I do notice that he has the same problem that many have when discussing the topic - which I think clouds the issue and causes confusion when people discuss it.

Results of a study that gives figures in LBM are mentioned.
Immediate comments given about muscle mass.

I know we all know muscle mass is merely a component of LBM, but those ways of phrasing it are what cause people to then use phrases like "I want to put on 2 lbs of lean muscle mass" or "my scale says I lost 2 lbs of LBM but I don't know how I lost that much muscle".
Neither phrase which makes sense.

His is the first article I've seen that makes the distinction very clear about muscle and fat being 2 different compartments - which is easy to see when bulking and gaining both, but not always applied on the flip side during a loss of only 1.

Not to take away from agreement with premise - but some of the studies referenced where it only discusses increase in LBM when folks started an exercise program - well of course.
Drink a glass of water and gain LBM too.
Increase blood volume to support more arteries to reach more of your muscle being used that needs oxygen now.
Increase blood volume to support sweating more often to keep cool.
Increase glucose stores in muscles being used now with attached water.

I've easily lost 5.7% of my weight (10 lbs) on a long bike ride despite the fact of drinking 6.5 lbs of fluids during the same time. Merely showing there is a whole lot of room in LBM movement merely from water. Some of those ounces was fat burn too though, and the carbs of course.

Just noticing he makes the same mistake a time or two that many others make as soon as they fail to separate what LBM and muscle mass means.

But he does reference a few studies that are more detailed, especially the ones on athletes that were more detailed.
And his case study on a client was excellent, and that's what it would be great to see in some bigger research studies along the lines of some he found.

I do like his intro too.

Great encouraging article, one to share for sure.

Interesting article but I'm pretty skeptical. The article makes it sound so easy to do, but yet in reality it seems like much more of a rarity to have results like that? Some of the numbers I read in there are hard to swallow. I'm thinking there's a lot more to it that isn't covered, like genetics and hormone levels - not to mention the whole LBM use in testing is highly flawed as mentioned.

Granted, I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I just think it's much more rare/harder to accomplish than we're led to believe by that article. Especially once the trainee is past say, the first year or two of consistent training.

Interesting article and will read the links embedded later...

Personally I've never found recomp difficult - didn't even know it had a name until I joined MFP, it's just what I've always done. When I was growing up training and diet were virtually separated.
Even in my 50's recomp works for me. Then again I've never been, or wanted to be, a body builder or very lean.

Do find it irritating in the general forums when fully trained, lean, body builders (people who would most likely find recomp hardest) tell under-trained, fat people (people who have best potential for recomp) they can't possibly gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.

I would consider myself somewhat genetically gifted compared to my peers in that I would expect to see quicker results in both strength and size but on the other hand I've always seemed to train harder than my peers. But at 55 my genetic gifts are a fraction of what they were 35 years ago, still train hard though.

One of my frustrations in the currently fashionable bulk/cut cycles for everyone mind-set is that diet takes on too much prominence rather than training IMHO. An average diet and superb training would trump superb diet and average training for sure.

"I'm drinking all these protein shakes but not getting bigger" - so put down the shake and pick up something heavy would be my grumpy old man response.....

Grumble, grumble, young whipper-snappers today, grumble, grumble....

This almost seems too good to be true...but I really want it to be so!

christch wrote: »

Please excuse my ignorance/lack of knowledge on this one but when I read this late last night I thought it described recomp - is this what it's about? In which case ahhhhh, then also ignore my question too

Some of it is.

Some of it is gaining appreciable amounts of LBM or muscle mass (badly intermingled different terms there) while losing fat in a diet, and not always for newbie.