Ready to Recomp . . .

2

Replies

  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    edited February 2017
    One additional commen 4 the time being::

    Just noticed that the sagging lower ab skin that developed after my 36# weight loss has now all but disappeared.

    Odd thing about the sagging skin was that it was most noticeable when i tensed my ab muscles and less when they were relaxed. The skin looks about the same either way now.

    I have been applying Retinol A "anti-wrinkle" cream and a Vit A, C & D enrinched mineral oil based lotion to my abs daily but don't know if this or just time contributed to this.

    I'm sure the lotions haven't hurt - - have at least kept the skin moist - - but the passage of time which allowed the the skin to retighten on its own has probably been the main contributing factor.

  • Ocrgrrrl
    Ocrgrrrl Posts: 189 Member
    Congrats on your fabulous progress!!!
    This thread gives me hope and is confirming what I'm finding with my own body. I've been in a steep deficit (with refeeds every weekend) for about 21 weeks now. I've been keeping my protein high for a short 41 year old female (100-140 grams). I've been implementing Wendler 531 and have been steadily progressing in strength until just recently. I've definitely hit the ceiling with how strong I can get at this point at this deficit. I cut out intense cardio (kept with slow steady state) as it was making staying at a deficit near impossible. I'm at a good place with my appearance and leanness and now just want to maintain. I have visible cuts in my shoulders, abs, hamstrings, and quads. I've come to accept that most TDEE calculators don't work for me...I gain when I try to follow them. I intend to maintain by keeping an eye on the scale (weighing daily because it works for me) while slowly adding back more food.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    pennystaplessnyder wrote: »
    Congrats on your fabulous progress!!! This thread gives me hope and is confirming what I'm finding with my own body.

    Thanks for your post! Glad that this "blog" of my progress has been of some benefit to you. Hopefully, the same applies to others.

    FWIW, I too have pretty much plateaued as far as strength gains go and pushing the upper limits just leads to a greater likelihood of injury, as I again discovered last week.

    Due to start lifting again today but frankly I'm resisting it, even though my hip is pain free now. May just do my pushup, pullup and dip routine to get back into it. Will definitely limit the weights upon restarting.

    FYI, I have been using the 10x3 "Waterbury Method" since plateauing on Starting Strength 2 months ago. My progress in the DL is proof of it's effectiveness in increasing strength post-3x5 but at my age (66) it is really questionable whether my goal should be "greater strength" as opposed to just "good fitness."

    Still struggling with the issue but I'm definitely leaning towards general fitness over max strength, especially as the risk of injury increases with age.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,431 MFP Moderator
    Great progress. It's awesome you keep us posted.
  • Ocrgrrrl
    Ocrgrrrl Posts: 189 Member
    Wow! Awesome results! Looks like you've found your sweet spot!
  • jeepinshawn
    jeepinshawn Posts: 642 Member
    How tall are you?
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    jeepinshawn wrote: »
    How tall are you?

    5'8"
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    edited April 2017
    happimess1 wrote: »
    fantastic work! i am a long time lurker of this thread...actually have it bookmarked! Your dedication and meticulousness is so inspiring! U was wondering what physical changes have you noticed as you move closer to the single digit bf%? Do you feel hungrier than before?

    Thanks for your continuing interest. It has been a very challenging and satisfying journey.

    The physical changes have been obvious and pretty much what you'd expect w/increased muscular development and loss of BF -- a certain leanness generally overall which is marked by a thinness in the face/neck and the defined serratus muscles and 6 pack, combined w/more apparent muscularity due to increased muscle definition & separation and vascularity -- which for me is highlighted by the deeper hollows in the armpits and between the clavicles and the top of the traps and edge of the delts, as well as clear muscle definition between my upper and lower pecs, in the quads and between the glutes and hamstrings -- plus markedly increased vascularity in my arms and some in my upper pecs.

    I have been maintaining with a goal of 1900 cals/day based on a macro goal of 40P/40C/20F. Actual intake has been closer to 1850 cals/day based on 34P/39C/27F.

    I generally have not felt any hungrier now than before but I have to admit to consuming a few cheat meals that I didn't record and to eating some late night meals that I recorded as breakfast for the following day.

    I also had my 1st real binge day in a LONG time right after I got my 10% hydro test result -- 2 beers w/ a meal of bibimbap and a full array on ban chan for lunch and 3 glasses of wine and a shot of Jack Daniels w/a variety of Chinese banquet food for dinner. I actually tried to count the cals that day and came up w/about 2700, 800 cals over!!!

    I didn't die but my weight went up by 2# overnight which is a significant change for me. I made up for it a bit today and will have to cut back for the rest of week as well, but it was worth it.

    Just no fun, even if you can see the results of your efforts, if you don't allow yourself some pleasure from time to time. ;)

  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    Great progress! True 10% is very lean when compared to the general population. Keep it up.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    Great progress! True 10% is very lean when compared to the general population. Keep it up.

    Thanks!

    The journey isn't over and the difficulty will be in trying to maintain it. Gotta stay disciplined and motivated, which I'm finding harder to do, but I'm definitely going to keep at it.

    Got all the equipment at home (no need to go to a gym to workout) and I've got MFP on my phone to track what I eat. Just have to continue to use them. No excuses not to.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    sgt1372 wrote: »
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    Great progress! True 10% is very lean when compared to the general population. Keep it up.

    Thanks!

    The journey isn't over and the difficulty will be in trying to maintain it. Gotta stay disciplined and motivated, which I'm finding harder to do, but I'm definitely going to keep at it.

    Got all the equipment at home (no need to go to a gym to workout) and I've got MFP on my phone to track what I eat. Just have to continue to use them. No excuses not to.

    The bolded is so true! I'm also very jealous of your home gym.
  • rahimlj
    rahimlj Posts: 239 Member
    thats crazy !
  • rahimlj
    rahimlj Posts: 239 Member
    keep it up.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    rahimlj wrote: »
    thats crazy !
    keep it up.

    Thanks! Plan to do so. :)
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    edited June 2017
    I just had my 4th DXA scan (in the past 9 months) done yesterday 6/4/17.

    Result was 13.3% BF at 156.2# with a decrease in BF of 1.8# measured at 20.8# and a decrease in LBM of 1.5# measured at 128.2#; BMC (bone mineral content was constant at 7.1#.

    Total weight loss of 3.3# since the last test 3 months ago. No "recomp"; just weight loss in both BF and LBM.

    VAT (visceral adipose tissue) is still minimal at 0.42#, up 0.04# from 3 months ago but still down .99# from 9 months ago, and up .90 cubic inches in volume from 11.09" to 12.19# but still down 29.32# from 9 months ago.

    The BF result was inconsistent with the hydrostatic test done on 4/1/17 which measured my BF% at 10.1% with BF measured at 16# and LBM (including bone) measured at 142#; total weight 158#.

    Due for another hydrostatic test on or about 7/1/17.

    The DXA scan results always seem to be 3-4% higher than my hydrostatic test results. I continue to do both for the sake of comparison but also because the DXA scan provides more data -- like the VAT results, BMC, bone density and the differentiation of BF/LBM by body part which are not available from the hydrostatic test.

    Since 4/1, I've been very good about maintaining my diet discipline but have been lax in doing my lifting and other exercises regularly, which I think is indicated by the slight increase in VAT and the loss in both BF and LBM weight.

    The message to me is to get back on track w/my lifting and other exercises to regain some LBM. I've also noticed that my intake of protein has dropped from about 1g/#BW down to only .8g/#BW within the past 3 months.

    This is due in large part to my not consuming a daily protein powder drink in the morning as I use to do which increased my protein intake by about 30-40g/day. So, I am going to start doing that again as well.

    Minor weight loss trend may also indicate a need to increase daily cal intake slightly. Currently at 1900 cal/max/day but actual intake based on a 30 day moving average is 1877. Will increase intake to 2000 cal/max/day with the cal increase mainly in protein.

    We'll see what effect, if any, these changes will have on my hydrostatic test in July.





  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    edited July 2017
    Just got another hydrostatic test done today and my LBM increased to 91.3% (from 89.9%) and my BF has dropped to 8.7% (from 10.1%). Whoopee!!

    That was a surprise because I have actually been increasing my daily cal intake while maintaining a relatively low level of exercise (5 days/wk) over the past 3 months. My weight was 158.3# (144.55# LBM and 13.75# BF). My weight was essentially unchanged from the hydrostatic test 3 months ago at 158.0 but my LBM increased 2.55# and my BF dropped 2.25#.

    That is a pure recomp result!

    My marcos from the start over a year ago were and have continued to be 40%P/40%C/20%F and, despite the common belief that it's ALL about CICO, my data indicates that over a 9 month period, I actually lost weight from 170 to 158 and my BF dropped from 16.9 to 10.1% on relatively constant cal intake of between 1800-1900 cals per day over that 9 month period and, while I increased my cal intake by 10% to 2000-2100 per day over the past 2 months, I maintained my weight between 157-159 and dropped my BF from 10.1 to 8.7% during this 2 month time period.

    This is entirely contrary to the CICO hypothesis!

    The macro goals were seldom actually achieved but the average over the past 12 months has been:
    33.3% P/38.4%C/28.3%F. The average monthly gm of protein per # of body weight during this time period varied from a low of 0.811 to a high of 1.233. My average intake of protein daily over the past 12 months was 187 gms of protein, 177 gms of mostly low GI carbs and 67 gms of fat.

    The only thing that can make sense of these results is the thermogenic effect of eating a high protein and low fat diet which reduces appetite, contributes to LBM/muscle development and/or maintanance, requires more energy to digest plus a high carb diet of mainly low GI foods which reduced the amount of insulin released thereby allowing more BF to be burned (rather than stored).

    I would take a more careful analysis of the food that I ate and the exercise program that I have engaged in over the past year to "prove" this to be the case.

    While I have weighed myself and logged my food and exercise daily over the past year, my data would not endure scientific scrutiny and I certainly cannot extrapolate my individual experience to everyone else but this has been the result for me and I am entirely convinced it has had more to do w/the nature of my diet and exercise program than just the calories that I have consumed.

    PS: I have been measuring my LBM & BF by means of DXA scanning and hydrostatic testing quarterly over the past year and now that I am clearly in an established weight maintenance zone and am obviously at a very low BF level, I am going to reduce DXA scanning and hydrostatic testing to just semiannually for the next 12 months. Those scan/test results will be due on or about Jan and Jun of 2018.

    BTW, my exercise program over the past 2 months generally has been a split session upper and lower body routine as follows:

    Day 1: Pullups/Pushups/Dips (PPD) and Squats (Bill Starr 5x5 Method)
    Day 2: OHP (Bill Starr 5x5 Method) plus 2x15 min Concept 2 Rowing sessions
    Day 3: PPD plus 2x15 min Stairmaster sessions
    Day 4: BP (Bill Starr 5x5 Method) plus 2x15 min Concept 2 Rowing sessions
    Day 5: PPD plus DL (Bill Starr 5x5 Method).

    All rowing and Stairmaster sessions are constant rate and moderate pace; no HIIT.

    My current PPD routine requires me to wear a 15# vest and do 100 (12") decline pushups, 50 pullups and 75 dips.

    My calculated 1RMs for the lifts have been progressively increasing and currently are:
    DL: 389#
    SQT: 259#
    BP: 215#
    OHP: 125#

    That's all the exercise that I have been doing recently and this is what I plan to continue to do indefinitely.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    sgt1372 wrote: »

    This is entirely contrary to the CICO hypothesis!


    It's really not. You ate more protein (higher TEF) and it is proven that as calories increase so do NEAT.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Also - have the last 2 months put you into summer?

    For most people - increased activity in summer. (as well as increased LBM as increased blood volume to deal with being hot and attempting to cool more)

    In which case your TDEE would have gone up - so increased eating just matched.

    And do the math with the differences in TEF based on macros and you'll discover the difference would have to be rather vast to make a meaningful difference in TDEE.


    Also, the difference in insulin response is perhaps at most 1 hr less, if a decent sized meal was eaten, if high level of carbs was left out.
    Because protein causes insulin rise too actually, probably more than you think.

    So for 1 hr max at each meal, you could have burned more fat then what you ate as energy source.

    But how active are you 3-4 hrs after a meal?
    How many calories total would have been burned anyway?
    If at rest for normal ratio, 90% fat calories - how many is that?
    And if not at rest but very active, no insulin doesn't mean your body isn't going to follow the normal response of higher carb burn to support higher activity level, so carbs that will just be replaced faster at the next meal, causing insulin to drop sooner anyway then.

    I suspect the importance placed on the macros that are pretty balanced there couldn't cause the effect you think is happening.

    You had great workouts, and became more active, and ate a tad more.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    edited July 2017
    Thought I'd create a bit of a controversy by my "contrary to CICO" statement but I went ahead and made it anyway.

    Like I said, my data cannot withstand scientific scrutiny and will not attempt to verify my "belief" that my high protein/high low GI carb diet has had more to do w/my weight and BF loss than just CICO.

    I am 66 and apart from my exercise routine, I am VERY sedentary. I nap often and can watch TV or sit in front of the computer (like I am now) for hours on end. Is that why I'm burning fat? LOL!

    My exercise routines are also very low intensity and generally short. I rest 5 minutes (yeah, 5 mins!) between sets and at least 15 mins between different exercises/lifts if I do them during the same session.

    I only allocate 120 cals/hr for my exercise activities which is very low and I have not gained weight using this cal factor for my cal "burn," so it must be fairly accurate.

    My TDEE has been calculated as low as 1800 to as high as 2100 depending on the calculator. My RMR is estimated at 1600-1800 based on DXA and hydrostatic testing respectively.

    Early on, I was gaining weight when I ate 2000-2100 cal/day. So, I dropped my intake until I started losing wt, which was at 1800-1900 cals/day.

    After I reached my goal weight of 160, I continued to drop weight at 1800-1900 cal/day down to as low as 155, so I increased the intake to 2000-2100 cals to day and am now maintaining weight at 157-158 despite a very low level of exercise and other activity.

    Assuming that I am "at maintenance" now consuming 2000-2100 cal/day, I don't understand how I can continue to lose BF based on so little exercise and other activity w/o assuming that my diet was a factor.

    I'm now at a sub-10% BF level and my diet seems (to me) to have been the main factor in achieving that. Just what I think. Agree or not as you see fit.


  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    The higher than average protein has been shown to help with muscle growth, and you obviously have a routine that is great for exploiting that.
    You haven't reached/maintained those 1 RM's by having a low intensity exercise routine.
    120 cal/hr for that much rest between sets/lifts sounds about right, it would likely only be around 300 if in the studied 2-4 min rest range.

    The biggest issue I've noticed when CICO is claimed to not be working, is not taking into consideration all the variables for CO. Unless the person really hasn't been dieting for long and is badly inaccurate for the CI part also - which isn't your case.

    The LBM RMR calculations based on actual BF% are usually very good (baring some racial differences) and since not in a diet, wouldn't expect it to be suppressed from badly undereating in your case.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    The biggest issue I've noticed when CICO is claimed to not be working, is not taking into consideration all the variables for CO. Unless the person really hasn't been dieting for long and is badly inaccurate for the CI part also - which isn't your case.

    It's probably gotten lost in all the words that I've written but I'm NOT saying that CICO didn't work. It worked quite predictably for about 11 months when my CI was clearly less than my CO.

    It's really the last 2-3 months when my CI apparently was equal to my CO (based on my daily weight readings) and when my measured BF% dropped from 10.1 to 8.7 that can't be explained by CICO alone in light of my relatively low level of exercise and other activity.

    IMO, the only other factor that can account for this apparent incongruity is my diet and it would be interesting to hear from anyone else in maintenance who has experienced similar results.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Well done, very impressive!
    That's impressive at any age by the way.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,008 Member
    You look fantastic. Well done. Very inspiring!
  • bioklutz
    bioklutz Posts: 1,365 Member
    Wow! That is impressive! Also your skin does not look 66 years old! I do have a question and I hope you don't take this the wrong way...How does your doctor feel about your body fat %? I have read that as we age it is better to have a little higher body fat.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories