5 lbs of muscle vs 5 lbs of fat PICTURE!

crisanderson27 · July 2011

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 · July 2011

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 · July 2011

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 · July 2011

Amazing perspective!

LewisBirchenough · July 2011

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 · July 2011

full article
http://www.onemorebite-weightloss.com/muscle-to-fat.html

Fattack · July 2011

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 · July 2011

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 · July 2011

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.