Density of Fat Tissue

Hi All,

I have often read that "muscle is heavier than fat".

Does anyone know where I can get some real numbers about what the mass of say one cubic centimeter
of fat is vs. the mass of one cubic centimeter of muscle ? Does it vary with age and / or for male
and female runners ?

Getting the real numbers will also help me to convince my teenage daughter to start running with
me, since loosing one kilogram of fat actually means a reduction of so many cubic centimeter from
her figure !

Please help and thank you.

Charlie Smith

news.tiscali.co.za wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have often read that "muscle is heavier than fat".
>
> Does anyone know where I can get some real numbers about what the mass of say one cubic centimeter
> of fat is vs. the mass of one cubic centimeter of muscle ? Does it vary with age and / or for male
> and female runners ?

Well, a quick google turned up these figures.

Human body fat: 0.918 gm/cc Human muscle: 1.049 gm/cc

These figures are from http://mb-soft.com/public2/bodyfat.html and
http://ajpheart.physiology.org/cgi/c...ull/278/1/H162 respectively.

Can't vouch for the veracity of the figures but I've no reason to disbelieve them either.

HTH

Tim
--
Remove the obvious to reply by email.

Hello,

It has been a long time since I learned this so it could be in error but I believe that a cc of fat
is 9/5 times the cc of the same weight of muscle. That is, fat is 1.8 as large as muscle.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but this is my understanding.

Goog luck!!

Doug "news.tiscali.co.za" <adurand@spescom.com> wrote in message
news:blbvu2$nh5$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Hi All,
>
> I have often read that "muscle is heavier than fat".
>
> Does anyone know where I can get some real numbers about what the mass of say one cubic centimeter
> of fat is vs. the mass of one cubic centimeter of muscle ? Does it vary with age and / or for male
> and female runners ?
>
> Getting the real numbers will also help me to convince my teenage daughter to start running with
> me, since loosing one kilogram of fat actually means
a
> reduction of so many cubic centimeter from her figure !
>
> Please help and thank you.
>
> Charlie Smith

On 2003-09-30, Tim Downie <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> news.tiscali.co.za wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I have often read that "muscle is heavier than fat".
>>
>> Does anyone know where I can get some real numbers about what the mass of say one cubic
>> centimeter of fat is vs. the mass of one cubic centimeter of muscle ? Does it vary with age and /
>> or for male and female runners ?
>
> Well, a quick google turned up these figures.
>
> Human body fat: 0.918 gm/cc Human muscle: 1.049 gm/cc

Fat will float on water, which is 1 g/cm^3 so it must be below 1.

I have seen other figures like: Bone=2.5, fat = 0.65, muscle = 1.2

But it seems 0.9 / 1.1 is the most common figures I can find.

So by shaping up, and converting 1 kg fat to 1 kg muscle, you will lose 22% volume of the 1 kg, or
approx 200 ml.

>
> These figures are from http://mb-soft.com/public2/bodyfat.html and
> http://ajpheart.physiology.org/cgi/c...ull/278/1/H162 respectively.
>
> Can't vouch for the veracity of the figures but I've no reason to disbelieve them either.
>
> HTH
>
> Tim

"news.tiscali.co.za" <adurand@spescom.com> wrote in message
news:<blbvu2$nh5$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
> Hi All,
>
> I have often read that "muscle is heavier than fat".
>
> Does anyone know where I can get some real numbers about what the mass of say one cubic centimeter
> of fat is vs. the mass of one cubic centimeter of muscle ? Does it vary with age and / or for male
> and female runners ?
>
> Getting the real numbers will also help me to convince my teenage daughter to start running with
> me, since loosing one kilogram of fat actually means a reduction of so many cubic centimeter from
> her figure !
>
> Please help and thank you.
>
> Charlie Smith

I'm assuming your teenage daughter, like most, is more concerned with looking slender and fitting
into a smaller size. I would explain to her that to reach and maintain those goals, fat loss is
important, but muscle gain is ultimately more important.

One mistake most women make is thinking that gaining muscle will make them heavier or bulky looking.
Yes, it will, but you should point out to her that:

1) One pound of muscle takes up less volume than one pound of fat; this means that if you replace a
pound of fat with a pound of muscle, you'll end up looking more slender and firmer.

2) A pound of muscle burns more calories, even at rest. I'd point out to her that this is why men
can eat like total pigs, and women just look at food and seem to gain weight. It's because most
women tend not to have as much muscle.

Concentrating on fat loss alone is a frustrating and ultimately losing battle. It's so frustrating,
many teenage women end up doing all sorts of stupid things, like throwing up or taking pills.

Even if they succeed, as we age, we slowly lose muscle mass if we aren't doing anything to maintain
it. The more muscle mass we lose, the less calories we burn, even at rest. So if you don't maintain
that muscle, to keep in your size 4 jeans you'll have to compensate by eating less and less. It's
not healthy and it's certainly not fun to go around starving all the time.

Running is a great activity, it does great things for your heart and yes it burns calories. It will
build muscle, but ultimately, I'd encourage your daughter to *also* weight train. Not only will
weight training help her fight the aging process, it will help keep her bones strong, an important
thing for women.

You can tell her that I am 5' tall. At times in my life when I did not weight train or exercise, and
rigidly dieted by eating less than 1200 cals a day, I could get myself down to 103 lbs. I would be
wearing a petite size 4. Note that anything less than 1200 calories a day, it is awfully hard to get
adequate nutrition. Note also that as I aged, I was losing muscle and therefore burning calories at
a slower rate, thus requiring that I eat even less, or slowly gain weight.

When I started running, I found I could eat 1300-1500 cals a day, and my weight would hover around
106-110 lbs. However, I would still be wearing a petite size 4, and I jiggled a little less.

When I added weight training, I could eat 2000-2200 cals a day. My weight at one point shot up
to 120, *BUT* I was wearing a size 0, they were loose, and I looked the best I have ever looked
in my life.

So, the scale does not tell the whole tale, and dieting is a fairly stupid activity.

jen

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:17:33 +0000 (UTC), "Povl H. Pedersen" <pope@home.terminal.dk> wrote:

>On 2003-09-30, Tim Downie <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> news.tiscali.co.za wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I have often read that "muscle is heavier than fat".
>>>
>>> Does anyone know where I can get some real numbers about what the mass of say one cubic
>>> centimeter of fat is vs. the mass of one cubic centimeter of muscle ? Does it vary with age and
>>> / or for male and female runners ?
>>
>> Well, a quick google turned up these figures.
>>
>> Human body fat: 0.918 gm/cc Human muscle: 1.049 gm/cc
>
>Fat will float on water, which is 1 g/cm^3 so it must be below 1.
>
>I have seen other figures like: Bone=2.5, fat = 0.65, muscle = 1.2
>
>But it seems 0.9 / 1.1 is the most common figures I can find.
>
>So by shaping up, and converting 1 kg fat to 1 kg muscle, you will lose 22% volume of the 1 kg, or
>approx 200 ml.
>
>>
>> These figures are from http://mb-soft.com/public2/bodyfat.html and
>> http://ajpheart.physiology.org/cgi/c...ull/278/1/H162 respectively.
>>
>> Can't vouch for the veracity of the figures but I've no reason to disbelieve them either.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> Tim

One inch of rain is equal to 12" of snow.

<McLegHumper@homeless.net> wrote in message news:b42knv4fb3r0l4l0n3187o7id1n3om4loh@4ax.com...
>
> One inch of rain is equal to 12" of snow.

Actually, it's more like 10 inches.

But that's OK. Did you know that 1 inch of rain translates into 5.6 gallons per square yard, and
27,000 gallons per square acre?

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:52:09 GMT, "Karl Hungus" <karlhungus@comcast.net> wrote:

>
><McLegHumper@homeless.net> wrote in message news:b42knv4fb3r0l4l0n3187o7id1n3om4loh@4ax.com...
>>
>> One inch of rain is equal to 12" of snow.
>
>Actually, it's more like 10 inches.
>

>But that's OK. Did you know that 1 inch of rain translates into 5.6 gallons per square yard, and
>27,000 gallons per square acre?
>

The average human cleans the lint from their bellybuttons an average of once a week.