Muscle gains while losing fat (cont. from AT thread)
Replies
-
Tagging to read.0
-
As for HIIT, you are the first person I've seen mention that it's not all that necessary with a solid lifting regime. That makes sense though, especially since the vast majority of info available on the web and in books is focused on either losing fat *or* gaining muscle. Very, very little info exists on how to do both at the same time. So little info that some people insist it's simply impossible. There are plenty of case studies that prove otherwise, but somehow that data has not made it into the popular cookie-cutter type routines. Stronglifts being an exception... and as much as I cringe at some of the stuff Medhi says (and how he says it) at least he believes that my goal is possible, at least for the average joe. I am just trying to find and pick apart the science behind *why* various things work, and build my own routine
I've heard plenty of the youtube presentations mention the difficulty of trying to do any cardio too intense if lifting is the focus. They don't say HIIT always, because it doesn't even have to be that level. Anyone with lifting as focus usually admits, if they even test themselves, they can notice the difference if cardio is too intense, compared to skipping it. Especially if several days in a row comparison.
Now some say they do HIIT after lifting, not on the rest day or preceding day.
But I say if you did the lifting right, at least using the same muscles, you could not accomplish HIIT.
While it's said to be a matter of going all-out, which can always be accomplished no matter how tired you are because all-out is relative, the benefit is the same as lifting only if done with fresh muscles. Must be an almost overload on the muscles, not just failure because of being tired.
This is usually shown by the HR being able to be pushed into the anaerobic HR zone.
But if your muscles are tired, you can't push your HR that high for a fast hard push. You might get it up there for an overall intense aerobic workout that keeps going, like a HRmax test, like you just keep increasing pace or intensity until you are anaerobic. But again, that would be like lifting with light weight and hitting 100 reps and finally failing. Not the same response.
That was from 15-20 years ago with lifting strategies for runners, kind of opposite advice. How to do lifting to improve your running, but not impact either badly.
That's why I found the advice starting to become almost fadish for last several years with fat-burning advice. First it started with the advice to stay in the fat-burning HR zone for cardio and do that. Then the advice to do HIIT because of recovery level of fat burn and shorted workouts. Then rightfully going to just do the lifting, then to advice to combined with the HIIT. And while every one of those things has it's place in a training program, your focus determines what is actually going to be useful for you. Doing all the great fat-burning stuff together isn't best either. Doing the best one if desired is better. Like fat-burning HR zone cardio for day after lifting is great for recovery and aiding repair. Hence the reason it was called Active Recovery HR zone long before fat-burning became the fad name.
Like you are doing, digging in to the advice and studies and the why, rather than the prevalence of fitness "news" articles and advice that changes with the latest study, which probably didn't really change an prior understanding that radically, just tweaked it a tad.0 -
On another thread, a link was given to a few studies that attempted to discern (among many other things) the point at which a caloric deficit resulted in noticeable LBM loss. Rather than re-post those links here, I though I'd post a response to those studies from one of my favorite fitness science authors, Lyle MacDonald:
What I'm taking away from this is: The strength training I'm doing, along with the controlled macros, *should* be the best case scenario for me in this goal. I'm going to more closely watch my deficit, erring in the direction of caution. I'm also going to get a set of BF% calipers so I can monitor it myself on a regular basis. Keeping the deficit within about 20% of maximum "safe" deficit, and continuing with the strength training regime should (at least on paper) net me the results i'm looking for.Originally Posted by Lyle
The answer
So imagine my surprise when this little theoretical paper (note the journal title) showed up on my Pubcrawler last year (1). Titled "A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia", it examined (from a somewhat simplified and theoretical way) exactly the question I gave above: what is the maximum rate at which the body can derive energy from fat stores to cover a diet induced deficit while sparing lean body mass.
It's a nasty little paper, filled primarily with equations, explanations of those equations and some more equations to boot. Headache inducing to be sure. I'll spare you the details. Based on a somewhat simplified analysis of what data exists (including the seminal Minnesota semi-starvation experiment), they conclude that the maximal rate at which fat stores can provide energy to the body is 290 +- 25 kj/kg which is approximately 31 kcal/lb of fat per day.
So, if you are carrying a mere 10 lbs. of fat, you can sustain a 310 cal/day deficit.
20 lbs. = 620 calories.
30 lbs. = 930 calories
You get the idea and this is not difficult math. Multiply your total fat mass in pounds by 31, that's how much of a caloric deficit that fat mass can support on a daily basis.
One quick note: the above values are for dieting only and one of the simplifying assumptions in the paper was relatively 'normal/moderate' activity levels. The paper mentions specifically that the value above might be varied through pharmaceutical means (which target the rate limiting steps of fat energy transfer) or through high levels of activity. It even mentions bodybuilders specifically as a group that might exceed this value with a lot of training. For now, I'll just focus on the diet end, I'll come back to drugs and exercise afterwards.
So, the basic assertion of the paper is that, so long as the net daily deficit does not exceed what your fat stores can provide, you should spare lean body mass. And based on the small amount of research that they found, this seemed to be generally true (many studies find an initial rapid LBM loss but this is most likely glycogen and water and stuff, not muscle mass). By extension, if your daily caloric deficit exceeds the above, your body will have to mobilize LBM to cover the difference. So let's look at an example.
Say we have a 180 lb male at 15% bodyfat. He has 27 lbs. of fat, and his maintenance calorie intake is 15 cal/lb or 2700 calories. With 27 lbs. of fat, he should be able to sustain a caloric deficit, from diet alone, of 27 lbs. fat * 31 cal/lb = 837 calories/day. So he could reduce his calories to 1863 (ha! 10 cal/lb) and shouldn't lose any LBM at that level of intake. He should get a weekly fat loss of just over 1.5 lbs./week.
If the same 180 lb guy was at 10% bodyfat, only 18 lbs. of fat, he could only sustain a 558 calorie/day deficit (2150 cal/day or 12 cal/lb), he's down to 1 pound per week. By the time he's at 8%, he's down to 14.5 lbs. of fat and a total deficit of 446 calories/day and about 2/3 a pound of fat loss/week. Oh yeah, if he were a fat I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post. at 30% bodyfat, that's 54 lbs. of fat, he could sustain a deficit of over 1500 cal/day and lose over 3 pounds per week of pure lard; of course he'd only be eating 1300 cal/day. Again, the above all seem to roughly pass the reality check in terms of what we see in human dieters.
Now, one implication of the above is that, as a diet proceeds and your fat stores shrink, your net deficit has to decrease. Ok, step back, take a breath and read that again. More importantly, note my use of the word 'net' in the first sentence of that paragraph.
Now it's going to get confusing.
At first glance, the above seems to be saying that, as you get leaner, you'll need to raise calories to compensate, so that the deficit isn't as extreme. But that's incorrect; it is saying that fat loss will need to slow (b/c the net deficit you can sustain will be smaller). By 'net' deficit, I mean the difference between your current maintenance requirements and your intake. This is important because, as you diet, your maintenance requirements go down due to the loss of bodymass along with the adaptive component of metabolic rate (due to insulin, leptin, ghrelin, peptide YY, etc). Let's simplify this by looking at the math.
Our 180 lb man at 15% starts his diet. He has 27 lbs. of fat and can sustain a maximum deficit of 27 lbs. * 31 cal/lb = 837 calories. Assuming a maintenance of 15 cal/lb (2700), his starting calorie level will be 2700 cal - 837 calories = 1863 calories/day. He'll be losing around 1.5 lb fat/week.
So now we check in 8 weeks later, he's down 12 lbs., almost purely of fat (we'll ignore any small LBM losses). His new numbers are
168 lbs. with 15 lbs. of fat = 9% bodyfat. Maximal sustainable deficit = 15 * 31 = 465 cal
Assuming his maintenance is still 15 cal/lb (not automatically a safe assumption), his maintenance requirements should now be 2520 calories. But the adaptive part of metabolic rate reduction has probably dropped him a good 10% below that. So let's say his maintenance is 2250 cal/day or so. 2250 cal/day - 465 calories = 1785 calories. So, not much of a reduction from his previous 1863 calorie/day diet. Basically, the drop in his maintenance levels over the course of 8 weeks offsets the fact that he can't sustain as much of a deficit and is now leaner. Of course, his fat loss has also slowed to just under a pound/week.
Now 4 weeks later, he's dropped about 4 more pounds of fat. His new numbers are
164 lbs. with 11 lb of fat = 6.7% bodyfat. Maximal sustainable deficit = 11 * 31 = 341 cal
His maintenance will have dropped further, let's say 14 cal/lb (people's daily activity tends to go down due to the hormonal changes from extreme dieting) and a 15% adaptive reduction which brings him to 1951 calories/day. Reduce by 341 to get 1610 calories/day. He will need to reduce daily calories by a couple of hundred (from 1785/day to 1610/day) to achieve the maximum deficit but his fat loss will be down to 2/3rds pound per week.
Ok, step back for a second: the above calculations aren't meant to be the holy word of god, there are a lot of estimates upon estimates being made, especially my guesses as to the changes in maintenance level and how big of an impact the adaptive component is having. The adaptive component is a big question mark with not enough data for my liking. Tracking morning body temperature gives a rough guideline: for every 1 degree drop in morning temperature below 97.8 degrees, your metabolism is suppressed by about 10%. This was more to illustrate what I meant by 'net deficit' with changes in both fat mass and maintenance requirements.
But, again, the above seems to scale roughly with reality. As people get leaner and leaner, fat loss slows drastically. To keep it moving, they have to either cut calories further or increase activity, both can cause muscle loss. Every bodybuilder who has had to move to 2 hours/day of aerobics to keep the fat coming off knows what I'm talking about. Drugs become more and more attractive as the myriad other systems start to fight back against you as well (on which note: will someone please get the folks working on intranasal leptin to hurry it up).
Drugs and exercise
As mentioned above, the paper I'm basing all of this nonsense on was looking at non-exercising dieting or fasting men, not folks who were training or taking drugs. And it mentioned specifically that both of those could potentially increase the maximum rate of fat mobilization value (above 31 cal/lb) without sacrificing lean body mass. Certainly, once again, this idea passes the reality check. Even the addition of the ephedrine/caffeine stack elevates fat loss while sparing muscle mass. Clenbuterol is more potent, GH is great and DNP is like I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.ing magic.
Clearly exercise also has an impact. Even back in Bodyopus, Dan mentioned that only part of the total deficit (he used 20%) should come from diet, the other part should come from increased activity. This usually means aerobics but some prefer to use high rep/short rest period weight training or interval training and there is some logic to picking one of the latter options. He suggested that men do better with 15% calorie deficit and 5% aerobics and women at 10% apiece. Given the issues women have with lower bodyfat blood flow, and that aerobic activity can overcome some of the limitations that make lower bodyfat so stubborn, that makes a lot of sense. As well, women, because of their lower maintenance requirements, end up eating a tiny amount of food if they cut too much out of their diet. Increasing their net daily deficit via activity allows them to eat more and not starve to death on a daily basis. I've been working on the stubborn bodyfat issue for years now, my next book outlines not only the problem but multiple solutions to that problem.
Conclusion
In this article, I've been able to give dieters a starting point for the maximum sustainable deficit which can come from calorie restriction. To summarize: simply determine how many pounds of fat you're carrying. Then multiply that value by 31 calories. That's how much you can potentially decrease your daily food intake. If you want to try to increase fat loss, any further increase in the deficit should either come from increased activity or compounds that either increase the mobilization or burning of fatty acids for fuel. As well, as you get leaner/lighter, you will need to periodically recalculate your daily calories to take into account your diminishing fat mass and decreased maintenance requirements due to both decreased bodymass and the adaptive component of metabolic rate. An argument can also be made for saving increases in activity for later in the diet when your diet deficit has to be lower.
Please keep in mind, however, all of these theoretical calculations sort of pale to real world results. If you're losing strength in the weight room like crazy, your deficit is too big regardless of what the math works out too, increase them until you stop hemorrhaging strength (and probably muscle). And even if you have to trial and error it a bit, the above should at least give you a starting point.
Reference
1. Alpert SS. A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia. J Theor Biol. 2005 Mar 7;233(1):1-13.0 -
I've heard plenty of the youtube presentations mention the difficulty of trying to do any cardio too intense if lifting is the focus. They don't say HIIT always, because it doesn't even have to be that level. Anyone with lifting as focus usually admits, if they even test themselves, they can notice the difference if cardio is too intense, compared to skipping it. Especially if several days in a row comparison.
I mix cardio (running/cycling) and weights (compound lifts), and completely support that perspective. Doing intervals/sprints the day before lifting heavy absolutely positively impacts ability to lift heavy. And vice versa - lifting heavy absolutely impacts ability to do anything above steady state cardio. I log everything - all run times, all cycling times, every lift - and the pattern was clear and obvious.
I subsequently swapped around the sequence of doing things to get separation between the heaviest of lifting days and the HIIT cardio day. Basically, reduced the HIIT down to once a week, and used it in place of a third lifting day (so 2x a week heavy lifting).0 -
out of curiosity, what's the reasoning behind your method of using cardio in place of weight training? Not judging, actually looking for different perspectives.0
-
out of curiosity, what's the reasoning behind your method of using cardio in place of weight training? Not judging, actually looking for different perspectives.
As the other poster mentioned, there are physiological similarities between HIIT and lifting, as they're both highly anaerobic and only sustainable for short bursts of time. So instead of doing 3x lifts a week, I do 2x lifts a week plus one set of sprinting intervals, either on foot or on a bike. The rest of the cardio is mostly in the active recovery ("fat burn") zone, so lower intensity, longer time.
I'm not looking to optimize a particular aspect of fitness - I'm looking to improve my all-round fitness - which means not just muscle strength, but also cardiovascular strength and endurance.
(PS No judgement taken or inferred.
) 0 -
I guess I was under the impression that cardiovascular strength and endurance was better served with moderate hart rate exercise rather than HIIT. I've been walking/running/hiking on "light" days (4x per week) and doing a mild pre-weights walk on "heavy" days (3x per week). I have noticed my endurance increase significantly, over it's previously terrible condition. It's now somewhere close to what I would consider average for most people. If HIIT will progress me more on that front, then I might try to work some in.
My general school of thought is that for any program to be truly successful, especially as a lifestyle change, the person has to enjoy it in some way. The walking and hiking I do with my wife and other friends is very enjoyable. I also enjoy lifting. I also enjoy making progress, so I put up with some of the stuff I *don't* enjoy as much to get that result. I have found that right now, running isn't as fun... and there are some real physical limitations, but I think I also exaggerate them subconsciously because I'm not enjoying the run. I notice that since today is "workout A" for SL5x5, meaning squat - bench - row, I'm much more excited about going to the gym today than I was on Friday . Running for fun/sport *is* one of my goals... and if HIIT will get me to that level of enjoyment faster, I am more than willing to give it a shot. 0 -
On another thread, a link was given to a few studies that attempted to discern (among many other things) the point at which a caloric deficit resulted in noticeable LBM loss. Rather than re-post those links here, I though I'd post a response to those studies from one of my favorite fitness science authors, Lyle MacDonald:
What I'm taking away from this is: The strength training I'm doing, along with the controlled macros, *should* be the best case scenario for me in this goal. I'm going to more closely watch my deficit, erring in the direction of caution. I'm also going to get a set of BF% calipers so I can monitor it myself on a regular basis. Keeping the deficit within about 20% of maximum "safe" deficit, and continuing with the strength training regime should (at least on paper) net me the results i'm looking for.
Yep, saw his response to that theoritical study, where they examined other studies to get their figures, the authors didn't actually run a study.
I think you got it easily, because you are willing to watch everything like a hawk. Someone attempt what you are doing and get sloppy, they'll get some bad results, unless the sloppiness is eating more than desired.
I was in a gym one time years ago and 4 lifters were prepping for a show coming up, don't know how close. Talking about how much more fat had to come off and how well diet was going. They all proceeded to fail way early on past weight for bench press, and they were pissed off. They had their notebooks with them and it appeared their eating diary (prior to MFP type days) and were examining it right then. That fine line Lyle talked about, those guys really didn't want to cross it coming in to a show.
Make sure you throw that potentially 5% correct caliper method in with some 5% correct body measurement methods too. Hopefully by an average you can get more accurate.0 -
I guess I was under the impression that cardiovascular strength and endurance was better served with moderate hart rate exercise rather than HIIT. I've been walking/running/hiking on "light" days (4x per week) and doing a mild pre-weights walk on "heavy" days (3x per week). I have noticed my endurance increase significantly, over it's previously terrible condition. It's now somewhere close to what I would consider average for most people. If HIIT will progress me more on that front, then I might try to work some in.
My general school of thought is that for any program to be truly successful, especially as a lifestyle change, the person has to enjoy it in some way. The walking and hiking I do with my wife and other friends is very enjoyable. I also enjoy lifting. I also enjoy making progress, so I put up with some of the stuff I *don't* enjoy as much to get that result. I have found that right now, running isn't as fun... and there are some real physical limitations, but I think I also exaggerate them subconsciously because I'm not enjoying the run. I notice that since today is "workout A" for SL5x5, meaning squat - bench - row, I'm much more excited about going to the gym today than I was on Friday . Running for fun/sport *is* one of my goals... and if HIIT will get me to that level of enjoyment faster, I am more than willing to give it a shot.
The HIIT like lifting is to gain strength and if eating right more muscle for a sport specific cardio purpose.
So lifting can indeed help the major muscles that you would use for some endurance event, but some specific muscles need to be stronger for say running that squats or deadlift don't hit. Plus wrong muscle fibers for endurance, though they do help.
So the HIIT can do that.
It also can help increase the Lactate Threshold (though other interval types will do that too) and the VO2max (though moderate intensity cardio can do that too). That helps improve endurance.
It really only help endurance by strengthening those muscles that might give out sooner if not worked on, and by training the body to deal with lactate acid better, though a different workout will do that too.
But for those of us that really enjoy the cardio, and doing the lifting is just a tad less fun, it adds some fun. Nothing like coming to the top of a 60 sec hill sprint all out hitting sub 5 min pace flying over the crest. Then landing and puking. Well, maybe not all fun. :noway:
And really not that bad.
My last few hill sprints or HIIT attempts have shown by my performance I was slightly tired.
Those walks and hikes you do are exactly how you use that new stronger muscle all day long for burning more calories. Muscle doesn't have to be fully engaged at full weight to be burning high, just being used is great enough, and much better than at rest.
Really notice how you feel with the walks/hikes and how much they help you recover. Just in case you get a bug in your knee and start running again, you can compare if the impact is bad enough or not.0 -
Re: Cardio, I do cardio 6x/week (running), do it prior to lifting, pushing myself as far as I can for 20 minutes which is currently a 7 min/mile pace and a ~185 bpm heartrate. I work intervals once in a while if I plateu solely to build speed. I don't believe in the HIIT/LISS dichotomy. You are either going as hard as you can or you are wasting your time.
I have stalled out on squats and can only squat 135 pounds before I'm unable to go below parallel. Even during the 'warmup' sets with a quarter I feel the burn in the legs. None of my other lifts are affected, though. In the big scheme of things, I workout to be fit not to have 28" thighs, so if 135 lb squats is the price to pay for cardio health then so be it. I've also only been back in the game for 2 months so my legs will adapt eventually.
Re: Muscle gains...
The problem with this discussion is people like to think of it as either/or. Your body is always creating and breaking down tissues. The real question is: Can the rate of muscle production exceed the rate of muscle loss while on a calorie deficit? The answer is yes for beginners provided they have excess body fat for the body to use as fuel and you eat enough protein. However, this will still appear as a net loss in weight and size for the simple fact that if you are eating to lose a lb a week, and it is only possible to gain 0.5 lb of muscle a week if you have good genes and eat at a surplus, then you simply cannot have a net gain in weight from just building muscle while eating to lose weight. At best you could hope to put on maybe half that for the first month -- 0.25 lb/week of muscle -- which still means you're losing 0.75 lb/week. You will definitely notice the difference between people who lose weight with strength training and people who lose weight without strength training.0 -
I couldn't agree with this more. I've tried to say so elsewhere, albeit with less eloquence.The problem with this discussion is people like to think of it as either/or. Your body is always creating and breaking down tissues.
FWIW, the 31kcal/lb concept is one I'm *really* hoping will help me not only spare muscle mass but also build it. I'm not looking to come out of this thing a he-man, but I have a very large frame that simply will not look or feel right skinny. I'm always in for more learning and better fine tuning of my method. I think I'm fairly settled on what I'm doing for now... if new info comes to light I'll change it up then. Based on the sum total of my internet research (even a bit of email exchange with Lyle MacDonald himself), I think I'm in a good place to build muscle while burning fat. I expect it to become more difficult as the "newbie gains" threshold is passed, and as I drop more weight, since I'll have to lower my deficit. Time will tell 0 -
I guess I was under the impression that cardiovascular strength and endurance was better served with moderate hart rate exercise rather than HIIT. I've been walking/running/hiking on "light" days (4x per week) and doing a mild pre-weights walk on "heavy" days (3x per week).
I agree, based on my personal experience: I do strenght training 3 times a week and cardiovascular work the other 3 (plus one day total rest). I used to run but found that was too tiring and limited somewhat the increase in strenght (note that I am on a pretty big caloric deficit): now I walk, I feel better and manage to keep increasing the weight in the gym, Of course that might not be true for everyone.
Besides I think that with HIIT is much more easy to get injured, especially if you are overweight like me, and that would put a serious stop to the whole process. Not worth it, in my opinion, unless you really enjoy it, of course.0 -
Your methodology is incorrect and doesn't prove anything.Here's how prove it to clients:
Made sure we measured say arm circumference in a flexed position before going on calorie deficit. Also at this time I check the millimeter skin fold of the bicep and triceps notate it.
Now they calorie deficit and lose weight (say 20lbs) and now have more definition so they must have built muscle in their arms right?
Check circumference and it's smaller. Check millimeter skin fold and a decrease of a millimeter happened. What does this tell me? That body fat was lost. Had the circumference stayed closed to the same and millimeter skin fold was less, this would possibly indicate a small build in muscle. But I haven't yet had a client (male or female) meet this criteria since I've been a trainer.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You have to measure body composition, not absolute size. When I started working out again 2 mo ago, I was 28% bf @ 175 lbs, which is a LBM of approx 126 lbs. Now I'm 19% BF with an LBM of approx 128 lbs. I am smaller in arm/chest/legs and lighter, but I built 1-2 lbs of LBM while dropping 15 lbs of weight. I would have doubled that eating on a surplus but the point is that if your body has the materials it will build tissue it needs. And my body still has 15 lbs of expendable fat to use for energy.0 -
Your methodology is incorrect and doesn't prove anything.
You have to measure body composition, not absolute size. When I started working out again 2 mo ago, I was 28% bf @ 175 lbs, which is a LBM of approx 126 lbs. Now I'm 19% BF with an LBM of approx 128 lbs. I am smaller in arm/chest/legs and lighter, but I built 1-2 lbs of LBM while dropping 15 lbs of weight. I would have doubled that eating on a surplus but the point is that if your body has the materials it will build tissue it needs. And my body still has 15 lbs of expendable fat to use for energy.
Actually, that method is dead on correct.
You are aware most likely that LBM is everything that is not fat mass, that includes muscle mass and actually water weight and bones, ect.
You can very easily gain LBM and not a bit of muscle mass.
Unless you had a DEXA scan before and after to separate muscle mass from the other components - it didn't happen.0 -
no DEXA scan available, though maybe I should have that done. The cloth tape says my arm circumference in a flexed-bicep, non-pumped state are the same as they were 30 lbs ago. I did expect them to be bigger, but I guess whatever size was lost in fat was gained in muscle. Either way it's the same, and I'm happy.0
-
Here are my daily-tracked results for the past 4 weeks:
Estimated TDEE: 3300
Daily intake target: 2500
Actual average intake : 2741
Predicted loss (based on 3,500 cal/lb): 5.9 lbs
Actual loss: 5.9
Actual TDEE: 3300
Fat loss (based on BF% + weight): 6.2 lbs
Now 6.2 and 5.9 are pretty darn close, given the error bars in all the measurements. In the best case, I've lost 6+ lbs of fat and gained a quarter-pound of muscles. In the worst case, I'm more or less maintaing LBM as I drop weight, which is my primary goal (completely agree with Pavrg, lifting while dropping weight makes a *huge* difference in end result).0 -
Oooo data! I wish I could replicate that summary for myself. I only have consistent data back to Aug 26th, because of a 3-day weekend trip where logging wasn't possible. My weight stayed the same during that period though, so I guess I can get close. Even then on the 31st I neglected to log after breakfast... for the life of me I can't remember why. Here's what it looks like back to august 26th, assuming an average day on the 31st, using an average of 3/4 TDEE methods on IIFYM's calculator with 4x per week exercise, then averaged again using starting and ending weight:
Starting weight (Aug 26): 301.4
Ending Weight (Sep 10): 290.2
Estimated TDEE: 3500
Daily intake target: 2000
Actual average intake: 1807
Actual TDEE (based on fitbit): 4050
Predicted loss: 10.12 lbs
Actual loss: 11.2 lbs
I think the lack of strength training in the fitbit calculations, plus some room for error and water weight, explains the difference between actual weight lost and predicted weight lost. Now, my only current BF% measurement is done via my fitbit scale, which I think is inaccurate... but based on that, my LBM is the same over this time period.
Interesting to see that data laid out. I think I will start keeping track of a rolling 2-week average, something like that. That will require a better logging mechanism for walks, runs, etc... my HRM doesn't sync with MFP but it does with other sites. I'll write some scripts to get it all figured out. I'm geeking out a bit on this 0 -
No, it's not. It's making the false assumption that raw size in a person losing weight can be correlated to muscle mass gain when an overweight person (>15% bf) can lose a great deal of size while still gaining muscle thanks to the density difference between the two tissues.Actually, that method is dead on correct.
Really, the only way to properly measure is to take identical twins to attempt to control for genetics as much as possible, and have one lose weight with no strength training and one lose weight with and compare the results. My intuition tells me that were you able to do that, you'd find that the twin who did strength training has more LBM and muscular definition at a given weight than the one who just dieted, which would demonstrate that strength training even at a deficit builds LBM and muscle. Otherwise, why even tell your clients who are attempting to lose weight to even workout? According to you, it's all going to be lost to make up for the caloric deficit anyway.
And your point is? You think my bones grew at 30 years old and that's why I gained 1-2 lbs of LBM?You are aware most likely that LBM is everything that is not fat mass, that includes muscle mass and actually water weight and bones, ect.
You can very easily gain LBM and not a bit of muscle mass.
The only thing that I have available to measure is LBM vs. fat. I don't really care what composition the LBM is and it's not really worth quibbling over. The bottom line is I have more LBM two months into training than I did when I started while I lost a 7% of my overall bodyweight in that timeframe. And I measure myself frequently -- it's not a freak thing because I chugged water before measuring to get my LBM up.
You're dismissing data because it doesn't fit your thoughts on the subject. Carry on. You just reaffirmed why I tell people to avoid personal trainers.Unless you had a DEXA scan before and after to separate muscle mass from the other components - it didn't happen.0 -
Are you aware that a mere 1000 extra calories of glucose stored in your now being used muscle will store with water and weigh 2 lbs? Obviously increases the size of the muscle too, though it's not muscle nor is it used in strength.
Still being sore and retaining water for repair also leads to increased LBM, without it having anything to do with muscle mass increase with new fibers.
Since even your claim of LBM increase has to do with a stat of bodyfat %, even a Bodpod has an accuracy of 5%. If you are getting your stats from a scale forget it, that 7-10% accuracy and inconsistency could have you with no losses, or more even depending on which way the accuracy went each time.
I'm merely dismissing irrelevant data that doesn't actually prove what you hope it does.
But keep it up, there's nothing like maintaining muscle mass and increasing strength as fat and weight and measurements drop.
And with only 15 lbs of fat left, this should start to get real interesting. Just keep stress free, don't let these forums and different opinions set ya off too bad. Bad for the cortisol.0 -
play nice, kids. all data is good data. I'm after the best result I can get, and I am encouraged by others who have seen something happen to them that is similar to my goals. I know it's not proof positive but it will drive me to work at it.
If nothing else, I'm getting stronger, as is pavrg. Stronger is better, regardless of whether a particular definition of "mass" is added or lost. I know I will be adding muscle more later on once I lose the fat, and I'm sure pavrg will too. This is about setting oneself up for the least amount of AT possible. The hope is that our metabolic rates will even increase along with actual muscle mass. I'm in it for the long haul. I'll happily keep my progress tracked here... for better or for worse.0 -
no DEXA scan available, though maybe I should have that done. The cloth tape says my arm circumference in a flexed-bicep, non-pumped state are the same as they were 30 lbs ago. I did expect them to be bigger, but I guess whatever size was lost in fat was gained in muscle. Either way it's the same, and I'm happy.
My arms are actually bigger than before I started MFP. I didn't start measuring until recently, but several of my t-shirts and polo shirts are getting more snug in the sleeves. I am very positive that they weren't that way before.0 -
Right. My point is that you are assuming that 100% of the increased LBM is due to factors outside of muscle growth when you have no way of proving that and it is also extremely unlikely.Are you aware that a mere 1000 extra calories of glucose stored in your now being used muscle will store with water and weigh 2 lbs? Obviously increases the size of the muscle too, though it's not muscle nor is it used in strength.
And most websites will claim that you can't increase LBM while on a deficit, not just muscle growth, because most people don't pay money to get dexa scanned. Stop moving the goal post by trying to quibble over where the LBM is coming from. You are making a claim you can't measure. I might as well claim I have leprechauns under my bed and we can be done with it.
The big asterisk to the LBM loss is that those articles are written for people who have already been training past their newbie gains and are already fairly lean.
Who said I was sore? I stopped being sore 3 weeks into starting a workout regimen.Still being sore and retaining water for repair also leads to increased LBM, without it having anything to do with muscle mass increase with new fibers.
There's error associated with everything, but at the end of the day we have to trust our empirical measurements. You don't just throw something out because there is a possible 5% error, which is actually a pretty accurate measurement.Since even your claim of LBM increase has to do with a stat of bodyfat %, even a Bodpod has an accuracy of 5%. If you are getting your stats from a scale forget it, that 7-10% accuracy and inconsistency could have you with no losses, or more even depending on which way the accuracy went each time.
I'm merely dismissing irrelevant data that doesn't actually prove what you hope it does.
Yes, it is possible that I was actually 26.7% bf when I started and I'm 19.95% bodyfat 2 months later due to the 5% error, which means under worst-case error I would have net 0 loss in LBM. But is it likely that my measurements were at the extreme opposite ends of the error spectrum when I took the measurements? No, in fact it's extremely unlikely. Anything other than that low probability case would yield a gain in LBM. The comparison is the important part and the error for comparison is minimized by the fact it was the same person taking the measurements on the same body with the same measuring instrument. In other words, if my measuring technique and instrument error was a +3% in the before measurement, it's probably pretty damn close to +3% in the after. And probability wise, I am most likely to get the measurements between a standard deviation of 0...not sure what that is, but it's definitely less than 5%.
I expect my rate of body weight loss and my rate of muscle gain to drop with it, to the point where it will be barely noticeable. I probably have a month left, if that, where I can still gain any LBM. But even that is a net gain because people who have been training for 1-2+ years lose 15-30% of their weight as LBM when they lose weight, period.And with only 15 lbs of fat left, this should start to get real interesting.
I'm not stressed. I don't care what you or the personal trainer believe; I just don't like when people try to spread misinformation based on a bum experiment and subsequently throw out empirical data that refutes their beliefs because they read an article written for amateur body builders who are at 6-10% bf. A person who has a significant amount of bodyfat beginning an exercise routine does not have to retain the same absolute flexed bicep size in order to say he has built muscle mass like the personal trainer stated. That's an absurd premise.Just keep stress free, don't let these forums and different opinions set ya off too bad. Bad for the cortisol.0 -
Right. My point is that you are assuming that 100% of the increased LBM is due to factors outside of muscle growth when you have no way of proving that and it is also extremely unlikely.
And most websites will claim that you can't increase LBM while on a deficit, not just muscle growth, because most people don't pay money to get dexa scanned. Stop moving the goal post by trying to quibble over where the LBM is coming from. You are making a claim you can't measure. I might as well claim I have leprechauns under my bed and we can be done with it.
The big asterisk to the LBM loss is that those articles are written for people who have already been training past their newbie gains and are already fairly lean.
You are assuming 100% increase of your LBM is muscle mass, I'm merely informing you there are other very valid very easy ways to increase LBM without it being muscle mass at all.
Other reasons for LBM gain are extremely unlikely, and you think the muscle mass growth must therefore be extremely likely? good grief, get real. Do you understand how easy it is for your body to start storing more glucose because of starting exercise? As soon as you start using new muscles that starts happening. Bam, water weight gain. LBM gain. Increased RMR too at least.
Most good website articles are specific that you can't gain MUSCLE MASS on a deficit outside newbie gains, maybe a lb over 3-6 months starting a routine and hitting your existing muscle's ability quickly. The poorly written ones incorrectly interchange LBM and muscle mass. Some of the really stupid ones even call it lean muscle mass, really confusing matters.
I'm not moving the goal posts, you are making a claim studies would say otherwise about. You do have leprechauns under your bed, they are your claims your LBM gain is all muscle mass, where you have no proof of that either.
Look forward to you reaching goal weight and when you can hit maintenance level or surplus eating, and really see the difference with the lifting then.0 -
I think a larger sample size is in order. It would be foolish to try and discourage someone from *trying* to gain muscle mass in a scenario that is deemed impossible by "website articles", wouldn't it? I mean, he isn't going to hurt anything (assuming proper form and whatnot)... why would you tell someone that no, they can't do the thing they're dreaming of doing and are really hoping for?
There is one overwhelming fact that so many people ignore in this discussion and pretty much any weight loss discussion: The body doesn't know if it's at a daily deficit or a weekly deficit. It only knows that there is this work to be done right now. That work could be digesting food, exercising, whatever. It Assuming hormone levels aren't out of whack (cortisol, etc), if nutrients are available to repair/build muscle, it's going to repair/build that muscle. It doesn't much matter that you burned off a few ounces of fat earlier that day. you might be at a 24-hour deficit, but you're not at a 5-minute deficit... other than some inhibiting/encouraging hormones making the process harder or easier, I just don't buy that the body will turn down perfectly good nutrients when muscle needs to be rebuilt. This is where I think meal timing becomes important.
I think the jury is still out on this one, and I'm bound and determined to use my ultimately larger sample size to prove this theory. My goal weight isn't a month around the corner. I'll be lifting heavy while losing weight for many more months. And certainly lifting heavy once I reach my goal weight as well. Maybe some day when someone else asks this question, people will point at my experience as an example of what *can* be done, in spite of common "wisdom" on the subject.0 -
Very true to go for it.
It's only when the claims are made based on 1 person, and faulty data and understanding at that, claiming basically the unknown.
What started out as several just trying to share a reality check on what was observed, and those with studies and info as to what may be actually happening, may have seemed to turn in to discouragement.
But frankly, you'll find posts all over and support from friends for women, hey, haven't lost any weight on these Zumba classes but lost many inches - oh, you must have gained muscle. That extreme thinking is based them seeing the discussions that can well indicate some muscle mass added, but it's minor compared to the fat volume lost.
But for some, they need weight loss for joints and other health concerns, so changing diet to actually lose weight could be very needed as opposed to still doing the same thing, hoping to see a change.
Also appreciate your point that studies aren't real world. Past performance (in studies) may not predict future returns (you results).
Hence going for it smartly. Realizing what may be going on, recognizing what has to be watched out for, ect.0 -
I decided to do extra digging. It is funny because everything you are claiming says citation needed in wikipedia, so please pass the "countless experiments" to them.
I found two pertinent pieces of information actually supported by research:
1- strenuous exercise requires a protein intake of 1.2 g/kg of lbm to repair muscles (there are studies that claim this is a gross overestimate but let's go with it).
2- strenuous exercise requires 5-7 g carbs/kg (the actual abstract says 1.2 g/kg which seems really low and prob refers to just what muscles use and not what the rest of the body needs) to restore glycogen levels and maintain other metabolic processes.
Putting those together, my body has all the material it needs for hypertrophy at under 1850 calories. My TDEE is nearly 2500 calories. This is according to scientific studies, not a meat head trying to sell his workout book on a website. I'd link them but I'm on my phone... just dig through the footnotes of Wikipedias strength training and body building articles.
QED0 -
Playing with that math for a hypothetical male dieter at 250 lbs (115 kg) and 35% body fat...
LBM = 115 * .65 = 75kg
Protein needs -> 75g/day (this seems really low...?)
Carb needs (using midpoint) -> 6 * 115 -> 690g carbs (this seems really high?)
Doing carbs using LBM instead of gross -> 6 * 75 = 450g
Add in 50g of fat
So calorie intake -> (75 * 4) + (450 * 4) + (50 * 9) = 2500 calories/day0 -
Tagging to learn.0
-
Following on, I found these recommendations from the Australian sports ministry. Note these are for "real" athletes, as far as I can tell...
24-hour refuelling needs:"The single most important factor driving post-exercise muscle glycogen resynthesis is the amount of carbohydrate consumed following exercise. To date, two studies have investigated the relationship between the amount of carbohydrate consumed following exercise and muscle glycogen refuelling over a 24-hour recovery period. These studies have shaped current daily carbohydrate intake recommendations for athletes and show a glycogen storage threshold at a daily carbohydrate intake of ~7-10 g per kg body mass (Costill et al. 1981; Burke et al. 1995)."
I read that to say that IF you fully deplete glycogen, you'll need 7-10g of carbs per kg body weight. Adjust downward based on actual glycogen depletion.
Immediate post-exercise refuelling:A separate guideline is required to cover the carbohydrate needs of the early phase (0–4 hours) of recovery which can be addressed in a well planned, directed nutritional recovery system. Numerous studies demonstrate that the threshold for early glycogen recovery is reached by feeding carbohydrate at a rate of 1.2g/kg/h(van Loon et al. 2000; Jentjens et al. 2001).
The highest rates of muscle glycogen storage occur during the first hour after exercise (Ivy et al. 1988 ). Failure to consume carbohydrate in the immediate phase of post-exercise recovery leads to very low rates of glycogen restoration.
Now this is interesting because it has Pavrg's "1.2 g/kg" number, but in a slightly different context.
I'm just loving this conversation....if we're not careful, we might just end up zeroing in on something actually useful to folks! 0 -
Relating this back to my morning...I did a Stronglifts type workout, very high level of exertion, followed by moderately vigorous swimming for 30 minutes. In the hour following this, I consumed 674 calories from 80g of carbs and 74g of protein.
The protein is basically spot on with the "1g/kg LBM" guideline.
The carbs are right at the 1.2g/kg-h recommendation. So if my activities had been of the type to cause heavy glycogen depletion, I should probably eat another 80g worth of carbs in about an hour. But my heavy cardio isn't until this evening, so I think I'm probably ok right where I am. But I should remember to set aside a bucket o' carbs in my daily eating plan for post-evening exercise recovery.
Am I doing this right...?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions