I had my body comp done today at the gym, and using the magic of measurements, computers, etc., my trainer has determined that of the 9 lbs I've lost since July around 3 lbs of it was fat. Therefore, I've lost a relatively big chunk of lean mass -- which is not at all normal for me. My trainer says she's not going to "worry" unless she sees the same trend at my next comp in January.
So here's my question (which, by the way, I was too embarrassed/ashamed to ask my trainer)...and LOL, I can't believe I'm even ASKING this...
Am I doing too much cardio?
{{{Kate pauses to allow everyone to giggle wildly, especially Mod Meg and Mod Mel who know just-how-very-much Kate hates aerobic movement of any kind}}}
But SERIOUSLY! I do not want to be losing muscle mass!!! And 6 lbs of lean mass lost in 3 months seems horrendous to me, especially because I lift 3 days a week for 30 - 45 minutes (and I eat lots of protein!). I only -- LOL..."only" -- do cardio 3 times a week for 30 - 45 minutes. I do the elliptical at elevation level 14, and vary the resistence between 9 - 12.
Am I sabotaging my muscles by doing this?
And another little note here...I am gradually (purposely) leaving the "actively losing weight" phase and beginning maintenence with my new #1 goal being to really work on my muscle tone. I'm a loose Eddie Bauer size 8 jeans now, and that's just about where I want to be so it's pretty much time to maintain! It would be nice to get to 135 lbs, but at this point I'm perfectly happy to do that over the next year or so. Meaning: I DON'T WANNA LOSE MUSCLE MASS!!! I'd rather lose nothing at all than say bye-bye to any more muscle.
Last edited by LovesBassets; 10-18-2005 at 04:57 PM.
What kind of body composition tool did she use??? I am assuming that you are talking about a body fat % analysis. They can be inaccurate, well more or less are inaccurate. If it was an electro impedence one of any kind (the kind you hold, the kind you step on or are hooked up to) they can vary depending on hydration and TOM, and if it was calipers, well those can vary depending on where the measurements are take, even 1/4 inch up or down can make a difference. Unless you were measured using hydrostatic weighing, I would tend to think that maybe the % is wrong!!! That's probably why your trainer is not worried. When I trained, I took measurements on people all the time. The could vary up to 5% in the same day (I did an experiment). She's not worried about it because she knows that's probably not the case.
Other than that, do more weight training if you are worried. I deffinitly wouldn't say you're doing too much cardio. Holy crap if you are, then I am depleting muscle by the minute, hehe.
YAY for you, size 8!!! I can't wait til I am there!
She used the calipers, which is how she always does it, and then did all my measurements -- suprailliac, abdomen, triceps, yada, yada, yada. I have lotsa freckles everywhere so she has a freckle "landmark" for all my measurement points, so I don't think the location of the caliper pinch changed much. Then she put it all into the computer and came up with:
Lean Body Weight = 120.9 lbs (down 6 lbs from July)
Body Fat Weight = 22.1 lbs (down 3 lbs from July)
I actually have no clue how any of this works, so I'm psyched you're *here* to help me out!!
I've lost a TON of inches in the last 3 months, so I thought it was a little weird that my lean mass loss would be on the high side. BTW -- IS it on "the high side?" I mean, 2/3 of my weight loss was lean mass, and that just doesn't sound too good to me. It seems high (to me), but I really dunno what I'm talking about . And (like I said) 6 lbs of lean mass lost in 3 months is way higher than normal for me.
But then again, maybe the calipers/computer method is flawed...I know calipers aren't the best way to do it. Is this really all just high-tech "educated guessing?"
Okay, chill out.... In the last 3 months, have your jeans got looser? By a LOT? Can you see more muscle definition than you could in July? If the answer is then I'd ignore the readings! I read somewhere (probably stumptuous) that ALL fat measuring methods are innacurate to around 5%.
She reckons that the most accurate is a flotation tank type thing (hydro-displacement I think ) but the very very very accurate way of having your body fat composition measured is to have an autopsy!!
So I think most of the measurements are educated guesses. Also, we know you burn muscle after an hour of cardio... So I guess 45mins is fine, just fine, for cardio! If you can see more muscle definition and you're shaping up how you want to be, then forget about the body fat measurements - you can get just as obsessed with them as you can with the scales!
the very very very accurate way of having your body fat composition measured is to have an autopsy!!
Funny! Okay, yeah, you're right...I'll chill out about it! Thanks for the perspective!! I'm usually very focused on inches, clothing, etc. so you're totally right -- gotta stop worrying about all this math! I was just kinda panicky about it last night, but I think I'm okay now .
Nope, I don’t think you’re doing too much cardio (sorry! ) You’re doing between 90 and 135 minutes a week, which I’d consider to be on the low side for weight loss (others may disagree, of course). Last weekend I was at a personal trainer’s conference in New York City (I hope to write a lot about it this weekend – I learned so much!) and a study was presented there that showed the best weight loss and maintenance associated with more than 280 minutes of cardio per week (40 minutes per day). I really don’t think you’re jeopardizing your muscle mass at your current level.
Now, about that body fat reading -- a few thoughts …
First, there’s about a 3% margin of error with any body fat testing, though calipers done by the same person tend to be fairly reliable. Still, you need to always consider your BF as being in a +/- 3% range, not as a static number.
Second, and very important – what’s being measured is pounds of fat and pounds of lean body mass, NOT pounds of muscle. LBM is everything in your body that isn’t fat, so it’s hair, skin, bone, muscle and WATER. Water weight fluctuations are going to show up as changes to your LBM and 60% of your body weight is water – so water retention can play havoc with the numbers. Let’s say you’re retaining water for some reason -- could be that time of the month or you had a lot of sodium or ate a lot of carbs (which hold 3-4 times their own weight in water) – and then you drop five pounds OF WATER in a week (I’ve done this lots of times after a carb fest ). Your LBM is going to drop by 5 pounds, though you haven’t lost any pounds of muscle at all.
The point I’m making is that a drop in LBM doesn’t automatically mean that you’ve lost an equivalent amount of muscle. Everyone confuses LBM with muscle mass, but in reality, the majority of LBM is water and muscle makes up just a part. Just because your LBM goes down a few pounds doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ve lost that much muscle.
Third, in my opinion, it’s impossible to lose 100% pounds of fat, especially as close to your goal weight as you are. I found that the last ten or so pounds that I lost were about half LBM and half fat. That’s why we focus on building as much muscle as possible early in the weight loss process – to draw on as we get close to goal. Perhaps others have had different experiences; I think it’s inevitable that some muscle gets lost along with fat. The key is to minimize it as much as possible!
Finally, your LBM, as measured, is still on the high side for your weight and height. Even if you did lose some muscle mass, you’ve still got plenty left to support your metabolism.
I agree with your trainer – don’t sweat the numbers! What really counts is the inches you’ve lost. You’re at the point that Mel’s talks about often – forgetting a goal weight and instead concentrating on getting your goal BODY. And that’s a look and a feel – it doesn’t have much at all to do with numbers!
2frustrated brings up a point I've wondered about:
Quote:
Also, we know you burn muscle after an hour of cardio
I hear this tossed about all the time wth various numbers (hour of cardio, 30 minutes of cardio, 90 minutes of any exercise etc) but have never seen the science to back up the notion that we burn muscle after X amount of exercise. The studies that were presented at the conference didn't show any loss of LBM associated with exercise. All they showed was that weight training preserves LBM during weight loss (well heck, we knew that all along, right? ) and that the greatest weight loss is associated with the greatest amount of exercise.
The view of the scientists there boiled down to calories in versus calories out and no one was nearly as concerned with burning muscle as the average musclehead in the gym seems to be. Perhaps that's because the focus of these studies was weight loss and bodybuilders are more concerned with adding muscle? -- dunno. I'd love to find some science that deals with these issues, so if anyone can point to me to a source, it would be greatly appreciated.
OKay, I was just going on what a lot of people have said here! I was majorly worried about it, cos I do a 2 hour intense kickboxing session every week. Maybe it is all BS! I'll have a search around and see what I can find (probably nothing! )
Kate,
Just another thought to go along with the great advice you've already received--how has the amount of protein/fat/carbs you've been eating changed if at all? Make sure you are eating enough protein to sustain muscle mass and not dramatically cutting in any area. Good luck, you are making great progress!
Sorry, Kate...you can't get out of cardio that easily! I'd be right there with you if that were the case
When I see a bizarre number like that, I'll recaliper my client a few days later and then a few days after that to make sure that it's not hydration, TOM, my error, or an ice cream fest.
Meg- I'm not sure I've seen any scientific studies about burning muscle either, but I can show you some real life examples if you want to take a drive back to Philly.
The burning muscle after an hour of cardio depends on your stored glycogen and other variables, you can actually do up to 2 hours or more and 90 mins is pretty safe, but none of those numbers are gonna be the same for everyone. And it's not true and you burn soley muscle, it's a myth. Your body doesn't go "Ok it's been 60 minutes, start using muscle", it's way more complicated than that. Sometimes I think myths like that get started by people who don't want other people to workout a lot. I don't know if any of you have experience this, but sometimes when I tell people how much I workout or what or how much I eat, they will say all kinds of things to try and discourage me. I always just say back "Well it's worse to sit on the couch and eat cheetos, so I guess it's the lesser of 2 evils".
Sorry to rant, that was one of my pet peeves when I was a trainer!
Meg- I'm not sure I've seen any scientific studies about burning muscle either, but I can show you some real life examples if you want to take a drive back to Philly.
Woo hoo! I'll be there by ... dinner time?
Seriously, I'm not questioning anyone's real life experiences with muscle loss. What I'm interested in is if there's any science explaining why the body would turn to muscle as fuel when stored fat is available - since it seems to me that this is the job of stored fat - or if this might depend on how much fat is stored (perhaps the body is looking to spare fat when one is below a certain %?) and what the mechanism is and if there's any 'rules' about duration or intensity of exercise. If anyone's ever done a study?
This issue wasn't discussed in my PT course at all. My book devoted a section in the cardio chapter to debunking the myth of the 'fat burning zone' but said zilch about exercise/cardio burning muscle.
I get the feeling that I'm being dense here but if the body turns to burning muscle for fuel after it runs through stored glycogen, when does stored fat come into play? I'd love it if someone can point me in the direction of something to read - textbook, article, study - that explains all of this.
Here's what I get hung up on ... we have to create a calorie deficit in order to lose weight, right? Every pound of fat we have on our bodies is 3500 calories of stored energy and we have to create a 3500 calorie deficit - through diet and exercise - in order to use up the stored 3500 calories and thereby lose one pound. So why would the body turn to muscle as fuel instead of stored fat? Shouldn't stored fat be the body's backup energy source once immediately available fuel is exhausted?
Sorry, Kate...you can't get out of cardio that easily!
I thought you'd like the question, Mel . Oh well, I tried, right? Now you know why I didn't ask my trainer -- she'd throw a dumbell at me just for thinking I was doing too much cardio . No she wouldn't, but she'd give me That Look .
And Liz, thanks for the advice! I'm a total protein fanatic and haven't lessened up on it at all -- in fact I keep trying to squeeze more in every day. I'll be eating steak for breakfast pretty soon if I'm not careful .
I'm also curious about the "why does your body even BOTHER burning muscle when there's lots of fat to use up" question. I'll be interested to see what people say about that.
I have my book I used in PT school in a box somewhere (It is the NSCA book), but the jist of why the body uses some muscle for fuel after a certain period is mostly evolution. Our bodies don't know that we live in a land of plenty now, so it doesn't want to use all the fat if it doesn't have to, in case it needs it for later. So say you've been working out a long while, at some point your body will try to ration your fat because it thinks that maybe this continuous exersion of energy may last forever, it doesn't want to use all the great stored fat all at once, just in case. Your body also doesn't really know that you are exerting energy for the purpose of getting rid of the stored fat, it just thinks that's what you had to do that day (like a thousand years ago it may have taken an hour long hike to find food). I learned that part in my BIO100 class I am in now.
It's funny, because it makes total sense, I just wisht that evolution would catch up and stop working against me trying to make my butt smaller!
Meg & Mel are going to laugh at this one :-)
. And (like I said) 6 lbs of lean mass lost in 3 months is way higher than normal for me.
then I'd ignore the readings! I read somewhere (probably stumptuous) that ALL fat measuring methods are innacurate to around 5%. 
) but the very very very accurate way of having your body fat composition measured is to have an autopsy!!
: chill out and keep up the good work! 
Funny! Okay, yeah, you're right...I'll chill out about it! Thanks for the perspective!! I'm usually very focused on inches, clothing, etc. so you're totally right -- gotta stop worrying about all this math! I was just kinda panicky about it last night, but I think I'm okay now 
) You’re doing between 90 and 135 minutes a week, which I’d consider to be on the low side for weight loss (others may disagree, of course). Last weekend I was at a personal trainer’s conference in New York City (I hope to write a lot about it this weekend – I learned so much!) and a study was presented there that showed the best weight loss and maintenance associated with more than 280 minutes of cardio per week (40 minutes per day). I really don’t think you’re jeopardizing your muscle mass at your current level. 
). Your LBM is going to drop by 5 pounds, though you haven’t lost any pounds of muscle at all. 
) and that the greatest weight loss is associated with the greatest amount of exercise. 
