I have been frustrated a bit over the last couple of weeks that my weight loss on the scale has slowed down. I've lost only 2.8 lbs for the month of February, which is a lot less than I had been losing. I have been doing some more research and have pretty much come to the conclusion that my slow down is a direct result of the increased exercise I‘ve been doing, and more specifically, the resistance training.

I had not been tracking %bf before, but took measurements in January and again in mid February. I did lose some fat, but gained some lbm too. So this explains the lack of movement on the scale.

ValerieL suggested to me that I might want to forego the increasing resistance training and just maintain my current lbm (127). (Thanks Valerie!) If I maintain my current lbm until I hit goal (160), I would have 127 pounds of lean body mass and 33 pounds of fat. That comes out to be 21%bf, which is pretty good. I was planning to be happy with a 25% bf, so 21% sounds even better! So maintaining, rather than increasing, lbm makes sense to me. Would you agree with this?

I did a bit of sleuthing on the net and found a great link for BFL info. On the Q&A page, I found the following:

Q I am 5'6" and weigh 193 lbs. Since beginning BFL I have gone from 41%BF to 30%BF. When the figures were broken down I ended up at 135lb lean and 58lbs fat. I am small boned. I am very proud of that muscle. At 57 years of age I never had any muscle before. However, I really think I need to lose the extra body fat and I don't believe I need to gain more muscle. What modifications should I make to my program to reach my goal? I am diabetic, now controlled by diet and exercise most of the time. I have doctors approval for this program. My doctor is supportive but not knowledgeable about the program. He is just delighted that after 2 years of working hard with me to change my body things are finally happening again. Before that I would get someone to drive me to the Y and they would lower me into the pool with a sling. Now I can do the BFL program. So what do I do? How can I dump the fat without increasing the muscle? Thanks, this old lady appreciates your input.

A Here's my take. First of all, it's GREAT that you've been doing this program. I have another section in my Q&A page on diabetes & BFL too. Now, as far as the muscle gain is concerned, I think it's still essential that you get part of your intensity from weight training, as it will accelerate the fat loss even if you think of it purely as an exercise (not to mention the metabolic requirements of the muscle). But since you don't want to add significantly more mass, we want to shift your training toward higher repetition and lower weight, so you're training your "aerobic" slow-twitch muscle fibers, rather than causing hypertrophy (excessive growth) in the "fast-twitch" ones. So when you weight train, I want you to change those sets of 8 and 6 into sets of 10 repetitions. And rather than focusing on maximal contraction and "burn", I want you just to focus on breathing deeply and aerobically while you do those sets. That will emphasize the fat loss more than the fiber growth. Finally, remember that pound-for-pound, muscle is about 5 times more compact than fat, and rather than being a weight that your body has to carry around, muscle helps to support and strengthen your posture and bone density. So don't be scared of muscle growth, but we can attenuate it by focusing on higher repetitions and lower weights. Hope that helps! Good luck - John [Back to Q&A Index]

So based on the above, I think I should continue doing the resistance training, but not necessarily increase the weights. At least not until I lose some more of this excessive weight. I don’t like weighing quite this much as I think it’s hard on my joints.

As I was working through this, I took at look at some of the other TDC'ers %bf to get an idea of where other people are. I guess I just wanted to see if Valerie's idea and the above response made logical sense. If I were to apply the same calculation using some of the TDC members %bf, there are some folks who, if they maintain current lbm, would have a really low %bf, for example 12% or 15%. I've read on the boards that to get to a 12%bf you have to be ripped, which means you are working really hard on the resistance/strength training.

So, I'm wondering for those of us who are stalling, if our bodies recognize that in order to lose more overall weight, we would need to lose lbm and they are fighting really hard to keep us from doing that. I can’t seem to find much on the net that addresses this and wanted to see if you all might know. Any thoughts on this?

Also, one more question. I tried to find this on the net, but couldn’t. How much % of lbm do you lose if you are not doing the resistance training at all? If I’m at 127 lbm now, how can I calculate where I’d be after losing another 25 lbs of scale weight if I didn't exercise?

Thanks for your feedback on this!

