Health Nutrition and Supplements · Public discussion

Muscle, fat, weight...

Started by Brunswick_kate · · Last activity · 18 posts · 11,834 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Health Nutrition and Supplements
Published
18 August 2004
Last activity
23 August 2004
Original author
Brunswick_kate
Posts
18
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
11,834
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–18 of 18
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Last year my physician officially declared me to be about 2-1/2 feet too short for my weight. Around the same time, I started biking, got keen and took up daily commuting. I cut back a bit on the groceries, watched the fat intake etc with the intention of losing a bit of weight.

    I've lost inches...I'm down 3 skirt sizes. I've taken over 5 inches off my waist. Great -- not complaining.

    Last week I was back in the doctor's office. I haven't lost a pound of weight. Personally, I'm not getting hung up on the whole numbers game; I'm very obviously losing body fat because my old clothes are sliding off me. People keep telling me that it's because I'm building muscle mass while losing fat which brings me to my question...

    What's the ratio of weight for lean muscle mass vs fat?

  2. Brunswick_kate said:

    Last year my physician officially declared me to be about 2-1/2 feet too short for my weight. Around the same time, I started biking, got keen and took up daily commuting. I cut back a bit on the groceries, watched the fat intake etc with the intention of losing a bit of weight.

    I've lost inches...I'm down 3 skirt sizes. I've taken over 5 inches off my waist. Great -- not complaining.

    Last week I was back in the doctor's office. I haven't lost a pound of weight. Personally, I'm not getting hung up on the whole numbers game; I'm very obviously losing body fat because my old clothes are sliding off me. People keep telling me that it's because I'm building muscle mass while losing fat which brings me to my question...

    What's the ratio of weight for lean muscle mass vs fat?

    It varies from person to person, but there is about a 15-25% diference in densities. (muscle is mostly water, and fat is mostly oil)

  3. tamman2000 said:

    It varies from person to person, but there is about a 15-25% diference in densities. (muscle is mostly water, and fat is mostly oil)

    Thanks for the info

  4. Brunswick_kate said:

    Thanks for the info


    i think you should just be happy with dropping those skirt sizes, well unless your a fella and you find it somewhat embarrassing going into the shop to buy a new skirt or dress to fit 😄 .

    but im led to believe that muscle weighs more than fat anyway, Quiestion is when you lok in the mirror, are you happy with whats looking back at you. if so does it really matter.

  5. closesupport said:

    i think you should just be happy with dropping those skirt sizes, well unless your a fella and you find it somewhat embarrassing going into the shop to buy a new skirt or dress to fit 😄 .

    but im led to believe that muscle weighs more than fat anyway, Quiestion is when you lok in the mirror, are you happy with whats looking back at you. if so does it really matter.

    Oh, I'm getting there and I'm glad about the "non weight" loss...it's just a rather curious phenomenon. Not one I really notice because I get weighed in doctor's offices only. I threw my scale out a long time ago.

  6. Brunswick_kate said:

    Oh, I'm getting there and I'm glad about the "non weight" loss...it's just a rather curious phenomenon. Not one I really notice because I get weighed in doctor's offices only. I threw my scale out a long time ago.

    I would guess that your doctor is using a BMI chart to determine how 'overweight' you are. This is fine IF AND ONLY IF you are the typical sedentary couch potato. If you do any kind of physical excercise, where large groups of muscles are involved (such as cycling, where quadriceps and gluteus maximus are being used), then your mass might remain the same (or even go up) since the muscles are increasing in size/density and thus mass. In this case, the more relevant measurement, as opposed to BMI, is body fat percentage. If your bodyfat precentage is not dropping, then you should worry.

  7. Kate, Hi,

    I am 55 soon and have lost masses of kg for the medical people so a few commets from my experience.

    They would not let me near a bike until i reached my target zone, BMI below 25. They then sent me off to learn to swim and run.

    I had put in 70 min a day 6 days a week on an ergo bike in the gym at a cadence of 88-94, with HR target of 130-140 at the start then 120-130 as i reached my goal weight.

    I suggest reducing the effort in training, increasing the cadence and watching the HR, it may be too high, the fat will then burn, believe me mine did, the muscle mass will also reduce if you keep the load light and the medical people will be happy as mine now are.

