Fat vs Muscle

flynabster
flynabster Posts: 87 Member
edited September 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
Why does everyone, or most everyone, say that muscle weighs more than fat?
A pound is a pound....the only thing I can see is perhaps muscle adds more bulk.....

So, convince me if I'm wrong.... :smile:

Replies

  • TaneeisFitforLife
    TaneeisFitforLife Posts: 433 Member
    That drives me crazy too lol

    I think someone combined density & weight said that phrase...people try to justify a weight increase or staying the same and "maybe you gained muscle...muscle weighs more than fat" response was born lol
  • Ely82010
    Ely82010 Posts: 1,998 Member
    Yes, a pound of muscle weights as much as a pound of fat. However, fat takes "more room," so you will look and feel skinny loosing fat and building muscle instead. Besides, muscles mas will help increase your metabolism, but fat will not.

    Loose the fat with proper eating and exercise, and the muscles will eventually show up.
  • YeaILift
    YeaILift Posts: 580 Member
    Muscle is more dense than fat.

    fat-v-muscle.jpg
  • lefrance12
    lefrance12 Posts: 131 Member
    :bigsmile: and there you have it!! Nice Pic!!
  • SarahNicole317
    SarahNicole317 Posts: 302 Member
    You're right, comparing in regards to weight doesn't really make sense. But if all things were equal and we were looking at fat and muscle taking up the same amount of space then yes it would weigh more.

    I'm an example of that... check out my before and afters... same weight, different composition.

    http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/fargy317/
  • jbug100
    jbug100 Posts: 406 Member
    By volume, the muscle weighs more than fat. A cubic foot of mucsle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat. Mucsle however is more dense and occupies less space, so 1 pound of muscle occupies much less space than a pound of fat. Get it?
  • CakeFit21
    CakeFit21 Posts: 2,521 Member
    It drives me crazy when people say that. I always say muscle takes up less space than fat as that pic illustrates. I guess it's the main reason why measurements are so much more important than the number on the scale.
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    It's meant to be in relation to the amount of space it takes up. Yeah, a pound is a pound on the scale, but if you look at a pound of fat it takes up more space in your body then a pound of muscle. So, someone who is heavier but mostly comprised of muscle can be smaller then someone who is lighter but mostly comprised of fat. My sister and I are a great example. I weight about 200 pounds but am in a size 8-10 and she weights 160 but is in a size 18-20. I have a much lower body fat percentage then she does and those pounds of fat more then make up the space of my extra pounds in muscle. I'm just thankful we aren't all comprised of feathers. Can you imagine how big our pants would have to be to hold in the equivalent of our weights in feathers?
  • flynabster
    flynabster Posts: 87 Member
    By volume, the muscle weighs more than fat. A cubic foot of mucsle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat. Mucsle however is more dense and occupies less space, so 1 pound of muscle occupies much less space than a pound of fat. Get it?

    Get it!!! lol
    And I understand that some people have leaner bodies but weigh just as much and someone who is over weight....and I understand the whole volume thing...

    It just drives me nuts saying one weighs more than the other..... :smile:
  • PJilly
    PJilly Posts: 23,071 Member
    I'm just thankful we aren't all comprised of feathers. Can you imagine how big our pants would have to be to hold in the equivalent of our weights in feathers?
    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
This discussion has been closed.

Categories