate more on how this really is the case.
Why is it that I am already feeling muscle and some is already showing up? Is it just an illusion?1 -
Annaskiski, I was not trying to sink anybody's 'battleship' (or jump on their case) with the 'discussion' and not the 'argument' that muscle doesn't weight more than fat. I started the post, I was not countering someone else's post making this claim. Are you a little hungry right now?
0 -
donjtomasco wrote: »If you are lifting weights or doing 'muscle strengthening' exercises, the assumption would be that you are building muscle.
I am 5'10" and 202, down from 213. I need to be around 185. So are you saying that my every other day upper body weight training is not building ANY muscle while I am losing weight?
I am not arguing or disagreeing, I am trying to get an answer.
To carry that logic a bit further, if I am wanting to look like I looked before, which is tone with muscle, your logic says that I can't build muscle until I start eating more then my maintain weight, or when I am NOT in a deficit. Sorry, that just does not compute. Maybe someone can elaborate more on how this really is the case.
Why is it that I am already feeling muscle and some is already showing up? Is it just an illusion?
This is correct for the most part. You won't build muscle in a deficit unless you're an overweight beginner, or had the muscle before and lost it. You will notice more muscle while losing weight because you're getting leaner1 -
Maybe so galgenstrick, my story is that my muscles are feeling more solid which in my logic means they are going in the right direction, and I am sticking to it! 2
-
donjtomasco wrote: »Maybe so galgenstrick, my story is that my muscles are feeling more solid which in my logic means they are going in the right direction, and I am sticking to it!
Are you getting stronger?0 -
When someone says that muscle weighs more than fat I assume they mean equal volume - a cubic inch, say.9
-
donjtomasco wrote: »To carry that logic a bit further, if I am wanting to look like I looked before, which is tone with muscle, your logic says that I can't build muscle until I start eating more then my maintain weight, or when I am NOT in a deficit. Sorry, that just does not compute. Maybe someone can elaborate more on how this really is the case.
Why is it that I am already feeling muscle and some is already showing up? Is it just an illusion?
I heard this a lot too (that you can't build muscle with a caloric deficit). That clearly wasn't the case in the beginning for me. This summer I began going to the gym for the first time in my life and learned about strength training. As I lost 50 lbs, I WAS getting stronger along with muscle development. I was seeing muscles I didn't know were there (there is the muscle along the top of my forearm--never had that before). Just about every week I was increasing the amount of weight I could lift in just about every area. However, for about the last 4-6 weeks now, I have noticed there has been almost no new gains in strength even though my routine hasn't changed--same caloric deficit, same daily exercise, weight loss still continuing.
I've lost a total of 109 lbs now, with maybe 20 to go. All I can think is that I have reached a point where because of the caloric deficit I'm no longer building muscle, at least not as quickly, and that my copious fat stores had been funding the project previously. But now that they are dwindling the gains are too.
This is all just me supposin'. But I did notice what you are seeing also.
Maybe someone can answer this--I assume, just because the gains have slowed way down, the strength training hasn't become worthless? I don't care at all about looking muscley--I am trying to be toned up and am fighting some seriously loose skin and the exercise has definitely helped that. So I plan to continue but I don't want to be wasting my time either...
4 -
Muscle conditioning and gaining strength should not be confused with gaining muscle. Aside from small newbie/returners gains and in women those will be miniscule and certainly not noticeable to the naked eye. And whilst in a deficit there will be a limit to strength gains.
In order to build anything you need the materials, much like bricks for a house, the body needs a surplus of calories for muscle. You can't put an extension on the house without more bricks!
The benefit to strength training and getting adequate protein whilst losing is that you will minimise inevitable muscle loss. When the body is drawing on stored reserves to fuel the body when not getting it all from food, some of that fuel will come from muscle, it's just physiology. So keep lifting heavy things, it's always worthwhile.7 -
When we say that one thing substance weighs more than another, we are really meaning some thinks are more dense.
Yet another weigh of saying this is that some substances weigh more than others AT the same volume.
