2013 Off Topic Thread

[zY|]

Tried Dr. Pepper Ten. It also tastes like shit.

That's my shit, son.

[MMA_scientist]

I've actually been reading a lot about this lately. Most of the current wisdom says that if you're not pretty fat and you're losing more than 2 lbs a week then you're losing muscle in addition to fat, but if you keep it around 1-2 lbs it should all (or at least almost all) be fat. What do you think?

I really don't know. I don't claim to be an expert on these things, but I do believe weight loss is much simpler than people try to sell- calories in vs calories out is all it is IMO. When I have lost weight quickly, like last year when I first went vegan and lost 20 pounds in 30 days... I didn't do any body measurements, so I don't know if I lost muscle. I felt better and that is really all I cared about. I have never worried about it because I don't care about having a lot of muscle and I consider it a worthy trade off for losing fat.

[SPX]

I really don't know. I don't claim to be an expert on these things, but I do believe weight loss is much simpler than people try to sell- calories in vs calories out is all it is IMO. When I have lost weight quickly, like last year when I first went vegan and lost 20 pounds in 30 days... I didn't do any body measurements, so I don't know if I lost muscle. I felt better and that is really all I cared about. I have never worried about it because I don't care about having a lot of muscle and I consider it a worthy trade off for losing fat.

If you lost 20 pounds in 30 days I assure you a substantial portion of it was muscle. And I disagree that it's a good trade off. Muscle is useful in so many ways: It makes the body aesthetically pleasing. It gives the body strength. And, because the very existence of muscle by itself burns calories and keeps your metabolism running at a high level, it actually makes it where you can lose fast more easily.

It's much better, in my opinion, to lose weight slowly and make sure it's mostly fat than to lose weight quickly and burn a lot of muscle along with it.

[MMA_scientist]

If you lost 20 pounds in 30 days I assure you a substantial portion of it was muscle. And I disagree that it's a good trade off. Muscle is useful in so many ways: It makes the body aesthetically pleasing. It gives the body strength. And, because the very existence of muscle by itself burns calories and keeps your metabolism running at a high level, it actually makes it where you can lose fast more easily.

It's much better, in my opinion, to lose weight slowly and make sure it's mostly fat than to lose weight quickly and burn a lot of muscle along with it.

yeah, I know about all that... it just seems like earning less money so you can save on taxes. Don't lose fat too fast, because then you won't be able to lose fat easily. I accept the science behind it all, but you also have to consider the individual. For me, a mid 30's athlete, muscle mass is not really an issue. It is not that I am huge or muscular (I'm neither) but I have plenty of it, it isn't going to matter if I lose a few pounds of muscle. If I were older or someone else, I would probably put more weight on it. But for me, the goal is to lose the weight. I can try to add the muscle I lost later if I care to, which I haven't yet.

There are benefits to doing it slowly though, and when I went from fat sci to what you see today, it was at the rate of about 2 pounds per week. I didn't intentionally lose weight lat year as a vegan, it just happened. The biggest benefit I think is that you learn to live that lifestyle, as opposed to thinking of it as a short term diet that will be over in a month so you can get fat again. The benefit to losing weight quickly though is that it keeps you motivated to see results. So I don't think it is a cut and dried issue.

[SPX]

I don't know how accurate the numbers are, but everything I've read seems to suggest that once you start losing more than about 2 lbs per weight the balance slowly shifts to losing MORE muscle than fat, and to me that's just not acceptable. I mean, if I lose 20 lbs and 15 of it is fat and only 5 lbs is muscle, then that's one thing. But if only 8 lbs of it is fat and 12 lbs of it is muscle (an actual figure from a book I'm reading) then that's really working against me, not for me. I've worked pretty hard to put on what muscle I do have. I for damn sure don't want to give it away too easily.

I'm starting my cut at 175 lbs @ 20.5% bodyfat, according to my caliper measurements. If I'm under 150 when I get to 10% then that will just be gay.

[MMA_scientist]

I don't know how accurate the numbers are, but everything I've read seems to suggest that once you start losing more than about 2 lbs per weight the balance slowly shifts to losing MORE muscle than fat, and to me that's just not acceptable. I mean, if I lose 20 lbs and 15 of it is fat and only 5 lbs is muscle, then that's one thing. But if only 8 lbs of it is fat and 12 lbs of it is muscle (an actual figure from a book I'm reading) then that's really working against me, not for me. I've worked pretty hard to put on what muscle I do have. I for damn sure don't want to give it away too easily.

I'm starting my cut at 175 lbs @ 20.5% bodyfat, according to my caliper measurements. If I'm under 150 when I get to 10% then that will just be gay.

Oh, I have never heard that it was that severe. I can't believe that is true. I don't know because I never measure my BF, but just the effect it had on my body and face, it had to be more than 10 pounds of fat.

I agree for you with your goals, that would suck. To me, it wouldn't bother me if I felt good.

[SPX]

The theory behind it at least is that when you cut your calories low enough to where you're losing that much weight then a survival mechanism switches on in your body and your body wants to hold onto bodyfat because it senses that times are tough and there's a food shortage. And in its attempt to hold onto its fat reserves it starts burning muscle at a faster rate than fat.

I would like to see some studies on this.

[MMA_scientist]

The theory behind it at least is that when you cut your calories low enough to where you're losing that much weight then a survival mechanism switches on in your body and your body wants to hold onto bodyfat because it sense that times are tough and there's a food shortage. And in its attempt to hold onto its fat reserves it starts burning muscle at a faster rate than fat.

I would like to see some studies on this.

Yeah, I have heard the theory many times, even when I was in HS way back in the last millenium. I just don't really believe it.

[SPX]

I think it's the only way to explain girls who eat like birds and who weigh like 105 lbs and are 30% bodyfat (that's a real-life example).

A lot of people who have aimed to lose weight didn't go about it right, in my opinion, and ending up being "skinny fat." Yes, they are smaller, but they're not lean. The only explanation is that in their quest for rapid weight loss they burned through too much muscle. Sure, they "lost weight" but they didn't really change their body composition.

[SPX]

Also, I bet the theory that you heard was the "starvation mode" theory, i.e. that the body adjusts its metabolism downward as calories decrease. That one, at least, there is some scientific evidence for. I've seen at least one study that supports it.

[MMA_scientist]

Also, I bet the theory that you heard was the "starvation mode" theory, i.e. that the body adjusts its metabolism downward as calories decrease. That one, at least, there is some scientific evidence for. I've seen at least one study that supports it.

Yeah, I have definitely heard that, but also the other theory that if you lose weight too fast you burn muscle. Maybe I just rely on my own experience too much and draw generalizations from that. I have gained and lost weight a lot as a life long wrestler and as a formerly morbidly obese person (still obese, just not morbidly so). I also don't care about muscle very much, as long as I have enough to stand up and run around, I am fine... so I really haven't paid a lot of attention to my strength levels. You're probably right, but in my mind, if you are fat your goal is to lose weight and if it coming off fast, I am not going to eat some cheeseburgers to slow it down. When I am eating clean, it just comes off, I literally cannot eat enough healthy crap and stay fat. I was gorging on shit last Oct, but I couldnt eat 2000 calories of beans and apples if you paid me.

[edman5555]

That's what I always tell people about eating healthy. You can't fuckin eat enough to get fat.

[SPX]

You're probably right, but in my mind, if you are fat your goal is to lose weight and if it coming off fast, I am not going to eat some cheeseburgers to slow it down.

It's interesting you say that because I'm down 2.3 lbs in 3 days and I'm trying to boost my calories to slow that shit down a bit.

[MMA_scientist]

I think your case is more the exception that the rule. You purposely gained weight. Most people aren't trying yo hit very specific (and sort or random) numbers. They just want to slim down, and I think it is counterproductive to stop the progress on purpose. It will eventually balance out if it is lifetime change. You might lose some muscle, but eventually your calorie intake will meet your expenditure, and you can add muscle back.

[SPX]

I don't agree that most people just want to "slim down." Most people who decide to actually take the steps to lose weight want to actually look good. They want to have toned/muscular bodies, not just be smaller versions of their pear-shaped selves. The guys want to look like the dudes on the cover of Men's Health and the girls want to look like Jamie Eason.

[MMA_scientist]

Well, I disagree. Most people who want to lose some weight aren't committing to making diet and exercise the centerpiece of their lives. I don't doubt that people would want to have adonis-like physiques, but I do think that people know that to look like that is basically a part time job and requires way more discipline than they are willing to give.

[SPX]

My point is that they want to improve their SHAPE not just their SIZE. While the goal may be Jamie Eason, I suspect that most girls who put in the diet and gym time AT LEAST want to not have a pudgy stomach when it's over with.

[MMA_scientist]

yeah, I guess I just disagree with the idea that losing some muscle is going to prevent that. Your shape is going to change regardless of whether you lose muscle. If you lose fat too, you are going to change your shape for the better, even if it is not optimal.

[SPX]

I think if you lose a proportional amount of muscle to fat then you'll end up just a smaller version of your bigger self. Less massive, but otherwise, the same.

I told you about the girl who lost a lot of weight and got down to 105 lbs, only to discover that she was like 30% bodyfat and still looked like shit. She's one of the posters in the Personal Trainer section on bb.com and a huge advocate, because of her personal experience, for holding onto all the muscle you can.

[SPX]

Looks interesting. . .