muscle loss and calorie deficits

Options
135

Replies

  • willdob3
    willdob3 Posts: 640 Member
    Options
    Excellent topic. Great discussion.
  • sebshaw8
    sebshaw8 Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    skimmed it. very interesting. I want to read it in more depth later.
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    Recently did a hydrostatic body comp test and the results showed me at 30.12 bf% with lbm @ 203#'s and fat at 87#'s.
    I wonder how these numbers are really supposed to correlate. You were told 30.12% BF and can calculate that. But of the weight that isn't fat, how much is truly LBM? Does water count? Whatever is in your digestive tract? Skin? If you lose 100#, you will end up with a smaller body that holds less water, less skin (maybe not right away) and less connective tissue. I don't think that the 203# you calculate of "not fat" is completely composed of things that need to be retained. But how much of it is?
  • jpolinisse
    jpolinisse Posts: 149 Member
    Options
    I'm interested in following this discussion.
  • cdahl383
    cdahl383 Posts: 726 Member
    Options
    This is a great thread, very informative.

    I'm currently cutting down and trying to shed some fat while retaining as much of my current LBM as possible. Since starting two months ago, I've gone up on all of my lifts and some of them significantly. This is all while on a 20% deficit, lifting 4 times a week, and eating around 150-175g of protein daily (current weight of 203 lbs).

    Now I've read where you can get stronger, able to lift more, but not actually gain any mass. Is this true? If so how does that work? Seems like some of you folks on here are pretty knowledgeable and might have some ideas.

    Strength gains are neuromuscular adaptations and don't require extra muscle tissue to be built (to an extent) to continue to see gains. So, you can go quite far in strength increases even at a modest deficit. As I understand, you will have an idea max potential for strength at a given level of muscle tissue. After that you'd need new tissue to gain more strength (i.e. the more muscle you have, the stronger you *could* get). But I've seen guys who look super average who pull and squat HUGE weights.

    Look at progressive strength training with low reps on your compound lifts.

    Thanks for the info! So my muscles are getting smarter, very cool! Makes sense to me. I guess while I cut down I'll try to keep the lifts up to retain as much as possible and then once I get to my desired bodyfat % I'll start bulking slowly and try to add some muscle on top of what I have. Looks to be a difficult long slow process but that's usually how things worthwhile are.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Recently did a hydrostatic body comp test and the results showed me at 30.12 bf% with lbm @ 203#'s and fat at 87#'s.
    I wonder how these numbers are really supposed to correlate. You were told 30.12% BF and can calculate that. But of the weight that isn't fat, how much is truly LBM? Does water count? Whatever is in your digestive tract? Skin? If you lose 100#, you will end up with a smaller body that holds less water, less skin (maybe not right away) and less connective tissue. I don't think that the 203# you calculate of "not fat" is completely composed of things that need to be retained. But how much of it is?

    Are you merely curious, or is there a good reason to try to differentiate actual muscle loss vs everything else that constitutes LBM?
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    Recently did a hydrostatic body comp test and the results showed me at 30.12 bf% with lbm @ 203#'s and fat at 87#'s.
    I wonder how these numbers are really supposed to correlate. You were told 30.12% BF and can calculate that. But of the weight that isn't fat, how much is truly LBM? Does water count? Whatever is in your digestive tract? Skin? If you lose 100#, you will end up with a smaller body that holds less water, less skin (maybe not right away) and less connective tissue. I don't think that the 203# you calculate of "not fat" is completely composed of things that need to be retained. But how much of it is?

    Are you merely curious, or is there a good reason to try to differentiate actual muscle loss vs everything else that constitutes LBM?
    I think we compare against the wrong number. If you are looking at losing a lot of weight, I think losing some "not fat" along with the fat is unavoidable. Some of it is even beneficial; you don't need the extra skin and connecting tissue.

    The flip side is that I think it can lead to setting goals like the previous poster is considering. When he gets down around 200 and does another BF% check, he will likely find that he can adjust the goal lower because he will not lose only fat. But losing some "not fat" is not failure. I wish I had a handle on what a reasonable expectation is.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Recently did a hydrostatic body comp test and the results showed me at 30.12 bf% with lbm @ 203#'s and fat at 87#'s.
    I wonder how these numbers are really supposed to correlate. You were told 30.12% BF and can calculate that. But of the weight that isn't fat, how much is truly LBM? Does water count? Whatever is in your digestive tract? Skin? If you lose 100#, you will end up with a smaller body that holds less water, less skin (maybe not right away) and less connective tissue. I don't think that the 203# you calculate of "not fat" is completely composed of things that need to be retained. But how much of it is?

    Are you merely curious, or is there a good reason to try to differentiate actual muscle loss vs everything else that constitutes LBM?
    I think we compare against the wrong number. If you are looking at losing a lot of weight, I think losing some "not fat" along with the fat is unavoidable. Some of it is even beneficial; you don't need the extra skin and connecting tissue.

    The flip side is that I think it can lead to setting goals like the previous poster is considering. When he gets down around 200 and does another BF% check, he will likely find that he can adjust the goal lower because he will not lose only fat. But losing some "not fat" is not failure. I wish I had a handle on what a reasonable expectation is.

    Gotcha. And I agree.

    I think that's one of the big reasons there is so much re-evaluating going on. People can make reasonable estimates and set reasonable goals, but then adjust things as they get close and have a clearer sense of where they are compared to where they want to be.
  • SkinnyBubbaGaar
    SkinnyBubbaGaar Posts: 389 Member
    Options
    Total agreement that all of that 203# of LBM is certainly not muscle. Just trying to wrap my brain around what actually would be a good goal weight in the end while evicting the fat and keeping as much muscle in place. Also agree that some of that LBM will also go as well, but want to have some strategy in place to not have the loss be coming from more muscle than necessary.

    I do maintain, however, that BMI is pretty much a faulty litmus test. To hit the "healthy" BMI range I'd have to get under 199"s at my height. The rowing picture in my photos is from college over 25 years ago. I was probably in the 11-13% bf range at that juncture (perhaps even less) and my weight was in the 205-215 range. According to BMI I was fat.

    I certainly got fat in the years afterwards, though. Finally working to change that. Planning to adjust goals and expectations multiple times as I continue onward to a better place.

    Thanks for all of the feedback y'all. Very helpful.
  • cdahl383
    cdahl383 Posts: 726 Member
    Options
    I believe the BMI charts originate from the 1950's if I'm not mistaken. I think they're somewhat outdated now. I think they may work well for a great deal of people, but certainly not everyone.

    For me at 5'11" it says that 179 lbs is the highest I can be in the "healthy" range. I haven't been under 180 lbs since high school. As soon as I hit 21 and started working out I was up to 190 lbs for a long time. As I let myself go over the years I've crept up as high as 228 lbs and generally try to stay below 200 lbs. I know at 228 lbs I was definitely fat for my frame, but at 190 lbs I don't look/feel all that overweight. I'm certainly not ripped at 190 lbs, but definitely not "overweight".

    Whenever I see my doctor I ask him about my weight. He'll say looks like you weigh 205 lbs today from your chart. I'll say isn't that kind of high, should I try to lose some weight? He'll say no, you're fine, you're very healthy, everything is good, you dont' have a big fat belly, you have some good muscle mass, you're fine. If you want to lose some, you could, but it's not affecting your health at all. But yet the BMI chart says I'm overweight, so I dont really follow those that much anymore.

    I think for my current build/frame that to get "defined" I'd need to get into the 180's or even the the high 170's, but its hard to say a definitive number just yet because as you've mentioned, as you lose weight, you lose not only fat, but "non-fat" like a little muscle, some tissue, skin, water weight, etc. So maybe I'll have to go lower, or not as low, as what my original estimate was. I think when you're trying to transform your body, a weight number is just an estimate, but it will certainly change as you progress. 220 lbs on Arnold's frame vs 220 lbs on my dad's frame are vastly different in terms of appearance haha!
  • alphal0b0
    alphal0b0 Posts: 125 Member
    Options
    BUMP to follow along.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    Good discussion =)
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    As far as BMI goes, in some parts of the world they are pushing a much simpler system - the largest abdominal circumference (usually around the naval; a little more than pants size) should be less than half your height. Make sense to me, but I am 33/59 now. :bigsmile:
  • kordell70
    kordell70 Posts: 49 Member
    Options
    bump for later reading.
  • Safiyandi
    Safiyandi Posts: 151
    Options
    Bumping for reference.
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,835 Member
    Options
    As far as BMI goes, in some parts of the world they are pushing a much simpler system - the largest abdominal circumference (usually around the naval; a little more than pants size) should be less than half your height. Make sense to me, but I am 33/59 now. :bigsmile:

    That does sound better. I'm 32/68 and bordering on obese according to bmi at 10% bf
  • paprad
    paprad Posts: 321 Member
    Options
    tagging
  • stephv38
    stephv38 Posts: 203 Member
    Options
    Thanks everybody for this great info and respectful presentations!

Categories