They say that muscle is heavier than fat
It had better be, otherwise that whole burn-more-calories-than-you-eat-and-lose-weight thing is a fallacy. Nachos, rioja, pie’n’beans, chips and chicken satay notwithstanding: (they were exceptions); I have totally cut back.
Historically, I am an excellent dieter, but with the addition of exercise, I seem to have lost the knack. I suppose it is because you can’t exercise and function without eating, whereas if you are simply dieting, you can just sit around feeling hungry and wait until you are about to crack into a six-pack of Sainsbury’s chocolate chip muffins and then think to yourself: “Go to bed hungry; wake up thin!” and then go to bed.
So, is muscle heavier than fat? I’ll do some research.
Right. There does seem to be a concensus that muscle is heavier than fat. There are some pernickety people who like to point out that it is an absurd question and that 1lb of fat is going to weigh the same as 1lb of muscle. Yep. Seems fair enough, The key word in the discussion seems to be “dense”. (*Flashback to House – CUDDY to HOUSE: Are you being intentionally DENSE?*)
Muscle is apparently three times more dense than fat, so the same volume of muscle would be heavier than the same volume of fat.
And then there is the notion of “visceral fat”. How the scales can tell the difference between visceral fat and, well, general random fat, I do not know. Hold on:
Nope. I still don’t know, but what I have learned is that to shift visceral fat, one needs to exercise, and wikipedia is kind enough to describe exactly the kinds of exercise I am taking – so despite my static weight, maybe I am metamorphosing into a lithe and lean machine.
Oh well. I love food and I am very much enjoying the exercise. Maybe you can have your cake and eat it.
Worth a try!