Okay, you experts... Here is a tricky question at least for me. How you lose weight and not lose too much muscle mass?

1) Is my assumption wrong that when you lost fat, you will lose some muscle? I mean when we gain muslce, we gain some fat.

2) If #1 is correct, then how can we minimalize the muscle lost?

I did a weight-loss and strength gain last year in march until june that was awesome. My strength shot straight up but I think I was RE-GAINING my old strength and power and did not gain much if any muscle. Took my bp from 225 to 275 and dropped from 188 lbs to 165 lbs.

What I fear is that this time around, I might lose muscle when I go on my diet / excercise program again. When I am on the weight lost, I target for 2 lbs a week but 1 to 1.5lbs is what end up happening.

3) Is an approixamate 1,000 calorie defecit per day to lose 2 lbs a week too much? I do "recharge" every 7-10 days of calorie surplus though.

What you guy all think? My workout is to burn 500-1,000 calorie per workout from cardio only. Most that I did was 1,500 from what the machine reads. My diet is to eat carbs+protein in morning and afternoon. After 5 pm, its salad / protein / and some fats from nutz + yogurt. Protein is going to be pretty steady the whole day. Mostly slow digesting carbs - wheat bread. Fruits in morning and post workout for the quick energy return from working out.

Help me guys.. come on... you know you want to spread some Christmas joy.... Just getting the infor ready when I hit 185 lbs and do my weight loss again.

This IS a tricky question, because quite simply it can depend on "whom" we are speaking about, and the plethora of personal variables involved in these dynamics.

To say "everyone" who calorie deficits (and couples manipulation of macro nutrients) will lose muscle, is simply and utterly false.

Example:

1. A person who needs to lose fat tissue, but never has lifted a weight in their life---may experience a different "bodily composition effect".

For example, they "can" lose fat tissue, gain muscle (and the scale doesn't budge an inch), because the off-set is the same (for example).

Or it can move down, because the off-set is uneven (fat loss is greater than the muscle gain), etc, etc....

2. A person training a few years (for example) with ample muscle mass, with high BF(according to them), and it is likely they WILL experience muscle loss even through a careful diet/training plan. Look at some (Natural Body Builders) before (on a bulk) and after (a cut) for an example.

The bottom line it just depends on the person, how long they have been training (muscle mass, BF percentage, etc), severity of diet, and other personal variables, but on "average" it is generally understood, that if you deficit diet (with one training for any length of period post newbie gains), muscle loss can occur, and most likely will (leaving room for personal variables---in diet/training, and personal genetic factors).

"Generally, with one training for a while" this is the case, and most accepted. For most (average Joe-blow ), the body's ability to put on fat exceeds its ability to put on muscle (with variables in diet/training being some major contributions one way or the other).

In addition, trying to gain muscle and lose fat tissue, "can pose" a problem in that they can be "technically energy opposites" in what they will operate optimal in (a calorie surplus for muscle/fat gain, calorie deficit for muscle/fat loss, and when you add in the persons wants (such as most of us, and like yours), we have a: The Triple Coincidence of Wants, and its imperative we try to understand our own bodies........and how they respond to diet/fitness training.

Muscle Production can be: "Energy Expensive"

It is expensive biologically to produce and physical activity is required (external stimulus required).

It is costly to produce.

And, "generally" requires an anabolic state (for simplicity, a calorie surplus energy state) and an inflation of economics within. It reacts in a depression (calorie deprivation), but this is generally not the norm; it reacts, but not "generally" favorable in a less then optimal state.

This is "generally-speaking".......a one way street, as far as calorie surplus (for the person training and dieting regularly), for "optimal" muscle growth.

In addition, "more variables" for muscle growth need to be present as compare to fat tissue growth.

Fat Production can be: "Least Expensive" (see they are already at odds)

It is least expensive biologically to produce and physical activity--for fat growth, isn't required.

It is not as costly to produce.

"Normally"--fat loss-operates best in a catabolic state (which already poses a problem for optimal muscle growth), and least effective in a anabolic state (as compared to muscle growths optimal state).

Fat tissue GAIN operates best in an anabolic state, which is muscle growth's optimal state as well..........and here in its most simplistic terms are the complications, and the reason we have some "quality diets" addressing these sorts of "over simplified" problems.

In addition, "LESS variables" for fat growth need to be present as compared to muscle tissue gain--primarily an energy surplus driving the molecular ship (with most persons keeping things equal, understanding exceptions).

To gain fat tissue, movement isn't really required. Eat over your limit needed (keeping things equal), gain fat tissue.

With muscle growth, it can be more complex than that, and it requires movement to stimulate it biologically (when an adult, post initial growth period).

I think you can see the complications now. Now, this is extremely over simplifying things, but right here, is one of the reasons (when addressing macro nutrient manipulations/calorie manipulations), various Carbohydrate Cycling diets exist (and other "quality" diet approaches from Lyle McDonald, etc). It brings in the glucose storage equation into the fray of variables, and reverts from a Catabolic State to Anabolic State at certain trend periods, and can be very powerful for the right type of people, with the the right type of fitness program.

What I have just wrote, is the very reason, I have always stress and pushed the importance of diet......it is simply OBVIOUS how important it really is...when trying to optimize your hard earned efforts in the gym.


I will try to answer the rest of your post, later, when I get more time.

Apologize for the rather short answer, young man.


Best regards,

Chillen

What were the numbers like during this period?

1. What type of calorie ranges were you carrying?

Did you blanket the same calories? Cycle them as in staggering different ranges dependent on whether you were working out or not, etc, etc?

2. Macro Nutrients?

3. Training combination?

Hopefully you kept the numbers during this period, they can tell you an important story (at the time considering your weight differences). This is the MAIN reason I like a diet and weight training journal. Numbers can tell a story, and "assist" in teaching you "what to do" as you get feedback from your body, and is absolutely priceless, IMO. When times passes, it can teach you the ballpark area to experiment or manipulate certain things (wisely) and you do not have to walk blind folded. Write a story as you go, young man, you will not regret it.


This isn't uncommon. A few variables could be happening (as an example):

1. You actually did just lose 1 to 1.5 pounds of tissue (even with methodically logging your calories/training), but metabolic adaption (where the body becomes more efficient with calorie consumed) took place, and dropped the rate of fat loss.

As weight drops, calorie ranges likewise are effected, as do the length within deficits (and amount of BF, etc), also play a role. It is rare to be "exactly" right, but it is considered very good, to be close......come on now.

2. You may have gained some muscle. Since we cannot (accurately) say where the body is going to react favorably (with each person) in putting on muscle (dependent on set/rep combination, type of training, rest, etc), you could have put on muscle (in your legs, not upper body for example), and this off-set the end result of your fat loss ratio. Whether this is "visible" to the naked eye, can depend on how much fat is covering the muscle and/or muscles as an example, and can subject a person to some unnecessary depression.

I may get some flak for saying this, but this is okay. With the right person, in the right bodily position and BF percent (say trying to get to extremely low body fat), some simply have to resort to some rather extreme measures to get rid of the last portion of body fat--that tends to be so hard come off. Sometimes, one has to sway from the "norm" because in reality, the body isn't "necessarily" playing a fair game INSIDE.

With this said, yes, 1,000 calorie deficits (if not more--dependent) and say manipulating carbohydrates as well, "may be necessary". And, I speaking in terms of NOT the average Joe, but the correct--person, and this needs to be said.

The lower the BF, and the closer to the "base coveted fat" one is (for example) the more the body is going to kick in some fight to stop you, and THIS can become a different battle field. I have experienced this myself. One has to have a little bit of heart, have an understanding what is "likely" taking place inside, and if one really tries so-called traditional methods, then one has to retort to manipulating the logistics in diet and training, that may not be considered the norm (but the norm to remove the last tough portion). When I had this problem, I went on an education shopping spree after battling it for 3 months. I read books from Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald, and others, and it was an investment I will never forget. The result? It came off. This is why I push education within diet fitness, it is so dang priceless.

You are fighting a different beast WITHIN, hormonally, biologically, and (in some cases) body fat that tends to have the least blood flow---such as the extreme lower back). Some diets (with the right person) can be rather tough, and the ones that are tough (and TRULY WITHIN........"WANT" their goal), are the only ones that can make it, IMO. This is NOT....a belittling statement, as much as it is the truth with a "healthy" individual.

Send me your E-mail address via PM.

I have some things for you that are rather priceless.


Best regards,


Chillen

Thank You, once again; Chill-master. You are da man. Here is my response (please don't be offended and I will come off as rather contradictory to myself even; LoL).

The mind can be a pretty powerful tool. Okay, with that said and after lifting weight most of my life and really hard the last 9 months; I am still in the "newbie" zone OR I will let myself believe that. I WILL LOSE FAT AND GAIN MUSCLE (ssshh don't tell my brain but that is not really possible, maybe). I definitely agree with you about the last push to drop that last 2-4% BF to get a clear visible six pack. It was not fun.

Basically, I am going to trick my mind and hopefully my body into believing that it is possible to trim off the fat with losing ANY muscle and gain some even. The holiday is just horrible for me to keep track of my diet but will try to set more of a baseline after the new year. I am not the best but pretty decent my diet and will post some pictures of when I am about to start this endevor. Just getting some information before I start and approach this properly.

Btw, I love stupid human trick like increasing or decreasing the heart rate with doing any physical movements. The Tibet monks can control their body temperature so why can't we control out metabolism to lose only fat, huh? (no reply please, just me tell myself stuff to hype myself up)

Here is something that I read from this website " Steady State and Interval Training: Part 2 | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald "that answer some / lots of my questions:

Bodybuilders

Bodybuilders dieting, either for a contest, or to prepare for the next mass gaining phase, are somewhat separate from other athletes so I’m going to discuss them separately. Bodybuilding is, fundamentally, not a performance sport. So, strictly speaking, bodybuilders (unlike a powerlifter or olympic lifter) aren’t intensely concerned with poundage drops. However, dieting bodybuilders are concerned with muscle mass loss and this can be huge issue for naturals, especially if they are trying to reach contest shape.

Big drops in training poundages or intensity tends to cause muscle loss when you don’t have anabolics to stave it off; natural bodybuilders should be somewhat concerned of such. I would say that, contest bodybuilders, perhaps even moreso than the general public, has a tendency to overtrain on a diet. It’s not uncommon for bodybuilders to increase training frequency and volume, along with adding an absolute pile of aerobic activity (2 hours/day is not uncommon), all combined with a caloric deficit. This is, of course, illogical as hell: why would you add more training during the one time period you can’t adapt to it. Is it any wonder that natural bodybuilders overtrain and lose so much muscle trying to diet down?

To a great degree, I’d approach the choice of intervals versus aerobics for a bodybuilder similar to that of anybody else, even if I know most won’t listen to me: they should reduce their weight training volume and/or frequency during dieting. Intensity, in terms of weight on the bar should not be reduced. Basically they should do a handful of heavy sets to maintain muscle mass; if they simply must do more work, they can do some high rep short rest work akin to the depletion workouts in the Ultimate Diet 2.0 or something similar. There are a lot of metabolic type weight workouts (whether bodyweight, weight or kettlebell based) floating around.

To this, intervals can be added two to three times/week maximum with low to moderate intensity aerobic activity being performed several more times per week.

I sent you an E-mail, my friend.

Best regards,

Chillen

Thanks a lot buddy. I am probably gonna get those pages printed and read it at Starbuck. Old school and like to read / highlight on paper vs on screen... I feel like a dinosaur sometimes with all the new gadgets out there nowadays.

There is some good information in the material I sent, especially getting lean, how to manipulate the macros, etc, etc, for those in the right position.

I have some other material as well, if you are interested.

Best wishes

Chillen