Muscle does NOT in fact weight more than fat! 5lbs of either tissue is still 5lbs, though fat shows up more because it sits closer to the skin and spreads throughout the body to cushion our organs and all that good stuff
If you gain 5lbs, it’s 5lbs regardless of which tissue you happen to increase. And Sean, thanks for the segue because gaining muscle (which does indeed contribute to reduction in body fat percentage) is much more preferable. Gina, mass is mass—5lbs is 5lbs regardless of what comprises those 5lbs! Muscle is denser, so if there were two lumps on the table the lump of muscle tissue would probably be smaller visually than the lump of fat—again the weight remains the same. And another thing people should stop believing is the stupid fallacy that skinny = healthy. Body composition matters, and that is linked to what you eat and how you work out. People may look skinny on the outside, but if you take their body comp stats, you may find that the ratio between lean muscle mass v. visceral fat is off…hence the “soft” look of what is called “skinny-fat” v. the defined and taut look of athletic healthy.
And referring back to the difference in density, that is why when you throw both lumps into water the fat floats and the muscle lump sinks. But weight-wise (talking scale weight here) it’s the same measurement. Make sense? It also explains why one the one extreme muscular people with low body fat % look “hard” and “smaller/slimmer” around the middle for example (more dense, see?) and at the other extreme obese people with less lean muscle and a high fat % look “soft” and “bigger” around the middle. Just giving an overgeneralized example using the waist (easiest visual image) for clarification purposes, since we all know how huge bodybuilders and some pro athletes can get—but they have taut, tight waists!