Do y'all realize that the more lean mass you have....
Replies
-
yes the more lean muscle mass requires more calories but dont be fooled its not ton of extra calories
1.fat burns 2 calories, compared to 2 muscle which burns 5-7 calories.
All calories are also not created equal. A big bag of chips does not equal a tunafish sandwich on whole wheat with lettuce and tomato even though they may have the same amount of calories. I am still mystified that so many people fail to comprehend this.
I agree that the food you eat matters. How does that relate to the post you replied to?0 -
I think people also lose sight of the fact that if they don't work to preserve their lean mass, even when they lose all the weight they will be a smaller person of the same shape they were when at a weight they felt was too high. :noway:
Personally, I don't want to be a smaller bowling ball. :sad: I want to get my waist back and see the muscles in my arms and legs again!:bigsmile:
bwahahahahaha! omg..this made me laugh outloud! LOVE IT! it is absolutely true. losing weight is one thing. changing the way you look...that's another story!0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
I think a lot of people do want it. They just want not to be fat without making a lot of major changes in their life. I think a lot of people exercise simply to burn more calories to lose more quickly, rather than thinking about how much muscle they will have in the end.
And I may be way off base, but I took that post to mean "cost more" not in terms of money, but in terms of time and effort. It does take time and effort to maintain muscle mass while losing weight. Especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.0 -
I would much rather be lean and have more muscle
Lean muscle mass is awesome. 0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
You've taken a poll?:laugh: :laugh:
Who is "us"? I got the impression that most of "us" wanted a healthier life which may not require becoming body builders but a commitment to fitness (especially those of "us" over 40 who don't want to lose our lean muscle mass to aging)0 -
Lol, isn't sedentary and "light" activity the reason that most people GAIN WEIGHT along with over consumption?Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Yes, it's true.
But honestly, adding a couple lbs of lean muscle isn't suddenly going to turn you into a calorie burning furnace. Does your BMR go up? Yes. Does it go up significantly? Not in most cases.0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
I think a lot of people do want it. They just want not to be fat without making a lot of major changes in their life. I think a lot of people exercise simply to burn more calories to lose more quickly, rather than thinking about how much muscle they will have in the end.
And I may be way off base, but I took that post to mean "cost more" not in terms of money, but in terms of time and effort. It does take time and effort to maintain muscle mass while losing weight. Especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.
There are also folks who start out thinking that way and evolve their opinion over time.
I can understand that, especially as it's overwhelming for some folks to just hit their calorie goals and make healthier food choices in the beginning. They have to focus on one thing at a time so they don't give up. And then they eventually realize that they aren't getting the body they'd hoped for without exercise and the restriction of calories is too difficult to maintain, so they embark on exercise plans.0 -
Having more lean muscle means you can lift heavier poundages which will help with more calorie burn while working out. Yes this is true.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Most BMR calculators exclude an offset for lean body mass because it doesn't make a big difference in your calorie requirement - maybe 5%.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a woman my height and weight with 15# less lean body mass (I am saying I have 15# more muscle) wouldn't burn far less calories when they sleep (or just go about the business of life)? Are you also saying that her physical activity isn't far less intense (thus burning even fewer calories) because of her comparative weakness and lack of endurance?
I won't speak for the poster to which you replied, but in your answer it is the second part that really makes the most difference. From what I've read, it is in the calories burned to build/maintain muscle that really makes the difference. The small boost in BMR doesn't really burn very many extra calories, but the work required does.0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
I think a lot of people do want it. They just want not to be fat without making a lot of major changes in their life. I think a lot of people exercise simply to burn more calories to lose more quickly, rather than thinking about how much muscle they will have in the end.
And I may be way off base, but I took that post to mean "cost more" not in terms of money, but in terms of time and effort. It does take time and effort to maintain muscle mass while losing weight. Especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.
There are also folks who start out thinking that way and evolve their opinion over time.
I can understand that, especially as it's overwhelming for some folks to just hit their calorie goals and make healthier food choices in the beginning. They have to focus on one thing at a time so they don't give up. And then they eventually realize that they aren't getting the body they'd hoped for without exercise and the restriction of calories is too difficult to maintain, so they embark on exercise plans.
Most people don't understand the difference between weight loss and body recomposition. They think that all they have to do is lose weight and they will look the way they want. The problem comes in when they want this weight loss to happen too quickly. They start some fad or very restrictive diet that they think will "jump start" weight loss. They want years of weight gain to magically disappear in a matter of weeks. When the results don't happen the way they thought, they get frustrated and give up. The excuse used, in my smarta$$ wording, "I'm must be a special little snowflake and this just doesn't work for me like does for everyone else."
The real reason it doesn't work is because they made it too difficult to begin with by being too restrictive. And, they are lazy and don't want to work for it.
Good post, OP!0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
You've taken a poll?:laugh: :laugh:
Who is "us"? I got the impression that most of "us" wanted a healthier life which may not require becoming body builders but a commitment to fitness (especially those of "us" over 40 who don't want to lose our lean muscle mass to aging)
Yeah, count me out too! My goal is to be fit, not skinny.0 -
For each extra pound of muscle you only burn a max of 9 extra calories a day. Extra muscle is hard to achieve. That is not really a compelling reason to gain LBM. What are compelling reasons, include:
- strength training you do also helps bone density which in turn helps mitigate the risks of osteoperosis
- strength training makes you, well...stronger
- aesthetics regarding body composition
Plus a host of other reasons.0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
I think a lot of people do want it. They just want not to be fat without making a lot of major changes in their life. I think a lot of people exercise simply to burn more calories to lose more quickly, rather than thinking about how much muscle they will have in the end.
And I may be way off base, but I took that post to mean "cost more" not in terms of money, but in terms of time and effort. It does take time and effort to maintain muscle mass while losing weight. Especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.
There are also folks who start out thinking that way and evolve their opinion over time.
I can understand that, especially as it's overwhelming for some folks to just hit their calorie goals and make healthier food choices in the beginning. They have to focus on one thing at a time so they don't give up. And then they eventually realize that they aren't getting the body they'd hoped for without exercise and the restriction of calories is too difficult to maintain, so they embark on exercise plans.
Most people don't understand the difference between weight loss and body recomposition. They think that all they have to do is lose weight and they will look the way they want. The problem comes in when they want this weight loss to happen too quickly. They start some fad or very restrictive diet that they think will "jump start" weight loss. They want years of weight gain to magically disappear in a matter of weeks. When the results don't happen the way they thought, they get frustrated and give up. The excuse used, in my smarta$$ wording, "I'm must be a special little snowflake and this just doesn't work for me like does for everyone else."
The real reason it doesn't work is because they made it too difficult to begin with by being too restrictive. And, they are lazy and don't want to work for it.
Good post, OP!
But, if you don't have a lot of weight to lose it can work. If you only have 10-20 lbs of weight to lose and you are young, you can just diet it away and still look good. I miss those days of being naturally firm. What a drag it is getting old.0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
I think a lot of people do want it. They just want not to be fat without making a lot of major changes in their life. I think a lot of people exercise simply to burn more calories to lose more quickly, rather than thinking about how much muscle they will have in the end.
And I may be way off base, but I took that post to mean "cost more" not in terms of money, but in terms of time and effort. It does take time and effort to maintain muscle mass while losing weight. Especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.
There are also folks who start out thinking that way and evolve their opinion over time.
I can understand that, especially as it's overwhelming for some folks to just hit their calorie goals and make healthier food choices in the beginning. They have to focus on one thing at a time so they don't give up. And then they eventually realize that they aren't getting the body they'd hoped for without exercise and the restriction of calories is too difficult to maintain, so they embark on exercise plans.
Most people don't understand the difference between weight loss and body recomposition. They think that all they have to do is lose weight and they will look the way they want. The problem comes in when they want this weight loss to happen too quickly. They start some fad or very restrictive diet that they think will "jump start" weight loss. They want years of weight gain to magically disappear in a matter of weeks. When the results don't happen the way they thought, they get frustrated and give up. The excuse used, in my smarta$$ wording, "I'm must be a special little snowflake and this just doesn't work for me like does for everyone else."
The real reason it doesn't work is because they made it too difficult to begin with by being too restrictive. And, they are lazy and don't want to work for it.
Good post, OP!
But, if you don't have a lot of weight to lose it can work. If you only have 10-20 lbs of weight to lose and you are young, you can just diet it away and still look good. I miss those days of being naturally firm. What a drag it is getting old.
You're missing the point. It depends on what "good" means to you. For some, yes, that's true... you can just diet it away and be smaller. But for some, that's not what they are looking for.0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
I think a lot of people do want it. They just want not to be fat without making a lot of major changes in their life. I think a lot of people exercise simply to burn more calories to lose more quickly, rather than thinking about how much muscle they will have in the end.
And I may be way off base, but I took that post to mean "cost more" not in terms of money, but in terms of time and effort. It does take time and effort to maintain muscle mass while losing weight. Especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.
There are also folks who start out thinking that way and evolve their opinion over time.
I can understand that, especially as it's overwhelming for some folks to just hit their calorie goals and make healthier food choices in the beginning. They have to focus on one thing at a time so they don't give up. And then they eventually realize that they aren't getting the body they'd hoped for without exercise and the restriction of calories is too difficult to maintain, so they embark on exercise plans.
Most people don't understand the difference between weight loss and body recomposition. They think that all they have to do is lose weight and they will look the way they want. The problem comes in when they want this weight loss to happen too quickly. They start some fad or very restrictive diet that they think will "jump start" weight loss. They want years of weight gain to magically disappear in a matter of weeks. When the results don't happen the way they thought, they get frustrated and give up. The excuse used, in my smarta$$ wording, "I'm must be a special little snowflake and this just doesn't work for me like does for everyone else."
The real reason it doesn't work is because they made it too difficult to begin with by being too restrictive. And, they are lazy and don't want to work for it.
Good post, OP!
But, if you don't have a lot of weight to lose it can work. If you only have 10-20 lbs of weight to lose and you are young, you can just diet it away and still look good. I miss those days of being naturally firm. What a drag it is getting old.
You're missing the point. It depends on what "good" means to you. For some, yes, that's true... you can just diet it away and be smaller. But for some, that's not what they are looking for.
No, I don't think I am missing the point. The fact that "good" doesn't always mean the same thing to everyone was my point. A high LBM is no guarantee that you'll look "good". The poster at the top of this particular thread seemed to not care about body recomposition, they were concerned about losing weight. The fact that she will be a smaller version of herself doesn't mean she will not look "good" or that losing weight through calorie restriction won't work.
Many people lose and maintain weight through calorie restriction. I would wager a lot more do it that way than through worrying about LBM.0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
I think a lot of people do want it. They just want not to be fat without making a lot of major changes in their life. I think a lot of people exercise simply to burn more calories to lose more quickly, rather than thinking about how much muscle they will have in the end.
And I may be way off base, but I took that post to mean "cost more" not in terms of money, but in terms of time and effort. It does take time and effort to maintain muscle mass while losing weight. Especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.
There are also folks who start out thinking that way and evolve their opinion over time.
I can understand that, especially as it's overwhelming for some folks to just hit their calorie goals and make healthier food choices in the beginning. They have to focus on one thing at a time so they don't give up. And then they eventually realize that they aren't getting the body they'd hoped for without exercise and the restriction of calories is too difficult to maintain, so they embark on exercise plans.
Most people don't understand the difference between weight loss and body recomposition. They think that all they have to do is lose weight and they will look the way they want. The problem comes in when they want this weight loss to happen too quickly. They start some fad or very restrictive diet that they think will "jump start" weight loss. They want years of weight gain to magically disappear in a matter of weeks. When the results don't happen the way they thought, they get frustrated and give up. The excuse used, in my smarta$$ wording, "I'm must be a special little snowflake and this just doesn't work for me like does for everyone else."
The real reason it doesn't work is because they made it too difficult to begin with by being too restrictive. And, they are lazy and don't want to work for it.
Good post, OP!
But, if you don't have a lot of weight to lose it can work. If you only have 10-20 lbs of weight to lose and you are young, you can just diet it away and still look good. I miss those days of being naturally firm. What a drag it is getting old.
You're missing the point. It depends on what "good" means to you. For some, yes, that's true... you can just diet it away and be smaller. But for some, that's not what they are looking for.
No, I don't think I am missing the point. The fact that "good" doesn't always mean the same thing to everyone was my point. A high LBM is no guarantee that you'll look "good". The poster at the top of this particular thread seemed to not care about body recomposition, they were concerned about losing weight. The fact that she will be a smaller version of herself doesn't mean she will not look "good" or that losing weight through calorie restriction won't work.
Many people lose and maintain weight through calorie restriction. I would wager a lot more do it that way than through worrying about LBM.
Increased LBM has a host of other benefits that go far beyond increased BMR. Sarauk2sf gave a nice list of those benefits earlier.
For the record, you have a history of disagreeing with posts just because that isn't the way you do things. Whatever way you choose to go about being a healthier person is completely your business. However, just because it isn't "your way" doesn't make it wrong.0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
No, what I am saying is that eating at a deficiency with only healthy, clean, minimally processed foods is still going to result in lost lean body mass because in order to keep lean body mass, the body has to be active. If a person ISN'T active and is eating well, then lbm may be lost, but it's because the dieter's goal is to be leaner and cleaner, not hulk and bulk.0 -
I didn't read this whole post. I don't think adding lean mass has as much of an effect on BMR as some people think.
However, lean mass is awesome and I'm all for adding it, and/or not losing it.0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
No, what I am saying is that eating at a deficiency with only healthy, clean, minimally processed foods is still going to result in lost lean body mass because in order to keep lean body mass, the body has to be active. If a person ISN'T active and is eating well, then lbm may be lost, but it's because the dieter's goal is to be leaner and cleaner, not hulk and bulk.
You can combat the loss of LBM while eating at a deficit with resistance training. A person will still experience some LBM loss, but not as great as someone sedentary and eating at a deficit. People can't become "hulk and bulk" eating at a deficit.0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
I think a lot of people do want it. They just want not to be fat without making a lot of major changes in their life. I think a lot of people exercise simply to burn more calories to lose more quickly, rather than thinking about how much muscle they will have in the end.
And I may be way off base, but I took that post to mean "cost more" not in terms of money, but in terms of time and effort. It does take time and effort to maintain muscle mass while losing weight. Especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.
There are also folks who start out thinking that way and evolve their opinion over time.
I can understand that, especially as it's overwhelming for some folks to just hit their calorie goals and make healthier food choices in the beginning. They have to focus on one thing at a time so they don't give up. And then they eventually realize that they aren't getting the body they'd hoped for without exercise and the restriction of calories is too difficult to maintain, so they embark on exercise plans.
Most people don't understand the difference between weight loss and body recomposition. They think that all they have to do is lose weight and they will look the way they want. The problem comes in when they want this weight loss to happen too quickly. They start some fad or very restrictive diet that they think will "jump start" weight loss. They want years of weight gain to magically disappear in a matter of weeks. When the results don't happen the way they thought, they get frustrated and give up. The excuse used, in my smarta$$ wording, "I'm must be a special little snowflake and this just doesn't work for me like does for everyone else."
The real reason it doesn't work is because they made it too difficult to begin with by being too restrictive. And, they are lazy and don't want to work for it.
Good post, OP!
But, if you don't have a lot of weight to lose it can work. If you only have 10-20 lbs of weight to lose and you are young, you can just diet it away and still look good. I miss those days of being naturally firm. What a drag it is getting old.
You're missing the point. It depends on what "good" means to you. For some, yes, that's true... you can just diet it away and be smaller. But for some, that's not what they are looking for.
No, I don't think I am missing the point. The fact that "good" doesn't always mean the same thing to everyone was my point. A high LBM is no guarantee that you'll look "good". The poster at the top of this particular thread seemed to not care about body recomposition, they were concerned about losing weight. The fact that she will be a smaller version of herself doesn't mean she will not look "good" or that losing weight through calorie restriction won't work.
Many people lose and maintain weight through calorie restriction. I would wager a lot more do it that way than through worrying about LBM.
Increased LBM has a host of other benefits that go far beyond increased BMR. Sarauk2sf gave a nice list of those benefits earlier.
For the record, you have a history of disagreeing with posts just because that isn't the way you do things. Whatever way you choose to go about being a healthier person is completely your business. However, just because it isn't "your way" doesn't make it wrong.
Um, I wasn't disagreeing. I was more or less agreeing with what the poster said about most just wanting to lose weight. Not sure if "most" care about LBM or not, but if I had to say most did or did not care, I probably would go with did not.
It is you who disagreed with her because you think differently.0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
No, what I am saying is that eating at a deficiency with only healthy, clean, minimally processed foods is still going to result in lost lean body mass because in order to keep lean body mass, the body has to be active. If a person ISN'T active and is eating well, then lbm may be lost, but it's because the dieter's goal is to be leaner and cleaner, not hulk and bulk.
You can combat the loss of LBM while eating at a deficit with resistance training. A person will still experience some LBM loss, but not as great as someone sedentary and eating at a deficit. People can't become "hulk and bulk" eating at a deficit.
And most people responding to this thread is either a hulk and bulk person who is on a 40/30/30 diet or are not at a deficient and are just running every day praying they can get the weight off. What ever happened to self control as the best defense? At the end of the day, everything starts and ends with what you eat and how well your nutrition is.0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
I think a lot of people do want it. They just want not to be fat without making a lot of major changes in their life.
Thus doomed for failure.0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
I think a lot of people do want it. They just want not to be fat without making a lot of major changes in their life. I think a lot of people exercise simply to burn more calories to lose more quickly, rather than thinking about how much muscle they will have in the end.
And I may be way off base, but I took that post to mean "cost more" not in terms of money, but in terms of time and effort. It does take time and effort to maintain muscle mass while losing weight. Especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.
There are also folks who start out thinking that way and evolve their opinion over time.
I can understand that, especially as it's overwhelming for some folks to just hit their calorie goals and make healthier food choices in the beginning. They have to focus on one thing at a time so they don't give up. And then they eventually realize that they aren't getting the body they'd hoped for without exercise and the restriction of calories is too difficult to maintain, so they embark on exercise plans.
Most people don't understand the difference between weight loss and body recomposition. They think that all they have to do is lose weight and they will look the way they want. The problem comes in when they want this weight loss to happen too quickly. They start some fad or very restrictive diet that they think will "jump start" weight loss. They want years of weight gain to magically disappear in a matter of weeks. When the results don't happen the way they thought, they get frustrated and give up. The excuse used, in my smarta$$ wording, "I'm must be a special little snowflake and this just doesn't work for me like does for everyone else."
The real reason it doesn't work is because they made it too difficult to begin with by being too restrictive. And, they are lazy and don't want to work for it.
Good post, OP!
But, if you don't have a lot of weight to lose it can work. If you only have 10-20 lbs of weight to lose and you are young, you can just diet it away and still look good. I miss those days of being naturally firm. What a drag it is getting old.
You're missing the point. It depends on what "good" means to you. For some, yes, that's true... you can just diet it away and be smaller. But for some, that's not what they are looking for.
No, I don't think I am missing the point. The fact that "good" doesn't always mean the same thing to everyone was my point. A high LBM is no guarantee that you'll look "good". The poster at the top of this particular thread seemed to not care about body recomposition, they were concerned about losing weight. The fact that she will be a smaller version of herself doesn't mean she will not look "good" or that losing weight through calorie restriction won't work.
Many people lose and maintain weight through calorie restriction. I would wager a lot more do it that way than through worrying about LBM.
Increased LBM has a host of other benefits that go far beyond increased BMR. Sarauk2sf gave a nice list of those benefits earlier.
For the record, you have a history of disagreeing with posts just because that isn't the way you do things. Whatever way you choose to go about being a healthier person is completely your business. However, just because it isn't "your way" doesn't make it wrong.
Um, I wasn't disagreeing. I was more or less agreeing with what the poster said about most just wanting to lose weight. Not sure if "most" care about LBM or not, but if I had to say most did or did not care, I probably would go with did not.
It is you who disagreed with her because you think differently.
I actually agreed with the OP and said "good post" in my first statement.0 -
I think a lot of people do want it. They just want not to be fat without making a lot of major changes in their life.
Thus doomed for failure.
^This!0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
Are you serious? :noway:
I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)
If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.
And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^
No, what I am saying is that eating at a deficiency with only healthy, clean, minimally processed foods is still going to result in lost lean body mass because in order to keep lean body mass, the body has to be active. If a person ISN'T active and is eating well, then lbm may be lost, but it's because the dieter's goal is to be leaner and cleaner, not hulk and bulk.
You can combat the loss of LBM while eating at a deficit with resistance training. A person will still experience some LBM loss, but not as great as someone sedentary and eating at a deficit. People can't become "hulk and bulk" eating at a deficit.
And most people responding to this thread is either a hulk and bulk person who is on a 40/30/30 diet or are not at a deficient and are just running every day praying they can get the weight off. What ever happened to self control as the best defense? At the end of the day, everything starts and ends with what you eat and how well your nutrition is.
There is a big difference between body recomposition and what you call "hulk and bulk". Just because someone is setting macro ratios at 40/30/30 doesn't mean they are bulking. The level of calorie intake determines that.
I do agree that a lot of people lack self control, though.0 -
I do realize, however that is relatively negligible. From what I've read, a lb of muscle burns fewer than 10 calories per day.
I think that the real benefit to maintaining or building lean mass is
1) Sexiness
2) Maintaining muscle means that losses are pure ugly fat, rather than some fat and some muscle.
50 calories per day. That's 5 pounds per year.0 -
I do realize, however that is relatively negligible. From what I've read, a lb of muscle burns fewer than 10 calories per day.
I think that the real benefit to maintaining or building lean mass is
1) Sexiness
2) Maintaining muscle means that losses are pure ugly fat, rather than some fat and some muscle.
50 calories per day. That's 5 pounds per year.
The 50 calorie/day thing is a hoax made up by fitness magazines. If it really burned that much, serious body builders would need to eat somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 000 calories/day just to maintain their weight. I don't know about you, but many of them eat 1800-3000/day.0 -
Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.
I know this is going to sound inflammatory but I'm going to say it anyway. Every time I come across something written by you on the boards I find you to be more and more of an idiot.
It doesn't sound inflammatory, it just is inflammatory. It's also rude.0 -
I do realize, however that is relatively negligible. From what I've read, a lb of muscle burns fewer than 10 calories per day.
I think that the real benefit to maintaining or building lean mass is
1) Sexiness
2) Maintaining muscle means that losses are pure ugly fat, rather than some fat and some muscle.
50 calories per day. That's 5 pounds per year.
The 50 calorie/day thing is a hoax made up by fitness magazines. If it really burned that much, serious body builders would need to eat somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 000 calories/day just to maintain their weight. I don't know about you, but many of them eat 1800-3000/day.
Actually, professional body builders eat around 7500 calories per day.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions