"muscle vs. Fat"
Replies
-
sgthaggard wrote: »
Not your fault. People just tend to be overly pedantic. Even those saying a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat knew what you were talking about.GlindaGoodwitch wrote: »For the record... I did not intentionally open this can of worms LOL
this... People with a little knowledge just love to display it....... Boring....0 -
You're retaining water and/or also storing glycogen in your muscle cells. Every gram of glycogen will hold 3 grams of water with it (for storage) which explains the initial gain that people get when they start or change a workout regimen.GlindaGoodwitch wrote: »Yes. Muscle weighs more than fat. I lost 10 pounds (yay!) then started exercising - no change in diet - and am now starting to see weight GAIN. I know muscle weighs more, but at what point will I start to see weight LOSS again, while remaining active. I'm running 3-5 times per week, doing interval training.
* Edit: Thank you for the clarification (a pound is a pound etc).
Be consistent and the weight loss will continue. It's not muscle gain on a calorie deficit.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
As for how much to drink, you are drinking plenty. Water retention when lifting weights is a necessary part of the muscle recovering and getting stronger. The water is used to help the process on. That is why weight is a horrible measure of progress.
I would suggest instead take measurements of your body, and take pictures. Looking at the one post above of the progress of Morgaath, you can see that based on weight she could have become very disappointed with her progress, but based on the pictures, and I am sure measurements, she moved from a good looking body to a great looking body.0 -
When comparing density, you weigh equal VOLUMES and compare. When volume is EQUAL, muscle weighs more than fat. There is NO DISPUTE in the scientific community on this. The dispute lies with people who always compare a pound with a pound, a liter with a liter, etc.
Next argument will be that "natural" sugar is different than "processed" sugar when digested.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It is different, you know.
0 -
rileysowner wrote: »As for how much to drink, you are drinking plenty. Water retention when lifting weights is a necessary part of the muscle recovering and getting stronger. The water is used to help the process on. That is why weight is a horrible measure of progress.
I would suggest instead take measurements of your body, and take pictures. Looking at the one post above of the progress of Morgaath, you can see that based on weight she could have become very disappointed with her progress, but based on the pictures, and I am sure measurements, she moved from a good looking body to a great looking body.
Yes! I am taking weekly pictures, as to document my journey. More for myself than anything - sometimes it's hard to see how far you've come until it's laid out right in front of you.0 -
AllanMisner wrote: »I’ll avoid the measurement argument (although density is the answer).
I will say this: Weight loss is a terrible goal. What I believe you want is fat loss. When people fixate on the scale, they’re pushed to make some very unhealthy choices. Instead of the scale, you should focus on the following:
- How do I feel?
- How and I sleeping?
- How is my energy level?
- Am I losing body fat (this can be by direct measurement or through a proxy of body measurements - neck, chest, stomach, waist, hips, upper arms, upper legs).
- Am I meeting my other health goals (strength, muscle mass gain/retention, endurance, cardiovascular, mobility, balance, agility, speed, etc.)?
- How does my blood work look (for some, this last one is optional, but I like to know and tweak my program to suit)?
Totally agree with all of this. And yet, I just attained (!) a goal of a 10 pound weight loss. Admittedly I set the goal for a stupid reason (family wedding), but I have noted that I'm really feeling better too - energy is great, feeling great, clothes feeling really good just a tiny bit looser, and it's good for my aging ego. (This could coincide too with working back from an injury.) But it all goes hand-in-hand and it was a good question to ask!0 -
GlindaGoodwitch wrote: »For the record... I did not intentionally open this can of worms LOL
Some people are just more dense.
0 -
Lies! Lies, I say!GlindaGoodwitch wrote: »For the record... I did not intentionally open this can of worms LOL0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Muscle does NOT weigh more than FAT.
Muscle is denser and takes up less space. One pound of feathers weighs the same as 1 pound of flour....
Muscle does NOT take up less space than FAT.
Muscle is denser and weighs more. One cubic inch of feathers takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic inch of flour....
Again and I will say... a pound is a pound is pound. It was NOT referring to space or volume I was simply saying a pound of feathers WEIGHS the same as a pound of flour..
I knew I should have been careful about my wording...0 -
Not even density is the be-all end-all of that. You can change a thing's density by adding/removing heat and/or pressure. You can have muscle that is less dense than fat by putting both in extreme conditions that make that happen. Or in other words "No it's not more dense, 1 g/cm³ is the same as 1 g/cm³!!!"
