Crosswords3 mins ago
Muscle v fat
14 Answers
Please give me the answer to this once and for all.
Does muscle weigh more than fat ?
TIA Elaine x
Does muscle weigh more than fat ?
TIA Elaine x
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lainiej. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well I reckon that if you had a pound of fat on a plate beside a pound of muscle, they would both weigh the same.
Ok, that was a bit cheeky. Muscle has a higher density than fat. If one pound (1lb) of muscle is setting next to one pound (1lb) of fat on the plate, the portion of fat is much larger even though both portions weight the same. Muscle is leaner. The more muscular you are, the tighter, firmer, and thinner you appear, even if you never lose a pound.
Ok, that was a bit cheeky. Muscle has a higher density than fat. If one pound (1lb) of muscle is setting next to one pound (1lb) of fat on the plate, the portion of fat is much larger even though both portions weight the same. Muscle is leaner. The more muscular you are, the tighter, firmer, and thinner you appear, even if you never lose a pound.
I may be wrong here but looking at that, if you took a piece of muscle and it was 30 cm cubed and a piece of fat which was 30 cm cubed surely the muscle cube would be heavier. (highly unlikely that either would be cubed but its just an example). On the link it says that both weigh 5lbs and that 5lbs is 5lbs, but the piece of muscle is smaller, so you need less of it to weigh the same, so doesn't that mean its heavier.
Gosh, such confusion! Muscle weighs more than fat. If you had a square metre of fat and a square metre of muscle, the muscle would weigh more because of it's density.
Hence, BMI testing would tell a very fit well toned rugby player that they are overweight, possibly obese as it only considers weight and height, and not the constituent parts of andipose tissue and muscle mass.
Hence, BMI testing would tell a very fit well toned rugby player that they are overweight, possibly obese as it only considers weight and height, and not the constituent parts of andipose tissue and muscle mass.
Per size muscle is heavier.
The reason dieters are concerned is that an increase in muscle mass can lead to weight gain but it is all related to your body mass index.
For example weight wise, Arnold Swarzenegger, Sly Stallone and Frank Bruno are all clinically obese. Infact at 15.5 stone so am I !!!!. Hogwash.
What one has to realise is the more muscle mass you have the faster your metabolic rate. That is a pound of muscle burns up a hell of a lot more calories than a pound of fat, even in a relaxed state.
Fat literally is fat. Just a storage of energy after the carbs have been heated up.
The reason dieters are concerned is that an increase in muscle mass can lead to weight gain but it is all related to your body mass index.
For example weight wise, Arnold Swarzenegger, Sly Stallone and Frank Bruno are all clinically obese. Infact at 15.5 stone so am I !!!!. Hogwash.
What one has to realise is the more muscle mass you have the faster your metabolic rate. That is a pound of muscle burns up a hell of a lot more calories than a pound of fat, even in a relaxed state.
Fat literally is fat. Just a storage of energy after the carbs have been heated up.
Yes what we have here is a version of the old "What's weighs more a ton of coal or a ton of feathers" question. It's really a question of density. Yes Iainiej. For your slimming cub you are correct if you gain muscle and lose fat you may well get heavier but you fat percentage has gone down. The enemy is fat not weight. For this reason the BMI has been discredited in most circles, as joe the lion points out, there are atheletes classed as obese without an ounce of fat on them. Most top rugby players are clinically obese if you take any notice of BMI
1 to 14 of 14
