Questions About Weight Distribution

DupreeTheTRex

Disclaimer: Genuine curiosity here, I’m not trying to target weight loss in any specific area.


Many years ago, I managed to drop down to 160lbs; the lightest I’ve ever weighed in my entire life. My methodology was flawed and unhealthy, exercising 3+ hours daily and eating very little for 60 days (losing 50lbs).

My methods were not sustainable and within a couple of years I weighed almost 280lbs. I had given up on losing weight because I had the misconception that the only way to lose weight was by pushing myself well beyond my physical and mental limitations.

Eventually, over a year ago I attempted to make small lifestyle changes hoping that I would see long term success. While the results were much slower than my previous attempts, I managed to lose weight each week. I’ve now lost a total of 85 lbs (now weighing 195lbs).

I held onto all of my clothes when I was 160lbs and I’m at the point where all of my clothes are too big for me. This got me thinking, with 35lbs difference, how am I fitting into these clothes better than I had previously?

I’m exercising less than I did before but I am eating much better than I had in the past. I can’t explain why I fit in smaller shirts and pants now compared to when I was 160lbs. It seems very odd to me and I’m wondering if anyone might be able to offer up an explanation.

Lietchi

Muscle is denser than fat. You could be heavier but have a better body composition (more muscle, less fat).

Since you dropped to 160 through unhealthy methods, you probably lost muscle mass then, whereas now you have lost less muscle mass by losing more slowly.

SnifterPug

Lietchi wrote: »

Muscle is denser than fat. You could be heavier but have a better body composition (more muscle, less fat).

Since you dropped to 160 through unhealthy methods, you probably lost muscle mass then, whereas now you have lost less muscle mass by losing more slowly.

This.

Also, if you were losing weight at an unhealthily fast rate your body was probably very stressed. Cortisol can cause bloating, especially around the belly, so this may have contributed to your shape back then.

nossmf

Lietchi wrote: »

Since you dropped to 160 through unhealthy methods, you probably lost muscle mass then, whereas now you have lost less muscle mass by losing more slowly.

This. I now weigh about 40 pounds more than I did at high school graduation, yet my waist size is almost equal. It's because compared to the skinny wimpy me back then, I have a lot more muscle now.

DupreeTheTRex

Lietchi wrote: »

Muscle is denser than fat. You could be heavier but have a better body composition (more muscle, less fat).

Since you dropped to 160 through unhealthy methods, you probably lost muscle mass then, whereas now you have lost less muscle mass by losing more slowly.

So despite going to the gym as much as I was back then I probably lost more muscle than barely any exercise now? I mean I’ll take it if that’s the case!

My exercise now is about 1 hour of walking daily, which I find relaxing more than anything. On top of that I’m now a homeowner and often take on a lot of the more physical jobs around the house.

Lietchi

Going to the gym /exercising can mean many things. Did you do strength training back then, or cardio?
Also, frequency and duration don't say much by themselves, quality matters and type of exercise. More isn't necessarily better!

DupreeTheTRex

Lietchi wrote: »

Going to the gym /exercising can mean many things. Did you do strength training back then, or cardio?
Also, frequency and duration don't say much by themselves, quality matters and type of exercise. More isn't necessarily better!

Mix of both, not sure about quality of exercise to be honest. I had a personal trainer show me some basics the goal was to maintain muscle mass while losing and I just followed their instructions.

nossmf

"and I just followed their instructions."

Did you follow instructions the first weight loss? Or the current one?

DupreeTheTRex

nossmf wrote: »

"and I just followed their instructions."

Did you follow instructions the first weight loss? Or the current one?

My trainer only provided guidance on the exercises. I followed their instructions for those exercises last time. This time I didn’t exercise I just didn’t impose such harsh restrictions and aimed to lose 1lbs per week instead of the nearly 1lbs per day I was losing back then.

Lietchi

DupreeTheTRex wrote: »

Lietchi wrote: »

Going to the gym /exercising can mean many things. Did you do strength training back then, or cardio?
Also, frequency and duration don't say much by themselves, quality matters and type of exercise. More isn't necessarily better!

Mix of both, not sure about quality of exercise to be honest. I had a personal trainer show me some basics the goal was to maintain muscle mass while losing and I just followed their instructions.

Losing 50 lbs in 60 days is extremely fast, there is no doubt in my mind that you lost muscle mass, despite the strength training (perhaps it reduced the loss of muscle mass, who knows). You mention eating very little, so on top of the agressive calorie deficit, your protein intake perhaps wasn't very high either, which certainly doesn't help maintain muscle loss either.
This is all just guesswork based on the info you've given, obviously, but it seems a likely explanation for fitting into those clothes better now

DupreeTheTRex

Lietchi wrote: »

DupreeTheTRex wrote: »

Lietchi wrote: »

Going to the gym /exercising can mean many things. Did you do strength training back then, or cardio?
Also, frequency and duration don't say much by themselves, quality matters and type of exercise. More isn't necessarily better!

Mix of both, not sure about quality of exercise to be honest. I had a personal trainer show me some basics the goal was to maintain muscle mass while losing and I just followed their instructions.

Losing 50 lbs in 60 days is extremely fast, there is no doubt in my mind that you lost muscle mass, despite the strength training (perhaps it reduced the loss of muscle mass, who knows). You mention eating very little, so on top of the agressive calorie deficit, your protein intake perhaps wasn't very high either, which certainly doesn't help maintain muscle loss either.
This is all just guesswork based on the info you've given, obviously, but it seems a likely explanation for fitting into those clothes better now

Yeah that’s what it seems. I always wanted results right away and looking back I wish I learned to make sustainable changes instead of major changes I made back then. I think my biggest change was finding an alternative to energy drinks that didn’t result in me drinking 1000 calories a day which was my biggest problem.

penguinmama87

I've been curious about a similar thing with regards to my own weight loss. I didn't take measurements when I was last at my goal weight, but vanity sizing can't really have changed that much in just 15 years, can it? Maybe it has! Other factors include my changing clothing styles and no "mummy tummy" 15 years ago, which seems to be the only substantial bit of fat I've got left. Everything else looks (and fits) like it did when I was 25 lbs lighter (though maybe there's perception issues there too - sometimes I feel very skinny and other times I feel like I am still very heavy.)

Kind of makes me sad I didn't do better record keeping back when I was actually thin. But if I had, maybe I wouldn't have gained so much weight! (I also had a very non-nutritious diet and my only exercise was walking - which I did a lot of, but definitely very little upper body strength in particular.)

age_is_just_a_number

Back then, if you were exercising while at a caloric deficit, then you likely were still losing fat and muscle.