Message Boards » General Diet and Weight Loss Help

TOPIC: 5 lbs of muscle vs 5 lbs of fat PICTURE!

« Prev 1
« Prev 1
 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
July 3, 2011 6:01 PM
Image not displayed

just to have an image of the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat"
Edited by Kissxx On July 3, 2011 6:02 PM
  4608914
July 3, 2011 6:04 PM
WOw thank you very much this is very helpful
July 3, 2011 6:04 PM
cool and gross at the same time
July 3, 2011 6:05 PM
Love it!
  8624016
July 3, 2011 6:06 PM
So muscle DOES weigh more than fat?
July 3, 2011 6:07 PM
@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!
  4608914
July 3, 2011 6:07 PM
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.
  6754049
July 3, 2011 6:08 PM
muscle is more dense than fat.
  8614556
July 3, 2011 6:08 PM
Nice! Thats both helpful and interesting. I always wondered what it looked like in comparison.
July 3, 2011 6:08 PM
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.
July 3, 2011 6:09 PM
QUOTE:

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.
Edited by torregro On July 3, 2011 6:09 PM
July 3, 2011 6:10 PM
QUOTE:

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.
July 3, 2011 6:11 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

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 :)
  4608914
July 3, 2011 6:11 PM
Thanks for sharing the picture - good to know!
July 3, 2011 6:14 PM
cool beans...but gross
July 3, 2011 6:16 PM
WOHAAAAA!
  3987677
July 3, 2011 6:18 PM
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.
Edited by bjohs On July 3, 2011 6:21 PM
  7065918
July 3, 2011 6:21 PM
Wow! That's actually a good reminder as to why I need to continue my healthy life style and exercise regime.
July 3, 2011 6:21 PM
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!
July 3, 2011 6:22 PM
QUOTE:

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.
  7065918
July 3, 2011 6:24 PM
Muscle has Iron (a metal) inside i much bigger quantities than fat. that's the main difference in weight/Volume
July 3, 2011 7:18 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

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.
  7434194
July 3, 2011 7:53 PM
QUOTE:

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.
Edited by bjohs On July 3, 2011 7:54 PM
  7065918
July 3, 2011 8:22 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

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.
  7434194
July 3, 2011 8:29 PM
Amazing perspective!smile

Reply

Message Boards » General Diet and Weight Loss Help

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.