Density of Fat Tissue

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by News.Tiscali.Co, Sep 30, 2003.

  1. 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
     
    Tags:


  2. Tim Downie

    Tim Downie Guest

    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/content/full/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.
     
  3. Doug Gilliam

    Doug Gilliam Guest

    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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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
     
  4. On 2003-09-30, Tim Downie <timdo[email protected]> 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/content/full/278/1/H162 respectively.
    >
    > Can't vouch for the veracity of the figures but I've no reason to disbelieve them either.
    >
    > HTH
    >
    > Tim
     
  5. Shinypenny

    Shinypenny Guest

    "news.tiscali.co.za" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > 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
     
  6. McLegHumper

    McLegHumper Guest

    On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:17:33 +0000 (UTC), "Povl H. Pedersen" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 2003-09-30, Tim Downie <[email protected]> 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/content/full/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.
     
  7. Karl Hungus

    Karl Hungus Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > 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?
     
  8. McLegHumper

    McLegHumper Guest

    On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:52:09 GMT, "Karl Hungus" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >> 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.
     
Loading...
Loading...