Muscle DOES Weigh More Than Fat

joejccva71

Trig0r

It is actually not complicated. People use constants and variable in everyday life without even realizing it. If I am comparing two cars that cost the same, cost is the constant, where as their features and functionality become the variables. But for some reason, people seem to lose this logical thinking when it comes to fat and muscle.

But your saying that the weight is constant, I dont get it, if they weigh the same they weigh the same, as you are comparing the weight of something that becomes the constant and not one of the variables..

I'm not sure if your missing the point of your own argument or if I'm really missing the point..

liftingbro

withchaco

Actually, while your physics and math calculations are correct, your assessment of the argument is flawed. The common misconception is that a pound of fat is somehow lighter than a pound of muscle (i.e. "muscle weighs more than fat").

That's not the common misconception. The common misconception I see is that when you have exercised hard for like two weeks and gained weight (or didn't lose weight), that's just lean muscle weight gain... which isn't true since most people can't gain 4lbs of lean muscle in such a short period of time.

bellinachuchina

Does it matter?

9 times out of 10 when people use the "muscle weighs more than fat" line its to make someone who is discouraged about not losing weight feel better. Chances are good they didn't gain the exact amount of muscle as fat they lost in their first week on MFP....gaining muscle mass while in a calorie deficit is hard enough as it is.

Move on.

I also see it as an enabling tool used on here "Oh, you didn't lose this week? Don't worry, your just gaining muscle." But thanks, for the technical explanation.

End6ame

It is actually not complicated. People use constants and variable in everyday life without even realizing it. If I am comparing two cars that cost the same, cost is the constant, where as their features and functionality become the variables. But for some reason, people seem to lose this logical thinking when it comes to fat and muscle.

But your saying that the weight is constant, I dont get it, if they weigh the same they weigh the same, as you are comparing the weight of something that becomes the constant and not one of the variables..

I'm not sure if your missing the point of your own argument or if I'm really missing the point..

I solved the equation for weight, I did not hold it constant. Gravity and volume were held constant.

End6ame

LMAO

MissMaggie3

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Bodhizephyr

OP is correct. Let me try to simplify.

Matter is made of particles.

Correct. 1lb of fat = 1lb of muscle = 1lb of feathers
The variable here is substance. The key thing to think about is how much space something takes up (density).

Lets say I have a box that is 5cm cubed (i can't do superscript!). To fill that box lets say, arbitrarily I need 25 particles of fat. To fill the same box I would need 35 particles of muscle. So in my fixed space I could get more muscle than fat and therefore have more matter which is in turn more mass.

So lets look at that in body terms. If my body is a finite space and I fill it with fat it will weigh less than if I fill it with muscle.

If you fill a suitcase with bricks (muscle) it will have a greater mass (kg) and also weigh(N) more than if you fill it with feathers (fat). If I replace half my feathers with bricks (half my fat with muscle) what will be the result for the suitcase that started off all feathers? Mass increase.

The problem is incorrect use of the term weight. Weight is a force and measured in Newtons. Mass is how much 'stuff' is contained in an object. No matter where you are in the universe your mass will always be the same but, depending on gravity, your weight will change. You will weigh less on the moon than you do on Earth and more on Jupiter.

Just to pick up on something someone said about excuses for no loss. If you lose 1lb of fat but replace it with 1lb of muscle because fat takes up more space you should lose volume although your mass will stay the same. Another reason for backing up getting 'weighed' (or massed :-p) with measuring your inch loss at key places like your waist, thighs, wrists, neck - don't pull too tight!

1_up

Does it matter?

9 times out of 10 when people use the "muscle weighs more than fat" line its to make someone who is discouraged about not losing weight feel better. Chances are good they didn't gain the exact amount of muscle as fat they lost in their first week on MFP....gaining muscle mass while in a calorie deficit is hard enough as it is.

Move on.

Guess it depends if that friend would rather be fed the red pill or the blue pill ;D

End6ame

Sorry, I had to.

sarad777

Well, I hope your measurement of muscle weighs more than fat is true. That would completely explain why I have gained weight in the past 2 months. I likely had no more fat to lose, just muscle to gain. So my husband says anyway. :-)

luv_lea

LOL

End6ame

Well, I hope your measurement of muscle weighs more than fat is true. That would completely explain why I have gained weight in the past 2 months. I likely had no more fat to lose, just muscle to gain. So my husband says anyway. :-)

While my explanation is true, it may not be what you are seeing. Muscle is hard to build and in most cases requires a caloric surplus and heavy weight training. In 2 months under optimal conditions you could have gained roughly 2-4lbs of muscle if you are in a caloric surplus and training properly. If you are new to weightlifting you could still see some muscle gains on a caloric deficit but they would be closer to only a ½ to 1lb gain over 2 months.

Bodhizephyr

well done..this reminds me of the physics i took my first year of uni! ughh!

Zomg - what Mickey Mouse degree was that? This stuff first turns up for 11year olds in the UK!

byukid

Because:
Weight= mass x gravity,
Then,
Muscle is more dense than fat.
But,
Saying it "weighs more" is completely arbitrary because for equal masses THEY HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT.

Yes, but Mass = Density x Volume, so for the same mass there would be a greater volume of muscle.

Sorry, I misstated what I meant to say. It's not difficult.

Mass is different than weight. If I have two equally massed (let's say 5 kg) portions of muscle and fat, they will be very different in volume (the fat will take up much more volume). The same will actually happen with weight since weight would just be mass * gravity or roughly 50 N. Regardless, if they weigh the same, they weigh the same. If you change the volume, then of course they don't weigh the same.

You're arbitrarily holding volume constant- why? That's not real life. Unless you're trying to say that people measure weight loss in cubic centimeters.

Bodhizephyr

Well, I hope your measurement of muscle weighs more than fat is true. That would completely explain why I have gained weight in the past 2 months. I likely had no more fat to lose, just muscle to gain. So my husband says anyway. :-)

While my explanation is true, it may not be what you are seeing. Muscle is hard to build and in most cases requires a caloric surplus and heavy weight training. In 2 months under optimal conditions you could have gained roughly 2-4lbs of muscle if you are in a caloric surplus and training properly. If you are new to weightlifting you could still see some muscle gains on a caloric deficit but they would be closer to only a ½ to 1lb gain over 2 months.

Check out Tim Ferriss 4 Hour Body!

1_up

This is my take on it.

Muscle does not weigh more than fat when comparing an actual lb to lb, but if you fill a container with 20 lbs of fat and you fill a similar container with 20 lbs of muscle, there will be a noticeable difference in volume, since muscle is more dense than fat. If you filled that container to the same level of that of the fat container, the muscle container will be heavier, so muscle is heavier then fat.

I just like to say muscle weighs more than fat with the assumption we are going by volume, since it's quick and our bodies are the topic.

End6ame

Because:
Weight= mass x gravity,
Then,
Muscle is more dense than fat.
But,
Saying it "weighs more" is completely arbitrary because for equal masses THEY HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT.

Yes, but Mass = Density x Volume, so for the same mass there would be a greater volume of muscle.

Sorry, I misstated what I meant to say. It's not difficult.

Mass is different than weight. If I have two equally massed (let's say 5 kg) portions of muscle and fat, they will be very different in volume (the fat will take up much more volume). The same will actually happen with weight since weight would just be mass * gravity or roughly 50 N. Regardless, if they weigh the same, they weigh the same. If you change the volume, then of course they don't weigh the same.

You're arbitrarily holding volume constant- why? That's not real life. Unless you're trying to say that people measure weight loss in cubic centimeters.

I am holding volume constant to make the comparison clearer, showing that if you have to objects of equal volume and different densities, they will not weigh the same. Also, when you look in the mirror at your body and progress, visually, you are assessing volume whether you realize it or not; so I would argue that it is 100% real life.

Schraudt814

hahaha I enjoyed the original post but now this is exactly how I feel!