Muscle does not weight more then fat
Replies
-
donjtomasco wrote: »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.
Exactly. I don't want to be one of the elderly people who depend on a wheelchair or walker if I can help it.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »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!
Not really. One lb of anything is one lb. One lb of muscle is one lb. One lb of fat is one lb. One lb of elephant meat is one lb. A one lb mouse is one lb.
What is meant by 'muscle weighs more than fat' is that one lb of muscle takes up less space than one lb of fat (muscle is more dense). One lb of you now DOES weigh the same as one lb of you did in high school (assuming you keep the composition of whatever part we cut off the same). There are more TOTAL lbs of you now, so you are bigger now (presumably). But a lb is still a lb (unless the gravitational pull of the earth changed?).
An elephant is heavier than a mouse, not because one lb of elephant is heavier than one lb of mouse (that makes no logical sense). An elephant is heavier than a mouse because elephants are far bigger than mice. I don't know what their relative densities are though, so I don't know which would take up less volume, a lb of mouse or a lb of elephant... I'd guess the mouse, they seem like they'd be leaner, but I could be wrong
You can easily see the difference between weight and density at the grocery store. Go grab a 5 lb sack of flour. Then go into produce and grab a 5 lb sack of potatoes. Are they the same size? No. They weigh the same, but they are not the same size. Why? Density. Flour doesn't weigh less than potatoes, but it is more dense, so it takes up less space, at any given weight.
0 -
Muscle is more dense than fat. For equivalent volumes of muscle and fat, the muscle weighs more. For equivalent weights of muscle and fat, the muscle has a lower volume.
Muscle is what you like to have. Get some.4 -
If you get one same size portion of each you will find that while they are the same in volume the muscle weighs more. This is what people mean. Of course no one wants to give the extensive label a go every time they say, "if you have equal portions of muscle and fat the muscle will weigh more." So it has been shortened to, "Muscle weighs more than fat." This argument is as old as time. I can't believe it is still popping up.3
-
Ready2Rock206 wrote: »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.
if they are in a deficit they arent gaining fat either.2 -
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?
lots of benefits to weight training while you are losing weight.for me Im a smaller size in clothing(sz 6-8 us) even though I weigh almost 30lbs more(at 140lbs I was a sz 10).. it changes your body,at least it has mine.1 -
To those who insist that muscle does not weigh more than fat because one LB of muscle is the same as one LB of fat (ignoring that volume is implied in the statement), I am truly curious:
Do you really think that other people are confused about whether one LB of something weighs the same as one LB of something else? When people say (incorrectly, obviously) that someone dieting for a few weeks and adding in some exercise might not have lost because muscle weighs more than fat, do you imagine that they think that 1 LB of muscle shows up as 2 LB on the scale or something?
Because it would never cross my mind that anyone could think something so weird. It's kind of insulting, really.
(Of course, the misunderstanding implicit in "don't worry, muscle weighs more than fat" is equally offbase, but probably less obviously so to most. It's the idea that if you lost a particular volume of fat you are likely to have gained a similar volume of muscle, and of course that's not so -- to gain that much muscle volume in the time involved would be extremely difficult--impossible, in fact--in most cases we are talking about.)9 -
-
This is such a silly argument.
On the question of whether strength training is worthwhile in a deficit, here's another perspective: my recent experience which convinced me you can gain strength in a deficit is all based on a knee injury I got in March. Since then I've been favouring that knee, avoiding stairs etc and as a result both knees have become weak and temperamental and prone to soreness. As the injured knee ought to be fixed by now (it was only a bruise on the bone) I decided to try doing step-ups to strengthen it.
After a few weeks of doing between 10 and 20 minutes of step ups three times a week, the improvement in knee function on both sides was completely amazing. I went from hobbling up any kind of incline to bouncing up stairs, climbing hills, even voluntarily running for brief periods (I'm still a bit heavy for that to be comfortable though).
My point is that under-toned muscles cause all sorts of problems with joint function that we are not aware of, and keeping your muscles toned has incredible benefits for your overall mobility.5 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Here's a visual
Wrong, muscle does not occupy less space than fat. 1 cm³ of fat is the same size as 1 cm³ of muscle!
14 -
stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Here's a visual
Wrong, muscle does not occupy less space than fat. 1 cm³ of fat is the same size as 1 cm³ of muscle!
bloody hell this debate is never ending. lol2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »To those who insist that muscle does not weigh more than fat because one LB of muscle is the same as one LB of fat (ignoring that volume is implied in the statement), I am truly curious:
Do you really think that other people are confused about whether one LB of something weighs the same as one LB of something else? When people say (incorrectly, obviously) that someone dieting for a few weeks and adding in some exercise might not have lost because muscle weighs more than fat, do you imagine that they think that 1 LB of muscle shows up as 2 LB on the scale or something?
Because it would never cross my mind that anyone could think something so weird. It's kind of insulting, really.
(Of course, the misunderstanding implicit in "don't worry, muscle weighs more than fat" is equally offbase, but probably less obviously so to most. It's the idea that if you lost a particular volume of fat you are likely to have gained a similar volume of muscle, and of course that's not so -- to gain that much muscle volume in the time involved would be extremely difficult--impossible, in fact--in most cases we are talking about.)
@lemurcat12
I cringe when I hear the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat" - same reaction when I see "I want to loose weight" or "when I weight myself", "I literally died of embarrassment", or using "like" as like punctuation, like...
(Yes I do a lot of cringing!)
To answer you question about what do I think....
Option 1 - they are genuinely ignorant about the difference between density and weight. With the poor standard of science education ignorance simply isn't uncommon - that's not judgemental just stating that many people lack knowledge. A "calorie isn't just a calorie" is another example.
Option 2 - they do mean to imply by volume but simply don't think using the appropriate terminology is important. A bit like saying "I weigh my food with spoons and cups". I happen to think using the right terminology only improves communication but am prepared to accept that I'm old-fashioned. There's not really a right and wrong on this. I think it's important to state things accurately but someone else might take the view "you know what I really mean so it doesn't matter". Wouldn't it be dull if we all thought the same way?
Option 3 - they are mindlessly parroting a common phrase they have seen or heard and repeat it without even thinking whether it makes sense of not. Road safety campaigns use the slogan "speed kills" and it becomes part of common language although speed alone clearly doesn't kill.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »To those who insist that muscle does not weigh more than fat because one LB of muscle is the same as one LB of fat (ignoring that volume is implied in the statement), I am truly curious:
Do you really think that other people are confused about whether one LB of something weighs the same as one LB of something else? When people say (incorrectly, obviously) that someone dieting for a few weeks and adding in some exercise might not have lost because muscle weighs more than fat, do you imagine that they think that 1 LB of muscle shows up as 2 LB on the scale or something?
Because it would never cross my mind that anyone could think something so weird. It's kind of insulting, really.
You would think so, wouldn't you? But I've browsed several of the "muscle weighs more than fat" discussions here where it's clear that at least one person does not understand mass or volume, which is why I brace myself a bit when someone says "of course a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle" - there are some folks for whom that is not an obvious statement.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Here's a visual
Wrong, muscle does not occupy less space than fat. 1 cm³ of fat is the same size as 1 cm³ of muscle!
Heh! Exactly.1 -
OK - an equal volume of fat will weigh less than an equal VOLUME of muscle - of course a pound of anything will weigh the same as a pound of anything else. Put a pound of feathers on a table and put a pound of potatoes next to them and you should be able to work out the difference between weight and volume.1
-
ClosetBayesian wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »To those who insist that muscle does not weigh more than fat because one LB of muscle is the same as one LB of fat (ignoring that volume is implied in the statement), I am truly curious:
Do you really think that other people are confused about whether one LB of something weighs the same as one LB of something else? When people say (incorrectly, obviously) that someone dieting for a few weeks and adding in some exercise might not have lost because muscle weighs more than fat, do you imagine that they think that 1 LB of muscle shows up as 2 LB on the scale or something?
