| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 5:10:50 AM | Hiya..
I have been on a diet for about 6 weeks... my clothes are getting too big and everyone keeps telling me I'm looking really good e.t.c. However I weigh myself every week and for the last three weeks the actual weight on the scales has not ?
Can anyone help explain that?
Thanks Emma x | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 5:39:00 AM | The scale measures weight loss/gain which can be fat, muscle or water....pretty simple...if your cloths are getting bigger on your body, you are losing fat...
Dont obsess on the scale...you can take measurements with a tape or just take some pictures to show progress...
Over a 2 month period, I had something similar...lost only 5 pounds on the scale but people though I lost 15-20 while I did a lot of new strength training and interval training cardio...muscle just looks more compact on the body... | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 5:48:59 AM | Emma
My first thought is your body is plateauing. It has become efficient at what you are doing. If you are not *dieting* correctly you might be losing some muscle mass
which would slow your metabolism - slowing your progress.
Do you know how many calories you need in a day to begin with?
What is your output, any exercise at all? | |
|
| |
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 10:10:05 AM | Well, when I was almost a size 7 and decided to start working out and getting back into shape, I weighed 133. As I turned fat into muscle my weight actually went up, and as I got smaller and more solid I dropped the weight again. It's been almost 8 years since I changed my diet and started working out, and at my lightest I am about 127-128. I still hit 133 at times, but now wear a 2-4 in clothes.
If you're working out and adding the proper weight training with your cardio, don't follow the scale, it'll confuse you - go by how your clothes fit.
A woman who's heavier and out of shape can weigh the same as or less than a fit woman in shape. Muscle weight can add lbs to your frame. If I wasn't toned, I'd probably be closer to 125, which coincidentally is the weight I was most of my teens and early 20s. The difference now is the weight training I put in. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 10:26:34 AM | Muscle does weigh more than fat and what may make you feel better is if you keep measurements of a few of your body parts. I do this because I know I'd get upset looking at a scale I measure the circumference of these body parts; bicep, forearm, chest, waist, upper thigh ( midpoint between my knee and hip ), hips, and calves. A few years ago I had back surgery and could not work out for 9 months and was going through physical therapy and ballooned up to 210lbs within 3 months I was back down to 160 once I was cleared to start training on my own. Good luck and keep us posted!  | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 11:13:49 AM | Muscle does weigh more than fat
No it doesn't. One pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat, same as one pound of flour weighs the same as one pound of lard. One pound is one pound. Muscle is simply more dense than fat, so the volume of a muscle is smaller than the volume of fat.
OP ... body composition is a funny thing ... I weigh about 170lbs and haven't BUDGED in my "weight loss" in over a month ... maybe I've hit a plateau, but probably not since I've dropped down by 2% in my bodyfat percentage in that time. Stop getting on the scale and depend more on everyday things, like your clothes or the way you look and feel. Obsessing over the numbers will drive you crazy. | |
|
| |
| |
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 12:28:48 PM |
No it doesn't. One pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat, same as one pound of flour weighs the same as one pound of lard. One pound is one pound. Muscle is simply more dense than fat, so the volume of a muscle is smaller than the volume of fat.
Yes, it does, depending on how you measure. It seems like you kinda already know this but are playing semantic games. One pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat, but one cubic inch of muscle does indeed weigh more than one cubic inch of fat. Do you think that because a pound of lead weighs the same as a pound of feathers, that lead and feathers weigh the same? No, because it takes a lot more feathers to make up that pound. Since the OP is talking about size changing when weight doesn't, obviously volume is an important part of the equation. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 12:36:47 PM | | Muscle doesn't 'weigh more' than fat, muscle is 'more dense' than fat. Understanding this concept helps people understand the basics of recompositioning. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 12:56:11 PM | Um, AWP, yes, one pound of lead DOES weigh the same as one pound of feathers, it's just going to take a helluva lot more feathers to equal that pound. A pound is a pound is a pound. A pound always weighs a pound, no matter what.
People always throw that loose statement around when it's totally inaccurate. Same as when people say, "Oh, don't worry, your fat is turning into muscle" ... also inaccurate, as they are two entirely different types of tissue, one will not "turn into" the other.
Measuring by pounds, kg., oz., it doesn't matter b/c everything always weighs the same in measurements. Volume is obviously important, but muscle doesn't "weigh more than fat" ... I weigh 170 lbs. and no matter if that weight is comprised of fat or muscle, I still weigh 170lbs.
And the whole argument that someone who begins working-out has simply not lost pounds b/c they're replacing their fat with muscle is also pretty inaccurate. To gain muscle, enough to NOT see a difference on the scale, requires a more intense way of working out that most people who are just starting are incapable of, and even if they did workout in this way, it would take months to increase muscle mass by even just a few pounds.
| |
|
| |
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 1:21:20 PM | Title of the thread...
My body's changed but the weight has not??
Obviously it's weight and size, not just weight that's bothering her. Which means "density" (which is nearly synonymous with weight) is obviously a factor. When someone doesn't understand how they can be getting smaller yet not losing weight, telling them that muscle and fat weigh the same (they don't) is not helpful to them.
Um, AWP, yes, one pound of lead DOES weigh the same as one pound of feathers, it's just going to take a helluva lot more feathers to equal that pound. A pound is a pound is a pound. A pound always weighs a pound, no matter what.
Did you actually read my post? No, the better question is did you comprehend it? You said the same thing I did only less clearly and drew the wrong conclusion from it. I said...
Do you think that because a pound of lead weighs the same as a pound of feathers, that lead and feathers weigh the same? No, because it takes a lot more feathers to make up that pound.
Just like it takes more fat for her to be whatever weight than muscle, which is how she got smaller without losing weight. Is this really that hard to understand? Yes a pound = a pound, but how much of something it takes to reach that pound tells you which weighs more. You can't say "lead weighs 1 pound", because that completely varies on how much lead you're talking about. When weighing something, the volume of what you're weighing is always an integral part of the answer. It's not that complicated. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 1:54:28 PM | Wow, it always amazes me how offensive people get when they decide they need to debate something that does not need to be debated.
AWP ... I corrected someone who said "muscle weighs more than fat" ... and broken down in basic terms, IT DOES NOT. I actually even said the volume was different in my first response, so I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove that is different from what I originally said. I said it's more dense ... and I never said it had nothing to do with volume.
Just like it takes more fat for her to be whatever weight than muscle, which is how she got smaller without losing weight
So what you're trying to tell everyone here is that she actually gained enough muscle mass to not have lost any weight? Well, sorry pal, but you're wrong. Bodybuilders workout very intensely for MONTHS to gain just a few pounds of muscle, so that's not what has happened in this case. Read what I wrote ... it's impossible for her to have gained so much muscle that she's not lost any weight on the scale. And I didn't say anything about the varying amounts in volume not making a difference, I said a pound always weighs a pound. In the first 3 weeks of her "diet", she lost weight, now her body has adapted and she hasn't lost any ... she's smaller because she lost weight in the beginning, not because she gained so much muscle that she's losing fat and all that extra muscle is making up for what she's lost, she's just hit a plateau at this point, which is why she hasn't lost any weight in the last 3 weeks.
People make incorrect cliches about fitness all the time, I'm simply correcting one of those cliches. The more correct term would be "muscle is more DENSE than fat", not "muscle weighs more than fat". | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 3:06:57 PM |
Wow, it always amazes me how offensive people get when they decide they need to debate something that does not need to be debated.
Wow, you considered that offensive? You must not read many other threads, I was blunt but not particularly offensive. If it doesn't need to be debated then why did you feel the need to correct someone else?
I corrected someone who said "muscle weighs more than fat" ... and broken down in basic terms, IT DOES NOT. I actually even said the volume was different in my first response, so I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove that is different from what I originally said. I said it's more dense ... and I never said it had nothing to do with volume.
That's what I'm trying to prove, when broken down to basic terms, IT DOES.When comparing weights of two materials (in this case fat and muscle tissue) you compare equal volume of the material, not equal weights. Muscle weighs more because it's more dense. It's not more dense instead of weighing more, the density is the CAUSE of it weighing more.
So what you're trying to tell everyone here is that she actually gained enough muscle mass to not have lost any weight? Well, sorry pal, but you're wrong. Bodybuilders workout very intensely for MONTHS to gain just a few pounds of muscle, so that's not what has happened in this case. Read what I wrote ... it's impossible for her to have gained so much muscle that she's not lost any weight on the scale.
The OP wasn't very clear. She didn't say how much size she lost, nor how much weight she lost at first, nor if the size loss continued while the weight loss stopped. I took it to mean that she was continuing to lose size without losing weight, in which case YES, she DID gain enough muscle to counteract the lost fat. Taking 6 weeks to gain in muscle what it took her 3 weeks to lose in fat doesn't seem too unreasonable, especially if the amounts are small. Perhaps that's not quite what she meant in which case you might be right, but from the OP you really can't tell.
People make incorrect cliches about fitness all the time, I'm simply correcting one of those cliches. The more correct term would be "muscle is more DENSE than fat", not "muscle weighs more than fat".
Some cliches are not wrong. I already addressed this a bit earlier in this post, but I'll go over it again. It's not about more weight OR more density, it's more weight BECAUSE OF more density. The two are inextricably intertwined. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 5:52:33 PM | | We'll I can sorta relate. I've lost over 70lbs now and i've lost more in inches and clothing sizes. So weight-loss is relative to how you look at it. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 6:20:27 PM | Awp
You said when comparing weights of 2 materials equal volume of the material, not actual weight is considered.
By who's standards? Where is that written? Ive never seen such a thing in the fitness world regarding muscle versus fat weight. Its possible Ive missed it.
I understand volume and density. But this throws me off a bit. I would appreciate being able to research this more. Can you point me/us to where that is written? | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 7:22:30 PM | http://www.onemorebite-weightloss.com/muscle-to-fat.html
Jeeze.. Some people need to get a f-cking life and get laid because they have too much time on their hands and this overwhelming need to correct everyone... Okay, DENSITY... SHEESH! This is why a lot of people steer clear of forums because people try to help and others get their panties in a bunch and jump down throats when people don't perfectly express themselves.  | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 8:06:22 PM |
You said when comparing weights of 2 materials equal volume of the material, not actual weight is considered.
