Muscle does not weight more then fat

donjtomasco wrote: »

Trigden, now go get back to your bench presses and flexing in the mirror for everyone. And work on your sentence structure and grammar, your wording showed a general lack of understanding.

Would it be wrong to point out the irony in this?

ninerbuff wrote: »

Scientifically when you compare density of materials, you don't weigh a pound against a pound. You weigh volume versus volume.

Just to be pedantic...

Or you weigh one molecule of one substance against one molecule of another substance. In this case, the volume may (probably would) be somewhat different, but it's a viable comparison.

But, yeah.

CattOfTheGarage wrote: »

Therealobi1 wrote: »

this is something that people say and its hard to stop it. i hear it all the time in real life
mfp should keep a muscle doesnt weigh more than fat sticky at the top of the forum
in the mean time why does it wind people up so much?

Because it is not true. Muscle DOES weigh more than fat. Or takes up less space. Tomato tomahto.

Anyway, the other question is one I would like a good answer to. It's often said on here that it's completely impossible to gain muscle mass while on a deficit, but other sources say that some beginner gains are possible, though after that first stage it flattens out. What is the truth?

Also, what is the story with gaining strength on a deficit? It's clearly possible to gain a lot of strength and muscle endurance while in a deficit, I've done it myself. How is that actually possible without gaining muscle mass? And if you can get stronger without gaining mass, why does bulking matter? Is it purely an aesthetic thing, or is there a ceiling to how strong you can get without adding mass?

I'm not sure but if you're eating a deficit (say 500 less than maintenance) your body fat counts as backup calories so while building up I'd say yes you need excess calories if you don't have those 'backup stores' so to speak.

donjtomasco wrote: »

If you are lifting weights or doing 'muscle strengthening' exercises, the assumption would be that you are building muscle.

I am 5'10" and 202, down from 213. I need to be around 185. So are you saying that my every other day upper body weight training is not building ANY muscle while I am losing weight?

I am not arguing or disagreeing, I am trying to get an answer.

To carry that logic a bit further, if I am wanting to look like I looked before, which is tone with muscle, your logic says that I can't build muscle until I start eating more then my maintain weight, or when I am NOT in a deficit. Sorry, that just does not compute. Maybe someone can elaborate more on how this really is the case.

Why is it that I am already feeling muscle and some is already showing up? Is it just an illusion?

Everyone says that you can't build muscle and lose fat simultaneously, and that's kind of the accepted answer. As in all things, you need materials to build something. I feel for you, because a year ago I tried to ask this same question on the boards and got roasted for it. People love to get really worked up about these topics for no reason that I can understand, so I'll tell you what I figured out and what worked for me.

My goal a year ago was to reduce my body fat percentage, both by increasing my muscle mass and by decreasing my fat mass, and to find a way to do it simultaneously, and I did. I achieved it with intermittent fasting, or by feeding the body a surplus to fuel seriously heavy lifts, and then falling back into a deficit in between. Most of the time I do a 12/12 eating and fasting schedule, and I always work out in a fasted state. Sometimes I eat a big surplus (150% of TDEE with 50% protein macro) on heavy lift days and then eat at a high deficit the next day (maybe 25-30% of my TDEE.) My gains never slowed down and I consistently lost inches. There are a lot of different intermittent fasting schedules and protocols, and even more naysayers. Seriously, just wait for it. People love to attack me after I explain that I do this- especially about working out in a fasted state, but it has worked well for me.
I have found that a lot of the conventional "eating less than 1200 calories/day will put your body into starvation mode" and "fasting will ruin your metabolism" and "eat 5 meals a day! If you eat all your calories in one meal you will gain!" crap to be just myths (heavily repeated, but myths nonetheless). I often fast for 12-24 hours at a time, then feast and lift heavy, then fast again, and have never had a single issue.

I also find that I love being able to eat a surplus on refeed days and hold back the next day. I have always been the type that eats one mega meal a day and skips all my other meals, and that's what works for me. I feel great. I have found that with doing this I've never had a plateau in lifts OR losses, so take that as you will.

Just what I have found to work with my body type, but then again if people could be categorized into "bulldozers and ballerinas" I would definitely be a bulldozer.

donjtomasco wrote: »

Yet, some still think a pound does not equal a pound....

Then surely you can point to a post proving this?

Whoa I'm just getting into this community board at there certainly is a lot of people posting in a very negative tone. We are all here to help each other just remember... its not a fight against others but a community.

Thank you for the kind words donjtomasco.

To clarify weight and volume are two completely different things... weight by definition is the the force of gravity on an object or mass times the acceleration of gravity (W = mg) while volume is simple a measurement of the physical space occupied by an object. Now density is the calculation that combines both... Density = mass/volume.

So muscle does not weigh more than fat, fat has a higher volume than muscle. And therefore the Muscle is denser than fat. But bottom line a pound is a pound regardless of what you are weighing.

farrell16 wrote: »

Whoa I'm just getting into this community board at there certainly is a lot of people posting in a very negative tone. We are all here to help each other just remember... its not a fight against others but a community.

Thank you for the kind words donjtomasco.

To clarify weight and volume are two completely different things... weight by definition is the the force of gravity on an object or mass times the acceleration of gravity (W = mg) while volume is simple a measurement of the physical space occupied by an object. Now density is the calculation that combines both... Density = mass/volume.

So muscle does not weigh more than fat, fat has a higher volume than muscle. And therefore the Muscle is denser than fat. But bottom line a pound is a pound regardless of what you are weighing.

You were doing well.

