That's what I thought and I'm happy I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Because when you have spent your entire life battling your 'weight', it's a hard concept to accept that you don't necessarily need to drop lots of kg in order to significantly change how you look. I'm far from being stupid but these pictures really shocked me. I never realised you could look great without actually 'losing weight'.

@John L - As I understand it, back in the day there were a lot fad "diets" being written about in books and magazines, often in reference to someone famous. So much so, that people started to forget the original definition of the word diet. To confuse matters more, it was becoming common at this time for athletes to purchase personal scales to keep track of positive weight gain (usually muscle gains, which are hard to see if you have no tone), which these diet gurus claimed was key to getting results. Whats worse, some time around the 80's fashion designers started hiring super tall, super skinny models. Although some assumed it was because they were more aesthetically pleasing, it later came out that the primary reason for promoting this was because it saved on material and makes it easier to see the outfit on the catwalk. These and other misconceptions became such a social norm that it didn't matter if legit scientists and MD's were saying otherwise. It stuck.

Well, yes. But even though it's a little more accurate to say that the same weight of muscle takes up less space, it's not *wrong* to say that muscle weighs more than the same volume of fat. I'm not really sure why people love correcting this "misconception" so much. It's just 2 ways to say the same thing.

LOL no . stop and think about it 1 kg or something weights the same as 1 kg of something else.I kg...! kg. The difference is in the volume.