Is the whole 'muscle weighs more than fat' true??

So I started at 11st 2lb wanting to lose around a stone and a half. Been eating 1400 cals a day and started 30 day shred. Basically hit training for 25 mins each day. I log it as 200 cals burned each day but don't eat those cals back. I weighed myself today and I have put on 2lbs. What's happened? I do feel better in myself and can see my body toning but not sure if I'm on the right track now? What do you think?

Replies

  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 17,939 Member
    When you start a new routine, and 30DS can be pretty full on if you're not used to exercising, your muscles will retain water for repair, meaning a temporary gain on the scale. It will go away.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Muscle weighs more than fat by volume - eg a lb of muscle takes up less space than a lb of fat

    Best explanation I've ever found:

    a46378e79756000773fcee9ba88143012390.jpg
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Muscle soreness from the new exercise = temporary water weight.

    It's not muscle growth in a short space of time.
  • FatGirl5lim
    FatGirl5lim Posts: 8 Member
    This exact thing happened to me last week @kahmed2014. I ate 1200 calories every day and completed level 1 of the 30 day shred each day. Like you I didn't eat any of my excercise calories back. I was really expecting a good loss and was extremely dissapointed when I stood on the scales: I'd pretty much stayed the same weight. Still sticking to both this week vigilantly and hoping for a good weight loss this week.

    It's good to know that I wasnt doing anything wrong and the poor loss may be due to temporary water weight my body is holding to repair my (bloody aching) muscles.
  • ExRelaySprinter
    ExRelaySprinter Posts: 874 Member
    edited April 2015
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Muscle weighs more than fat by volume - eg a lb of muscle takes up less space than a lb of fat

    Best explanation I've ever found:

    a46378e79756000773fcee9ba88143012390.jpg
    I love that blog, where that photo came from.
    It was one of the things that made me realise that i didn't have to get down to 120lbs to look good in my Jeans! ;)
    I'm 133lbs now and pretty happy with that.
    I'm still trying [slowly] to lower my body fat, but i definitely know that when i was 10lbs lighter and not doing much exercise, i definitely had more body fat then.
    Btw, 1440 cals seems too low for you to be eating!
  • kahmed2014
    kahmed2014 Posts: 9 Member
    Thanks for the relplies. I think mfp puts me at around 1300 with no exercise. And 30 day shred recommends 1400 cal diet so I guess if I stick at 1400 I'm eating half my cals back? I just don't know. I'm really confused as to what to do so just gonna stick with it until end of 30 day shred and see what happens. I can definitely feel muscle tone so I know something is happening just different things to what I expected I guess I.e dropping pounds on the scale!!
  • Quasita
    Quasita Posts: 1,530 Member
    Basically, what you can assume is that if you wanted to see ONLY weight loss, you would have to have changed nothing other than your intake of calories. Meaning, you'd have to do 100% diet weight loss and no exercise routine. Increasing activity changes the equation, and is more likely to show waves in the loss but it's going to be better in the long run. That's why most of us weigh once a month to have it "count" and the rest of the time, we just do right by ourselves as best we can :) Though, personally, I prefer to keep more accurate calorie counts than estimators so I wear my BodyMedia unit and adjust accordingly.
  • jessilee119
    jessilee119 Posts: 444 Member
    I agree with the other posts that this is most likely water retention from the new exercise. If after a few weeks nothing's budging, though, then you may want to take a good look at your food diary to make sure you're not accidentally underestimating calories consumed. This happened to me and I wasn't creating the calorie deficit that I thought I was.
  • Showtime1978
    Showtime1978 Posts: 109 Member
    edited April 2015
    It doesn't "weigh more" as 1lb = 1lb....but 1lb of muscle takes up MUCH less room than 1lb of fat. I am 5'5", 148 lbs, quite muscular and much smaller around all over than I was even at 130lbs and only doing cardio. My body fat is much lower and I look so much better (clothed and naked) and am more confident.
  • TheBigFb
    TheBigFb Posts: 649 Member
    It takes up less room. Like a toone of feathers and a tonne of coal. Both same weight, one takes up a lot more spaces. So a handful of muslce is heavier than a handful of fat
  • bunnywestley81
    bunnywestley81 Posts: 178 Member
    Volume wise a litre of muscle would weigh more than a litre of fat so it is sort of true I guess...