Help: I only seem to be able to lose weight if I don't exercise?

MelonFlower

I currently eat 1700 cal a day, relatively low carb (60-90g/day) because I'm insulin resistant. I've noticed if I eat this way and don't workout, I lose weight on the scale. If I work out, especially weight lift, my weight doesn't seem to go anywhere (sometimes it goes up! Even at 1700cal). I like working out, and ultimately I'd like to be toned with roughly 21% BF, so sitting around doesn't appeal to me.

I know the whole "muscle weighs more than fat" deal, but I'm really looking to drop mass overall (hopefully mostly BF but likely muscle will come off, too). Any exercise science/nutrition nerds have ideas what's going on? Is this something I should just power through, and keep working out with hopes the weight will come off?

5'5" 29 yo 154lbs 28%BF

THANKS!

aplcr0331

I've never heard of the muscles weighs more than fat thing? What is that? Thinking about it does not make sense?

diannethegeek

Are you giving your body time to adjust to the workouts (2-3 weeks)? Or are you getting spooked by the increase in water retention that happens when you start weight training and quitting after a couple of days?

Branstin

It is common for the body to hold onto water weight with new weight lifting exercises. As long as you are accurately tracking your calories, keep lifting weights and you will eventually see weight loss. It takes a couple of weeks for some people.

SergeantSausage

aplcr0331 wrote: »

I've never heard of the muscles weighs more than fat thing? What is that? Thinking about it does not make sense?

Really? 'Cause its true.

I mean ... a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat, but because of different densities a given volume of muscle weighs more than the same volume of fat.

Or, stated differently in the context of this image: since muscle is more dense (heavier (weighs more)) it takes less volume of it to weigh out the same.



When I get down to Race Weight, after a hard 16 week training cycle, I will often be physically smaller (2 inches on the pants waistline), and yet weigh 8 to 12 pounds more. More muscle mass, therefore heavier ... even though smaller.

RGv2

It's water retention from the lifting.

Not sure if I read the 2nd paragraph right, but why would you want to lose muscle? You get "toned" my maintaining it (lifting). Lifting doesn't inherently build muscle. You can gain a little bit right away, but most weight stall/gain in the beginning (if you're tracking and in a deficit) comes from retained water used for muscle repair. This water retention can last, for most, anywhere from 2-4 weeks.

When you're in a deficit your body loses water, fat, and muscle. By lifting in that deficit you work to retain the muscle so your body loses mainly water and fat. Doing this yes, the scale won't move as fast (or can increase) because what you're losing isn't dense. This is why many people will say they lost inches, but don't see a big change on the scale. By retaining as much LBM while losing fat is where "tone" comes from. Stripping the fat away from the muscle it was covering.

MelonFlower

And yes, I meant, by volume, muscle weighs more than fat (fat less dense)

***

Well, I'd love to keep all my muscle, but I just figured it may not be realistic to lose 20lbs of just pure fat (though that would be lovely!). I feel like that would take a super long time? Maybe I'm wrong.

In the past when I weight lifted, I was eating boatloads of protein, but not tracking calories. I think it's probably safe to say I haven't given weight lifting with caloric deficit a fair shot... I just start freaking out when I notice the scale doesn't move or worse goes up, and I don't think my BF monitor is sensitive enough to ease my woes. So yes, I'm probably getting spooked.

Thanks for the info everyone!