muscle loss and calorie deficits
Replies
-
Ctrl+F "intensity"..... Phrase not found
I guess this topic is drifting, but, intensity is an important factor of LBM retention on a cut. Intensity is supposedly much more important than volume of your strength training while trying to maintain lean mass during cut.
Moral:
Hit it all and hit it hard
ETA:
Intensity= the weight/load you're lifting (High intensity is high weight)
Volume= the total tonnage moved (reps*weight)0 -
Good thread0
-
Ctrl+F "intensity"..... Phrase not found
I guess this topic is drifting, but, intensity is an important factor of LBM retention on a cut. Intensity is supposedly much more important than volume of your strength training while trying to maintain lean mass during cut.
Moral:
Hit it all and hit it hard
ETA:
Intensity= the weight/load you're lifting (High intensity is high weight)
Volume= the total tonnage moved (reps*weight)
Yep. Lyle McDonald said that volume can be cut by up to 2/3rds (of bulking volume) to retain LBM on a cut.0 -
Yep. Lyle McDonald said that volume can be cut by up to 2/3rds (of bulking volume) to retain LBM on a cut.
im sure thats where i read it too (www.bodyrecomposition.com)0 -
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 I think they're somewhat outdated now.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.
Since they were designed for population comparisons only, where the extremes of very healthy but bad BMI would be balanced out in the data, it's been totally misapplied to individual level. At population levels they are still decent.
Scary the insurance field with some medical insurance is starting to use BMI as indicator of good or bad rates, or you can use your Good BMI to get a better rate, much like claiming non-smoking status.
Kind of like the car insurers using credit score to help determine risk for accidents.0 -
GRR! Typo - I am 33/69! I would not be smiling if it were 33/59!! :noway: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:
Anyway, here is an article on it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10054519/Waist-to-height-ratio-more-accurate-than-BMI.html
I hate typos! I wish I could go back and change that post...0 -
It matters because fat can only be "burned" (converted and used) at a rate of roughly 31.4 calories per pound per day, so even if you are doing other things right if the deficit can't be serviced fast enough using fat then the body has to use other things.
I'm oversimplifying here, I know... but I need something more tangible to help me understand...
Say I have 30lbs of fat. 30lbs * 31.4 calories per day = 942 calories. That means that my fat mass can account (make up for?) a maximum deficit of 942 calories.
Again, oversimplified I'm sure, but for the sake of conversation/understanding...
Sigh.
That equation and those numbers are incorrect. They are a model, a poor model at that, based on data from starvation experiments in the 50s.
But, you can consider that there are primary two things going on in terms of fat/LBM loss (if we ignore some of the other energy processes). Energy being brought out from fat storages and energy brought from protein use - consider fat conversion to be rate limited earlier on, as you increase the deficit more energy is drawn from LBM, partially due to metabolic signaling that shunts protein synthesis and turn over. Ooops, you just do not allow for energy to be available for protein synthesis and use.0 -
What is your take on this article?It matters because fat can only be "burned" (converted and used) at a rate of roughly 31.4 calories per pound per day, so even if you are doing other things right if the deficit can't be serviced fast enough using fat then the body has to use other things.
I'm oversimplifying here, I know... but I need something more tangible to help me understand...
Say I have 30lbs of fat. 30lbs * 31.4 calories per day = 942 calories. That means that my fat mass can account (make up for?) a maximum deficit of 942 calories.
Again, oversimplified I'm sure, but for the sake of conversation/understanding...
Sigh.
That equation and those numbers are incorrect. They are a model, a poor model at that, based on data from starvation experiments in the 50s.
But, you can consider that there are primary two things going on in terms of fat/LBM loss (if we ignore some of the other energy processes). Energy being brought out from fat storages and energy brought from protein use - consider fat conversion to be rate limited earlier on, as you increase the deficit more energy is drawn from LBM, partially due to metabolic signaling that shunts protein synthesis and turn over. Ooops, you just do not allow for energy to be available for protein synthesis and use.
http://www.gssiweb.org/Article/sse-59-fat-metabolism-during-exercise-new-concepts
It cites a lot more recent studies (very long list of references), but from my layman's reading (eyes glazed over well before the end) it seems inconclusive as far as establishing a rate. Would like to hear what others get out of it.0 -
Ctrl+F "intensity"..... Phrase not found
I guess this topic is drifting, but, intensity is an important factor of LBM retention on a cut. Intensity is supposedly much more important than volume of your strength training while trying to maintain lean mass during cut.
Moral:
Hit it all and hit it hard
ETA:
Intensity= the weight/load you're lifting (High intensity is high weight)
Volume= the total tonnage moved (reps*weight)
That seems to line up well with MrM27's comment about progressive loading.0 -
Fantastic thread. I did Lyle McDonald's crazy Ultimate Diet 2.0 - please feel free to ask me any questions about that. half the week fat burning on low cals after intense lighter lifting glycogen depletion, half the week carb loading and heavy weights. Blew my mind! Such an extreme few weeks. I could only do 3/4 weeks. I train for triathlon now though, so can't do it anymore but it worked so well. I have never had so many comments from people(trainers included) about how my body changed. It was just that I didnt go down far enough and let me eating slip this summer while upping the cardio. I was also TOTALLY MISERABLE!
I must say accurate weighing of food and 20% cal deficit while heavy lifting and training is a WOL I could live with. I tried Recomping before like this, but without MFP. Now I have this I can REALLY keep tabs on things.
To keep this in context, I gained muscle and lost fat within the same weekly cycles, I would like to say at the same time, but it was partitioned. I don't have any numbers apart from my body fat dropping and my weight dropping but my body changed before mine and my peers very eyes.0 -
It matters because fat can only be "burned" (converted and used) at a rate of roughly 31.4 calories per pound per day, so even if you are doing other things right if the deficit can't be serviced fast enough using fat then the body has to use other things.
I'm oversimplifying here, I know... but I need something more tangible to help me understand...
Say I have 30lbs of fat. 30lbs * 31.4 calories per day = 942 calories. That means that my fat mass can account (make up for?) a maximum deficit of 942 calories.
Again, oversimplified I'm sure, but for the sake of conversation/understanding...
Sigh.
That equation and those numbers are incorrect. They are a model, a poor model at that, based on data from starvation experiments in the 50s.
But, you can consider that there are primary two things going on in terms of fat/LBM loss (if we ignore some of the other energy processes). Energy being brought out from fat storages and energy brought from protein use - consider fat conversion to be rate limited earlier on, as you increase the deficit more energy is drawn from LBM, partially due to metabolic signaling that shunts protein synthesis and turn over. Ooops, you just do not allow for energy to be available for protein synthesis and use.
I don't follow... it seems like you're making the same point I made, more or less. I just used numbers because I understand them better (more tangible to me, if you will).
Energy being brought out from fat stores - it's real, it does happen, but it's limited. So as the deficit gets bigger, there comes a point where fat stores cannot make up the difference, so energy is drawn from LBM.0 -
It matters because fat can only be "burned" (converted and used) at a rate of roughly 31.4 calories per pound per day, so even if you are doing other things right if the deficit can't be serviced fast enough using fat then the body has to use other things.
I'm oversimplifying here, I know... but I need something more tangible to help me understand...
Say I have 30lbs of fat. 30lbs * 31.4 calories per day = 942 calories. That means that my fat mass can account (make up for?) a maximum deficit of 942 calories.
Again, oversimplified I'm sure, but for the sake of conversation/understanding...
Sigh.
That equation and those numbers are incorrect. They are a model, a poor model at that, based on data from starvation experiments in the 50s.
But, you can consider that there are primary two things going on in terms of fat/LBM loss (if we ignore some of the other energy processes). Energy being brought out from fat storages and energy brought from protein use - consider fat conversion to be rate limited earlier on, as you increase the deficit more energy is drawn from LBM, partially due to metabolic signaling that shunts protein synthesis and turn over. Ooops, you just do not allow for energy to be available for protein synthesis and use.
I don't follow... it seems like you're making the same point I made, more or less. I just used numbers because I understand them better (more tangible to me, if you will).
Energy being brought out from fat stores - it's real, it does happen, but it's limited. So as the deficit gets bigger, there comes a point where fat stores cannot make up the difference, so energy is drawn from LBM.
As a minor point/thing to add that you're probably aware of but I'll mention it anyways --- the theoretical limit doesn't mean that stored energy will come exclusively from fat when you're under the limit, it just proposes that a limit exists and it tries to quantify it. One can stay under this theoretical limit and not draw stored energy exclusively from fat.0 -
tagging to read further later.0
-
It matters because fat can only be "burned" (converted and used) at a rate of roughly 31.4 calories per pound per day, so even if you are doing other things right if the deficit can't be serviced fast enough using fat then the body has to use other things.
I'm oversimplifying here, I know... but I need something more tangible to help me understand...
Say I have 30lbs of fat. 30lbs * 31.4 calories per day = 942 calories. That means that my fat mass can account (make up for?) a maximum deficit of 942 calories.
Again, oversimplified I'm sure, but for the sake of conversation/understanding...
Sigh.
That equation and those numbers are incorrect. They are a model, a poor model at that, based on data from starvation experiments in the 50s.
But, you can consider that there are primary two things going on in terms of fat/LBM loss (if we ignore some of the other energy processes). Energy being brought out from fat storages and energy brought from protein use - consider fat conversion to be rate limited earlier on, as you increase the deficit more energy is drawn from LBM, partially due to metabolic signaling that shunts protein synthesis and turn over. Ooops, you just do not allow for energy to be available for protein synthesis and use.
I don't follow... it seems like you're making the same point I made, more or less. I just used numbers because I understand them better (more tangible to me, if you will).
Energy being brought out from fat stores - it's real, it does happen, but it's limited. So as the deficit gets bigger, there comes a point where fat stores cannot make up the difference, so energy is drawn from LBM.
As a minor point/thing to add that you're probably aware of but I'll mention it anyways --- the theoretical limit doesn't mean that stored energy will come exclusively from fat when you're under the limit, it just proposes that a limit exists and it tries to quantify it. One can stay under this theoretical limit and not draw stored energy exclusively from fat.
Yes, absolutely. I'm well aware that this is an over simplified and purely theoretical way to "understand" a bigger concept. This is a necessary first step for me before I can sufficiently get lost in the details and influences in individual situations.0 -
Quoting myself from just a few posts back- afraid this is getting lost in the sea of text...What is your take on this article?
http://www.gssiweb.org/Article/sse-59-fat-metabolism-during-exercise-new-concepts
It cites a lot more recent studies (very long list of references), but from my layman's reading (eyes glazed over well before the end) it seems inconclusive as far as establishing a rate. Would like to hear what others get out of it.0 -
bump0
-
OK, so now taking a step back...
I was thinking about all this on the drive into work today. The feeling/impression I'm coming away with is this:
Fat stores can and do supply the body's energy needs when a caloric deficit is present. However, there is a limit on how much energy fat stores can provide, and how quickly they can provide it. So theoretically speaking, under very controlled circumstances, it is possible for fat stores to fuel the body and thus prevent measurable muscle losses despite being a caloric deficit. In actuality, it's never that clean. The reality is that there are too many factors (genetics, workouts, nutrient timing, size and duration of deficit, etc) to have that degree of control. You can do things to minimize muscle loss, but ultimately there's only so much you can do.
You have to balance your desire for weight loss with your desire to retain muscle.0 -
Quoting myself from just a few posts back- afraid this is getting lost in the sea of text...What is your take on this article?
http://www.gssiweb.org/Article/sse-59-fat-metabolism-during-exercise-new-concepts
It cites a lot more recent studies (very long list of references), but from my layman's reading (eyes glazed over well before the end) it seems inconclusive as far as establishing a rate. Would like to hear what others get out of it.
That is interesting, seeing they are narrowing down on where the fat is pulled from during the different levels of exercise intensity and depending on the training of the person.
Correct, no rates are mentioned, except general % depending on intensity levels. But never a comment that it stops.
Actually, the rate of fat supplied energy far exceeds the 31.4 if you look at marathon runners that have trained their aerobic fat burning system for endurance specifically. For just the race, they keep burning fat right up to the end, same great ratio almost the whole time. Not like it hits that 31.4 and suddenly fat burn is off and only carb burn occurs, which would be a killer. Very much the opposite actually happens when you hit the "wall". Carb burn is slowed way down to accommodate the reduced availability, while fat burn goes happily on.
