Muscle does not weight more then fat
Options
Replies
-
Muscle doesn't weigh less than fat, but it does take up less space. How ironic. ::laugh::2
-
donjtomasco wrote: »Trigden, now go get back to your bench presses and flexing in the mirror for everyone. And work on your sentence structure and grammar, your wording showed a general lack of understanding.
Would it be wrong to point out the irony in this?
3 -
Muscle is denser than fat is the better way to look at it... it more like measuring volume not weight. A pound is a pound regardless of what it is but a pound of muscle is denser and therefore appears smaller. Its like the old pound of feathers vs pound of bricks comparison. Both weigh a pound but visually there are a lot more feathers
3 -
Scientifically when you compare density of materials, you don't weigh a pound against a pound. You weigh volume versus volume.
Just to be pedantic...
Or you weigh one molecule of one substance against one molecule of another substance. In this case, the volume may (probably would) be somewhat different, but it's a viable comparison.
But, yeah.
0 -
donjtomasco wrote: »lemurcat, your analogy is so off. Using your analogy it would be correct to say that 1 lb of fat is the same as 1 lb of muscle, but 2 lbs of fat does not weigh the same as 9 lbs of muscle. So, yes, 1 lb of you weighs the same as 1 lb of your sister, but you weigh more then her because you weigh 159 and she weighs 126, so you two do not weigh the same.
It would be helpful if you would quote so I know what you are talking about. You mean my response/explanation to tlflag?
Anyway, no, no one says that 1 lb of fat is the SAME as 1 lb of muscle. They weigh the same (that's a truism), but the muscle has less volume. (They also have other differences, like one being muscle and one being fat.)
I still don't believe that anyone thinks 2 lb of fat weighs the same as 9 lb of muscle. Honestly, that's crazy. That's why I want to see this other thread. I want know what someone could possibly mean by that or think it means.
I agree that 1 lb of me weighs the same as 1 lb of my sister, but that's NOT what I mean if I say I weigh more than her! That's the whole point. Similarly if someone says paper weighs more than feathers, they are assuming an equal volume not an equal weight.
For the record, I weigh around 125 and my sister weighs around 115.3 -
CattOfTheGarage 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?
I'm not sure but if you're eating a deficit (say 500 less than maintenance) your body fat counts as backup calories so while building up I'd say yes you need excess calories if you don't have those 'backup stores' so to speak.0 -
Well said farrell! And a nice simple summary to point out the simply most obvious points of this. Finally someone who is not defensive and is simply pointing out the obvious logic which others have pointed out in more wordy ways in this post.
Yet, some still think a pound does not equal a pound....1 -
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?
Everyone says that you can't build muscle and lose fat simultaneously, and that's kind of the accepted answer. As in all things, you need materials to build something. I feel for you, because a year ago I tried to ask this same question on the boards and got roasted for it. People love to get really worked up about these topics for no reason that I can understand, so I'll tell you what I figured out and what worked for me.
My goal a year ago was to reduce my body fat percentage, both by increasing my muscle mass and by decreasing my fat mass, and to find a way to do it simultaneously, and I did. I achieved it with intermittent fasting, or by feeding the body a surplus to fuel seriously heavy lifts, and then falling back into a deficit in between. Most of the time I do a 12/12 eating and fasting schedule, and I always work out in a fasted state. Sometimes I eat a big surplus (150% of TDEE with 50% protein macro) on heavy lift days and then eat at a high deficit the next day (maybe 25-30% of my TDEE.) My gains never slowed down and I consistently lost inches. There are a lot of different intermittent fasting schedules and protocols, and even more naysayers. Seriously, just wait for it. People love to attack me after I explain that I do this- especially about working out in a fasted state, but it has worked well for me.
I have found that a lot of the conventional "eating less than 1200 calories/day will put your body into starvation mode" and "fasting will ruin your metabolism" and "eat 5 meals a day! If you eat all your calories in one meal you will gain!" crap to be just myths (heavily repeated, but myths nonetheless). I often fast for 12-24 hours at a time, then feast and lift heavy, then fast again, and have never had a single issue.
I also find that I love being able to eat a surplus on refeed days and hold back the next day. I have always been the type that eats one mega meal a day and skips all my other meals, and that's what works for me. I feel great. I have found that with doing this I've never had a plateau in lifts OR losses, so take that as you will.
Just what I have found to work with my body type, but then again if people could be categorized into "bulldozers and ballerinas" I would definitely be a bulldozer.
0 -
Muscle is denser than fat is the better way to look at it... it more like measuring volume not weight. A pound is a pound regardless of what it is but a pound of muscle is denser and therefore appears smaller. Its like the old pound of feathers vs pound of bricks comparison. Both weigh a pound but visually there are a lot more feathers
Muscle would only appear smaller if you had same weight. And if we have same weight WTH would anyone say one weighs more? The very sentence "muscle weighs more than fat" proves that we do not have same weight. It implies that we have same volume.2 -
donjtomasco wrote: »Yet, some still think a pound does not equal a pound....
Then surely you can point to a post proving this?2 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Since we're being pedantic, a pint of water does not weigh a pound. Not even that close.
US pint or Imperial pint?
An African or a European swallow?2 -
Lemur, did you not read the other comments in this thread? I am not going to do this for you, you need to click on the past page numbers and just read. Your comment is like the mistake people make saying a pound does not equal a pound as it pertains to fat and muscle. Logic, logic, logic!
Need2Exercise, what was it you tried to say there? I think you contradicted yourself in your comment. You said one thing, then disagreed with yourself. But it sure sounded good.1 -
Muscle weighs more than fat *BY VOLUME.* It's pretty much understood by anyone and everyone who says "muscle weighs more than fat" that is the case, just nobody bothers to specify "by volume" because it's understood and doesn't need to be said. Pointing out the obvious in that case accomplishes nothing but make you look like a douche trying to troll people.2
-
Contingency, you are assuming what people think. Obviously not everyone thinks the obvious that you just pointed out, which is the reason why there are so many who disagree with the fact that one pound of fat equals one pound of muscle. If one pound of muscle in volume is smaller in volume then one pound of fat, which is true, then when we have more muscle and less fat, we can weigh the same but look "Less Fat".
You said "Pretty much understood by everyone" but "pretty much" leaves a lot of others out there who do not understand the obvious.
I am simply pointing out how wrong you are in what you said in your own your own words.
Does "Pretty much everyone thinks they burned calories today" mean that "Everyone thinks they burned calories today?" Based on your comment you would say yes, that the two statements are equal but they aren't. Therefore, you become the douche and the troll. LOL. Good luck with that one.....0 -
donjtomasco wrote: »Need2Exercise, what was it you tried to say there? I think you contradicted yourself in your comment. You said one thing, then disagreed with yourself. But it sure sounded good.
It sounded good because it's correct. 0 -
Whoa I'm just getting into this community board at there certainly is a lot of people posting in a very negative tone. We are all here to help each other just remember... its not a fight against others but a community.
Thank you for the kind words donjtomasco.
To clarify weight and volume are two completely different things... weight by definition is the the force of gravity on an object or mass times the acceleration of gravity (W = mg) while volume is simple a measurement of the physical space occupied by an object. Now density is the calculation that combines both... Density = mass/volume.
So muscle does not weigh more than fat, fat has a higher volume than muscle. And therefore the Muscle is denser than fat. But bottom line a pound is a pound regardless of what you are weighing.1 -
donjtomasco wrote: »Contingency, you are assuming what people think. Obviously not everyone thinks the obvious that you just pointed out, which is the reason why there are so many who disagree with the fact that one pound of fat equals one pound of muscle. If one pound of muscle in volume is smaller in volume then one pound of fat, which is true, then when we have more muscle and less fat, we can weigh the same but look "Less Fat".
You said "Pretty much understood by everyone" but "pretty much" leaves a lot of others out there who do not understand the obvious.
I am simply pointing out how wrong you are in what you said in your own your own words.
Does "Pretty much everyone thinks they burned calories today" mean that "Everyone thinks they burned calories today?" Based on your comment you would say yes, that the two statements are equal but they aren't. Therefore, you become the douche and the troll. LOL. Good luck with that one.....
Lol. I think pretty much everyone is aware of who the troll is in this thread.4 -
Whoa I'm just getting into this community board at there certainly is a lot of people posting in a very negative tone. We are all here to help each other just remember... its not a fight against others but a community.
Thank you for the kind words donjtomasco.
To clarify weight and volume are two completely different things... weight by definition is the the force of gravity on an object or mass times the acceleration of gravity (W = mg) while volume is simple a measurement of the physical space occupied by an object. Now density is the calculation that combines both... Density = mass/volume.
So muscle does not weigh more than fat, fat has a higher volume than muscle. And therefore the Muscle is denser than fat. But bottom line a pound is a pound regardless of what you are weighing.
You were doing well.
But, you may want to rethink or rephrase the bolded. Because it's inaccurate.
0 -
Whoa I'm just getting into this community board at there certainly is a lot of people posting in a very negative tone. We are all here to help each other just remember... its not a fight against others but a community.
Thank you for the kind words donjtomasco.
To clarify weight and volume are two completely different things... weight by definition is the the force of gravity on an object or mass times the acceleration of gravity (W = mg) while volume is simple a measurement of the physical space occupied by an object. Now density is the calculation that combines both... Density = mass/volume.
So muscle does not weigh more than fat, fat has a higher volume than muscle. And therefore the Muscle is denser than fat. But bottom line a pound is a pound regardless of what you are weighing.
You were doing well.
But, you may want to rethink or rephrase the bolded. Because it's inaccurate.
Please elaborate, as the definition of a pound(mass) is consistent. If we can all agree that a pound in the sense of a weight measurement is a measure of the force an object caused by a gravitational field. Then regardless of the object being weighed, a pound is a pound.
Please provide any link or evidence to help explain why you believe that statement is false as I am legitimately curious?
I certainly don't mind anyone disagreeing but if there is any evidence please provide so others including myself may see the source of this data being referenced.
Muscle is simply denser than fat... to be exact density of muscle in a mammal is 1.06g/ml while density of fat (adipose) is about 0.9 g/ml. But weight is still unaffected.
If you would like to see the data here are a couple of references for your own personal research.
-Mendez J, Keys A, 1960. Density and composition of mammalian muscle. Metabolism 9:184-188.
-Ross R, Léger L, Guardo R, De Guise J, Pike BG 1991 Adipose tissue volume measured by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography in rats. J Appl Physiol 70: 2164?2172
0 -
OMG, let this thread die. We are all violently agreeing at this point.5
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