    I am now able to redesign my frame with swimming as my core activity, only bike for 2-3 hours each week, and keep the cadence up where possible.

    I hope this helps and none of my friends read it. 🙄

    cheers
    George

  8. Julian Radowsky said:

    I would guess that your doctor is using a BMI chart to determine how 'overweight' you are. This is fine IF AND ONLY IF you are the typical sedentary couch potato. If you do any kind of physical excercise, where large groups of muscles are involved (such as cycling, where quadriceps and gluteus maximus are being used), then your mass might remain the same (or even go up) since the muscles are increasing in size/density and thus mass. In this case, the more relevant measurement, as opposed to BMI, is body fat percentage. If your bodyfat precentage is not dropping, then you should worry.

    This is exactly right. I run, cycle and lift weights, each at least twice a week. I am not that lean, but I had my body fat tested at around 19% (below average). Before that I had a doctor without looking at me with my shirt off tell me that I needed to lose weight because I am 6'1" and (was at the time) 205 lbs (now 195). How many obese men have a 36" waist and a 48" chest?

    I went to another doctor, who actually understands active people, he checked my BP, pulse, cholesterol, and then asked me what the hell I was doing that was keeping me so healthy. I told him about the marathons, biking, and lifting, he said "keep it up".

    Not all doctors (particularly in America) understand the athletes body.

    Also (from one bigger rider to another) recent studies have shown that activity level is far more inportant to overall health than body fat, or BMI. In other words, if you are exersizing, you are getting healthier, even if you aren't losing weight, keep it up!

  9. Brunswick_kate said:

    Oh, I'm getting there and I'm glad about the "non weight" loss...it's just a rather curious phenomenon. Not one I really notice because I get weighed in doctor's offices only. I threw my scale out a long time ago.


    try looking up some of the following
    [font=Verdana][/font]
    [font=Verdana]1) How to Calculate Your Daily Calorie Needs Harris-Benedict Formula[/font]
    [font=Verdana][font=Verdana]A more accurate way to calculate your daily calorie needs is to determine basal metabolic rate (BMR) using multiple factors, including height, weight, age and gender, then multiply the BMR by an activity factor to determine your total daily energy expenditure (calories). One calculation method is the Harris Benedict formula.[/font]

    [/font]

    [font=Verdana]2) How to Calculate Your Daily Calorie Needs Using Body Surface Area[/font]

    [font=Verdana][font=Verdana]Four Steps to Determine Your Total Daily Calorie Needs[/font]

    • [font=Verdana]Select the average hourly BMR for your age & gender [/font]
    • [font=Verdana][/font][font=Verdana]Select your Body Surface Area figure [/font]
    • [font=Verdana][/font][font=Verdana]Multiply your BMR by Your BSA figure. Then multiply the result by 24.[/font][font=Times New Roman] [/font]
    • [font=Verdana]Multiply this by your Activity Level Number[/font][font=Times New Roman] [/font]
    [/font]

    [font=Verdana]3) How to Calculate Your Daily Calorie Needs Katch-McArdle Formula[/font]

    [font=Verdana][font=Verdana]Calories/BMR - Katch-McArdle Formula[/font]

    [font=Verdana]If you know your body fat and lean body mass (body muscle) percentage, you can obtain a fairly precise estimate of your BMR. For example, the formula from Katch & McArdle takes into account lean mass and therefore is more accurate than a formula based on total body weight.[/font]
    [font=Verdana]The Katch-McArdle formula applies equally to men and women [/font]
    [font=Verdana][/font]
    [font=Verdana][/font][/font]

  10. Brunswick_kate said:

    Oh, I'm getting there and I'm glad about the "non weight" loss...it's just a rather curious phenomenon. Not one I really notice because I get weighed in doctor's offices only. I threw my scale out a long time ago.


    [font=Times New Roman] Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR)[/font]

    [font=Times New Roman]The amount of calories needed to run all essential functions and chemical reactions while in a rested and quiet state. RMR is the largest part of total metabolism and accounts for 65 - 75% of calories burned in a day.[/font]

    [font=Times New Roman]If lean weight is lost from the body through increased protein metabolism the Resting Metablic Rate decreases. [/font]
    [font=Times New Roman][/font]
    [font=Times New Roman]This often happens when people go on a strict diet, the body is forced into what's known as a "negative nitrogen balance" which means more protein is lost than what is replaced due to less protein/energy intake. This imbalance causes a gradual loss in lean weight thus lowering the Resting Metablic Rate.[/font]
    [font=Times New Roman][/font]
    [font=Times New Roman]Many dieters limit the amount of lean weight loss with some type of intense exercise in order for muscles to develop a need to hold onto more protein forcing the body to take more energy from fat stores.[/font]
    [font=Times New Roman][/font]
    [font=Times New Roman]I simply eat more fat and protein than carbs, i don't limit them! i have been informed that if i wish to grow muscles further then i require 1.0g t 1.5g of protein per kilo of body weight extra.[/font]

  11. closesupport said:

    If lean weight is lost from the body through increased protein metabolism the Resting Metablic Rate decreases.

    Right, muscle burns calories and when we lose muscle our metabolism slows down. Though our metabolism also slows down when we lose fat since fat also burns calories; funny how this is never mentioned in diet or exercise books. I guess nobody wants to associate anything good with fat mass so it's never brought up. Fat burns about 2 calories per pound. Muscle burns about 6 calories per pound. So if a person gains 10 pounds of muscle and loses 30 pounds of fat their RMR will remain the same since they both increase and decrease their metabolism by 60 calories.

    Gain 10 pounds of muscle x 6 calories per pound= 60 cals increase in RMR
    Lose 30 of pounds fat x 2 calories per pound= 60 cals decrease in RMR

    Though fat itself burns about 2 calories per pound, fat causes even more calories to be burned than that. Since extra fat mass causes muscles to burn more calories since its the muscles that have to lift and carry all that fat mass around. So in someone who is somewhat active. there might not be much of a difference in how fat mass and muscle mass effect metabolism when compared pound for pound. This is often why RMR is figured on calories per pound of bodyweight since differences in body compositions and bodyfat percentages don't effect RMR very much at a given weight.

  12. you failed to mention the thermic effect foods, how calories are also burned up whilst during and after food consumption, so in thery a person who eats more burns more energy digesting food, eg larger meals opsed to smaller meals frequently.

    but why people complain about how much fat they are consuming confusses me, since when fat enters the duodenum a hormne called kolyenstkenin is released, this is responsile for that feeling of fullness you experience after a greasy bag of chips. can't eat to much plus fat offers more than twice the energy that carbs do. So why is it that people restrict fat intake??

    i personally eat just 3 meals aday, i try to make those 3 meals count for all the calories carbs and protein that im going to require. is this an incorrect aproach.

    My weight alters by pounds, up or down

  13. BiochemGuy said:

    funny how this is never mentioned in diet or exercise books. I guess nobody wants to associate anything good with fat mass so it's never brought up. Fat burns about 2 calories per pound. Muscle burns about 6 calories per pound. So if a person gains 10 pounds of muscle and loses 30 pounds of fat their RMR will remain the same since they both increase and decrease their metabolism by 60 calories.

    Gain 10 pounds of muscle x 6 calories per pound= 60 cals increase in RMR
    Lose 30 of pounds fat x 2 calories per pound= 60 cals decrease in RMR

    i agree, the turnover of protein carb and fats and the pumping of ions all require energy as the rate at which ATP utilization is relatively slow at rest, sufficient ATP can be resynthesized by oxidative combustion of fats.

    as ventalation and cardiac output increase with the challenge of exercise more oxygen is delivered to the working muscle and the mitchondria can more effectively oxidize the available sustrate. with the reduction of glyctonic intermediates makes it possible to utilize any glucose being released from the liver as a homnal stimulation of liver glycgen degredatin, so a greater supply of energy can now come from glucose oxidation but the rate at which glucose is taken up by the working muscle must not exceed the rate at which it is being released or a reduction in blood glucose will ccur, similarly the delivery of fatty acids from the circulation will also increase as fatty acids are released into the blood enabling a greater proportion of the rate of ATP resynthesis that will now move towards fat oxidation as exercise pro`ceeds.

    during any prolonged exercise performed at a relatively constant pace and rate of energy demand the desired rate at of ATP resynthesis is maintained by oxidizing a mixture of carbos both as a mixture of glucose from the liver and glycogen from within the muscle itself and fats from within the muscle also along with what is delivererd as free fatty acids.

    only over prolonged lower intensities of exercise performed intermittently over prolnged perids, the glycgen sparing effects are the result of a greater fat utilization,lactate clearance or glycogen repletion during recovery.

  14. closesupport said:

    you failed to mention the thermic effect foods, how calories are also burned up whilst during and after food consumption, so in thery a person who eats more burns more energy digesting food, eg larger meals opsed to smaller meals frequently

    .
    Because I wrote only about effects of weight on metabolism, not all factors of metabolsim. I wrote about the effects of TEF(thermic effect of food) on page 4 of the "protein powder for weightloss" thread. The size of a meal has no effect on metabolism, only total calorie intake for the day and where those calories come from.

    Protein has a TEF of 30% meaning 30% of the protein calories you consume are burned during digestion and processing of those protein calories.

    Carbohydrates have a TEF of 6%
    Fat has a TEF of 3%

    So If you eat 3000 calories a day of equal amounts of calories coming from protein, carbs, and fats your TEF would be.

    1000 calories of Protien minus 30% for TEF equals 700 calories.
    1000 calories of Carbohydrates minus 6% for TEF equals 940 calories.
    1000 calories of fat minus 3% for TEF equals 970 calories.

    So the total calories left after TEF would be 2610 calories and 390 calories burned for TEF.

    It wouldn't matter if you ate these 3000 calories in one meal or ten meals. the thermic effect would be the same.
    The whole thing about larger or smaller meals effecting TEF differently is nothing more than a myth with no science to back it up. The thermic effect of food is in response to calories and not meal size.

    closesupport said:


    but why people complain about how much fat they are consuming confusses me, since when fat enters the duodenum a hormne called kolyenstkenin is released, this is responsile for that feeling of fullness you experience after a greasy bag of chips. can't eat to much plus fat offers more than twice the energy that carbs do. So why is it that people restrict fat intake??

    You are right about cholecystokinin making you feel full.
    The reason fat has been looked at as being bad is mainly due to the fact that is has about twice as many calories per gram. The old way of thinking was that to lose weight you have to consume less calories than you burn, and since fat has the most calories per gram cuting out fat intake would be the best way of reducing calorie intake.

    Most didn't take into consideration that fat is also very filling per gram since its digested slowly and the release of cholecystokinin from fats will also help to keep you feeling full.

    They also used to think fat was unhealty and raised cholesterol and therefore should takin out of the diet before carbohydrates.

    We now know that not all fats are equal. The polunsaturated fats reduce cholesterol, monounsaturated fats don't effect cholesterol and its the saturated fats that increase cholesterol.

    Usually foods high in fat are also high in cholesterol and it was thought that if you eleminated eating fatty food then you would get less cholesterol as well. Cholesterol from food actually has little effect on raising blood cholesterol. They thought for many years that eating cholesterol raised blood cholesterol but this isn't always the case. Your liver makes about 2000mg of cholesterol per day. The more cholesterol you eat the less cholesterol your liver makes.

    So take a person who eats no cholesterol at all. their liver will still make 2000mg of cholesterol. If they eat 2000mg of cholesterol their livers will make zero cholesterol. either way they end up with the same blood cholesterol levels. Only if a person ate more cholesterol than their liver made would food cholesterol effect blood cholesterol. this isn't usually the case in most peoples diets.

    Carbohydrates also raise cholesterol since insulin from carbs stimulates the liver to produce more cholesterol. This is why people on low carb Atkins type diets usually have their blood cholesterol decrease or stay the same even though they are eating alot of saturated fat and food cholesterol.

    It also explains why when doctors put people on low fat high carb diets to reduce cholesterol, it usually dosn't work. This is what most doctors did for years and many doctors still do.

    So fat was looked at as being bad cause it has more calories per gram, raises cholesterol, and usually found in high cholesterol foods. Which I just explain why this isn't the case. Fat was looked at as being evil for so long that it's going to take awhile for people to come around, especially doctors who have been preaching for years that fat is bad for you.

  15. BiochemGuy said:

    .
    Because I wrote only about effects of weight on metabolism, not all factors of metabolsim. I wrote about the effects of TEF(thermic effect of food) on page 4 of the "protein powder for weightloss" thread. The size of a meal has no effect on metabolism, only total calorie intake for the day and where those calories come from.

    Protein has a TEF of 30% meaning 30% of the protein calories you consume are burned during digestion and processing of those protein calories.

    Carbohydrates have a TEF of 6%
    Fat has a TEF of 3%

    So If you eat 3000 calories a day of equal amounts of calories coming from protein, carbs, and fats your TEF would be.

    1000 calories of Protien minus 30% for TEF equals 700 calories.
    1000 calories of Carbohydrates minus 6% for TEF equals 940 calories.
    1000 calories of fat minus 3% for TEF equals 970 calories.

    So the total calories left after TEF would be 2610 calories and 390 calories burned for TEF.

    It wouldn't matter if you ate these 3000 calories in one meal or ten meals. the thermic effect would be the same.
    The whole thing about larger or smaller meals effecting TEF differently is nothing more than a myth with no science to back it up. The thermic effect of food is in response to calories and not meal size.

    You are right about cholecystokinin making you feel full.
    The reason fat has been looked at as being bad is mainly due to the fact that is has about twice as many calories per gram. The old way of thinking was that to lose weight you have to consume less calories than you burn, and since fat has the most calories per gram cuting out fat intake would be the best way of reducing calorie intake.

    Most didn't take into consideration that fat is also very filling per gram since its digested slowly and the release of cholecystokinin from fats will also help to keep you feeling full.

    They also used to think fat was unhealty and raised cholesterol and therefore should takin out of the diet before carbohydrates.

    We now know that not all fats are equal. The polunsaturated fats reduce cholesterol, monounsaturated fats don't effect cholesterol and its the saturated fats that increase cholesterol.

    Usually foods high in fat are also high in cholesterol and it was thought that if you eleminated eating fatty food then you would get less cholesterol as well. Cholesterol from food actually has little effect on raising blood cholesterol. They thought for many years that eating cholesterol raised blood cholesterol but this isn't always the case. Your liver makes about 2000mg of cholesterol per day. The more cholesterol you eat the less cholesterol your liver makes.

    So take a person who eats no cholesterol at all. their liver will still make 2000mg of cholesterol. If they eat 2000mg of cholesterol their livers will make zero cholesterol. either way they end up with the same blood cholesterol levels. Only if a person ate more cholesterol than their liver made would food cholesterol effect blood cholesterol. this isn't usually the case in most peoples diets.

    Carbohydrates also raise cholesterol since insulin from carbs stimulates the liver to produce more cholesterol. This is why people on low carb Atkins type diets usually have their blood cholesterol decrease or stay the same even though they are eating alot of saturated fat and food cholesterol.

    It also explains why when doctors put people on low fat high carb diets to reduce cholesterol, it usually dosn't work. This is what most doctors did for years and many doctors still do.

    So fat was looked at as being bad cause it has more calories per gram, raises cholesterol, and usually found in high cholesterol foods. Which I just explain why this isn't the case. Fat was looked at as being evil for so long that it's going to take awhile for people to come around, especially doctors who have been preaching for years that fat is bad for you.


    Good read! now get down off your soap box.😄

    no i agree with the abve 100%, but desn't help me put weight on, so more protein for me!😉

  16. muscel weighs more than fat ,fat weighs some were near 14lb to 16 lb a gallon..dont go by the scales go by the mirror ,,stand up in front of it with out your stuff on and jump up and down ..and the bits that move is fat lol but in my case it a few pound of muscel😄

  17. bigun said:

    muscel weighs more than fat ,fat weighs some were near 14lb to 16 lb a gallon..dont go by the scales go by the mirror ,,stand up in front of it with out your stuff on and jump up and down ..and the bits that move is fat lol but in my case it a few pound of muscel😄

    I agree with most of what you said, but fat only weighs about 7 lbs per gallon.

    If you don't believe me... consider this: we all know fat floats in water. Water weighs 8 lbs per gallon. Fat would not float if it were more than 8 lbs per gallon.

  18. yep you right got that bit wrong is that why i sink 😄

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.