But the basic concepts of energy supply expressed in there, outside of where exactly the fat comes from, is nothing new for last 20 years at least. Some fat, some carbs, depending on level of intensity.
I'd suggest on taking the step back the basic mechanisms don't really change much with diet or without.
The biggest change is the level your glucose stores are filled, and how much of your time is spent in postprandial state before insulin/glucagon get back to normal levels.
During a diet, after eating, while insulin is elevated and in anabolic state the glucose stores are filled, but compared to level of eating more, not as much because you aren't eating as much.
Insulin drops faster, and you get back to normal fat burning mode during rest faster.
Isn't the insulin state also why it's so important for weight lifters trying to gain mass to have good carb levels, to stay in anabolic mode longer to benefit from protein to the muscles?
So what used to take 4-5 hrs post eating for insulin and normal fat-burning mode to be used again, during a diet now takes say 2-3 hrs.
So you get maybe 2-3 hrs of more fat burning on the diet than you used to post meals.
At sleep or at rest or low level moving, outside of having eaten and insulin being high, you'll burn almost total fat for the low level energy needs. Except glucose to the brain, taken from blood sugar and liver replaced as needed.
If you think about your RMR, if you really accomplished a lazy day with no eating, you could have that much of a burn be almost all fat supplied. So 1500-1800 or whatever, though I've seen the comments that about 400 cal daily is the glucose used for the blood sugar level for the brain use.
So that leaves 1100-1400 for the fat to supply. If that conceptual theory study that came up with 31.4 based on other studies is true, that would mean you'd need upwards of 45 lbs of fat mass I guess for the body to be comfortable using fat stores before it stopped for some reason.
That would mean 28% fat for a 160 lb person.
So that's what gets me - I know I've seen studies of people put in to the direct calorimetry chamber for a whole lazy day. Perhaps food was eaten so some TEF occurred, but otherwise just RMR. And almost total fat burn as expected.
I know one study was that examination of post lifting or HIIT EPOC burn during 36 hrs post workout. So one day was rest to measure that. So not overweight guys.
More than what that 31.4 would seem to allow.
Or does it become 31.4 when you actually have a non-lazy day? Or does that apply when eating 50% of TDEE and being forced to march around a big part of the day?
Did the conceptual theory study actually examine more data than just the MN semi-starvation study results?
And do the results of that apply to people not in that scenario?
So outside a lab analysis of your individual body and it's response to stresses of exercise and life and diet and foods, best you can do is the common fail safes - reasonable deficit, recommended protein, resistance training.
Somewhere back up the topic someone commented on losing LBM may be expected with weight loss, even if you kept muscle mass.
That is very true, less blood supply needed for less fat, less effort to move around less weight (unless you increase intensity and do endurance training) so less glucose needed with water, ect.
Obviously a bummer to see it drop really fast early in the weight loss journey, as increased LBM usually means increased metabolism. But so true it's going to happen.
This has been interesting list of some studies in here.0 -
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.
I agree, BMI is basically BS. However, for a little anecdote for you - I'm roughly your size (or was). 6'3", over 300lbs to start. I remember thinking the same thing "I have to be under 200 just to hit the 'healthy' range?". I figured it would never happen because my LBM was so high (at least, I thought so). Well here I am 2.5 years later, I now weigh 203lbs and I'm still flabby, probably mid-upper teens bf%. I would still need to lose 15-20lbs to reach 10% bodyfat, which puts me mid 180s. Turns out, I'm not as big as I expected!
Keep in mind, I also follow an intense lifting regime and eat 200g of protein every day. I've done my best to maintain muscle mass but I'm sure I've still lost some, along with lots of water and whatever else.
My best advice is to just do the rights things (good macros, reasonable deficit, lots of lifting) and re-evaluate your goals as you go. I've dropped my goal weight considerably along the way. I think it happens to everyone.0 -
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.
I agree, BMI is basically BS. However, for a little anecdote for you - I'm roughly your size (or was). 6'3", over 300lbs to start. I remember thinking the same thing "I have to be under 200 just to hit the 'healthy' range?". I figured it would never happen because my LBM was so high (at least, I thought so). Well here I am 2.5 years later, I now weigh 203lbs and I'm still flabby, probably mid-upper teens bf%. I would still need to lose 15-20lbs to reach 10% bodyfat, which puts me mid 180s. Turns out, I'm not as big as I expected!
Keep in mind, I also follow an intense lifting regime and eat 200g of protein every day. I've done my best to maintain muscle mass but I'm sure I've still lost some, along with lots of water and whatever else.
My best advice is to just do the rights things (good macros, reasonable deficit, lots of lifting) and re-evaluate your goals as you go. I've dropped my goal weight considerably along the way. I think it happens to everyone.
Agreed.0 -
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.
I agree, BMI is basically BS. However, for a little anecdote for you - I'm roughly your size (or was). 6'3", over 300lbs to start. I remember thinking the same thing "I have to be under 200 just to hit the 'healthy' range?". I figured it would never happen because my LBM was so high (at least, I thought so). Well here I am 2.5 years later, I now weigh 203lbs and I'm still flabby, probably mid-upper teens bf%. I would still need to lose 15-20lbs to reach 10% bodyfat, which puts me mid 180s. Turns out, I'm not as big as I expected!
Keep in mind, I also follow an intense lifting regime and eat 200g of protein every day. I've done my best to maintain muscle mass but I'm sure I've still lost some, along with lots of water and whatever else.
My best advice is to just do the rights things (good macros, reasonable deficit, lots of lifting) and re-evaluate your goals as you go. I've dropped my goal weight considerably along the way. I think it happens to everyone.
This is an interesting observation, thanks for sharing!
I know last year when I got down to 188 lbs I thought I'd look a lot more defined than I did. I think that for my current build I'd have to realistically get down into the low 170's to get serious definition, which is still a far cry from the 202 lbs I'm at currently. Probably another 30 lbs to lose on top of the 9 lbs I already lost.
I agree with your thought about BMI, that while it is not entirely accurate, it's still somewhat of a gauge. I used to think I had a lot of LBM because I worked out for years, but I sometimes wonder if I even have 150 lbs LBM on my 202 lb frame right now.
The main takeaway from this is that you definitely have to re-evaluate your goals as you progress along. You won't really know what your ultimate goal is until you see your progress at various stages along the way. 185 lbs may sound good at 210 lbs, but when you get to 185 lbs you may still have some flab left on your body, you might reassess and determine that 175 lbs is where you really want to be at that point. Or maybe 185 lbs would be just right. But it seems based on the responses here from others who have lost significant weight that you really just have to adjust your goals as you progress because one static number is not necessarily all there is to weight loss.0 -
Quoting myself from just a few posts back- afraid this is getting lost in the sea of text...What is your take on this article?
http://www.gssiweb.org/Article/sse-59-fat-metabolism-during-exercise-new-concepts
It cites a lot more recent studies (very long list of references), but from my layman's reading (eyes glazed over well before the end) it seems inconclusive as far as establishing a rate. Would like to hear what others get out of it.
Are you looking for comments on the article? The key points seem to be pretty non-controversial - get your exertion level up, and you start metabolizing from the "Fat Battery", and the Fat Battery doesn't provide as high a rate of energy as the Carb Battery.
It also suggests exercising in a fasted state will more directly drain the Fat Battery, and that is consistent with advice offered by a large cross section of reputable trainers.
This line cracked me up..."Approximately 100 kcal of energy are expended per mile of walking, so most people have sufficient stores of triglyceride energy to walk 500-1,000 miles."
EDIT: Given the recent infatuation amongst certain types of fad diets (notably the "primal" crowd) with sprinting/interval training, it was also interesting to see the article make it pretty clear that it is endurance athletes that are actually the Awesome Sauce of fat burners.
EDIT #2: Thanks for bumping this link - that is actually a pretty terrific read!0 -
Yes, I was looking for comments as a lot of it went over my head. I got the gist of it, but wasn't sure if maybe it was being more specific than I thought if I understood some of the more detailed bits. I also wasn't sure it really said that the 31.4 number was wrong, yet it was very significant to me that no mention of it was made when the article was a well researched piece on exactly that subject.
BTW, on the BMI topic - I posted that other link to a British article about the height to girth ratio earlier. This afternoon I had to take one of my kids to the dentist and while waiting I was looking at a Men's Health (November 2013) that had a short article on the same thing. It was an article about knowing various numbers to stay healthy.0 -
Quoting myself from just a few posts back- afraid this is getting lost in the sea of text...What is your take on this article?
http://www.gssiweb.org/Article/sse-59-fat-metabolism-during-exercise-new-concepts
It cites a lot more recent studies (very long list of references), but from my layman's reading (eyes glazed over well before the end) it seems inconclusive as far as establishing a rate. Would like to hear what others get out of it.
Bumping to make sure I read...0 -
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.
I agree, BMI is basically BS. However, for a little anecdote for you - I'm roughly your size (or was). 6'3", over 300lbs to start. I remember thinking the same thing "I have to be under 200 just to hit the 'healthy' range?". I figured it would never happen because my LBM was so high (at least, I thought so). Well here I am 2.5 years later, I now weigh 203lbs and I'm still flabby, probably mid-upper teens bf%. I would still need to lose 15-20lbs to reach 10% bodyfat, which puts me mid 180s. Turns out, I'm not as big as I expected!
Keep in mind, I also follow an intense lifting regime and eat 200g of protein every day. I've done my best to maintain muscle mass but I'm sure I've still lost some, along with lots of water and whatever else.
My best advice is to just do the rights things (good macros, reasonable deficit, lots of lifting) and re-evaluate your goals as you go. I've dropped my goal weight considerably along the way. I think it happens to everyone.
Appreciate this insight from someone with similar stats and starting point who is much further along with the process. Definitely agree that there will be many points along the way to evaluate cand re- evaluate the goals.
Thanks for sharing.0 -
This line cracked me up..."Approximately 100 kcal of energy are expended per mile of walking, so most people have sufficient stores of triglyceride energy to walk 500-1,000 miles."
Would the FitBit mechanism even make it that long?0 -
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.
I agree, BMI is basically BS. However, for a little anecdote for you - I'm roughly your size (or was). 6'3", over 300lbs to start. I remember thinking the same thing "I have to be under 200 just to hit the 'healthy' range?". I figured it would never happen because my LBM was so high (at least, I thought so). Well here I am 2.5 years later, I now weigh 203lbs and I'm still flabby, probably mid-upper teens bf%. I would still need to lose 15-20lbs to reach 10% bodyfat, which puts me mid 180s. Turns out, I'm not as big as I expected!
Keep in mind, I also follow an intense lifting regime and eat 200g of protein every day. I've done my best to maintain muscle mass but I'm sure I've still lost some, along with lots of water and whatever else.
My best advice is to just do the rights things (good macros, reasonable deficit, lots of lifting) and re-evaluate your goals as you go. I've dropped my goal weight considerably along the way. I think it happens to everyone.
Appreciate this insight from someone with similar stats and starting point who is much further along with the process. Definitely agree that there will be many points along the way to evaluate cand re- evaluate the goals.
Thanks for sharing.
Sure, and best of luck! It's a long road but it's worth it
0 -
It matters because fat can only be "burned" (converted and used) at a rate of roughly 31.4 calories per pound per day, so even if you are doing other things right if the deficit can't be serviced fast enough using fat then the body has to use other things.
I'm oversimplifying here, I know... but I need something more tangible to help me understand...
Say I have 30lbs of fat. 30lbs * 31.4 calories per day = 942 calories. That means that my fat mass can account (make up for?) a maximum deficit of 942 calories.
Again, oversimplified I'm sure, but for the sake of conversation/understanding...
Sigh.
That equation and those numbers are incorrect. They are a model, a poor model at that, based on data from starvation experiments in the 50s.
But, you can consider that there are primary two things going on in terms of fat/LBM loss (if we ignore some of the other energy processes). Energy being brought out from fat storages and energy brought from protein use - consider fat conversion to be rate limited earlier on, as you increase the deficit more energy is drawn from LBM, partially due to metabolic signaling that shunts protein synthesis and turn over. Ooops, you just do not allow for energy to be available for protein synthesis and use.
I don't follow... it seems like you're making the same point I made, more or less. I just used numbers because I understand them better (more tangible to me, if you will).
Energy being brought out from fat stores - it's real, it does happen, but it's limited. So as the deficit gets bigger, there comes a point where fat stores cannot make up the difference, so energy is drawn from LBM.
As a minor point/thing to add that you're probably aware of but I'll mention it anyways --- the theoretical limit doesn't mean that stored energy will come exclusively from fat when you're under the limit, it just proposes that a limit exists and it tries to quantify it. One can stay under this theoretical limit and not draw stored energy exclusively from fat.
Yes, absolutely. I'm well aware that this is an over simplified and purely theoretical way to "understand" a bigger concept. This is a necessary first step for me before I can sufficiently get lost in the details and influences in individual situations.
Ok, sorry I wasn't clear but I didn't want to go into the details of modeling.
The original 31.4 calculation comes from a study by Alpert calculated by Lyle.
However, it's been transformed and is being incorrectly used.
First off, it isn't the maximum from fat stores, it is the level at which energy is being *primarily* being taken at a rate which is *primarly* fat-free mass sparing for *moderate* exercise individuals during a *starvation* diet. (notice all the stars, these matter).
However - FFM is being used even at rates below (see the graph of that study) and it is specific to the lab conditions explored - male, non-obese, starvation diets, low activity.
If you want to replicate those conditions - yes, a greater than 940 calorie deficit (in your example) migh tresult in significant greater loss of FFM, on average but it isn't the maximum.
The reason I say this is that when you look at more recent models - particularly the Hall model (ref below) - it's clear that Fat/Protein Oxidation is affected by by total macronutrient availability and physical activity levels. Thse are two major issues - the more active you are the less protein oxidation occurs. Ignoring dietary partitioning is a significant failure of using that model.
TL;DR: While this seems like diving into details - the short version is: don't consider that 31.4 to be correct as it is highly affected by exercise, diet and body composition
see here for the base calcluations:
http://baye.com/calculating-the-daily-calorie-deficit-for-maximum-fat-loss/
the Hall model
http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615 if you want to see the details of FatOx see the appendix or go to his website and download the model and software (timesuck...)0 -
At sleep or at rest or low level moving, outside of having eaten and insulin being high, you'll burn almost total fat for the low level energy needs. Except glucose to the brain, taken from blood sugar and liver replaced as needed.
If you think about your RMR, if you really accomplished a lazy day with no eating, you could have that much of a burn be almost all fat supplied. So 1500-1800 or whatever, though I've seen the comments that about 400 cal daily is the glucose used for the blood sugar level for the brain use.
So that leaves 1100-1400 for the fat to supply. If that conceptual theory study that came up with 31.4 based on other studies is true, that would mean you'd need upwards of 45 lbs of fat mass I guess for the body to be comfortable using fat stores before it stopped for some reason.
That would mean 28% fat for a 160 lb person.
The RER (respiratory exchange ratio) shows the split of fat vs carb consumption for energy, and that is seldom down at the 0.7 required for fat being the only energy source. Overnight fasted subjects had an RER of 0.93 in https://www.biomedcentral.com/1756-0500/6/382 pointing to dominant carbohydrate fuelling of rest. In http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/59/1/28.full.pdf the RER is over 0.8 pointing to a more balanced carb / fat mix slightly in favour of fat but still burning plenty of carbohydrate.
I believe the RER reflects the recent diet so high carb eaters will be cycling glycogen stores and using carbs whereas low carb people will be using predominantly fats. My resting RER is below 0.75
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000960 is an interesting look at the maths of marathon running. Big muscle glycogen capacity and very high aerobic capacity in order to maximise fat use (running at lower % VO2max) seem to be key. An example calculates the fat burn of a marathon runner at 400 cals/hr (40% of 1000).0 -
What is your take on this article?
http://www.gssiweb.org/Article/sse-59-fat-metabolism-during-exercise-new-concepts
It cites a lot more recent studies (very long list of references), but from my layman's reading (eyes glazed over well before the end) it seems inconclusive as far as establishing a rate. Would like to hear what others get out of it.
This was interesting - "Intramuscular triglyceride accounts for 2,000-3,000 kcal of stored energy, making it a larger source of potential energy than muscle glycogen, which can contribute only about 1,500 kcal" - a different rate limit may apply to the use of that during exercise rather than fat from adipose tissue getting mobilised into the bloodstream to supply the muscles.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions