How to lower body fat percentage

Okay, so it took awhile but I've managed to get to the end of this thread, lol. Thanks everyone for the input. I think this is the plan I'm going to try for the time being:

Honestly what she needs here is to up the calories, eat healthy fats (why anyone would ever recommend cutting them is beyond me, carb control for losing weight, not fat control) get lots of protien, and hit up the resistance training hard. Build a lil muscle mass. After a few months fo this, reasses, and go into a cuttin diet to shed off a few lbs of fat. Voila, results achieved..

My next question is, how many calories should I be taking in at this point? I never know which formula to go with and which activity level to multiply by, so my maintenance could be anywhere from 1800-2000 per day.
 
Easiest way to do it is by trial and error - start with 2000, wait for a week, see if you're gaining weight/muscle. If you are, great! If you're not, then up calories to 2100 for a week. Lather, rinse, repeat ;)

It's not the super fastest method, but it sounds like you're in this for the long haul anyway and it's really the only way to know for sure. Unless you wanted to shell out for something like a Body Bugg or GoWearFit which is still only 95% accurate in terms of calories burned in a day.

(Also, as a note on a previous post I have definitely found it easier to lose fat than gain muscle. I can lose 1-2 lbs of fat in a week, I'm lucky to put on .25 lbs of muscle in that same time frame. YMMV).
 
Okay, so it took awhile but I've managed to get to the end of this thread, lol. Thanks everyone for the input. I think this is the plan I'm going to try for the time being:



My next question is, how many calories should I be taking in at this point? I never know which formula to go with and which activity level to multiply by, so my maintenance could be anywhere from 1800-2000 per day.

There are many stickes on the forum, try a few different calculations, they may vary but shouldn't do too much, you should be able to get a good estimate ball-park figure to stick to anyhow. The more weight you lose, the lower it goes so I'd be wary of sticking to the lowest of any formulas!
 
"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

The keyword being "researched"! Everyone is different and therefore you don't know that this is correct until you track your numbers. Men are full of testosterone and you frankly don't know how much muscle you gain or lose in a week or how much fat you gain or lose in a week without monitoring correctly. You should never rely on research. You should rely on what works for you, and without a canvas of information you will never know. The effect of that? Hitting a brick wall, frustration, and maybe even eventually giving up.

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.

You are DEAD on with the bolded point. It is uncertain whether you would lose a couple of pounds of muscle of whether or not the number would be a lot more, without a proper starting point of data and proper monitoring. You are basing your ideas and whole routine on what reasearch (of other people different than you I might add) has told you about what other people experience with muscle loss. I will also add that the most dramatic of muscle loss with any of my clients was 12lbs of muscle in about 5-6 months. This was a female, and she was training for two marathons within a close timeframe of each other. She put back on all the lost muscle within 2 months. Females are hard gainers by nature. Would 12 pounds of muscle at it's most dramatic be that big of a deal for anyone who is overweight? No.

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.

That is what I have been saying this whole time =) That is what I meant by no one is a bodybuilder here and therefore the small amount of muscle loss by not lifting and doing strictly cardio should not even be a worry. The fact is you will not lose that much muscle, and yes muscle loss can be minimized with the proper amounts of protein.

That is all I was ever trying to get at. I am not beginner and I have been through all the trials and tribulations of researching stuff to death, calories in vs calories out, etc. I reached a point to where I was making it much more difficult than it really was. I always giggle to myself now when I hear someone that has been doing this for a while say their way is the gospel, however they have not made any progress during that time or they are having to work just as hard to maintain as they did to lose the inital weight. Do you ever see that guy that is in the gym every single day, sometimes twice a day for like a year, however he has not changed at all???? those are the people that stick to these ratio diets, and live by the gospel of calories in vs calories out and ingesting fats is okay for fat loss. That person was ME for 10 years. That person was my partner for 12 years. For 12 years she did everything by the book, by science if you will, and never got to a stage. Six months after getting involved with the right people and turning her thinking around. She hit the stage and is now competing professionally.
 
Yep, cool as a cucumber. lol

And this cracks me up:



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. :)

Well I certainly wasn't meaning to come off that way. You might have seen how everyone reacted to my very simplified explanation of the laws. What I meant about working your brain, was that Thermodynamics is a very complicated and technical study. It is full of formulas and such so I did not want to over complicate the thread by using all of that jargon. For example Carnot Cycle, Perpetual Motion, Boyle's Law, Statistical Mechanics, Entropy, Thermodynamic Equilibrium, etc.

Also the word ignorant is not deragatory at all. It means you just don't know. I am ignorant when it comes to sewing.

Ignorance - the lack of knowledge or education
 
I'm a little confused - if it's uncertain whether you'd lose a lot or little muscle without resistance training, but it is certain that you'd lose less muscle if you did resistance training... then why would you skip the resistance training, especially if you're by nature a hard gainer? (aka female)

I personally went the 'no resistance training while low carb dieting' route and ~36% of the weight I lost was LBM. I have since put back on some of the lost muscle, but it would have been a whole lot easier not to lose it in the first place.

The fact is you will not lose that much muscle, and yes muscle loss can be minimized with the proper amounts of protein.
That was actually not true for me, and could have been easily avoided with resistance training. So... it's not exactly a fact. Maybe it would be true for Christine, but if she likes resistance training I don't see any reason for her to do strictly cardio unless maybe she's training for something like a marathon.
 
I personally went the 'no resistance training while low carb dieting' route and ~36% of the weight I lost was LBM. I have since put back on some of the lost muscle, but it would have been a whole lot easier not to lose it in the first place.

Jeanette, would you mind telling me what that weight loss was in pounds? Also you would contribute that muscle loss strictly to the lack of weight training rather than not eating a balanced diet i.e low carb?

Also how did you know 36% was muscle? Did you have your body fat tested each month (or at the beginning and then the end) during the weight loss?
 
Although this wasn't the entire weight change, over the period I was measuring -

188 to 150 total lbs. (loss of 38 lbs)
108 to 94 LBM. (loss of 14 lbs)

I recognize that low carb is not the most balanced diet, however I tended to eat lower fat along with the low carb, i.e. higher protein. Since protein intake has the largest effect on muscle retention, I'm pretty sure (although I did not keep records, so can not say 100%) that it's pretty unlikely that diet was the issue.

I did start at 220 lbs and don't know my LBM at that point. It's possible that I lost less percentage wise since higher BF = less muscle loss. However, even at 150 lbs with 100 LBM (I've gained some back over the last year) I'm still over 33% BF, so I'm not exactly in the 'lean' range where it becomes more difficult to lose weight without losing muscle.
 
~36% of the weight I lost was LBM.

What you guys both need to take into account is that while all muscle is LBM, all LBM is not muscle. So, just because 36% of the weight lost was LBM does not mean 36% of the weight lost was muscle. It would be unrealistic to expect no loss of LBM by getting lighter.

So that said, that doesn't mean that none of it was muscle either. Can body composition measurements differentiate musclular LBM from other types of LBM?
 
Although this wasn't the entire weight change, over the period I was measuring -

188 to 150 total lbs. (loss of 38 lbs)
108 to 94 LBM. (loss of 14 lbs)

I recognize that low carb is not the most balanced diet, however I tended to eat lower fat along with the low carb, i.e. higher protein. Since protein intake has the largest effect on muscle retention, I'm pretty sure (although I did not keep records, so can not say 100%) that it's pretty unlikely that diet was the issue.

I did start at 220 lbs and don't know my LBM at that point. It's possible that I lost less percentage wise since higher BF = less muscle loss. However, even at 150 lbs with 100 LBM (I've gained some back over the last year) I'm still over 33% BF, so I'm not exactly in the 'lean' range where it becomes more difficult to lose weight without losing muscle.

How was the 108-94 LBM measured? Did you do it each month or once at the beginning and then once at the end? LBM will fluctuate between 2-4 pounds depending on water retention. How do you measure your LBM now? Reason I am asking is because like I mentioned, I have never in my years experienced that amount of muscle loss except for the marathon runner, so I am curious.
 
What you guys both need to take into account is that while all muscle is LBM, all LBM is not muscle. So, just because 36% of the weight lost was LBM does not mean 36% of the weight lost was muscle. It would be unrealistic to expect no loss of LBM by getting lighter.

So that said, that doesn't mean that none of it was muscle either. Can body composition measurements differentiate musclular LBM from other types of LBM?

I would not say practically if there are any at all.

The ratio of muscle in LBM is so much higher than the other things in LBM (bones and organs. Both of which weights differently in everyone) so you can basically say that LBM is muscle. Same goes with the loss or gain, which your bones usually don't flucuate in weight, nor your organs unless you are ill. So the changes are basically your muscle.
 
First measurement was calipers by a personal trainer, second was actually one of the BIA scales which I know can be less accurate, esp based on hydration. However, the second measurement was middle ground based on a series of measurements when my weight was stable.

And I know not all of it was muscle - I'm sure connective tissue etc. went as well as muscle, so I'm not claiming pure muscle loss. However, I'm just pointing out that 'average' for someone obese is 25% of the weight lost is LBM, and much of it is connective tissue. However, at 36%, it seems like I got the short end of the stick genetically in terms of muscle retention gain - and on which side of average I fell on. But until you actually monitor someone, you don't really know which side they'll fall on. I wish I'd monitored my BF% the whole time I was losing weight - and I do believe that if I had done resistance training it would have made a difference. Sadly, unlike your marathon runner friend it was not quick for me to regain the LBM. I'm still working on it, and just posting here hoping that other people can benefit from my experiences ;)
 
Well I agree, percentages like 10% are male percentages, womens body fat needs to be higher as we carry weight on our bodies for child birth antibodies, hormones, etc men don't so they are able to get a lower body fat.
 
Back
Top