For those working out and not seeing the scales move...

SarahScales
SarahScales Posts: 34
in Fitness and Exercise
I thought this might be an interesting perspective for all the lovely men and women out there who are kicking *kitten* at the gym but not seeing the results on the scales...

yudCd.jpg

Replies

  • melissarina
    melissarina Posts: 113 Member
    That's an awesome, yet gross, picture! Thanks for that! :D

    I took my measurements so if I don't lose weight this month, I'll be able to check if I've lost cm.
  • SarahScales
    SarahScales Posts: 34
    Yeah, I thought it was pretty interesting actually...
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    yep, this proves what i always thought. muscle weighs exactly the same as fat. they both weigh 5 pounds. thanks for posting
  • Belliny
    Belliny Posts: 66
    that just seriously changed the way i see that number in the scale..thank you!
  • kristine_02
    kristine_02 Posts: 5 Member
    This is great! Thanks!
  • cdiele
    cdiele Posts: 34 Member
    Puts things in perspective! Thanks for posting
  • sophie_wr
    sophie_wr Posts: 194 Member
    I'm so depressed to not see the scale moving and I do lots of sport, so thanks for this picture !!!!
  • charelg
    charelg Posts: 599 Member
    Thanks!
  • DopeItUp
    DopeItUp Posts: 18,771 Member
    yep, this proves what i always thought. muscle weighs exactly the same as fat. they both weigh 5 pounds. thanks for posting

    I disagree, the picture is photoshopped. Muscle clearly weighs more.
  • EmmaJade706
    EmmaJade706 Posts: 39 Member
    This has made me feel tons better
  • Janelle173
    Janelle173 Posts: 396 Member
    i always have loved this comparison. Thank you for the reminder!! LOVE seeing this. I was going to buy the stuff myself as a constant reminder, but those things are expensive! lol
  • StinkyWinkies
    StinkyWinkies Posts: 603 Member
    WOW...that explains the saggy britches going on w/my new pants with the hours of walking I do then...yes? (i hope, please?)
  • AggieFan2011
    AggieFan2011 Posts: 551 Member
    Thank you for posting this! I tend to forget how much that affects the numbers on the scale. I need to remember that measurements are definitely a more accurate way to tell how much progress I have made.
  • kdeaux1959
    kdeaux1959 Posts: 2,675 Member
    The picture on the right looks so much better than that on the left. I can somewhat testify to this effect... In 1985, I lost weight froma bout 260 (wore a size 46 pants I seem to recall) and lost down to 170 lbs by eating a very low calorie diet while exercising greatly... for some reason, though I went beyond the measure that most recommended, I was not gaining strength even though I exercised every muscle DAILY... (Ok,... like DUH).... (I was 25 and knew everything... I have reversed those numbers now..)... When I got to 170, I was a slender build and wore a size 34 pants (standard fit)..... Fast Forward to 2012. I started out at 344 wearing a LOOSE FIT 48.. and some of these were getting tight... (I had this thing about refusing to buy size 50 or above..) SOOO, I finally started to do things about it... TODAY, I have lost about 113 lbs... I am in a size 34 LOOSE FIT pant (I realize it is a bit more generous than the standard 34s though honestly, I do have a pair of standard 34s I CAN wear (I do believe that just because you CAN don't mean you SHOULD)... Not quite there yet. However, I currently weigh 231 lbs... In other words, I can wear the same pair of pants at 231 lbs as I did when I was 170 lbs! The main difference is that I eat plenty of protein, work out regularly but rest my muscle groups and have gained some solid muscle.. I have GAINED strength this time around rather than losing it... Hence, what you are saying is exactly correct... Muscle weighs more per cubic inch and hence will take up less space. I also no longer really look at the weight charts that closely (OK, I am somewhat OCD about staying below 240 since that is technically "Obese" and I really don't want to hit that number again.. However, I am much more concerned about BODY FAT PERCENTAGE... (Of course if I were 240 with a BF% of 10% I would certainly live with that, gladly... ) (I am currently probably about 20-25% so I still have a ways to go but it is all progress.

    In short 1985, size 34 @ 170 lbs, 2012 size 34 @ 231... I'll take the latter. You are exactly correct.
  • Cjoseph03
    Cjoseph03 Posts: 107 Member
    bump for later
  • SarahScales
    SarahScales Posts: 34
    Glad you all enjoyed it :)

Categories