Help: Weight Loss and body fat increasing !!

[ManuMeuh]

Hello!

I am French so sorry for my poor English level: i come here because i have a story and a little problem/question…

I hope this community will be more helpful than the French one 😉

First of all, a bit of “Storytelling”:

I have a FitBit One for more than 1 year. The main purpose was first only to discover my number of steps months after months (I like walks and statistics) and I had no “Weight Loss” goal…

Then, 5-6 months ago, quite stressfull moments got me to get bigger and bigger, then, few weeks ago I had a revelation: THIS MUST STOP!

So I began to really take care of my alimentation and I began to use the all Fitbit interface… And when I say all, it’s really all: daily weight, every aliments and calories eaten and weighted, every physical activity… And I also used the electronic coach included (the goal was to loose 5kg in 6 months: I wanted to discover my motivation before begin to be more ambitious).

And… it’s really working for the moment!! And faster than expected (I almost reached my goal 1 months and half after the beginning). But suddenly my old fashion scale broke up, and I decide to break my piggy-bank and invest in a FitBit Aria smart Scale (for me, the automatic filling of my every day weight to the dashboard by wifi was really a good way to keep de dynamic up !). This is how I discovered the % BODY FAT calculation.

And so, my problem: the more I lose weight, the more I gain body fat!!

And I don’t understand it (you can see the graphics below… In french, sorry!): I understand this figures that my efforts on my alimentation (I only took attention to the quantities first, I will check de kind of food eaten later) and on my physical activities (walk, swimming, bike… As never in my life) lead me to the good way on the weight, but in the very bad move on the body fat %!!

(In green, the body fat increasing. The blue sign is to point the date when I had the Aria scale.)

Does anyone understand and can explain me these figures? With all this sport, i can’t lose muscles right?

When I will have definitely reached my current goal, my real goal is to lose 5 more kilos till the end of the year… I would like to be sure that I go on the right way and that I don’t do any kind of wrong things…

Thanks for your help 

[Heybales]

---

@kaelarenee7 wrote:
I'd like to see information on fat being burned before carbs. I'm going to
school for biology and it's pretty basic information regarding the human
body that you burn carbs first, fat second, and protein last. I don't have
any specific sources at the moment to support that, but any biology
textbook that I've seen supports that.

---

Wow - for sure search for them, because those are some aweful textbooks then. It should indeed be basic information, which means it's scary what must be getting taught.

Perhaps you are talking the brain only, which is kind of in the order given, though not really either.

Perhaps it's talking about anaerobic energy source, in which case again, when carbs are done, then you will be slowing down for fat metabolism. And actually, the lactate acid buildup from anaerobic will stop you well before you run out of carbs anyway.

http://www.uptodate.com/contents/energy-metabolism-in-muscle

Click on the links to the references.

These articles are all over the place since it's fact since my basic physiology text book of '87.

Just search for resting metabolism energy source

http://www.slideshare.net/gangadharchatterjee/metabolism-of-muscle-at-rest

9. FUEL UTILIZATION IN CARDIAC MUSCLE Normal Conditions  primarily uses fatty acids (60- 80%), lactate, and glucose (20–40%)

http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c03/e6-54-08-01.pdf

And regarding exercise, the whole ability of using a metabolic cart and measuring CO2 and O2 is based on what your body burns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_exchange_ratio

http://www.ohio.edu/people/schwiria/Athlete%20&%20Coaches%20page/VO2max%20summary%20results%20Runner...

Read up on the lactate threshold, or anaerobic threshold, which is the point there is 100% carb burn.

Which means all the level below that are some ratio of fat to carbs, more fat as you go easier to resting level.

[kaelarenee7]

So, like I said, carbs generally burned first. These sources go into more
specifics than I did about the breakdown of what gets burned during rest.

Overall, from looking at your sources (except for the first one that
wouldn't let me look at the information and Wikipedia since that is an
unreliable source), everything was essentially about glucose as an energy
source. So, like I said, carbs as a main energy source.

Also, a textbook from '87 wouldn't necessarily be a reliable source either
since science is generally about repeating experiments and essentially
trying to prove or disprove other studies to get the most accurate
information with the most accurate technology. A textbook from almost 30
years ago is bound to be outdated.

[Heybales]

---

@kaelarenee7 wrote:
So, like I said, carbs generally burned first. These sources go into more
specifics than I did about the breakdown of what gets burned during rest.

Overall, from looking at your sources (except for the first one that
wouldn't let me look at the information and Wikipedia since that is an
unreliable source), everything was essentially about glucose as an energy
source. So, like I said, carbs as a main energy source.

Also, a textbook from '87 wouldn't necessarily be a reliable source either
since science is generally about repeating experiments and essentially
trying to prove or disprove other studies to get the most accurate
information with the most accurate technology. A textbook from almost 30
years ago is bound to be outdated.

---

You do realize of course that ATP is NOT carbs.

and Wiki shows the formula's that are used in metabolic test - follow the links - several are school homework for courses doing the math.

RER should be in your book too - look it up.

Carbs absolutely do NOT get burned first, generally or otherwise.

Only when the exercise level is so intense that you are no longer taking in enough oxygen to metabolise fatty acids, will it be the first thing.

And the basic physiology hasn't changed, that's what's interesting.

At what extremes and to what degree do things change yes, but the fact of how they start and where they go no.

Tell me, what does your textbook say about muscle stored carbs being put in to the blood to increase blood sugar and be used for the brain?

And you have no references for your claim?

[kaelarenee7]

This will be my last response about this because I have better things to do than argue with someone who clearly has their own opinions about this topic and is going to stand by those opinions no matter what.

ATP is not carbs, no one said it was. Glucose is a carb. ATP is energy. Your resources discussed glucose being turned into energy.

Basic physiology has not changed, but the science and understanding of it has and will continue to change and evolve. Either your textbook from '87 isn't even used anymore or it had been revised multiple times since '87 as new studies have been done, like any other science textbook.

Glucose gets stored as glycogen to a certain degree, and then stored as fat. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the brain.

You've already posted references that talk about using glucose, a carb, as a main energy source so why do I need to add more references?

Some simple Google searches would provide even more information and places to get information on this topic. I only hope that anyone reading this would take at least a few minutes to search for whatever information and sources they deem most reliable to get the information rather than base their knowledge off of a rather odd interpretation posted on a discussion board, seeing as you and I can look at the same sources that you posted and yet you seem to disregard glucose as a carb. I mean, you say in one post that the body burns 100% fat at rest, and then in a second, you quote one of your sources saying that at rest a body burns 60-80% fatty acids, lactate, and 20-40% glucose. So as it is, without even looking at your sources, you show that your words and interpretations are not necessarily correct.

[Heybales]

---

@kaelarenee7 wrote:
This will be my last response about this because I have better things to do than argue with someone who clearly has their own opinions about this topic and is going to stand by those opinions no matter what.

ATP is not carbs, no one said it was. Glucose is a carb. ATP is energy. Your resources discussed glucose being turned into energy.

Basic physiology has not changed, but the science and understanding of it has and will continue to change and evolve. Either your textbook from '87 isn't even used anymore or it had been revised multiple times since '87 as new studies have been done, like any other science textbook.

Glucose gets stored as glycogen to a certain degree, and then stored as fat. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the brain.

You've already posted references that talk about using glucose, a carb, as a main energy source so why do I need to add more references?

Some simpleGoogle searches would provide even more information and places to get information on this topic. I only hope that anyone reading this would take at least a few minutes to search for whatever information and sources they deem most reliable to get the information rather than base their knowledge off of a rather odd interpretation posted on a discussion board, seeing as you and I can look at the same sources that you posted and yet you seem to disregard glucose as acarb. I mean, you say in one post that the body burns 100% fat at rest, and then in a second, you quote one of your sources saying that at rest a body burns 60-80% fatty acids, lactate, and 20-40% glucose. So as it is, without even looking at your sources, you show that your words and interpretations are not necessarily correct.

---

Wow, great reading of the references.

That was just the cardiac muscle that pulled mostly from fatty acids as energy source, higher % when at rest, lower % when under extreme use.

And since it's not the total or even highest metabolic organ, it still allows for "almost 100%" (never said 100%) fat usage when resting.

You also did not read the other references very well either, I didn't think I'd have to quote the parts that discuss WHEN the glucose usage comes in to play and at what levels. You totally missed skimming over them the references to lipids and triglycerides.

Sorry you are stuck on the fact my '87 book still matches up with current research and discussions that I referenced if you cared to read them.

There reason there isn't a whole lot of research changing things is because those basic facts haven't changed a bit through the years. Sorry, I've kept up.

Only thing that has changed is people's claims and the ease of the audience they reach with them, usually the one you made comes from the low carb groupies, and actually I can't say I've ever seen it outside of their misunderstandings.

I only wondered if you thought ATP was a carb because others have, and you seem to have thought the references I provided said carbs are burned first, which you obviously didn't read the whole reference provided.

And yes, glucose gets stored as glycogen to a really decent degree, 300-400 calories in the liver, 1000-1500 calories in the muscles, more if endurance cardio trained.

And indeed, after those are filled, and no immediate energy needs for it, any excess is stored as fat.

Same as any protein not used as protein will be converted to glucose and if not needed for energy or storage will be converted to fat too.

Need to look up the predominant energy source for the brain if the prior doesn't jog a memory for the latter.

So I agree, I hope ones will read the references better, and see that one side has references, the other side doesn't.

[RickyFitbit]

Hello everyone! If you have any questions on how the body burns fat or how to lower body fat just see your local physician! They'll have all the answers to the questions you have. 

[Trooper]

I am not an athelete or a doctor or a dietician. I am just someone who has been dieting for years!! Looking at these posts seem to me that no one is wrong. Exess food or sugars get stored as fat if they are not used by the body. Body builders and people who need quick energy will skip the fatty foods and go for the carbs because of the quick energy they provide. But all excess calories get stored as fat. Doesn't matter if they come from a cow or a donut. 

[Joni63]

Well, Heybales did say you burn what you eat first, so you're both saying the same thing, just differently. But then you burn fat stores. Only when neither is available would you burn muscle. I think the confusion comes from equating safe dieting to malnourishment and extreme exercise.

[LittlePuck]

You're essentially correct. Carbs convert to glycogen which burns first then the body switches to burning fat producing ketones as fuel. 

[Dominique]

I’m reviving this old topic started by @ManuMeuh, in the hope he could update us on his current situation. I can see from his profile he’s still on the Fitbit bandwagon, and ever so active:

In a nutshell: he was about 105 kg (231 lbs) / 26% body fat (as per Fitbit Aria) / BMI 31.5 in June 2014, and 73 kg (161 lbs) / 15% BF / BMI 22.5 in January 2015 (what an amazing transformation in just 8 months!). His concern back then (early 2015) was whether he would be able to maintain. So, @ManuMeuh, if you’re reading this, please let us know how 2015 went for you!

[Crowesam]

I thought it was because the loss was a result of not eating enough and losing muscle weight instead of fat. Isn't that a factor?

[Heybales]

---

@Crowesam wrote:

I thought it was because the loss was a result of not eating enough and losing muscle weight instead of fat. Isn't that a factor?

---

You aren't going to lose muscle as fast as fat - neither can you build it up as fast as fat can be lost ("I'm sure your weight isn't changing because you are turning fat into muscle" nonsense).

And that's only if you do several things wrong - sadly the diet industry usually has you doing it wrong - that way they get repeat customer after you gain it back.

I've seen estimates that if protein is kept at average bad levels, and diet is extreme (large deficit for amount to be lost), and you aren't doing resistance training - about 20% of your weight loss can be LBM.

But LBM (Lean Body Mass) is everything that is NOT Fat Mass (FM) - it is NOT just muscle mass.

So you actually should lose some LBM when you lose weight - you carry around less fat and need less blood volume. You need less muscle strength so less carb storage in them with attached water.

But some will be muscle mass too.

Then again you exercise - and both those things go right back up as improvements.

[Crowesam]

Still not clear. I wasn't suggesting I turned fat into muscle as that is nonsense. I'm certain I have added lean mass because my weight has been hovering around 250 and %body fat has dropped fro 40 to 21.3 lost fadt
I
Sent from m

[Heybales]

---

@Crowesam wrote:
Still not clear. I wasn't suggesting I turned fat into muscle as that is nonsense. I'm certain I have added lean mass because my weight has been hovering around 250 and %body fat has dropped fro 40 to 21.3 lost fadt
I
Sent from m

---

I wasn't sure what you were replying or commenting to - Fitbit forums show no such connection unless you quote.

So I was just speaking in general what can make that happen - not suggesting you thought that nonsense.

And yes, you would have had to have added LBM - which is everything not Fat Mass (FM) - if weight stayed the same.

So with lifting I'm sure some muscle, some blood volume, some more stored glucose with attached water, some bone structure, ect.

Couple studies of already active/athletic men (so not massive improvements and water weight gain) have shown that at maintenance eating and no weight changes - you can trade, or lose FM and gain LBM at the same rate - to the tune of about 3.5 lbs in 16 wks.

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/778012

[Crowesam]

@Heybales

Thank you for your thoughtful response. My apologies if I came off as
defensive.
It is frustrating that my weight is only down a few pounds. I think some
of the issue I have is poor sleep habits (I average about 2 hours less than
the median average for sleep coming in at 4.5-6 hrs - my wicked ways
catching up to me I guess haha!). I'm a freelance web developer so I keep
some strange hours.
I wonder if part of the struggle with the weight loss is related to
inflammation from insufficient recovery sleep. Do you have any insight on
sleep as a factor in weight loss or muscle retention? Thank you in advance
for your feedback.

--
Best Regards,

Sam Crowe
President/Designer/Developer
The Creative Crowe, LLC
P. 804-596-0692
M. 804-721-7032
E. sam@thecreativecrowe.com

[Heybales]

---

@Crowesam wrote:
@Heybales

Thank you for your thoughtful response. My apologies if I came off as
defensive.
It is frustrating that my weight is only down a few pounds. I think some
of the issue I have is poor sleep habits (I average about 2 hours less than
the median average for sleep coming in at 4.5-6 hrs - my wicked ways
catching up to me I guess haha!). I'm a freelance web developer so I keep
some strange hours.
I wonder if part of the struggle with the weight loss is related to
inflammation from insufficient recovery sleep. Do you have any insight on
sleep as a factor in weight loss or muscle retention? Thank you in advance
for your feedback.

--
Best Regards,

Sam Crowe
President/Designer/Developer
The Creative Crowe, LLC
P. 804-596-0692
M. 804-721-7032
E. sam@thecreativecrowe.com

---

Nahh, didn't sound defensive.

Sleep - big time yeah.

Purely from weight loss angle - body has less recovery than needed/desired - so again with cortisol adding water weight, which could mask fat loss.

Been shown upwards of 20lbs water can be gained that way - if you truly had a deficit causing 1 lb fat loss weekly - that could hide a whole lot.

But - body under that stress of lack of sleep also been shown to slow down daily activities - so again with not really burning as much as Fitbit thinks, so not really as much of a deficit as it might appear.

And those 2 commonly go together.

Hard to build more muscle, or gain more strength (2 separate things there) when body has that kind of stress - because workouts just aren't as good as they could be if body wasn't tired. So mediocre workout. Which doesn't burn as much either, nor require as much recovery.

Or you get a good workout sometimes, but with substandard recovery, don't get as much benefit from it compared to sleeping enough.

That last part is where food can make up for sleep somewhat. Actually a decent amount sometimes. But hard to lose then.

In that case not adding diet as it's own stress and impairement to recovery.

If the sleep can't be improved for whatever reason - couple things to try.

Less deficit means less stress that way, more food aids recovery that way.

or

Workout less often, but harder when you do, allowing more time for the sleep/food you do supply to truly allow recovery/repair.

The last thing you want that many people get into, but can't tell when in it - is mediocre workouts.

You of course feel like you are giving it your all, and you are for the state you are in, generally fatigued.

But with nothing to compare it to (unless prior experience) - no idea how good it could be.

And many times you can still eek out performance gains, but nothing compared to what could be.

Eeking out performance gains should be when you've reached upper tier levels of experience and that's all you'll get when doing everything right - not at the start when you should show big gains even doing much wrong.

[NowIAm300]

Thanks to RickyFitBit for the great answer, and thanks to ManuMeuh for asking.  I had the same question.  I was sort of freaking out because I thought the body fat % going up on my Aria meant I was losing muscle mass.  I was even doing quite a bit of stength training, so it was concerning.  Thanks again!

[Corney]

When you exercise aerobically you will lose fat not muscle, you body will not burn muscle when you are using them.  Look at long distance runners, they have very little fat, but have retained muscle or they could not run long diatances.  Many world class female marathoners become dismenorrhic because their percent bodyfat has become too low to suport a pregnancy.  The article you mention just makes no sense. When you exercise the body builds muscle and bone strength because it senses you need it, it would not burn muscle when it is being used, or deplete bone mass if you exercise is weight bearing.  You should re-read your post, first you state that an aerobic program you lose muscle and retain fat, later you state " In addition to aerobics, weight bearing exercise will increase muscle mass amd you will lose body fat, but body weight remain the same, which is correct but you percent body fat will decrease, but your percent lean body mass will increase because muscle mass and bone mass will increase do to the overload factor.  I think you should re-read the article carefully for content.

[shipo]

@Corney, I just re-read (skimmed actually) this thread and cannot figure out which post/poster you were responding to above.

[Crowesam]

@Corney If one doesn't get the proper nutrition and the body is being worked hard it is my understanding that the body will harvest lean mass and store fat as a survival mechanism. That is why I got the Aria scale because if I am working hard I expect that any weight gain is due to adding denser muscle. I take it to mean that I am adding fat at any rate when the %body fat goes up but I weight the same. If I weigh less and my % body fat is less then I take that as a signal I am heading in the right direction. 

I've managed to get from 40%+ boady fat (according to Aria) to averageing in the low 20's consistently over the last 8 months but my body weight has gone up and down between 240-253. 

It is not clear to me what my data means and I wonder still what is  the best use of my scale and % body fat data it provides. Getting discouragedto say the least.