How to lower body fat percentage

[5KFreak]

very little muscle mass

lots of muscle mass

marathon runners look so lean precisely because they have little muscle mass..and indeed they don't need it..with how much the professional marathon runners practice and run it would take thousands upon thousands of calories to both do what they do AND gain muscle mass (these guys can burn 1000 calories or more in just an hour of running)

compare weight lifters, who are usually only interested in cardio to the extent that it helps them get rid of their bodyfat so their muscles can show.

Well it seems that you are using the definition of mass as MASS quantities. So what you just said up there is that marathon runners look lean precisely because they have very little muscle mass. Hmmm you might want to do some more research on looking lean. It is the super low amounts of body fat my friend that makes you look lean not the lack of muscle. If someone weighed 120 pounds with super little muscle mass they would NOT look lean!

Now the attached picture is more indictative of a marathon runner. Actually this guy is much more than just a marathon runner. He is called the ultramarathin man. He actually runs a marathon to his marathons, and did 50 marathons in 5 days. Go ahead Google him "Dean Karnazes"

The picture of your "lotsa" muscle mass, well he has that much muscle due to some chemical help! Don't think anyone wants to mess around with any of that around here however, he has a very small amount of body fat on top of that muscle. Whatever your level of muscle you want that to be (chemically enhanced, or just going with whatcha got)

My entire point being, your body does not gobble up all your muscle from a couple of months of not weight training!

 

[Jynus]

Well it seems that you are using the definition of mass as MASS quantities. So what you just said up there is that marathon runners look lean precisely because they have very little muscle mass. Hmmm you might want to do some more research on looking lean. It is the super low amounts of body fat my friend that makes you look lean not the lack of muscle. If someone weighed 120 pounds with super little muscle mass they would NOT look lean!

Now the attached picture is more indictative of a marathon runner. Actually this guy is much more than just a marathon runner. He is called the ultramarathin man. He actually runs a marathon to his marathons, and did 50 marathons in 5 days. Go ahead Google him "Dean Karnazes"

The picture of your "lotsa" muscle mass, well he has that much muscle due to some chemical help! Don't think anyone wants to mess around with any of that around here however, he has a very small amount of body fat on top of that muscle. Whatever your level of muscle you want that to be (chemically enhanced, or just going with whatcha got)

My entire point being, your body does not gobble up all your muscle from a couple of months of not weight training!

The attached picture is NOT indicative of any marathon runner. It's a picture of someone who strength and weight trains who also happens to be able to run ungodly long distances. He is NOT a "fast" runner if you will, he just has more stamina than the vast majority of runners, making it look pretty dam impressive (which it is). But don't kid yourself, he outright says his training program includes strength training every day in some form or another.

Take a look at any Olympic or marathon athlete, they don't look anything like this...

And like it or not, when you're losing weight, you're losing muscle mass. The BEST way to retain as much muscle mass as possible is resistance training. Cardio by it's very nature (type 1a muscle activation while neglecting type 2a&b) is catabolic...

 

[biggestloser105]

How much resistance training is needed to prevent muscle mass loss?

 

[5KFreak]

The attached picture is NOT indicative of any marathon runner. It's a picture of someone who strength and weight trains who also happens to be able to run ungodly long distances. He is NOT a "fast" runner if you will, he just has more stamina than the vast majority of runners, making it look pretty dam impressive (which it is). But don't kid yourself, he outright says his training program includes strength training every day in some form or another.

Take a look at any Olympic or marathon athlete, they don't look anything like this...

And like it or not, when you're losing weight, you're losing muscle mass. The BEST way to retain as much muscle mass as possible is resistance training. Cardio by it's very nature (type 1a muscle activation while neglecting type 2a&b) is catabolic...

There really is no point in hijacking Christine's post and arguing about it. I know what I know and you know what you know. I am sure your goal is to look ripped and possibly massive, and I am understanding Christine's goal to be quite different. So by her not weight training for a month Jynus, she will not lose precious amounts of muscle of which you might consider precious considering your goal! Do you really think she will lose 10-15 pounds of muscle in a month?

This does bring me to a funny thought though

Cardio by it's very nature (type 1a muscle activation while neglecting type 2a&b) is catabolic

I love watching the huge dudes who wish to be on stage, just BARELY getting their heart rate on a cardio machine. I mean if they get their heart rate up at all. They are just going as slow as possible to save that muscle. I never see those guys on stage when I am there. My partner (who is a figure competitor) does hard ass cardio! I mean heart racing and sweat pouring, but her LBM barely flucuates!

That is the last I have to say about that.

Sorry Christine for swaying from your initial post.

 

[5KFreak]

Oh I forgot to mention to Jynus and Tomago

I had given up all aspects of weight training for a year! I have done NOTHING more than weight bearing moderate intensity cardio 3-4 times a week for about 30-40 minutes.

I have NEVER (I get professionally measured once a month by the same person each time) lost more than 2 pounds of lean body mass each month, and I have ACTUALLY gained 3 pounds of lean body mass in the entire time period.

I have lost 14% body fat in that time frame and 20lbs scale weight.

Hmmm how do you explain that? That goes totally against your rationale so please know that people have different goals and you should not bombard people with what you THINK is the only absolute solution! If there was only ONE true scientific way, then we would not have an obesity problem today would we?

 

[5KFreak]

1) Can't beat the laws of thermodynamics. If you're in a caloric deficit, you lose fat and muscle mass, no 2 ways about it.

Jynus,
Will you please show me which Law of Thermodynamics you are talking about? Or describe which law you are talking about? I have never seen calorie deficit or calories in vs calories out mentioned in thermodynamics.

 

[MAR1984]

Will you please show me which Law of Thermodynamics you are talking about? Or describe which law you are talking about? I have never seen calorie deficit or calories in vs calories out mentioned in thermodynamics.

First Law of Termodynamics governs conservation of energy. At its simplest, energy in equals energy out + energy stored.

And this article best explains how the first law of thermodynamics relates to the human body.

 

[Jynus]

Oh I forgot to mention to Jynus and Tomago

I had given up all aspects of weight training for a year! I have done NOTHING more than weight bearing moderate intensity cardio 3-4 times a week for about 30-40 minutes.

I have NEVER (I get professionally measured once a month by the same person each time) lost more than 2 pounds of lean body mass each month, and I have ACTUALLY gained 3 pounds of lean body mass in the entire time period.

I have lost 14% body fat in that time frame and 20lbs scale weight.

Hmmm how do you explain that? That goes totally against your rationale so please know that people have different goals and you should not bombard people with what you THINK is the only absolute solution! If there was only ONE true scientific way, then we would not have an obesity problem today would we?

Simple math.. Lose 4lbs of fat, 1 lbs of muscle, and you've lowered your bodyfat level, dropped weight, and have a higher % of lean muscle mass than before. Even though in that time you've dropped lean mass, you're still "leaner" than when you started... When you say measured, is it caliper or hydrostatic? Though ideally it would be MRI, those things are amazing..

Look, I'll take what you say at face value here iabout yourself and fat loss... but you still can't argue facts here. Find a pubmed study comparing muscle catabolism of cardio vs resistance training, show me there is no difference, and you might have some cred. But a single case study does not a trend make... I'll have to dig, but I've read more than my share all showing that resistance training by far retains the most muscle mass while cutting body fat when training in a caloric deficit diet.

 

[5KFreak]

First Law of Termodynamics governs conservation of energy. At its simplest, energy in equals energy out + energy stored.

Holy crap! Did you even READ any of this? You didn't did you? You only read Lyle's interpretation and then saw the detail of the Wiki article and just posted it figuring it meshed up. It has NOTHING to do with energy in equals energy out + stored energy! By the way how does that even equate to fat loss (energy in equals energy out plus stored energy)? Let's see how easily I can explain this without working your brain too much! I don't typically make it a point to make people look ignorant but by posting that Wikipedia page to try and show that you could answer my question, you should have at least read through it.

First you should know that Thermodynamics is NOT something like gravity. Thermodynamics was something that was created by people. A course of study! Like Physics.

"In science, thermodynamics is the study of energy conversion between heat and mechanical work." As for mechanical work, think steam engines or horsepower in your car engine since that is actually what Thermodynamics was created for, to improve steam engine effeciency. It is all about effeciency and is NOT about getting small or losing mass due to the lack of energy being put into something, and it has NOTHING to do with the human body!

So that being said, in this course of study there are some absolute truths (which are like gravity, these truths can't be changed) and these are the laws of thermodynamics. Like the laws of physics.

Zeroth Law - Energy will not flow between two objects of the same temperature. Think you sticking a room-temperature thermometer into boiling water. Heat (energy) flows from the boiling water into the thermometer until they are the same temperature. When they are both the same temperature, heat stops flowing between them, so the temperature of the thermometer stops rising. The thermometer shows its own temperature, which is the same as the water temperature. Now that I have explained this law, can you tell me what it has to do with weight loss? Where do calories in vs calories out play a role in this law?


First law - Energy cannot be created nor destroyed it can only change form. The most basic way to say this is, you do not get something for nothing! Energy cannot be created meaning I can't slide a fork (sliding the fork is the energy) across a table without applying energy to it (energy from my hand). A car engine will do mechanical work without energy input being combustion. So this is what they mean by energy cannot be created (Google perpetual motion). That engine has to have energy in order for it to do mechanical work. Now on the destruction and changing form of energy It basically says that the energy that goes into a system cannot be lost along the way, but has to be used to do something. Energy does not disappear, it will either perform work or change form. Think of the car engine again, but take away the engine. I still have combustion, but just because that energy does not have an engine to go into, it isn't destroyed, I have just changed that combustion into heat. Now that I have explained this law can you tell me how it deals with weight loss due to a calorie deficit? Where does it even talk about an energy deficit? Where do calories in vs calories out play a role in this law?

Which brings us to the second law.

Second Law - It is impossible to extract an amount of heat from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work. Some amount of heat must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. Basically saying that if you heat your bedroom with the door closed and open the door the heat will rush into the living room to warm the living room and eventually the whole house will even out and be the same temperature. Entropy is the measurement of that evening out process, and the second law also digs into choas or disorder. If you leave stuff alone without applying work it will eventually decay. Think of you not doing any work to keep your house clean, eventually things decay and you have a mess of a house. Now that I have explained this law how does it effect my weight loss? Where do calories in vs calories out play a role in this law?


Third Law - Absolute zero is not possible. You can't get 100% of work from it's energy. Some of the work is always lost to the atmosphere. Think of an electrical generator, input energy is combustion and heat, and the output is electricity. I will never get 100% of that combustion to turn into electricity. I always lose some to the atmosphere. 100% effieciency is impossible. Which actually if you think about it, our bodies already break the third law considering we are 100% effiecient.

And this article best explains how the first law of thermodynamics relates to the human body.

I just read this article and NOWHERE does it explain how the first law related to the body. He talks about an energy equation that is not mentioned anywhere in thermodynamics and he fills the article with what I would call fluff to make one think that he is explaining how the laws of thermodynamics relate to the body. He only uses the word three times in that article by the way and never explains how the two can be linked.

 

[5KFreak]

Simple math.. Lose 4lbs of fat, 1 lbs of muscle, and you've lowered your bodyfat level, dropped weight, and have a higher % of lean muscle mass than before. Even though in that time you've dropped lean mass, you're still "leaner" than when you started... When you say measured, is it caliper or hydrostatic? Though ideally it would be MRI, those things are amazing..

Look, I'll take what you say at face value here iabout yourself and fat loss... but you still can't argue facts here. Find a pubmed study comparing muscle catabolism of cardio vs resistance training, show me there is no difference, and you might have some cred. But a single case study does not a trend make... I'll have to dig, but I've read more than my share all showing that resistance training by far retains the most muscle mass while cutting body fat when training in a caloric deficit diet.

I am not arguing that, however what I am arguing that the loss is an amount that needs to be worried about. You will not lose tremendous amounts of muscle while doing nothing but cardio! Also as I mentioned (which you're right it's hard to know if it is true) but I did nothing but cardio for a year and I actually gained muscle rather than lost it! I, myself deviated from your absolute truth.

 

[Jynus]

snip.

I honestly don't know what to say... I see the connection clear as day...

 

[MAR1984]

wow... just wow... Its not worth my time to even bother trying to explain it any more than I have, I think I'll stick with my paid engineering job. Thanks for the lesson though, but I'll stick to my own knowlegde, textbooks, and resources for understanding thermodynamics. The wiki link was for your benefit, not mine. Aparently it was above your level of comprehension. Sorry.

 

[5KFreak]

wow... just wow... Its not worth my time to even bother trying to explain it any more than I have, I think I'll stick with my paid engineering job. Thanks for the lesson though, but I'll stick to my own knowlegde, textbooks, and resources for understanding thermodynamics. The wiki link was for your benefit, not mine. Aparently it was above your level of comprehension. Sorry.

HA! I know, I actually regret spending the time on it. Because I knew once I did no one would really have anything to say about it considering they have been wrong all this time.

What kind of engineer are you, that you don't know the basics of thermodymanics? I get paid to do several things including running two of my businesses however I get the most money from my position at a top energy generation company! Energy generation = digging into the very roots of thermodynamics.

Just for fun I Googled "thermodynamics and the human body" and did not find one item that connected thermodynamics to weight loss, however I did come across two very interesting articles. One is pretty in depth and technical. Talks about our bodies basically like an engine, mechanical work (core temp, efficiency, etc) it is a very interesting read but mentions nothing about weight loss and another one is a bit more laymens terms and does mention weight loss. I don't expect you to read either, and even if you do, you still won't say that you are wrong. Heck you still may even believe that you are right, but I have pasted a blurb from the second one!

I am done now! I don't even know why I am going into the on an internet forum. I feel like that cartoon!







"As is often the case when science is dummied down into soundbytes, it becomes wrong. Such is the case in the distortion of the Law of Thermodynamics which has been simplified into the popular wisdom: “Calories in = calories out.” This simplistic adage has become something “everyone knows” to be true. It’s behind widely held beliefs that managing our weight is simply a matter of balancing calories eaten and exercise. While that’s been used to sell a lot of calorie-reduced diets and calorie-burning exercise programs for weight loss; sadly, it’s also been used to support beliefs that fat people “most certainly must be lying” about their diets and activity levels, because otherwise their failure to lose weight would seem to “defy the Law of Thermodynamics.”


While it might seem inconceivable, this simplified maxim is little more than superstition and urban legend. To realize this fact requires us to first go back to physics class and fill in the missing parts of the first Law of Thermodynamics.


The first Law of Thermodynamics, or energy balance, basically states that in a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.


The human body is not a machine. There are countless, wildly varying, variables (external and internal) involved and that affect the efficiencies of a system and for which we have no control over. Understanding this helps to explain why calories cannot be balanced like a checkbook, and why people never seem to gain or lose precisely as calculated."

 

[MAR1984]

5K, did you read your own sources? Because in your second source, in the paragraph immediately following the one you quoted, it says this:

Balance in an open system, like the human body, is when all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system. But energy in any thermodynamic system includes kinetic energy, potential energy, internal energy, and flow energy, as well as heat and work processes.

Do you see it?

Let me quote it again, just the important part:

all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system

Idk, but that looks an awfully lot like energy in = energy out plus energy stored to me. What do you think?

The next paragraph that follows gives us even more clues as to the context of the article:

In other words, in real life, balancing energy includes a lot more than just the calories we eat and the calories we burn according to those exercise charts. The energy parts of the equation include: calories consumed; calories converted to energy and used in involuntary movement; calories used for heat generation and in response to external environmental exposures and temperatures; calories used with inflammatory and infectious processes; calories used in growth, tissue restoration and numerous metabolic processes; calories used in voluntary movement; calories not absorbed in the digestive tract and matter expelled; calories stored as fat, and fat converted in the liver to glucose; and more. Add to that, to put it simply, each variable affects the others, varies with mass and age, involves complex hormonal and enzyme regulatory influences, and differs in efficiency.

Calories eaten and calories used in voluntary movement are only two small parts of energy balance and are meaningless by themselves, unless all of the other variables are controlled for, as our metabolism… which they can never be as they aren’t under our control.

So, from what I can see, this article argues that the body does indeed adhere to the first law of thermodynamics, its just that there is more to the "energy out" term than exercise. See, its right up there in the first paragraph you quoted as well:

It’s behind widely held beliefs that managing our weight is simply a matter of balancing calories eaten and exercise.

Thats not what I have said at all. I have said in the past that in order to lose weight, calories consumed must be less than the total calorie needs of the body, where I often simplify "total calorie needs of the body" down to "calories out" or "maintenance level calories"

This article does not disagree with anything I have said, and supports that the first law of thermodynamics apply to the human body. Thanks for finding my sources for me.

 

[MAR1984]

After sleeping on it overnight, I've been doing some thinking. Whether or not anyone is willing to accept the laws of thermodynamics apply to the human body is irrelevent to the original topic.

If I can, I'd like to rewind a few posts:

I would recommend leaving the weights alone for right now and focusing on moderate cardio. Do that about 4 days a week and for about 40 minutes. You will need to adjust your diet a bit. What are your days currently like?

Just a note, what I recommend will go against what people on this forum think is correct so you will just need to decide if you have anything to lose and just try it for a month. =)

Why "leave the weights alone"? Even if the goal was to cut fat, wouldn't you recommend at least lifting weights to maintain muscle mass while in a defecit?

The response to this is basically:

Muscle is not as "expensive" if you will as most people seem to think. Your body is not going to start burning away all your hard earned muscle as you are trying to cut fat. It will try it's hardest to keep as much of it as it can. You might lose a little, but nothing major for your current goal.

Your goal is to look leaner, so instead of building muscle underneath all the fat (which actually can make you look bigger, and this is where a lot of women use the word "bulky") let's cut the fat to an acceptable level and then start building a little more muscle from there.

Even if I accept that the body will hold onto muscle while doing cardio and losing fat without doing any weight lifting (I don't, but for the sake of argument lets say thats true)... Can you explain to me why lifting weights goes against the goal of getting lean? Leanness is only a function of body fat, and has nothing to do with muscle. You make it sound like you expect that lifting weights would cause the OP to "bulk up", even if she is eating to lose fat. I don't believe that would happen, but even if it did - isn't gaining muscle while losing fat going to make you look leaner than simply losing fat? The original question in this thread is "How to lower body fat %" - If you lose some fat, you lower body fat percentage. If you lose some fat and gain some muscle (if that were possible to do at the same time, I would argue that its not), you would lower body fat % faster.

You also say that after "getting the body fat down to an acceptable level", then focus on building up a little muscle - 2 things: 1) whats wrong with gaining a little muscle first? 2) 20% body fat, what the OP claimed she has, is not an unnacceptable level.

I want you to help me understand your reasoning. I'm still trying to keep an open mind here, despite your unprovoked patronizing and insults.

I ask, why no lifting weights.
You respond, you will not lose muscle mass if you don't lift weights.
I'm now saying, thats nice, even if its true, why is lifting weights bad if the goal is to get lean?


I'm not just trying to fight, I have a vested interest in your response. My goals are similar to the OP, only I'm not as far along. I'm 350lbs and my scale tells me I'm ~49% percent body fat, currently. Right now I'm focused on getting my body fat to 20%, but ultimately I'd like to be down into the 10-15% range. If I ever get there, I would like to see some abs (if I don't have loose skin that prevents that). I don't want to ever look scrawny though, I want to look muscular (not like a body builder, but solid, wide shoulders, V-torso, strong chest and arms, etc.)

So my plan is currently, cut fat until I'm happy, then start building muscle, then cut away the extra fat I gained while gaining muscle, and keep repeating until I get the look I want. My exercise routine is currently focused around weight lifting 3x per week, and sprinkling in some unofficial cardio whenever I feel like it - usually walking, golfing, or playing dance dance revolution with my wife. I don't feel like I'm getting bigger - definitely stronger, but my muscles aren't noticeably bigger. In 2 months, I've lost 20-25lbs, and my clothes are defintely fitting more loosely. Overall, you can see from my sig that I've lost over 100lbs. All but the last 25lbs were lost with cardio only and no weight lifting. I regret that, I fear I've lost a lot of muscle mass that will take a lot more work to get back than if I would have lifted to hold onto it. But, maybe you can convince me I didn't do that much damage after all.

So I just want to know your prospective - am I wasting my time lifting weights right now? Should I do less lifting and more structured cardio, and will that help me to lose fat faster? Again, I'm here with an open mind.

 

[Jericho]

Let's keep it a bit civil. I'm seeing the tone start to turn a bit harsh as you guys exchange ideas.

 

[5KFreak]

Even if I accept that the body will hold onto muscle while doing cardio and losing fat without doing any weight lifting (I don't, but for the sake of argument lets say thats true)... Can you explain to me why lifting weights goes against the goal of getting lean? Leanness is only a function of body fat, and has nothing to do with muscle. You make it sound like you expect that lifting weights would cause the OP to "bulk up", even if she is eating to lose fat. I don't believe that would happen, but even if it did - isn't gaining muscle while losing fat going to make you look leaner than simply losing fat? The original question in this thread is "How to lower body fat %" - If you lose some fat, you lower body fat percentage. If you lose some fat and gain some muscle (if that were possible to do at the same time, I would argue that its not), you would lower body fat % faster.

I never said or meant to say that building muscle goes against the goal of getting lean perse however, wouldn't everyone agree that putting on muscle seems a lot easier to do than to get rid of fat? Maybe no one realizes this because they don't get their body fat measured consistantly (keyword) and strictly go by the scale. So me knowing that her body will not eat away all her muscle, if she focuses on cardio only, it will eat away at the fat and she will see results. Once she reaches the 15% then she stops, get measured, see if 15% is where she wants to be and if so then start a good lifting routine to lean out. she might lose a couple of pounds of muscle but that is not detrimental and can easily be put back on. Also I am sure it is the goal of most of the posters here to see results and lose fat at this current time. Honestly we can worry about the look of lean later. I mean no one is wanting to be a bodybuilder tomorrow here so a couple of pounds of muscle loss is not going to hurt you like it would a bodybuilder. I will mention that I did say I think her measurement is on the low side and if I wereher professional then we would be measuring BF% and with tape once a month, and I would be able to tailor everything based on her fat loss, muscle loss, and muscle gain. I am being generic since I am not her professional.

You also say that after "getting the body fat down to an acceptable level", then focus on building up a little muscle - 2 things: 1) whats wrong with gaining a little muscle first? 2) 20% body fat, what the OP claimed she has, is not an unnacceptable level.

I want you to help me understand your reasoning. I'm still trying to keep an open mind here, despite your unprovoked patronizing and insults.

I ask, why no lifting weights.
You respond, you will not lose muscle mass if you don't lift weights.
I'm now saying, thats nice, even if its true, why is lifting weights bad if the goal is to get lean?

I never meant to insult you nor was I trying to be patronizing. Sorry if I came off that way. I never said it was BAD for the goal, but rather a waste of time. Even in your own belief, you can't gain muscle and lose fat at the same time, and me knowing that you will not lose a detrimental amount of muscle, why waste time with the lifting, and also not seeing the results you want to see. I have 128lbs of LBM and that has not changed on the downside during the time I took off from lifting nor will it change on the upside if I am in a deficit. So why would I keep the scale (think the justice scale) teetering to one side and then the other over and over again. I want the thing to always tip on the fat losing side.

My goals are similar to the OP, only I'm not as far along. I'm 350lbs and my scale tells me I'm ~49% percent body fat, currently. Right now I'm focused on getting my body fat to 20%, but ultimately I'd like to be down into the 10-15% range. If I ever get there, I would like to see some abs (if I don't have loose skin that prevents that). I don't want to ever look scrawny though, I want to look muscular (not like a body builder, but solid, wide shoulders, V-torso, strong chest and arms, etc.)

First of all, not if, you will get there, and the proof is in the pudding. You have lost over 100lbs already! My response to this is that you need to either buy a set of professional calipers (an investment, but a good one) and have the same person measure you each month or find someone in the profession who can measure you each month with professional calipers. The digital ones, and these scales honestly are really worthless. The professional number will give you the most accurate number to work from. Also it is very very hard work to look like a bodybuilder. Google some all natural men competitors. You will see they are not very big, and the way they get that much of a lean look is all diet come contest time.

In 2 months, I've lost 20-25lbs, and my clothes are defintely fitting more loosely. Overall, you can see from my sig that I've lost over 100lbs. All but the last 25lbs were lost with cardio only and no weight lifting. I regret that, I fear I've lost a lot of muscle mass that will take a lot more work to get back than if I would have lifted to hold onto it. But, maybe you can convince me I didn't do that much damage after all.

So honestly, you did nothing but cardio and lost over 100 lbs. Do you really feel that any large percentage of that was muscle? Do you really fear that 75% of your weight loss was fat and 25% was muscle? Do you fear that all 100 pounds that you lost was all muscle? Not possible. I am not going to be able to convince you on a forum in any other way than I am now. The only thing that will convince you is a good bodyfat measurement, and being consistant with it each month to see that you are not losing as much muscle as you fear.

So I just want to know your prospective - am I wasting my time lifting weights right now? Should I do less lifting and more structured cardio, and will that help me to lose fat faster? Again, I'm here with an open mind.

I say yes. You already lost over 100lbs doing just cardio, why change it up now? Out of fear that you were devouring muscle? If so then get it checked for yourself and start getting good numbers before changing up something that is currently working based on assumptions, fears, or what other people tell you. There was no reason to change up your routine that was working without you knowing for sure if your fear was true.

Now here is a disclaimer - With your current weight and bodyfat level, I think ANY AND ALL activity is good. Whatever keeps you going whether it being lifting weights, golf, cardio, etc it is all good! If you are seeing results that you are happy with currently then keep doing what works. I don't think you are wasting time with ANY activity no matter what it may be. However there will come a time that youwill plateau and it will seem like no matter what you do, you can break through. That will be a time to look back to my advice if you want to.

Also another thing. What do you have to lose to try it for a month or two? You aren't going to gain the weight back from doing just cardio? Get someone to measure you so you know your starting point. For two months focus on cardio only like I mentioned to the OP. Eat 5-6 meals a day with a balance of protein and clean carbs, and stay away from anything that has over 20% fat calories per serving. Not eating olive oil, nuts, or avocados for 2 months will not put you into such poor health as you need to be admitted to the hospital as people seem to think.

 

[5KFreak]

Let's keep it a bit civil. I'm seeing the tone start to turn a bit harsh as you guys exchange ideas.

I'm cool! I never get heated!

 

[Stacy]

I'm cool! I never get heated!

Holy crap! Did you even READ any of this? You didn't did you? ...Let's see how easily I can explain this without working your brain too much! I don't typically make it a point to make people look ignorant but...

Yep, cool as a cucumber. lol

And this cracks me up:

I never meant to insult you nor was I trying to be patronizing.

Yeah, that wasn't patronizing at all. Heheh Sorry, I just call 'em like I see 'em.

Bottom line, I think you can get your point across without being insulting. I know it's hard to disagree without resorting to insults, but we're adults here, please do try. But that's just an outsider's perspective on this argument. Take it or leave it.

 

[MAR1984]

I never said or meant to say that building muscle goes against the goal of getting lean perse however, wouldn't everyone agree that putting on muscle seems a lot easier to do than to get rid of fat? Maybe no one realizes this because they don't get their body fat measured consistantly (keyword) and strictly go by the scale. So me knowing that her body will not eat away all her muscle, if she focuses on cardio only, it will eat away at the fat and she will see results. Once she reaches the 15% then she stops, get measured, see if 15% is where she wants to be and if so then start a good lifting routine to lean out. she might lose a couple of pounds of muscle but that is not detrimental and can easily be put back on. Also I am sure it is the goal of most of the posters here to see results and lose fat at this current time. Honestly we can worry about the look of lean later. I mean no one is wanting to be a bodybuilder tomorrow here so a couple of pounds of muscle loss is not going to hurt you like it would a bodybuilder. I will mention that I did say I think her measurement is on the low side and if I wereher professional then we would be measuring BF% and with tape once a month, and I would be able to tailor everything based on her fat loss, muscle loss, and muscle gain. I am being generic since I am not her professional.

OK. I can see where you're coming from now. But there are 2 things in this paragraph I guess I am just not convinced on:

1: "wouldn't everyone agree that putting on muscle seems a lot easier to do than to get rid of fat?" - I'm not sure I'm convinced of this statement. Everything I've researched tells me that a great rate of muscle gain for a male is 1/2 pound per week, and 1/4 pound per week for a female - a maximum rate ma be double that for beginners for a short time. On the other hand, I know its possible to lose 1% of your body weight in fat per week, which for me is over 3lbs per week. Some diets, like PSMF, claim to be able to attain a rate of fat loss up to a pound per day. So I don't see how its easier to gain muscle than to lose fat. Maybe when you're to a point where you're pushing the lower limits of body fat %, it gets harder to continue to lean out, but as you said, nearly everyone on these boards are not to that point yet.

2: "I mean no one is wanting to be a bodybuilder tomorrow here so a couple of pounds of muscle loss is not going to hurt you like it would a bodybuilder." - Well, based on my research, a couple lbs would take a month to regrow once lost. During the regrowing time, my research tells me I would also have to put on another couple pounds of fat as well, which might take a week or 2 to cut back off. So, losing a couple pounds might put a male 6 weeks behind, and a female maybe up to 3 months behind. The major bullet point that is uncertain is whether you would only lose a couple pounds of muscle, or whether that number could be a lot more. If I lost 100lbs of which 20lbs was muscle and 80lbs was fat or other tissue I no longer needed, it would take me 40 weeks to regrow the 20lbs of muscle, and then another 8 weeks or so to cut back off the 20lbs of fat I would accumulate while regrowing muscle. Thats 11months of work I wouldn't need to do if I would have made sure I wouldn't have lost that 20lbs to begin with.

I have done a bit of research into muscle loss while dieting, and I keep coming across 2 points. First, obese individuals do not have to worry as much about muscle loss as those looking to erase the last few pounds of fat. Secondly, diets like PSMF claim very rapid fat loss, and claim that muscle loss is prevented by taking in an appropriate amount of protein. But that program is designed for obese people where muscle loss isn't as big of a risk. The conclusion I can draw is the lower your body fat, the more potential there is for muscle loss.

rest of post

I am actually seeing just about exactly the same rate of weight loss right now with my current regime as I was when I was doing only cardio - ~10-15lbs per month. With weight lifting, I am getting stronger on pretty much a daily basis, and I believe the weight lifting is preventing muscle loss. I guess its possible that the weight lifting isn't preventing any muscle loss if I wasn't going to lose any muscle to begin with, but like I said before, I'm unconvinced.

I agree that the body fat measurement on home digital scales is crap, but thats the best I have. I figure it should at least be able to provide the trend. I agree there are better ways to measure body fat. It has been a long time since I was measured with calipers, and from what I remember, they weren't that accurate either. They can provide a trend if the same person measures the same way each time, but again, no absolute value. Maybe things have changed since then, or maybe I just need a professional to do my measurements.

Yeah, I've lost lots of weight doing nothing but cardio. About 8 years ago, I went from 350 to 260 by doing a ton of running and eating less. I didn't know what I was doing, so my philosophy was to eat as little as possible while running as much as possible. Over the last 8 years after that, I reversed course and had slowly (or not so slowly) gained over 200lbs. At over 475 lbs, I got engaged and decided I was going to lose weight for my wedding. I did what worked before - lots of cardio, and eating as little as possible. I got down to ~315 before the wedding - over 160lbs lost. I returned from the honeymoon at 330 - 15lb weight gain attributed to water retention, and all-inclusive cruise. Anyways, over the next 4 or 5 months, I changed my routine to all weight training, a healthy diet, and nearly no cardio. I only lost 10lbs. I started thinking that all I had read here was crap and a waste of time because I was not seeing the results I was seeing before when not weight lifting. Then, I hit a snag and had gall stones. I needed to have my gall bladder removed, and before I know it I've let 6 months pass me by with no working out whatsoever, and falling back into past bad eating habits. At the beginning of June, I was back up to 375.

But anyways, yeah, no resistance training through all of that combined with a huge calorie defecit and lack of adequate protein makes me think that I lost some muscle mass. I can't put a number on how much, but I think it was something. Anecdotal evidence I have to support that, is basically that when I did start lifting weights, I was much much weaker than the last time I lifted weights, in high school. My dad is 20 years older than me and hasn't lifted weights since high school, and he is still just as strong now as he was then - he was able to bench press over 300lbs a few months ago. He hasn't lost weight during that time. So in 8 years, I lost a ton of strength. In 28 years, my dad lost little strength. On difference is that I went through periods of losing weight through cardio, while my dad did nothing. :shrug:

Since June, I hit the reboot button on my fitness quest. I figured out how many calories I should be eating and counted for a while to make sure I was eating that much. My diet is mostly balanced but slightly carb heavy, lean meats and clean veggies, healthy fats, and whole grains. My exercise includes the weight lifting I was doing before, and I've made a point to include some forms of cardio - sort of combining the best of both routines I've tried in the past. The result is that I've lost 25lbs in those 2 months, I'm stronger, and while this last point might be an optical illusion or wishful thinking, I see myself as more muscularly defined even at 350 than I remember when I was 320 last year, or even 260 8 years ago.

But its quite possible that I am still in the beginner "anything you do will get you results" stage as you say, resetting to beginner mode after gaining weight after my surgery. Maybe I will find that my progress doesn't continue like I expect it will, or even stall. I know I didn't see the progress last summer and fall when I tried weight lifting the first time. I know based on past experiences, cardio only can get me to at least 260.

I will make a deal with you. For now, I will keep doing what I'm doing. But, I'll make an effort to seek out a better method of monitoring my progress than my scale - I'll start with a tape measure at least, and maybe seek out a good set of calipers, or maybe a professional to measure for me. If I get to a point where I stall or even just stop progressing how I expect, and I can't figure out why, I'll give your methods a try for a couple months and continue to monitor my body the same way in order to compare the results. I do hope I never have to change my methodologies though, and I just keep marching along towards my goal.