I tried to access my college library for info on this but I'll have to wait until next month to get the articles I found since it is the end of the term. From what I read from several abstracts is that protein sparing diets themselves are the cause of not losing lbm and the less you weigh, the less your body needs just to get around. So, it you maintain the amout you have now, it will be a good amount for your goal. On a low fat, high carbohydrate diet you are more apt to lose lbm. I will put in requests for the articles but I won't be able to get them until the next term starts.

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

I started with 168lbs of LBM and 130lbs of fat and I now have 154lbs LBM and 67lbs of fat. I just started adding in weight training two weeks ago. Since doing so I have watched the weight loss nearly come to a halt but the inches are shaving off. I don't care if I ever reach my goal weight, though I know I will loose some. No one sees the lb# just the dress size. Who cares if I am 200+lbs as long as I am healthy
Plus I don't wanna be a wimp anymore lol

Valerie, I was thinking the same thing...where are the people who really know this stuff?

Well, turns out that I actually have a higher lbm than I thought. I bought a body fat analyzer last night and I'm at 140 lbs of lbm. So this gets even more interesting. I'm happy that lbm is higher than I thought, but if I maintain it, then 160 is definitely too low of a goal weight.

If I had really understood body fat percentages, I would have bought this BF analyzer when I first started and not even worried about the scale. Now that I understand it, I'm with Crysania, who cares what the scale says...it's the physical size that matters.

But...

I guess where my mind goes with this is that if the physical size is what matters, I still don't think I'd be happy with keeping my current 150 lbs of LBM even if my BF% is only 20% - which would mean a weight of 188lbs. I'd be very fit and mostly muscle, yes, but won't I still be a larger size than I want? I won't be a size six or eight at 188 lbs even if my BF% is only 20%.

I played with some numbers in Excel, I've put a link to the spreadsheet if you want to see it.

I've used my sister as sort of a baseline, she's 130 lbs, 5'7" (same as me) and 20% BF and she wears a size 4-6 usually.

Then I made up an arbitrary way to measure her size to mine. I call it Valerie's Mass Index! The formula I use is LBM (in lbs) + Fat (in lbs)/5. This follows the assumption that fat (by weight) is 5 times bigger volume than the same weight in muscle - I read that in an article yesterday, if that figures is wrong, let me know. So my VMI takes all the weight (in LBM and fat) and converts it to an index of volume (size) measured in equal units.

Then I've compared the VMI of various different scenarios.

At my starting weight from last September, 297 lbs, 40% BF, I was 85% bigger than my sister (by volume).

Right now, at 234, 36% BF, I'm still 53% bigger than my sister (by volume), but 18% smaller than I was when I started. (That's almost 1/5 of my original size I've reduced! Yay!)

If I were to keep my current LBM of 150 lbs and just lose fat only until I get to 20% BF, that would make my new goal 188 lbs (not 135). But at that point I'd still be 45% bigger than my sister. That's still really big! There is no way I'd ever get to her size that way. I'd still be in size 12s or 14s.

I agree it's the size that matters, not the number on the scale. But, I want the size, I want to be a size 6 or 8. And I really think I have to lose LBM to get there.

Now, having said that, I'm seeing that I really should be losing the fat first! I should probably be resistance training now and losing fat first so that I am losing sizes quicker! That is my mistake, I'm not as small today as I would be if I'd concentrated on losing 60 lbs of fat over the last 6 months instead of just 60 lbs of weight. Since I lost 28 lbs of LBM mass too, I could theoretically be alot smaller today than I am now if I'd lost all fat.


http://home.cogeco.ca/~vliberty/vmi_bf.xls


I'd really like anyone's thoughts on this if they are inclined. Do I have logic flaws that I haven't seen that disproves or mitigates my theory?

In spite of my theory, I think Crysania and Dianne are right that the resistance training is the way to go at this point though. I'd like to get as small as I can as quickly as I can, so I think I'm missing the boat when I lose LBM this early in the game. I do think I'll need to lose LBM eventually though.

Next question though. Is it harder to lose LBM than fat? When I get to my interim goal of 188 (current LBM & BF% of 20%), will it be really hard to lose the LBM to keep going down in size? Does anyone know anything about this?

Valerie

Or, if I do start resistance training, will my weight loss rate slow (like Dianne has mentioned hers has) to the point that I'm not losing inches any faster than I was before I started resistance training?

Yes, I know, I think and analyze stuff too much. My mother has been telling me this for 39 years now!

Valerie

from all I have read (still a weight lifting newbie take what I say with a grain of salt lol) you will still loose just its slow at first then pics up as you can muscle (because the muscle burns the fat off faster or somthing long them lines)
and yes its easy to get rid of lbm just eat low fat / let your body go into starvation mode / don't do any resistance training ect and it drops like a brick from what I gather doesn't mean you loose any size though
I am shooting for a size 10 and don't plan on going below 190 I don't desire a smaller size I am 6' with a large bone structure.. I'd probably look sick if I tried and I would like to keep my curves... I just want them in the right places

edit: I ment to add you will see inches drop faster with weight training than without just in the past two weeks I have already noticed that some of my newest clothes are starting to get loose I am in a jean size 16 now and I have a pair cargo jeans in 12's that I can't wait til I can fit into them :P I already can wear the velvet 12/14's I bought around x-mas

This is kind of like the blind leading the blind here....

You are making the assumption that loss of lbm is the same rate as the loss of fat. I doubt that it is, but haven't found anything to go on one way or the other. I think that's one of the outstanding questions that has to be answered.

I don't have a clue what size I'll be when I've finally "arrived." When I look at my sisters, I would doubt that I'd ever get below a 12 or 14. None of us have ever been that small. Maybe shoe size is a good indicator. I wear a size 10.

Ok, I'm doing some more searching on the net. This link says "When losing weight through calorie reduction alone, a person loses 25% of his or her lean body mass and 75% of his or her body fat."

And another site that basically says the same thing. However this one also says "as you continue to lose weight, especially if certain types of exercise are included in your weight loss plan, fat loss should be about 90 percent of the weight you lose and lean body mass should be about 10 percent."

Maybe we could use this info to run our calculations?

I wear a 10 or 11 myself! (shoe size that is!)

Completely off topic, but the more weight I lose, the easier it is to wear higher heels. Less weight being forced onto such a small area. I figure by the time I get to goal, I'll be able to run in heels!

My weight loss hasn't followed the 75%/25% model or the 90%/10% model either. I've been 56%fat/44%LBM so far.

If I do start to lose at either 75% fat or 90% fat, I don't have enough fat on me to get down to my goal weight. Then again, if I continue on my 56/44 ratio, I will have a BF% of almost 30% when I hit my goal. That's obviously too high.

After thinking about this alot, my preliminary conclusions are that all this theory about LBM and rates of weight loss are probably for weight loss in people that are overweight or mildly obese, not for truly obese or extremely obese as many of us in the TDC were when we started. I just don't think they've extrapolated this stuff to the really big numbers yet.

I'm too focused on the numbers right now. At this weight, I need to see the numbers go down each week to help maintain my enthusiasm and motivation to continue on this WOE. So, I'm going to continue to do what I'm doing. If I add exercise, I'm going to increase my cardio, not necessarily my weight training. If I do some weights, it will be light weights with higher reps.

When I get below 200 or even 180, I will have to re-evaluate, I will obviously need to start to do some more weight training, but for now, I'm accepting that I'm a scale junkie and "need" the numbers! Stupid as it may sound, I'm not willing to give up the numbers quite yet.

Valerie

I've got some of the same issues. I had set my goal weight at 140 pounds-- I'm 5'4.5". Recently I had a fitness eval. Currently I weigh 193. My weight loss has stalled. I eat lower carb, watching calories. Currently 1700 cals per day- about 60%fat ,15% carb, 25% protein. I found on my eval that I was 28% BF and don't have much fat to lose to get in a healthy range. My strength was excellent and fits the LBM. I wasn't even doing resistance training when I took the test--walking and water aerobics. My flexibility was very good. My aerobic fitness was poor. I've decided to pick up my pace when exercising and I'm now swimming, rowing, stepping, and using an elip. mach for short periods but with high intensity. I'm doing a very quick resistance routine (15min/3x week). I don't know how this will all work out. I hardly have the body of my dreams but I do feel pretty good. I've decided to just live with the stall and not worry about pounds-- maybe it will give my skin a chance to shrink. I guess I won't get to 140 pounds.

I found these and thought they pertained to this post fairly well... sorry about the long post

"Let me explain, the typical weight loss program is based on a steady caloric reduction which enables the body to lose weight. Sounds good so far right? The problem is that no one ever bothered telling us what we were actually losing. Fat? Not entirely, when you decrease your caloric intake to or below your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), daily caloric requirement needed to maintain lean mass while only conducting involuntary activity (heart beating, lungs breathing, etc..), your body has to get by on less energy yet still do the same amount of work. It becomes even more counter productive when "voluntary activity"(exercise) is added yet caloric intake is still at BMR. When forced into this situation the body simply begins to "lighten the load." This means the body perceives that it is about to go into a state of caloric (energy) deprivation which prompts the body to begin rid itself of whatever material that most consumes calories. This material just so happens to be our lean muscle. "

"A very important use of % bodyfat measurements is to monitor the effect of diet and/or exercise on muscle tissue and fat. For example, research has shown that when a person goes on a typical fad diet, with little exercise, they lose as much or more muscle tissue than fat. (Scales will not tell a person that this is happening, but measuring % bodyfat regularly will.) Then, if this person goes off the diet and gains the weight back, they gain more fat back than they lost and less muscle tissue than they lost. The result is that they have more fat and less muscle than before the down-up cycle and are worse off than before the diet. Again, measuring % bodyfat will show this whereas scales will not.
There are many other things measuring % bodyfat can show. For example, a person who is much too lean, particularly women, may not realize this and scales will not tell them. There are studies which indicate it is harmful for women to drop below 10 to 12% bodyfat. And, of course, we all know the problem of Anorexic girls and women who do not realize, or refused to believe, they are much too lean. Regular monitoring of % bodyfat will show graphically and accurately that they are too lean and are also losing muscle and organ tissue with their inadequate nutrition intake. Positive proof of this through % bodyfat measurements can help convince them that they need a better diet, higher in calories and nutrition.
Another use for % bodyfat measurements concerns a much more common situation. This is the person who is the correct weight according to a height weight chart or even underweight according to these charts. They may also look reasonably fit when they look in a mirror and may think they are just fine. And yet, if they measure their % bodyfat they may find they have too much fat. Their small, under-developed, probably little used muscles account for their light weight. % bodyfat measurements will show them they are overfat and under muscled and they will realize they need to go on an exercise program with correct food intake to replace fat with muscle.
And yet another possibility is a very strong, muscular, athletic person. They may have a weight considerably above what a height-weight chart would say they should have. If they believe the chart they may think they have too much fat and have to lose weight when, in fact, their extra weight is due to large muscles. This person might actually be very lean and if they were to go on a diet and lose weight almost all the loss would be muscle tissue. Measuring % bodyfat would reveal this situation and show the person they were lean and that the extra weight was muscle and possibly even stronger bones which have a higher density. A scale cannot give this information. Only % bodyfat measurements will show this."

oh and I tried to find the link for it but when I was reading stories about BFL (which I plan on starting soon as I get my weight bench in the next few weeks) there was a sucess story this lady was 150 somthing lbs and a dress size 2 you'd have never guesed her weight she probably had like a 12% BF (judging by the definition to her muscles)
so maybe 180 isn't so unreasonable for a 6 or so you never know til you try

Good Morning All!!

This is a very interesting conversation - and here is my take on the question.

One of the things we have to remember is that it takes a lot of muscle and energy to move around (in my case when I started) 333 pounds of body. It takes a lot more muscle to make a 333 pound person walk than it does to make a 130 pound person walk.

So - as we lose weight, we create a situation in the body where there is excess muscle to move around the new weight. If you now weigh 260 pounds - you don't need the same amount of muscle as when you weighed 333 pounds. That is just the facts.

The body is very complex and adaptable. When it realizes that you don't need as much muscle anymore, it starts to trim back your LBM to match what you need. I don't see this as a negative. Here is why:

Last time I did the diet and lost 125lbs I was doing very intense aerobic exercise in the form of Mountain Biking. When I was at my goal I was in the top 5% of cardiovascular health for men my age. Did I lose LBM - absolutely. But - my riding was getting stronger and stronger because of the weight loss. I still had enough LBM to do all the activity and everything I was doing, but I didn't need as much as I did when I was 325.

So - my point is - your body will adapt to the weight loss combined with your activity level and set your LBM to the right level for you. I personally don't worry about any LBM that I lose - my body is simply adjusting to what I need right now.

I hope this makes sense