RMR Test Results- Very Very Surprised

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Hitting the gym for 33 years, knows more than all of us fools.... and is a self-proclaimed fattie.

You should post less and read more. I hit the gym for 33 years, stayed in good shape, then got injured, packed on weight through not be able to go to gym, was able to return to gym, got back in shape. So see, it has a happy ending after all.....

I know plenty of people who don't go to the gym and aren't fat. Why did not going to the gym make you fat, especially when you tell us it's not necessary to keep lean mass?

Because I did not work out. And I never said "it's not necessary to keep lean mass"? I think just the opposite, Do you have a reading problem?

jonnythan

Hitting the gym for 33 years, knows more than all of us fools.... and is a self-proclaimed fattie.

You should post less and read more. I hit the gym for 33 years, stayed in good shape, then got injured, packed on weight through not be able to go to gym, was able to return to gym, got back in shape. So see, it has a happy ending after all.....

I know plenty of people who don't go to the gym and aren't fat. Why did not going to the gym make you fat, especially when you tell us it's not necessary to keep lean mass?

Because I did not work out. And I never said "it's not necessary to keep lean mass"? I think just the opposite, Do you have a reading problem?

What makes you different from all the people who don't go to the gym and are not fat? Why did you get fat when you didn't go to the gym?

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Well, you are 8 pounds away from goal weight according to ticker. Are you raising your calories to a 10% calorie deficit? Or you are just raising them to a higher but still too aggressive deficit?

No. The Body builder does not want an immediate and drastic caloric increase. He wants to reset them gradually each week. I am alternating 1300/1700 right now. Probably 1400/1800 per day next week. That still gives me a good deficit where I can hit my goal weight fairly fast and maybe set a new goal of 199. 209 is a big milestone for me, so I am leary of bringing up the calories too quick or all at once. I can be more patient shooting for 199.

Understandable that you don't want to bring them up too quickly. 1800 is still going to be more than a pound a week loss. Still very aggressive. This is a body builder who is making these recommendations and he hasn't been concerned about loss of LBM, with a rate of 4 pounds a week loss?

Most of us are too fat to burn muscle in any significant amounts.

Studies on this, please.

Sure. Several people asked for a study and went so far as to say they would change their mind if one existed. I'll never understand why people here need a study, when there is an an entire professional bodybuilding subculture for 50+ years with apple evidence to support this view. Here is the study and an abstract conclusion:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3387402/

Objective:
Our objective was to determine whether a weight loss program consisting of diet restriction and vigorous exercise helped to preserve FFM and maintain resting metabolic rate (RMR).

An important objective during weight loss is to maximize the loss of body fat while minimizing the loss of metabolically active fat free mass. Limited studies of modest weight loss suggest that adding exercise to a weight loss program may help spare FFM (19–21). In the present study, we found that individuals undergoing rapid and massive weight loss through a combination of diet restriction and vigorous physical activity preserved much of their FFM, with less than 18% of the total weight loss coming from the fat-free compartment. We suspect that the relative preservation of FFM was due to the maintenance or possible increase of skeletal muscle tissue during the vigorous exercise program (31). Thus, we showed that a substantial loss of FFM is not an obligatory consequence of massive weight loss.

okay?

So they are losing roughly a 1/5 of pound of muscle per pound pound of weight loss; if you are comfortable losing one pound of FFM(LBM) to a total of 5 pounds of BW have at it. Best of luck, and remember, at later ages, trying to gain muscle mass back is difficult then when younger.

The study was comprised of obese people who lost one third their body weight. If I were in THEIR shoes its an easy call for me. The study does not deal with leaner individuals.

jonnythan

The study was comprised of obese people who lost one third their body weight. If I were in THEIR shoes its an easy call for me. The study does not deal with leaner individuals.

So 1 lb of lean mass lost for every 5 lbs of bodyweight is acceptable for fat people but not lean people?

What if a fat person wants to lose less than 1 lb of lean mass for every 5 lbs of bodyweight? If I'm losing 150 lbs, I'd much rather lose 15 lbs of lean mass than 30. Wouldn't you?

scottYBRIDGEWATER

So they are losing roughly a 1/5 of pound of muscle per pound pound of weight loss; if you are comfortable losing one pound of FFM(LBM) to a total of 5 pounds of BW have at it. Best of luck, and remember, at later ages, trying to gain muscle mass back is difficult then when younger.

Yes, that sounds higher LBM loss that I'd be wanting - if the OP is experiencing the same, he's losing 1lb of muscle every 9 days or so?
I would REALLY like to see a study which does usefully show what is being claimed, so I've got a good basis for working out similar for myself and others that may ask me.
However, when studies show the opposite, it DOES seem to be 'broscience'.

Unfortunately in this sort of system there are a huge number of variables and I've no doubt some do 'get lucky'. Hell, some of it is no doubt just genetics too. But that's why I'd like a decent scientific study, so I can see if those cases are common or not, for a start.

Typical internet debate. Demand a study, when the study refutes your point, its useless, and should be rejected as "broscience". Classic!!!

BTW there is no evidence to indicate I am losing 18% LBM. Unless you happen to know my BFI and my body recomposition. It was a group of obese people in the study. You understand that? Also, I dont believe the study laid out the weight training protocols. There is plenty of science that HIT strength training builds LBM. So if the test group had engaged in aggressive HIT weight training that 18% could possibly be much lower? But we will have to wait for that study................And then you can reject it as "broscience".

scottYBRIDGEWATER

In because I am finding the discussion interesting and hoping someone will post a study to back up the op's side of the discussion. Esp since several studies have been posted against it

In for basically the same reason, but would like to note that all of the refusal to post studies because of "garbage" research and anecdotal evidence is infuriating.

Spending your days combing through pubmed looking for research that may or may not exist to back up your position so that you can win at arguments on the internet is a really pathetic use of your free time.

Most of the stuff people use anyway is of very questionable use for backing up their argument.

If you need research to prove that big deficit cutting doesn't melt away the muscles, then don't do it. Just realize a lot of people that have spent a lot of time building their muscles don't believe that big deficit cutting melts away the muscles.

One doesn't research to prove they're right.

One does research to become right.

And research is comprised of more than just clinical studies and papers. Researchers in various disciplines go out into the field (anthropology) to observe and analyze various cultures and subgroups outside a double blind controlled study. It is just a scientific and relevant as a clinical trial. There is a significant subgroup of people within the BB community that know what they are talking about beyond "broscience".

Dude you're MFP's new king of broscience. Rejecting scientific studies and relying instead on what some bodybuilders do or said is practically the definition of broscience.

I ask again: how come you gained weight while injured? Is it because you ate too much or because you couldn't go to the gym?

And your MFPs king of straw man arguments. Just skip over the scientific study I linked because it refutes your point though. I gained weight due to overeating and lack of activity. Should I post it a third time for you?

scottYBRIDGEWATER

The study was comprised of obese people who lost one third their body weight. If I were in THEIR shoes its an easy call for me. The study does not deal with leaner individuals.

So 1 lb of lean mass lost for every 5 lbs of bodyweight is acceptable for fat people but not lean people?

What if a fat person wants to lose less than 1 lb of lean mass for every 5 lbs of bodyweight? If I'm losing 150 lbs, I'd much rather lose 15 lbs of lean mass than 30. Wouldn't you?

If I were obese and wanted to lose 150 pounds at the cost of 27 lbs of FFM. Or stay 350 and keep the 27 pounds of FFM it an easy choice, given all of the other potential health benefits. Hell, the guy might even avoid a potential heart attack, stroke, diabetes etc. Bye bye 27 pounds of FFM..... easy choice.

jonnythan

The study was comprised of obese people who lost one third their body weight. If I were in THEIR shoes its an easy call for me. The study does not deal with leaner individuals.

So 1 lb of lean mass lost for every 5 lbs of bodyweight is acceptable for fat people but not lean people?

What if a fat person wants to lose less than 1 lb of lean mass for every 5 lbs of bodyweight? If I'm losing 150 lbs, I'd much rather lose 15 lbs of lean mass than 30. Wouldn't you?

If I were obese and wanted to lose 150 pounds at the cost of 27 lbs of FFM. Or stay 350 and keep the 27 pounds of FFM it an easy choice, given all of the other potential health benefits.

Sure, if those were the only two choices.

What if I wanted to lose 150 lbs at the cost of 15 lbs of FFM?

jonnythan

In because I am finding the discussion interesting and hoping someone will post a study to back up the op's side of the discussion. Esp since several studies have been posted against it

In for basically the same reason, but would like to note that all of the refusal to post studies because of "garbage" research and anecdotal evidence is infuriating.

Spending your days combing through pubmed looking for research that may or may not exist to back up your position so that you can win at arguments on the internet is a really pathetic use of your free time.

Most of the stuff people use anyway is of very questionable use for backing up their argument.

If you need research to prove that big deficit cutting doesn't melt away the muscles, then don't do it. Just realize a lot of people that have spent a lot of time building their muscles don't believe that big deficit cutting melts away the muscles.

One doesn't research to prove they're right.

One does research to become right.

And research is comprised of more than just clinical studies and papers. Researchers in various disciplines go out into the field (anthropology) to observe and analyze various cultures and subgroups outside a double blind controlled study. It is just a scientific and relevant as a clinical trial. There is a significant subgroup of people within the BB community that know what they are talking about beyond "broscience".

Dude you're MFP's new king of broscience. Rejecting scientific studies and relying instead on what some bodybuilders do or said is practically the definition of broscience.

I ask again: how come you gained weight while injured? Is it because you ate too much or because you couldn't go to the gym?

And your MFPs king of straw man arguments. Just skip over the scientific study I linked because it refutes your point though. I gained weight due to overeating and lack of activity. Should I post it a third time for you?

No, it doesn't. It does no comparison between different calorie deficits, different types of exercise programs, etc.

Anyway, this is the first time you attributed your weight gain to overeating as far as I can tell. That's good. You're taking responsibility for the weight gain instead of blaming it on an injury. This is progress.

J72FIT

Okay, have fun when you get to goal weight and hate that you have no muscle left.

As long as you strength train your muscle will be fine... Not that I am suggesting one should take that approach. But, if you are going to, make sure you strength train.

scottYBRIDGEWATER

The study was comprised of obese people who lost one third their body weight. If I were in THEIR shoes its an easy call for me. The study does not deal with leaner individuals.

So 1 lb of lean mass lost for every 5 lbs of bodyweight is acceptable for fat people but not lean people?

What if a fat person wants to lose less than 1 lb of lean mass for every 5 lbs of bodyweight? If I'm losing 150 lbs, I'd much rather lose 15 lbs of lean mass than 30. Wouldn't you?

If I were obese and wanted to lose 150 pounds at the cost of 27 lbs of FFM. Or stay 350 and keep the 27 pounds of FFM it an easy choice, given all of the other potential health benefits.

Sure, if those were the only two choices.

What if I wanted to lose 150 lbs at the cost of 15 lbs of FFM?

That appears to be the point of the study. You can't pick and choose how much FFM to sacrifice for the weight loss. At least this group could not. But you would agree that HIT weight training can increase LBM? If yes, there would appear to be a strong likelihood that you could reduce that 18% loss. You could concede that right? But, I dont know. Its tough to find a study that fits everybody' scenarios. But this studies researchers maintained the 18% was not significant. Which was my initial point. Perhaps they also concluded the 18-82% ratio was a reasonable trade off. I do.

scottYBRIDGEWATER

In because I am finding the discussion interesting and hoping someone will post a study to back up the op's side of the discussion. Esp since several studies have been posted against it

In for basically the same reason, but would like to note that all of the refusal to post studies because of "garbage" research and anecdotal evidence is infuriating.

Spending your days combing through pubmed looking for research that may or may not exist to back up your position so that you can win at arguments on the internet is a really pathetic use of your free time.

Most of the stuff people use anyway is of very questionable use for backing up their argument.

If you need research to prove that big deficit cutting doesn't melt away the muscles, then don't do it. Just realize a lot of people that have spent a lot of time building their muscles don't believe that big deficit cutting melts away the muscles.

One doesn't research to prove they're right.

One does research to become right.

And research is comprised of more than just clinical studies and papers. Researchers in various disciplines go out into the field (anthropology) to observe and analyze various cultures and subgroups outside a double blind controlled study. It is just a scientific and relevant as a clinical trial. There is a significant subgroup of people within the BB community that know what they are talking about beyond "broscience".

Dude you're MFP's new king of broscience. Rejecting scientific studies and relying instead on what some bodybuilders do or said is practically the definition of broscience.

I ask again: how come you gained weight while injured? Is it because you ate too much or because you couldn't go to the gym?

And your MFPs king of straw man arguments. Just skip over the scientific study I linked because it refutes your point though. I gained weight due to overeating and lack of activity. Should I post it a third time for you?

No, it doesn't. It does no comparison between different calorie deficits, different types of exercise programs, etc.

Anyway, this is the first time you attributed your weight gain to overeating as far as I can tell. That's good. You're taking responsibility for the weight gain instead of blaming it on an injury. This is progress.

In a way. Under activity is a beeach. On the mind and body. As there is a strong psychological component to weight gain. I always enjoyed working out and it kept me fit and motivated beyond the whole body image thing. And you are correct. Nobody ever forced me to stuff a Twinkie down my gullet. On me. But if I wasn't injured, I would have worked out and avoided the weight gain.

geebusuk

Typical internet debate. Demand a study, when the study refutes your point, its useless, and should be rejected as "broscience". Classic!!!

BTW there is no evidence to indicate I am losing 18% LBM. It was a group of obese people in the study. You understand that? Also, I dont believe the study laid out the weight training protocols. There is plenty of science that HIT strength training builds LBM. So if the test group had engaged in aggressive HIT weight training that 18% could possibly be much lower? But we will have to wait for that study................And then reject it as "broscience".

The study SUPPORTS the point. That you DO lose muscle with a calorie deficit.
To be clear - I was suggesting that having provided us a study which doesn't confirm your claims and in fact does the opposite, it pushes your point of view to 'broscience' for me.

If you have a study that actually proves you CAN lose fat without losing muscle, I would genuinely like to see it, because the information would be very interesting to me.
The study you provided does not show this.

jonnythan

That appears to be the point of the study. You can't pick and choose how much FFM to sacrifice for the weight loss. At least this group could not. But you would agree that HIT weight training can increase LBM? If yes, there would appear to be a strong likelihood that you could reduce that 18% loss. You could concede that right? But, I dont know. Its tough to find a study that fits everybody' scenarios. But this studies researchers maintained the 18% was not significant. Which was my initial point. Perhaps they also concluded the 18-82% ratio was a reasonable trade off. I do.

Don't know what you mean by "HIT weight training." I don't agree that any type of weight training can cause significant increases in LBM while on a calorie deficit.

It stands to reason that certain nutrient intakes, training types, calorie deficits, etc, can all lead to different amounts of lean mass loss for a given overall weight loss. The obvious choice to me is to find the training method, nutrient requirements, calorie deficit, and other methods to minimize muscle loss while in a deficit.

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Typical internet debate. Demand a study, when the study refutes your point, its useless, and should be rejected as "broscience". Classic!!!

BTW there is no evidence to indicate I am losing 18% LBM. It was a group of obese people in the study. You understand that? Also, I dont believe the study laid out the weight training protocols. There is plenty of science that HIT strength training builds LBM. So if the test group had engaged in aggressive HIT weight training that 18% could possibly be much lower? But we will have to wait for that study................And then reject it as "broscience".

The study SUPPORTS the point. That you DO lose muscle with a calorie deficit.
To be clear - I was suggesting that having provided us a study which doesn't confirm your claims and in fact does the opposite, it pushes your point of view to 'broscience' for me.

If you have a study that actually proves you CAN lose fat without losing muscle, I would genuinely like to see it, because the information would be very interesting to me.
The study you provided does not show this.

Nice try, but won't work. I never said there was no muscle loss. Here is my quote:

"Most of us are too fat to burn muscle in any significant amounts".

Here is the conclusion of the study:

"Thus, we showed that a substantial loss of FFM is not an obligatory consequence of massive weight loss".


Agree?

scottYBRIDGEWATER

That appears to be the point of the study. You can't pick and choose how much FFM to sacrifice for the weight loss. At least this group could not. But you would agree that HIT weight training can increase LBM? If yes, there would appear to be a strong likelihood that you could reduce that 18% loss. You could concede that right? But, I dont know. Its tough to find a study that fits everybody' scenarios. But this studies researchers maintained the 18% was not significant. Which was my initial point. Perhaps they also concluded the 18-82% ratio was a reasonable trade off. I do.

Don't know what you mean by "HIT weight training." I don't agree that any type of weight training can cause significant increases in LBM while on a calorie deficit.

It stands to reason that certain nutrient intakes, training types, calorie deficits, etc, can all lead to different amounts of lean mass loss for a given overall weight loss. The obvious choice to me is to find the training method, nutrient requirements, calorie deficit, and other methods to minimize muscle loss while in a deficit.

High Intensity Weight Training. Low sets, low reps, taking the muscle to complete failure on the final working set. Sometimes with assisted reps or rest-pause sets. And then plenty of rest so that body part completely recuperates and grows. Stress- Rest- Grow. I don't know if you can increase LBM on a calorie deficit. Maybe with sufficient levels of protein. But my larger point is with obesity, weight loss, and LBM. And the study which maintains that the LBM loss was not significant.

jonnythan

Nice try, but won't work. I never said there was no muscle loss. Here is my quote:

"Most of us are too fat to burn muscle in any significant amounts".

Here is the conclusion of the study:

"Thus, we showed that a substantial loss of FFM is not an obligatory consequence of massive weight loss".


Agree?

Surely you don't think that diet and training have zero effect on ratio of lean mass to fat mass loss.

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Nice try, but won't work. I never said there was no muscle loss. Here is my quote:

"Most of us are too fat to burn muscle in any significant amounts".

Here is the conclusion of the study:

"Thus, we showed that a substantial loss of FFM is not an obligatory consequence of massive weight loss".


Agree?

Surely you don't think that diet and training have zero effect on ratio of lean mass to fat mass loss.

Nope they have a huge impact. Where are you inferring that from?

jonnythan

Nice try, but won't work. I never said there was no muscle loss. Here is my quote:

"Most of us are too fat to burn muscle in any significant amounts".

Here is the conclusion of the study:

"Thus, we showed that a substantial loss of FFM is not an obligatory consequence of massive weight loss".


Agree?

Surely you don't think that diet and training have zero effect on ratio of lean mass to fat mass loss.

Nope they have a huge impact. Where are you inferring that from?

OK so we agree that diet and training have a "huge impact" on ratio of lean mass to fat mass loss.

Therefore, shouldn't even a fat person structure his or her diet and training to minimize lean mass loss?

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Nice try, but won't work. I never said there was no muscle loss. Here is my quote:

"Most of us are too fat to burn muscle in any significant amounts".

Here is the conclusion of the study:

"Thus, we showed that a substantial loss of FFM is not an obligatory consequence of massive weight loss".


Agree?

Surely you don't think that diet and training have zero effect on ratio of lean mass to fat mass loss.

Nope they have a huge impact. Where are you inferring that from?

OK so we agree that diet and training have a "huge impact" on ratio of lean mass to fat mass loss.

Therefore, shouldn't even a fat person structure his or her diet and training to minimize lean mass loss?

We agree that diet and training have a "huge impact" on ratio of lean mass to fat mass loss.

We also agree that I met the challenge and cited a study that concludes "Thus, we showed that a substantial loss of FFM is not an obligatory consequence of massive weight loss".

And I agree that a fat person should structure his or her diet and training to minimize lean mass loss and maximize fat/weight loss? And will have to structure a training regimen to accomplish those goals.