Muscle, fat and weight loss

[Dan B]

Oh yes, As I put, I've no issue with the question of density, it's more a question of where the additional weight comes from. If I'm eating less and training more, what physical process has occured that has generated whatever has caused the increase in weight?

The calorific content of any food you eat is not tied to its density. If you're eating and drinking less in weight than you excrete (sweat, urine, faeces, etc) and still gaining weight then clearly there is something funny going on, but until and unless you start weighing your poo I don't see how you're going to know that.

 

[amaferanga]

Oh yes, As I put, I've no issue with the question of density, it's more a question of where the additional weight comes from. If I'm eating less and training more, what physical process has occured that has generated whatever has caused the increase in weight?

Underestimating calories consumed and/or overestimating calories required and/or overestimating calories burned. There's no magic.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Cheers for all the replies, it's all interesting stuff.

I know I'm not the only one it's happened to and I know there's a logical explanation somewhere, but I'm reasonably sure of the accuracy of the calories in as I kept a food diary which was assessed by a dietician routinely over a matter of several months.

Calories burned through exercise and BMR were also assessed by the professionals and given a value each time. If anything I over listed what I'd eaten and under listed my exercise.

When my weight went up I was advised to eat a bit more and exercise a bit less, which was counterintuitive but did halt the weight rise and I ultimately lost some weight.

My view is that it's the body going into starvation mode with non-essential activites reduced or shut off completely, so that the calories eaten have a greater effective value than normal and respiration and other means of removing waste reduce as well as the body burns calories as efficiently as possible.

For me it's a complication for those that claim it's simply calories in v calories burned.

 

[Becs]

I used to mountaineer and would get DOMS of the quads, my weight would be a bit high so I've always assumed that sore muscles are associated with either inflammation (likely) or fluid retention. Maybe that's your problem

Yep, DOMS is due to significant inflammation in the muscle, mainly caused by "eccentric" exercise, which is contraction against lengthening, which is why quads often hurt a day or so after a lot of downhill walking/running. The inflammation is accompanied by local oedema so there is extra fluid within the muscle itself which then slowly drains into the lymphatic system.

 

[Andrew_P]

Yes, but if I'm eating less calories than I need in a day, my body should start to burn the fat.
Any muscle growth can still only come from my existing store (which is included in the initial weight) or my additional input, which is below what's needed.
This still leaves a defecit in weight and so still begs the question of where any increase in overall weight has come from, doesn't it?
Is it that the body just clings onto everything causing a reduction in normal bodily functions, so the apparent reduced calory input is possibly misleading?

Not sure this helps but my basic understanding is that your muscles store enough energy for around 35-40 minutes of aerobic excercise, after that the body will start looking elsewhere for its fuel source including fat, so I would assume for any excercise to have an effect on your fat stores then you need to do at least 50-60 minutes of decent quality aerobic excercise. Also not overloading on carbs before or during would help use fat stores.

I also think that regular 1 hour aerobic excercise will help maintain your metabolism even with caloire shortfalls.

I purchased recently an Omron body scan scale that measures Weight, BF% BMI MS Muscle and Visceral Fat. Not sure how accurate these things are in the first place but you will get a base measurement and what you do see is shifts in % as long as you do each one in similar circumstances (first thing in the morning pre food etc). But if I weigh myself straight after my 1 hour on the bike body fat is lower and I would guess this is due to lack of hydration.

 

[Andrew_P]

My view is that it's the body going into starvation mode with non-essential activites reduced or shut off completely, so that the calories eaten have a greater effective value than normal and respiration and other means of removing waste reduce as well as the body burns calories as efficiently as possible.

For me it's a complication for those that claim it's simply calories in v calories burned.

I would say it needs to be sustained effort of 1 hour on a regualr basis at least 5 times a week over a period of at least 6-8 weeks before your body begins to see it as "normal" activty and adjust accordingly. If you go from being sedentry and eating what you like to controlled calories and excercise your body will take time to adhjust to this new situation.

 

[Rob3rt]

Fat is burned to produce the energy required to exercise. Exercise builds muscles. Muscle density is greater than than of fat so the loss of weight from the burned fat will be negated by the increase weigh gained from muscle

The counter arguement to this is that muscle takes substantially longer to synthesise than fat stores do to deplete, so despite the relative densities, absolute stagnation of body weight due to thie mechanism is unlikely.

It is also relativelly difficult to lose fat whilst gaining muscle or visa versa, muscle synthesis requires increased excess calories, else there will be nothing left over after maintenance requirements to produce the new tissue, weight loss requires a deficit such that be body uses its fat stores, these are two somewhat opposing mechanisms.

 

[Becs]

The counter arguement to this is that muscle takes substantially longer to synthesise than fat stores do to deplete, so despite the relative densities, absolute stagnation of body weight due to thie mechanism is unlikely.

It is also relativelly difficult to lose fat whilst gaining muscle or visa versa, muscle synthesis requires increased excess calories, else there will be nothing left over after maintenance requirements to produce the new tissue, weight loss requires a deficit such that be body uses its fat stores, these are two somewhat opposing mechanisms.

Muscle synthesis does require calories but first and foremost it requires a stimulus, which is muscle damage from being overloaded (either aerobically or anaerobically by weights etc). If you didn't have enough calories in your diet your body would burn fat to repair the damaged muscle as this is a "maintenance" requirement. You can still build muscle on a diet, in fact it is positively beneficial as more muscle = higher BMR (in simple terms) and more calories burned at rest. When you are literally starving you burn muscle and reduce its synthesis, but not before.