A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of brick. It's the volume of the feathers. They take up more space. A pound is a pound of anything. Depending on the brick one brick weighs more than a pound.

I think so. Probably about a liter of tea and about 1-1.5L of tap water (depending on activity level).

A pound is a pound
 

Dear Kitt,

I am not sure what to make of your post. I thought I made myself clear that a pound of "anything" is still a pound if we are speaking of weight.

To compare a pound of anything with a pound of a different item, they will always be the same weight as we are comparing ONE pound with another ONE pound. One pound of feathers will always be equal in weight to one pound of brick(s).

When I said muscle weighs more than fat, I backed that up with a cubic inch of muscle DOES weigh more than a cubic inch of fat. That is a FACT. Muscle has more density than fat. In this scenario, we are comparing the exact same size (a cubic inch) of two different items (muscle and fat) which have different densities and therefore different weights.

I really do not see your point. It appears to me that we actually agree -- that density affects weight. (And muscle has more density than fat.)

If you fill a bag with feathers, and you fill another bag of the exact same size with concrete, the bag of concrete will weigh more than the bag of feathers. The reason is the density of the concrete versus the density of the feathers. In this case, both the volume and density differ, only the size of the bag is the same (the container), NOT the items being compared. The items being compared, feathers and concrete, differ in both weight and volume.

Now, if you measure out a pound of feathers and place it in a bag, and also measure out a pound of concrete in another bag, both bags weigh the exact same amount, ONE pound each.

I think we are both saying the same thing, just going about it in different ways.

There is a lot more to the complexity of weight loss than the debate on weight of fat versus weight of muscle. Just as it is not as simple as often stated that if calories IN equals calories OUT equates to no change in weight. That is an over simplification but is often listed as the goal to maintaining weight. There are a lot more factors that come into play.

I just did not think this thread was the place to go into all the biology and body chemistry of body weight.

The person that started the thread asked why she was not losing weight when she was building muscle. I was trying to give a short and simple response. It is a FACT, that muscle has more density and when comparing a cubic inch of fat to a cubic inch of muscle, muscle DOES indeed weigh more. If I were better at providing links, I would provide them to prove it.

We seem to say the same thing, just in different ways. (Except that you referred to the weight of muscle and fat being different as a myth in your initial response to my post.) It is NOT a myth, I just did not go into all the details of WHY muscle and fat are NOT equal when you consider comparing the same size of each with one another.

What shouldve been mentioned is that muscle is far dense than volume, and musclewould weight more than fat if covering the same amount of volume.