Yet another weigh is to say that some substance take up more volume at the same weight.
When people are saying "muscle weighs more that fat", this is what they mean.
The biggest problem with the "muscle weighs more than fat" statement is that it is often unrealistically used as an explanation for someone not losing over a period where muscle building could not have happened.
3 -
this is something that people say and its hard to stop it. i hear it all the time in real life
mfp should keep a muscle doesnt weigh more than fat sticky at the top of the forum
in the mean time why does it wind people up so much?
1 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »this is something that people say and its hard to stop it. i hear it all the time in real life
mfp should keep a muscle doesnt weigh more than fat sticky at the top of the forum
in the mean time why does it wind people up so much?
Because it is not true. Muscle DOES weigh more than fat. Or takes up less space. Tomato tomahto.
Anyway, the other question is one I would like a good answer to. It's often said on here that it's completely impossible to gain muscle mass while on a deficit, but other sources say that some beginner gains are possible, though after that first stage it flattens out. What is the truth?
Also, what is the story with gaining strength on a deficit? It's clearly possible to gain a lot of strength and muscle endurance while in a deficit, I've done it myself. How is that actually possible without gaining muscle mass? And if you can get stronger without gaining mass, why does bulking matter? Is it purely an aesthetic thing, or is there a ceiling to how strong you can get without adding mass?7 -
Please go get one cubic foot of fat and put it on a scale and weigh it. Please go get one cubic foot of muscle and put it on a scale and weight it. Please look up the words 'volume' and 'density' in the dictionary.
When someone says lead weighs more than feathers no one screams, "That's completely untrue. One pound of lead is the same as one pound of feathers!"10 -
@CattOfTheGarageCattOfTheGarage wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »this is something that people say and its hard to stop it. i hear it all the time in real life
mfp should keep a muscle doesnt weigh more than fat sticky at the top of the forum
in the mean time why does it wind people up so much?
Because it is not true. Muscle DOES weigh more than fat. Or takes up less space. Tomato tomahto.
Anyway, the other question is one I would like a good answer to. It's often said on here that it's completely impossible to gain muscle mass while on a deficit, but other sources say that some beginner gains are possible, though after that first stage it flattens out. What is the truth?
Also, what is the story with gaining strength on a deficit? It's clearly possible to gain a lot of strength and muscle endurance while in a deficit, I've done it myself. How is that actually possible without gaining muscle mass? And if you can get stronger without gaining mass, why does bulking matter? Is it purely an aesthetic thing, or is there a ceiling to how strong you can get without adding mass?
Paragraph two.
It's certainly not impossible to gain muscle mass in a sensible deficit - remember impossible is an absolute term. There's plenty of studies that show people gaining muscle in a deficit - commonly not a lot and far more common in the undertrained. There's a weird belief that somehow your body completely changes its physiology when you go anything under TDEE which is totally illogical.
Paragraph three.
Strength gains are primarily better recruitment of existing muscle fibres. Secondary gains are also from sending stronger signals via your nervous system.
Analogy time:
You have a tug of war team with 8 (million) people on the rope. Over time you stop pulling and those people fall asleep and stop pulling - you get weaker. On the odd occasion you whisper "pull" only a few respond.
Then you start to exercise and say "pull" with more meaning, some people wake up and pull - others remain asleep. After a while with repetition more people wake up and when you say "pull" more people (fibres) pull. Eventually the majority or virtually all the people on the rope pull when instructed. You have become stronger just by using existing muscle fibres better.
The improved signalling is the equivalent of comparing saying "pull" to shouting "PULL OR I'M GOING TO KICK YOUR *kitten*!". Each fibre is pulling harder.
Eventually you will hit a limit of what existing fibres can do that's when you may want/need to get bigger if you want to get stronger.
12 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Please go get one cubic foot of fat and put it on a scale and weigh it. Please go get one cubic foot of muscle and put it on a scale and weight it. Please look up the words 'volume' and 'density' in the dictionary.
