Realistically how much does muscle weigh?

Options
PoesyP
PoesyP Posts: 37 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I'm not body building or deliberately aiming for bulk, but I do have genetically hearty kind of physique where I gain muscle very easily and I do plenty of exercise, so I know I'll be looking at a heavier weight than average. I'm a million miles from my goal weight but I'd like to get an idea of what a realistic goal weight ought to be.

So does anyone know how much difference there is weightwise between an ordinary person and a person with a muscular physique? If I were to reckon an average woman of my height ought to weigh about 125, could I add on an extra 7? 10? to allow for the fact I'm going to have more muscle than that "average woman"?

Replies

  • Return_of_the_Big_Mac
    Return_of_the_Big_Mac Posts: 474 Member
    Options
    Muscle "weights" the same as fat. However, it is denser than fat which means that someone who is fit and has the same dimensions (waist, height, etc.) is going to be heavier if they are more muscular than if they were flabby.
  • jimmmer
    jimmmer Posts: 3,515 Member
    Options
    Too many factors: bone density, glycogen stores, connective tissue, etc.... plus we are constantly taking on and dropping water weight.

    You should aim for a body comp you are happy with when you start to get near where you want to be. The scale starts to get meaningless as a measure of anything once you lean out...
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    http://jap.physiology.org/content/89/1/81
    Men had significantly (P < 0.001) more SM in comparison to women in both absolute terms (33.0 vs. 21.0 kg) and relative to body mass (38.4 vs. 30.6%). The gender differences were greater in the upper (40%) than lower (33%) body (P < 0.01)

    F1.medium.gif
  • PoesyP
    PoesyP Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    Yeah, I know all that, but I'm looking for a rough guide for where to aim at.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    the error bars give a clue - 3 kg / 6.5 lbs above the mean ?

    ETA plenty of scatter graphs in the link for you to see where you sit
  • PoesyP
    PoesyP Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    thank's Yarwell - your other post popped in while I was replying to the first ones - I'm off to have a good look now.
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,420 Member
    Options
    I think it's best to simplify it. I'm at around 170 right now and 25% body fat. My goal is to end up at 175 with 20% body fat. There's an max amount of muscle you can gain and that's really the only limit.

    Figure out your current muscle mass and figure out what you'll weigh if you preserve that mass while getting to an appropriate % body fat for your sex and age. You won't gain much additional muscle at a deficit, so that's a good starting point. Then start hanging out in the Gaining Weight forum to get a sense of how this works.
  • Muscles_and_lipstick
    Muscles_and_lipstick Posts: 589 Member
    Options
    How tall are you and what is your wrist measurement? I'm 5`10"' with a med/large frame. My goal weight is set at 150, but I will probably be ok at 180 if I keep packing on muscle. It all really depends. Honestly the worst thing you can do is go by scale weight hun....take measurements.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    Yeah, I know all that, but I'm looking for a rough guide for where to aim at.
    I would aim for the highest weight that would put you in 'healthy/normal' BMI and adjust from there.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,709 Member
    Options
    Find out what your lean mass is now. Dexa, Bod Pod are decent measurement tools. DON'T rely on hand held/scale bio impedance readers.

    Once you know your lean mass, figure out what body fat percentage you want to be and use the formula

    Lean mass/ 1 minus desired body fat percentage

    IE: wants to be 25% body fat (normal)

    Lean mass is 120lbs

    120/.75 = 160lb goal weight.


    And it's not EASY to put on muscle especially in a calorie deficit. Lots of people claim this, but if they were to be monitored on actual lean muscle gain, they would be surprised to know that hardly anyone does this.

    A.C.E. Certified Group Fitness and Personal Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    You know you have at least 50 lbs. to lose, right? Why not spend the money on the body fat testing when you've lost that 50, when it'll be more meaningful? I don't see what use it is now to hear you're 40% BF or something when after you lose weight, you'll have no idea what BF% you are then. Your lean mass changes with weight loss, as well as your fat mass.
  • Wanderer1234
    Wanderer1234 Posts: 9
    Options
    Lets not look at this in terms of weight. Because 1 lb of muscle weight just as much as 1 lb of fat. It just that 1 lb of muscle takes up less space than 1 lb of fat. So you're looking at volume instead of weight. Which would you rather have, 50 lb of fat or 50 lb of muscle. That is why we all workout, we are converting some of that fat into muscle and it results in a leaner you, because muscles take up less space that fat.
  • MrGonzo05
    MrGonzo05 Posts: 1,120 Member
    Options
    I heard a lb of it weighs at least a lb.
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,420 Member
    Options
    You know you have at least 50 lbs. to lose, right? Why not spend the money on the body fat testing when you've lost that 50, when it'll be more meaningful? I don't see what use it is now to hear you're 40% BF or something when after you lose weight, you'll have no idea what BF% you are then. Your lean mass changes with weight loss, as well as your fat mass.

    It's been important information for me. I've been lucky enough to have composition tested in February and May for the last two years.

    When I started, I was 196 and 5'9". The last time I felt really slender, I was 155.

    However, my lean mass at the time was 130 pounds. So, 155 would have put me at 16% body fat - which was less body fat than the last time I weighed that much. I generally don't look or feel healthy under 18% body fat...probably more like 21% at my current age.

    Over the next 12 weeks, I gained 3 pounds of lean mass. At that point, I would have been at 14% body fat at 155. However, I lost 4 pounds of lean mass over the next 8 months because I stopped strength training and then got sick. That was important feedback to let me know how important progressive resistance training is for my body composition.

    The next year, I tried to bulk during the 12 weeks and ended up gaining 2 1/2 pounds of lean mass and losing 2 1/2 pounds of fat.

    I'm now 172 with around 130 pounds of lean mass, which gives me roughly 25% body fat - a healthy amount for my age. I'm focusing on building up my running stamina and recomping until February when I'll be able to do another weigh in. I"m actually "over weight" according to the BMI.

    So, if you're talking about developing a reasonable weight goal based on maintaining muscle mass and getting good feedback on what your diet and activity is doing to your body composition, yes, knowing your starting point is indeed really beneficial.

Categories