If you weigh a pound of lead and a pound of feathers, obviously they both weigh a pound and you don't determine which substance is heavier. If on the other hand, you weigh a cubic foot of lead and a cubic foot of feathers, then it's easy to tell which is heavier.
By who's standards? Where is that written? Ive never seen such a thing in the fitness world regarding muscle versus fat weight. Its possible Ive missed it.
Um, the standards of the scientific method. You just don't measure the same weight of two materials to determine the difference in weight, that obviously makes no sense. Maybe I should be saying "mass" instead to be technical, but as long as we're on earth they mean the same thing. Maybe the fitness world isn't the place to learn how weights (I don't mean the types of weights made for lifting) and measures work, they're not concerned about which substance is heavier in general, they're more concerned with how it effects the body.
I understand volume and density. But this throws me off a bit. I would appreciate being able to research this more. Can you point me/us to where that is written?
In case you're misunderstanding, I'm not saying that this is how people weigh themselves to get their overall weight, I'm saying this is how you know that muscle does indeed weigh more than fat. Let me know if this clears it up. If not I'll start googling for links with formulas and all that stuff for you, but I don't want to waste my time doing all that if you just misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Jeeze.. Some people need to get a f-cking life and get laid because they have too much time on their hands and this overwhelming need to correct everyone...
Yeah, I know, I really do. Why do you think I'm on POF in the first place? :laugh: | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 8:14:20 PM | Thankyou Awp
You stated this in the above post : If you weigh a pound of lead and a pound of feathers, obviously they both weigh a pound.
Thats all I needed to know. And by goodness slaps knee....you are absolutely right. 
Back to the original poster. Im curious if you have any thoughts on her post? Any suggestions? Im also curious where your fitness levels lie or what your workout routine is. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 8:18:08 PM | Yes, muscle is denser than fat.
In fact, Ellington Darden once suggested a way of monitoring if your bodyfat levels were decreasing was to measure your arms flexed and unflexed. The greater the difference between the two measurements, the leaner you apparently are. This is based on the fact that you can't flex fat and that it does take more volume. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 10:40:48 PM |
Thats all I needed to know.
Ok, good, I'm glad that's settled. I didn't really want to google all that stuff and I'm regretting getting involved in the dispute to begin with.
Back to the original poster. Im curious if you have any thoughts on her post? Any suggestions?
Well she doesn't give enough information to say anything for sure, but if I was to guess I'd say her metabolism stabilized to her current level of activity/calorie intake, so she probably needs to up her metabolism some to see further improvement. There might be other variables that were left out of the OP though (might? Actually I guarantee it since she doesn't even mention what, if any, activity level she has).
Im also curious where your fitness levels lie or what your workout routine is.
Well, I'm not sure how it helps the OP (though I guess my original post wasn't all that helpful either), but since you ask... I'm actually pretty lucky. With good genes, an active lifestyle, and eating right, I really don't need to do anything extra solely for the purpose of staying healthy and fit. Sure, if I wanted to look more buff I could use a bit of working out to get some bulkier muscles, but I'm satisfied with my lean, strong, but not as impressive looking muscles. I've never not been able to lift something I needed to and I've never been too worn out to continue doing whatever I needed to do (which is often some VERY physical work), so I'm pretty happy as I am.
I will now psychically ask your next question for you...
So why in the heck are you posting in the health and fitness forum if you don't work out?
Well mostly I just look in this forum for information about stuff like supplements and new health risks. I looked in this thread because I thought it'd just be an easy answer about the difference between fat and muscle tissue. Someone already beat me to it, I would have just clicked out, but I felt compelled to make a correction. Maybe I should have been a teacher, it'd be a good way to get my "red pen syndrome" out of my system. I admit I may have gone a little overboard, though I have certainly seen much worse in the POF forums. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 10:50:54 PM | I heart you, boloteee ;)
Ok, *sigh*, here goes.....
If it was merely 'semantics', I wouldn't be bothered posting here on this issue.
The fact is, too many dieters have gotten larger and heavier without knowing why, and someone TRYING to be helpful has told them "Well...muscle weighs more than fat, so you must be putting on muscle!" Which lulls the dieter into a false sense of security, that everything's ok, when it might not be. Odds are they are mucking up their diet, or underreporting their activity level. Big surprise! Or, they might be temporarily retaining water as a reaction to the increased activity - all normal.
To simplify: if your weight is staying the same or increasing AND YOUR CLOTHES ARE GETTING LOOSER, you are recompositioning and that is a good thing. If your weight is staying the same or increasing and there are no changes to your measurements, you need to tweak somewhere. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/28/2009 10:56:28 PM | @Tina7578, I will have to disagree with you here. A beginner trainee is exactly the type of candidate for pound-for-pound recompositioning. It's called the "newbie effect" .
Advanced trainees/bodybuilders have to work extremely hard for every lb of muscle gain, newbies, not so much. | |
|
Home
login 
