Alternative to weight training for muscle maintenance?
Options
Replies
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »OP, those new numbers you put up look off to me. 2 issues I see is you set yourself up for 1200 calories, not sure why, but at the same time you're going for 150g of protein. It's unlikely that you need that much protein. By doing all that you 3nd up with 40g of fat, which is low. And 60g of carbs which might be to low for you. How much do you weigh?
I'm 5'6" and weigh 210lb. 1200 calories was the amount MFP 'selected' for me after I input my goals – that's supposed to give me a loss of 1.8lb per week. I selected 150g of protein based on the recommendations made in the previous posts to keep it around 100-130g.
The recommendation was 100-130 but you went with 150? Honestly if you just shoot for 120 or even 130g you're fine.
That 1200 calorie number is that go to for everyone and many times it's because people put the same stuff, sedentary and 2 lbs per week loss. You're 5'6" and 210 lbs and it's not like you won't be doing any kind of training at all so you are not sedentary. And if you are choosing sedentary anyway then you will need to eat back some of those calories you burn because you set it up as that you were doing no training but in reality you are. It's kind of like you're fudging the numbers to fit what you want.
You want a decent amount of protein which has been discussed.
Your body requires adequate fat intake.
You want to leave yourself enough room to have your fruits and vegetables, your fiber and whatever other carbs are in there you really want. Setting protein higher than you need it to be along with calories being lower than they really need to be doesn't allow you to address your needs.
FWIW, I pretty much agree with all of this. For where you are now, OP, if I were you, I'd probably be content with somewhere a little over 100g of protein a day. And if you're training and working hard while losing, it may be difficult to not go stir crazy and also fuel your workouts without a bit more fat and carbs in your diet.
ETA: And probably up you total calorie allowance, too, as MrM said. I'm all for aggressive deficits when one has a lot to lose, but adhering to a challenging calorie goal and working hard while doing it can prove unsustainable for lots of folks.0 -
The recommendation was 100-130 but you went with 150? Honestly if you just shoot for 120 or even 130g you're fine.
I was thinking that was near enough right, but I will lower it to 130.That 1200 calorie number is that go to for everyone and many times it's because people put the same stuff, sedentary and 2 lbs per week loss. You're 5'6" and 210 lbs and it's not like you won't be doing any kind of training at all so you are not sedentary. And if you are choosing sedentary anyway then you will need to eat back some of those calories you burn because you set it up as that you were doing no training but in reality you are. It's kind of like you're fudging the numbers to fit what you want.
When I set up my goals I selected 'sedentary' lifestyle (which is true) with 90 minutes of exercise per day (which I normally fail to achieve, but currently manage it around 4 days per week) and 1200 is the number it came up with for 1.8 pounds per week weight loss. But when I input the exercise I've done on any given day it ups the number of calories I'm supposed to have accordingly. Hope that makes sense.
0 -
Holding the little handles does NOT accurately measure your body fat percentage!
google body fat percentage measurement0 -
90 minutes per day of exercise is not sedentary. You need to understand that.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The recommendation was 100-130 but you went with 150? Honestly if you just shoot for 120 or even 130g you're fine.
I was thinking that was near enough right, but I will lower it to 130.That 1200 calorie number is that go to for everyone and many times it's because people put the same stuff, sedentary and 2 lbs per week loss. You're 5'6" and 210 lbs and it's not like you won't be doing any kind of training at all so you are not sedentary. And if you are choosing sedentary anyway then you will need to eat back some of those calories you burn because you set it up as that you were doing no training but in reality you are. It's kind of like you're fudging the numbers to fit what you want.
When I set up my goals I selected 'sedentary' lifestyle (which is true) with 90 minutes of exercise per day (which I normally fail to achieve, but currently manage it around 4 days per week) and 1200 is the number it came up with for 1.8 pounds per week weight loss. But when I input the exercise I've done on any given day it ups the number of calories I'm supposed to have accordingly. Hope that makes sense.
Also, look up to my previous post that I edited. And read it. Read it twice if you have to
I think she's referring to the MFP "daily activity" setting. She might well be sedentary, but then she needs to track her exercise and eat back an appropriate amount of those extra calories.
And that, OP, is why MFP can be a little frustrating when setting goals. Let's say you set a 120g protein target by fiddling with percentages. Then you go and log 90 minutes of exercise, and MFP adds in a bunch of calories you've "earned" from that exercise. MFP sprinkles those extra calories across your macronutrients, so each of your carb, fat and protein goals go up. I just ignore that stuff at this point -- meaning, I know I want to hit somewhere around 150 - 170g of protein when I am trying to lose weight (I usually don't quite make it, but a boy needs aspirations!); when I log exercise and MFP bumps my individual protein goal up to 190 or something, I just ignore it and still try to get that 150 - 170, and usually try to fill in the extra calories with carbs, simply because my carb amount is lower than I'd like generally (as a result of relatively high protein target, fixed fat target, and overall calorie restriction). Hope that is not too dense.
0 -
90 minutes per day of exercise is not sedentary. You need to understand that.
When I joined up on MFP it gave me a questionnaire to fill in and based on that it told me I have a "sedentary" lifestyle. It then went on to ask how much exercise I intended to do. So I think it separates lifestyle from additional exercise:
So the 1200 calorie goal is for a day when I do nothing, and if I do exercise the number on the chart for that day increases.Also, look up to my previous post that I edited. And read it. Read it twice if you have to
Yes - thanks for that. I understand that I can't have more LBM than I weigh, but I was hoping to keep as much of what I've got as possible. And as for my healthy weight, I re-checked it on the NHS calculator and apparently my lowest healthy weight is 8st3, which is 115lb. I did weigh 110 at the same height I am now (admittedly that was when I was 19) and was too thin, but before this recent gain I was 138lb and still a little flabby. But I can reevaluate that once I get a little closer to the goal.
0 -
[/quote]
When I set up my goals I selected 'sedentary' lifestyle (which is true) with 90 minutes of exercise per day (which I normally fail to achieve, but currently manage it around 4 days per week) and 1200 is the number it came up with for 1.8 pounds per week weight loss. But when I input the exercise I've done on any given day it ups the number of calories I'm supposed to have accordingly. Hope that makes sense.
[/quote]
Assuming the rest of the time you are indeed sedentary... it makes sense. The way you described it is the way it is supposed to work. Whether 1.8lb/week is optimal is a different question. FYI: 1200 cal for females is a floor that MFP won't configure below.
Potential pitfalls in the above method: errors in logging (i.e. eating more or less calories than what you're logging) and errors in your exercise calorie estimations that result in higher or lower eat back than appropriate.
Resolution: Careful observations and record keeping : - )
As to a level of protein consumption I found this article to be quite interesting.
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/
0 -
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Like most people on MFP, I would like to maintain as much muscle as possible while losing fat (I have 80+ pounds to lose).
2g per lb protein. Eating that much protein gives your body no reason to catabolic itself (my diary is open if you want to see an example of this).
Also, lower the weights if you have trouble getting into a position needed for lifts. The shaking could also be an indication of too much weight. It is also a sign that the smaller muscle groups are too weak. Dont just focus on biceps, triceps, and thighs. you should focus on your back muscles, shoulder, etc as well.
eg, try 8lbs instead of 20lbs for lateral raises (common mistake I see and read about others doing). lateral rises will help condition smaller muscle groups that support larger muscles when doing exercises such as a military press.
That is terrible advice
0.8-1g protein per lb of LBM
+10 -
I think she's referring to the MFP "daily activity" setting. She might well be sedentary, but then she needs to track her exercise and eat back an appropriate amount of those extra calories.
And that, OP, is why MFP can be a little frustrating when setting goals. Let's say you set a 120g protein target by fiddling with percentages. Then you go and log 90 minutes of exercise, and MFP adds in a bunch of calories you've "earned" from that exercise. MFP sprinkles those extra calories across your macronutrients, so each of your carb, fat and protein goals go up. I just ignore that stuff at this point -- meaning, I know I want to hit somewhere around 150 - 170g of protein when I am trying to lose weight (I usually don't quite make it, but a boy needs aspirations!); when I log exercise and MFP bumps my individual protein goal up to 190 or something, I just ignore it and still try to get that 150 - 170, and usually try to fill in the extra calories with carbs, simply because my carb amount is lower than I'd like generally (as a result of relatively high protein target, fixed fat target, and overall calorie restriction). Hope that is not too dense.
Yes. That's what I meant. The daily activity setting.
I see that MFP is not fool-proof, so I'm going to aim for 100-130g of protein per day and build up my resistance training using the calisthenics approach.
0 -
[. . . snip . . .]
As to a level of protein consumption I found this article to be quite interesting.
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/
That's an oft-shared article and does provide a nice review of some of the historical protein research intake. If you look at the link that Arcylics provided early on, and read down the thread, there are additional links and discussions by some pretty knowledgeable folks that directly address that article, and include links to some interesting discussion among Alan Aragon, Eric Helms, and others related to the approach to the inclusion of the studies that form the backbone of that article (and the exclusion of others).
0 -
Whether 1.8lb/week is optimal is a different question. FYI: 1200 cal for females is a floor that MFP won't configure below.
Potential pitfalls in the above method: errors in logging (i.e. eating more or less calories than what you're logging) and errors in your exercise calorie estimations that result in higher or lower eat back than appropriate.
Resolution: Careful observations and record keeping : - )
As to a level of protein consumption I found this article to be quite interesting.
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/
Yes, I understand that the reason MFP won't go below 1,200 is to protect itself from being sued. This came up in a previous discussion I posted entitled something like: "This 1200 calorie a day bunk".
I don't trust the exercise calculations either – according to MFP I burn off in excess of 750 calories doing my hour and ten minutes of swimming laps at a slow pace. Even for an optimist that would be hard to believe.
Thanks for the article; I'll check it out.
0 -
Which part is wrong? MFP gives me 20% of my weight which equals to 75 grams as a protein goal. It is in the 10-35% range of medical guidelines, but way above the minimum recommended 45 grams for the average woman (and my BMI is below average, so my size is not the issue). If I go by the 0.8 grams per kilo, I get 46 grams of protein. With both scenarios the 76 grams goal is really a lot. If I were to adopt the mythical gram per lb, I would get a 127 grams per day goal, which is triple the minimal medical recommendation. I am not saying it is harmful, but by no means it is a valid minimum number.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Looks like I need to double up on my current amount of protein, then. I thought I was doing well by eating the MyFitnessPal recommended amount (I'm normally a carbs person) but even using the most modest calculation suggested in these comments (1g per lb) would double that amount.
I think I'm going to purchase the Convict Conditioning book and I'll check out that nerdfitness.com site as well. I do try to make the exercises I currently do more difficult by holding the positions for longer. Basically I'm trying to feel like I exert the same amount of effort each time, so as I get fitter I will be doing more and more actual work.
Thanks to all for the replies – you've been very helpful!
MFP by default gives to you double or even triple the recommended protein, at least based on what most medical organisations recommend to eat. So, unless you are in need of a high protein diet for whatever reason, then the MFP numbers are already too high, not too low. The 1 gram per lb as minimum intake is an old myth, the recommended protein for the average person is half that if not less. This is recognised as a myth even by bodybuilders. Check here for example: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/maki1.htm
It is an upper limit that might be of help when bulking (eating at a surplus and following an appropriate strength trainign program) but it is by no means a minimum recommended number.
That entire post is just wrong. Wrong, MFP's default protein is not high. It's actually in line with what sedentary people require. People that train will require a higher amount.
When you're bulking you actually don't even need as much protein as when cutting. Less on a bulk is perfectly fine. So what you said was wrong.
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2002/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Energy-Carbohydrate-Fiber-Fat-Fatty-Acids-Cholesterol-Protein-and-Amino-Acids.aspx
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/protein/
And here is a link (which in itself I would not use as reference) which contains at the end a lot of studies about the needed protein for muscle maintenance and growth are a lot lower than what many seem to believe.
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/
Or you can check here, where the reported needed prootein intake for an athelte is only 55 grams per lb.
http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need-science-weighs-in
So, other than going against the "eat high protein and buy protein shakes" crowd on MFP, how is my post wrong?0 -
Thanks for posting the extra links. I will check those out. I guess it's possible to find medical studies to support just about any approach. I will try for 100-130g of protein for now as I think I can easily manage that as well as having everything else that I need, plus I think that will help me with getting over my tendency to binge on carbs.
And yes, accounting for natural muscle wasting as we get older, in theory I should weigh less now than when I was 19 if I want to be the same size (which I don't), but then again when I was 19 I couldn't even do one press-up let alone hold a plank for 30 seconds...0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Thanks for posting the extra links. I will check those out. I guess it's possible to find medical studies to support just about any approach. I will try for 100-130g of protein for now as I think I can easily manage that as well as having everything else that I need, plus I think that will help me with getting over my tendency to binge on carbs.
And yes, accounting for natural muscle wasting as we get older, in theory I should weigh less now than when I was 19 if I want to be the same size (which I don't), but then again when I was 19 I couldn't even do one press-up let alone hold a plank for 30 seconds...
there's nothing natural in that .. progressive weight resistance and increased activity is required .. muscles waste when we stop using them .. until we become geriatric
but you've already ruled that out
and no way should you weigh the same as a teenager .. I'm currently 16lbs above my lowest weight when I was 19/20 .. and I look almost as good .. it's not about the weight on the scale it's about the body fat
I couldn't do a press-up until I was 47 (I'm 47 now .. so that's 5 months of my life I've been able to press-ups)
0 -
I noticed you are using 1200 calories per day in your settings - is that a bit low? You may find this of interest - http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/.
It calculates your TDEE and suggests daily calories and protein, fat and carbs levels. From the info you've shared, your TDEE is over 1900 calories (guessing at 50% body fat, your TDEE is higher if your body fat is lower than that).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions