Weight gain without size increase?

[Thanatos]

The reason i am asking, I have gained weight .... but my measurements (arm, chest, waist etc.) remain the same. If i had gained fat, then my waist must be a little bigger ... or if i've gained muscle, then my arm must be bigger. But no change in measruements, yet there's increase in weight.

I am not talking about water weight. So my question is, is it possible that weight could increase by making muscles stronger rather than bigger? for instance, weak muscles ... through exercise become stronger but not bigger .... will this increase weight even though there's no increase in size?

Because I can't figure out why there is weight gain without size gain?

[Tim Cornelis]

When you do your excercises what's your set and rep count?

[Sasha]

Muscle is heavier than fat, so if you train on strength and not size you can lose fat and gain the same "volume" of muscle which would make you more heavier at the same or even smaller size.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

train strength not size by doing less reps. Doing 5 sets of 3-5 reps (they will have to be pretty heavy reps!) will increase your power/explosive strength but will not have a profound effect on your muscle size.

That's why there are a lot of relatively small guys who are explosively strong (think of some footballers like luis suarez, steve gerrard, cristiano ronaldo), and some big bodybuilders who don't lift that heavy.

[Thanatos]

Thanks, but I dont think ppl are understanding it.

Let's say your arm is 15 inch, waist 30 inch, chest 40 etc. etc. You gain 5 kg. You measure again - same measurements. That means weight has increased but no increase in size. So my question is, can muscle stay the same size and yet increase in weight? Arm size stays the same but the weight of the arm increases nevertheless...is that possible?

[PhoenixAsh]

No.

That said.

Measuring is notoriously inaccurate. So your range of error is a few millimeter. Which could account for as much weight (depending on size) as 2-6 kilo's. Both in fat and in muscle....

BUT....

btw:
Density of muscle 1.06Kg/L
Density of fat 0.9Kg/L

[Thanatos]

No.

That said.

Measuring is notoriously inaccurate. So your range of error is a few millimeter. Which could account for as much weight (depending on size) as 2-6 kilo's. Both in fat and in muscle....

BUT....

btw:
Density of muscle 1.06Kg/L
Density of fat 0.9Kg/L

Thanks, I didn't know even mm could cause so much error - so, for example, even a quarter inch could be 5 kilos???

Also what is L?

[The Jay]

liter, a unit of volume

[PhoenixAsh]

Thanks, I didn't know even mm could cause so much error - so, for example, even a quarter inch could be 5 kilos???


yes. A quarter of an inch is quite a lot of expansion or reduction. Apply that over your entire body (which is not exactly how it works but...) ... and you have a lot of fat/muscle tissue. Plus...expanding fat for example and expanding muscle tissue is not only subcutane.

[Thanatos]

yes. A quarter of an inch is quite a lot of expansion or reduction. Apply that over your entire body (which is not exactly how it works but...) ... and you have a lot of fat/muscle tissue. Plus...expanding fat for example and expanding muscle tissue is not only subcutane.

What is a quarter inch in terms of kg? I assumed it'd be negligible..could this quarter inch be 5 kg, then? I find it so hard to believe...... it seems so small an improvement, how can it translate to 5 kg? So to add one whole inch to my arm, I will have to put on an awful amount of weight......sucks.

Also I don't understand subcutane - is it the outer layer?