5 lbs of muscle vs 5 lbs of fat PICTURE!

Kissxx
Kissxx Posts: 99
edited September 29 in Health and Weight Loss
fat-v-muscle.jpg

just to have an image of the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat"
«1

Replies

  • Bellyroll
    Bellyroll Posts: 316
    WOw thank you very much this is very helpful
  • GeminiStayFresh
    GeminiStayFresh Posts: 41
    cool and gross at the same time
  • gothicprophet
    gothicprophet Posts: 189
    Love it!
  • Heather75
    Heather75 Posts: 3,386 Member
    So muscle DOES weigh more than fat?
  • Kissxx
    Kissxx Posts: 99
    @bellyroll wow ur profile pictures is cool too! ive lost around 15 lbs and im pretty sure that i havent lost ALL 15 lbs of body fat. thanks!
  • bunchesonothing
    bunchesonothing Posts: 1,015 Member
    So, the fat, really looks like fairly real fat, minus some more blood interspersed. The muscle(obviously there for size only) doesn't look quite as real. But, the fat inside us does look quite a bit like that.
  • stc74
    stc74 Posts: 297 Member
    muscle is more dense than fat.
  • blacktallon
    blacktallon Posts: 38
    Nice! Thats both helpful and interesting. I always wondered what it looked like in comparison.
  • UnawareCrayon
    UnawareCrayon Posts: 1
    Yes, muscle weighs more than fat because it takes less muscle area to equal 5 lbs than it does for fat.

    If you were to take the same surface area as that 5 lbs of fat - you'd probably have close to 10 lbs of muscle or more.
  • torregro
    torregro Posts: 307
    So muscle DOES weigh more than fat?

    No, as shown in these plastic models, 5# of anything weighs the same as 5# of anything else. But.........muscle is more dense and compact, so 5# of muscles is much smaller than 5# of fat, hence the reduction in your waist size when you lose fat and build muscle even if the scale isn't reflecting a big weight loss.
  • JulieBoBoo
    JulieBoBoo Posts: 642
    So muscle DOES weigh more than fat?

    No, they're both 5lbs. But muscle is way denser than fat, burns more calories than fat, is much better for you than fat and is also more aesthetically pleasing :)

    However, if you took the same volume of muscle and fat, you'd have more muscle and then it would weigh more than fat.
  • Kissxx
    Kissxx Posts: 99
    So muscle DOES weigh more than fat?

    No, as shown in these plastic models, 5# of anything weighs the same as 5# of anything else. But.........muscle is more dense and compact, so 5# of muscles is much smaller than 5# of fat, hence the reduction in your waist size when you lose fat and build muscle even if the scale isn't reflecting a big weight loss.

    ^this :)
  • Jenalyn
    Jenalyn Posts: 17
    Thanks for sharing the picture - good to know!
  • minnie86
    minnie86 Posts: 187
    cool beans...but gross
  • kmshred
    kmshred Posts: 393 Member
    WOHAAAAA!
  • bjohs
    bjohs Posts: 1,225 Member
    1. Yes, pound for pound, muscle and fat are equal in weight but muscle will take up less volume (more dense or compact). This is why the scale may not move but your clothes continue to feel looser and your measurements become smaller.

    2. Volume for volume, meaning exactly the same size, muscle will weigh more than fat. Again, due to its density. But when comparing volume to volume, you would also weigh much more on the scale even if your measurements were exactly the same.

    The reason why number 2 is nearly impossible to achieve is due to the amount of time and dedication it takes to strength and weight train. Numerous hours in the gym and specific diets to increase muscle. So if you just started working out and your muscles are sore, or you have been working out for a week or two, it is most likely water weight gain and fluids building up in your body while your muscles heal. It is impossible to gain that much muscle volume (to replace the same volume of fat) in a week's or month's time.
  • angelicdisgrace
    angelicdisgrace Posts: 2,071 Member
    Wow! That's actually a good reminder as to why I need to continue my healthy life style and exercise regime.
  • kstw
    kstw Posts: 52 Member
    So our bodies sometimes reflect a loss of inches even when we don't lose 'weight'. While the fat is being reduced, we gain muscle in its place. Our bodies are more compacted...less loose fat...so even if the weight stays the same we can see the difference in losing inches!
  • bjohs
    bjohs Posts: 1,225 Member
    So our bodies sometimes reflect a loss of inches even when we don't lose 'weight'. While the fat is being reduced, we gain muscle in its place. Our bodies are more compacted...less loose fat...so even if the weight stays the same we can see the difference in losing inches!

    Exactly.
  • DrHDLM
    DrHDLM Posts: 43 Member
    Muscle has Iron (a metal) inside i much bigger quantities than fat. that's the main difference in weight/Volume
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    So our bodies sometimes reflect a loss of inches even when we don't lose 'weight'. While the fat is being reduced, we gain muscle in its place. Our bodies are more compacted...less loose fat...so even if the weight stays the same we can see the difference in losing inches!

    Exactly.

    Actually...not quite.

    It takes roughly a month for a male body builder to gain 1lb of lean mass (muscle). This is on a heavy strength training workout routine, and a bulking diet. Anyone else will gain significantly less on average, and women even moreso. Most weight fluctuations, along with measurements are directly tied to water retention.

    Put it this way...a person can lose significantly more than 1lb of fat in a month...and if they only can gain, at maximum...1lb of muscle...there's no way the quoted statement can work.

    And as for the muscle weighs more than fat thing...damn right it does lol. WHENEVER you say 'x weighs more than y'...a person will (or should...see the next sentence) assume equal volumes. If you were to say '1lb of muscle weighs as much as 1lb of fat'...well, duh? What was the point of that comparison? If you were comparing volume to begin with...umm, wouldn't you just say so??

    It's semantics at best...but to say that something weighs exactly the same as the same weight of something else is silly. Equal volumes HAVE to be assumed.
  • bjohs
    bjohs Posts: 1,225 Member
    Actually...not quite.

    It takes roughly a month for a male body builder to gain 1lb of lean mass (muscle). This is on a heavy strength training workout routine, and a bulking diet. Anyone else will gain significantly less on average, and women even moreso. Most weight fluctuations, along with measurements are directly tied to water retention.

    Put it this way...a person can lose significantly more than 1lb of fat in a month...and if they only can gain, at maximum...1lb of muscle...there's no way the quoted statement can work.

    And as for the muscle weighs more than fat thing...damn right it does lol. WHENEVER you say 'x weighs more than y'...a person will (or should...see the next sentence) assume equal volumes. If you were to say '1lb of muscle weighs as much as 1lb of fat'...well, duh? What was the point of that comparison? If you were comparing volume to begin with...umm, wouldn't you just say so??

    It's semantics at best...but to say that something weighs exactly the same as the same weight of something else is silly. Equal volumes HAVE to be assumed.

    In a textbook or classroom yes, you would be correct. But putting it in to the context that MOST of these forums are using the statement "muscles weighs more than fat", it is referencing "weight" not volume. I constantly come across forum posts from people just starting their weight loss journey. They did a few exercises, attended a class or two, went jogging a few days, etc. and wonder why they are gaining weight. The typical response they get is "Don't worry... you're exercising and gaining muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat.". Now, most of us know that there is absolutely no way that someone can put on that much muscle in a matter of days or weeks. It is impossible (for women especially) to put on a pound or more of muscle with just a few aerobic or circuit workouts. It may be possible for a body builder, such as yourself, to put on 1 pound of muscle in a month... but it takes some serious dedication and lots of time hitting the weights. As you already know.

    So to answer your question regarding the point to the photo, it is my opinion that it is to help clear up the misconception that a person is replacing fat with muscle if they weigh more on the scale after working out for a little while. Instead, as you also pointed out, it is most likely water retention.
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    Actually...not quite.

    It takes roughly a month for a male body builder to gain 1lb of lean mass (muscle). This is on a heavy strength training workout routine, and a bulking diet. Anyone else will gain significantly less on average, and women even moreso. Most weight fluctuations, along with measurements are directly tied to water retention.

    Put it this way...a person can lose significantly more than 1lb of fat in a month...and if they only can gain, at maximum...1lb of muscle...there's no way the quoted statement can work.

    And as for the muscle weighs more than fat thing...damn right it does lol. WHENEVER you say 'x weighs more than y'...a person will (or should...see the next sentence) assume equal volumes. If you were to say '1lb of muscle weighs as much as 1lb of fat'...well, duh? What was the point of that comparison? If you were comparing volume to begin with...umm, wouldn't you just say so??

    It's semantics at best...but to say that something weighs exactly the same as the same weight of something else is silly. Equal volumes HAVE to be assumed.

    In a textbook or classroom yes, you would be correct. But putting it in to the context that MOST of these forums are using the statement "muscles weighs more than fat", it is referencing "weight" not volume. I constantly come across forum posts from people just starting their weight loss journey. They did a few exercises, attended a class or two, went jogging a few days, etc. and wonder why they are gaining weight. The typical response they get is "Don't worry... you're exercising and gaining muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat.". Now, most of us know that there is absolutely no way that someone can put on that much muscle in a matter of days or weeks. It is impossible (for women especially) to put on a pound or more of muscle with just a few aerobic or circuit workouts. It may be possible for a body builder, such as yourself, to put on 1 pound of muscle in a month... but it takes some serious dedication and lots of time hitting the weights. As you already know.

    So to answer your question regarding the point to the photo, it is my opinion that it is to help clear up the misconception that a person is replacing fat with muscle if they weigh more on the scale after working out for a little while. Instead, as you also pointed out, it is most likely water retention.

    I mostly put that thing about muscle weighing more than fat in there for principle lol. I know that both camps are absolutely convinced they are right, end of story =p. It's like 'what weighs more, gold or feathers?'. No one automatically thinks 'they weigh the same!' because no volume was specified =p.

    On the water weight/fat loss/muscle gain...we're in perfect agreeement. When you quoted that she was right though, it threw me...because she said 'losing fat and gaining muscle'...which was the part I was pointing out as inaccurate.
  • sunshinel397
    sunshinel397 Posts: 206 Member
    Amazing perspective!:smile:
  • LewisBirchenough
    LewisBirchenough Posts: 22
    And as for the muscle weighs more than fat thing...damn right it does lol. WHENEVER you say 'x weighs more than y'...a person will (or should...see the next sentence) assume equal volumes. If you were to say '1lb of muscle weighs as much as 1lb of fat'...well, duh? What was the point of that comparison? If you were comparing volume to begin with...umm, wouldn't you just say so??

    It's semantics at best...but to say that something weighs exactly the same as the same weight of something else is silly. Equal volumes HAVE to be assumed.

    I agree that equal volumes would (should) be assumed, and that this is really all about semantics. On the other hand, I just think, why say "muscle weighs more than fat" (with equal volumes implied) when you can use the more precise language "muscle is more dense than fat"? Using density removes any need to assume equal volumes since density is dependent on both weight and volume.
  • mcc75
    mcc75 Posts: 72
    full article
    http://www.onemorebite-weightloss.com/muscle-to-fat.html
  • Fattack
    Fattack Posts: 666 Member
    So muscle DOES weigh more than fat?

    No, they're both 5lbs. But muscle is way denser than fat, burns more calories than fat, is much better for you than fat and is also more aesthetically pleasing :)

    However, if you took the same volume of muscle and fat, you'd have more muscle and then it would weigh more than fat.

    This. People saying muscle weighs more than fat make me want to slam my head against my desk. It's like saying a pint of beer weighs more than a pint of cider!
  • Fattack
    Fattack Posts: 666 Member
    The typical response they get is "Don't worry... you're exercising and gaining muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat.". Now, most of us know that there is absolutely no way that someone can put on that much muscle in a matter of days or weeks. It is impossible (for women especially) to put on a pound or more of muscle with just a few aerobic or circuit workouts. It may be possible for a body builder, such as yourself, to put on 1 pound of muscle in a month... but it takes some serious dedication and lots of time hitting the weights. As you already know.

    You are dead right - apart from the fact that most of us know this. I see countless to-and-fro threads that go like this:

    Poster: I'm up 2lbs after increasing my exercise!!!!!
    Helpful but misinformed MFPer: You're putting on muscle, that's why you weigh more! Hoorah!
    Me / Informed person: No, you're probably retaining water in the muscles that are possibly swollen from your increased exercise. But still, good job!

    So many people don't realise how long it takes to gain 1lb of muscle, you can't just gain it over night as the result of an extra zumba class or whatever.
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    So muscle DOES weigh more than fat?

    No, they're both 5lbs. But muscle is way denser than fat, burns more calories than fat, is much better for you than fat and is also more aesthetically pleasing :)

    However, if you took the same volume of muscle and fat, you'd have more muscle and then it would weigh more than fat.

    This. People saying muscle weighs more than fat make me want to slam my head against my desk. It's like saying a pint of beer weighs more than a pint of cider!

    Isn't a pint a unit of volume? If so...depending on the specific weight of each fluid...one certainly could weigh more than the other.

    I don't think you guys are understanding the point. If you're going to specify the weight you're comparing, what's the point of comparing two item's weight? If you DON'T specify the weight...it's got to be assumed that the volume is equal...because once again...what would be the point of the statement otherwise?

    Here's your scenario:

    Poster: Feathers weigh less than gold.
    Helpful but misinformed MFPer: No they don't, 1lb of feathers weighs the same as 1lb of gold!
    Me/Informed person: Umm, they didn't say 1lb? What would be the point of comparing 1lb of anything to 1lb of anything else if you're making a comparison?

    Just teasing you a little with the copy of your format there...but it simply doesn't make sense lol.

    For the record...I agree completely with the water weight thing...as I've stated previously in this thread.
  • whhs1997
    whhs1997 Posts: 3
    That pic motivates me to lose the fat even more!!!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories