Muscle does weigh more than fat

Muscle does weigh more than fat.

I have been in training for a 10k for about 5 weeks now, going out for a run 3 times a week. Also, watching my diet on non-running days. Beer consumption is restricted to weekends only.

My clothes are looser; my beer belly has nearly gone. My face is less bloated. And when I am running I feel that I am not lugging as much weight around.

but my weight hasn't changed as much as I expected: 13st - 12st9. I was expecting around 12st4.

«1

Comments

  • CindersCinders ✭✭✭

    A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat!  Muscle is just more dense than fat.

  • Mike,

    a kilo of muscle weighs exactly the same as a kilo of fat.  However, a kilo of muscle is more dense than a kilo of fat, so if you are losing fat and building muscle you will see the effects you describe.

    EDIT: x-post, great minds and all that

  • Ooh, it's been a while since I saw the 'muscle weighs more than fat' debate. Cinder's has it right with 'dense'. 

    Now, where me popcorn image

  • There's another myth about muscle "turning to fat" - that can't happen either.

  • Muscle is more DENSE than fat therefore 1kg of fat will have a bigger volume than 1kg of muscle which explains the reduction in size but constant weight you describe.  In order to be correct you should state that 1m^3 of muscle weighs more that the same volume of fat.

    Please could people learn the basics of Physics?

  • CindersCinders ✭✭✭

    Or just use the laymans terms already used above image

  • XX1XX1 ✭✭✭
    Cinders wrote (see)

    A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat!  Muscle is just more dense than fat.

    A pound of one thing always weighs exactly the same as a pound of anything else and, therefore, everything weighs exactly the same...  Or something...

  • Taxi Driver wrote (see)
    Cinders wrote (see)

    A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat!  Muscle is just more dense than fat.

    A pound of one thing always weighs exactly the same as a pound of anything else and, therefore, everything weighs exactly the same...  Or something...

    It does in zero gravity image

  • When I started training about 5 years ago I lost 1.5 stone over 3months then started to put weight back on while still appearing to lose weight.

    I weigh less than I did before. It's still me. Whether my volume is different or I'm more dense is a pointless observation and difficult to measure outside of a physics lab. I weigh less. 

  • Well yes, I suppose it is a pointless observation Tim - but what people are saying that Mike's assertion about muscle weighing more than fat is wrong - and explaining why.

  • Semantics. You don't need to quantify by stating volume as that's already implied in the statement. I weigh less that the person sitting next to me. 

  • Pulls up a chair... and pops some pringles into the thread.

     

  • How is it semantics Tim?

    Mike opened his post with "Muscle does weight more than fat" - it's just not true.

    His later comments about his own weight loss may or not be true, I don't know, I don't know him but the two things aren't necessarily related. He could have gone on to talk about rising gas prices or the Finnish weather and it would have been equally irrelevant to his opening assertion. 

  • DT19DT19 ✭✭✭

    Isn't the point of the OP that he doesnt really weigh a great deal less than before which is the opposite of Tims situation?

    Though I would make the point that extra weight, even if predominantly made up of extra muscle, is not neccessarily conducive to distance running.

  • Did you know that a pounds worth of gas is cheaper than a pounds worth of electricity?

  • CindersCinders ✭✭✭

    So a kilo of fat doesn't weigh the same as a kilo of muscle???

  • He's yanking your chain Cinders image 

  • CindersCinders ✭✭✭

    Yeah, I gathered.  Obviously he's bored today given his posts.

  • Ah but wasn't the French kilo against which all other kilos are measured actually loosing weight too? image

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jan/24/scientists-weigh-up-shrinking-kilogram 

  • Elizabeth Div X is right. The equations do not lie:

    density = mass/volume

    mass = density x volume

    So 1 cubic metre of muscle weighs more than 1 cubic metre of fat.

    A large amount of fat can be replaced by a smaller amount of muscle, with no apparent weight loss. Even though you look trimmer.

    Here is tonights homework:

    What happens if you drop a pound of fat and a pound of muscle off the leaning tower of Pisa? Do they land at the same time? And who will clear up the mess?

  • Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)
    TimR wrote (see)

    When I started training about 5 years ago I lost 1.5 stone over 3months then started to put weight back on while still appearing to lose weight.

    I weigh less than I did before. It's still me. Whether my volume is different or I'm more dense is a pointless observation and difficult to measure outside of a physics lab. I weigh less. 

    My guess is you watch Ster Trek

    Dr Who. I'm heavier on the inside. 

  • If you do a google search on the 'relative density of muscle and fat' it comes up with:

    density of skeletal muscle: 1.06g/cm3

    density of fat:                     0.9g/cm3

    Therefore, if 1kg of muscle has approximately 85% of the volume 1kg of fat (if the numbers are correct).

     

  • It was actually about 5lbs of fat. Or more specifically it was about some unspecified amount of fat being lost and an unspecified amount of muscle gained with the balance being a net loss of 5lbs. Although due to accuracy limitations we don't know how many oz. 

    Time for some simultaneous equations. 

    Were the weights done at the same temperature and pressure?

  • Is everyone bored today?  image

    (Actually I found this really interesting)

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.