Anyway. Yeah it's most likely water weight. Let's move along.0 -
Lol, I'll take peeps over raisins any day of the week.tincanonastring wrote: »When comparing density, you weigh equal VOLUMES and compare. When volume is EQUAL, muscle weighs more than fat. There is NO DISPUTE in the scientific community on this. The dispute lies with people who always compare a pound with a pound, a liter with a liter, etc.
Next argument will be that "natural" sugar is different than "processed" sugar when digested.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It is different, you know.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
This is the dumbest of all internet arguments.0
-
diannethegeek wrote: »Muscle does NOT weigh more than FAT.
Muscle is denser and takes up less space. One pound of feathers weighs the same as 1 pound of flour....
Muscle does NOT take up less space than FAT.
Muscle is denser and weighs more. One cubic inch of feathers takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic inch of flour....
Again and I will say... a pound is a pound is pound. It was NOT referring to space or volume I was simply saying a pound of feathers WEIGHS the same as a pound of flour..
I knew I should have been careful about my wording...
WOOOOOOOSH0 -
What? Give an example of how this happens with muscle and fat. I for one would love to hear it.stevencloser wrote: »Not even density is the be-all end-all of that. You can change a thing's density by adding/removing heat and/or pressure. You can have muscle that is less dense than fat by putting both in extreme conditions that make that happen. Or in other words "No it's not more dense, 1 g/cm³ is the same as 1 g/cm³!!!"
Anyway. Yeah it's most likely water weight. Let's move along.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I knew I liked you for a reason. because you're right peeps > raisens
Lol, I'll take peeps over raisins any day of the week.tincanonastring wrote: »When comparing density, you weigh equal VOLUMES and compare. When volume is EQUAL, muscle weighs more than fat. There is NO DISPUTE in the scientific community on this. The dispute lies with people who always compare a pound with a pound, a liter with a liter, etc.
Next argument will be that "natural" sugar is different than "processed" sugar when digested.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It is different, you know.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
-
I've always understood that when people say muscle weighs more than fat they meant by volume. I can't imagine someone actually thinking a pound weighs a different amount depending on what it's a pound of.
It's like saying the sky is blue and having someone tell you "not at night". Derp...-1 -
What? Give an example of how this happens with muscle and fat. I for one would love to hear it.stevencloser wrote: »Not even density is the be-all end-all of that. You can change a thing's density by adding/removing heat and/or pressure. You can have muscle that is less dense than fat by putting both in extreme conditions that make that happen. Or in other words "No it's not more dense, 1 g/cm³ is the same as 1 g/cm³!!!"
Anyway. Yeah it's most likely water weight. Let's move along.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Of course you wouldn't be ALIVE for it, but it's not like we were talking about real life here with 1 pound is 1 pound and whatnot. Put the fat on the bottom of the deepest part of the sea and heat up the muscle enough to vaporise it and voilà.
Edit: Same with how metal expands when you heat it up, same weight but volume increases -> density decreased.
Water is densest at 4°C and expands both above and below that temperature, which is unheard of in pretty much anything else.0 -
I've always understood that when people say muscle weighs more than fat they meant by volume. I can't imagine someone actually thinking a pound weighs a different amount depending on what it's a pound of.
It's like saying the sky is blue and having someone tell you "not at night". Derp...
I'll show transparency here and say that not everything is obvious to everyone...some people *do* believe that muscle weighs more than fat, simply because its said so much, its taken at value. But not everyone understands measurements by weight and volume... pointing out the difference is just well..pointing out the difference.
Like, all my life, I have measured out everything with measuring spoons and cups. I will confess, there have been times when I crammed spinach into measuring cups to get those 3C Spinach, and was like, HOW do I do this?! Have also measured my cereal and oatmeal in measuring cups...its the way I always saw it done, the way I always did it, and it *never* occurred to me how completely wrong this was.
I just got my first scale a couple of weeks ago, and yes that was my DERP moment...obviously liquids are to be measured by volume, solids by weight.. I know this inside and out, but reasoning went out the window because Im so used to measuring everything by volume. Its because of people on MFP saying, "nope wrong, wheres your dang scale?" that it clicked for me that Ive been measuring wrong all these years..and getting a food scale made a HUGE difference in my progress.
And I know Im not the only one. Its not a matter of being patronizing...and you cant just assume everyone knows how to do everything correctly just because you do, so if they say something wrong, they didnt actually mean it. Just...if you know something isnt quite right, at least say something to help the other person out. Some people appreciate that..I know I do!!!
0 -
So, we have identical twins standing next to each other. Each is 5'6" tall, and one weighs 123lbs and has 38% body fat. The other weighs 137lbs and has 18% body fat....which one is going to look "lighter"... Oh wait, here is a picture of that, just with the same woman at different weights/bodyfat levels.
This subject never ceases to entertain. Thank you Morgaath for posting the pics showing how you can look "thinner" at 137 lbs than you can at 123 lbs simply by your body fat %. There's proof that the number on the scale is less meaningful than what the tape measure and mirror reveal. And it does look like that big blob of fat takes up more space than that chunk of muscle. Just sayin.0 -
GlindaGoodwitch wrote: »Yes. Muscle weighs more than fat. I lost 10 pounds (yay!) then started exercising - no change in diet - and am now starting to see weight GAIN. I know muscle weighs more, but at what point will I start to see weight LOSS again, while remaining active. I'm running 3-5 times per week, doing interval training.
* Edit: Thank you for the clarification (a pound is a pound etc).
Yes the correct phrase is "muscle is more dense than fat"
0 -
Sorry, I took this as if muscle and fat were under the same conditions. If both were subjected to the same conditions, I doubt that fat would ever trump muscle in density.stevencloser wrote: »
What? Give an example of how this happens with muscle and fat. I for one would love to hear it.stevencloser wrote: »Not even density is the be-all end-all of that. You can change a thing's density by adding/removing heat and/or pressure. You can have muscle that is less dense than fat by putting both in extreme conditions that make that happen. Or in other words "No it's not more dense, 1 g/cm³ is the same as 1 g/cm³!!!"
Anyway. Yeah it's most likely water weight. Let's move along.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Of course you wouldn't be ALIVE for it, but it's not like we were talking about real life here with 1 pound is 1 pound and whatnot. Put the fat on the bottom of the deepest part of the sea and heat up the muscle enough to vaporise it and voilà.
Edit: Same with how metal expands when you heat it up, same weight but volume increases -> density decreased.
Water is densest at 4°C and expands both above and below that temperature, which is unheard of in pretty much anything else.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
If you really really want to know if it's water weight, take 2 days off lifting and do light workouts. Stretch a lot and foam roller liberally. Take NSAIDs if you're really sore. That water weight usually comes off for me if I do that for 2 solid days after a heavy lift.0
-
Let's look at this objectively.................if one twin was the same size as the other twin (remember size) and one was more muscular than the other..................who would weigh more? Remember same size and one having more muscle than the other. Just sayin'.So, we have identical twins standing next to each other. Each is 5'6" tall, and one weighs 123lbs and has 38% body fat. The other weighs 137lbs and has 18% body fat....which one is going to look "lighter"... Oh wait, here is a picture of that, just with the same woman at different weights/bodyfat levels.
This subject never ceases to entertain. Thank you Morgaath for posting the pics showing how you can look "thinner" at 137 lbs than you can at 123 lbs simply by your body fat %. There's proof that the number on the scale is less meaningful than what the tape measure and mirror reveal. And it does look like that big blob of fat takes up more space than that chunk of muscle. Just sayin.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Sorry, I took this as if muscle and fat were under the same conditions. If both were subjected to the same conditions, I doubt that fat would ever trump muscle in density.stevencloser wrote: »
What? Give an example of how this happens with muscle and fat. I for one would love to hear it.stevencloser wrote: »Not even density is the be-all end-all of that. You can change a thing's density by adding/removing heat and/or pressure. You can have muscle that is less dense than fat by putting both in extreme conditions that make that happen. Or in other words "No it's not more dense, 1 g/cm³ is the same as 1 g/cm³!!!"
Anyway. Yeah it's most likely water weight. Let's move along.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Of course you wouldn't be ALIVE for it, but it's not like we were talking about real life here with 1 pound is 1 pound and whatnot. Put the fat on the bottom of the deepest part of the sea and heat up the muscle enough to vaporise it and voilà.
Edit: Same with how metal expands when you heat it up, same weight but volume increases -> density decreased.
