If I hold several pounds of butter or a jug of oil in my hand — essentially pure fat — is that approximately the same volume one would lose if they diet/exercised off the same number of pounds? Is water a better approximation for weight-to-volume? What about muscle tissue? Is it significantly denser than fat? If someone puts on five pounds of muscle weight, is that the same as five pounds of ribeye, tenderloin, boneless chicken thighs, etc? Which is closest?
I realize that these would be loose approximations, but if someone says “I lost ten pounds” or “in three months I’ll lose ten pounds,” I think it would be neat to have a visual idea — especially since the weight comes off of multiple and large areas. As in “wow, you lost 25 pounds? That’s like three gallons of water!”
Butter is a good approximation of fat, pound for pound; water is not. If you plan to lose 5 pounds, you probably shouldn’t look at 5 pounds of butter; you might think you could never do it.
Muscle I’m not so sure about. You probably wouldn’t compare it to beef, because most beef sold for food has marbled fat in it. Maybe chicken, since most fat is subcutaneous in a chicken, but I don’t know how the muscle density compares to humans.
Wow, pretty neat idea – but five pounds for $150?! Yikes!
Actually, I think I may like the idea. When you’ve got sixty or seventy to go, five pounds is such a wee drop in the (KFC) bucket – but if we’re talking five boxes o’ butter, that’s a lot. Clearly they won’t be in nice rectangular shapes but smooshed in a thin layer and whatnot, but it’s still something to go on rather than a nebulous pound label.
As for meat (they’re made of what?), that too is a bit hard to conceptualize in the abstract. But five pounds of chicken is certainly less than five pounds of butter (volume-wise), that too is helpful in motivating the picking up and putting down of heavy objects department.