When someone says lead weighs more than feathers no one screams, "That's completely untrue. One pound of lead is the same as one pound of feathers!"
Because everything weighs the same. On earth. I crack me up. Seriously, I agree with you.3 -
What muddies the water in this discussion is that people carrying higher levels of body fat can experience some muscle gain when they start a program. Excess fat can serve as a source of fuel for the increased mass. The growth is modest but real. So the other point of disagreement is how one characterizes that growth--to the beginner an increase of 2-4 lbs might feel substantial, to a serious lifter, it might seem inconsequential. When that person says "you can't build muscle in a deficit", they likely do not consider those newbie gains as "real" gains--especially since that growth is not sustainable and is more part of the initial adaptation to the lifting program.
It's also further complicated by the fact that one can experience significant strength gains and feel muscle "firmness" without any increase in muscle size itself. Increased strength occurs initially due to the motor units recruiting more fibers and firing those fibers at a greater frequency to produce more force. At some point, this process reaches it's maximum development, and greater increases in strength require that the cross-sectional size of the muscle has to increase.
So a newbie will feel stronger, firmer, and might experience a noticeable increase in muscle size. It is understandable that they might feel confused when told "you can't build muscle in a deficit", even though that is mostly accurate.
7 -
So a newbie will feel stronger, firmer, and might experience a noticeable increase in muscle size. It is understandable that they might feel confused when told "you can't build muscle in a deficit", even though that is mostly accurate.
So for someone trying to lose weight (ie fat) is there value in strength training while still in a deficit or should it wait until they are done?
0 -
There is value in everything you do.
And it is possible to lose fat and gain muscle, but it takes alot of patience4 -
JulieSHelms wrote: »
So a newbie will feel stronger, firmer, and might experience a noticeable increase in muscle size. It is understandable that they might feel confused when told "you can't build muscle in a deficit", even though that is mostly accurate.
So for someone trying to lose weight (ie fat) is there value in strength training while still in a deficit or should it wait until they are done?
Yes, you protect the muscle you already have. When you lose weight, some of it is fat, some of it is other stuff, including muscle. Strength training while in a deficit helps keep that muscle loss to a minimum.10 -
JulieSHelms wrote: »
So a newbie will feel stronger, firmer, and might experience a noticeable increase in muscle size. It is understandable that they might feel confused when told "you can't build muscle in a deficit", even though that is mostly accurate.
So for someone trying to lose weight (ie fat) is there value in strength training while still in a deficit or should it wait until they are done?
I did cover this in my post. Strength training in a deficit maximises fat loss and minimises muscle loss.6 -
donjtomasco wrote: »If you are lifting weights or doing 'muscle strengthening' exercises, the assumption would be that you are building muscle.
I am 5'10" and 202, down from 213. I need to be around 185. So are you saying that my every other day upper body weight training is not building ANY muscle while I am losing weight?
I am not arguing or disagreeing, I am trying to get an answer.
To carry that logic a bit further, if I am wanting to look like I looked before, which is tone with muscle, your logic says that I can't build muscle until I start eating more then my maintain weight, or when I am NOT in a deficit. Sorry, that just does not compute. Maybe someone can elaborate more on how this really is the case.
Why is it that I am already feeling muscle and some is already showing up? Is it just an illusion?
You could be building some muscle. Factors that go into whether you can build muscle at a deficit are (1) sex (men are more likely to than women; (2) age (young men are more likely to than older men); (3) how much of a deficit you have (much more likely with a 250 calorie/.5 lb goal deficit than with a 1000 calorie deficit/2 lb goal); (4) how much fat you have to lose (if you have a lot to lose its easier); (5) how trained you are (if you are untrained vs. have been training for a while you are more likely to build muscle (called newbie gains); and (6) whether you were trained in the past (easy to regain muscle you used to have than start from scratch). I think these are the main factors.
