Lifting/Nutrition Question
Replies
-
0
-
Please explain how it is a good indicator of health. Genuinely interested to hear your bro-science.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »
Please explain how it is a good indicator of health. Genuinely interested to hear your bro-science.
Saying wieght is never a good indicator is being a bit ignorant. If I take the equivalent self at two different weights (220 vs 175), I will be healthier at 175. Because I will be over-fat at 220. If you added 50 lbs of fat, do you think your health would be affected? Fact is, you are going to statistically be healthier if you fall into normal weight, than your equivalent self if you fall outside. Where it becomes less of an issues is if you are only a few lbs over weight and then it may not impact you that much.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »While it may still be a little ways off, you will have to start switching away from using "weight lost" as a measure of your success since strength/muscular definition will increase the "density" of your body making you weigh more even though you are much, much healthier and fitter.
1lb of muscle weighs the same as a 1lb of fat.
Yes, but 1lb of muscle is denser than 1lb of fat which is why I specificly used density as a measure.
Regardless, I'm not sure I understand what your concern is. When you get to a certain level of body fat %, weight is no longer a good indicator of health (less weight is not an indication of progress). Do you disagree?
This is kind of a ridiculous argument, too. The OP is a female who is not going to gain any type of appreciable muscle while she is in a cut. Even if people have the ability to gain muscle in a deficit, it's largely not going to occur anywhere close to the same rate of fat loss. I would be surprised if the OP even had the ability to gain 1lb of muscle while losing her last 20 lbs, especially consider that women in a surplus are limited to roughly 1/4lb per week.
At this point, the OP's bigger concern is to get stronger and hope to preserve lbm.2 -
If i were in your situation OP this is what i'd do.
I'd start lifting the weight NOW (preferably hitting lower/upper atleast 2 times a week) while focusing on increasing strength and keeping volume relatively low. Keep on the calorie deficit until you have about 5 more pounds to lose.
Then i would slowly start adding in more calories (say, 100 a week) until you reach maintenance calories. This will allow you to start slowly upping the volume, switching to a more hypertrophy range, and allow you some more calories while still being in a deficit.
This is what i do personally at the end of a cut and it's what i instruct my clients to do as well. It's actually really fun to see how high we can push calories before we start maintaining our weight.
2 -
trigden1991 wrote: »While it may still be a little ways off, you will have to start switching away from using "weight lost" as a measure of your success since strength/muscular definition will increase the "density" of your body making you weigh more even though you are much, much healthier and fitter.
1lb of muscle weighs the same as a 1lb of fat.
Yes, but 1lb of muscle is denser than 1lb of fat which is why I specificly used density as a measure.
Regardless, I'm not sure I understand what your concern is. When you get to a certain level of body fat %, weight is no longer a good indicator of health (less weight is not an indication of progress). Do you disagree?
This is kind of a ridiculous argument, too. The OP is a female who is not going to gain any type of appreciable muscle while she is in a cut. Even if people have the ability to gain muscle in a deficit, it's largely not going to occur anywhere close to the same rate of fat loss. I would be surprised if the OP even had the ability to gain 1lb of muscle while losing her last 20 lbs, especially consider that women in a surplus are limited to roughly 1/4lb per week.
At this point, the OP's bigger concern is to get stronger and hope to preserve lbm.
This wasn't an "argument" for anything besides the fact that how much you weigh is an inaccurate measure of health for people with high amounts of lean mass. Not sure how this is a "ridiculous" POV.
Secondly, my initial post explicitly starts with "at some point" not "right now."0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »
Please explain how it is a good indicator of health. Genuinely interested to hear your bro-science.
You're trying to pick an argument with someone who isn't even disagreeing with you on a specific point. Relax.
0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »
Please explain how it is a good indicator of health. Genuinely interested to hear your bro-science.
Saying wieght is never a good indicator is being a bit ignorant. If I take the equivalent self at two different weights (220 vs 175), I will be healthier at 175. Because I will be over-fat at 220. If you added 50 lbs of fat, do you think your health would be affected? Fact is, you are going to statistically be healthier if you fall into normal weight, than your equivalent self if you fall outside. Where it becomes less of an issues is if you are only a few lbs over weight and then it may not impact you that much.
But if I add 50lbs of muscle, am I less healthier? Statistics account for bodyweight not body composition which have a very different affect on health.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
Please explain how it is a good indicator of health. Genuinely interested to hear your bro-science.
Saying wieght is never a good indicator is being a bit ignorant. If I take the equivalent self at two different weights (220 vs 175), I will be healthier at 175. Because I will be over-fat at 220. If you added 50 lbs of fat, do you think your health would be affected? Fact is, you are going to statistically be healthier if you fall into normal weight, than your equivalent self if you fall outside. Where it becomes less of an issues is if you are only a few lbs over weight and then it may not impact you that much.
But if I add 50lbs of muscle, am I less healthier? Statistics account for bodyweight not body composition which have a very different affect on health.
And yet, i'd say for the majority of people overall weight is an excellent indicator of total body composition.
0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
Please explain how it is a good indicator of health. Genuinely interested to hear your bro-science.
Saying wieght is never a good indicator is being a bit ignorant. If I take the equivalent self at two different weights (220 vs 175), I will be healthier at 175. Because I will be over-fat at 220. If you added 50 lbs of fat, do you think your health would be affected? Fact is, you are going to statistically be healthier if you fall into normal weight, than your equivalent self if you fall outside. Where it becomes less of an issues is if you are only a few lbs over weight and then it may not impact you that much.
But if I add 50lbs of muscle, am I less healthier? Statistics account for bodyweight not body composition which have a very different affect on health.
This argument is just as ridiculous as those that suggest a diet in donuts is worst then broccoli. The genetic limitations of muscle growth would kick in before this happens. Stop trying to use outliars to justify your argument.
ETA: I actually addressed this in my first post, but decided to delete it. I should have known better and left it in there.1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »While it may still be a little ways off, you will have to start switching away from using "weight lost" as a measure of your success since strength/muscular definition will increase the "density" of your body making you weigh more even though you are much, much healthier and fitter.
1lb of muscle weighs the same as a 1lb of fat.
Yes, but 1lb of muscle is denser than 1lb of fat which is why I specificly used density as a measure.
Regardless, I'm not sure I understand what your concern is. When you get to a certain level of body fat %, weight is no longer a good indicator of health (less weight is not an indication of progress). Do you disagree?
This is kind of a ridiculous argument, too. The OP is a female who is not going to gain any type of appreciable muscle while she is in a cut. Even if people have the ability to gain muscle in a deficit, it's largely not going to occur anywhere close to the same rate of fat loss. I would be surprised if the OP even had the ability to gain 1lb of muscle while losing her last 20 lbs, especially consider that women in a surplus are limited to roughly 1/4lb per week.
At this point, the OP's bigger concern is to get stronger and hope to preserve lbm.
This wasn't an "argument" for anything besides the fact that how much you weigh is an inaccurate measure of health for people with high amounts of lean mass. Not sure how this is a "ridiculous" POV.
Secondly, my initial post explicitly starts with "at some point" not "right now."
Ridiculous wasn't probably a good choice of words for your post, but the application of 1 lb of muscle vs 1 lb of fat, is general not going to apply. It's more applicable when you are comparing things over a period of years, like demonstrated in the below link or the recomp thread we have. I recognize that weight isn't a great indicator always, but for the majority of people, it largely is.
https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/1 -
This wasn't an "argument" for anything besides the fact that how much you weigh is an inaccurate measure of health for people with high amounts of lean mass. Not sure how this is a "ridiculous" POV.
Secondly, my initial post explicitly starts with "at some point" not "right now."
Ridiculous wasn't probably a good choice of words for your post, but the application of 1 lb of muscle vs 1 lb of fat, is general not going to apply. It's more applicable when you are comparing things over a period of years, like demonstrated in the below link or the recomp thread we have. I recognize that weight isn't a great indicator always, but for the majority of people, it largely is.
https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/
I definitely think that weight is a good indicator for most people (say within 1sd of the mean).0 -
Thank you all for the input! I greatly appreciate it. I will keep doing what I am doing for now and listen to my body. When I get a bit closer to my goal weight, then I will change things up as far as diet.0
-
trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
Please explain how it is a good indicator of health. Genuinely interested to hear your bro-science.
Saying wieght is never a good indicator is being a bit ignorant. If I take the equivalent self at two different weights (220 vs 175), I will be healthier at 175. Because I will be over-fat at 220. If you added 50 lbs of fat, do you think your health would be affected? Fact is, you are going to statistically be healthier if you fall into normal weight, than your equivalent self if you fall outside. Where it becomes less of an issues is if you are only a few lbs over weight and then it may not impact you that much.
But if I add 50lbs of muscle, am I less healthier? Statistics account for bodyweight not body composition which have a very different affect on health.
If you are in an obese category because of it, yes.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions