Can anyone explain the mystery of the missing 12lb?

[tadpole]

He hasn't lost 12 lbs of muscle.

There are few options
Either the first weight was wrong
Or the second weight is wrong
Or they are both wrong
Or he’s lost an unknown amount of weight some of it being fat some of it being muscle and some water.
If the scales were right and accurate in their measurement, it is either one the other.
Which is why I said “if you've really only lost 19lb of fat”

 

[simmi]

Thanks for all the replys, used vicksters link, NHS site that with measurements of 182cm and 89kg gave me a BMI of 26.6%.
It's not so much the accuracy of the results that intrigued me, but the FACT that I have lost 31 pounds and even allowing for inaccuracy's in the results I had some loss of weight I couldn't account for.
I think 400bhp one word answer Water is as good as any other,something I didn't consider I guess a 14st body holds less water than a 16st one even if the 16st one is a lot fatter.

 

[amaferanga]

There are few options
Either the first weight was wrong
Or the second weight is wrong
Or they are both wrong
Or he’s lost an unknown amount of weight some of it being fat some of it being muscle and some water.
If the scales were right and accurate in their measurement, it is either one the other.
Which is why I said “if you've really only lost 19lb of fat”

He hasn't lost 12 lbs of muscle. His scales are guessing parameters they can't compute and getting it wrong. But regardless of what the scales said, a bit of common sense tells you that he hasn't lost 12 lbs of muscle.

 

[amaferanga]

Thanks for all the replys, used vicksters link, NHS site that with measurements of 182cm and 89kg gave me a BMI of 26.6%.
It's not so much the accuracy of the results that intrigued me, but the FACT that I have lost 31 pounds and even allowing for inaccuracy's in the results I had some loss of weight I couldn't account for.
I think 400bhp one word answer Water is as good as any other,something I didn't consider I guess a 14st body holds less water than a 16st one even if the 16st one is a lot fatter.

All you know is you've lost 31 lbs. There is no weight that you can't account for.

 

[jowwy]

WATER

 

[srw]

12lb of water is a bit over a gallon, or 5 litres. A 5l container looks like this. The whole lot of the weight loss won't be water.

 

[VamP]

12lb of water is a bit over a gallon, or 5 litres. A 5l container looks like this. The whole lot of the weight loss won't be water.

Yeah but we already know that the 12lbs is an arbitrarily made up figure. There's no mystery here folks, move on.

 

[srw]

Yeah but we already know that the 12lbs is an arbitrarily made up figure. There's no mystery here folks, move on.

No. the 12lbs is the one figure we do know. It's real. But it's not water.

 

[black'n'yellow]

No. the 12lbs is the one figure we do know. It's real. But it's not water.

The only identifiable weight loss number we have here is 31lbs. Whether that is accurate or not is another issue, but it appears to be a figure 31lbs lower than previous, which is all that matters.

If indeed some of it is water, then he may well put some of it back on, he may not. Either way, it's a good number.

 

[Sittingduck]

Anyway, well done for losing 31lbs of... something

 

[srw]

The only identifiable weight loss number we have here is 31lbs. Whether that is accurate or not is another issue, but it appears to be a figure 31lbs lower than previous, which is all that matters.

If indeed some of it is water, then he may well put some of it back on, he may not. Either way, it's a good number.

Indeed. My mistake.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

BMI is just a calculation of ration of height vs weight (it's not a percentage per se afaik) -

Not knowing how tall you are means it isn;t possible to calculate, but I am surprised losing 31lbs (a little over 2 stone) took you from 30 (obese) to 25 (normal)

http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx

As above, need calipers to calculate fat %

Well done on the weight loss

Oh dear

BMI was explicitly cited by Keys as being appropriate for population studies, and inappropriate for individual diagnosis. Nevertheless, due to its simplicity, it came to be widely used for individual diagnosis, despite its inappropriateness.

simple numeric measure of a person's thickness or thinness,

physicians, have come to rely on its apparent numerical authority for medical diagnosis, but that was never the BMI's purpose; it is meant to be used as a simple means of classifying sedentary (physically inactive) individuals, or rather, populations, with an average body composition

For a given height, BMI is proportional to mass. However, for a given mass, BMI is inversely proportional to the square of the height. So, if all body dimensions double, and mass scales naturally with the cube of the height, then BMI doubles instead of remaining the same. This results in taller people having a reported BMI that is uncharacteristically high compared to their actual body fat levels

The weight excess or deficiency may, in part, be accounted for by body fat (adipose tissue) although other factors such as muscularity also affect BMI significantly

These ranges of BMI values are valid only as statistical categories

The BMI is generally used as a means of correlation between groups related by general mass and can serve as a vague means of estimating adiposity.

BMI can be calculated quickly and without expensive equipment. However, BMI categories do not take into account many factors such as frame size and muscularity.[18] The categories also fail to account for varying proportions of fat, bone, cartilage, water weight, and more.

Despite this, BMI categories are regularly regarded as a satisfactory tool for measuring whether sedentary individuals are underweight, overweight or obese with various exemptions, such as: athletes, children, the elderly, and the infirm.

One basic problem, especially in athletes, is that muscle weight contributes to BMI. Some professional athletes would be overweight or obese according to their BMI, despite them carrying little fat, unless the number at which they are considered overweight or obese is adjusted upward in some modified version of the calculation. In children and the elderly, differences in bone density and, thus, in the proportion of bone to total weight can mean the number at which these people are considered underweight should be adjusted downward.

Pretty sure nothing more needs to be said about BMI. Execpt, I can tell you that the standard lobbied BMI chart - puts me in the obese category. I am no such thing.

 

[Scruffmonster]

All depends on what food has been going in. You can lose fat and lbm in that kind of ratio quite easily. That's a pretty good average tbh.

Your body needs fuel. It will just take it however it comes. Exercise does not determine how the weight falls off, your hands determine that by what you put in your mouth.

Try to keep an eye on any major colorie deficit days, keep some good fats in your diet, your body needs them, and stop thinking in such broad terms. If you carry on losing weight at a ratio of 2/3 Fat to 1/3 lbm, you'll be laughing.

 

[musa]

BMI is an unreliable measure. Avoid

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

All depends on what food has been going in. You can lose fat and lbm in that kind of ratio quite easily. That's a pretty good average tbh.

Your body needs fuel. It will just take it however it comes. Exercise does not determine how the weight falls off, your hands determine that by what you put in your mouth.

Try to keep an eye on any major colorie deficit days, keep some good fats in your diet, your body needs them, and stop thinking in such broad terms. If you carry on losing weight at a ratio of 2/3 Fat to 1/3 lbm, you'll be laughing.

Nobody knows if this is true or has happened. Why would anyone want to lose metabolically active lean mass? Or indeed be happy about it?

Muscle mass which directly affects your metabolic rate to the tune of 350-500cals per day per 10lb muscle. Skews calorie deficits very easily.