Rose, your plan sounds fine to me. My reading indicates when you're at goal or in maintenance, it's a different ball game altogether. You just have to make sure you're eating enough (including enough quality protein), and then you shouldn't lose lean muscle mass.

It's only during weight loss this seems to be a big issue.

I disagree. In the past 5 week sI have lost a total of 4 pounds, but my lean muscle mass has gone from 106 to 110. I have gained 4 pounds of muscle, while losing a total of 4 pounds. It is hard to remember tha tI am losing when the scale doesn't move, but I like getting smaller

Kaillean,

I don't think you've lost as much lean body mass as you think. What method are you using to determine BF? I don't think that the start bf% you are using was correct.

I would estimate your lean body mass was around 115 lbs to start with and you're at around 112.5 right now. Meaning you only lost 2.5 lbs of muscle.

Also, if the beginning bf was correct then your end goal doesn't match up as you would have to lose 12 lbs of lean muscle mass to get there.

215 lbs 40% bf = 130 lbs lean mass
168 lbs 33% bf = 112.5 lbs lean mass
155 lbs 24% bf = 118 lbs lean mass

So to get to your goal you would need to gain 5.5lbs of muscle and lose 17.5 lbs of fat.

LadyBelle, I agree. You don't nessarily need a surplus in calories, but you do need a surplus in protein to gain muscle. I can't remember the amount though.

Well, that's good news! I'm starting a weight training program tomorrow, and it's nice to know I won't just be standing still.

Thanks also for info on body fat. My starting % was calculated using the protein power formula and my current is based on my tanita scale. I know they're not 100% accurate, but its the consistency I like.

I definitely don't want to lose muscle mass. Maybe I should lower my body fat goal a bit.

Thanks for the info! Keep it coming!

K.

I started Jorge Cruise's 8 Mins in the Morning 2-1/2 weeks ago and it significantly increased my recent weight loss (6 lbs in 2 wks). It is a simple to follow plan. Although he advocates doing it first thing in the morning, I am sure it would benefit you by doing it at any point in the day or evening. I love the program because you only do 2 exercises per day, 12 reps each, 4 times each exercise. It does take me longer than 8 minutes because of the warm up, cool down stretches and the journaling but I really like the program. I am using 3 lb weights and after 4 weeks I will start the program over with 5 lb weights. You might want to check out the book at the book store to see if it would suit you. Good luck!

Kaillean, did you write down or do you remember the first weight and bf when you first got the scale?

Let's say your lean muscle mass is 113 lbs and your goal weight is 155 lbs. That means that for a good goal you should shoot for 27% bf so you will need to lose 13.5 lbs of fat and no loss or gain in muscle mass. Though if you do gain any muscle mass that will mean you will be at a lower %bf or less fat to loose to get to that %bf.

At 27% bf you would be 5% less than the average american woman at 32% bf.

I actually track all that info. (No, I'm not obsessed. Okay, maybe a little.)

I was averaging 36% BF when I got the scale, and weighed 181 (115.84 lbs lean body mass). Today, I'm 33% BF, weight 168 and my lean body mass is 112.56

So by my calculations, out of the 13 lbs I've lost in this period, 3.28 (25%) have been lean muscle mass, and 10 lbs have been fat.

I know losing some lean muscle mass happens with all weight loss plans, thought Atkins is better. I wonder what percentage of lean muscle mass loss is considered okay?

K.

Check out this thread....this website has lots of good info imo

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...&highlight=girl

Kaillean,

Also, due to the precision of the scale's bf % measurement you can have a pretty large descrepancy in calculated bf and lean muscle mass.

The precision is only 1%, in other words it will display either 33% or 32% it will not display 32.5%. So let's take your current weight at 168. Let's also say that due to the precision you could be anywhere from 33.49% to 32.50%. The difference between these two weights at 168 lbs is 1.68 lbs. Meaning that it could be plus or minus 1.68 lbs at 168. At 181 lbs and 36% bf the difference could be 1.81 lbs. So the total difference could be plus or minus 3.5 lbs.

What would be better is to take the average lean body mass over the time you've done the diet. This will better reflect your actual lean body mass.

I kept track of every gain or loss since I started the diet. I noticed my lean body mass all over the place within so many lbs (I'll look this up and post when I get into work). I also noticed that my loss of bf was pretty much near my loss in weight the entire diet. Meaning that this diet is good for not loosing lean muscle mass.

One final point for now is that your calculated %bf can fluctuate as the water in your body fluctuates.

Those scales are not accurate at all :P

I have one. It can range between 26% - 31% bf right now depending on alot of factors. One night I took my BF and weight, then went and layed down to watch a movie. I had no food, just alot of water. After the movie I rechecked out of curiosity. I had lost 1 pound, but gained 3% BF :P

What it does help with though is the numbers it bounces between steadily get smaller. Also if I have a lower weight, and a high BF reading on it, that means I'll usualy be down in the morning (water weight relate dI think) while if it shows a higher weight and lower BF% that night, I'll be the same weight in the morning.

I like using the zone's web site to calculate bf%. Now that I am closer to goal, it and the protien power book match up. When I was further from goal the zone would have me at a lower BF then PP. Then there was one web site that said I had 14% BF hehe, that would mean some serious ribs showing I think.

LadyBelle, though I agree that they aren't accurate. I believe that they are very good at seeing progress. That is if you measure yourself at the same time every day. And I would recommend the morning before you eat breakfast.

I have found them to be very consistant when measured at that time. Any other time and they don't seem even close to me.

And those bf measuring tools on the web sites have been way off for me. If they were correct I'd have six pack abs. And though I can start to see where they would be I'm not there yet.

Kaillean
I went and looked at my max, min and average lean body mass. The min was around 130, max was around 134 and my average was around 132.

Using the 1% accuracy range of the bf measurement that means it can be plus or minus 3.5 lbs. Which is very close to the descrepancy in lean body mass that I'm seeing.

Thanks for the info. I have all my stats, too, so I'll have to go back and take a look at the big picture.

I know the scales aren't 100% accurate, but mine is very consistent if I use it at the same time each day. (PM for body fat as recommended, AM for weight). It's a handy tool to measure progress.

I also have not find the online calculators to be very accurate. I know I'm way out of shape. Die hard couch potato, and the formulas always peg me at under 30% BF which is not right. I'm planning to have them do the caliper test at the gym I joined, so we'll see how that comes out.

I appreciate all the input.

Rosetattoo, more to the point, walking will not erode your lean mass, but preserve it. And provides a huge cardio benefit.

I trained for a 10k two years ago, and as I began at about 230 lb. on a 5"6' frame, even by dropping 30 lb. by race day, I was still quite fat. But I had definition in my lower body that made me look infinitely better...hence my mantra "fat with muscle under it looks way, way better than fat all by itself"!!!! In other words, size is not everything, and the oft heard phrase "I won't train because I can't stand the thought of being bigger than I already am" is nothing but mislead, self-defeating hooey!!

On the subject of dieting leading to a smaller version of the tubby self, I would add the story of my sister....she's short and has spent the last 20 years ballooning out to hugely obese proportions, then dieting herself down to "goal weight". Goal weight has generally crept upward as her ability to diet effectively has been eroded by a metabolism that now gains weight even when on calorie reduced regimens.

It struck me that the first time she reached goal weight, she still refused to wear shorts or bathers. Why? Because she'd dieted off not only tons of fat, but tons of muscle...practically ALL her muscle from what I could see. She was relatively slender, but utterly untoned and saggy.

Presently, she's been proud to announce she has once again dieted down to goal weight, eroding further what little muscle she had left. She is having a terrible time keeping to goal weight and looks quite tubby, although not obese. But she won't exercise or strength train.

And finally, when I was 21, I thought I was fat. At 35, after two babies, and now incontrovertibly fat, I saw a photo of me at 21, in a bathing suit. I was very thin, but had no muscle tone at all. What little there was of me, sagged! I looked awful, just a different kind of awful!

So train hard ladies! You'll look better, no matter what your bf%, and you will feel better too.

I have acually gained some muscle. Though it is harder for woman to Bulk up like men. I get different measurments all the time from BF..... I only guess the average! LOL