Muscle weighs more then fat?
Replies
-
Haha.....can of worms.
Yes, muscle does weigh more than fat, by volume.
However, this won't stop you losing weight. It's physically impossible to gain any weight (muscle or fat) at deficit. So, if you're not losing, you're not eating at deficit.
This is either because you have miscalculated either your BMR or activity level, or both or you are not logging accurately.
Maybe you can explain this United States Sports Academy study looking at the effects of strength training and aerobic exercise on body composition in a group of overweight (27% body fat) men then: http://muscleevo.net/calorie-deficit/#.Uugz8z3nZR0
I am linking to that article, as I am going to guess you do not have a membership at the publisher site, nor a desire to purchase the study.
Please note the points: "Firstly, the men taking part in the study were beginners, who tend to make rapid gains in muscle mass when they start training with weights.
They were also overweight (bordering on obese) with a lot of fat to lose. Take someone who is untrained AND extremely overweight (which these men were) and they’ll often drop relatively large amounts of fat while gaining muscle at the same time."0 -
So I have always been really solid...muscular with some fat. And I weigh a lot more then I look. Could this be a reason why I haven't seen the scale going down? I've been eating a calorie deficit. The first 2 1/2 weeks I started insanity and was too intense so I switch to t25 and the last 2 weeks I've been going to the gym 6 days a week doing about 30-45 on the treadmill and then doing another 45 mins weights. Yesterday I started doing t25 again in the morning and then going to the gym in the evening. Still haven't really noticed any results or weight loss...help!
Too bad the title of your thread has everyone on a stupid tangent - (I weigh the same as the earth because 1lb me = 1 lb earth. Derp.)
Anyway, I'll try to focus on your questions:
Most likely, after a few weeks this has little to do with muscle or fat. Intense new exercise results in edema to repair the tissue and to store glycogen. This edema is mostly water and salts and creates a weight masking effect. You can wait, and the weight will drop. Want to test it?
Take one day with little bread or other carbs and the next day, you'll drop a pound or two.
Or, since it is two weeks, it could be TOM, undigested food, etc... Give it time.
And on the exercise front, relax that a little, give yourself time to become used to it and avoid injury - 3-4 days of exercise a week is sufficient when starting. Take a long term view of what is practicable.
Was going to give some advice but this guy pretty much summed up everything I was going to say. Still too early, glycogen, water, menstrual cycle, etc. Also agree with the relaxing a bit. Sounds like you may be over training a bit. If you do that and don't eat enough, you'll have a harder time losing. Eat at a small deficit and take your time.0 -
in terms of density of mass, yes, muscle weighs more than fat. it takes up less space as a result.
and you CAN flatline your weight, or even gain EVEN IF you are eating in a deficit because WEIGHT does NOT equal FAT!
there is also water, muscle and bone. bone would change most slowly but could add density through fitness and diet, thus MINOR weight impact. muscle is probably the next slowest ... water? that can change hugely day to day or even hour to hour in some cases. and dramatically! or not. you could steadily carry a few pounds of water for long periods of time, or you can gain and lose it quickly, depending on the reason for it. i have plateaued for weeks because of water and i have gained/lost 9 lbs in a week because of water (i had just started intense workouts again). water will MESS you up!
i know i didn't have to relose that fat because while tracking my actual weight, i also tracked a 2-lb per week theoretical loss to see how well they aligned. in the end, after 6 months, they match perfectly now. the fat was steady losing 2 lbs. a week but the wild water fluctuations made me think i was stalling, gaining and having to relose the same weight over and over.
hope that helps! 0 -
So I have always been really solid...muscular with some fat. And I weigh a lot more then I look. Could this be a reason why I haven't seen the scale going down? I've been eating a calorie deficit. The first 2 1/2 weeks I started insanity and was too intense so I switch to t25 and the last 2 weeks I've been going to the gym 6 days a week doing about 30-45 on the treadmill and then doing another 45 mins weights. Yesterday I started doing t25 again in the morning and then going to the gym in the evening. Still haven't really noticed any results or weight loss...help!
Well as others have said a pound is a pound. But a pound of fat takes up more room than a pound of muscle, because it's less dense.
Lets get another thing to get out of the way first. You haven't put on pounds of muscle in a couple weeks. I wish that were possible but it's not. There's a good expression: You lose fat by pounds and gain muscle in ounces.
Two weeks huh? I'm not sure we can tell how big a deal this is unless we know how big your deficit is and how often you weigh in.
Think of it this way, lets say you're set up to lose 1 pound a week. And you weigh in every Monday.
At the start you're...lets just say 145. Fast forward a week and you weigh yourself again and it still says 145.
Does this mean you have not lost weight? No. It means you might not have lose weight.
If you weighted in every morning your might see something like this:
145,
145.5,
144.2,
146,
144,5,
142.8,
144,
145
It looks like you lost nothing if you just look at the first and last days. But if you average the first four days it's ~145,1, and if you average the last four days it's ~144. There's the pound you lost. Hidden in the statistical noise of normal weight fluctuation.
(And if you made the mistake of comparing any two consecutive days you might think you gained or lost 1-3 pounds in 24 hours.)
If you like data, weigh in all the time, graph it and figure out what your week-to-week trend is.
If you want it easy, weigh in at a long enough interval that the weight you probably lost is greater than any likely fluctuation. Like maybe on the first of every month.0 -
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
Personally, I could care less.
0 -
Yes, muscle does weigh more than fat. I keep track of "weight" BUT the most crucial thing you can do is measure yourself. I've lost 32 lbs and 10 inches off my waist. (among other places but all girlies are usually worried about their waist!) The best thing to do is to keep a BALANCED diet based on YOUR body. Don't do all those crazy diets, they DON'T work! I've been doing this for years, I've yo-yo'd for years! Protien, veggies, and whole grains. Don't deprive yourself of anything, your body NEEDS carbs & fats just as much as it needs protein & veggies. Just keep your blood sugar levels normal and the inches will come off. Try reading through a book called "Sugar Busters" it gives you a good jumping off point and gives you the science behind it as well. Good Luck!!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.
1lb of muscle takes up a hell of a lot less space than 1lb of fat, hence my statement 1lb of muscle takes up less space
that is where that misleading statement comes from...muscle weighs more than fat...
ETA: I don't speak code I read the words and assume that is what people meant....I don't infer anything other than what the words actually mean...hence my clarification when I said what I did...nothing implied.0 -
Well a pound of muscle and a pound of fat both weigh the same. 1 pound. But the pound of fat is 5X's larger than the pound of muscle.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.
Although you are right about a pound is a pound is a pound, one pound of muscle is smaller and takes up less space than one pound of fat. Therefore as you lose fat and gain muscle you will go down in size or inches but the scale doesn't move.
Think of it as one pound of feathers is massive, while one pound of sand is much smaller. Get it?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.
Thank goodness for you!
The bottom line is, MUSCLE WEIGHS MORE THAN FAT in equal sized amounts. Please stop being such idiots and splitting hairs. Obviously a pound of one thing weighs the same as a pound of something else.
I really fail to grasp why people are such utter pr*cks about this.
MUSCLE WEIGHS MORE THAN FAT. The end.
Unless one of them is on the moon.0 -
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
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions