Muscle weighs more than fat (?!!!)

hahahahahahahaahahaha.........hahahahahahaha.......hahahahaha....jus tlike to add i weighed 195 at one point and still wore a size 38 pants....now weigh 190 and wear a 34................

Impossible, you weighed yourself with a scale!

It is true that muscle weighs the same as fat. One lb of muscle weighs the same as one lb of fat. The idea or reasoning behind people saying that maybe you are gaining muscle when you are working out but not losing weight is not a complete fallacy. People at relatively healthy weights doing p90x or other types of high intensity exercises gain muscle mass due to muscle hypertrophy and they can be burning fat at the same time. The end result is a change body composition where a person has a lower body fat percentage, leaner figure (due to muscle being more dense and taking less volume with the same weight) while maintaining the same weight.

Source of post: I'm a medical student with training in nutrition, graduated with BS in physiology with teaching experience in exercise physiology, kinesiology and physical training.

Beautifully put!

True.

A tape measure is a far better means of assessing fat loss.

Precisely -- because one pound of muscle takes up less space than one pound of fat. I think that's the real point here!

yeah, generally if you feel the need to point out that your not racist, you probably just said something racist lol

Wrong. Muscle DOES weigh more than fat. 1 cubic inch of muscle WEIGHS MORE than 1 cubic inch of fat. Period.

A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat which weighs the same as a pound of feathers and all those weigh the same as a pound of gold. However, they all have different densities so those four substances will take up much different volumes of space.

Wow four comments in and the OP's argument has already been completely destroyed. It would be so funny if it wasn't for the fact the original post is dripping with arrogance and condescension.

I know everyone has different feelings about the importance of getting this accurate.

Personally, I agree that saying muscle weighs more than fat does lead to misunderstandings because people just think being at a higher weight automatically means more muscle than a lower weight. It could mean that for a couple of different reasons, but not for the weight factor alone.

Muscle is smaller than fat is a simple way of saying it (since people like simple) that conveys it more accurately.

I know everyone has different feelings about the importance of getting this accurate.

Respectfully--I think the whole muscle versus fat thing is a red herring. The OP wanted to air personal misconceptions about black athletes. That's the real agenda on the table. He ironically references the effects of societal brainwashing after making the most absurd conclusion--based on what? hatred...I think. And then attempts to rationalize by explaining that he is not a bigot--while remaining hidden under a blank avatar--

How courageous is it --to make those kind of inflammatory assertions under cover?
.
Even the KKK have taken off the hoods.

This topic comes up often.

Of all the myths and misunderstandings about exercise and weight loss , this is the daftest and most stupid of all!

One pound of muscle = one pound of fat.
One kilogram of muscle = one kilogram of fat.

The amateur (professionally unqualified and self-proclaimed) 'experts' then say.....
"Yes, but muscle is denser than..... fat by volume". True.

But since when do bathroom scales measure humans by 'density' and 'volume'?



The truth originally comes from a laboratory-based method of assessing body composition called 'hydrostatic weighing'.
A person to be assessed would be immersed in a water tank, suspended in a cradle' and then weighed. The displacement of water would also be assessed. Scientific calculations would then determine the person's body composition.

So. if two people of equal weight (on bathroom scales) were assessed by this method, the person with greater muscle mass would appear to weigh more.....under water..... than the person with a higher proportion of body fat. (Body fat means greater buoyancy).

It isn't daft or stupid to compare the weight of two different items by volume...in fact, it's something we do by default in all our measurements. It's why we can say that a feather is light and a brick is heavy. Think about all the times we talk about any measurement - body weight for instance. If you told me you weighed 200 lbs, and that another person also weighed 200 lbs, then I could accurately conclude that 200 lbs = 200 lbs, but saying that would not tell you anything you didn't already know. You already know that a lb is a lb, just like an inch is an inch. Saying that something is itself does not inform us. It's by comparing weight in terms of another specified quantity being measured - like inches of height, or cubic inches of volume - that the definition has meaning.
People who exercise intensely and tear their muscles will retain water as the body repairs the tissue. They are not gaining muscle mass right away - that takes a very long time, and is impossible for most people under a calorie deficit. But they are retaining water, which also has weight. Many will notice that a great deal of weight comes off after a single rest day and even more after two rest days if they have been eating right. Note - exercise is important to retain muscle mass when you lose weight - you will end up losing muscle as you lose weight if you don't do resistance exercise. It's not all about the scale..., just about health and body composition.
It isn't a myth that x cubic inches of muscle weighs more than x cubic inches fat any more than it's a myth that someone who weighs 200 lbs at 6'4 has a healthier BMI than someone who weighs the same at 5'3. Cubic inches on the one hand, inches on the other, but the same concept - it's the concept of weight as compared through a given quantity of inches.
So if two people who both started to lose weight with 35% body fat both ended up at the same goal weight, and one did strength training while the other lost weight without exercise, one might have 22% body fat and the other might have 29% - because exercise helps retain the muscle mass you have, and a person who has more muscle will have less fat than another person all other factors being the same(age, weight, gender, height). Because muscle takes up less space than fat per lb, the two people otherwise identical and at the same height and weight would not be the same size - the one who did exercise would be smaller.

I know everyone has different feelings about the importance of getting this accurate.

Respectfully--I think the whole muscle versus fat thing is a red herring. The OP wanted to air personal misconceptions about black athletes. That's the real agenda on the table. He ironically references the effects of societal brainwashing after making the most absurd conclusion--based on what? hatred...I think. And then attempts to rationalize by explaining that he is not a bigot--while remaining hidden under a blank avatar--

How courageous is it --to make those kind of inflammatory assertions under cover?
.
Even the KKK have taken off the hoods.

Oh, I didn't read the Op or the comments. I just read the title and figured it was the same old same old.