When does a deficit effect LBM?

Roza42

I have food sensitivities and allergy issues. So I tightened up and the last 4 days I have lost 8 lbs. I have lost 20 lbs in 117 days for a total of 79 over 4 years. I have MFP set for a deficit of 500 calories per day, and have felt pretty good. The last 3 days I have been running about a 900 calorie deficit, and I noticed that my lifts were off this morning. I did 3x5s and pyramids instead of 5x5s because I felt "empty".

When does the deficit effect lean body mass and how much lifting is required to maintain lean body mass?

Exercise - 12 mile bike commute 5-6x per week (depending on my knee), 1x per week 22ish mile bike ride, 3x per week lifting, and 2x per week martial arts.

Stats - 50 Female, 248 lbs, 44ish% BF (before I dropped the 20 lbs I got 44 on the hand held and calipers)

Roza42

Sorry, but when I say tightened up I mean that I haven't had anything to trigger a reaction, so eating home prepared foods or from Whole foods.

heybales

Remember - LBM is everything that is NOT fat - muscle mass, water (can be around 70% of body is water), bones, organs, blood volume, ect.

You should lose LBM as you lose FM (Fat Mass) - because you need less of some of that stuff supporting less fat.

Unless your fitness level goes up and you need more of that back - like more blood volume.

Just saying, you'll never retain LBM, and shouldn't hope to - but you can sure maintain muscle mass with reasonable deficit, resistance training, and enough protein. Either of those on their own has shown that in studies with controlled healthy participants being tested out the whazoo - combine them and you in your own non-study will likely have success too.

Also so you know - fat is not fast, gain or loss.
You lost mainly water weight if that fast, which would include glucose stores in the muscles with attached water - which could easily explain the trouble with lifting when you need them.

Curious too, that would be good info for others to help.

MFP set to 500 cal deficit.
So that means logging exercise correctly so the 500 deficit is off what you burn in total?
Or you start with 500 and even normally you create even more deficit by unlogged/uneaten exercise calories?

Such that the 900 cal deficit lately actually includes even more deficit from unlogged/uneaten exercise?

Roza42

@heybales Thanks. I do forget that LBM is not just muscle mass. My concern is that I don't want to lose muscle or feel weak.

No, the fat loss was my maintaining my deficit even though the scale climbed for four weeks which is tough to do. The last few days my joints have stopped aching and my clothes are looser around the middle. Not exactly usual water weight, but the inflammation from allergies and food sensitivities. I don't think that it would have been from the muscles.

I try to log exercise correctly most of the time. But it could be a little under. I don't log the ride from work to the gym as it is only 10 minutes or when I bike to lunch, 10 minute round trip. But then I am on lightly active and I don't usually walk much because of my knee until this last month. And Cyclemeter logs higher calories than MFP, so when I have to redo the entry it changes the calories.

I guess the actual question is When does the deficit effect muscle mass and how much lifting is required to maintain muscle mass?

Roza42

Oh, the 500 is the deficit from the total. I do eat most if not all the exercise calories back. If I look at net calories, then 3 days out of the week will be slightly under, 2 will be well under, and 2 days will be over. I hadn't realized that. I thought I was closer except for the days I went over.

The question actually arises because someone suggested to me that I should go for the higher deficit and lose weight more quickly. I know personally that a deficit like that is not doable for me in the long run, but after looking at my numbers I am already lower than I thought.

I am concerned at what point the deficit becomes counterproductive on its own.

heybales

The answers to those questions are entirely personal.

Studies have shown what you might call failsafe's - where they are in great conditions and maybe only 2 different levels of eating or workout, and one showed good results, one not so good.

For instance one study showed 1.5% weekly loss of body weight (whatever deficit required to accomplish that) barely maintained LBM (but they didn't measure difference of muscle mass and the rest, so could have still lost muscle mass, but gained glucose and attached water in other muscle).
But 0.7% weekly loss showed increase of LBM though while weight was of course lost.

So could your body handle 1.5% as some in study could without the negatives, or will you have negatives like some had.
Or would you be better on max 0.7%, and possibly have better results than they had.

Unless you feel like paying for a research study on you and getting DEXA scans and lab workout and muscle biopsy's ect - your results will like show up what is occurring.

Or follow the failsafe's to play it safe rather than risk going for max and it doesn't happen to work well for you.

Sarauk2sf

Tagging to respond to shortly.