Muscle does not weight more then fat
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions