Muscle weighs more then fat?
Options
Replies
-
I have always looked like I weigh less than I actually do. Perhaps it is because I am tall (5'7 1/2") or perhaps because I have long legs or perhaps because I too have a muscular frame. I'm not really sure but I'm thankful for it!
In terms of the weight loss with exercise and food weighing - I have found that I do have to weigh and measure out my food to have accuracy in logging. After a while I get good at judging how much I'm eating based on eyeballing it but every so often have to go back to weighing and measuring because the portions inevitably get larger over time. So I would recommend that you do that especially at the beginning.
For me, I can get down to a certain weight pretty easily but to get below that is incredibly difficult. In order to not lose faith, I started measuring myself. I've noticed that once I get to that weight that it's hard to get below, I can track progress through my measurements better. It will take me forever to lose an additional 2 lbs but much less time to lose inches.
You could try that and see if that's what's happening with you. It could be that is the case for us muscular by nature gals. Good Luck!0 -
False, she is spot on. Most people understand the concept but some people are just anal about the wording of the phrase.This drives me crazy. Everyone knows what everyone else is saying here. Everyone is correct. "Per unit volume" is implied when people say muscle weighs more than fat and the unit of volume everyone is talking about is the human body.
I feel like people just argue about this to pontificate.
You couldn't be more wrong
To the OP:
If you are doing Insanity than you should also me taking measurements. You might not notice a lot of difference after only a couple weeks but you will. If you are on a calorie deficit I'm sure you are losing something. Insanity will definitely make you retain water for a while. Could be how often you are weighing yourself, my weight fluctuates 5lbs +/- on any given day, so I just go by the overall trend. Depends on what you are eating too, things like sodium, alcohol, and carbs will do weird things to your weight regardless of calorie counting.0 -
1lb muscle =1lb fat sorry....
1lb Muscle may take up less space tho...
Muscle doesn't take up less space because 1 cubic inch of muscle = 1 cubic inch of fat.
All other variable being equal is implied in the statement. The same volume of muscle will weigh more than the same volume of fat, thus muscle weighs more than fat.
Unless one of them is on the moon.
No, muscle is more dense. A lb of muscle = a lb of fat, but takes up less volume or space.0 -
ugh. this is such a pet peeve of mine.
a pound is a pound. how can you possibly argue otherwise?!
a calories is a calorie. not all calories are equal. a piece of fruit and better than a candy bar of equal calories.
MUSCLE TAKES UP LESS SPACE THAN FAT, IT DOES NOT WEIGH LESS.0 -
I agree. Though someone anal about the wording would realize that the OP never said anything about a POUND of anything, so the canned response of "a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat, sorry" just makes them look douchey.
False, she is spot on. Most people understand the concept but some people are just anal about the wording of the phrase.This drives me crazy. Everyone knows what everyone else is saying here. Everyone is correct. "Per unit volume" is implied when people say muscle weighs more than fat and the unit of volume everyone is talking about is the human body.
I feel like people just argue about this to pontificate.
You couldn't be more wrong0 -
I agree. Though someone anal about the wording would realize that the OP never said anything about a POUND of anything, so the canned response of "a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat, sorry" just makes them look douchey.
False, she is spot on. Most people understand the concept but some people are just anal about the wording of the phrase.This drives me crazy. Everyone knows what everyone else is saying here. Everyone is correct. "Per unit volume" is implied when people say muscle weighs more than fat and the unit of volume everyone is talking about is the human body.
I feel like people just argue about this to pontificate.
You couldn't be more wrong
wow..so being detailed oriented makes me look douchey...good to know.
The misnomer is that if someone is "overweight" or "not Losing" it's because they have lots of Muscle or are building it which usually 99.9999999999% of the time if false...
When someone says muscle weighs more than fat the OCD in me screams...no it doesn't because I take words at face value.
*takes her douchey self to lunch*0 -
Let me sum this up for everyone. It's really just how you choose to interpret it.ugh. this is such a pet peeve of mine.
a pound is a pound. how can you possibly argue otherwise?!
a calories is a calorie. not all calories are equal. a piece of fruit and better than a candy bar of equal calories.
MUSCLE TAKES UP LESS SPACE THAN FAT, IT DOES NOT WEIGH LESS.
1. A cubic inch of muscle weighs more than a cubic inch of fat, therefore muscle weighs more than fat. This is what is generally implied.
2. A lb of anything weighs the same as a lb of anything else, duh. Stop saying it, it doesn't mean rocks weigh the same as feathers.
3. A lb of muscle will be smaller than a lb of fat, because muscle is more dense than fat.
4. This is why it is important to take measurements and figure out your body fat %. If you stay the same weight but decrease your body fat % you will be smaller. Why? Because muscle is more dense than fat.0 -
I agree. Though someone anal about the wording would realize that the OP never said anything about a POUND of anything, so the canned response of "a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat, sorry" just makes them look douchey.
False, she is spot on. Most people understand the concept but some people are just anal about the wording of the phrase.This drives me crazy. Everyone knows what everyone else is saying here. Everyone is correct. "Per unit volume" is implied when people say muscle weighs more than fat and the unit of volume everyone is talking about is the human body.
I feel like people just argue about this to pontificate.
You couldn't be more wrong
wow..so being detailed oriented makes me look douchey...good to know.
The misnomer is that if someone is "overweight" or "not Losing" it's because they have lots of Muscle or are building it which usually 99.9999999999% of the time if false...
When someone says muscle weighs more than fat the OCD in me screams...no it doesn't because I take words at face value.
*takes her douchey self to lunch*
Yeah, you better change that on your resume too, from "detail-oriented" to "douchey." :laugh:0 -
Detail oriented? Do you weigh more than other people you know? By your logic, no, because a pound of you weighs the same as a pound of anyone else.0
-
False, she is spot on. Most people understand the concept but some people are just anal about the wording of the phrase.This drives me crazy. Everyone knows what everyone else is saying here. Everyone is correct. "Per unit volume" is implied when people say muscle weighs more than fat and the unit of volume everyone is talking about is the human body.
I feel like people just argue about this to pontificate.
You couldn't be more wrong
Please tell me you heard a "whooshing" noise overhead when you clicked the "post reply" button.0 -
Here's my 2¢ to the original question "Why don't I see weight loss while doing exercise even though I'm eating at a deficit?"
Muscle has a lot to do with this! You exercise and you will gain muscle, you will lose fat & gain muscle, so the scale isn't the best way to track your progress. Instead, you should take measurements around your body to see how things are going.
Personally, I try to workout 5-6 days a week (Tapout XT 1&2, Insanity, P90X, etc). I eat at a deficit and when I'm doing really good, I may drop a total of 4-5 lbs in a month even though myfitnesspal says that I should have dropped 10-15. However, my waist & chest both shrunk about 2 inches each while my biceps and neck were actually growing.
I then stopped working out during the holidays (due to crazy scheduling & activities) and ate way too much. During that 6 week hiatus, my waist grew about 2 inches, but my weight dropped about 5 lbs. That net 5lbs lost was muscle because getting back into my exercise routines, I had definitely lost a step. My body type is such that I gain muscle mass easily, but I also easily lose it if I don't maintain it.
So, moral of the story - don't try to track your progress just on the scale. Take measurements also. Pictures too.
BTW, my scale also tracks body fat. While over the process of a few weeks, I may drop a few pounds, during the same time my body fat % will drop 2-4%, so I know I am making progress.0 -
Muscle has a lot to do with this! You exercise and you will gain muscle, you will lose fat & gain muscle, so the scale isn't the best way to track your progress. Instead, you should take measurements around your body to see how things are going.
No.0 -
Detail oriented? Do you weigh more than other people you know? By your logic, no, because a pound of you weighs the same as a pound of anyone else.
what????:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: please tell me you are being a smart *kitten* please.
that's not my logic that isn't even logical....let alone detail oriented...
1lb=1lb=1lb=1lb doesn't matter how many of those units a person has...1lb=1lb
The fact I have 162.5lbs means that I have 162.5 equal units of weight that being 1lb...
And the fact my sister weighs 126lbs means she has 126 equal units of weight being 1lb...
See logic...0 -
Detail oriented? Do you weigh more than other people you know? By your logic, no, because a pound of you weighs the same as a pound of anyone else.
what????:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: please tell me you are being a smart *kitten* please.
that's not my logic that isn't even logical....let alone detail oriented...
1lb=1lb=1lb=1lb doesn't matter how many of those units a person has...1lb=1lb
The fact I have 162.5lbs means that I have 162.5 equal units of weight that being 1lb...
And the fact my sister weighs 126lbs means she has 126 equal units of weight being 1lb...
See logic...
Here's the thing. The statement "Muscle weighs more than fat" doesn't say anything about equal amounts of anything. It doesn't specify how much muscle weighs more than how much fat, how many pounds we're talking about, how many cubic inches. You can make the statement true or false depending on which variables you assume remain constant. Most of us choose to believe that volume is implied to be the same, thus making the statement true. Following it up with "1 lb = 1 lb" makes the statement false by implying that weight is the variable that's the same in the comparison, not volume. It's a pedantic argument on both sides, but for many of us the statement 1 lb = 1 lb is as incongruous as saying that it's false because one of them could be on the moon. It's changing the goal posts.
On the other hand, the statement "you weigh less than me" comes with other constant variables. Our volumes are different and there's no way around that. If you take volume out of the argument, as you did above with the muscle/fat debate, then it boils down to the same idea. 1 lb of me = 1 pound of you, unless our volumes are different.
If you change which variables count and which ones don't then no comparison statement has any meaning. Muscle weighs more than fat if their volumes are equal. You weigh less than me if our volumes remain constant.* If you don't like the way the statement is phrased, then follow it up with a comment about volumes being equal or density being different or whatever, but 1 lb = 1 lb makes the whole debate fall apart.
*Assuming that all things are in the same gravity.0 -
If you take two people of the same height and weight, and put them side by side, they're going to have different body compositions. Depending on how much fat vs. muscle they have.0
-
Detail oriented? Do you weigh more than other people you know? By your logic, no, because a pound of you weighs the same as a pound of anyone else.
what????:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: please tell me you are being a smart *kitten* please.
that's not my logic that isn't even logical....let alone detail oriented...
1lb=1lb=1lb=1lb doesn't matter how many of those units a person has...1lb=1lb
The fact I have 162.5lbs means that I have 162.5 equal units of weight that being 1lb...
And the fact my sister weighs 126lbs means she has 126 equal units of weight being 1lb...
See logic...
Here's the thing. The statement "Muscle weighs more than fat" doesn't say anything about equal amounts of anything. It doesn't specify how much muscle weighs more than how much fat, how many pounds we're talking about, how many cubic inches. You can make the statement true or false depending on which variables you assume remain constant. Most of us choose to believe that volume is implied to be the same, thus making the statement true. Following it up with "1 lb = 1 lb" makes the statement false by implying that weight is the variable that's the same in the comparison, not volume. It's a pedantic argument on both sides, but for many of us the statement 1 lb = 1 lb is as incongruous as saying that it's false because one of them could be on the moon. It's changing the goal posts.
On the other hand, the statement "you weigh less than me" comes with other constant variables. Our volumes are different and there's no way around that. If you take volume out of the argument, as you did above with the muscle/fat debate, then it boils down to the same idea. 1 lb of me = 1 pound of you, unless our volumes are different.
If you change which variables count and which ones don't then no comparison statement has any meaning. Muscle weighs more than fat if their volumes are equal. You weigh less than me if our volumes remain constant.* If you don't like the way the statement is phrased, then follow it up with a comment about volumes being equal or density being different or whatever, but 1 lb = 1 lb makes the whole debate fall apart.
*Assuming that all things are in the same gravity.
the bolded word means what it weighs...period not the volumn of it...
Volume being the amount of space taken up by something has nothing to do with that statment on it's face, it is on in the "assumptions" made
So there is no variables in my world when someone says muscle weighs more then fat...
I don't assume what they mean I take the words period...and my statement 1lb of muscle takes up less space is true...by volumn
But I am not going to argue the semantics of the statement or the variables that could be implied any further it could go on forever.
I am still too busy laughing at the "logic"0 -
IDk I weigh 3blbs more than when i started working out again 2 weeks ago and my swim shorts that I could barely fit my *kitten* in from last summer fit better already. I don't even have to double knot them.0
-
Detail oriented? Do you weigh more than other people you know? By your logic, no, because a pound of you weighs the same as a pound of anyone else.
what????:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: please tell me you are being a smart *kitten* please.
that's not my logic that isn't even logical....let alone detail oriented...
1lb=1lb=1lb=1lb doesn't matter how many of those units a person has...1lb=1lb
The fact I have 162.5lbs means that I have 162.5 equal units of weight that being 1lb...
And the fact my sister weighs 126lbs means she has 126 equal units of weight being 1lb...
See logic...
Here's the thing. The statement "Muscle weighs more than fat" doesn't say anything about equal amounts of anything. It doesn't specify how much muscle weighs more than how much fat, how many pounds we're talking about, how many cubic inches. You can make the statement true or false depending on which variables you assume remain constant. Most of us choose to believe that volume is implied to be the same, thus making the statement true. Following it up with "1 lb = 1 lb" makes the statement false by implying that weight is the variable that's the same in the comparison, not volume. It's a pedantic argument on both sides, but for many of us the statement 1 lb = 1 lb is as incongruous as saying that it's false because one of them could be on the moon. It's changing the goal posts.
On the other hand, the statement "you weigh less than me" comes with other constant variables. Our volumes are different and there's no way around that. If you take volume out of the argument, as you did above with the muscle/fat debate, then it boils down to the same idea. 1 lb of me = 1 pound of you, unless our volumes are different.
If you change which variables count and which ones don't then no comparison statement has any meaning. Muscle weighs more than fat if their volumes are equal. You weigh less than me if our volumes remain constant.* If you don't like the way the statement is phrased, then follow it up with a comment about volumes being equal or density being different or whatever, but 1 lb = 1 lb makes the whole debate fall apart.
*Assuming that all things are in the same gravity.
the bolded word means what it weighs...period not the volumn of it...
Volume being the amount of space taken up by something has nothing to do with that statment on it's face, it is on in the "assumptions" made
So there is no variables in my world when someone says muscle weighs more then fat...
I don't assume what they mean I take the words period...and my statement 1lb of muscle takes up less space is true...by volumn
But I am not going to argue the semantics of the statement or the variables that could be implied any further it could go on forever.
I am still too busy laughing at the "logic"
I'm stealing this analogy from a very smart friend on here.
If someone said to you "Gold costs more than tinfoil" would you correct them because $1 = $1 and start an argument about it, or would you just agree because you know that they're talking about cost per unit weight?0 -
Sarcasm is tough to spot on the internets sometimes. Plus, I'm slow.
False, she is spot on. Most people understand the concept but some people are just anal about the wording of the phrase.This drives me crazy. Everyone knows what everyone else is saying here. Everyone is correct. "Per unit volume" is implied when people say muscle weighs more than fat and the unit of volume everyone is talking about is the human body.
I feel like people just argue about this to pontificate.
You couldn't be more wrong
Please tell me you heard a "whooshing" noise overhead when you clicked the "post reply" button.0 -
I'm stealing this analogy from a very smart friend on here.
If someone said to you "Gold costs more than tinfoil" would you correct them because $1 = $1 and start an argument about it, or would you just agree because you know that they're talking about cost per unit weight?
I don't feel that analogy works here...gold cost vs tinfoil cost?
When someone says the word weighs more it means weight...not volume...
If someone says takes up less space that means volume....not weight...
devil is in the details..you will have to excuse my OCT0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions