+

[Rin.era]

You sound so rigorous o.o;; The initial idea that popped up in my head is that you're gaining muscle, unless you figure doesnt seem to change at all then maybe it isn't just muscle.

Eat often. Every 2-3 hours. It boosts metabolism. Plan ahead. It's really hard to plan but do it. It helps a lot and it just improves your overall lifestyle. Try not to get too OCD over it though. Try low-fat to non-fat chocolate milk after your workouts. It helps regain the energy you lost during the workout. If you're into protein shakes, it would be cheaper to just buy some whey protein and add it to chocolate milk.

Sleep and wake up at the same time. Everyday. When your body is out of rhythm it doesn't function at it's highest potential and will affect things such as weight and mood and your overall energy level.

I hope this helps

[KuroiAisu]

Originally Posted by 32spartan11

This is one of my pet peeves. Muscles doesn't "weigh more" than fat 1 lb is always = to 1lb. The thing is 1lb of fat takes up more area than one lbs of muscle. To get a visual of just how much check out this video. It's a little old but she does a great job of explaining.

Feel free to drop me any questions you have.

Oh. That's odd. Muscle weighing more is what I've been told by my doctor/fitness people for years o.O

edit: Although looking at that video, you'll notice the fat is triple the size compared to the muscle. So in a way it while both are the same weight, it is kind of like muscle weighs more in theory. I mean if the muscle was equal size to the fat it would be like 3x more in weight than the fat. So gaining muscle can possibly make your weight go up, while you slim down.

[Rhazia]

Originally Posted by KuroiAisu

Oh. That's odd. Muscle weighing more is what I've been told by my doctor/fitness people for years o.O

Semantics. He's just arguing that it should be worded differently, or something. Like... 1cm² of muscle weighs more than 1cm² of fat. It's just easier to say that it's heavier.

1 lb=1lb... By that logic, though, nothing is heavier than anything else?

[32spartan11]

Originally Posted by KuroiAisu

Oh. That's odd. Muscle weighing more is what I've been told by my doctor/fitness people for years o.O

edit: Although looking at that video, you'll notice the fat is triple the size compared to the muscle. So in a way it while both are the same weight, it is kind of like muscle weighs more in theory. I mean if the muscle was equal size to the fat it would be like 3x more in weight than the fat. So gaining muscle can possibly make your weight go up, while you slim down.

Yes that is true, if you filled two cubes one that had fat tissue and the other with muscle tissue and they each had a volume = 1 cubic ft. the cube containing the muscle fibers would weigh more than the cube containing the fat tissue. Reason Being muscle tissue is much more dense and also contains much more water than fat tissue.

The whole "muscle weighing more than fat" is usually used to sort of dumb down the fact the 1lb of fat has a greater volume than 1lb of muscle.

I mentioned it really to show that there is a big visual difference between the two and to hopefully help anyone reading to really get an understanding of what is meant by the term as it is so widely used even by doctors and teachers.

I've seen people get all kinds of confused and interpret the saying all all types of ways. Being more specific helps people better understand the concept.

[32spartan11]

Originally Posted by Rhazia

Semantics. He's just arguing that it should be worded differently, or something. Like... 1cm² of muscle weighs more than 1cm² of fat. It's just easier to say that it's heavier.

Not so much semantics but specifics. Yes but it should actually be 1cm^3 haha sorry . I just have a focus to detail.

I had used the term area earlier which would be cm^2(2 dimensional objects) but should have used volume which is cm^3 (3 dimensional object).

Originally Posted by Rhazia

1 lb=1lb... By that logic, though, nothing is heavier than anything else?

Getting off topic but everything has mass and we put a measure to it whether being lbs or kilograms to compare it's mass. So 1kg is always 1kg, it doesn't matter how big or small it's physical measurements are such as length, width and depth.

Two examples

1. Think of a pure gold ring and a knock off (say made out of stainless steel) that are the same size and look exactly the same. Gold has a greater mass than steel and even though they take up the same amount of space the gold ring would be heavier.

2. Think of fat to muscle sort of like a pound of cotton balls and a pound of the metal iron. The pound of cotton ball would take up enormous amount of space compared to the pound of iron, but both weigh exactly 1lb.

[KuroiAisu]

Originally Posted by 32spartan11

Yes that is true, if you filled two cubes one that had fat tissue and the other with muscle tissue and they each had a volume = 1 cubic ft. the cube containing the muscle fibers would weigh more than the cube containing the fat tissue. Reason Being muscle tissue is much more dense and also contains much more water than fat tissue.

The whole "muscle weighing more than fat" is usually used to sort of dumb down the fact the 1lb of fat has a greater volume than 1lb of muscle.

I mentioned it really to show that there is a big visual difference between the two and to hopefully help anyone reading to really get an understanding of what is meant by the term as it is so widely used even by doctors and teachers.

I've seen people get all kinds of confused and interpret the saying all all types of ways. Being more specific helps people better understand the concept.

Gotcha. I thought you were saying that it is not heavier, which would technically be false.

Originally, I was just pointing out that the numbers on the scale don't necessarily mean that you're not losing anything. That's why I suggested measuring. Since yes the volume difference is very noticable, but the numbers may not be. A lot of people get hung up by the numbers on the scale rather than the actual difference in their body.

[Asa Gohan]

Originally Posted by clifftacopter

Once I added some serious strength training and limited my diet to smaller, but nutritionally dense (very important!) meals I dropped my weight so quickly it was ridiculous. ...
For lunch I started eating these frozen meals from Amy's Kitchen, which are completely organic with no preservatives, most options are quite healthy, and they are properly portioned. ....

Nutritionally dense is the key word here. When I read that I was like YES! don't eat fat free foods, eat Nutritionally dense foods!

Also, Amys pizza rocks my socks. Its the only way I can really eat pizza nowadays...My diet is Dairy free.

[Slapthefatcat]

Originally Posted by 32spartan11

Think of fat to muscle sort of like a pound of cotton balls and a pound of the metal iron. The pound of cotton ball would take up enormous amount of space compared to the pound of iron, but both weigh exactly 1lb.

That's a great way to put it.

[32spartan11]

Originally Posted by KuroiAisu

Originally, I was just pointing out that the numbers on the scale don't necessarily mean that you're not losing anything. That's why I suggested measuring.

Yes this is so true. For example I'm 5'10" and I weigh somewhere between 175-180lbs which using the BMI scale would classify me as being over weight. The thing is I have a body fat % of somewhere around 10%, so I'm actually far from being over weight.

most people want to drop BF%. BUT the key to looking good is keeping Lean Body Mass (Body weight - the amount of body fat) the same or possibly even gaining LBM.

[32spartan11]

Originally Posted by Slapthefatcat

That's a great way to put it.

Thanks. Personally I like to explain things for how they are as accurately as possible. People deserve the actual facts not a water/dumbed down version of the them. One of the main reason I'm such a stickler to details.

[KuroiAisu]

I don't think it's so much "dumbing down". 1 cubic cm of muscle would be heavier than an equal amount of fat. Yes 5lbs of muscle takes up less space than 5lbs of fat. No where did I ever deny that in my first statement. Saying measure in stead of weighing because muscle is heavier says it all. You don't need to speak all the details to get the point across. Most people will get it with out it being spoken. The simple statement implies that while you may be slimming down, your pounds might not necessarily reflect that.

I'll be honest here, your claim of dumbing down feels like it implies we're stupid because we didn't note the totally obvious size difference. Which anyone else could see is implied in the simple statement even if unspoken. That's how you're coming across. Which is kind of irksome. Nitpicking for no reason.

[32spartan11]

Originally Posted by KuroiAisu

I don't think it's so much "dumbing down". You don't need to speak all the details to get the point across. Most people will get it with out it being spoken. The simple statement implies that while you may be slimming down, your pounds might not necessarily reflect that.

This is where I have to politely disagree, by leaving details out you leave more room for interpretation. The more room for interpretation the harder it is to understand a concept. I've seen the good ol' "muscle weighs more than fat" interpreted in many different ways, many of them incorrect. Because the saying itself is not specific enough. Secondly writing can be interpreted in an almost infinite amount of ways, which leads me to...

Originally Posted by KuroiAisu

I'll be honest here, your claim of dumbing down feels like it implies we're stupid because we didn't note the totally obvious size difference. Which anyone else could see is implied in the simple statement even if unspoken. That's how you're coming across. Which is kind of irksome. Nitpicking for no reason.

Not everyone on the internet is trying to put other people down. I take my time to give answers to genuinely help people on this forum, I could be spending my time doing a lot of other things. I'm nitpicking because in my experience it is a widely misinterpreted saying that for some isn't truly grasped until seeing a visual, Or given a more in depth explanation. While some people get it right away. Everyone learns differently. In the past I've actually said it to people and then have to go into further details, why I elaborated here for anyone that may need it.

I never directly insulted anyone's intelligence and had no intention to. You interpreted what I had said as insulting, because in writing, as I stated before, a sentence can be interpreted in infinite ways. If we were having this discussion in person you would have never interpreted that way.

Relax this is a friendly forum with people just trying to help each other.