Theories please!
Options
Replies
-
Oh, why 3500 when it wasn't just fat gained, but LBM and hopefully even some muscle mass?
Because studies seem to show you can make even trades of LBM and fat mass while weight remains constant if eating at maintenance. So the same energy is needed, even though much of the LBM gain is water.
This ^^^ is of interest to me as well.
Can you link me to any further information about this?
Probably won't be as fast for women, this is men. And to be clear, this is gains in LBM off-setting loss of fat mass. They did NOT measure muscle mass, only as it is a part of LBM, and probably had some increase, but unknown how much.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/778012-potential-muscle-gain-lifting-and-metabolism-improvement0 -
were you eating at a deficit before? Whenever I've heard of women doing weight training, eating at a deficit, and losing inches but gaining weight (more than just 5lb or so of glycogen/water gains), they were eating at a deficit before, usually either a big deficit or they were in deficit for a very long time. The gains in weight are from a number of different things, they include the following:
- refilling of glycogen stores, which results in water weight gain as glycogen is stored with water. (this is limited, as once the glycogen stores are full, the gains stop)
- increase in the amount of glycogen stored in the muscles
- increase in bone density, due to replacement of bone minerals lost while eating at a deficit
- muscle memory gains due to lean body mass being lost while in a deficit before
- noob gains, due to not having done heavy lifting or equivalent kinds of exercise before
Someone who was sedentary before, but not undereating, may see noob gains and an increase on bone mineral density, as being sedentary leads to loss of bone density. Anyone who's been eating at a deficit, even a sensible, conservative one, will have depleted their glycogen stores somewhat, and will see an initial glycogen/water weight gain after upping their calories, but if that's the only factor, it stops once the stores are full and further weight gain is really difficult and requires a calorie surplus.
All of the above are very healthy changes in the body, i.e. reversing the effects of being sedentary and/or undereating in the past. All of them will result in some degree of weight gain without eating at a surplus. Gaining muscle mass over and above your natural amount (i.e. what you'd have by being active and eating well, but without training like a beast and deliberately eating at a surplus) requires a surplus. But there are lots of ways the body can gain weight, without actual growth of new muscle tissue. this confuses a lot of people.
If you've always been active and eaten well, then I have no idea what's going on!0 -
Without being mean, it is highly unlikely that you have metabolic damage with your BF% (sorry :flowerforyou:). The whole Layne Norton metabolic damage videos are re already lean people in contest prep but is being taken out of context.
You *may* have a suppressed metabolism due to medical reasons, and also due to just dieting - but this is not the metabolic damage discussed in those videos. People can have their metabolism messed up from yo-yo dieting and severely restricting calories for a long time, however, your circumstances would not 'fit the bill' as far as I am aware. You also may just have a naturally low BMR.
Doing some math, using some estimated numbers.
You start lifting - 4lb gain in fluids
You have some newbie gains - 2lb in muscle
You may even have some overweight and/or recomp gains/bulk gains - say 4lb gain in muscle (which is on the high side)
Total = 10lb of which 6lb is muscle.
There is nothing I have seen that would suggest that a 11lb or so gain (the 15lb less glycogen/water) would be muscle gains over that period.
I'm sorry, you know in retrospect I probably worded my question wrong. I don't actually think that I have *gained* 15lbs of muscle :laugh: I know that is most certainly not the case.
I am still curious about the questions I asked because I thought that there could be a possibility that would explain away a couple of pounds, not all of them.
I also agree with my not having metabolic damage.....I have watched some of Layne Norton's videos on it and figured it was definitely a long shot for me in particular but when examining how 1800 calories *could* be a surplus....well to be diligent I had to give it some thought. Plus I like learning :flowerforyou:
Back in March (when I put away the scale and measurements and pics for 3 months.....I had started to become obsessed with this) I came to the conclusion that the gain was likely 5lbs hormonal from the Mirena and that would work itself out and that 5lbs would be water/glycogen...etc....
So none the less, a 5lb gain AGAIN completely confused me because I thought that after 6 months of lifting, of the IUD and all that good stuff that at the very least, I would have maintained.....so it really did get me thinking.
I mean the good news is that things are happening and I'm changing.....I'm not asking what to change....more just trying to understand what is happening, if that makes sense
Thank you!0 -
were you eating at a deficit before? Whenever I've heard of women doing weight training, eating at a deficit, and losing inches but gaining weight (more than just 5lb or so of glycogen/water gains), they were eating at a deficit before, usually either a big deficit or they were in deficit for a very long time. The gains in weight are from a number of different things, they include the following:
- refilling of glycogen stores, which results in water weight gain as glycogen is stored with water. (this is limited, as once the glycogen stores are full, the gains stop)
- increase in the amount of glycogen stored in the muscles
- increase in bone density, due to replacement of bone minerals lost while eating at a deficit
- muscle memory gains due to lean body mass being lost while in a deficit before
- noob gains, due to not having done heavy lifting or equivalent kinds of exercise before
Someone who was sedentary before, but not undereating, may see noob gains and an increase on bone mineral density, as being sedentary leads to loss of bone density. Anyone who's been eating at a deficit, even a sensible, conservative one, will have depleted their glycogen stores somewhat, and will see an initial glycogen/water weight gain after upping their calories, but if that's the only factor, it stops once the stores are full and further weight gain is really difficult and requires a calorie surplus.
All of the above are very healthy changes in the body, i.e. reversing the effects of being sedentary and/or undereating in the past. All of them will result in some degree of weight gain without eating at a surplus. Gaining muscle mass over and above your natural amount (i.e. what you'd have by being active and eating well, but without training like a beast and deliberately eating at a surplus) requires a surplus. But there are lots of ways the body can gain weight, without actual growth of new muscle tissue. this confuses a lot of people.
If you've always been active and eaten well, then I have no idea what's going on!
Thank you so much for this!
I have been "dieting" since September 2011, started out at 1200 calories but then bumped up and up to where I was probably closer to 2000 when I started SL in November (I would have to look at my diet journals to get the exact intake). I also added exercise in around February/March 2012....started playing with dumbbell workouts summer 2012 and then SL in November.
I definitely agree that these are healthy changes for me.....I feel great and the inches are coming off....just not in the same places that I had measured so I actually rely on the pics now instead of the measuring tape.0 -
Locking so we can keep track of active threads. If you wish for the thread to be unlocked if you further questions, please feel free to PM either myself or SideSteel, including a link to this thread and we will unlock it so you can ask them.0
This discussion has been closed.