What you have to realize is that even under the best conditions muscle gain is slow and has to be fueled either by a surplus or burned fat. Therefore when you lose and build at the same time we are talking far less muscle, by weight, than you can lose of fat in a week. Therefore, you do not -- as some claim -- eat at a deficit and gain weight because muscle weighs more than fat. That would only happen if you could be losing a particular volume of fat and gaining the same volume of muscle in the same week, and that just doesn't happen. It makes no logical sense. Might you lose 20 lb of fat and put on maybe 2 lb of muscle over the same extended period of time, if conditions are right (or something like that, I don't know enough to know what numbers are realistic)? Sure. But there's never a reason to say that someone isn't losing because "muscle weights more than fat" (although of course it does, as volume is implied, absolutely no one thinks a lb can be more than a lb -- how would that show up on the scale?). :-)
As for the specific things you mention (and some other things commonly mentioned):
You can gain strength without putting on muscle. Muscle basically gets better at doing what it does as you train.
When you lose fat you see muscle that was not previously visible. This can make a huge difference, as I saw for myself. I know I lost muscle overall while losing, but when I made it to 125 (from over 200) I had the appearance of lots of muscle I did not appear to have before.
Training can make muscle retain water and look more prominent.
Not saying you didn't put on some muscle, but these are usually more significant explanations for why people think they put on a lot of muscle.8 -
JulieSHelms wrote: »
So a newbie will feel stronger, firmer, and might experience a noticeable increase in muscle size. It is understandable that they might feel confused when told "you can't build muscle in a deficit", even though that is mostly accurate.
So for someone trying to lose weight (ie fat) is there value in strength training while still in a deficit or should it wait until they are done?
Absolutely. It helps retain the muscle you have (which may be quite a bit -- we often put on muscle to carry around the extra fat that looks great when the fat is gone), it is good for you (and specifically your bones) in general, and you can build strength even without building muscle (which for me was actually more important, along with retaining what I had).3 -
By the logic behind the argument that "muscle does not weigh more than fat because one pound of muscles weighs the same as one pound of fat," nothing weighs more than anything. An elephant doesn't weigh more than a mouse, because one pound of elephant weigh the same as one pound of mouse (or mice, I guess, unless we're talking about a rodent of unusual size). I don't weigh any more now than I did in high school, because one pound of me now weighs the same as one pound of me in high school. Yeah! I weigh the same as I did in high school! I guess I can stop watching my weight!9
-
Each time I have gone to a high school or college reunion I see people who continue to weigh the same but never work out, they just watch their calories and maybe have really good nutritionally based eating habits. But over time they continue to get to be smaller and smaller people, both men and women. So I can see how yes a pound is a pound but it's were those pounds end up that determine how strong we are. And strength becomes even more important the longer we all live.1
-
JulieSHelms wrote: »
So a newbie will feel stronger, firmer, and might experience a noticeable increase in muscle size. It is understandable that they might feel confused when told "you can't build muscle in a deficit", even though that is mostly accurate.
So for someone trying to lose weight (ie fat) is there value in strength training while still in a deficit or should it wait until they are done?
Absolutely, you should be strength training from day 1. Resistance exercise has both direct (energy expenditure, improved fat oxidation), and indirect (muscle mass conservation) benefits for weight/fat loss.
To be honest, the "gains in muscle mass" is probably one of the least important benefits for newbies on a weight loss program.
0 -
donjtomasco wrote: »If you are lifting weights or doing 'muscle strengthening' exercises, the assumption would be that you are building muscle.
I am 5'10" and 202, down from 213. I need to be around 185. So are you saying that my every other day upper body weight training is not building ANY muscle while I am losing weight?
I am not arguing or disagreeing, I am trying to get an answer.
To carry that logic a bit further, if I am wanting to look like I looked before, which is tone with muscle, your logic says that I can't build muscle until I start eating more then my maintain weight, or when I am NOT in a deficit. Sorry, that just does not compute. Maybe someone can elaborate more on how this really is the case.
Why is it that I am already feeling muscle and some is already showing up? Is it just an illusion?
You can get stronger, which is different than adding new muscle mass. As you lose fat, existing muscle will be revealed, which is different than adding new muscle mass. Congrats on the progress!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions