Fat vs muscle loss

Daresie

I have been reading lots of posts in my spare time and just started reading the New Rules of Lifting for Women. Lots of good advice out there... trying to sift through it for what will work best for me.

I have been here at MFP since the first part of January, slowly changing my eating to more healthy, and for the first time starting to exercise. Now I find out I need to be careful to be losing FAT, not MUSCLE.

I want to make sure I'm using my numbers correctly . Can someone please tell me if this sounds right?

I started at 165# and 36% body fat (as measured by my own scale, body fat checked online with four different sites and that seems to be a close average.) Since January I have lost 14 pounds and my scale now reads me at 32% BF. Today I crunched those numbers and came up with 11 or the 14 being fat, so that means I've lost 3 pounds of muscle? Yikes.

At this point I have been mostly doing treadmill 3-5 times a week and have been stop-start with Last Chance Workout using "minnie mouse" weights (3# - that's what I have in my house, and seriously was more than I could do the first few times!). Yesterday I borrowed my sons 10 pound weights for bicep curls and tricep kickbacks and it was hard, but I could manage some.

So.... Does this seem like a good start, and is 3 pounds of muscle lost something to worry about, or will I be able to work it back in as I increase my weight lifting? I plan to learn to use our gym's weights, but I need to find someone to help me so I don't kill myself trying to get healthy! :-)

Would appreciate any comments.

CristinaL1983

The body fat percentages given by scales are extremely inaccurate. They work by electrical impedance and and send a current up one leg and measure how long it takes to get to the other foot. The current goes up one leg, across the pelvis, and down the other leg. It uses the time this takes to approximate water, body fat and muscle. They can vary with bladder, bowel, and other things that naturally fluctuate in your body.

I recommend getting calipers and tracking progress that way.

Having said that, even if you did lose 3 lbs of muscle, if you start lifting weights now, studies suggest that you can gain some muscle mass even on a deficit. The studies I've read show about .25-.5 lbs per month in muscle gains (for obese/overweight individuals on a modest caloric deficit).

I would definitely start lifting weights and get a set of calipers.

mmapags

The body fat percentages given by scales are extremely inaccurate. They work by electrical impedance and and send a current up one leg and measure how long it takes to get to the other foot. The current goes up one leg, across the pelvis, and down the other leg. It uses the time this takes to approximate water, body fat and muscle. They can vary with bladder, bowel, and other things that naturally fluctuate in your body.

I recommend getting calipers and tracking progress that way.

Having said that, even if you did lose 3 lbs of muscle, if you start lifting weights now, studies suggest that you can gain some muscle mass even on a deficit. The studies I've read show about .25-.5 lbs per month in muscle gains (for obese/overweight individuals on a modest caloric deficit).

I would definitely start lifting weights and get a set of calipers.

Can you post those studies. All that I have read is that, with the exception of newbies (of which the OP would be one), the obsese and atheletes returning from a layoff, it is not possible to gain muscle mass in caloric deficit. Even with the exceptions, the gains are a pound or 2 at the most and may well be sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

That being said, OP as you progress with your loss, it becomes more critical to weight train to preserve lean muscle mass. The percentage of fat to muscle loss can be as high as 50/50 with just calorie deficit and aerobic training. As the previous poster said, bioimpedance scales are not at all accurate.

Sarauk2sf

Ignore those scales, they are very inaccurete While dieting you will probably lose *some* muscle, although not necessarily.

What matters is that you do everything you can to maintain it, which means not having a huge deficit, getting enough protein (I recommend 1g per lb/LBM) and ensuring you have a good progressive loading strength training routine (preferable 3 x a week full body at your stage).

erickirb

those numbers and came up with 11 or the 14 being fat, so that means I've lost 3 pounds of muscle? Yikes.

No necessary, Assuming your numbers are accurate you lost 3 lbs of lean body mass (LBM), not all lean body mass is muscle. That said minimizing LBM loss while losing weight should be a top priority.

This can be done by having a relatively small deficit (goal of 0.5-1.5lbs/week, the less you have to lose the smaller the deficit and goal should be), get adequate protein intake 1gram to lb of LBM is suggested, and take part in a heavy to moderately heavy strength training routine, and give it time.

cwolfman13

Ignore those scales, they are very inaccurete While dieting you will probably lose *some* muscle, although not necessarily.

What matters is that you do everything you can to maintain it, which means not having a huge deficit, getting enough protein (I recommend 1g per lb/LBM) and ensuring you have a good progressive loading strength training routine (preferable 3 x a week full body at your stage).

Awesome as usual!!!!

OP...do what Sara says...reasonable caloric deficit...lots of protein...lift heavy weights and preserve as much LBM as possible. I've managed to retain most of my LBM this way

bcattoes

The body fat percentages given by scales are extremely inaccurate. They work by electrical impedance and and send a current up one leg and measure how long it takes to get to the other foot. The current goes up one leg, across the pelvis, and down the other leg. It uses the time this takes to approximate water, body fat and muscle. They can vary with bladder, bowel, and other things that naturally fluctuate in your body.

I recommend getting calipers and tracking progress that way.

Having said that, even if you did lose 3 lbs of muscle, if you start lifting weights now, studies suggest that you can gain some muscle mass even on a deficit. The studies I've read show about .25-.5 lbs per month in muscle gains (for obese/overweight individuals on a modest caloric deficit).

I would definitely start lifting weights and get a set of calipers.

Calipers in the hands of someone untrained to use them are unlikely to be more accurate than a scale. Scales are better than they used to be. If I already had a scale and were going to invest more money to home measure body fat, I'd get one of the handheld bioimpedance devices. By measuring upper and lower body you'll probably get a pretty accurate picture of your body fat.

But more important than getting an accurate number is tracking the changes. Is it going down, and how much is it going down in relation to total weight lost.

LoraF83

Ignore those scales, they are very inaccurete While dieting you will probably lose *some* muscle, although not necessarily.

What matters is that you do everything you can to maintain it, which means not having a huge deficit, getting enough protein (I recommend 1g per lb/LBM) and ensuring you have a good progressive loading strength training routine (preferable 3 x a week full body at your stage).

Look at the rocking body of the lady who posted this.

She obviously knows what she's talking about.

Listen to her

Energizer06

I have been reading lots of posts in my spare time and just started reading the New Rules of Lifting for Women. Lots of good advice out there... trying to sift through it for what will work best for me.

I have been here at MFP since the first part of January, slowly changing my eating to more healthy, and for the first time starting to exercise. Now I find out I need to be careful to be losing FAT, not MUSCLE.

I want to make sure I'm using my numbers correctly . Can someone please tell me if this sounds right?

I started at 165# and 36% body fat (as measured by my own scale, body fat checked online with four different sites and that seems to be a close average.) Since January I have lost 14 pounds and my scale now reads me at 32% BF. Today I crunched those numbers and came up with 11 or the 14 being fat, so that means I've lost 3 pounds of muscle? Yikes.

At this point I have been mostly doing treadmill 3-5 times a week and have been stop-start with Last Chance Workout using "minnie mouse" weights (3# - that's what I have in my house, and seriously was more than I could do the first few times!). Yesterday I borrowed my sons 10 pound weights for bicep curls and tricep kickbacks and it was hard, but I could manage some.

So.... Does this seem like a good start, and is 3 pounds of muscle lost something to worry about, or will I be able to work it back in as I increase my weight lifting? I plan to learn to use our gym's weights, but I need to find someone to help me so I don't kill myself trying to get healthy! :-)

Would appreciate any comments.

Scales are extremely inaccurate. This is by far the best calculator for everything:

http://www.1percentedge.com/ifcalc/

It will show you fat loss / muscle loss / you can use an average for your BMR (which avg. the various methods for caculating BMR) adjust your P/C/F %'s input your workout days etc... Its the best thing without paying money to get it measured. As long as you input your data correctly

bcattoes

Does anyone have anything to back up all these claims that bioimpedance scales are extremely inaccurate? Or even more inaccurate, on avereage, than calipers? This analysis would suggest they are fairly acccurate.

http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2009/09000/Body_composition_determination_by_bioimpedance__an.4.aspx

Even if water were mistaken for fat, you'd still get a pretty good reading of your LBM.

CristinaL1983

The body fat percentages given by scales are extremely inaccurate. They work by electrical impedance and and send a current up one leg and measure how long it takes to get to the other foot. The current goes up one leg, across the pelvis, and down the other leg. It uses the time this takes to approximate water, body fat and muscle. They can vary with bladder, bowel, and other things that naturally fluctuate in your body.

I recommend getting calipers and tracking progress that way.

Having said that, even if you did lose 3 lbs of muscle, if you start lifting weights now, studies suggest that you can gain some muscle mass even on a deficit. The studies I've read show about .25-.5 lbs per month in muscle gains (for obese/overweight individuals on a modest caloric deficit).

I would definitely start lifting weights and get a set of calipers.

Can you post those studies. All that I have read is that, with the exception of newbies (of which the OP would be one), the obsese and atheletes returning from a layoff, it is not possible to gain muscle mass in caloric deficit. Even with the exceptions, the gains are a pound or 2 at the most and may well be sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

That being said, OP as you progress with your loss, it becomes more critical to weight train to preserve lean muscle mass. The percentage of fat to muscle loss can be as high as 50/50 with just calorie deficit and aerobic training. As the previous poster said, bioimpedance scales are not at all accurate.

Here is one (and this one cites another)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.short

It was concluded that weight training results in comparable gains in muscle area and strength for DPE and EO. Adding weight training exercise to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW compared with DO.
...
The increase of 0.43 kg in LBW for the DPE group is comparable to the largest increases reported in other dietplus-exercise studies. Zuti and Golding (5) and Lewis et al (27) report LBW increases of 0.5 and 1. 1 kg over 16and 17 wk, respectively.

Neither of these studies discusses whether any of the subjects had previous weight training so I cannot speak to the newbie gains (I am assuming based on the original post that the OP is a newbie so it is irrelevant in this case.) I did say that studies show muscle gain while in deficit for overweight/obese individuals because all the research I have read are specifically on that.

The idea that the gains are all newbie gains cannot be substantiated (nor disproved) by using these studies. I haven't found any studies that actually discuss this particular aspect at all (though I've tried). My weight at one point hit the obese boundary but I have been doing heavy lifting for about 15 years with rare breaks (3 extended breaks of 6 ish months around surgeries) so I am particularly interested in that aspect. Like I said, I haven't found anything that speaks to that. If you have, I would definitely like to see it. All I know right now is that over the past 3 months of dieting I have maintained LBM.

CristinaL1983

Does anyone have anything to back up all these claims that bioimpedance scales are extremely inaccurate? Or even more inaccurate, on avereage, than calipers? This analysis would suggest they are fairly acccurate.

http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2009/09000/Body_composition_determination_by_bioimpedance__an.4.aspx

Even if water were mistaken for fat, you'd still get a pretty good reading of your LBM.

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/BJN/BJN90_05/S0007114503002113a.pdf&code=22e7b3137ef36020d69390f92ddf4fcd

The differences between FM assessed using the FF-Tanita or the FF-Téfal analyser and DXA increased with the
waist:hip ratio, and were higher in boys than in girls. The major limiting factor of FF-BIA was the inter-individual variability in FM esti-
mates. In conclusion, FF-BIA and DXA are not interchangeable methods. FF-BIA could be acceptable to assess body composition in largegroups of overweight or obese adolescents, but cannot be recommended for body composition assessment in obese subjects because of thelarge errors in individual estimates
... In addition, compared with DXA, the Tanita and Tefal analysers underestimated low FM and % FM, but overestimated high FM and % FM. Furthermore, the differences were greater in boys than in girls, and increased with the waist:hip ratio, indicating
that FM and % FM were strongly underestimated in adolescents exhibiting android obesity

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=907664

With careful selection of activity mode, there was no statistical difference between % BF determined by HW and the BIA, but the range of individual error scores was large.

Edit: Did not mean to hit submit. It seems to me that most studies suggest that over a group of individuals, the results are accurate but accuracy varies too much from person to person to get an actual reading.

For me, I am very pear shaped and lose weight from the top down. I lost 20 lbs, but my scale told me around the same body fat percentage the whole time but according to the DXA scans I lost about 8% body fat. Additionally, my scale will give me a pretty wide variety of body fat percentages (about 3% which is not particularly small) over the course of a day. Obviously, my body fat is not actually changing that much. Only biological activity. And my scale currently gives me a body fat estimate more than 10% greater than the DXA scan (which is one of the reasons I had it done in the first place, that and they are cool).

The way it gives a reading is by plugging certain numbers into an equation. This gives a good average over a population but not a particularly good reading for an individual.

Going to go look up more stuff now.

bcattoes

Does anyone have anything to back up all these claims that bioimpedance scales are extremely inaccurate? Or even more inaccurate, on avereage, than calipers? This analysis would suggest they are fairly acccurate.

http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2009/09000/Body_composition_determination_by_bioimpedance__an.4.aspx

Even if water were mistaken for fat, you'd still get a pretty good reading of your LBM.

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/BJN/BJN90_05/S0007114503002113a.pdf&code=22e7b3137ef36020d69390f92ddf4fcd

The differences between FM assessed using the FF-Tanita or the FF-Téfal analyser and DXA increased with the
waist:hip ratio, and were higher in boys than in girls. The major limiting factor of FF-BIA was the inter-individual variability in FM esti-
mates. In conclusion, FF-BIA and DXA are not interchangeable methods. FF-BIA could be acceptable to assess body composition in largegroups of overweight or obese adolescents, but cannot be recommended for body composition assessment in obese subjects because of thelarge errors in individual estimates
... In addition, compared with DXA, the Tanita and Tefal analysers underestimated low FM and % FM, but overestimated high FM and % FM. Furthermore, the differences were greater in boys than in girls, and increased with the waist:hip ratio, indicating
that FM and % FM were strongly underestimated in adolescents exhibiting android obesity

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=907664

With careful selection of activity mode, there was no statistical difference between % BF determined by HW and the BIA, but the range of individual error scores was large.

Edit: Did not mean to hit submit. It seems to me that most studies suggest that over a group of individuals, the results are accurate but accuracy varies too much from person to person to get an actual reading.

The first link didn't work. The second appeared to be a 10 year old study of one Japanese model of bioimpedance scale. I'm surprised it was as accurate as it was. From what I've read there have great improvements in the accuracy over the past few years. I would have expected worse results on a scale 11 years ago.

Sarauk2sf

Does anyone have anything to back up all these claims that bioimpedance scales are extremely inaccurate? Or even more inaccurate, on avereage, than calipers? This analysis would suggest they are fairly acccurate.

http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2009/09000/Body_composition_determination_by_bioimpedance__an.4.aspx

Even if water were mistaken for fat, you'd still get a pretty good reading of your LBM.

I did a write up here - it includes links.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/830595-body-fat-estimation-methods

bcattoes

Does anyone have anything to back up all these claims that bioimpedance scales are extremely inaccurate? Or even more inaccurate, on avereage, than calipers? This analysis would suggest they are fairly acccurate.

http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2009/09000/Body_composition_determination_by_bioimpedance__an.4.aspx

Even if water were mistaken for fat, you'd still get a pretty good reading of your LBM.

I did a write up here - it includes links.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/830595-body-fat-estimation-methods

So, would you agree that of the two reasonable home measuring methods - calipers and bio-impedance - there doesn't seem to be much of a difference, especially if one is not trained in the use of calipers?

I fully concede that the more expensive methods done by professionals are far more accurate.

Sarauk2sf

Does anyone have anything to back up all these claims that bioimpedance scales are extremely inaccurate? Or even more inaccurate, on avereage, than calipers? This analysis would suggest they are fairly acccurate.

http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2009/09000/Body_composition_determination_by_bioimpedance__an.4.aspx

Even if water were mistaken for fat, you'd still get a pretty good reading of your LBM.

I did a write up here - it includes links.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/830595-body-fat-estimation-methods

So, would you agree that of the two reasonable home measuring methods - calipers and bio-impedance - there doesn't seem to be much of a difference, especially if one is not trained in the use of calipers?

I fully concede that the more expensive methods done by professionals are far more accurate.

They are both inaccurate but for different reasons. It depends how much 'error' you get with those reasons. So, the answer is..it depends, however, generally, I would say yes.

CristinaL1983

http://bjsportmed.com/content/32/3/215.abstract
Here is the conclusion but it is definitely worth reading through the abstract as it goes in to detail about the specific difference between the methods. Skin fold is closer than Bioelectric impedance (if I read these correctly)

In our sample of moderately active adolescents the estimated values for %FM and FFM appear to be highly dependent on method.

The discussion portion of this shows that for a group mean, any of these methods can be used but on an individual basis the method must be chosen very carefully.

CristinaL1983

Does anyone have anything to back up all these claims that bioimpedance scales are extremely inaccurate? Or even more inaccurate, on avereage, than calipers? This analysis would suggest they are fairly acccurate.

http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2009/09000/Body_composition_determination_by_bioimpedance__an.4.aspx

Even if water were mistaken for fat, you'd still get a pretty good reading of your LBM.

I did a write up here - it includes links.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/830595-body-fat-estimation-methods

That's a nice write up. I hadn't seen it before. For me, calipers are much more accurate (compared to DeXA) than the scales because I am currently carrying the vast majority of my extra weight in my lower body. I'm sure they would be different for others.

mmapags

Like I said, I haven't found anything that speaks to that. If you have, I would definitely like to see it. All I know right now is that over the past 3 months of dieting I have maintained LBM.

Lyle McDonald summmarizes some some research on that topic in his website. Here is a link to one of the articles where he discusses it.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

Great job keeping the lean body mass in deficit. From all I've read, your previous training would have surely helped with that.

Sarauk2sf

Does anyone have anything to back up all these claims that bioimpedance scales are extremely inaccurate? Or even more inaccurate, on avereage, than calipers? This analysis would suggest they are fairly acccurate.

http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2009/09000/Body_composition_determination_by_bioimpedance__an.4.aspx

Even if water were mistaken for fat, you'd still get a pretty good reading of your LBM.

I did a write up here - it includes links.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/830595-body-fat-estimation-methods

That's a nice write up. I hadn't seen it before. For me, calipers are much more accurate (compared to DeXA) than the scales because I am currently carrying the vast majority of my extra weight in my lower body. I'm sure they would be different for others.

Have not used calipers for a while, but the scales are way inaccurate for me.

JoanB5

I have been reading lots of posts in my spare time and just started reading the New Rules of Lifting for Women. Lots of good advice out there... trying to sift through it for what will work best for me.

I have been here at MFP since the first part of January, slowly changing my eating to more healthy, and for the first time starting to exercise. Now I find out I need to be careful to be losing FAT, not MUSCLE.

I want to make sure I'm using my numbers correctly . Can someone please tell me if this sounds right?

I started at 165# and 36% body fat (as measured by my own scale, body fat checked online with four different sites and that seems to be a close average.) Since January I have lost 14 pounds and my scale now reads me at 32% BF. Today I crunched those numbers and came up with 11 or the 14 being fat, so that means I've lost 3 pounds of muscle? Yikes.

At this point I have been mostly doing treadmill 3-5 times a week and have been stop-start with Last Chance Workout using "minnie mouse" weights (3# - that's what I have in my house, and seriously was more than I could do the first few times!). Yesterday I borrowed my sons 10 pound weights for bicep curls and tricep kickbacks and it was hard, but I could manage some.

So.... Does this seem like a good start, and is 3 pounds of muscle lost something to worry about, or will I be able to work it back in as I increase my weight lifting? I plan to learn to use our gym's weights, but I need to find someone to help me so I don't kill myself trying to get healthy! :-)

Would appreciate any comments.

Scales are extremely inaccurate. This is by far the best calculator for everything:

http://www.1percentedge.com/ifcalc/

It will show you fat loss / muscle loss / you can use an average for your BMR (which avg. the various methods for caculating BMR) adjust your P/C/F %'s input your workout days etc... Its the best thing without paying money to get it measured. As long as you input your data correctly

I did not find this link to be accurate at all for bf. It only considers waist size and height, for Pete's sake.

HeyBales, MFP used with a great spreadsheet analysis has a much better way of averaging three or four different multi-measurement techniques to at least get a better educated guess.