Muscle loss; a "codeword" for depleting muscle glycogen?

[Amiwry]

I don't really understand the role of strength training in order to maintain muscle on a reduced calorie diet.

When the body is low on energy, I always thought the order was blood glucose -> muscle/liver glycogen -> fats -> and then muscle metabolized as a last resort. In most cases I think it's safe to say people have some carbs and fats to spare.

If I am on a 30% carb, 40% protein, 30% fat macronutrient plan, 1300 cal. total, should I be concerned with weight training?

 

[Steve]

That's why it's commonly noted around here if you're carrying a good bit of fat, chances of losing significant muscle are slim.

But weight training isn't only good for preserving muscle mass.

 

[Amiwry]

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Steve]

Partitioning is a funny thing and lifting influences it more than you know.

Partitioning = where calories are pulled from and where they are stored.

Whenever you diet, even if you're doing things completely right, you are going to lose muscle. Even if you're carrying some fat. Given all the benefits of weight training aside from physique optimization, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to include it.

Maybe you're routines are boring and that's why you aren't enjoying it?

 

[Amiwry]

I just prefer doing aerobic on the treadmill or the elliptical. Of course that would make sense since I've been doing that for about a year and probably adjusted a great deal.

I do weights a little bit, for the chest, thighs, biceps and triceps, for ~10 slow reps on each. It's not much, but I feel it afterward and the results are modest. I just wasn't sure how necessary it is for maintenance. I'd like to focus on using up fat first so I can actually see the physique later.

When talking about muscle gain/loss, that refers to the protein filament inside the cell and not the cell itself, right?

 

[Steve]

For the most part, yes... actin and myosin.