Spinning my wheels - what should be my goal?

tomatoey

Fat loss or muscle gain? I'm sick of thinking about it, so, am interested in people's thoughts.

I'm working around both upper and lower injuries. Therefore, most of the exercises I can do are bodyweight. For weighted exercises, I can do the leg press, leg curls, and cable glute kickbacks.

No free weights. No upper body, either, one arm's out and I'm watching out for imbalance/overtraining on the other (I tried to do a whole workout with single body weighted moves using the good arm and it was just too much.)

To consider:
- there's that month or so of newbie gains I'd like to take advantage of, if I can, with this limited set of exercises. If I went with "lose fat" it would suck to not gain what I could
- however, it takes less time to lose x pound of fat than it does to gain the same in muscle (Lyle McDonald had a chart somewhere, I just believe him on that).
- I have been skinny fat before, at 124 lbs (I did cardio and metabolic circuits or whatever) and hated it.
- I am uncomfortable with my current body composition - 141 lbs, 5'7, but overfat (39F)

So does it make sense to
- eat for muscle gain (or, at maintenance) + work as intensively as I can on the days I use the machines, with lots of volume for the bodyweight stuff, and let myself really recover on off days, OR
- eat at a deficit and focus on cardio with resistance & HIIT as well as doing higher rep stuff on the days I do the machines?

I'd be so grateful if you could get this out of my head, I just want to pick a goal already!

CipherZero

It depends a lot on the injuries you're working around. And Lyle's right, losing fat is far easier than building muscle, but don't confound losing weight as losing all fat.

So what injuries are you dealing with?

tomatoey

CipherZero wrote: »

It depends a lot on the injuries you're working around. And Lyle's right, losing fat is far easier than building muscle, but don't confound losing weight as losing all fat.

So what injuries are you dealing with?

Tendonitis in radialis of dominant arm, mild tendonitis of rotator cuff (same side, bothers me less but is tender sometimes), patellofemoral syndrome, mild osteoarthritis (knees, toes, hips, not really an injury per se but ya), chronic peroneal tendinosis with neuropathy. But I can do most lower body bodyweight stuff, as well as some static upper body holds (e.g. holding stationary bike handles) if I pay attention, take my hands off now and then, and don't put too much weight on that arm. I tried doing e.g. single leg RDLs and goblet squats with my left hand only and the amount of weight that would make a difference for my legs hurt and tired out my hand. I can do the machines I mentioned above, plus bike and elliptical at fairly high resistance and speed.

Right now I'm doing Contreras' Strong Curves - the bodyweight version - which is ok, except I've been doing a lot of those things for physio for the PF, so it's not as challenging as I'd like. My progression would be using single leg and e.g. slow versions of hip thrusts, bridges, and squats. So I'm not sure that's enough training stimulus to get muscle growth going, is it?

CipherZero

(obligatory disclaimer: I am not a PT nor an MD. Consult your PT/MD for a sanity check for all advice given)

Building muscle requires disrupting homeostatis with volume. Five-rep sets of large compound movements are one of the better ways to do this.

Squats rule for building legs, but your injury list is a definite concern. If you can do bodyweight squats below parallel - so the hip joint gets lower than the knee joint - I'd say start with goblet squats and see if you can hit 3x5 and increasing the weight every workout. Your PT has veto power over this advice, as patellofemoral syndrome is a contraindication for squatting.

The shoulder and elbows make any upper body work fraught with problems, and I'm going to punt on that. I know bench press and OHP both aggravate tendonitis ferociously. I've read chin ups may help, but will cause elbow pain when you're doing them.

I've had tendinitis in both elbows, but that wasn't aggravated by deadlifts. These are a god-tier back exercise that has done wonders for my multiple-trauma damaged back.

The nutrition part is easier: Eat at maintenance.

tomatoey

CipherZero wrote: »

(obligatory disclaimer: I am not a PT nor an MD. Consult your PT/MD for a sanity check for all advice given)

Lol Thank you, check

CipherZero wrote: »

Building muscle requires disrupting homeostatis with volume. Five-rep sets of large compound movements are one of the better ways to do this.

Squats rule for building legs, but your injury list is a definite concern. If you can do bodyweight squats below parallel - so the hip joint gets lower than the knee joint - I'd say start with goblet squats and see if you can hit 3x5 and increasing the weight every workout. Your PT has veto power over this advice, as patellofemoral syndrome is a contraindication for squatting.

Thank you You're right, my PT did say I shouldn't go below parallel I've been ignoring it a little (with high step-ups and bodyweight squats) and my knees aren't loving it. But, I could try to get what I can out of going to parallel.

Is there any possibility of creating imbalance by just using my good arm to carry the dumbbell, with the goblet squats? I've read that sometimes, there's transfer of strength (not mass) to the non-worked arm (via neural pathways), which might work against that...

CipherZero wrote: »

The shoulder and elbows make any upper body work fraught with problems, and I'm going to punt on that. I know bench press and OHP both aggravate tendonitis ferociously. I've read chin ups may help, but will cause elbow pain when you're doing them.

I've had tendinitis in both elbows, but that wasn't aggravated by deadlifts. These are a god-tier back exercise that has done wonders for my multiple-trauma damaged back.

Ah, sorry you've had to deal with that but it sounds like you've found a way to work around it, and are improving Awesome

CipherZero wrote: »

The nutrition part is easier: Eat at maintenance.

Whew, glad something's easy Right at maintenance, or a little under (like a few hundred cals)?

Thanks so much for thinking this through, it's a big help

CipherZero

I'd question the PT about the danger of doing a full squat compared to the benefit of it. In people with undamaged knee structures squatting above parallel causes knee pain as just above parallel is where the shear forces are the highest on the knee.

As far as one-armed goblet squats, the arms are just stabilizing the weight; if you reach a point where your hands and arms are the limitation it's time to graduate to something else.

Keep leg pressing, regardless. Those are helping build strength.

You might also ask about farmer's walks. They're a static hold exercise that works everything from shoulders to toes and may help to strengthen the soft tissues without putting motion strain on the joints.

tomatoey

CipherZero wrote: »

I'd question the PT about the danger of doing a full squat compared to the benefit of it. In people with undamaged knee structures squatting above parallel causes knee pain as just above parallel is where the shear forces are the highest on the knee.

As far as one-armed goblet squats, the arms are just stabilizing the weight; if you reach a point where your hands and arms are the limitation it's time to graduate to something else.

Keep leg pressing, regardless. Those are helping build strength.

You might also ask about farmer's walks. They're a static hold exercise that works everything from shoulders to toes and may help to strengthen the soft tissues without putting motion strain on the joints.

Well, it's more that using the same arm to hold even light weights (like a 15-20 lb dumbbell or kettlebell) for 30 minutes straight is a bit beyond what that arm can do right now (I mean my good one.) 15-20 lbs isn't doing much for my quads/hams/glutes...

Also, I am wondering about risk of creating an imbalance, just using the good arm all the time.

I'll double check with my physio, but, she's been very helpful with some things - got me walking again, after being basically housebound for months - so I do trust her.

I've been testing with the leg presses and light squats (85 lbs x 20, 15 and 15 for leg presses. 2x30 15 lbs today for squats - used some kind of fancy bar, which I held up with folded arms using the upper (unaffected) part of my arms). Got some sharp pain back in the knee I hear what you're saying about weight being good, but pain def isn't

But yeah, man, I really don't want to be doing endless reps. Sucks.

