Losing mostly fat vs. losing half fat & muscle.

Rae6503

I posted this as a reply to another but post but I think it's cool, so I'm going to post it as it's own post:


So when you are strength training while losing weight, you preserve more muscle. I found this article really interesting:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

If you lose 100% fat (which never happens but weight lifting and adequate protien intake brings us as close to this as possible), 3500 calorie deficit = 1 pound of fat.

If you lose a pound, 50% muscle and 50% fat, you only need a 2050 calorie deficit, so you'd lose more than a pound w/ a 3500 deficit, but you'd lose muscle.

SO without strength training you might actually lose MORE weight, but you are losing muscle, and no one wants that (I hope). But the pure fat pound takes up more physical space than the mixed fat and muscle 1.5 (or whatever, I didn't do the math) pounds. So while the scale doesn't go down as fast your size goes down faster. Make sense?

:flowerforyou:

This is how I've gained 10lbs but haven't increased in clothing size. (Yes, I am an attention *kitten* :drinker:)

DL121004

Absolutely makes sense.

But here is my question: why (what are the metabolic functions involved) do we lose a combination of fat and lean mass when there is as much fat "available" as energy stores?

thecrossfitter

Absolutely makes sense.

But here is my question: why (what are the metabolic functions involved) do we lose a combination of fat and lean mass when there is as much fat "available" as energy stores?

Someone else feel free to jump in and make corrections if I get this wrong and provide citations but here is my understanding:

From a biological/evolutionary perspective, muscle is seen as less essential. Biologically, our bodies are wired for survival. If we come into a time of a food shortage (which happened!), your fat could keep you alive. In terms of preparing for times of food shortage, fat is viewed by your body as more essential, and your extra muscle can be used first. It wants to hold onto that fat for survival.

Rae6503

Absolutely makes sense.

But here is my question: why (what are the metabolic functions involved) do we lose a combination of fat and lean mass when there is as much fat "available" as energy stores?

From what I understand it's evolutionary. Before we lived indoors w/ nice heaters we NEEDED our fat stores to keep us warm and feed us during the winter. We don't "need" excess muscles in the same way. Even though it's harder to do, and produces less energy our bodies tend to break down the muscle too. The lower the fat stores, the more the body tends to do this, so obese people don't really have to worry, but those of us looking to lose the last 10pound really need to be careful.

lizard053

Absolutely makes sense.

But here is my question: why (what are the metabolic functions involved) do we lose a combination of fat and lean mass when there is as much fat "available" as energy stores?

Someone else feel free to jump in and make corrections if I get this wrong and provide citations but here is my understanding:

From a biological/evolutionary perspective, muscle is seen as less essential. Biologically, our bodies are wired for survival. If we come into a time of a food shortage (which happened!), your fat could keep you alive. In terms of preparing for times of food shortage, fat is viewed by your body as more essential, and your extra muscle can be used first. It wants to hold onto that fat for survival.

From what I understand it's evolutionary. Before we lived indoors w/ nice heaters we NEEDED our fat stores to keep us warm and feed us during the winter. We don't "need" excess muscles in the same way. Even though it's harder to do, and produces less energy our bodies tend to break down the muscle too. The lower the fat stores, the more the body tends to do this, so obese people don't really have to worry, but those of us looking to lose the last 10pound really need to be careful.

Both are essentially correct.
The body tries to optimize itself for maximum survival. It can survive longer on fat than on muscle. The fat requires less energy (calories) to maintain than the muscle does. Hence a muscular person will have a higher BMR than those with more fat.
Hope the three explanations help!

chrisdavey

Absolutely makes sense.

But here is my question: why (what are the metabolic functions involved) do we lose a combination of fat and lean mass when there is as much fat "available" as energy stores?

question answered perfectly above

And to maintain the muscle mass:
progressively increasing resistance training & adequate protein intake are required along with a suitable calorie deficit (not overly excessive for lean people)

DL121004

Thanks, that is helpful -- as a start!

I can wrap my head around the evolutionary aspect, but riddle me this, Batman...

What bodily functions/metabolic pathways/whatever regulate this "decision"? *How* does the body decide and execute when and how much to take from fat versus lean?

EatClenTrenHard

If you do a very heavy lifting and consume enough cholesterol+fats+protein

you will actually gain muscle..
My arms stayed 14'' at 220lbs, and at 196lbs, my arms are same... 14''

Rae6503

Thanks, that is helpful -- as a start!

I can wrap my head around the evolutionary aspect, but riddle me this, Batman...

What bodily functions/metabolic pathways/whatever regulate this "decision"? *How* does the body decide and execute when and how much to take from fat versus lean?

Aliens.

Rae6503

If you do a very heavy lifting and consume enough cholesterol+fats+protein

you will actually gain muscle..
My arms stayed 14'' at 220lbs, and at 196lbs, my arms are same... 14''

Yes, some people can, but not everyone so it's best not to count on it. I've actually being eating at a calorie surplus in order to gain muscle.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

thecrossfitter

Thanks, that is helpful -- as a start!

I can wrap my head around the evolutionary aspect, but riddle me this, Batman...

What bodily functions/metabolic pathways/whatever regulate this "decision"? *How* does the body decide and execute when and how much to take from fat versus lean?

I've only done minimal research and poking around into this. This is a great question! The more I do read about it, the more I believe there is a bit more going on than ONLY calories in vs. calories out. I DO think that's part of it (no hateful, ranting messages on this please, I am not intending to touch any nerves)- but there is a ton of stuff going on in your body and determining what happens with the food you put in your body and what is burned. All I'm suggesting/questioning is that the way your body uses fuel is a very, very complicated process.

There must be something (hormones?) in your body that can recognize when you are using your muscles and putting stress on them. When you lift, you create micro tears in your muscle your body must repair - and something must be telling your body it must maintain muscle because it knows it's being used.

This is just me being speculative. Please do not take anything as a definitive answer, just more me thinking/pondering/questioning aloud. I hope someone else can jump in and throw in better information

DL121004

Thanks, that is helpful -- as a start!

I can wrap my head around the evolutionary aspect, but riddle me this, Batman...

What bodily functions/metabolic pathways/whatever regulate this "decision"? *How* does the body decide and execute when and how much to take from fat versus lean?

Aliens.

:bigsmile:

DL121004

I've only done minimal research and poking around into this. This is a great question! The more I do read about it, the more I believe there is a bit more going on than ONLY calories in vs. calories out. I DO think that's part of it (no hateful, ranting messages on this please, I am not intending to touch any nerves)- but there is a ton of stuff going on in your body and determining what happens with the food you put in your body and what is burned. All I'm suggesting/questioning is that the way your body uses fuel is a very, very complicated process.

There must be something (hormones?) in your body that can recognize when you are using your muscles and putting stress on them. When you lift, you create micro tears in your muscle your body must repair - and something must be telling your body it must maintain muscle because it knows it's being used.

This is just me being speculative. Please do not take anything as a definitive answer, just more me thinking/pondering/questioning aloud. I hope someone else can jump in and throw in better information

I absolutely agree that "Calories In - Calories Out" is a vast oversimplification of the process.

For example, I've recently heard of a study which only varied the fructose component of diet (i.e., Cals in the same, protein the same, fats the same, carbs the same, just modify the source of carbs) and the result was that the higher fructose diet resulted in a greater weight gain.

More interesting reading involves the impact on/of leptin/ghrelin <sic?>.

Not to get sidetracked, though.

This stuff fascinates me, so I really am interested in how the body makes these decisions...

TrophyWifeSass

I love this thread, the more I learn the more I am sure I am on the right track. Fantastic how this information can free you from spinning your wheels and the "dieting, food is evil" mentality. The body is an amazing machine got to treat it right.

Yes Aliens are always to blame:laugh:

scottb81

My personal experience is that when I do heavy cardio (running) and no weight lifting, I lose only fat and if any, a minuscule, amount of lean body mass. This is based on hydrostatic testing once and caliper testing at other times and at body weights from 178 to 217. Lean body mass has varied at most +/- 1.5 lbs over 35 years throughout the weight range. (That 1.5 lbs is probably within the margin of error of the various testing methods)

So, I don't buy the argument that you have to lift weights to preserve muscle. As long as you eat sensibly when exercising you can lose fat without wasting away your muscle. Eating sensibly includes adequate carbs for fuel and adequate protein for muscle repair.

LorinaLynn

Love this topic.

So from how I read it... from our body's point of view, in times of famine (or what it perceives as famine, like a very low calorie diet) survival of the fittest becomes survival of the fattest. The body would rather have excess fat than excess muscle.

Kind of like how if you're flying in an airplane and losing altitude, the smart thing would be to dump the heaviest cargo. Even if that heavy cargo is more valuable, at that point, staying airborne is what matters most.

thecrossfitter

I absolutely agree that "Calories In - Calories Out" is a vast oversimplification of the process.

For example, I've recently heard of a study which only varied the fructose component of diet (i.e., Cals in the same, protein the same, fats the same, carbs the same, just modify the source of carbs) and the result was that the higher fructose diet resulted in a greater weight gain.

More interesting reading involves the impact on/of leptin/ghrelin <sic?>.

Not to get sidetracked, though.

This stuff fascinates me, so I really am interested in how the body makes these decisions...

Leptin FASCINATES me. Again, I'm treading carefully because I don't mean to touch on any sensitive topics. I'm not even trying to argue against the mathematical logic of calories in vs out (I do question it, but not the point I'm about to make - that's a different discussion.) But the thing is, I'm a pragmatist. I see a lot of "Can I eat noting but twinkies and lose weight if I'm still at a deficit." My question is CAN you eat only twinkies and stay at a deficit? Like, in real life can you actually do that? Because I know for me the answer is no. I would NOT feel full! There is a practical application of being able to stay at a deficit and not feel like you're starving yourself. I need to pick foods that provide a feeling of satiation.

So this leptin thing. I wish I had the book I was reading, because I'm going off of memory. But basically, different types of foods release different amounts of leptin. Something high in fat releases a lot of leptin and tells your brain you don't need to eat more. You are satiated. But other foods only provide low leptin levels. In some people (not all) low leptin actually acts as an appetite STIMULANT. It seems that the types of food you put in your body affect whether you feel full and are getting appropriate signals that tell you to stop.

Mother nature/God (whichever you subscribe to) isn't stupid. Look around at living creature, we evolved/were created to be able to eat when hungry and stop when full when eating our natural food sources. It just makes me raise the question that something hormonally/metabolically is going on in our systems that contribute to all of this. It only seems logical that biologically we should all have the ability to eat when hungry and stop when full and know how much to eat just by listening to our bodies. Obviously, something is interfering with this process - but I truly believe that we all inherently do have this ability.

Again, sorry for the long rant/speculation. Another reminder, this is just me thinking aloud

tigersword

Absolutely makes sense.

But here is my question: why (what are the metabolic functions involved) do we lose a combination of fat and lean mass when there is as much fat "available" as energy stores?

Someone else feel free to jump in and make corrections if I get this wrong and provide citations but here is my understanding:

From a biological/evolutionary perspective, muscle is seen as less essential. Biologically, our bodies are wired for survival. If we come into a time of a food shortage (which happened!), your fat could keep you alive. In terms of preparing for times of food shortage, fat is viewed by your body as more essential, and your extra muscle can be used first. It wants to hold onto that fat for survival.

Close to this. Muscle is lower priority, because fat is saved for emergencies. It's also a highly evolved part of the endocrine system and is responsible for appetite control, body temperature regulation, reproductive hormones, and many other hormonal and basic bodily functions. Skeletal muscle is only there to rotate a joint. Lower on the scale of importance than fat, by a long shot. You can survive a lot longer with minimal muscle than you can without fat.

DL121004

Leptin FASCINATES me. Again, I'm treading carefully because I don't mean to touch on any sensitive topics. I'm not even trying to argue against the mathematical logic of calories in vs out (I do question it, but not the point I'm about to make - that's a different discussion.) But the thing is, I'm a pragmatist. I see a lot of "Can I eat noting but twinkies and lose weight if I'm still at a deficit." My question is CAN you eat only twinkies and stay at a deficit? Like, in real life can you actually do that? Because I know for me the answer is no. I would NOT feel full! There is a practical application of being able to stay at a deficit and not feel like you're starving yourself. I need to pick foods that provide a feeling of satiation.

So this leptin thing. I wish I had the book I was reading, because I'm going off of memory. But basically, different types of foods release different amounts of leptin. Something high in fat releases a lot of leptin and tells your brain you don't need to eat more. You are satiated. But other foods only provide low leptin levels. In some people (not all) low leptin actually acts as an appetite STIMULANT. It seems that the types of food you put in your body affect whether you feel full and are getting appropriate signals that tell you to stop.

Mother nature/God (whichever you subscribe to) isn't stupid. Look around at living creature, we evolved/were created to be able to eat when hungry and stop when full when eating our natural food sources. It just makes me raise the question that something hormonally/metabolically is going on in our systems that contribute to all of this. It only seems logical that biologically we should all have the ability to eat when hungry and stop when full and know how much to eat just by listening to our bodies. Obviously, something is interfering with this process - but I truly believe that we all inherently do have this ability.

Again, sorry for the long rant/speculation. Another reminder, this is just me thinking aloud

No apologies needed -- I enjoy the "thinking out loud" process.

If you remember the name of the book/author, please pass it on...I'm devouring this stuff lately (past three to four months).

If you're fascinated by leptin, start reading on ghrelin -- the flip side of the coin (instead of saying "I'm full", it says "I'm hungry!".

Re: twinkies. I think one of the underlying assumptions of weight loss is that people want to do it in a healthy manner, over the long term. So the whole twinkie discussion misses out on both those fronts. I could lose a lot of weight by *not* eating ever again, but that's not particularly sustainable or healthy...

sar04tamu

This is an interesting article on a professor who ate *mostly* junk food and lost weight and body fat%. I think there is still a lot we don't understand about how our bodies work.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

tigersword

I absolutely agree that "Calories In - Calories Out" is a vast oversimplification of the process.

For example, I've recently heard of a study which only varied the fructose component of diet (i.e., Cals in the same, protein the same, fats the same, carbs the same, just modify the source of carbs) and the result was that the higher fructose diet resulted in a greater weight gain.

More interesting reading involves the impact on/of leptin/ghrelin <sic?>.

Not to get sidetracked, though.

This stuff fascinates me, so I really am interested in how the body makes these decisions...

Leptin FASCINATES me. Again, I'm treading carefully because I don't mean to touch on any sensitive topics. I'm not even trying to argue against the mathematical logic of calories in vs out (I do question it, but not the point I'm about to make - that's a different discussion.) But the thing is, I'm a pragmatist. I see a lot of "Can I eat noting but twinkies and lose weight if I'm still at a deficit." My question is CAN you eat only twinkies and stay at a deficit? Like, in real life can you actually do that? Because I know for me the answer is no. I would NOT feel full! There is a practical application of being able to stay at a deficit and not feel like you're starving yourself. I need to pick foods that provide a feeling of satiation.

So this leptin thing. I wish I had the book I was reading, because I'm going off of memory. But basically, different types of foods release different amounts of leptin. Something high in fat releases a lot of leptin and tells your brain you don't need to eat more. You are satiated. But other foods only provide low leptin levels. In some people (not all) low leptin actually acts as an appetite STIMULANT. It seems that the types of food you put in your body affect whether you feel full and are getting appropriate signals that tell you to stop.

Mother nature/God (whichever you subscribe to) isn't stupid. Look around at living creature, we evolved/were created to be able to eat when hungry and stop when full when eating our natural food sources. It just makes me raise the question that something hormonally/metabolically is going on in our systems that contribute to all of this. It only seems logical that biologically we should all have the ability to eat when hungry and stop when full and know how much to eat just by listening to our bodies. Obviously, something is interfering with this process - but I truly believe that we all inherently do have this ability.

Again, sorry for the long rant/speculation. Another reminder, this is just me thinking aloud

If you want to talk evolution, the problem is the 3, 4 20, however many meals a day school of thought. The human body has evolved to overeat, like most animals. Eating when hungry, and eating beyond full (it's the reason leptin takes so long to get to the brain after you are technically full.) Since food was much more difficult to get back then, we ate one large meal every day, or every couple of days, stored a lot of fat from it, and lived off that for the next couple days until we could find more food. Now suddenly food is abundant, and we're conditioned to eat several meals a day, but the biological systems haven't adapted to that yet, they are still in the mode of "eat once, then fast." This is why, when left to just listening to hunger and satiety signals, and not using any kind of critical thought processes about food and nutrition, the average person will end up overweight most of the time. Leptin response tends to be dulled from eating constantly, as it takes hours to build up in the system, the amount that normally circulates through your body is generally low, and it takes time for the body to create more during feeding.

tigersword

This is an interesting article on a professor who ate *mostly* junk food and lost weight and body fat%. I think there is still a lot we don't understand about how our bodies work.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

The takeaway I get from this experiment is that lowering your body fat percentage is the number one most important thing you can do in order to improve your overall physical health. The rest is just a matter of refinement and details. You can be as detailed or as general about it as you want. Lower your body fat, and you will be healthier, regardless of specific diet or exercise choices.

lizard053

My personal experience is that when I do heavy cardio (running) and no weight lifting, I lose only fat and if any, a minuscule, amount of lean body mass. This is based on hydrostatic testing once and caliper testing at other times and at body weights from 178 to 217. Lean body mass has varied at most +/- 1.5 lbs over 35 years throughout the weight range. (That 1.5 lbs is probably within the margin of error of the various testing methods)

So, I don't buy the argument that you have to lift weights to preserve muscle. As long as you eat sensibly when exercising you can lose fat without wasting away your muscle. Eating sensibly includes adequate carbs for fuel and adequate protein for muscle repair.

I agree that you don't NEED to strength train to maintain some muscle. The muscles you routinely use will remain, those you don't will not. If you had the right proportion of muscle to begin with (according to your body's metabolic set point) you, in theory, should be able to maintain it without lifting. I've retained a lot of muscle without strength training, however, I do want to get stronger. So I lift a little. I'm mostly a cardio queen right now, but I put in about 30 minutes of strength training every week.

This is an interesting article on a professor who ate *mostly* junk food and lost weight and body fat%. I think there is still a lot we don't understand about how our bodies work.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

I've heard about this. It's so unfair someone is able to do this. But again, it boils down to what each person's natural metabolic set points are. If I did this I'd be miserable!

As for leptin/ghrelin, there is a lot of real interesting research in this area! Did you know that some preliminary studies have shown that overweight and obese mice have much higher ghrellin levels and much lower leptin levels? And even after they lose weight, the ghrelin levels remain elevated? How unfair is that. While this study was only done on mice so far (it would be considered inhumane to do it to people), it is possible this works in humans too. Mice are so much simpler than us, but it's still interesting. Fascinating, really.

Our body's metabolism is controlled primarily by the pituitary gland. It sends out hormones (TSH) to our thyroids for control of body temperature and energy levels. Our pancreas controls the insulin levels for use of sugar in our muscles and in our blood stream. I don't remember what controls the calories-fat-muscle though. I'm a little out of date on my information here. But our endocrine system is absolutely amazing. And that's also part of the reason why every person is different!

This thread is fun!

*edit - I think I had leptin and ghrelin reversed originally...

lizard053

bump

LabRat529

Very interesting info in this thread! I love it. I really don't know all that much about metabolism, muscle anabolism/catabolism, and fat storage. I've been trying to learn so that I can stay on par with the gal in my lab doing an obesity project, but really... it's like learning a foreign language.

LabRat529

My personal experience is that when I do heavy cardio (running) and no weight lifting, I lose only fat and if any, a minuscule, amount of lean body mass. This is based on hydrostatic testing once and caliper testing at other times and at body weights from 178 to 217. Lean body mass has varied at most +/- 1.5 lbs over 35 years throughout the weight range. (That 1.5 lbs is probably within the margin of error of the various testing methods)

So, I don't buy the argument that you have to lift weights to preserve muscle. As long as you eat sensibly when exercising you can lose fat without wasting away your muscle. Eating sensibly includes adequate carbs for fuel and adequate protein for muscle repair.

Quick comment on this.

You are male and you may be one of the lucky ones with high testosterone.

Testosterone levels drop in most males as they age- usually starting around 30- but testosterone drops more precipitously in some males than in others.

If your levels are high, you'll hold onto your muscle better than other males.

And all males will hold onto their muscles better than females.

So your experience may not be typical and I think lifting heavy is still a great idea for most if not all. It might not be essential, but it's sure not gonna hurt anyone, and it will probably help most.

Beastette

Nothing to add, except "you rock"!