Fun with math

[marionette]

Well I started out at 202 10 weeks ago, with 42.5% bf.

202x.425 = 85.85lbs of fat

Now I am at 192 with 41% bf

192x.41 = 78.72lbs of fat

Not too bad, until I look at my lean body weight which has gone from 116.15 down to 113.28. Boo! I have a (very)long term goal of 170lb at 20% which would put my lean mass up to 136. It is frustrating seeing that number go down when really I want it to go up!

I hope that my running goals (marathon this fall) help with the overall weight loss, and lifting goals (120lb ohp, same dl) keep from me from lossing too much lean mass so I don't have so far to go over the winter attempting to really build that strength.

I know that if it wasn't for strength training in my routines I would have lost more weight, but really I want to be stronger, not just thinner. Ah well. Venting over.

[Dirty Deads]

Keep in mind that if you weren't eating great 10 weeks ago you were probably holding a bunch of extra water. Your lean mass loss may not really be at 3 lbs. What method of testing did you use? Calipers and handheld devices can be off about 5% so you could have actually gained a little muscle. Not saying it's the case, but it's possible.

[marionette]

Enh, I've never eaten a lot of processed food. Never got into the habit as a kid. We gardened/canned/froze/hunted/fished for about 80% of our food so it wasn't that I was eating crap. It is just frustrating when you wish that one number could go directly to the other and it just doesn't. I know I just need to keep with it, but it doesn't mean I can't vent! Anyways, marathon training is going to lower both numbers no matter what I do.

[Georges]

I'll second the idea that the measurement is probably off, water weight or no.

If you're doing more (lifting more weight or walking more miles or whatever is 'increasing' in your workouts), or even doing the same,

than you are not losing lean mass.  If you start struggling with your workout, while you aren't increasing your workload, that would be your warning signal.

But I'm willing to bet that you can run farther or faster, and lift the same or more, than you could 10 weeks ago?

[marionette]

I'll second the idea that the measurement is probably off, water weight or no.

If you're doing more (lifting more weight or walking more miles or whatever is 'increasing' in your workouts), or even doing the same,

than you are not losing lean mass.  If you start struggling with your workout, while you aren't increasing your workload, that would be your warning signal.

But I'm willing to bet that you can run farther or faster, and lift the same or more, than you could 10 weeks ago?

 

Oh yeah, I can definitely do both. I can do a 10 mile run for example, which is not something I could do before. I went from a mile in 12 minutes to a 1.2 miles in the same amount of time. I about doubled my lifts. I'm making progress. I just looked at the math and had an urge to bang my head off the wall.

[The Rebooted Body]

Well I started out at 202 10 weeks ago, with 42.5% bf.

202x.425 = 85.85lbs of fat

Now I am at 192 with 41% bf

192x.41 = 78.72lbs of fat

Not too bad, until I look at my lean body weight which has gone from 116.15 down to 113.28. Boo! I have a (very)long term goal of 170lb at 20% which would put my lean mass up to 136. It is frustrating seeing that number go down when really I want it to go up!

I hope that my running goals (marathon this fall) help with the overall weight loss, and lifting goals (120lb ohp, same dl) keep from me from lossing too much lean mass so I don't have so far to go over the winter attempting to really build that strength.

I know that if it wasn't for strength training in my routines I would have lost more weight, but really I want to be stronger, not just thinner. Ah well. Venting over.

 

Running is counterproductive to lean body mass. That's probably why you're not seeing the results you want. The amount of running you're doing is going to leave you with chronically high cortisol levels and less muscle mass.

[Waldo]

Running is counterproductive to lean body mass. That's probably why you're not seeing the results you want. The amount of running you're doing is going to leave you with chronically high cortisol levels and less muscle mass.

 

Running's impact on muscle mass is grossly overstated.

 

Amazing that football players can run as much as they do, and even the smallest, skinniest guys are bodybuilder level big compared to everybody else, when running just wastes away muscles.

 

The bigger issue is that runners chronically suck at fueling their running.  Runners tend to develop an I can eat anything I want and don't have to worry about my diet mentality and end up losing a lot of muscle mass due to undereating.

[marionette]

Running is counterproductive to lean body mass. That's probably why you're not seeing the results you want. The amount of running you're doing is going to leave you with chronically high cortisol levels and less muscle mass.

I am aware that running reduces all body mass, that is why I have been sure to involve strength in what I do. I am overweight so losing weight in general is a good thing, and running is a great way to get myself there. Most likely it is as waldo says about undereating. I haven't updated my thread in here this weekend but even with the holiday and making an effort to eat more I have been ending up with 600-800 calorie deficits and not enough protein to support the lean mass. That is why the frustrated venting when I examined the numbers, because I have been trying to minimize the lean body mass losses.

[marionette]

http://strengthrunning.com/2012/06/debunking-chronic-cardio/

This is a nice, well researched argument that responds the whole running is bad for you school of thought.