I kind of approach this BF% stuff in the opposite way that you do. When I see someone's goals and BF% that might suggest if they kept all their LBM they'd end up with BF% that is really low, I just assume that they are willing to lose LBM if necessary to get to their goal.

Maybe because though Dr Atkins says you don't lose much LBM on this WOE, only fat, that hasn't been my experience. When I started in Sept, I weighed 297, and my BF% was 40%. So my LBM was 178 and the fat was 119. So now, I'm 235 and my BF% is 36%, so my LBM is 150 and the fat is 85. So, of the 62 I've lost, 28 has been LBM and 34 has been fat.

I knew when I started that I'd never be happy with a LBM with 178, that would give me a goal weight of 222 if I achieved a very low BF% of 20%. That's just bigger than I want to be. So, I wasn't very worried about losing LBM (or I would have done more resistance training from the start, I actually like weight training and have done it off and on throughout the years, which may explain why my BF% is relatively low for my weight).

But your question as to whether the body resists losing LBM more than fat is a really interesting one. Good question, I'd like to know the answer. Maybe that would explain why things have seemed so slow weight loss-wise this last month.

And that article that says that muscle is 5x more compact than fat, if that is true then my 28lbs of lost LBM is only the size of about 5 or 6 pounds of fat, which means that I "look" like I've lost 40 lbs, not the 62 that I've actually lost. I'm not sure I buy that, at least in this case as I've moved from a size 30 to a size 18/20, that seems like a big change for someone to move if they have lost only "40" pounds.

I'm just as confused as ever about all of this. I don't really know how it all works.

Where is Jerry when we need him? He always seems to know alot the muscle building/metabolism part of exercise. I'd be interested in his input on this. As well as anyone else's of course. I'd love to know what you guys think.

Valerie