Losing Lean Muscle Mass.

IHateThinkingOfAUsername

Okay so we all know the recommendation to eat enough protein and do strength exercises to minimise the amount of lean muscle we lose when dieting. I was just wondering, (and google hasn't told me the answer) is there a 'normal' percentage of loss? (I've read on here about fat gain rates when bulking muscle - but nothing about this).

I am assuming 1lb of muscle loss for every 1lb of fat wouldn't be 'minimal loss' simply on the basis that 50% sounds like a lot.

So what would be minimal loss? 1lb of muscle for every 3lbs (25%) or should it be even less?
What are your thoughts?

(Oh and I appreciate it is incredibly hard to accurately measure body fat and lean muscle mass.)

DeguelloTex

I read 4:1 fat to muscle, but I don't know where, let alone whether it was accurate.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

IHateThinkingOfAUsername

'Worrying' is the wrong word. Pondering would be a better choice

martinel2099

I'm honestly not sure, but heavy lifting and meeting your protein goals are great ways to mitigate muscle loss though.

yopeeps025

That is a very good question that I would like to know the answer. It would explain what is better cutting/bulking cycles or body recomposition.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

IHateThinkingOfAUsername

'Worrying' is the wrong word. Pondering would be a better choice

Ok, yea I get that. Nothing wrong with wondering how these type of things work.

No probs. I am happy with how my journey is going. That is pretty much the main thing. It's working for me at the moment. But I do like pondering on these sorts of things... and I am a numbers geek. Ha!!

BarbieAS

That's a really good question. I mean, obviously the ideal is to maintain ALL of your LBM and lose only fat, but I doubt that's even possible, let alone achievable by the typical dieter.

Remember, though, too, that your LBM includes water, bones, etc (everything but body fat). So, the water weight loss from reduced bloating and glycogen depletion that you typically experience when you're at a calorie deficit is going to play into this.

Maybe the best resource for this sort of thing is information on cutting geared towards serious lifters (like, competition-level stuff). I don't know much about lifting, but I do know that their bulk/cut cycles are designed to increase muscle mass (and, inevitably, body fat) and then reduce as much body fat as possible while retaining as much of that gained muscle mass as possible. Whatever they can accomplish could probably at least be the gold standard, and then you could scale back your expectations from there (unless you're also a competition level lifter [do they still call themselves body builders?]...I don't want to assume :laugh: )

(Edit because grammar.)

3laine75

I have heard 30% somewhere but I've no clue if that accurate or even where I heard it

Lizzy622

Genetics plays such a big role in this I can't imagine an average number actually applying to anyone.

HeidiMightyRawr

If I lost a lb of muscle for every lb of fat, I'd be pretty pissed and never want to go in a deficit again, seriously. Muscle takes too much time and effort to build to let it burn away from me so easily.

Honestly, I have no idea of the amount but I don't think it's that high. Given that after you've been lifting for a while you can only realistically expect to gain 1-2lbs of muscle a month (for a man, half that for a woman) that's with everything spot on, what would be the point of bulking/cutting? I'm pretty sure most people, even slow dieters, lose at least 1lb a month of fat. That would be all your gains and more gone. Just not buying it, especially after seeing the success of people bulking/cutting to get more lean mass over time.

ETA: Maybe 25-30% sounds more reasonable? *shrugs* I'm still pulling a random figure. I know muscle is lost, but I hope it's not all that much.

andrewptr1

Interesting. Im thinking about the same thing right now as im doing hour of kickboxing/weights 3 days and heavy weights 2 days a week to try and cut yet keep muscle on.

IHateThinkingOfAUsername

Just because I like playing with numbers here's my stats.

(Now please bare in mind I measure my BF% using some Tanita scales so they may not be the most accurate, but I try to measure in the same conditions thereby reducing as much variation as I can. Namely after my morning wee naked).

Starting Stats:
41% BF
Weight 173.5lbs

So 71.1lbs of fat.
102.4lbs of non-fat (muscle, bones, water etc)

Current Stats:
36% BF
Weight 149.5lbs

So 53.8lbs of fat.
95.7lbs of non-fat (muscle, bones, water etc).

So in the last 101 days I have lost (according to my potentially inaccurate scales):

17.3lbs of fat.
6.7lbs of 'other' (Some of which will be water retention - I lost 5lbs in the first week)
At a ratio of 1:2.5.

Not passing any judgement. Just curiousness.

McCloud33

Just because I like playing with numbers here's my stats.

(Now please bare in mind I measure my BF% using some Tanita scales so they may not be the most accurate, but I try to measure in the same conditions thereby reducing as much variation as I can. Namely after my morning wee naked).

Starting Stats:
41% BF
Weight 173.5lbs

So 71.1lbs of fat.
102.4lbs of non-fat (muscle, bones, water etc)

Current Stats:
36% BF
Weight 149.5lbs

So 53.8lbs of fat.
95.7lbs of non-fat (muscle, bones, water etc).

So in the last 101 days I have lost (according to my potentially inaccurate scales):

17.3lbs of fat.
6.7lbs of 'other' (Some of which will be water retention - I lost 5lbs in the first week)
At a ratio of 1:2.5.

Not passing any judgement. Just curiousness.

I had roughly the same ratio's when I was losing at the rate you have been (1.68 lbs/week avg). I did that to drop from 223 to 185 in about 5 months. Since then I've gone to a much less aggressive loss rate (only about .5 lbs/week) and my ratio has been 1:17 muscle:fat.

I think there are just a lot of variables there to pin it down to one #. I would think anything from 40% to 5% depending on your genetics, protein intake, lifting regimen, and weight loss rate.