Strength training vs weight loss
Replies
-
debrakgoogins wrote: »If you want to be able to walk up three flights of stairs without being winded, do cardio. If you want to feel stronger, more flexible and see more visible results in your body, do strength training. The scale numbers may not move as fast as you would like but your measurements will make you smile.
truth of the matter is this...when I started here 2 years ago as a smoker and 60lbs overweight married to man who doesn't smoke and used to do triathalons and has a very physical job after weight lifting for a year I got less winded than he did going up stairs...even as a smoker...
He is younger, does more physical work than I do and it was the weight lifting that gave that to me...
Don't think for one minute heavy lifting doesn't effect your cardio it does.
Thank you for addressing this.
I too am a smoker...told ya I was bad. Have you Quit? I want to quit but its so hard!!!!! and I like it so much
0 -
I'm not disputing that DEXA is the most accurate but you also can't say that the US Navy method is not a practical tool for determining body fat. Are calipers as accurate as Dexa? No, they are not. Are they still a good method for checking bf? Of course. So is every other method, for TRACKING and measuring changes.juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan.
I agree...but then I'd be careful suggesting that your numbers documenting your progress are in any way remotely accurate and furthermore I wouldn't be questioning long proven science based on those results.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »
I'm not disputing that DEXA is the most accurate but you also can't say that the US Navy method is not a practical tool for determining body fat. Are calipers as accurate as Dexa? No, they are not. Are they still a good method for checking bf? Of course. So is every other method, for TRACKING and measuring changes.juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan.
I agree...but then I'd be careful suggesting that your numbers documenting your progress are in any way remotely accurate and furthermore I wouldn't be questioning long proven science based on those results.
no they aren't actually. What any method other than dexa is good for is tracking the trends but that's it...not for actual BF% which is what you gave...0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »
I'm not disputing that DEXA is the most accurate but you also can't say that the US Navy method is not a practical tool for determining body fat. Are calipers as accurate as Dexa? No, they are not. Are they still a good method for checking bf? Of course. So is every other method, for TRACKING and measuring changes.juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan.
I agree...but then I'd be careful suggesting that your numbers documenting your progress are in any way remotely accurate and furthermore I wouldn't be questioning long proven science based on those results.
The Navy method is nowhere near exact enough to use it to determine that your weight loss has been either in favor or not in favor of losing fat over muscle. The Navy uses it as a guideline, not as an exact measurement. You are using a guideline to attempt an exact measurement. It's like using a yardstick to measure meters.0 -
sarahlifts wrote: »debrakgoogins wrote: »If you want to be able to walk up three flights of stairs without being winded, do cardio. If you want to feel stronger, more flexible and see more visible results in your body, do strength training. The scale numbers may not move as fast as you would like but your measurements will make you smile.
truth of the matter is this...when I started here 2 years ago as a smoker and 60lbs overweight married to man who doesn't smoke and used to do triathalons and has a very physical job after weight lifting for a year I got less winded than he did going up stairs...even as a smoker...
He is younger, does more physical work than I do and it was the weight lifting that gave that to me...
Don't think for one minute heavy lifting doesn't effect your cardio it does.
Thank you for addressing this.
I too am a smoker...told ya I was bad. Have you Quit? I want to quit but its so hard!!!!! and I like it so much
@sarahlifts I did quit, sort of, almost a year ago. I use a vaporizor now....OMG so much better and I like you loved my cigs.
I got the vaporizer with enough nicotine last year to mimic smoking 3/4 a pack a day and have since lowered it to about half a pack (a little less) and have saved enough to go to cuba this winter (over 3000$) and ran all summer...I did a 5k in 24mins and I feel great...0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan just to monitor if I'm losing body fat, when I can use my trusty $2 measuring tape.
Plus, it's about documenting progress. If you use the same method and see changes in the right direction that's what counts. If you use navy method, then calipers, then bodpod then DEXA, you won't get the right picture because all have varying margins of error. It's better to just pick one method and stick with it. And if you change the method, don't compare it with a different one, use the new method moving forward.
It's about progress not perfection.
of course you are losing body fat...anyone in a calorie restriction is but as mentioned don't question proven science based on the results of a measuring tape and a far from accurate method.
You will lose muscle when losing weight...the only way to prevent losing a lot of it is to get in enough protein and do some sort of resistance program...either heavy lifting, progressive load or even just body weight and ensuring you are eating enough.
Look, the measuring tape doesn't lie. I lost 5.5 inches from my waist (now 25.5) and 6 inches from my belly. That was previously rolls of fat, not muscle. And I'm stronger than I was at the beginning, my hilly hikes and hilly rides are easier and faster. I'm looking trim, feeling good, healthier, fitter and stronger. What more do I want?0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan just to monitor if I'm losing body fat, when I can use my trusty $2 measuring tape.
Plus, it's about documenting progress. If you use the same method and see changes in the right direction that's what counts. If you use navy method, then calipers, then bodpod then DEXA, you won't get the right picture because all have varying margins of error. It's better to just pick one method and stick with it. And if you change the method, don't compare it with a different one, use the new method moving forward.
It's about progress not perfection.
of course you are losing body fat...anyone in a calorie restriction is but as mentioned don't question proven science based on the results of a measuring tape and a far from accurate method.
You will lose muscle when losing weight...the only way to prevent losing a lot of it is to get in enough protein and do some sort of resistance program...either heavy lifting, progressive load or even just body weight and ensuring you are eating enough.
Look, the measuring tape doesn't lie. I lost 5.5 inches from my waist (now 25.5) and 6 inches from my belly. That was previously rolls of fat, not muscle. And I'm stronger than I was at the beginning, my hilly hikes and hilly rides are easier and faster. I'm looking trim, feeling good, healthier, fitter and stronger. What more do I want?
that does not justify the numbers you quoted earlier saying you retained 98% of your lean mass...
0 -
sarahlifts wrote: »debrakgoogins wrote: »If you want to be able to walk up three flights of stairs without being winded, do cardio. If you want to feel stronger, more flexible and see more visible results in your body, do strength training. The scale numbers may not move as fast as you would like but your measurements will make you smile.
truth of the matter is this...when I started here 2 years ago as a smoker and 60lbs overweight married to man who doesn't smoke and used to do triathalons and has a very physical job after weight lifting for a year I got less winded than he did going up stairs...even as a smoker...
He is younger, does more physical work than I do and it was the weight lifting that gave that to me...
Don't think for one minute heavy lifting doesn't effect your cardio it does.
Thank you for addressing this.
I too am a smoker...told ya I was bad. Have you Quit? I want to quit but its so hard!!!!! and I like it so much
@sarahlifts I did quit, sort of, almost a year ago. I use a vaporizor now....OMG so much better and I like you loved my cigs.
I got the vaporizer with enough nicotine last year to mimic smoking 3/4 a pack a day and have since lowered it to about half a pack (a little less) and have saved enough to go to cuba this winter (over 3000$) and ran all summer...I did a 5k in 24mins and I feel great...
I am really considering vaping to taper off all the way. Thank you. I've calculated my spending on cigs....crazy expensive. Thank you for your testimony. Enjoy Cuba!!
ETA awesome time on your race!!!!0 -
no they aren't actually. What any method other than dexa is good for is tracking the trends but that's it...not for actual BF% which is what you gave...Traveler120 wrote: »
I'm not disputing that DEXA is the most accurate but you also can't say that the US Navy method is not a practical tool for determining body fat. Are calipers as accurate as Dexa? No, they are not. Are they still a good method for checking bf? Of course. So is every other method, for TRACKING and measuring changes.juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan.
I agree...but then I'd be careful suggesting that your numbers documenting your progress are in any way remotely accurate and furthermore I wouldn't be questioning long proven science based on those results.
You guys just don't get it do you? I'm going to assume for illustrative purposes that the Navy method was 'wrong' by 5%. If the DEXA said I started at 37% (instead of my 32%), at 152, I'd have 56 lbs fat and 96 LBM. And if it said I was 23.5% now (instead of my 18.5%), then at 124, I'd have 29 lbs fat and 95 lbs LBM.The Navy method is nowhere near exact enough to use it to determine that your weight loss has been either in favor or not in favor of losing fat over muscle. The Navy uses it as a guideline, not as an exact measurement. You are using a guideline to attempt an exact measurement. It's like using a yardstick to measure meters.
So I've assumed that the Navy method was inaccurate by a 5% margin of error and STILL, I've come up with 95 out of 96 lbs of LBM. That's 98.9% retention. It's even better. And 27 out of 28 lbs lost would be from fat (56-29=27). Total weight loss 152-124=28.
All I'm trying to show is that even without having a 100% accurate body fat%, if you use the same method, as long as you're using it correctly, you'll be able to determine whether you're retaining lean mass and how much of your weight loss is fat.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »
no they aren't actually. What any method other than dexa is good for is tracking the trends but that's it...not for actual BF% which is what you gave...Traveler120 wrote: »
I'm not disputing that DEXA is the most accurate but you also can't say that the US Navy method is not a practical tool for determining body fat. Are calipers as accurate as Dexa? No, they are not. Are they still a good method for checking bf? Of course. So is every other method, for TRACKING and measuring changes.juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan.
I agree...but then I'd be careful suggesting that your numbers documenting your progress are in any way remotely accurate and furthermore I wouldn't be questioning long proven science based on those results.
You guys just don't get it do you? I'm going to assume for illustrative purposes that the Navy method was 'wrong' by 5%. If the DEXA said I started at 37% (instead of my 32%), at 152, I'd have 56 lbs fat and 96 LBM. And if it said I was 23.5% now (instead of my 18.5%), then at 124, I'd have 29 lbs fat and 95 lbs LBM.The Navy method is nowhere near exact enough to use it to determine that your weight loss has been either in favor or not in favor of losing fat over muscle. The Navy uses it as a guideline, not as an exact measurement. You are using a guideline to attempt an exact measurement. It's like using a yardstick to measure meters.
So I've assumed that the Navy method was inaccurate by a 5% margin of error and STILL, I've come up with 95 out of 96 lbs of LBM. That's 98.9% retention. It's even better. And 27 out of 28 lbs lost would be from fat (56-29=27). Total weight loss 152-124=28.
All I'm trying to show is that even without having a 100% accurate body fat%, if you use the same method, as long as you're using it correctly, you'll be able to determine whether you're retaining lean mass and how much of your weight loss is fat.
again, the problem is that you are basing your recommendation off of assumptions that may even be more wildly inaccurate then what you are portraying to OP. If you did not use DEXA scans there is really no way to accurately determine if you truly only lost 2% LBM.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan just to monitor if I'm losing body fat, when I can use my trusty $2 measuring tape.
Plus, it's about documenting progress. If you use the same method and see changes in the right direction that's what counts. If you use navy method, then calipers, then bodpod then DEXA, you won't get the right picture because all have varying margins of error. It's better to just pick one method and stick with it. And if you change the method, don't compare it with a different one, use the new method moving forward.
It's about progress not perfection.
of course you are losing body fat...anyone in a calorie restriction is but as mentioned don't question proven science based on the results of a measuring tape and a far from accurate method.
You will lose muscle when losing weight...the only way to prevent losing a lot of it is to get in enough protein and do some sort of resistance program...either heavy lifting, progressive load or even just body weight and ensuring you are eating enough.
Look, the measuring tape doesn't lie. I lost 5.5 inches from my waist (now 25.5) and 6 inches from my belly. That was previously rolls of fat, not muscle. And I'm stronger than I was at the beginning, my hilly hikes and hilly rides are easier and faster. I'm looking trim, feeling good, healthier, fitter and stronger. What more do I want?
Your not getting it.
losing inches is great, losing weight is great, getting stronger is great. You've done great.
measuring LBM is not easy and can't be done with a measuring tape to any form of accuracy.
Are you losing fat yet...you are also losing a certain amount of muscle because you aren't doing resistance training and probably not getting in enough protein...you have lost more muscle than you think.
ETA: and to illustrate our point...I used a similar method of calculating my BF% for my first couple months here..I thought I was at 24%...no I wasn't...I was closer to 29%...that's how I learned my lesson on using a measuring tape...
0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »
no they aren't actually. What any method other than dexa is good for is tracking the trends but that's it...not for actual BF% which is what you gave...Traveler120 wrote: »
I'm not disputing that DEXA is the most accurate but you also can't say that the US Navy method is not a practical tool for determining body fat. Are calipers as accurate as Dexa? No, they are not. Are they still a good method for checking bf? Of course. So is every other method, for TRACKING and measuring changes.juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan.
I agree...but then I'd be careful suggesting that your numbers documenting your progress are in any way remotely accurate and furthermore I wouldn't be questioning long proven science based on those results.
You guys just don't get it do you? I'm going to assume for illustrative purposes that the Navy method was 'wrong' by 5%. If the DEXA said I started at 37% (instead of my 32%), at 152, I'd have 56 lbs fat and 96 LBM. And if it said I was 23.5% now (instead of my 18.5%), then at 124, I'd have 29 lbs fat and 95 lbs LBM.The Navy method is nowhere near exact enough to use it to determine that your weight loss has been either in favor or not in favor of losing fat over muscle. The Navy uses it as a guideline, not as an exact measurement. You are using a guideline to attempt an exact measurement. It's like using a yardstick to measure meters.
So I've assumed that the Navy method was inaccurate by a 5% margin of error and STILL, I've come up with 95 out of 96 lbs of LBM. That's 98.9% retention. It's even better. And 27 out of 28 lbs lost would be from fat (56-29=27). Total weight loss 152-124=28.
All I'm trying to show is that even without having a 100% accurate body fat%, if you use the same method, as long as you're using it correctly, you'll be able to determine whether you're retaining lean mass and how much of your weight loss is fat.
again, the problem is that you are basing your recommendation off of assumptions that may even be more wildly inaccurate then what you are portraying to OP. If you did not use DEXA scans there is really no way to accurately determine if you truly only lost 2% LBM.
Correct. There are too many assumptions being made for this type of calculation to have much in the way to exactness. Even in your margin of error example, you are assuming that the margin of error would remain constant as your body size/shape changes. This assumes that weight loss is proportionately even all over the body, which is unusual at best. Additionally, the issue that brought this up was muscle retention, not lean mass retention. LBM is made up of muscle, bone, water, etc. A certain amount of that remains constant no matter your weight. You cannot prove muscle retention with your calculation.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »
no they aren't actually. What any method other than dexa is good for is tracking the trends but that's it...not for actual BF% which is what you gave...Traveler120 wrote: »
I'm not disputing that DEXA is the most accurate but you also can't say that the US Navy method is not a practical tool for determining body fat. Are calipers as accurate as Dexa? No, they are not. Are they still a good method for checking bf? Of course. So is every other method, for TRACKING and measuring changes.juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan.
I agree...but then I'd be careful suggesting that your numbers documenting your progress are in any way remotely accurate and furthermore I wouldn't be questioning long proven science based on those results.
You guys just don't get it do you? I'm going to assume for illustrative purposes that the Navy method was 'wrong' by 5%. If the DEXA said I started at 37% (instead of my 32%), at 152, I'd have 56 lbs fat and 96 LBM. And if it said I was 23.5% now (instead of my 18.5%), then at 124, I'd have 29 lbs fat and 95 lbs LBM.The Navy method is nowhere near exact enough to use it to determine that your weight loss has been either in favor or not in favor of losing fat over muscle. The Navy uses it as a guideline, not as an exact measurement. You are using a guideline to attempt an exact measurement. It's like using a yardstick to measure meters.
So I've assumed that the Navy method was inaccurate by a 5% margin of error and STILL, I've come up with 95 out of 96 lbs of LBM. That's 98.9% retention. It's even better. And 27 out of 28 lbs lost would be from fat (56-29=27). Total weight loss 152-124=28.
All I'm trying to show is that even without having a 100% accurate body fat%, if you use the same method, as long as you're using it correctly, you'll be able to determine whether you're retaining lean mass and how much of your weight loss is fat.
again, the problem is that you are basing your recommendation off of assumptions that may even be more wildly inaccurate then what you are portraying to OP. If you did not use DEXA scans there is really no way to accurately determine if you truly only lost 2% LBM.
Correct. There are too many assumptions being made for this type of calculation to have much in the way to exactness. Even in your margin of error example, you are assuming that the margin of error would remain constant as your body size/shape changes. This assumes that weight loss is proportionately even all over the body, which is unusual at best. Additionally, the issue that brought this up was muscle retention, not lean mass retention. LBM is made up of muscle, bone, water, etc. A certain amount of that remains constant no matter your weight. You cannot prove muscle retention with your calculation.
I'm pretty sure I used LBM in all my posts not muscle mass. And as far as exactness, I already said that if the method is good enough for the US Navy, it's good enough for me. I'm also willing to bet that less than 1% of folks on MFP are getting routine DEXAs. Most gyms use calipers and the handheld bf analyzer. Are they as accurate as Dexas, no, but they'll still use them to tell their clients their estimated body fat, lbm, fat mass and use them to analyze trends, even though everybody knows they're not 100% accurate.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
no they aren't actually. What any method other than dexa is good for is tracking the trends but that's it...not for actual BF% which is what you gave...Traveler120 wrote: »
I'm not disputing that DEXA is the most accurate but you also can't say that the US Navy method is not a practical tool for determining body fat. Are calipers as accurate as Dexa? No, they are not. Are they still a good method for checking bf? Of course. So is every other method, for TRACKING and measuring changes.juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan.
I agree...but then I'd be careful suggesting that your numbers documenting your progress are in any way remotely accurate and furthermore I wouldn't be questioning long proven science based on those results.
You guys just don't get it do you? I'm going to assume for illustrative purposes that the Navy method was 'wrong' by 5%. If the DEXA said I started at 37% (instead of my 32%), at 152, I'd have 56 lbs fat and 96 LBM. And if it said I was 23.5% now (instead of my 18.5%), then at 124, I'd have 29 lbs fat and 95 lbs LBM.The Navy method is nowhere near exact enough to use it to determine that your weight loss has been either in favor or not in favor of losing fat over muscle. The Navy uses it as a guideline, not as an exact measurement. You are using a guideline to attempt an exact measurement. It's like using a yardstick to measure meters.
So I've assumed that the Navy method was inaccurate by a 5% margin of error and STILL, I've come up with 95 out of 96 lbs of LBM. That's 98.9% retention. It's even better. And 27 out of 28 lbs lost would be from fat (56-29=27). Total weight loss 152-124=28.
All I'm trying to show is that even without having a 100% accurate body fat%, if you use the same method, as long as you're using it correctly, you'll be able to determine whether you're retaining lean mass and how much of your weight loss is fat.
again, the problem is that you are basing your recommendation off of assumptions that may even be more wildly inaccurate then what you are portraying to OP. If you did not use DEXA scans there is really no way to accurately determine if you truly only lost 2% LBM.
Correct. There are too many assumptions being made for this type of calculation to have much in the way to exactness. Even in your margin of error example, you are assuming that the margin of error would remain constant as your body size/shape changes. This assumes that weight loss is proportionately even all over the body, which is unusual at best. Additionally, the issue that brought this up was muscle retention, not lean mass retention. LBM is made up of muscle, bone, water, etc. A certain amount of that remains constant no matter your weight. You cannot prove muscle retention with your calculation.
I'm pretty sure I used LBM in all my posts not muscle mass. And as far as exactness, I already said that if the method is good enough for the US Navy, it's good enough for me. I'm also willing to bet that less than 1% of folks on MFP are getting routine DEXAs. Most gyms use calipers and the handheld bf analyzer. Are they as accurate as Dexas, no, but they'll still use them to tell their clients their estimated body fat, lbm, fat mass and use them to analyze trends, even though everybody knows they're not 100% accurate.
That's fine if you want to use it for yourself but don't make the below claimsDon't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.
as it will always end up with people telling you that you are in error and this will be a repeat discussion for you consistently.
Why because those claims are not backed up by an accurate method of measuring BF%...esp with no form of resistance training to speak of nor tracking of macros.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
no they aren't actually. What any method other than dexa is good for is tracking the trends but that's it...not for actual BF% which is what you gave...Traveler120 wrote: »
I'm not disputing that DEXA is the most accurate but you also can't say that the US Navy method is not a practical tool for determining body fat. Are calipers as accurate as Dexa? No, they are not. Are they still a good method for checking bf? Of course. So is every other method, for TRACKING and measuring changes.juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan.
I agree...but then I'd be careful suggesting that your numbers documenting your progress are in any way remotely accurate and furthermore I wouldn't be questioning long proven science based on those results.
You guys just don't get it do you? I'm going to assume for illustrative purposes that the Navy method was 'wrong' by 5%. If the DEXA said I started at 37% (instead of my 32%), at 152, I'd have 56 lbs fat and 96 LBM. And if it said I was 23.5% now (instead of my 18.5%), then at 124, I'd have 29 lbs fat and 95 lbs LBM.The Navy method is nowhere near exact enough to use it to determine that your weight loss has been either in favor or not in favor of losing fat over muscle. The Navy uses it as a guideline, not as an exact measurement. You are using a guideline to attempt an exact measurement. It's like using a yardstick to measure meters.
So I've assumed that the Navy method was inaccurate by a 5% margin of error and STILL, I've come up with 95 out of 96 lbs of LBM. That's 98.9% retention. It's even better. And 27 out of 28 lbs lost would be from fat (56-29=27). Total weight loss 152-124=28.
All I'm trying to show is that even without having a 100% accurate body fat%, if you use the same method, as long as you're using it correctly, you'll be able to determine whether you're retaining lean mass and how much of your weight loss is fat.
again, the problem is that you are basing your recommendation off of assumptions that may even be more wildly inaccurate then what you are portraying to OP. If you did not use DEXA scans there is really no way to accurately determine if you truly only lost 2% LBM.
Correct. There are too many assumptions being made for this type of calculation to have much in the way to exactness. Even in your margin of error example, you are assuming that the margin of error would remain constant as your body size/shape changes. This assumes that weight loss is proportionately even all over the body, which is unusual at best. Additionally, the issue that brought this up was muscle retention, not lean mass retention. LBM is made up of muscle, bone, water, etc. A certain amount of that remains constant no matter your weight. You cannot prove muscle retention with your calculation.
I'm pretty sure I used LBM in all my posts not muscle mass. And as far as exactness, I already said that if the method is good enough for the US Navy, it's good enough for me. I'm also willing to bet that less than 1% of folks on MFP are getting routine DEXAs. Most gyms use calipers and the handheld bf analyzer. Are they as accurate as Dexas, no, but they'll still use them to tell their clients their estimated body fat, lbm, fat mass and use them to analyze trends, even though everybody knows they're not 100% accurate.
Yes, you did use LBM. I'm pointing out that you first posted about your LBM retention to refute another poster's assertion that failing to do resistance exercise while losing weight is not optimal for muscle retention.
I think that the various body fat calculations are interesting and periodically take measurements to calculate them myself, just to see the general trend. But I wouldn't use them to try to determine how much muscle I have or haven't lost/gained.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
no they aren't actually. What any method other than dexa is good for is tracking the trends but that's it...not for actual BF% which is what you gave...Traveler120 wrote: »
I'm not disputing that DEXA is the most accurate but you also can't say that the US Navy method is not a practical tool for determining body fat. Are calipers as accurate as Dexa? No, they are not. Are they still a good method for checking bf? Of course. So is every other method, for TRACKING and measuring changes.juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan.
I agree...but then I'd be careful suggesting that your numbers documenting your progress are in any way remotely accurate and furthermore I wouldn't be questioning long proven science based on those results.
You guys just don't get it do you? I'm going to assume for illustrative purposes that the Navy method was 'wrong' by 5%. If the DEXA said I started at 37% (instead of my 32%), at 152, I'd have 56 lbs fat and 96 LBM. And if it said I was 23.5% now (instead of my 18.5%), then at 124, I'd have 29 lbs fat and 95 lbs LBM.The Navy method is nowhere near exact enough to use it to determine that your weight loss has been either in favor or not in favor of losing fat over muscle. The Navy uses it as a guideline, not as an exact measurement. You are using a guideline to attempt an exact measurement. It's like using a yardstick to measure meters.
So I've assumed that the Navy method was inaccurate by a 5% margin of error and STILL, I've come up with 95 out of 96 lbs of LBM. That's 98.9% retention. It's even better. And 27 out of 28 lbs lost would be from fat (56-29=27). Total weight loss 152-124=28.
All I'm trying to show is that even without having a 100% accurate body fat%, if you use the same method, as long as you're using it correctly, you'll be able to determine whether you're retaining lean mass and how much of your weight loss is fat.
again, the problem is that you are basing your recommendation off of assumptions that may even be more wildly inaccurate then what you are portraying to OP. If you did not use DEXA scans there is really no way to accurately determine if you truly only lost 2% LBM.
Correct. There are too many assumptions being made for this type of calculation to have much in the way to exactness. Even in your margin of error example, you are assuming that the margin of error would remain constant as your body size/shape changes. This assumes that weight loss is proportionately even all over the body, which is unusual at best. Additionally, the issue that brought this up was muscle retention, not lean mass retention. LBM is made up of muscle, bone, water, etc. A certain amount of that remains constant no matter your weight. You cannot prove muscle retention with your calculation.
I'm pretty sure I used LBM in all my posts not muscle mass. And as far as exactness, I already said that if the method is good enough for the US Navy, it's good enough for me. I'm also willing to bet that less than 1% of folks on MFP are getting routine DEXAs. Most gyms use calipers and the handheld bf analyzer. Are they as accurate as Dexas, no, but they'll still use them to tell their clients their estimated body fat, lbm, fat mass and use them to analyze trends, even though everybody knows they're not 100% accurate.
That's fine if you want to use it for yourself but don't make the below claimsDon't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.
as it will always end up with people telling you that you are in error and this will be a repeat discussion for you consistently.
Why because those claims are not backed up by an accurate method of measuring BF%...esp with no form of resistance training to speak of nor tracking of macros.
The US Navy developed the formula and continue to use it as reasonably accurate way of measuring BF%. I'm cool with that.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
no they aren't actually. What any method other than dexa is good for is tracking the trends but that's it...not for actual BF% which is what you gave...Traveler120 wrote: »
I'm not disputing that DEXA is the most accurate but you also can't say that the US Navy method is not a practical tool for determining body fat. Are calipers as accurate as Dexa? No, they are not. Are they still a good method for checking bf? Of course. So is every other method, for TRACKING and measuring changes.juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan.
I agree...but then I'd be careful suggesting that your numbers documenting your progress are in any way remotely accurate and furthermore I wouldn't be questioning long proven science based on those results.
You guys just don't get it do you? I'm going to assume for illustrative purposes that the Navy method was 'wrong' by 5%. If the DEXA said I started at 37% (instead of my 32%), at 152, I'd have 56 lbs fat and 96 LBM. And if it said I was 23.5% now (instead of my 18.5%), then at 124, I'd have 29 lbs fat and 95 lbs LBM.The Navy method is nowhere near exact enough to use it to determine that your weight loss has been either in favor or not in favor of losing fat over muscle. The Navy uses it as a guideline, not as an exact measurement. You are using a guideline to attempt an exact measurement. It's like using a yardstick to measure meters.
So I've assumed that the Navy method was inaccurate by a 5% margin of error and STILL, I've come up with 95 out of 96 lbs of LBM. That's 98.9% retention. It's even better. And 27 out of 28 lbs lost would be from fat (56-29=27). Total weight loss 152-124=28.
All I'm trying to show is that even without having a 100% accurate body fat%, if you use the same method, as long as you're using it correctly, you'll be able to determine whether you're retaining lean mass and how much of your weight loss is fat.
again, the problem is that you are basing your recommendation off of assumptions that may even be more wildly inaccurate then what you are portraying to OP. If you did not use DEXA scans there is really no way to accurately determine if you truly only lost 2% LBM.
Correct. There are too many assumptions being made for this type of calculation to have much in the way to exactness. Even in your margin of error example, you are assuming that the margin of error would remain constant as your body size/shape changes. This assumes that weight loss is proportionately even all over the body, which is unusual at best. Additionally, the issue that brought this up was muscle retention, not lean mass retention. LBM is made up of muscle, bone, water, etc. A certain amount of that remains constant no matter your weight. You cannot prove muscle retention with your calculation.
I'm pretty sure I used LBM in all my posts not muscle mass. And as far as exactness, I already said that if the method is good enough for the US Navy, it's good enough for me. I'm also willing to bet that less than 1% of folks on MFP are getting routine DEXAs. Most gyms use calipers and the handheld bf analyzer. Are they as accurate as Dexas, no, but they'll still use them to tell their clients their estimated body fat, lbm, fat mass and use them to analyze trends, even though everybody knows they're not 100% accurate.
Yes, you did use LBM. I'm pointing out that you first posted about your LBM retention to refute another poster's assertion that failing to do resistance exercise while losing weight is not optimal for muscle retention.
I think that the various body fat calculations are interesting and periodically take measurements to calculate them myself, just to see the general trend. But I wouldn't use them to try to determine how much muscle I have or haven't lost/gained.
I don't use them to determine muscle mass either, that would be impossible without a dexa. They can only tell me my estimated LBM and fat mass trend and that's all I need to know for now.
Here's a similar viewpoint from Lyle Mcdonald who's an expert on the subject.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/dexa-versus-calipers-for-body-fat-estimation.html/
He says:.... one point I make is that consistency is more important than accuracy. Make no mistake, it’s nice to have a semi-accurate estimate of BF% or whatever but it’s only an estimate. And even if two different methods are 5% different, it doesn’t make much of a difference in the big scheme in terms of estimating lean body mass (LBM) or calculating out diets. It’s just not that big of a deal.
More importantly, the differences don’t matter because it’s an estimate no matter how you cut it. More than that, being able to track relative changes is far more important than true accuracy. So say that calipers put you at 10% and DEXA puts you at 15%. Whatever. And let’s say that you diet for a month and lose some amount of fat. Calipers say you’re 8% and DEXA says you’re 13%. Yes, the values are different but both dropped by 2%. They both picked up the relative change (that is they are consistent) even if they give different values.
I hope that rests my case.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
no they aren't actually. What any method other than dexa is good for is tracking the trends but that's it...not for actual BF% which is what you gave...Traveler120 wrote: »
I'm not disputing that DEXA is the most accurate but you also can't say that the US Navy method is not a practical tool for determining body fat. Are calipers as accurate as Dexa? No, they are not. Are they still a good method for checking bf? Of course. So is every other method, for TRACKING and measuring changes.juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan.
I agree...but then I'd be careful suggesting that your numbers documenting your progress are in any way remotely accurate and furthermore I wouldn't be questioning long proven science based on those results.
You guys just don't get it do you? I'm going to assume for illustrative purposes that the Navy method was 'wrong' by 5%. If the DEXA said I started at 37% (instead of my 32%), at 152, I'd have 56 lbs fat and 96 LBM. And if it said I was 23.5% now (instead of my 18.5%), then at 124, I'd have 29 lbs fat and 95 lbs LBM.The Navy method is nowhere near exact enough to use it to determine that your weight loss has been either in favor or not in favor of losing fat over muscle. The Navy uses it as a guideline, not as an exact measurement. You are using a guideline to attempt an exact measurement. It's like using a yardstick to measure meters.
So I've assumed that the Navy method was inaccurate by a 5% margin of error and STILL, I've come up with 95 out of 96 lbs of LBM. That's 98.9% retention. It's even better. And 27 out of 28 lbs lost would be from fat (56-29=27). Total weight loss 152-124=28.
All I'm trying to show is that even without having a 100% accurate body fat%, if you use the same method, as long as you're using it correctly, you'll be able to determine whether you're retaining lean mass and how much of your weight loss is fat.
again, the problem is that you are basing your recommendation off of assumptions that may even be more wildly inaccurate then what you are portraying to OP. If you did not use DEXA scans there is really no way to accurately determine if you truly only lost 2% LBM.
Correct. There are too many assumptions being made for this type of calculation to have much in the way to exactness. Even in your margin of error example, you are assuming that the margin of error would remain constant as your body size/shape changes. This assumes that weight loss is proportionately even all over the body, which is unusual at best. Additionally, the issue that brought this up was muscle retention, not lean mass retention. LBM is made up of muscle, bone, water, etc. A certain amount of that remains constant no matter your weight. You cannot prove muscle retention with your calculation.
I'm pretty sure I used LBM in all my posts not muscle mass. And as far as exactness, I already said that if the method is good enough for the US Navy, it's good enough for me. I'm also willing to bet that less than 1% of folks on MFP are getting routine DEXAs. Most gyms use calipers and the handheld bf analyzer. Are they as accurate as Dexas, no, but they'll still use them to tell their clients their estimated body fat, lbm, fat mass and use them to analyze trends, even though everybody knows they're not 100% accurate.
Yes, you did use LBM. I'm pointing out that you first posted about your LBM retention to refute another poster's assertion that failing to do resistance exercise while losing weight is not optimal for muscle retention.
I think that the various body fat calculations are interesting and periodically take measurements to calculate them myself, just to see the general trend. But I wouldn't use them to try to determine how much muscle I have or haven't lost/gained.
I don't use them to determine muscle mass either, that would be impossible without a dexa. They can only tell me my estimated LBM and fat mass trend and that's all I need to know for now.
Here's a similar viewpoint from Lyle Mcdonald who's an expert on the subject.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/dexa-versus-calipers-for-body-fat-estimation.html/
He says:.... one point I make is that consistency is more important than accuracy. Make no mistake, it’s nice to have a semi-accurate estimate of BF% or whatever but it’s only an estimate. And even if two different methods are 5% different, it doesn’t make much of a difference in the big scheme in terms of estimating lean body mass (LBM) or calculating out diets. It’s just not that big of a deal.
More importantly, the differences don’t matter because it’s an estimate no matter how you cut it. More than that, being able to track relative changes is far more important than true accuracy. So say that calipers put you at 10% and DEXA puts you at 15%. Whatever. And let’s say that you diet for a month and lose some amount of fat. Calipers say you’re 8% and DEXA says you’re 13%. Yes, the values are different but both dropped by 2%. They both picked up the relative change (that is they are consistent) even if they give different values.
I hope that rests my case.
Well now I'm actually more confused than ever about why you even brought up your BF since you admit that it doesn't relate to the argument that you were refuting.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
no they aren't actually. What any method other than dexa is good for is tracking the trends but that's it...not for actual BF% which is what you gave...Traveler120 wrote: »
I'm not disputing that DEXA is the most accurate but you also can't say that the US Navy method is not a practical tool for determining body fat. Are calipers as accurate as Dexa? No, they are not. Are they still a good method for checking bf? Of course. So is every other method, for TRACKING and measuring changes.juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
What method did you use to measure body fat %? Just curious...
http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
It uses the US Navy method-height, neck, waist, hips. It was the most consistent way I could keep track and used it from the start. I also figured that if it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for me.
then the figures you quoted are in question...serious question.
Dexa scan is the best method for getting body fat%...
As for it being good enough for the Navy...I've seen recruits and if they are good enough then I don't want anything to do with that outfit...*smh* speaking as a former serving member.
I can't justify spending $200 every 2 weeks or every month for a DEXA scan.
I agree...but then I'd be careful suggesting that your numbers documenting your progress are in any way remotely accurate and furthermore I wouldn't be questioning long proven science based on those results.
You guys just don't get it do you? I'm going to assume for illustrative purposes that the Navy method was 'wrong' by 5%. If the DEXA said I started at 37% (instead of my 32%), at 152, I'd have 56 lbs fat and 96 LBM. And if it said I was 23.5% now (instead of my 18.5%), then at 124, I'd have 29 lbs fat and 95 lbs LBM.The Navy method is nowhere near exact enough to use it to determine that your weight loss has been either in favor or not in favor of losing fat over muscle. The Navy uses it as a guideline, not as an exact measurement. You are using a guideline to attempt an exact measurement. It's like using a yardstick to measure meters.
So I've assumed that the Navy method was inaccurate by a 5% margin of error and STILL, I've come up with 95 out of 96 lbs of LBM. That's 98.9% retention. It's even better. And 27 out of 28 lbs lost would be from fat (56-29=27). Total weight loss 152-124=28.
All I'm trying to show is that even without having a 100% accurate body fat%, if you use the same method, as long as you're using it correctly, you'll be able to determine whether you're retaining lean mass and how much of your weight loss is fat.
again, the problem is that you are basing your recommendation off of assumptions that may even be more wildly inaccurate then what you are portraying to OP. If you did not use DEXA scans there is really no way to accurately determine if you truly only lost 2% LBM.
Correct. There are too many assumptions being made for this type of calculation to have much in the way to exactness. Even in your margin of error example, you are assuming that the margin of error would remain constant as your body size/shape changes. This assumes that weight loss is proportionately even all over the body, which is unusual at best. Additionally, the issue that brought this up was muscle retention, not lean mass retention. LBM is made up of muscle, bone, water, etc. A certain amount of that remains constant no matter your weight. You cannot prove muscle retention with your calculation.
I'm pretty sure I used LBM in all my posts not muscle mass. And as far as exactness, I already said that if the method is good enough for the US Navy, it's good enough for me. I'm also willing to bet that less than 1% of folks on MFP are getting routine DEXAs. Most gyms use calipers and the handheld bf analyzer. Are they as accurate as Dexas, no, but they'll still use them to tell their clients their estimated body fat, lbm, fat mass and use them to analyze trends, even though everybody knows they're not 100% accurate.
That's fine if you want to use it for yourself but don't make the below claimsDon't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.
as it will always end up with people telling you that you are in error and this will be a repeat discussion for you consistently.
Why because those claims are not backed up by an accurate method of measuring BF%...esp with no form of resistance training to speak of nor tracking of macros.
The US Navy developed the formula and continue to use it as reasonably accurate way of measuring BF%. I'm cool with that.
that is fine; however, don't take inaccurate assumptions and then extrapolate them to the population as a whole, which you are doing. You clearly tried to use an inaccurate measure that you came up with to give advice to the OP. If you think that you really only lost 2% of lean mass then feel free to believe that; however, that does not give you the right to use your situation and apply it to OP.0 -
I do both cardio and weights, and yes the numbers on the scale have slowed, but I still notice the changes in my body when I look in the mirror. I'm getting lean while still slimming down. Do both.0
-
The cardio will burn more calories, but they're both good for us in ways that matter whether or not one is losing weight.
If we want to be our healthiest, we will do both cardio and weights. But, for sheer "I want to lose as much as possible!" purposes, the cardio wins.0 -
Strength training helps to retain muscle mass while losing. YES, it should be done.0
-
Traveler120 wrote: »
Don't believe everything you hear. I did mostly cardio (cycling, elliptical, spinning, swimming, jogging, hiking) and very little to no resistance training. I started at 152 lbs and 32% body fat(49lbs) and now at 124 lbs and 18.5% body fat(23lbs). Lean body mass went from 103 to 101, that's 98% retention of lean mass. And of the 28 lbs I've lost, 26 were from fat, that's 93%.samhennings wrote: »Purely for weight loss? Cardio is superior as it burns much more in calories.
However, without some form of resistance training, much of that weight loss will be muscle - not just fat./b
I think what worked for me was that I ate a sufficient amount of food. If I'd severely restricted calories I might have lost more LBM. Also, my protein was 60-75g on average, which dispels another myth about losing leaning mass if you don't eat 100g+.
The only reason I didn't do strength training was because I wasn't interested. I wanted to do just fun exercises. I was also so fat and unfit and even body weight exercises were tough. Now that I'm fitter, thinner and lighter, it's more fun to do bodyweight exercises so I'm starting to add that to my cardio. If someone enjoys both, they should do both.
Perhaps the variety in exercise was a big factor? For example, I wouldnt consider swimming a purely cardio exercise.
Or perhaps you are very genetically blessed!
It is widely accepted you will lose muscle mass without some form of stimulus for the muscles, you may be the exception that proves the rule.
For me it was certainly the case, I lost all the weight I wanted and had the classic skinnyfat look and hated it.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions