09-11-2015 09:56
09-11-2015 09:56
Answered! Go to the Best Answer.
09-15-2015 16:27
09-15-2015 16:27
You are going to loose muscle when loosing fat. Accept it. Skeletal muscle and ligaments that can't be directly trained exist throughout your entire body and work to hold your organs in place. As long as you are still hitting the gym and are able to lift as much as you could before I wouldn't worry about it. I would only start worrying when you suddenly can't lift the same weight you could before(assuming your diet isn't the root cause(I can lift more when I am carbed up than when I am ketogenic)). Also keep in mind that bioelectrical impedence measuring devices are highly inaccurate and are only useful when you are consistent in how/when you measure yourself. There is also a "hump" where you transition from "regular" to "athletic" body type. When I first dropped from 270 to 181 durring college and had a six pack I was still getting rated at 17% BF. Once I changed to athletic mode I was at 12% which matched what my coach predicted.
09-11-2015 13:47
09-11-2015 13:47
Intermittent fasting. Its used by bodybuilders to cut the fat and even gain muscle. You still eat the same 1800 calories a day, but you do it in an 8 hour window and you fast between this window. Google "Intermitent Fasting" and you'll get all sorts of references with it.
09-14-2015 11:27
09-14-2015 11:27
I'm no bodybuilder, but I can tell you the best way to maintain/gain muscle while loosing fat is to go low carb (less than 30 net carbs a day, fiber doesn't count) and increase you protien/fat intake. What you're aiming for is ketosis, it's a metabolic process through which you body switches over to running on fat stores rather than carbs in the bloodstream or eating away at muscle mass during periods of fasting.
Personally, I've lost over 20lbs this way and throughout the process gained muscle. On days or weeks that I don't loose any weight my body fat percentage always drops. I also feel really healthy and full of energy! It's what works for me, though I know it's not for everyone.
Good luck!
09-15-2015 16:27
09-15-2015 16:27
You are going to loose muscle when loosing fat. Accept it. Skeletal muscle and ligaments that can't be directly trained exist throughout your entire body and work to hold your organs in place. As long as you are still hitting the gym and are able to lift as much as you could before I wouldn't worry about it. I would only start worrying when you suddenly can't lift the same weight you could before(assuming your diet isn't the root cause(I can lift more when I am carbed up than when I am ketogenic)). Also keep in mind that bioelectrical impedence measuring devices are highly inaccurate and are only useful when you are consistent in how/when you measure yourself. There is also a "hump" where you transition from "regular" to "athletic" body type. When I first dropped from 270 to 181 durring college and had a six pack I was still getting rated at 17% BF. Once I changed to athletic mode I was at 12% which matched what my coach predicted.
09-15-2015 18:20
09-15-2015 18:20
09-18-2015 10:33
09-18-2015 10:33
Looking back when I was 278 and now as I am 190 I am loosing less weight now than I was then, but I am making about the same progress percentage wize. For an example if I was loosing 1% of BF a week when I started that means I was dropping nearly 3 lbs when I started, and now I am dropping only 2 lbs. Of course when I started I significantly changed my diet which meant that I initially lost a lot of weight due to differences in water retention and the ammount of food being processed in my gut.
09-18-2015 15:06
09-18-2015 15:06
This has long been the conventional wisdom; however, there is new eveidence that it may not be necessary. Even without calorie restriction, body composition can be significantly altered using such techniques as Intermittent Fasting. It is believed that the human gnome was created during the time when humans were hunter-gathers which meant they would often go without food for a day to several days and then, when they did make a kill, they had limited time in which to consume due to spoilage. They would obviously need to be strong enough and have enough energy to pursue game or search for food and thus the body adapted by its ability to burn fat, but leave muscle in tact long enough to obtain the next meal. The catabolic process (muscle tissue consumption) doesn't seem to even begin until more than 60 hours of fasting has passed and then it stops soon after that (again, to preserve muscle for the hunt).
The study I referenced in the beginning was published in the American Journal of Clincal Nutrition. Here is the abstract:
Background:Although consumption of 3 meals/d is the most common pattern of eating in industrialized countries, a scientific rationale for this meal frequency with respect to optimal health is lacking. A diet with less meal frequency can improve the health and extend the lifespan of laboratory animals, but its effect on humans has never been tested.
Objective:A pilot study was conducted to establish the effects of a reduced-meal-frequency diet on health indicators in healthy, normal-weight adults.
Design:The study was a randomized crossover design with two 8-wk treatment periods. During the treatment periods, subjects consumed all of the calories needed for weight maintenance in either 3 meals/d or 1 meal/d.
Results:Subjects who completed the study maintained their body weight within 2 kg of their initial weight throughout the 6-mo period. There were no significant effects of meal frequency on heart rate, body temperature, or most of the blood variables measured. However, when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol.
Conclusions:Normal-weight subjects are able to comply with a 1 meal/d diet. When meal frequency is decreased without a reduction in overall calorie intake, modest changes occur in body composition, some cardiovascular disease risk factors, and hematologic variables. Diurnal variations may affect outcomes.
09-18-2015 15:55
09-18-2015 15:55
I've been experimenting with intermittent fasting recently after having gone through a 28 day water fast. Durring the water fast I lost about 15 lb's of muscle and 15 lb's of fat and another 10 lb's of waste/water. In the month since the fast I have consumed a 1350 calories a day while allegedly burning 7-14000(The first number based on my BMR, the 2nd based on my fit bit tracker/activity) calories per week yet have remained the same weight (196 lb's). I believe that the lean body mass that I lost during the fast was prioritized by my incomming calories and nutrients allowing my body to rebuild muscle while at a caloric deficit. 1 lb of fat is 3500 calories, while 1 lb of muscle is equivalent to 1600 calories. So essentially my body would take 3500 calories from a lb of fat in my body add that to the 1350 calories I ate for the day, use 1600 to build a lb of muscle, and the rest to maintain my metabolism resulting in no net weight loss. Obviously this is much conjecture on my part and not scientific by any means(especially since the fitbit aria seems to jump quite a bit when guessing bf% requiring me to average out several days readings) but I have dropped from 23.4% BF to my current BF of 17% over 4 weeks despite only loosing 4 lb's of weight(last measured weight was 192).
Anyways I now fast every thursday for aprox. 36 hours. It helps give me some leeway if I decide to eat out on the weekend(I don't have an explicit cheat day, but if), and if I don't it's just allows me to be more appreciative of what little I do eat(it's better to eat 1350 calories than 0).
10-07-2015 07:44
10-07-2015 07:44
Cannot tell you how pleased I am to read this post @SunsetRunner. I have been changing my body for a couple of years now. Having lost 80 lbs and gained muscle and throughout it all, the wellness coach from work has been weighing me on a Tanita scale. Recently we have wondered if we should switch the Tanita to "athletic mode" since my body has changed so much and we wonder why it still has my body fat at about 28%. I haven't insisted on the change since my numbers have consistently changed for the better... But my body fat comes out at about 22% with both tape measure and caliper calculations... I think I will switch to athletic mode next time (October 14! Soon!) just to see.... Funny. I am definately NOT fat anymore but the scale still makes me nervous!
Thanks for the post! Keep Fitbitting!
10-07-2015 08:07
10-07-2015 08:07