I don't know. I have an appointment this weekend, so I'll see what my physio says.

tomatoey

So, I've seen my physio, just want to update

- She said I can now do full range of motion on squats with bodyweight, as long as form is perfect, and I can see how it goes
- If the squats are hurting, I can just do lunges (less stressful on knees, apparently)
- She said I can do 6-10 reps on the leg press, leg curls and cable kickbacks as long as they're perfect form and there's no pain. The leg press isn't as bad for me as squats. She said, also, that doing fewer reps can actually be a bonus, in that if you do a million reps with crappy form you're ingraining that pattern; fewer reps = less opportunity for that. At the same time, I have to not try to be a hero and just load for the sake of a number; should focus on perfect form, always.
- No weight for now on the bad arm; I forgot to ask her about how just using the good arm would work re possible imbalances. I'm ok with these funny weighted bars at my gym, which I can cradle across my upper arms (no pain there). I might try to make myself a little sandbag or something and see how that feels for weighted lunges.

tomatoey

** leg presses not as bad as *weighted* squats; can't edit for some reason

CipherZero

Good stuff. Form always rules over weight moved.

tomatoey

Thanks so much for your input and support

AllanMisner

If you’re not able to fully commit to a lifting program, I’d focus on weight loss and do mobility and stretching work to complete the rehabilitation. If you’re getting enough protein, and your deficit isn’t extreme, you shouldn’t lose too much muscle along the way. Then you can get to 100% and really hit it like a fiend.

tomatoey

Thank you, I appreciate your thoughts I've started doing more stretching, along with the prescribed exercises (and the strength stuff I can do, my PT is on board with that side of things).

I've had advice that recomp might be a possibility, too... which is appealing in a way; although I liked being slim, skinny fat really didn't feel good. But as you say, if I keep up protein and keep the deficit small, maybe that wouldn't be as much of an issue?

DavPul

AllanMisner wrote: »

If you’re not able to fully commit to a lifting program, I’d focus on weight loss and do mobility and stretching work to complete the rehabilitation. If you’re getting enough protein, and your deficit isn’t extreme, you shouldn’t lose too much muscle along the way. Then you can get to 100% and really hit it like a fiend.

This is where I'm at with it. With the list of limitations you rolled off in the beginning of this thread I couldn't even figure what the question was. There's really no building muscle as a serious goal with that many no no exercises and activities.

That said, fat loss is a great goal. As you get leaner, you'll actually look more muscular (if that's a goal). You should be able to develop a routine that will preserve most of your LBM, even with your current limitations. Maximize fat loss, continue your rehab work, profit.

Springfield1970

Eat ever so slightly under maintenance and melt the body fat. Make sure you're having adequate protein (112g per day at your weight) and loads of variety of carbs, different colour veg, vitamins, omega 3. Keep recalculating every 5 pound lost.

Hopefully you'll hold onto muscle, put a lighter load on your poor joints and bones, and learn perfect form along the way. I wouldn't go on anything but a tiny bit undrr your calorie needs though, as you need to repair too.

Call it a stealth cut!

tomatoey

Thank you both! I am super grateful for the considered thought you've all put into this thread (had to have been a lot, to make it through my rambling), and for your solid advice. It's clear that there's a consensus emerging (between this thread and another in which I touched on the issue).

DavPul wrote: »

AllanMisner wrote: »

If you’re not able to fully commit to a lifting program, I’d focus on weight loss and do mobility and stretching work to complete the rehabilitation. If you’re getting enough protein, and your deficit isn’t extreme, you shouldn’t lose too much muscle along the way. Then you can get to 100% and really hit it like a fiend.

This is where I'm at with it. With the list of limitations you rolled off in the beginning of this thread I couldn't even figure what the question was. There's really no building muscle as a serious goal with that many no no exercises and activities.

Lol, fair enough It's possible some of this is happening:

DavPul wrote: »

That said, fat loss is a great goal. As you get leaner, you'll actually look more muscular (if that's a goal). You should be able to develop a routine that will preserve most of your LBM, even with your current limitations. Maximize fat loss, continue your rehab work, profit.

This is encouraging, thank you! Sure, I'd love to look more muscular. I'd like to actually be a lot stronger, too, but I guess it's ok if I only fake it for a while. No, actually, I will be getting stronger, in the ways available to me. So. Yes. Thank you!

Springfield1970 wrote: »

Eat ever so slightly under maintenance and melt the body fat. Make sure you're having adequate protein (112g per day at your weight) and loads of variety of carbs, different colour veg, vitamins, omega 3. Keep recalculating every 5 pound lost.

Hopefully you'll hold onto muscle, put a lighter load on your poor joints and bones, and learn perfect form along the way. I wouldn't go on anything but a tiny bit undrr your calorie needs though, as you need to repair too.

Call it a stealth cut!

Lol Ok, this is extremely clear and reasonable nutritional advice, and it's doable. You're right as well, carrying less weight should make things easier on my body. And, you're right - being kind to my bones, instead of resenting them, might help with my attitude when I'm using them, and maybe support real progress, even if it's incremental. (And really, other people on here have it a million times worse. I now feel dumb for complaining.)

You guys are great Thank you again

tomatoey

(Or not so fast)

Hey team MFP, I re-injured my shoulder, so instead of being a mild chronic thing, that's now acute and even more limiting. So bridges and hip thrusts and leg presses/curls at any weight that would involve pressure on that shoulder as I recline, and a number of other things, seem to be out in the very short term, at least. (Seeing PT tomorrow to figure it out. I think I could do bodyweight lunges and squats, maybe.)

New question: how much LBM could I now expect to lose as an effectively sedentary person, on a high protein diet at maybe 200 cals less than maintenance?

(Not that I want to - I'm just assuming I will. So should I just not bother at all for now, maybe, is the actual question. I really want to preserve as much muscle as possible.)

DavPul

tomatoey wrote: »

New question: how much LBM could I now expect to lose as an effectively sedentary person, on a high protein diet at maybe 200 cals less than maintenance?

who cares?

or, more politely put, it doesn't matter. you need/want to lose weight, correct? and you currently can't perform much, if any, resistance training to aid in LBM retention, right? but you'll look, feel, and be much healthier at a lower weight/BF% than you currently are, yes?

so if all the above are correct and true, what difference does the answer to your question bear on your decision going forward? beyond it being a total pie in the sky guess in the first place, what number number would make it seem like a good idea to NOT set your calorie consumption to a number that would have you continue losing weight? you need to lose weight, so let's do that, and not worry about the things that are currently beyond our control.

get leaner, then when you're back to being able to train, get stronger and get bigger.

tomatoey

DavPul wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

New question: how much LBM could I now expect to lose as an effectively sedentary person, on a high protein diet at maybe 200 cals less than maintenance?

who cares?

or, more politely put, it doesn't matter. you need/want to lose weight, correct? and you currently can't perform much, if any, resistance training to aid in LBM retention, right? but you'll look, feel, and be much healthier at a lower weight/BF% than you currently are, yes?

so if all the above are correct and true, what difference does the answer to your question bear on your decision going forward? beyond it being a total pie in the sky guess in the first place, what number number would make it seem like a good idea to NOT set your calorie consumption to a number that would have you continue losing weight? you need to lose weight, so let's do that, and not worry about the things that are currently beyond our control.

get leaner, then when you're back to being able to train, get stronger and get bigger.

I don't need to lose weight, I'm now 138 at 5'7. I'm motivated to improve my body composition.

I previously lost 50 pounds. I regained ~18. I am 150% sure almost all of that regain was fat, and that it adversely affected my overall bf % composition (currently in the obese range). This for sure bothers me aesthetically, and yes vanity's my main motivation, but it also affects my ability to process vitamin D (severely deficient, trying to build that up).

If I go down to 125 or 128 and wind up with an even worse body composition because I lost even more lean mass, I'll be pis$ed. Also - I know it's harder to build muscle from that point than it is to conserve it on the way down. So, if that's the case, maybe it would be better to just maintain until some of this mess gets better.

tomatoey

I mean - is it even possible to maintain 95% of my current bone & muscle density without strength training on a deficit? That's what I guess I'm asking.

or am I missing something in the equation - I don't know, my understanding is that the proportion of stuff I'd be losing would be more or less equal (fat/muscle/bone/whatever).

Also - thanks again for your reply, I do appreciate your thoughts.

AllanMisner

tomatoey wrote: »

I mean - is it even possible to maintain 95% of my current bone & muscle density without strength training on a deficit? That's what I guess I'm asking.

or am I missing something in the equation - I don't know, my understanding is that the proportion of stuff I'd be losing would be more or less equal (fat/muscle/bone/whatever).

Also - thanks again for your reply, I do appreciate your thoughts.

You obtained your current muscle mass without resistance training, so yes, it is possible to maintain 95% if you don’t lose too much more overall mass. The muscle you have is there to support the body you have (since you’re not adding much other resistance). If that body gets smaller (lighter), you’ll need less muscle to support it.

tomatoey

AllanMisner wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

I mean - is it even possible to maintain 95% of my current bone & muscle density without strength training on a deficit? That's what I guess I'm asking.

or am I missing something in the equation - I don't know, my understanding is that the proportion of stuff I'd be losing would be more or less equal (fat/muscle/bone/whatever).

Also - thanks again for your reply, I do appreciate your thoughts.

You obtained your current muscle mass without resistance training, so yes, it is possible to maintain 95% if you don’t lose too much more overall mass. The muscle you have is there to support the body you have (since you’re not adding much other resistance). If that body gets smaller (lighter), you’ll need less muscle to support it.

So, the proportions would be the same, and the absolute amount would decrease?

I feel like I'm missing a trick here, or something, sorry!

DavPul

AllanMisner wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

I mean - is it even possible to maintain 95% of my current bone & muscle density without strength training on a deficit? That's what I guess I'm asking.

or am I missing something in the equation - I don't know, my understanding is that the proportion of stuff I'd be losing would be more or less equal (fat/muscle/bone/whatever).

Also - thanks again for your reply, I do appreciate your thoughts.

You obtained your current muscle mass without resistance training, so yes, it is possible to maintain 95% if you don’t lose too much more overall mass. The muscle you have is there to support the body you have (since you’re not adding much other resistance). If that body gets smaller (lighter), you’ll need less muscle to support it.

This, but with one caveat. Your current muscle mass was most likely obtained when you had full functionality/mobility. If your activity is greatly inhibited by your current injuries, then we shouldn't expect similar results in the short term.

And at your current height/weight I agree that you don't need to do anything. But you want to do something so my answer remains the same. Go for it. Do the best you can with what you have. No misstep will be so drastic that you can't recover. And there nothing so unmotivating as doing nothing when you really want to be doing something. So do something. Trial and error is the way to get better at pretty much everything.

AllanMisner

tomatoey wrote: »

AllanMisner wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

I mean - is it even possible to maintain 95% of my current bone & muscle density without strength training on a deficit? That's what I guess I'm asking.

or am I missing something in the equation - I don't know, my understanding is that the proportion of stuff I'd be losing would be more or less equal (fat/muscle/bone/whatever).

Also - thanks again for your reply, I do appreciate your thoughts.

You obtained your current muscle mass without resistance training, so yes, it is possible to maintain 95% if you don’t lose too much more overall mass. The muscle you have is there to support the body you have (since you’re not adding much other resistance). If that body gets smaller (lighter), you’ll need less muscle to support it.

So, the proportions would be the same, and the absolute amount would decrease?

I feel like I'm missing a trick here, or something, sorry!

No tricks. It is anybody’s guess how your body will adapt. Everybody is different. Some of us retain muscle mass better than others. It is genetics. If you can do any training at all, you can get better results than not training.

tomatoey

I just want to update to say that I am back in the position I was in when I posted this, with even less mobility (knee issue is worse), and I am really glad to be able to draw from the advice in this thread. Thanks so much again to all who posted.

(I am going to try to lose 5-8 lbs through diet, keeping protein as high as possible.)