Weight vs. Width

Sequi 2008 · 06-12-2011, 07:26 AM

All right. I have a scale. I have a tape measure. I mostly measure progress by tracking my weight, and periodically check my waist. Usually I check waist measurements when my weight seems not to be moving in a given week.

I am now approaching my normal BMI range (which is pretty exciting, because I haven't been there for years.) As expected, the rate of weight loss has slowed down. "Waist loss" has continued.

My "weight vs. width" ratio seems to be significantly different this time around. My pants size appears to be about 2" less at the same weight points. My weight had hovered at this weight range for a few years (slightly below to slightly above the high number of the normal BMI range), but back then I wore one size bigger pants. I'm now fitting "thin" pants.

Anybody else experiencing this on Medifast? I know the explanation is that I have a different ratio of fat to muscle this time around (muscle weighs more than fat), but I certainly have not been exercising on MF. Maybe I've successfully prevented muscle loss, and the extra muscle is from that?

It's a pleasant surprise. I may readjust my weight goal if I lose my belly completely (it's still there, although much reduced.) Ketosis really seems to target the fat!

QuilterInVA · 06-12-2011, 11:17 AM

How could muscle weigh more than fat? A pound is a pound. Muscle takes up less volume than fat but a pound is a pound.

alinnell · 06-12-2011, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuilterInVA

How could muscle weigh more than fat? A pound is a pound. Muscle takes up less volume than fat but a pound is a pound.

You're correct. A pound is a pound regardless of what it is made up of. I think what she's trying to say is that a pound of muscle takes up less space on the body than a pound of fat.

101days · 06-12-2011, 02:52 PM

By Volume, - Muscle weighs more than Fat

JayEll · 06-12-2011, 04:23 PM

So you're saying a pint of muscle weighs more than a pint of fat--but... um... that's not a very useful picture.

Muscle is denser, therefore takes up less space. That's all we need to keep in mind. The implication of that is, your weight might not change but your size would go down if you are losing fat and improving muscle.

Jay

irishlad · 06-13-2011, 07:19 AM

For what its worth, I dropped a jeans size after losing approx 15 lbs, since then I have lost another over 30 lbs, but still cannot near fit into next size jeans down. I am losing fat and not losing muscle (Putting some muscle on actually!)

Sequi 2008 · 06-13-2011, 09:55 AM

Sorry for the confusion. To put it to actual numbers, the last time I was 180 lbs, I had to wear 36" pants minimum. Now that I'm back at 180 lbs (5 years later), I fit 34" pants. Same weight, different pants size.

I know a pound is a pound, but the theory is that a pound of muscle takes up less space than a pound of fat (hence, smaller pants). Either that, or I'm losing the fat on my belly first (but my experience with that is that you can't target locations -- you lose fat everywhere proportionally.)

I'm just mentioning it because I wasn't expecting it. Also, it happened just as I was approaching normal BMI (my weight loss a week ago was only 1/2 pound, if I stood on the scale a certain way.) However, waist size still shrunk that week (my pause in weight loss was the reason I was checking my waist in the first place.)

I already know it's time to resume an exercise program.

abluvion · 06-14-2011, 09:14 AM

If you are not exercising right now to build muscle, you are not gaining muscle. Unfortunately MF is not magic like that. MF ensures that you are in a fat-burning state, so you are losing your fat stores (happily, around your midsection). There are probably other physiological things going on inside of you that keep your weight loss slow as you lose inches (water retention is the big one). Who knows. In the end, your inch loss matters more than your scale number!