RMR Test Results- Very Very Surprised

waldo56

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

Among the group that gains and loses weight regularly (and neurotically keeps copious amounts of data), a group that would likewise have the variables of strength training and adequate protein intake well taken care of, there is much less belief that big deficits lead to muscle loss. PSMF cutting is very popular.

If those studies don't include strength training and adequate protein intake (0.8g/lb LBM+) for everybody, they can pretty much be disregarded. In the field of diet and fitness, especially fat loss/muscle gain, science more or less formalizes things that were long ago figured out in practice. And there is a TON of garbage research.

waldo56

Let me point out a contrary point to one of the common visualizations.

It is oft said as you lose weight eventually your fat stores become small enough that they can't support a big deficit, and that muscle will be "eaten" to make up the deficit. Aka a fat mobilization issue.

The "fat burning zone" of low intensity cardio is a very real effect. The body preferentially uses its least potent fuel, saving the good stuff for when it is needed. You can walk for hours and hours, burn tons of calories, and yet end up burning very little of your stored glycogen, even when lean. Or when ultra low carb dieting (so there is definitely very little glyocgen contribution), you are still plenty capable of doing copious amounts of low intensity exercise (ultra low carb is a viable approach to ultramarathon running). When doing so your body is burning fat as a fuel and doing so at a much higher rate that would be expected at rest. Going for a walk when lean doesn't cause your muscles to shrink away, that's just silly.

In other words, even when lean the body is more than capable of mobilizing the fat to supply any size deficit you may need. If it can do so when exercising, it can do so at rest.

The idea that smaller fat stores means that your deficit must be smaller is incorrect, fat mobilization does not become and issue until you are very, very lean.

bcattoes

Still doing it wrong. :ohwell:

I fail to see the logic in this response. He is getting the results he wants and by all information given is not suffering any negative heatlh affects. What is wrong?

snikkins

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.

danimalkeys

Here's some anectodal evidence based on my own weight loss. IF, as the O/P suggest, that you don't lose muscle mass unless you are already lean when you start to cut....

2011- I was 280lbs. Yes, heavy, typical strongman/fat guy look. I was lifting real heavy. Squatting mid 600's, benching mid 400's with a best of 500, deadlift in the upper 500's.

Fast forward to today. Bodyweight under 210lbs. My bench is barely 250 and my squat is 370x2 and my deadlift might be 405 if I really tried. Where did the strength go? I wasn't supposed to lose any muscle mass right?

If, in theory, that as a fat guy, I wouldn't lose muscle mass while on a diet, then I should be able to lift what I did when I was 280lbs right? After all, fat doesn't make you strong.

The only explanation I have is that I LOST A LOT OF MUSCLE MASS during my initial weight loss, which was 50lbs in around 6-7 months.

danimalkeys

also- if someone is using Platz as an example, then you need to be on the same supplemental cocktail that he was on.... cause that isn't natural gains.

waldo56

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.

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.

Mr_Knight

Here's some anectodal evidence based on my own weight loss. IF, as the O/P suggest, that you don't lose muscle mass unless you are already lean when you start to cut....

I don't think anyone is suggesting that muscle mass *can't* be lost during significant weight loss. That is indisputable.

The question is, does it *have* to be lost. Or at least lost in significant amounts.

I'm currently down about 80 pounds from peak weight, and have tracked LBM all the way down. I have averaged 2 lbs/week all the way down (very consistent, no plateau lasting longer than ~1 week. My LBM this morning is within 3 pounds of where it was when I started.

I am now within 25 pounds of my ultimate goal, too, so I crossed the commonly accepted "2 lbs/week is too fast!" threshold some time ago. I don't accept that threshold, choosing instead to base my target deficit based on the best estimates I can find for metabolization rates of adipose fat.

deksgrl

Here's some anectodal evidence based on my own weight loss. IF, as the O/P suggest, that you don't lose muscle mass unless you are already lean when you start to cut....

I don't think anyone is suggesting that muscle mass *can't* be lost during significant weight loss. That is indisputable.

The question is, does it *have* to be lost. Or at least lost in significant amounts.

I'm currently down about 80 pounds from peak weight, and have tracked LBM all the way down. I have averaged 2 lbs/week all the way down (very consistent, no plateau lasting longer than ~1 week. My LBM this morning is within 3 pounds of where it was when I started.

I am now within 25 pounds of my ultimate goal, too, so I crossed the commonly accepted "2 lbs/week is too fast!" threshold some time ago. I don't accept that threshold, choosing instead to base my target deficit based on the best estimates I can find for metabolization rates of adipose fat.

The OP reportedly has been losing at a rate of more than 4 pounds per week.

waldo56

Here's some anectodal evidence based on my own weight loss. IF, as the O/P suggest, that you don't lose muscle mass unless you are already lean when you start to cut....

2011- I was 280lbs. Yes, heavy, typical strongman/fat guy look. I was lifting real heavy. Squatting mid 600's, benching mid 400's with a best of 500, deadlift in the upper 500's.

Fast forward to today. Bodyweight under 210lbs. My bench is barely 250 and my squat is 370x2 and my deadlift might be 405 if I really tried. Where did the strength go? I wasn't supposed to lose any muscle mass right?

If, in theory, that as a fat guy, I wouldn't lose muscle mass while on a diet, then I should be able to lift what I did when I was 280lbs right? After all, fat doesn't make you strong.

The only explanation I have is that I LOST A LOT OF MUSCLE MASS during my initial weight loss, which was 50lbs in around 6-7 months.

Is this a comparison of strength levels when cutting vs. strength levels when not cutting? Also you said it took 6-7 months to lose the weight. Yet listed a comparison between 2011 and today, where did the other 2-2.5 years go? Did you strength train and take in adequate protein throughout the weight loss (it is well established that these things matter)? Are these numbers actually comparable (both raw for example)?

In the absence of sufficient fuel the body will throttle peak output potential. Especially if carbs are lacking. Cutting makes you weaker itself, independent of muscle loss.

You realize that strength loss is not really muscle loss but is instead inadequate fuel when you exit the calorie deficit and see a dramatic and rapid strength rebound.

I always lose strength when cutting, and gain it all back as soon as I start bulking again, before there has been any muscle growth. Using a bulking to bulking comparison, I've never actually lost strength due to cutting, even if I was weaker while cutting.

danimalkeys

Here's some anectodal evidence based on my own weight loss. IF, as the O/P suggest, that you don't lose muscle mass unless you are already lean when you start to cut....

I don't think anyone is suggesting that muscle mass *can't* be lost during significant weight loss. That is indisputable.

The question is, does it *have* to be lost. Or at least lost in significant amounts.

I'm currently down about 80 pounds from peak weight, and have tracked LBM all the way down. I have averaged 2 lbs/week all the way down (very consistent, no plateau lasting longer than ~1 week. My LBM this morning is within 3 pounds of where it was when I started.

I am now within 25 pounds of my ultimate goal, too, so I crossed the commonly accepted "2 lbs/week is too fast!" threshold some time ago. I don't accept that threshold, choosing instead to base my target deficit based on the best estimates I can find for metabolization rates of adipose fat.

I think the o/p flat out stated that you don't lose LBM while losing weight if you are heavy. That is wrong, at least with my own results, where I dropped the way he did, a lot of weight pretty fast.

I agree- that if you do it the right way, slow and steady, then you can minimize LBM loss. I didn't do that- I didn't know any better, cut my food intake down by a LOT, and lost a lot of weight pretty fast. LBM came off with that, and I didn't realize it. If I had to do it over I'd take the approach you took. Back then I was just happy to see the scale moving. Now I'm within 10lbs of my goal and I'm losing maybe .5lb a week, if that,. For the last 20+lbs I've been being more careful about keeping my food intake up and lifting to retain LBM.

nomeejerome

Still doing it wrong. :ohwell:

I fail to see the logic in this response. He is getting the results he wants and by all information given is not suffering any negative heatlh affects. What is wrong?

Eh. :ohwell: The only reason OP went to get this test was because he did not like the responses to his initial call out for help. Yet, he continues to severely restrict after receiving advice and the results from the test. You are not new around here and I am sure you have seen other threads from OP. If not, check out the history and you will see the logic in my response.

waldo56

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

One does research to become right.

Research for the value of drawing valid conclusions consists of a lot more than stuff on pubmed.

Anecdote is perfectly valid in sufficient volume. Personal data and experience blows everything else away when it comes to drawing conclusions. Though when it comes to arguing on the internet, these things are invalid.

cmriverside

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

One does research to become right.

Research for the value of drawing valid conclusions consists of a lot more than stuff on pubmed.

Anecdote is perfectly valid in sufficient volume. Personal data and experience blows everything else away when it comes to drawing conclusions. Though when it comes to arguing on the internet, these things are invalid.

Waldo, I just wanted to say I love the picture in your ticker (I looked at it full frame on your profile.) It's a great picture.

waldo56

Here's some anectodal evidence based on my own weight loss. IF, as the O/P suggest, that you don't lose muscle mass unless you are already lean when you start to cut....

I don't think anyone is suggesting that muscle mass *can't* be lost during significant weight loss. That is indisputable.

The question is, does it *have* to be lost. Or at least lost in significant amounts.

I'm currently down about 80 pounds from peak weight, and have tracked LBM all the way down. I have averaged 2 lbs/week all the way down (very consistent, no plateau lasting longer than ~1 week. My LBM this morning is within 3 pounds of where it was when I started.

I am now within 25 pounds of my ultimate goal, too, so I crossed the commonly accepted "2 lbs/week is too fast!" threshold some time ago. I don't accept that threshold, choosing instead to base my target deficit based on the best estimates I can find for metabolization rates of adipose fat.

The same. My lean mass actually showed a slight rise over my 75 lbs lost. Most of it was at 3 lb/wk, but I finished at 2 lb/wk well beyond when I was "supposed" to, with huge slow taper up (which in hindsight was dumb, should have spent more time fast cutting and less time tapering). But my data also includes 3 bulk/cut cycles, one of the 3 cuts featuring 3 uniquely different approaches to deficit size, cardio done, and nutrient timing, with diet breaks between each; the other 2 cuts were shorter, but have also been uniquely different approaches, each of the 5 different post-bulk cutting approaches done to probe a few variables, chiefly deficit size, cardio done, and carb intake.

My personal conclusion with all this data (calorie, protein, exercise, and weigh in data daily for years, weekly measurements of every muscle for years) is that cutting should be done as fast as reasonably possible with as much cardio as reasonably possible with as many carbs as possible (which means eating low fat when cutting, some days below standard IIFYM recommended minimums). If cutting longer than about 2 weeks, re-feeds need to be part of the plan. I cut with zero fear of "starvation mode" or eating away the muscles I worked my tail off building, despite deficits in excess of 1500 cal/day many days.

danimalkeys

Is this a comparison of strength levels when cutting vs. strength levels when not cutting? Also you said it took 6-7 months to lose the weight. Yet listed a comparison between 2011 and today, where did the other 2-2.5 years go? Did you strength train and take in adequate protein throughout the weight loss (it is well established that these things matter)? Are these numbers actually comparable (both raw for example)?

In the absence of sufficient fuel the body will throttle peak output potential. Especially if carbs are lacking. Cutting makes you weaker itself, independent of muscle loss.

You realize that strength loss is not really muscle loss but is instead inadequate fuel when you exit the calorie deficit and see a dramatic and rapid strength rebound.

I always lose strength when cutting, and gain it all back as soon as I start bulking again, before there has been any muscle growth. Using a bulking to bulking comparison, I've never actually lost strength due to cutting, even if I was weaker while cutting.

I didn't start cutting until early 2012. I dropped 50lbs by Aug 2012. Was not lifting, just lots of cardio. I started lifting again in Feb 2013 after joining here and reading about how I should have been lifting the whole time to prevent LBM loss. A huge mistake on my part. I simply didn't know any better, I was seeing results on the scale so I thought I was doing the right thing.

My weight loss stalled for a long time, probably from Nov 2012 to Aug 2013. I was losing and regaining the same 4lbs over and over. After I joined here I started weighing/counting everything, figured out BMR/TDEE, etc, and still didn't really make any progress. Finally on a weight lifting board, someone suggested cutting my carbs back, which I did in August, and the weight started coming off again. This time I continued lifting. Prior to August, with 6 months of steady lifting under my belt, my lifts were no where near what they were before. If I had not lost muscle mass, then it would just be CNS conditioning, with 6 months of steady training should have allowed me to recover a lot of my strength but the muscle mass that is needed to move that weight was gone.

The bottom line is, regardless of where my lifts are or were, I lost a lot of LBM on my 1st cut, because of rapid weight loss. A mistake that I'll never recover from, because like the o/p, I'm in my 50's (51) and putting that mass back on is a road that is not easy road to travel at this age.

waldo56

The bottom line is, regardless of where my lifts are or were, I lost a lot of LBM on my 1st cut, because of rapid weight loss. A mistake that I'll never recover from, because like the o/p, I'm in my 50's (51) and putting that mass back on is a road that is not easy road to travel at this age.

Rapid weight loss AND no strength training.

There is widespread agreement that the strength training variable matters, A LOT.

supra_driven

Just read through the whole post. There is a guy on youtube who decided to be a guinea pig in regards to fasting 7+ days while lifting heavy. He wanted to know if you actually loose LBM and strength as it's preached by the mainstream crowd. He actually broke some of his personal records and posted vlogs of his journey. This is all recent too. He started at the end of January. He didn't look like he lost any muscle. He lost body fat as seen on his bf% measurements. But none of this matters to the mainstream crowd because after all there is no scientific studies or evidence to support what he personally achieved. You can see all the comments in his videos telling him he is starving or that he has an eating disorder. Some people just can't accept that their way is not the only way to do things. I myself practice IF, but I don't push it on any one else and neither should the OP. This is what works for me and my lifestyle.

waldo56

Just read through the whole post. There is a guy on youtube who decided to be a guinea pig in regards to fasting 7+ days while lifting heavy. He wanted to know if you actually loose LBM and strength as it's preached by the mainstream crowd. He actually broke some of his personal records and posted vlogs of his journey. This is all recent too. He started at the end of January. He didn't look like he lost any muscle. He lost body fat as seen on his bf% measurements. But none of this matters to the mainstream crowd because after all there is no scientific studies or evidence to support what he personally achieved. You can see all the comments in his videos telling him he is starving or that he has an eating disorder. Some people just can't accept that their way is not the only way to do things. I myself practice IF, but I don't push it on any one else and neither should the OP. This is what works for me and my lifestyle.

Could also google some protein spared modified fast (PSMF) results, Lyle McDonald's Rapid Fat Loss Handbook is a commonly done variant. Eat roughly 800-1000 cal of protein and virtually nothing else, strength train (plus do no cardio) and watch the fat melt away fast with zero muscle loss.

This pretty commonly done by a lot of people (you could spend days looking at hundreds of stories if you look hard enough). You can't sustain it for a long time, but muscle loss isn't an issue at all, and most people doing it are fairly lean to begin with.

When you understand PSMF's and their results; it pretty much totally invalidates the idea that big deficits cause muscle loss and it shows that starvation mode (as it is commonly used here) is a load of horseturd.

supra_driven

Could also google some protein spared modified fast (PSMF) results, Lyle McDonald's Rapid Fat Loss Handbook is a commonly done variant. Eat roughly 800-1000 cal of protein and virtually nothing else, strength train (plus do no cardio) and watch the fat melt away fast with zero muscle loss.

This pretty commonly done by a lot of people (you could spend days looking at hundreds of stories if you look hard enough). You can't sustain it for a long time, but muscle loss isn't an issue at all, and most people doing it are fairly lean to begin with.

When you understand PSMF's and their results; it pretty much totally invalidates the idea that big deficits cause muscle loss and it shows that starvation mode (as it is commonly used here) is a load of horseturd.

I would have done it when I had a lot of fat to loose, right now I'm at a clean bulk phase. How do people deal with the fiber part of the equation. I know what high protein low carb feels like when I use the restroom and I don't like it one bit. And that's with fiber supplements.

snikkins

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

One does research to become right.

Research for the value of drawing valid conclusions consists of a lot more than stuff on pubmed.

Anecdote is perfectly valid in sufficient volume. Personal data and experience blows everything else away when it comes to drawing conclusions. Though when it comes to arguing on the internet, these things are invalid.

Anecdotes, even in significant quantities, show nothing, particularly in the current days of the Internet, where people can post whatever they want, true or not. Anecdotes are a very good starting point for what to study, but just their existence means nothing.

This is the reason I find it annoying that several people are making big claims in this thread and we're supposed to accept it as fact without actual proof, i.e. a scientific study. The beauty of science is that it will admit when it's wrong, provided that there is significant evidence, and no, anecdotes don't count.

Also, it isn't a colossal waste of time looking up the science of anything and forming knowledge, especially if you're interested in it.

At least for myself, I'm ready to change the way Ithink about this stuff with the presence of valid studies. Dismissing research as a waste of time isn't helping anyone here.

Edited because autocorrect hates me.

cmriverside

At least for myself, I'm ready to change the way Ithink about this stuff with the presence of valid studies. Dismissing research as a waste of time isn't helping anyone here.

snikkins, problem is, this has been discussed ad nauseum here. People usually come to their own conclusions based on their own research. So you are encouraged to do your own research and not wait for people to post it here for you.

Here is a good thread about "starvation mode" with the most recent research studies linked in the thread.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

Mr_Knight

Anecdotes, even in significant quantities, show nothing...

A "study" is nothing more than an well-organized collection of related anecdotes.

From what I can tell, you're basically asking other people to do your legwork for you, and then criticizing them when they don't. That doesn't really strike me as a...constructive position to take.

snikkins

At least for myself, I'm ready to change the way Ithink about this stuff with the presence of valid studies. Dismissing research as a waste of time isn't helping anyone here.

snikkins, problem is, this has been discussed ad nauseum here. People usually come to their own conclusions based on their own research. So you are encouraged to do your own research and not wait for people to post it here for you.

Here is a good thread about "starvation mode" with the most recent research studies linked in the thread.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

I've actually read this, and I guess the problem is that I don't fully understand what exactly is being argued. Oh well. That's on me.

A "study" is nothing more than an well-organized collection of related anecdotes.

From what I can tell, you're basically asking other people to do your legwork for you, and then criticizing them when they don't. That doesn't really strike me as a...constructive position to take.

I don't really think I'm criticizing someone for not doing the legwork for me; I don't think it's fair to not want to post the research and then call the entire thing bunk as the reason. My apologies if it came across this way. I'm also not sure that that's my understanding of how scientific studies are, i.e. a well-organized collection of related anecdotes, just based on generally a study controls for many more things than an anecdote. But again, if this is my misunderstanding, again on me.

ETA: For example, in this particular case, the OP is arguing that based on his experience his RMR didn't go down at all while dieting at a large deficit but there if I recall correctly, he didn't get it done before he started dieting. In this case, the anecdote doesn't really tell us anything beyond he has a high RMR now. Maybe it was higher before; maybe not. This is something that a scientific study would try to control for, I would hope. But again, new to this and trying to understand exactly what I should be expecting from studies done on nutrition.

cmriverside

snikkins, this is why a lot of posters in this thread didn't give a lot of credence to scottYBRIDGEWATER's tactic of preaching to the choir.


He's just making noise - and it's noise that has been discussed for years on this site. Nothing new to see here - that's the problem.

snikkins

snikkins, this is why a lot of posters in this thread didn't give a lot of credence to scottYBRIDGEWATER's tactic of preaching to the choir.


He's just making noise - and it's noise that has been discussed for years on this site. Nothing new to see here - that's the problem.

That's fair. And thanks! :flowerforyou:

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?

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

Here's some anectodal evidence based on my own weight loss. IF, as the O/P suggest, that you don't lose muscle mass unless you are already lean when you start to cut....

2011- I was 280lbs. Yes, heavy, typical strongman/fat guy look. I was lifting real heavy. Squatting mid 600's, benching mid 400's with a best of 500, deadlift in the upper 500's.

Fast forward to today. Bodyweight under 210lbs. My bench is barely 250 and my squat is 370x2 and my deadlift might be 405 if I really tried. Where did the strength go? I wasn't supposed to lose any muscle mass right?

If, in theory, that as a fat guy, I wouldn't lose muscle mass while on a diet, then I should be able to lift what I did when I was 280lbs right? After all, fat doesn't make you strong.

The only explanation I have is that I LOST A LOT OF MUSCLE MASS during my initial weight loss, which was 50lbs in around 6-7 months.

Is this a comparison of strength levels when cutting vs. strength levels when not cutting? Also you said it took 6-7 months to lose the weight. Yet listed a comparison between 2011 and today, where did the other 2-2.5 years go? Did you strength train and take in adequate protein throughout the weight loss (it is well established that these things matter)? Are these numbers actually comparable (both raw for example)?

In the absence of sufficient fuel the body will throttle peak output potential. Especially if carbs are lacking. Cutting makes you weaker itself, independent of muscle loss.

You realize that strength loss is not really muscle loss but is instead inadequate fuel when you exit the calorie deficit and see a dramatic and rapid strength rebound.

I always lose strength when cutting, and gain it all back as soon as I start bulking again, before there has been any muscle growth. Using a bulking to bulking comparison, I've never actually lost strength due to cutting, even if I was weaker while cutting.

Yup everyone's "data" can be off. However, how strong are you in your lifts? This is very important. The more you have "built up" and not "established" the new strength level before losing, the more likely you are to lose the strength when cutting. If you are not very much out of the high average strength group anyways to start, you probably will do exactly what you say: become weaker while cutting, then bounce back to "normal" strength. What people forget is there are many many variables that change how much muscle or if muscle is lost, including sex, age, weight training status, level of training previous to starting the cut, how much you cut, how long you cut, what is your nutrition like, hormonal status, etc. And then the fact that strength is not a "fixed stat", it is a factor of muscle, but this is modified by your mind's ability to fire more motor units in coordination, modified by your mood and modified by nutrition. You CAN compensate for muscle loss by increased training or MENTAL ability/delusion/determination/dysfunction/hyperfunction/etc. OP thinks he will lose NO muscle, I'm saying for a 50 yo guy cutting enough to lose 4lbs in a week, some of it will be muscle, and he probably wont be able to tell a difference in his strength when its over, no. So probably, to be safe its better for him to do it more slowly. However I don't know many of the above factors in his situation, how trained he is, how much strength he's gained, nutrition, mental strength etc. SO I dont KNOW. But its safe to say he will lose muscle and losing more slowly is a safer course to prevent muscle loss.

Now in your post, you also have no idea what your muscle mass is doing, it is only your perception you have to judge, and to say something like "gain it all back as soon as I start bulking again, before there has been any muscle growth." is complete nonsense: you have no idea whether muscle has started to lay down more protein, and this can happen as soon as its stimulated with enough available protein (not in sufficient enough quantities to make a difference but yes it can start to happen that fast). More importantly, what happens is your mental state changes and your available energy changes with increased nutrition. Increased nutrition plus muscle group alteration of firing with increased stimulus compensates for mild lost muscle in most cases anyways. So you really have no clue one way or another.

To understand how you can not know if you've lost muscle or not, think about the way you lose muscle. It is reduction of the proteins in the cell, not elimination of the cells generally. The fact of the matter is the body will catabolize what it needs if you don't supply it, and you can shift what it catabolizes by your nutrition, but you cant exclude muscle breakdown. If you keep protein high, your body wont need the protein, but the energy deficit stays, and the first time your brain needs sugar and fat stores output doesn't match the need, muscle starts to be broken down too. You WILL lose some muscle proteins on a -4lbs/wk diet if your fat stores aren't large enough and supplying quickly enough, that's 2,000 calorie deficit per day. The more obese you are, the more fat is available, able to release energy and exposed to blood supply, the less muscle you'll have to break down to make up the difference though.

Now, more importantly, throw in how your muscle actually fires: groups of fibers fire together in unison, off and on continually through your motion, never firing even a majority at once, one figure says in the strongest contractions you can recruit consciously is up to 1/3 of the muscle group MAXIMUM in most cases. You don't go "FIRE" and have the whole muscle contract like you think you perceive, in fact, even if you hold the weight still, fibers are switching off and on all over the place to keep that weight still. Its more something like this: "Group 1 through 5 fire! OK, now Group 5-8, you go!...Group 15 fire...Wait, we are slowing down, OK Group16-20 go!, We got an order to keep it moving, Accessory Group1-3 fire!, Reserve2 fire!, Waldo56 was dieting and we are weakened a little, so we need more support, Group21-25 go! Are you ready Group1 its almost your turn again!..." etc etc. You notice: "hey, I can still do the same weight! Muscle loss, hah, doesn't happen!".

Add to this, the more you train, you not only increase the proteins in the muscle cells but you can actually train more groups to fire, causing "more strength". The person who is able to recruit more motor groups at once will see a bigger reduction in strength as proteins are lost, because he's actually got less in reserve that the guy who recruits less groups for the same weight. This is extremely impossibly hard to quantify, but in general: the more you lift comparatively for your size/age/group, probably the more affected you'd be by muscle loss. If you aren't very strong comparatively to begin with, you wont see much or ANY loss. (yes this is if baseline muscle is the same etc etc, but you get the point of how this can affect things)

Now, for another confounding factor, remember the stories of the housewife lifting a car off her child, or the child lifting the car up for his father to escape? The human body is capable of recruiting many more motor units than we typically do on a normal weightlifting session with altered state of emotion and "emergency" causing hormonal release and increased STIMULATION of muscle groups in unison. But likewise, your mental state and emotion can change this state, if you THINK "ahhh, no more cutting, I can lift heavy and make gains!", this can be enough to somewhat increase your perceived strength alone, even if you lost some muscle mass.

Whether or not the amount of loss is very significant depends on so many factors, its just safer to lose slower to reduce the loss. All this is probably over a strength loss Scotty has very little chance of noticing btw, since he's probably not highly trained using most of his motor units, and probably wont be able to keep -4lbs/wk for long.

So, end result when you cut your weight down, you just have slightly less protein mass in muscle cells in previously trained motor units, which never even had to fire in even probably 20-30% unison to move the same weight anyways...so shift a few more groups of cells to fire at the same time, say from 22 to 23% and the same weight moves, you notice nothing, you think you "disproved" muscle loss and post it on MFP...

scottYBRIDGEWATER

And by the way... if you actually want to follow the advice of a bodybuilder... (Someone tell me if I can't recommend books on here) than you should give "Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle" by Tom Venuto a read. It's definitely a great one and would help you on your journey if you were willing to comply with the content. This I am sure of. Just personal experience here though =P

I read some of this last nite. Good stuff. He also has issue with the whole "You'll burn muscle, the sky is falling BS"........