Muscles after sizable weight loss?

Options
DamePiglet
DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
edited February 7 in Fitness and Exercise
I'm asking out of curiosity; I'm NOT seeking advice.

Let's say "Mary" is 51. Until the age of 25, she was "skinny" (she didn't eat much, didn't exercise much, was very light on the scales for 5'7), however, she gained some weight over the course of several years, leveling out at 225 - 250 lbs. for the last 15 or so.

Then Mary starts a modest weight loss regimen (losing 1/2 lb a week, walking as her choice of extra activity) and ends up at a healthy weight to height ratio.

My question is: because she had carried around so much extra weight for years, would she likely discover that the muscles underneath her fat are larger than they were when she was skinny because (or at least in part, because) she carried around extra weight for years?

Replies

  • Huffdogg
    Huffdogg Posts: 1,934 Member
    No. If you eat at a deficit without resistance training you will lose muscle along with the fat, ending up just a lighter flabby person, or what is commonly called "skinnyfat."
  • tquill
    tquill Posts: 300 Member
    Total guess, but I would say no. Without substantial resistance training during the weight gain, I don't think there's much reason for the body to add much muscle.
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    She's been lugging around an extra 100 lbs for 15 years... would that not seem to be some form of resistance?
  • tquill
    tquill Posts: 300 Member
    She's been lugging around an extra 100 lbs for 15 years... would that not seem to be some form of resistance?

    Again, I'm by no means an expert... but I don't think simply existing and walking around with extra weight amounts to much resistance. Real resistance training is pretty hard work, and even then... the muscle gains are extremely small and slow.

    My avatar picture is an example of a 30lb loss in weight (200 to 170). I did it only with resistance training and diet. I was hoping since I had some extra weight for a few years I would have some muscle when I was done losing weight... but there wasn't nearly as much as I had hoped.
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    She's been lugging around an extra 100 lbs for 15 years... would that not seem to be some form of resistance?

    Again, I'm by no means an expert... but I don't think simply existing and walking around with extra weight amounts to much resistance. Real resistance training is pretty hard work, and even then... the muscle gains are extremely small and slow.

    My avatar picture is an example of a 30lb loss in weight (200 to 170). I did it only with resistance training and diet. I was hoping since I had some extra weight for a few years I would have some muscle when I was done losing weight... but there wasn't nearly as much as I had hoped.

    thanks for responding. :)
  • tquill
    tquill Posts: 300 Member
    I certainly wouldn't let it discourage weight loss though. Regardless of how much muscle is underneath, less fat will look better. However, during the weight loss... I would definitely suggest resistance training to help of maintain the muscle that is there.
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    I certainly wouldn't let it discourage weight loss though. Regardless of how much muscle is underneath, less fat will look better. However, during the weight loss... I would definitely suggest resistance training to help of maintain the muscle that is there.

    it ain't me.
    it's actually a friend that i was thinking about, but should i have said, "i have this friend..." in the post then trolls would have been ALL OVER that!

    The only 'resistance' training she would do is resisting a higher calorie cocktail in favor of a lower one. heeheehee
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,276 Member
    0.5 lb per week to lose 100 lb would be 200 weeks, or almost 4 years. At that slow of a loss I would imagine that she'd lose most of the extra muscle she had accumulated from lugging that extra 100 lb around. She might have a few lbs of muscle remaining she didn't have when she was 25. But then, she's also not 25 anymore, she's 51, so there will be other major changes that have happened in her body...

    My guess is she might retain some, but not a lot.
  • BigGuy47
    BigGuy47 Posts: 1,768 Member
    My avatar picture is an example of a 30lb loss in weight (200 to 170).
    Carrying an extra 30lbs. isn't much compared to an extra 100lbs.

    Someone that is carrying around an extra 100lbs has the muscle to carry the load, unless they stay in bed all day and don't move. That said, I agree with Amy. It's impossible to say how much of the muscle would remain after losing the weight . Her diet (how much protein?)and the amount of exercise (resistance training) would play a large role in how much muscle mass was retained.
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    0.5 lb per week to lose 100 lb would be 200 weeks, or almost 4 years. At that slow of a loss I would imagine that she'd lose most of the extra muscle she had accumulated from lugging that extra 100 lb around. She might have a few lbs of muscle remaining she didn't have when she was 25. But then, she's also not 25 anymore, she's 51, so there will be other major changes that have happened in her body...

    My guess is she might retain some, but not a lot.

    good point about the ultra-slow weight loss. I should have thought of that.
    Someone that is carrying around an extra 100lbs has the muscle to carry the load, unless they stay in bed all day and don't move. That said, I agree with Amy. It's impossible to say how much of the muscle would remain after losing the weight . Her diet (how much protein?)and the amount of exercise (resistance training) would play a large role in how much muscle mass was retained.

    yeah, of course there's no actual telling, unless perhaps the observation of someone who actually did this.
    My Mary is just walking for exercise - not doing any formal type resistance training.
  • FrnkLft
    FrnkLft Posts: 1,821 Member
    No. If you eat at a deficit without resistance training you will lose muscle along with the fat, ending up just a lighter flabby person, or what is commonly called "skinnyfat."

    Well, yeah I suppose she would see a difference. But mostly in her legs, not much else, and she would have lost some of that muscle while she was dieting as well. Probably not a net zero effect, but not as impressive as Mary might hope.
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    No. If you eat at a deficit without resistance training you will lose muscle along with the fat, ending up just a lighter flabby person, or what is commonly called "skinnyfat."

    Well, yeah I suppose she would see a difference. But mostly in her legs, not much else, and she would have lost some of that muscle while she was dieting as well. Probably not a net zero effect, but not as impressive as Mary might hope.

    I'm thinking that Mary would actually NOT want muscles.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories