Losing inches but not weight

Options
AsrarHussain
AsrarHussain Posts: 1,424 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Hi,
I have been tracking my macros and doing my cardio.

I seem to be losing inches everywhere but the weight has only dropped from 103.6 to 103.2

It is a small change but I have lost more inches

Replies

  • allother94
    allother94 Posts: 588 Member
    edited December 2019
    Options
    You might be gaining muscle and losing fat. Muscle weighs more than fat, so total weight is unchanged. This happened to me for 6 months before the weight started dropping. It’s a good thing.
  • sardelsa
    sardelsa Posts: 9,812 Member
    Options
    How long have you been maintaining? Did you recently just start a new exercise program or increase your volume? My weight will stay the same for at least a month when I increase exercise due to water weight but I know I'm in a deficit since my measurements are going down quite significantly.
  • AsrarHussain
    AsrarHussain Posts: 1,424 Member
    Options
    sardelsa wrote: »
    How long have you been maintaining? Did you recently just start a new exercise program or increase your volume? My weight will stay the same for at least a month when I increase exercise due to water weight but I know I'm in a deficit since my measurements are going down quite significantly.

    I have decreased my calories slowly and increased cardio slowly

    My weight routine is the same and I am still gaining strength.
    I do low volume high intensity weight training
  • andrealnicholson4215
    andrealnicholson4215 Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    Pretty sure it’s likely to be muscle. Congrats on losing the inches! If your clothes are looser and you’re losing size then focus on measurements rather than weight :) (BMI calculators are notorious for being problematic when it comes to muscle mass weight/athletes)
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,102 Member
    Options
    Over what time period has this happened?

    Half a pound of muscle gain a week would be a really good rate for a man, quarter pound a week for a woman, and those under ideal conditions: Well designed, progressive strength training program; good nutrition, especially protein; good genetics; relative youth; and a calorie surplus. (Strength can increase without muscle mass gain, of course, through neuromuscular adaptation, basically better recruiting and using existing muscle tissue, and this can happen fast among beginners; plus appearance can improve, all without mass gain.)

    If you've seen these changes over a shorter time period, OP, the water weight explanation is much the more likely.
  • ellie117
    ellie117 Posts: 293 Member
    Options
    103 is a fairly low weight, depending on your height. You are probably at a normal/healthy range so your rate of loss will be considerably slow.
  • gemiller87
    gemiller87 Posts: 137 Member
    Options
    I actually was really finicky with the scale numbers until I started doing some weight work, then I realized how much the aesthetic gains were exponentially greater and the scale slowed down so I started measuring and found that as much if not more rewarding than the scale numbers. I'm 10 jean sizes down in 12 months, that sounds so much crazier than the scale numbers to me personally! Congrats on the success and keep it up!
  • GaryRuns
    GaryRuns Posts: 508 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Over what time period has this happened?

    Half a pound of muscle gain a week would be a really good rate for a man, quarter pound a week for a woman, and those under ideal conditions: Well designed, progressive strength training program; good nutrition, especially protein; good genetics; relative youth; and a calorie surplus. (Strength can increase without muscle mass gain, of course, through neuromuscular adaptation, basically better recruiting and using existing muscle tissue, and this can happen fast among beginners; plus appearance can improve, all without mass gain.)

    If you've seen these changes over a shorter time period, OP, the water weight explanation is much the more likely.

    Just a small point, but you can (or may) gain muscle mass while in a calorie deficit but the likelihood of doing so is certainly reduced as compared to doing so while in a calorie surplus. Good summary of the factors involved in gaining muscle while in a calorie deficit is given in this article:

    https://sci-fit.net/bulking-deficit-gaining/
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,102 Member
    Options
    GaryRuns wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Over what time period has this happened?

    Half a pound of muscle gain a week would be a really good rate for a man, quarter pound a week for a woman, and those under ideal conditions: Well designed, progressive strength training program; good nutrition, especially protein; good genetics; relative youth; and a calorie surplus. (Strength can increase without muscle mass gain, of course, through neuromuscular adaptation, basically better recruiting and using existing muscle tissue, and this can happen fast among beginners; plus appearance can improve, all without mass gain.)

    If you've seen these changes over a shorter time period, OP, the water weight explanation is much the more likely.

    Just a small point, but you can (or may) gain muscle mass while in a calorie deficit but the likelihood of doing so is certainly reduced as compared to doing so while in a calorie surplus. Good summary of the factors involved in gaining muscle while in a calorie deficit is given in this article:

    https://sci-fit.net/bulking-deficit-gaining/

    Absolutely agreed, and especially true for beginners and people still substantially obese. But the "ideal conditions" practical limits still apply as a probable outer limit, and suggest that slower gains are likely under deficit conditions for most people.
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,464 Member
    Options
    Congrats on losing inches, isn’t that the most important goal?

Categories