Loosing fat and muscle while cutting

  • Thread starter Thread starter imported_etothepii
  • Start date Start date
I

imported_etothepii

Guest
I've been searching the internet, but can't find what I'm looking for. I once read an article that said, in simplistic terms, that a fit person who looses weight while exercising will loose around 70% fat to 30 % LBM, and while gaining weight (with exercise) will gain 70% LBM to 30% fat.

Again, this an over simplistic recollection of that article on my part ... but what I'm looking for is any research on this topic.

Does anybody have any links?
 
Im not aware of it being a case of fitness...more a case of initial bodyfat levels. Do you mean this?:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">1) The leaner you are, the higher your &quot;Partitioning Ratio&quot; (P:Ratio). This means more energy from the diet will be directed towards lean body mass. The opposite is true if you are fat.

2) The P:Ratio also works in the same way while dieting. The leaner you are, the more lean mass you will lose while dieting. The opposite is true if you are fat.</div>

Theres a study on it you can read here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....bstract
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Im not aware of it being a case of fitness</div>

&quot;Fit&quot; is my own word. Have a real fuzzy memory of what I read.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">2) The P:Ratio also works in the same way while dieting. The leaner you are, the more lean mass you will lose while dieting. The opposite is true if you are fat.</div>

See, I read just the opposite of this one. Hmmm...
 
Generally you will lose more lean mass while dieting if you are already lean than an obese person would. But... it is way too variable to be able to even say what percentage you will end up losing. It depends on so many factors that you just can't say one way or another.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Sep. 05 2006,19:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Generally you will lose more lean mass while dieting if you are already lean than an obese person would.  But... it is way too variable to be able to even say what percentage you will end up losing.  It depends on so many factors that you just can't say one way or another.</div>
Agreed, a person's physiology, diet, and lifestyle are just too unique to put definite figures on it.
 
For what it is worth, I stay relatively lean (under 15%) and every time I have dieted, I haven't been able to detect any muscle lose using calipers, etc etc. Obviously those techniques aren't fool proof, but the point is that I lost very little muscle that I could tell. It's not that hard to maintain muscle while dieting as long as you don't screw up real bad. Keep weights heavy, don't overdo it, and focus on maintaining strength, then you should be fine. The main thing you need is a lot of patience.
 
IMO, the more muscle mass you have the more fat you will tend to burn as muscle consumes more energy to maintain itself.

so the 30% - 70% opinion could be close to truth! I am not an expert on this though!
laugh.gif
 
Ive seen some estimates of there being very little difference between fat and muscle when it comes to energy expenditure. Along the lines of fat burning 2 calories per pound and muscle burning 6-8 calories per pound, it might not be all that significant to fatloss.
wow.gif
 
The energy expenditure differences between fat and msucle are relatively small. ITs just that fat doesnt ramp up energy utilization like muscle does.
 
You mean that a 250 pound muscleman needs approximately the same amount of calories to stay 250 as his 250 pound fat twin when they're both SDing but that each workout will be more calorie expensive for muscleman?
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> ITs just that fat doesnt ramp up energy utilization like muscle does</div>

Which simply means muscle itself burns more energy than fat to maintain itself, so unless you SD for a looooong while you probably will not get fat that soon, and it should be easier for a muscle bound person to burn fat, right?
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Sep. 08 2006,00:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Which simply means muscle itself burns more energy than fat to maintain itself</div>
not quite what I was meaning.

Resting is maintenance.

Moving = more energy utilized outside of maintenance
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Sep. 08 2006,05:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Fausto @ Sep. 08 2006,00:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Which simply means muscle itself burns more energy than fat to maintain itself</div>
not quite what I was meaning.

Resting is maintenance.

Moving = more energy utilized outside of maintenance</div>
I've been wondering this myself.

I've also read that the resting requirements for fat and muscle are not so different.

But, if you are fat, you may tend to move more slowly and conserve energy, whereas if you are muscular it is not difficult to &quot;waste&quot; energy in everyday activities.

Could that be why muscle &quot;boosts metabolism&quot;? Because it makes it easier for you to expend more energy?
 
I've read studies that say muscle is &quot;metabolically active&quot;, which means it burns calories even when not moving, which suggests by contrast fat is &quot;metabolically passive&quot;. I also know from my studies that muscles are always undergoing microcontractions, mainly to maintain posture (to keep you standing, or sitting upright in your seat etc.) Each microcontraction, though unnoticable to us, burns a few calories, and adds up over 24 hours. Added to this is the ability to burn more calories per hour during exercise.
 
A case in point is that a pal of mine was recently struck by a really nasty virus that got into his spine and caused the loss of use of his biceps. He is a reasonably well built guy with upper arms around 17&quot;. Once his biceps were no longer able to be signalled or controlled by his nervous system they literally turned into what felt like bags of water and hung down by his triceps. I never realised how much muscle contraction was constantly going on even when the muscle was apparently in a relaxed state.

Like P_P I would have thought that fat would be &quot;metabolically passive&quot;. Anyone know how and why the body expends almost as much energy holding on to fat (if this is, in fact, the case)?
 
Fat is not exactly like a bag that has lard stuffed into it.

It is an endocrine organ that is in a constant state of flux. Fat is constantly turned over, hormones are produced, cytokines etc.

Fat has mitochondria, fat has a nucleus, fat is cool
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Sep. 14 2006,08:06)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Fat is not exactly like a bag that has lard stuffed into it.

It is an endocrine organ that is in a constant state of flux. Fat is constantly turned over, hormones are produced, cytokines etc.

Fat has mitochondria, fat has a nucleus, fat is cool</div>
Yeah, fat has been getting a bad rap for far too long.

Pity all those folks who have the fat sugically sucked out of them aren't clued up on how cool fat is first, though I don't suppose they have enough removed to cause any future health problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top