Weight Loss and Muscle Mass

If this is true, are there things that can be done that will limit the amount of muscle you lose?

Big, heavy compound lifts (bench press, overhead press, squats, deadlifts, etc).

Much debate about frequency, set structure, etc. Personally I do 5x5, twice a week. I can say with confidence that a 5x5 of deadlifts with heavy weights is very very capable of wiping you out for the day.

There are a number of factors involved:

1. Volume of cardio

2. Mix of cardio intensities

3. Protein intake

4. Current body fat %

5. Calorie deficit

6. Type of cardio

7. Volume and intensity of current lifting routine.

8. Current amount of muscle mass.

9. Sometimes, macronutrient ratio.

For most people, if you maintain an appropriate protein intake (1.0 to 1.5 g per kg of body weight), avoid very low calorie diets, and continue to lift heavy, then loss of muscle mass should be negligible.

Yup. Exactly this. Keep your protein high, keep your deficit small, and keep lifting. You will be fine. Minimal if any LBM loss will result.

I echo most of what the above posters have said.

I'll add: many studies have shown that for "overfat" (overweight with high BF%) people, the body is perfectly capable of gaining strength and muscle mass while concurrently burning fat. Technically, they do not happen at the same moment. Muscle mass building happens primarily during repair, on your rest days. Fat burning happens mainly on your workout days. It's more granular than that, but most people manage their diets most easily in 24-hour chunks.

Ensuring that you have plenty of protein and are lifting heavy can and will negate the normal muscle loss one experiences when losing fat. Eating at a regular deficit will ensure that you also burn fat. It has been proven by many before me, and I'm working on adding to that pile of success stories. Good luck!

Check out Stroutman81 here on MFP. He is a weight trainer and he has a lot of interesting info on this and other questions. He has a website too, but I can't remember it right now. Should be able to get there from his profile though.

Or, make the deficit whatever size you want. The size of the deficit does not affect muscle gain or loss (if you're lifting), but it will affect fat loss. larger deficit means faster fat loss. Smaller deficit makes it easier (for some people) to stick to the plan, but that's the only proven significant benefit. It's also true that larger deficits tend to cause your body to adapt and lower your effective metabolism, but that is easily overcome by careful re-adjustment of your diet when you reach your goal weight.

I currently eat at anywhere between "TDEE" -60% and -30%, every day. I shoot for the same 2000 calories each day. Some days I burn as much as 5000 calories, some days it's only 3000. My metabolism is actually better now than it was when I started, and I'm averaging about 5 lbs per week lost, plus I'm getting stronger and have measurably increased muscle mass. Not huge gains, of course, but gains nonetheless.

Can I ask how you measured the muscle gains please?

Going by your ticker, with such a small amount of weight to lose I'd keep lifting heavy, eat a good amount of protein and have a small deficit maybe 10% of your TDEE.

This will minimise muscle loss and help you lose as close to pure fat as possible.

Sources? Well I read the studies the very knowledge people on this forum post. I'm on my phone so have no links so feel free to ignore my excellent advice

^^No. NO. Noooooo. NOOOOOO. NOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo NOOOOOOO NO NO NO NO NO NO

If I wasn't clear, not only strongly disagree with every single sentence of the above post, I disagree with every paragraph, every bit of punctuation, hell, it's very existence.

You can disagree all you want, but the science doesn't back you up. Show me one scientific study that has ever proven that a 2000 calorie diet is in any way detrimental to your short term or long term health. I'd sure like to see one... I've looked, and I can't find any.

^^No. NO. Noooooo. NOOOOOO. NOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo NOOOOOOO NO NO NO NO NO NO

If I wasn't clear, not only strongly disagree with every single sentence of the above post, I disagree with every paragraph, every bit of punctuation, hell, it's very existence.

You can disagree all you want, but the science doesn't back you up. Show me one scientific study that has ever proven that a 2000 calorie diet is in any way detrimental to your short term or long term health. I'd sure like to see one... I've looked, and I can't find any.

i'm sorry, are we talking bout 2000 calorie diets? oh, my bad. yeah, 2000 calorie diets are perfectly fine. i apologize for my error







we talkin net, right? i didn't see you suggesting that have a 3000 calorie deficit is a good idea, did i? because a 3000 cal deficit would be DISASTROUS for the OP, who only has a few pounds to lose. it would also be detriment to 80-90% of the general population. i must have misread your previous post because i could have sworn i saw something about tdee - 60% being a good idea. except, well, it's not. also disastrous. and surely i didn't see something in your post about the size of the deficit having no effect on muscle retention OR growth? damn, i have GOT to get these glasses checked

TDEE-60% is fine for some people (like me, with still about 80 lbs of fat to lose), not for others (like the OP, with only a few lbs to lose). And no, I'm not talking net when I say I eat 2000 calories per day. I'm talking gross. OTOH, I eat a very protein-rich diet to get my 2000 calories.

It is perfectly possible to counteract muscle loss with heavy lifting and a high protein diet. Even those who are not hitting the weights can mitigate losses by eating high protein. This mostly applies to "overfat" people, and I didn't notice that OP only wanted to lose a few lbs... but my statements stand.

The biggest problem is that there is a great divide between those who want to lose weight and those who want to gain muscle. The bro science everyone loves to quote on this board is either in one camp or the other. "you have to eat more calories than you take in to add muscle" or "you can only reduce your intake by so much before it becomes disastrous". There is a grain of truth in each, but neither is absolute. You do still need to get the nutrients required to survive. Setting your macros properly helps you ensure you do just that. You do *not* need to eat more calories than that, though, *if* you have fat stores. Fat stores are just energy waiting to be converted and consumed. I get all the nutrients I need in that 2000 calories, and I burn fat for the rest of the fuel my body needs to do all the work I ask of it. Granted, I'm working harder than many people are willing to, so I can create such a high deficit through exercise... but barring disability, everyone in my situation has that same opportunity.

I've made it my mission to lose fat *and* gain muscle at the same time, and I've done a /ton/ of research - reading every reputable source and scientific study I can get my hands on. I'm more than confident in what I'm saying. I'm putting it to practice... in fact, I'm late for the gym. Enjoy.