Water is densest at 4°C and expands both above and below that temperature, which is unheard of in pretty much anything else.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If you want to be really pedantic about density, you should always specify STP and keep either volume or mass constant in your comparison. JEEEEEEZ! And I'll expect at least 5 peer reviewed studies and a full meta analysis or this is all just BRO SCIENCE!
0 -
And I know Im not the only one. Its not a matter of being patronizing...and you cant just assume everyone knows how to do everything correctly just because you do, so if they say something wrong, they didnt actually mean it. Just...if you know something isnt quite right, at least say something to help the other person out. Some people appreciate that..I know I do!!!
Agreed. That is what I like about MFP. Yes it can get brutal sometimes and turn into a blood bath but mostly I find when I search the forums I find people truly helping other people gain better understanding. I have learned a lot on MFP forums but I generally take what I have read and verify it by doing further research. It's a great place to start though. I didn't realize how uninformed (in certain matters) I was until I joined MFP. I really didn't have a clue. Overall people here have been extremely helpful.0 -
Yep.HardcoreP0rk wrote: »
Sorry, I took this as if muscle and fat were under the same conditions. If both were subjected to the same conditions, I doubt that fat would ever trump muscle in density.stevencloser wrote: »
What? Give an example of how this happens with muscle and fat. I for one would love to hear it.stevencloser wrote: »Not even density is the be-all end-all of that. You can change a thing's density by adding/removing heat and/or pressure. You can have muscle that is less dense than fat by putting both in extreme conditions that make that happen. Or in other words "No it's not more dense, 1 g/cm³ is the same as 1 g/cm³!!!"
Anyway. Yeah it's most likely water weight. Let's move along.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Of course you wouldn't be ALIVE for it, but it's not like we were talking about real life here with 1 pound is 1 pound and whatnot. Put the fat on the bottom of the deepest part of the sea and heat up the muscle enough to vaporise it and voilà.
Edit: Same with how metal expands when you heat it up, same weight but volume increases -> density decreased.
Water is densest at 4°C and expands both above and below that temperature, which is unheard of in pretty much anything else.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If you want to be really pedantic about density, you should always specify STP and keep either volume or mass constant in your comparison. JEEEEEEZ! And I'll expect at least 5 peer reviewed studies and a full meta analysis or this is all just BRO SCIENCE!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »
Sorry, I took this as if muscle and fat were under the same conditions. If both were subjected to the same conditions, I doubt that fat would ever trump muscle in density.stevencloser wrote: »
What? Give an example of how this happens with muscle and fat. I for one would love to hear it.stevencloser wrote: »Not even density is the be-all end-all of that. You can change a thing's density by adding/removing heat and/or pressure. You can have muscle that is less dense than fat by putting both in extreme conditions that make that happen. Or in other words "No it's not more dense, 1 g/cm³ is the same as 1 g/cm³!!!"
Anyway. Yeah it's most likely water weight. Let's move along.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Of course you wouldn't be ALIVE for it, but it's not like we were talking about real life here with 1 pound is 1 pound and whatnot. Put the fat on the bottom of the deepest part of the sea and heat up the muscle enough to vaporise it and voilà.
Edit: Same with how metal expands when you heat it up, same weight but volume increases -> density decreased.
Water is densest at 4°C and expands both above and below that temperature, which is unheard of in pretty much anything else.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If you want to be really pedantic about density, you should always specify STP and keep either volume or mass constant in your comparison. JEEEEEEZ! And I'll expect at least 5 peer reviewed studies and a full meta analysis or this is all just BRO SCIENCE!
I mean, we're not in Kindergarten here, that's the minimum you should expect.0 -
And I know Im not the only one. Its not a matter of being patronizing...and you cant just assume everyone knows how to do everything correctly just because you do, so if they say something wrong, they didnt actually mean it. Just...if you know something isnt quite right, at least say something to help the other person out. Some people appreciate that..I know I do!!!
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I find it best to assume people know what they mean, especially when it comes to commonly used figures of speech. Just going by my own past experiences, assuming people don't usually leads to embarrassing situations for me rather than them. YMMV.0 -
Can't tell since there is no timeline, no way to judge intensity/quality of work, and no meaningful measurements to analyze, but here is food for thought:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/336162-how-many-weeks-to-build-muscle-mass/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/319061-the-timeline-for-building-muscle/
You can get an ideal on how slow/fast muscle rate of gain for advanced lifters (up to your genetic disposition) and judge whether you are in the same league.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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