6 months of recomp

So I’ve intentionally not looked at the scales since October (6 months) due to to my very unhealthy relationship with it. I decided to hop my calories gradually until I hit around 2200 calories and then reassess from there. I’ve reduced cardio massively and have hittge weights hard, 3x full body workouts using dumbellea, kettlebells and machines.

It looks like my fat has gone down a lot on my back and I was super happy with my progress on Monday. Today, I decided to hop on the scales. 10 pounds up and 4% body fat increase.

To say I am guttedis an understatement. This has really messed with my head. I was convinced that I had maybe stayed the same or gained a couple of pounds at most. I’m sure some of it is muscle but a whole 4% increase in fat

Replies

  • SabAteNine
    SabAteNine Posts: 1,866 Member
    I'm sorry to hear this. But you do say that you saw noticeable improvement in the mirror, especially concerning your back - what do the measurements say? Have you taken pre-recomp measurements?

    I'm no expert but do believe that fat scales can be inaccurate. Don't know if 4% inaccurate, but they can give skewed readings depending on a number of factors (hidration; last time you ate; last time you went potty; etc).

    If it's not sending you to a worse place, you could try to weigh in daily for a week and then draw the conclusions from both weight & fat % averages AND measurements.
  • smolmaus
    smolmaus Posts: 442 Member
    Bodyfat measurements using scales are notoriously inaccurate, they use electrical currents that are very dependent on how hydrated your body is. Since fat holds more water than muscle they can very roughly estimate proportions of each, but think of how water weight affects a scale measurement (up to 5% bodyweight for me) then make that even more sensitive. I would pay absolutely zero attention to it and focus on what your eyes are telling you.
  • EmbeeKay
    EmbeeKay Posts: 249 Member
    smolmaus wrote: »
    Bodyfat measurements using scales are notoriously inaccurate, they use electrical currents that are very dependent on how hydrated your body is. Since fat holds more water than muscle they can very roughly estimate proportions of each, but think of how water weight affects a scale measurement (up to 5% bodyweight for me) then make that even more sensitive. I would pay absolutely zero attention to it and focus on what your eyes are telling you.

    Yes, I completely agree with this. I can’t emphasize this enough: Don’t let what is likely INCORRECT information, ruin what sounds like great progress. Also, you say you have an unhealthy relationship with scales. Keep that in mind here. How are your clothes fitting? Have you taken measurements? Pictures? I am 10 pounds heavier on the scale than 8 years ago, but I fit the same clothes. And I don’t have a body fat scale because I simply don’t trust the numbers. Now, if your clothes are not fitting better, or you can’t see other improvement, you might need to do some tweaking with your calories- but no worries! The work you have done is NOT wasted. But based on what you wrote, I think the scale is misleading you.
  • halimaiqbal00
    halimaiqbal00 Posts: 288 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Fix your relationship with your bathroom scales if you want to control your weight. You appear to have been on a slow bulk rather than the intended recomp at/around maintenance calories.

    There's a good chance your body fat measurement is inaccurate, hanging your happiness on unreliable data is a mistake.

    Did you reduce your calorie intake when you "reduced cardio massively" ?

    I went from 1750 calories to 2200, but increased by 100 every two weeks gradually. I used to do 20 min of intense cardio after my weights session but took that out and instead, did an 60-70 min of weights

  • halimaiqbal00
    halimaiqbal00 Posts: 288 Member
    EmbeeKay wrote: »
    smolmaus wrote: »
    Bodyfat measurements using scales are notoriously inaccurate, they use electrical currents that are very dependent on how hydrated your body is. Since fat holds more water than muscle they can very roughly estimate proportions of each, but think of how water weight affects a scale measurement (up to 5% bodyweight for me) then make that even more sensitive. I would pay absolutely zero attention to it and focus on what your eyes are telling you.

    Yes, I completely agree with this. I can’t emphasize this enough: Don’t let what is likely INCORRECT information, ruin what sounds like great progress. Also, you say you have an unhealthy relationship with scales. Keep that in mind here. How are your clothes fitting? Have you taken measurements? Pictures? I am 10 pounds heavier on the scale than 8 years ago, but I fit the same clothes. And I don’t have a body fat scale because I simply don’t trust the numbers. Now, if your clothes are not fitting better, or you can’t see other improvement, you might need to do some tweaking with your calories- but no worries! The work you have done is NOT wasted. But based on what you wrote, I think the scale is misleading you.
    EmbeeKay wrote: »
    smolmaus wrote: »
    Bodyfat measurements using scales are notoriously inaccurate, they use electrical currents that are very dependent on how hydrated your body is. Since fat holds more water than muscle they can very roughly estimate proportions of each, but think of how water weight affects a scale measurement (up to 5% bodyweight for me) then make that even more sensitive. I would pay absolutely zero attention to it and focus on what your eyes are telling you.

    My clothes are definitely more snug around the stomach area but nowhere else. Everything else seems to have fat reduction from that area. I can definitely see some nice muscle where I didn’t see it before. Thanks for this. I think I am being way too hard on myself though I do feel like I should cut calories a little and reduce the junk I’ve let slowly creep into my diet
  • halimaiqbal00
    halimaiqbal00 Posts: 288 Member
    Thanks to all of you for your replies. I didn’t take measurements and am regretting not doing so!