Muscles, Fat & Bologna

This week's weight loss (or rather lack thereof) definitely has me a little frustrated. Of course, the knee-jerk reaction to not liking what one sees on the scale is to go with the old, "Well, you know, muscle weighs more than fat..."

Did you ever notice that no one mentions this when they've actually lost weight? "Gee, Bill, you must have really converted a lot of muscles into fat to post that kind of loss." Doesn't happen. You know why? The whole thing is a bunch of balderdash.

Does a pound of muscle weigh more than a pound of fat? I'm pretty sure I was asked a similar riddle in the second grade involving feathers and lead. I knew the answer then, still do. A pound is a pound. Muscle doesn't "weigh" more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat. A pound of muscle will take up much less room than a pound of fat, but they will weigh the same.

Beyond the inaccurate phrasing of the statement, "muscle weighs more than fat," there is a deeper meaning, the ultimate fitness excuse. The idea here is that I could build up X amount of muscle and burn Y amount of fat, and the different in their densities would offset one another. Isn't that a comforting thought? Just because the scale doesn't move doesn't mean that I'm not getting slimmer? The thing is, though, I don't buy it.

Along with being denser, muscles require more calories of support from your body than do fat cells. In other words, by adding muscle we burn more calories, even during periods of rest. This is a pretty good argument for doing strength training as a part of your weight loss regiment. It also makes me think that it's not very likely that I could add much muscle without seeing a drop in weight on the scale.

I'm not looking to make excuses for my failure to lose weight. Excuses are what got me heavy in the first place. Excuses don't burn any calories. My answer to this week's weigh in is going to be to stay the course. I know that if I keep working and keep making healthy decisions, it will catch up with me.