Because it would never cross my mind that anyone could think something so weird. It's kind of insulting, really.
You would think so, wouldn't you? But I've browsed several of the "muscle weighs more than fat" discussions here where it's clear that at least one person does not understand mass or volume, which is why I brace myself a bit when someone says "of course a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle" - there are some folks for whom that is not an obvious statement.
I don't know, I really have not seen anyone for whom that is so in these discussions. I've seen lots of people assuming that is so, and I am genuinely wondering why they assume that.
I wish before pedantically correcting someone it would at least be asked "do you mean that you think 1 lb of muscle weighs more than 1 lb of fat," because I am close to 100% certain that the answer would be "of course not, I mean given the same amount of both (volume, that is, although they might not add this), the muscle would weigh more.
IMO that is ALWAYS implicit in the statement.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »To those who insist that muscle does not weigh more than fat because one LB of muscle is the same as one LB of fat (ignoring that volume is implied in the statement), I am truly curious:
Do you really think that other people are confused about whether one LB of something weighs the same as one LB of something else? When people say (incorrectly, obviously) that someone dieting for a few weeks and adding in some exercise might not have lost because muscle weighs more than fat, do you imagine that they think that 1 LB of muscle shows up as 2 LB on the scale or something?
Because it would never cross my mind that anyone could think something so weird. It's kind of insulting, really.
(Of course, the misunderstanding implicit in "don't worry, muscle weighs more than fat" is equally offbase, but probably less obviously so to most. It's the idea that if you lost a particular volume of fat you are likely to have gained a similar volume of muscle, and of course that's not so -- to gain that much muscle volume in the time involved would be extremely difficult--impossible, in fact--in most cases we are talking about.)
@lemurcat12
I cringe when I hear the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat" - same reaction when I see "I want to loose weight" or "when I weight myself", "I literally died of embarrassment", or using "like" as like punctuation, like...
(Yes I do a lot of cringing!)
But these are all different:
(1) Loose is a misspelling (one that I agree is cringeworthy, in fact).
(2) Weight myself is almost certainly just a typo.
(3) Literally is commonly misused today and may be shifting in meaning or have as an alternative meaning not literally in an emphatic way: there was a great discussion of this (with lots of bemoaning of the misuse) in the Slate Lexicon Valley podcast a couple of years ago.
(4) Like is simply a slangy way of speaking that is most used by a demographic group not your own or seems too informal for some more formal uses where it is employed.
"Muscle weighs more than fat" assumes (as too obvious to be stated) that it is implied that we are discussing two things of equal volume, as why would we ever compare the weights of two things of equal weight? Seriously, why?To answer you question about what do I think....
Option 1 - they are genuinely ignorant about the difference between density and weight. With the poor standard of science education ignorance simply isn't uncommon - that's not judgemental just stating that many people lack knowledge. A "calorie isn't just a calorie" is another example.
I disagree that they are ignorant of density vs. weight in the way you seem to be assuming (they think a lb of something is heavier than a lb of something else). They may not be able to use the term density (although many who say the phrase probably could and would use it correctly), but they could explain that they mean the same volume of both. Like, obviously, you know? (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)
When people are confused about a calorie=a calorie, I think they don't understand that a calorie is a unit of measurement (which is why I think this is worth explaining). I think they genuinely see "calorie" as a synonym for food, which it is used as even by many who should know better (as this is confusing).Option 2 - they do mean to imply by volume but simply don't think using the appropriate terminology is important. A bit like saying "I weigh my food with spoons and cups". I happen to think using the right terminology only improves communication but am prepared to accept that I'm old-fashioned. There's not really a right and wrong on this. I think it's important to state things accurately but someone else might take the view "you know what I really mean so it doesn't matter". Wouldn't it be dull if we all thought the same way?
Okay, this I will accept, but then suggest that pedantically telling them something they probably already know isn't helpful and is insulting. Why not ask the question or make it clear the issue is not saying something you think needs to be said (and that I personally do not, and many others do not).Option 3 - they are mindlessly parroting a common phrase they have seen or heard and repeat it without even thinking whether it makes sense of not. Road safety campaigns use the slogan "speed kills" and it becomes part of common language although speed alone clearly doesn't kill.
I do think this is part of it, but not because they think they are comparing one lb to one lb (no one thinks that) but because they think the things they are comparing would have equal volume when they obviously would not -- that's what people should be called on, as well as they assumptions about how easy it is to build muscle.
Just my opinion, of course!3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »To those who insist that muscle does not weigh more than fat because one LB of muscle is the same as one LB of fat (ignoring that volume is implied in the statement), I am truly curious:
Do you really think that other people are confused about whether one LB of something weighs the same as one LB of something else? When people say (incorrectly, obviously) that someone dieting for a few weeks and adding in some exercise might not have lost because muscle weighs more than fat, do you imagine that they think that 1 LB of muscle shows up as 2 LB on the scale or something?
Because it would never cross my mind that anyone could think something so weird. It's kind of insulting, really.
You would think so, wouldn't you? But I've browsed several of the "muscle weighs more than fat" discussions here where it's clear that at least one person does not understand mass or volume, which is why I brace myself a bit when someone says "of course a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle" - there are some folks for whom that is not an obvious statement.
I don't know, I really have not seen anyone for whom that is so in these discussions. I've seen lots of people assuming that is so, and I am genuinely wondering why they assume that.
I wish before pedantically correcting someone it would at least be asked "do you mean that you think 1 lb of muscle weighs more than 1 lb of fat," because I am close to 100% certain that the answer would be "of course not, I mean given the same amount of both (volume, that is, although they might not add this), the muscle would weigh more.
IMO that is ALWAYS implicit in the statement.
ITA. There are plenty of instances in language where details that are understood are not stated. I think the phrase irks some people because it's become a catchphrase in the health & fitness industry.
It seems like a pretty clear statement to me. I've never spoken with anyone who didn't get what it meant.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »To those who insist that muscle does not weigh more than fat because one LB of muscle is the same as one LB of fat (ignoring that volume is implied in the statement), I am truly curious:
Do you really think that other people are confused about whether one LB of something weighs the same as one LB of something else? When people say (incorrectly, obviously) that someone dieting for a few weeks and adding in some exercise might not have lost because muscle weighs more than fat, do you imagine that they think that 1 LB of muscle shows up as 2 LB on the scale or something?
Because it would never cross my mind that anyone could think something so weird. It's kind of insulting, really.
(Of course, the misunderstanding implicit in "don't worry, muscle weighs more than fat" is equally offbase, but probably less obviously so to most. It's the idea that if you lost a particular volume of fat you are likely to have gained a similar volume of muscle, and of course that's not so -- to gain that much muscle volume in the time involved would be extremely difficult--impossible, in fact--in most cases we are talking about.)
@lemurcat12
I cringe when I hear the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat" - same reaction when I see "I want to loose weight" or "when I weight myself", "I literally died of embarrassment", or using "like" as like punctuation, like...
(Yes I do a lot of cringing!)
To answer you question about what do I think....
Option 1 - they are genuinely ignorant about the difference between density and weight. With the poor standard of science education ignorance simply isn't uncommon - that's not judgemental just stating that many people lack knowledge. A "calorie isn't just a calorie" is another example.
Option 2 - they do mean to imply by volume but simply don't think using the appropriate terminology is important. A bit like saying "I weigh my food with spoons and cups". I happen to think using the right terminology only improves communication but am prepared to accept that I'm old-fashioned. There's not really a right and wrong on this. I think it's important to state things accurately but someone else might take the view "you know what I really mean so it doesn't matter". Wouldn't it be dull if we all thought the same way?
Option 3 - they are mindlessly parroting a common phrase they have seen or heard and repeat it without even thinking whether it makes sense of not. Road safety campaigns use the slogan "speed kills" and it becomes part of common language although speed alone clearly doesn't kill.
I just honestly do not understand where you are coming from objecting to that phrase. I literally have a degree in this stuff. I lecture students on density and buoyancy. It's my specialist subject. "Muscle weighs more than fat" is a completely correct and reasonable thing to say. As a qualified expert in the subject, I would say it myself. Just what exactly is the problem with it?7 -
In the 136 Pound Photo, that woman is sucking it up and sucking it in. Or maybe the poster got the numbers reversed.....1
-
Which is why I just read and stay waaaaay the heck over here lol.Therealobi1 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Here's a visual
Wrong, muscle does not occupy less space than fat. 1 cm³ of fat is the same size as 1 cm³ of muscle!
bloody hell this debate is never ending. lol
3 -
donjtomasco wrote: »In the 136 Pound Photo, that woman is sucking it up and sucking it in. Or maybe the poster got the numbers reversed.....
No, No, no.
Read this article......
http://www.niashanks.com/stop-weighing-on-the-scale-for-weight-loss/
or just google .....gained weight but look thinner/dropped sizes
Why is this so hard?
This is why we tell people to weight train.3 -
More reasons the scale should be just one more data input, not your end goal
1 -
I think these kinds of photos need to show the person in the same outfit, with the same expression, with the same hair, both with or without glasses, same lighting, showing same side, just identical in every way pics, otherwise I don't buy it. Kind of like those weight loss before and after photos, where there are so many obvious silly things wrong with the comparison, could have even been the same person in each at the same time of shooting.2
-
CatOfTheGa...-LOL. Fact, NO muscle does not weigh more then fat? Weight is weight. How can you say that after first saying you have 'a degree' in this "stuff"? I think you are now trolling this post.......no other explanation.
I bet you would also say that "It was on sale, so I made money on the purchase".
0 -
donjtomasco wrote: »I think these kinds of photos need to show the person in the same outfit, with the same expression, with the same hair, both with or without glasses, same lighting, showing same side, just identical in every way pics, otherwise I don't buy it. Kind of like those weight loss before and after photos, where there are so many obvious silly things wrong with the comparison, could have even been the same person in each at the same time of shooting.
What aren't you buying? That people can ever look thinner/more fit at a heavier weight? That they can is so obvious that it's not really necessary to even post a photo.3 -
Ugh, I was just carrying a bunch of documents around and thought "paper can sure be heavy"! And then I wondered if I said that to the wrong person if I would get a lecture about how, in fact, a lb of paper weighs no more than a lb of anything else, and I must be really stupid not to understand that a lb=a lb.
Sigh.9 -
There are a few exceptions to the rule, but to build muscle means to add mass. To add mass means to add weight. To add weight means you need a surplus not a deficit. When you weight train while losing weight, you're working on retaining what muscle you have, not adding to it.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.
It's showing because you have less fat covering it.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?
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
2 -
If you have an equal volume of muscle and fat, the muscle will weigh more than the fat. So people shorten it to say muscle weighs more than fat. I don't understand how this is inaccurate in any way.6
-
When I first started weightlifting I thought I could lose weight and gain muscle. Then I was told I couldn't and I was really upset. So I did a ton of research and guess what? You can't gain muscle while in a caloric deficit. That's why there is cutting and bulking.
In a bulking phase you eat above maintenance and build muscle (and you will gain some fat). Then you go into a cutting phase where you maintain the muscle you have by continuing to lift but eat at a caloric deficit and lose weight. The lost weight will reveal the muscles you gained while in the bulking phase.
There's more to it if you dig into it, like macros, etc.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions