On losing fat but staying the same weight
lizzardsm
Posts: 271 Member
I just had a general question. I've seen several people (and I suspect I'm heading in that direction) who have lost considerable amounts of fat (through moderate calorie deficits & lifting heavy) but their weight has stayed either the same or very close to their start weight. Any thoughts on why this would occur?
I understand that there may be some "newbie gains" in muscle at first, but how long can newbie gains last? And would that account for dropping your body fat percentage fairly drastically? I also understand that glycogen plays a role but that it *should* even out over time and continued weight training. Thanks!!
I understand that there may be some "newbie gains" in muscle at first, but how long can newbie gains last? And would that account for dropping your body fat percentage fairly drastically? I also understand that glycogen plays a role but that it *should* even out over time and continued weight training. Thanks!!
0
Replies
-
Magic? Sorry, I got nothing, but interested in seeing the responses.
Curious, are you referring to people eating at a deficit and lifting or people eating at maintenance and lifting (more a body recomp strategy)?0 -
Yup! People eating at a deficit & lifting. Body fat losses but no scale changes. It does feel like magic!
Here's an example (not a great one because she lost fat through Insanity): http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/580019-the-scale-is-a-lying-torture-device-i-m-proof?hl=scale+is+a+liar0 -
It happens a bit depending on the circumstances, but it's rarely the best option. The quickest way to get leaner and more muscular is to alternate periods where your pirmary focus is fat loss, with periods where your primary focus is muscle. Trying to do both at the same time leads to wheel spinning more often than not.
All due respect to the hard work that the OP in that thread you posted put in, but, while she did lose some fat, the primary difference between the two photos is that she's sucking in her stomach.0 -
All due respect to the hard work that the OP in that thread you posted put in, but, while she did lose some fat, the primary difference between the two photos is that she's sucking in her stomach.
I agree that the OP lost fat and obviously worked hard, but I suspect that she's not too far postpartum in the first pic and some of the belly change isn't fat loss, but the uterus and tummy getting closer to pre-pregnancy size...?0 -
I am on the same page as NovemberJune and Rock in that, due to being postpartum and sucking in her stomach, she did not lose that much fat (or at least as much as her silhouette would imply). I am not trying to take anything away from her progress, but it is not a good example of people staying at the same weight while recomping. Recomping is a very slow process.
Yes, you can have newbie gains and you can have glycogen/water weight gains that increase your LBM - but these are finite and will only be about 6lb. So, if you are the same weight, you can legitimately have lost 6lb of body fat. But at some point that stops and all you are doing is maintaining or possibly adding very small amount of muscle by doing a recomp.0 -
This is interesting as it's happening to me at the moment - I've just completed NROL4W stage 1, not changed weight at all but lost 8" - I have a photo in my profile of my waist and you can see the changes (can't suck that in lol).
I was guessing it was newbie gains as I've never lifted heavy before. I'm in a deficit. I'm guessing that, as I continue my weight will start to go down as I lose fat but don't build any more muscle.
Edit: I'm trying to lose fat - so the muscle gain wasn't on purpose, I just don't want to lose what lbm I have.0 -
Yes. I think I clearly said that it was a bad example.
Like newme1313, my weight fluctuates anywhere from 0lbs lost to 3 or 4lbs below start weight. Been at it since January but I've dropped a pants size and photos look noticeably different.0 -
Yes. I think I clearly said that it was a bad example.
Like newme1313, my weight fluctuates anywhere from 0lbs lost to 3 or 4lbs below start weight. Been at it since January but I've dropped a pants size and photos look noticeably different.
We were just responding to the example given, whether it a bad or a good one. You mentioned that it was a bad one but then referred to Insanity - that it not the reason it is a bad example.
It is usually a combo of water weight 'masking' real weight loss, plus some possible recomp going on. If you run an example of the math..and I am pulling these numbers kind of out of my butt:
Someone starts lifting when at 160lb, 3 months later they are at 158lb but look a lot better with a lower BF%
Water/glycogen weight due to lifting = 4lb
Newbie gains = 2lb
Actual loss = 2lb
However, the 'real' loss' (i.e. fat loss) is 8lb over the 3 months with a gain of 2lb muscle. The muscle looks more defined as there is a bit more but also, you can see it more as you gained 2lb muscle and 4lb of 'size' due to the glycogen/water weight (all pumped up) plus you have 8lb less fat covering it.
That can make a pretty big difference visually, but not a lot on the scale.
Obviously, after a while, this rate of visual 'improvement' stops as the glycogen/water weight stabilizes.0 -
That makes sense - thanks :flowerforyou:0
-
We were just responding to the example given, whether it a bad or a good one. You mentioned that it was a bad one but then referred to Insanity - that it not the reason it is a bad example.
It is usually a combo of water weight 'masking' real weight loss, plus some possible recomp going on. If you run an example of the math..and I am pulling these numbers kind of out of my butt:
Someone starts lifting when at 160lb, 3 months later they are at 158lb but look a lot better with a lower BF%
Water/glycogen weight due to lifting = 4lb
Newbie gains = 2lb
Actual loss = 2lb
However, the 'real' loss' (i.e. fat loss) is 8lb over the 3 months with a gain of 2lb muscle. The muscle looks more defined as there is a bit more but also, you can see it more as you gained 2lb muscle and 4lb of 'size' due to the glycogen/water weight (all pumped up) plus you have 8lb less fat covering it.
That can make a pretty big difference visually, but not a lot on the scale.
Obviously, after a while, this rate of visual 'improvement' stops as the glycogen/water weight stabilizes.
Thanks. This definitely all makes sense. I think I'm just hitting a high frustration point. I assumed it would be due to some muscle gain and lots of water retention/glycogen. I'm sore just about every single day. I just had a hard time swallowing that it could all last this long. It's difficult stepping on the scale once every few weeks and seeing visually that I'm smaller, my muscles are more defined, etc but not seeing that even slightly reflected on the scale (particularly when just about everyone everyone on my MFP friend list loses weight consistently while lifting heavy in a deficit).
Again, thanks so much for all your insights & help. It's truly invaluable! 0 -
Good morning!
I know this thread is old, but I wanted to comment since I am the OP of the thread linked above. The purpose of my post in April 2012 was to show how my body changed over a 4 month period while eating healthily (I have always eaten well over 2,000 calories during weight loss) and having great workouts. A lot of people get very discouraged with the scale (myself included) and I wanted to show what my body looked like at roughly the same weight, but after a lot of work. I was so much stronger at 203 than I ever was at 202. My clothes fit differently as well! It was meant to be encouraging, that's all.
I had my son in 2013, so this post had nothing to do with my post partum body. I'm working on it now, but I wasn't in 2012. I just wanted to clear that up in case someone else happens upon this thread. 0 -
Got it, FitMama. Thanks for the clarification.0
-
Good morning!
I know this thread is old, but I wanted to comment since I am the OP of the thread linked above. The purpose of my post in April 2012 was to show how my body changed over a 4 month period while eating healthily (I have always eaten well over 2,000 calories during weight loss) and having great workouts. A lot of people get very discouraged with the scale (myself included) and I wanted to show what my body looked like at roughly the same weight, but after a lot of work. I was so much stronger at 203 than I ever was at 202. My clothes fit differently as well! It was meant to be encouraging, that's all.
I had my son in 2013, so this post had nothing to do with my post partum body. I'm working on it now, but I wasn't in 2012. I just wanted to clear that up in case someone else happens upon this thread.
I do not think anyone was trying to say that you did not look leaner or argue with the intent of the post. The point that I was trying to make with my explanation of the math, is that after a while, the recomping slows down. Most people cannot expect that much of a transformation in 4 months or expect it to continue at any significant rate.
Recomping does work if done properly - it's just usually quite slow for someone who is not new to training.0
