muscle weighs more than fat true or fales

fallenangel86
fallenangel86 Posts: 18
in Fitness and Exercise
i hear this saying all the time, but is it true i have been on/off exercising for 2 and a half years and weigh 10 stone but people tell me i look about 9 so could it be muscle or fat am a 8-10 size clothes.
when i asked my gym instructer she said it wasnt true
«1

Replies

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,972 Member
    It DOES when the volume is equal.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • Thad81
    Thad81 Posts: 138 Member
    No it does not weigh more, it weighs exactly the same but is denser and takes up less space!
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,972 Member
    Waiting for the "pound of muscle" weighs more than a "pound of fat" diva to chime in on this. You'd love her explanation.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,972 Member
    No it does not weigh more, it weighs exactly the same but is denser and takes up less space!
    If the VOLUME is the same, muscle weighs more, but a pound of muscle DOESN'T weigh more than a pound of fat.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • xPOOKiEx
    xPOOKiEx Posts: 156 Member
    Waiting for the "pound of muscle" weighs more than a "pound of fat" diva to chime in on this. You'd love her explanation.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    Lol :) Love that.

    Love the other trick "what weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks" :)


    Gets them every time ;)
  • fallenangel86
    fallenangel86 Posts: 18
    thanks x
  • joconnor09
    joconnor09 Posts: 124
    My understanding is that they weigh the same (1 lb = 1 lb) but muscle is denser. So it might weigh the same but will take up a lot less space in your body. That's why even if you feel like you aren't losing weight, your clothes might fit better if you've been working out.
  • budhandy
    budhandy Posts: 305 Member
    oh come on, isnt 1 pound of rolling paper lighter then a 1 pound of weights lol, if not do some Tae Bo and it will be! sersouly though 1=1, and musle is just more dense
  • glennstoudt
    glennstoudt Posts: 403 Member
    Pound of muscle burns 32 cals per day. Pound of fat burns 2 per day. Pick the one you would rather have.
  • shbretired
    shbretired Posts: 320 Member
    fat floats, muscle sinks ☺
  • lickmybaconcakes
    lickmybaconcakes Posts: 1,063 Member
    density: fat 1.0kg/l and muscle 1.1kg/l

    so basically a kilogram is still a kilo but it's just spread out more in fat
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    A pound is a pound is a pound. But it is true that 1 pound of muscle takes up less space then 1 pound of fat. In order to get my clients to understand the difference I compare fat to tennis balls and muscle to super balls (you know those little balls that bounce all over the place). It's not an exact replica of the difference in size, but you get the idea. Which would you rather stuff in your pants, 30 tennis balls (fat) or 30 super balls (muscle). The muscle at equal weight will take up less space in your clothes. And for visual reference, here's an actual replica of 5 pounds of muscle and 5 pounds of fat so you can see the difference in space that it takes up.

    fat-v-muscle3.jpg
  • nannabannana
    nannabannana Posts: 780
    A pound is a pound is a pound. But it is true that 1 pound of muscle takes up less space then 1 pound of fat. In order to get my clients to understand the difference I compare fat to tennis balls and muscle to super balls (you know those little balls that bounce all over the place). It's not an exact replica of the difference in size, but you get the idea. Which would you rather stuff in your pants, 30 tennis balls (fat) or 30 super balls (muscle). The muscle at equal weight will take up less space in your clothes. And for visual reference, here's an actual replica of 5 pounds of muscle and 5 pounds of fat so you can see the difference in space that it takes up.

    fat-v-muscle3.jpg
    bump ..Very good...As long as my sizze is down to a 10 or 8...I am happy , but the writing , or the pic is on the wall.
  • MDawg81
    MDawg81 Posts: 244 Member
    No it does not weigh more, it weighs exactly the same but is denser and takes up less space!
    This.
  • MDawg81
    MDawg81 Posts: 244 Member
    A pound is a pound is a pound. But it is true that 1 pound of muscle takes up less space then 1 pound of fat. In order to get my clients to understand the difference I compare fat to tennis balls and muscle to super balls (you know those little balls that bounce all over the place). It's not an exact replica of the difference in size, but you get the idea. Which would you rather stuff in your pants, 30 tennis balls (fat) or 30 super balls (muscle). The muscle at equal weight will take up less space in your clothes. And for visual reference, here's an actual replica of 5 pounds of muscle and 5 pounds of fat so you can see the difference in space that it takes up.

    fat-v-muscle3.jpg
    And this.
  • llkilgore
    llkilgore Posts: 1,169 Member
    No it does not weigh more, it weighs exactly the same but is denser and takes up less space!

    It would be just as accurate to say that it takes up exactly the same amount of space but is denser and weighs more.
  • Contrarian
    Contrarian Posts: 8,138 Member
    I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks a pound of anything weighs more than a pound of anything else. When discussing weight, the "by volume" is implied. Otherwise, everything weighs the same, doesn't it?

    The short answer is yes. I have never seen anyone dispute whether or not concrete is heavier than feathers, because, as mentioned, the "by volume" is obvious. People seem to get all caught up in semantics with muscle vs. fat.
  • BigRich822
    BigRich822 Posts: 681
    No it does not weigh more, it weighs exactly the same but is denser and takes up less space!


    This is one hundred percent correct!!!
  • sun33082
    sun33082 Posts: 416 Member
    Maybe the saying should be "Muscle is smaller than fat" since people get so bent out of shape when you say it weighs more. But I'm sure someone will argue with that too.
  • denisembari
    denisembari Posts: 11
    TRUE. IT TAKES UP LESS VOLUME.
  • SofaKingRad
    SofaKingRad Posts: 1,592 Member
    Fales.
  • ladybarometer
    ladybarometer Posts: 205 Member
    A pound of fat and a pound of muscle weight the same, but if you put two blobs of both next to eachother, the muscle is going to be smaller, and take up less space.

    Thing of a pound of feathers and a pound of meat.. Your gonna have a ton of feathers, but only a small piece of meat - the meat being your muscle, and the feathers being your fat. Get it?
  • mfpcopine
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    Have you attempted to verify whether you've gained muscle by using a tape measure, a device that estimates body fat percentage, or an online calculator?
  • agthorn
    agthorn Posts: 1,844 Member
    Sigh. Both of the following statements are true:

    Muscle is heavier than fat (WEIGHS more), when volume is consistent.
    Muscle is more dense than fat (takes up less VOLUME), when weight is consistent.

    Thus, a cubic foot of muscle will WEIGH more than a cubic foot of fat; a pound of muscle will take up less VOLUME than a pound of fat. Middle school science class FTW.
  • SteveTries
    SteveTries Posts: 723 Member
    Pound of muscle burns 32 cals per day. Pound of fat burns 2 per day. Pick the one you would rather have.

    It's more like 6 Cals muscle and 2 Cals fat per lb. Muscle definately better, but losing 10lbs of fat and adding 10lbs of muscle nets you 40 Cals extra metabolism a day.

    Plenty of other benefits though!
  • Aleara2012
    Aleara2012 Posts: 225 Member
    Waiting for the "pound of muscle" weighs more than a "pound of fat" diva to chime in on this. You'd love her explanation.

    :D This had me in giggles! Thanks for the laugh! :D
  • melodymist
    melodymist Posts: 43 Member
    No it does not weigh more, it weighs exactly the same but is denser and takes up less space!

    Agree :)
  • Aleara2012
    Aleara2012 Posts: 225 Member
    Pound of muscle burns 32 cals per day. Pound of fat burns 2 per day. Pick the one you would rather have.

    It's more like 6 Cals muscle and 2 Cals fat per lb. Muscle definately better, but losing 10lbs of fat and adding 10lbs of muscle nets you 40 Cals extra metabolism a day.

    Plenty of other benefits though!

    I know your opinion on that subject ;) and just need to poke the bear :P

    Looking at those 40 cals a day is a bit short-sighted, don't you think? We humans, if lucky, have a lifespan longer than an average mayfly... 40 cals/day * 365 days * 10 years = 146.000 calories (yeah I did not factor in leap years :P). There are approx 3500 cals in 1 pound, so that means if your calories intake is (only) 40 calories a day over your expenditure in 10 years you would gain approx 42 pounds (which is the case with most humans it would seem; gaining with age, that is, not gaining exactly 42 pounds)... Drop by drop as they say... ;)
  • SteveTries
    SteveTries Posts: 723 Member

    I know your opinion on that subject ;) and just need to poke the bear :P

    Looking at those 40 cals a day is a bit short-sighted, don't you think? We humans, if lucky, have a lifespan longer than an average mayfly... 40 cals/day * 365 days * 10 years = 146.000 calories (yeah I did not factor in leap years :P). There are approx 3500 cals in 1 pound, so that means if your calories intake is (only) 40 calories a day over your expenditure in 10 years you would gain approx 42 pounds (which is the case with most humans it would seem; gaining with age, that is, not gaining exactly 42 pounds)... Drop by drop as they say... ;)

    Ooh a debate - excellent :-)

    I do love the math and it's impossible to argue with your sums but in practical application there are several problems with it:

    1) 40 cals is c. 1.5% to 2% of a sedentary persons intake. Nutritional labels are allowed up to 20% deviation from those published on the packet to account for variability is source material. Attaining an exact figure for intake therefore is nigh on impossible and we have to rely on those averages to balance out. 40Cals is insignificant here.

    2) It's easier to eat half a cookie less per day to hit your target than spend 4 hours a week lifting to enable you to eat that target(but again, I am a lifting advocate, many other benefits, I'm just arguing your point)

    3) Caloric intake relation to fat storage isn't precisely binary. There isn't a summing up that is done at the end of the day when you are sleeping, it's going on every minute in the form of the balance of insulin and glucagon in your blood stream, and so the timing of the intake would have an effect. If the extra 40 cals were eaten alone, some hours after the previous meal you likely wouldn't have enough glucose to cause an insulin release from the pancreas and thus your body isn't in storage mode and you wouldn't gain a thing (of course if you ate it on top of a big meal it would be stored, but lets ignore that inconvenient fact).

    4) You body is hugely adaptive and your metabolism doesn't just adapt downwards when starved. Small uplifts occur also so perhaps your 40 extra will be adapted to.

    This is fun. Over to you!
  • Aleara2012
    Aleara2012 Posts: 225 Member
    I'll be back! (said in Arnold voice)

Categories