But, you may want to rethink or rephrase the bolded. Because it's inaccurate.

@farrell16 It's inaccurate because you have to ensure that you are weighing the object(s) in the same environment. As has been mentioned previously, a pound here on earth will be different than a pound on the moon. Or, more accurately I suppose, what weighs one pound here on earth will weigh ~ 0.1 pounds on the moon.


Since this thread is silly and overly-pedantic in the first place, I'm just having some fun with it.

Wait - we can't agree. That's just not the MFP way...

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

To those who insist that muscle does not weigh more than fat because one LB of muscle is the same as one LB of fat (ignoring that volume is implied in the statement), I am truly curious:

Do you really think that other people are confused about whether one LB of something weighs the same as one LB of something else? When people say (incorrectly, obviously) that someone dieting for a few weeks and adding in some exercise might not have lost because muscle weighs more than fat, do you imagine that they think that 1 LB of muscle shows up as 2 LB on the scale or something?

Because it would never cross my mind that anyone could think something so weird. It's kind of insulting, really.

(Of course, the misunderstanding implicit in "don't worry, muscle weighs more than fat" is equally offbase, but probably less obviously so to most. It's the idea that if you lost a particular volume of fat you are likely to have gained a similar volume of muscle, and of course that's not so -- to gain that much muscle volume in the time involved would be extremely difficult--impossible, in fact--in most cases we are talking about.)

@lemurcat12
I cringe when I hear the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat" - same reaction when I see "I want to loose weight" or "when I weight myself", "I literally died of embarrassment", or using "like" as like punctuation, like...
(Yes I do a lot of cringing!)

But these are all different:

(1) Loose is a misspelling (one that I agree is cringeworthy, in fact).

(2) Weight myself is almost certainly just a typo.

(3) Literally is commonly misused today and may be shifting in meaning or have as an alternative meaning not literally in an emphatic way: there was a great discussion of this (with lots of bemoaning of the misuse) in the Slate Lexicon Valley podcast a couple of years ago.

(4) Like is simply a slangy way of speaking that is most used by a demographic group not your own or seems too informal for some more formal uses where it is employed.

"Muscle weighs more than fat" assumes (as too obvious to be stated) that it is implied that we are discussing two things of equal volume, as why would we ever compare the weights of two things of equal weight? Seriously, why?

To answer you question about what do I think....
Option 1 - they are genuinely ignorant about the difference between density and weight. With the poor standard of science education ignorance simply isn't uncommon - that's not judgemental just stating that many people lack knowledge. A "calorie isn't just a calorie" is another example.

I disagree that they are ignorant of density vs. weight in the way you seem to be assuming (they think a lb of something is heavier than a lb of something else). They may not be able to use the term density (although many who say the phrase probably could and would use it correctly), but they could explain that they mean the same volume of both. Like, obviously, you know? (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

When people are confused about a calorie=a calorie, I think they don't understand that a calorie is a unit of measurement (which is why I think this is worth explaining). I think they genuinely see "calorie" as a synonym for food, which it is used as even by many who should know better (as this is confusing).

Option 2 - they do mean to imply by volume but simply don't think using the appropriate terminology is important. A bit like saying "I weigh my food with spoons and cups". I happen to think using the right terminology only improves communication but am prepared to accept that I'm old-fashioned. There's not really a right and wrong on this. I think it's important to state things accurately but someone else might take the view "you know what I really mean so it doesn't matter". Wouldn't it be dull if we all thought the same way?

Okay, this I will accept, but then suggest that pedantically telling them something they probably already know isn't helpful and is insulting. Why not ask the question or make it clear the issue is not saying something you think needs to be said (and that I personally do not, and many others do not).

Option 3 - they are mindlessly parroting a common phrase they have seen or heard and repeat it without even thinking whether it makes sense of not. Road safety campaigns use the slogan "speed kills" and it becomes part of common language although speed alone clearly doesn't kill.

I do think this is part of it, but not because they think they are comparing one lb to one lb (no one thinks that) but because they think the things they are comparing would have equal volume when they obviously would not -- that's what people should be called on, as well as they assumptions about how easy it is to build muscle.

Just my opinion, of course!

Gosh this thread is still limping along. It's quite entertaining!
@lemurcat12 - missed your reply as you didn't tag me.

Ok I'm now perplexed.
In the context of you complaining about people being pedantic and making assumptions about people's knowledge, or lack of knowledge, the bolded part above comes across as a very pedantic explanation of the differences between the items I listed. Wondering why you would you assume that a list of items that elicit the cringe response are the same or alternatively that I think they are the same? Surely you aren't leaping to an assumption about me?
A list of foods I dislike would include cauliflower and caviar - you wouldn't respond "Aha! They aren't the same."

So I'm left pondering if this this a clever attempt at irony that doesn't come across too well in plain text perhaps?

By the way I don't correct people on the items listed, I've worked with too many people who are either dyslexic or simply just struggle to express themselves for myriad reasons (including ignorance) so tend to give people the benefit of the doubt or just let it go.
Ignorance being used as a descriptive term not a pejorative term in case you wonder. My beloved Grandfather was a truly ignorant man as he had virtually no education through no fault of his own.

I am rather pedantic about the misuse of absolute terms such as impossible, must, can't etc. When used inappropriately they lead to confusion and also the denial of people's own experience. Those I do challenge in these forums.

Who exactly are you directing this rant at? I hope it's a general rant not directed at me.
"Okay, this I will accept, but then suggest that pedantically telling them something they probably already know isn't helpful and is insulting."
That is part of what leads me to hope your bolded response was ironic!