government replaces food pyramid

[Ironpants]

But now you're contradicting your original post though. You specifically stated that in a caloric deficit, your body utilizes more muscle than fat to make up the difference for available energy.

And the composition of that guy was never measured, but it would appear obvious that there is significantly less body fat in the after pic, and not much in terms of muscle mass was lost. Would you not agree?

Nah not really because people going on deficits ussauly have more fat mass then muscle mass, other wise they wouldn't be trying to "lose weight". If you lose both fat and muscle at the same rate but have more fat mass, the fat mass holds out longer, and becomes harder to lose as you progress from decresed muscle tissue.


The first pic you posted is a clear case of body recomposition. He probably lost very little or zero muscle mass, and more or less maintained his body weight (LB on the scale) from his before pic because he looks like he keeps his shape and size intact minus the big (i.e fat tissues) gut. This suggests that he lost mostly fat mass.

The second pic the guy actually looks like a smaller version of him self suggesting that both fat and muscle tissue was lost. Even though he lost 55 LB I doubt his comp changed very much (if at all). This makes complete sense when you realize that fat mass weighs far less the muscle mass does (in volume).

 

[Endo]

Ok, I'm done with the cat and mouse games with you now...

The second set of pictures are actually me, contradicting every post you've ever made. I lost about 60lbs and very little muscle or strength was ever lost. This is a before and after picture with no bulking periods in between. You can kind of see the growth in my upper back, and growth in my traps just from the picture. In fact at this weight, and while eating rather low calorie, I was able to increase my strength and actually put a little bit of muscle on as well. Measurements and photos were used to track my progression. There were times when my calories were cut down as low as 1500 daily, with a protein intake of 200g. I've also been successful losing weight, but retaining muscle mass with less protein as well. I did it while eating carbs, ice cream, drinking beer, etc.. All sorts of shit. The only thing I really focused on was protein intake, trying to meet micronutrient requirements and keeping my calories down. Other then that it was the IIFYM basically.

My point is that your body does not lose fat and muscle at the same rate. Its relatively obvious that 30lbs of LBM was not lost here. It is even far more evident when there were pictures that involved newds. :redface: And yet you're suggesting that BF% didn't change at all? Lulz...

 

[Ironpants]

Ok, I'm done with the cat and mouse games with you now...

The second set of pictures are actually me, contradicting every post you've ever made. I lost about 60lbs and very little muscle or strength was ever lost. This is a before and after picture with no bulking periods in between. You can kind of see the growth in my upper back, and growth in my traps just from the picture. In fact at this weight, and while eating rather low calorie, I was able to increase my strength and actually put a little bit of muscle on as well. Measurements and photos were used to track my progression. There were times when my calories were cut down as low as 1500 daily, with a protein intake of 200g. I've also been successful losing weight, but retaining muscle mass with less protein as well. I did it while eating carbs, ice cream, drinking beer, etc.. All sorts of shit. The only thing I really focused on was protein intake, trying to meet micronutrient requirements and keeping my calories down. Other then that it was the IIFYM basically.

My point is that your body does not lose fat and muscle at the same rate. Its relatively obvious that 30lbs of LBM was not lost here. It is even far more evident when there were pictures that involved newds. :redface: And yet you're suggesting that BF% didn't change at all? Lulz...

Um what? You asked questions and I awnsered them.....

I doubt that but I will take your word for it.

LOL you say you focused on mostly protien intake but then list a shit load of carbs like ice cream, beer, ect in your diet...

Like I said, increased protien intake will help stave off muscle canabolism, but not prevent it uttley because the body needs to make up for the energy deficieny (i.e. make up for calories) no matter how much percentage the protien makes up in your calories. No way around it, thermodynamics isn't magically broken by the % of protien you eat.

The second pic obvioulsly has less fat mass inthe after picture but also muscle mass. Maybe BF % went down by some but juxtaposed to the loss of muscle mass it really doesn't make that much differance. My point here is that fat mass looks less on a heavier body then a lighter one. I.E a 250 guy with 20% BF is going to look in better shape then a 150 LB guy with 20% BF. It just body compostion and not merely weight that determins how someone appears.

What I am saying is that there is a difference between body recomposition and just pure weight loss. The first pic was a body recomp (maintaing the same weight and muscle tissue while dropping body fat %) and the second was weight loss (reduction in phyical size and weight on the scale). They are not the same thing.

 

[Endo]

So according to you, there is no such thing as fat loss then. Lol. Dude, there really is no getting through to you is there? And I highly highly doubt that the guy in the first picture's weight remained the same. I honestly cannot believe you believe that.

Edit: I never said that I ate a shit ton of carbs, beer and/or ice cream. But I did admit that they were in my intake quite regularly. Carbs were 3x daily on most days, and ice cream was mostly daily, although it was low-calorie choices. Does this blow your mind or something? Lol. And by focusing on protein, I meant focusing on getting 200g of protein. My goal was to eat mostly clean but to have some regular cheats as well. I certainly didn't eat like shit, but as long as my calories and protein were in check, it didn't matter what I filled the rest with as long as it was within the limits.

Honestly, I think just about anyone would disagree with you, including Sinister who seems to share similar views with you on carbohydrates and insulin responses.

 

[Ironpants]

So according to you, there is no such thing as fat loss then. Lol. Dude, there really is no getting through to you is there?

I highly highly doubt that the guy in the first picture's weight remained the same. I honestly cannot believe you believe that.

Re read my posts. I never said that.

Fat loss isn't the same weight loss.

Gaining or losing weight is gaining or losing physical SIZE and # of LB on a scale. A guy losing weight will enevitably lose both fat and muscle mass just as a guy trying to gain weight will enevitably GAIN fat and muscle.

Body recomposition is maintaing the same weight and muscle tissue while REDUCING body fat. The is no change in actual size, justthe compostion of his body. You could have 2 150 LB guys same height and they could have different body comps. Ussally wrestlers and fighters who want to stay in a weight division do body recomps so they can gain muscle mass with out gaining weight, which is done by replacing body weight in fat mass with body weight in muscle mass so they can have a streagth advantage. They don't actually go up in size of weight.


The guy in the first picture probably isn't to far off from his original weight. Like I said it looks like a body recomposition.

The guy in the second pic is clearly weight loss.

Two different things right there.

 

[Endo]

Let me rephrase this for you. When I was dieting, I would eat clean on days it was possible. And if my calorie intake permitted me to, at the end of the day, I would have ice cream if I wanted. Or if I sat in traffic that day and felt stressed, I would allow myself a beer. As long as my calorie and protein were sufficient for my goal, it didn't matter.

 

[Ironpants]

Let me rephrase this for you. When I was dieting, I would eat clean on days it was possible. And if my calorie intake permitted me to, at the end of the day, I would have ice cream if I wanted. Or if I sat in traffic that day and felt stressed, I would allow myself a beer. As long as my calorie and protein were sufficient for my goal, it didn't matter.

And you were succesfull in your goal it obviously worked.

In Caloric deficit's there will be muscle loss no matter what, caloric surpluses there will be fat gain no matter what....

Like I said, you can't lose pure fat mass when cutting weight,just like you can't gain pure muscle mass when bulking. Just doesn't work that way.

 

[Endo]

And you were succesfull in your goal it obviously worked.

In Caloric deficit's there will be muscle loss no matter what, caloric surpluses there will be fat gain no matter what....

Like I said, you can't lose pure fat mass when cutting weight,just like you can't gain pure muscle mass when bulking. Just doesn't work that way.

There will be muscle mass lost because maintaining muscle is costly in terms of energy expenditure. When your body recognizes that it is not receiving sufficient values it shuts down/lessens certain energy costly systems, such as MPS, while increasing others. This, along with other various reasons, is why muscle mass is lost. And with adequate protein intake, and resistance training, it surely is not pound for pound. To suggest that it is is ludicrous. Dietary protein intake will fuel daily metabolic functions and the breakdown will be a result of the body prioritizing its energy systems.

I'm not saying I lost only pure fat necessarily. I know I made it sound as though I did, but what I was getting at is that there was no substantial amount of muscle mass lost, and in certain regions of my body mass was increased, but not significantly. You're suggesting that pound for pound they will be lost equally, which is just untrue.

 

[mtruitt76]

Ironpants- Let me see if I understand you correctly. Your are saying that a if guy who weights 250 lbs with lets say 25% bodyfat were to diet and lose 50 lbs then he would be a guy that weights 200 lbs with 25% bodyfat or possibly 30% bodyfat since muscle is used before fat to maintain an energy balance?

 

[Ironpants]

Ironpants- Let me see if I understand you correctly. Your are saying that a if guy who weights 250 lbs with lets say 25% bodyfat were to diet and lose 50 lbs then he would be a guy that weights 200 lbs with 25% bodyfat or possibly 30% bodyfat since muscle is used before fat to maintain an energy balance?

Um no. If he loses 50 LBs of mass it's gonna be losing both fat mass and muscle mass. No way in hell would he lose 100 % fat mass or 100% muscle mass, as your example suggested. All I'm saying here is it's impossible to lose weight with out some degree of muscle mass destruction. Remember loseing "mass" implies your getting smaller. And since muscle mass out weighs fat mass by a signifigant degree such a drop (like 50 lbs) in weight is enevitably going to have muscle tissue as well as fat tissue. And I never said there was a prefrence for the body to use muscle first, both get used. Your body starts useing both free fatty acids and aminos from canabolizing muscle and triglyceride when faced with a caloric deficit in order to maintain energy balance.

 

[Ironpants]

There will be muscle mass lost because maintaining muscle is costly in terms of energy expenditure. When your body recognizes that it is not receiving sufficient values it shuts down/lessens certain energy costly systems, such as MPS, while increasing others. This, along with other various reasons, is why muscle mass is lost. And with adequate protein intake, and resistance training, it surely is not pound for pound. To suggest that it is is ludicrous. Dietary protein intake will fuel daily metabolic functions and the breakdown will be a result of the body prioritizing its energy systems.

I'm not saying I lost only pure fat necessarily. I know I made it sound as though I did, but what I was getting at is that there was no substantial amount of muscle mass lost, and in certain regions of my body mass was increased, but not significantly. You're suggesting that pound for pound they will be lost equally, which is just untrue.

Well your on point here. People with massive amounts of weight to lose simply won't be affected from the muscle loss the same way a smaller person would since they have such substantial qaunties of it. The most important thing for him losing weight is getting the fat mass burnt off and getting lighter. And yes the higher protien intke helps prevent this somewhat but as I explained it eventually has it's limits, and there is simply no by passing an energy deficit. In hind sight if your obese with a shit ton of weight to drop this shouldn't even concern you as you won't lose much streagth (or really any), but if your a normal sized person looking to drop 10-20 LB this is actually bad news since you really can't afford to sacrifice muscle too much for metabolic reasons. In this case the overweight subject has a massive advantage over a lighter subject.

 

[Sweekaters]

In Caloric deficit's there will be muscle loss no matter what

Ironpants, so many of your posts on here are just damn idiotic. Learn how nitrogen balance works and get back to me. There is no reason to lose any muscle in a calorie deficit.

 

[Ironpants]

Ironpants, so many of your posts on here are just damn idiotic. Learn how nitrogen balance works and get back to me. There is no reason to lose any muscle in a calorie deficit.

Do you even know what nitrogen balance is? Your body is in a negtive nitrogen balance when in a catabolic state (self consuming to make up for energy balance), i.e when in a caloric deficit. Making your diet predominatly protien in deficit actually causes a negative nitrogen balance because your body now will be metabolizing protien for energy instead of muscle tissue repair you tard....

 

[mtruitt76]

In my example he would be losing both fat and muscle. If he lost all muscle his bodyfat percentage would go through the roof and if he lost all fat he would be at 5% bodyfat. The amount of fat loss would be about 12.5 lbs and the amount of muscle loss would be 38.5 lbs.

Hypothetically, with a 50 lb weight loss how many lbs of that do you think would be muscle assuming they were eating 1.5g per lb of LBM and weight training?

 

[Ironpants]

In my example he would be losing both fat and muscle. If he lost all muscle his bodyfat percentage would go through the roof and if he lost all fat he would be at 5% bodyfat. The amount of fat loss would be about 12.5 lbs and the amount of muscle loss would be 38.5 lbs.

Hypothetically, with a 50 lb weight loss how many lbs of that do you think would be muscle assuming they were eating 1.5g per lb of LBM and weight training?

Yes exactly. Thats what I've been saying.

Know way of knowing personally. But it's pretty much been established that he would lose less if protien intake was sufficient, but inevitably he'd still lose some but at his weight the loss would be insignifigant.

Even if he eat the 1.5 /lb of protien if he was in deficit he'd have a negative nitrogen balance. So it's really inevitable no matter how much protien you eat, if your in a deficit some of that muscle is going to get canabolized regardless.

 

[mtruitt76]

Yes exactly. Thats what I've been saying.

Know way of knowing personally. But it's pretty much been established that he would lose less if protien intake was sufficient, but inevitably he'd still lose some but at his weight the loss would be insignifigant.

Even if he eat the 1.5 /lb of protien if he was in deficit he'd have a negative nitrogen balance. So it's really inevitable no matter how much protien you eat, if your in a deficit some of that muscle is going to get canabolized regardless.

Okay that is not an unreasonable statement. Losing no LBM is probably possible for people with higher bodyfat % but is more difficult for lean individuals. It seemed like you were saying earlier that muscle would be broken down before fat and that a person would lose more muscle than fat on a diet.

 

[Ironpants]

Okay that is not an unreasonable statement. Losing no LBM is probably possible for people with higher bodyfat % but is more difficult for lean individuals. It seemed like you were saying earlier that muscle would be broken down before fat and that a person would lose more muscle than fat on a diet.

No, way that would be impossible.

It's really a big game of attrition. The bigger guy simply can afford to lose some lean mass more then the smaller guy will dropping body fat and not be affected any streagth wise or in terms of overall skeletal muscle mass..

 

[Sweekaters]

Even if he eat the 1.5 /lb of protien if he was in deficit he'd have a negative nitrogen balance.

No. The bands of minimal protein intake required to maintain a positive nitrogen balance are known variables. It's a lot harder to maintain it in a deficit, because protein requirements shoot through the roof as you lower your calorie intake, but to say it doesn't happen just makes you look like a jackass to anyone with nutritional knowledge.

 

[Ironpants]

No. The bands of minimal protein intake required to maintain a positive nitrogen balance are known variables. It's a lot harder to maintain it in a deficit, because protein requirements shoot through the roof as you lower your calorie intake, but to say it doesn't happen just makes you look like a jackass to anyone with nutritional knowledge.

No you can't be in a positive balance when your in a caloric deficit, thats just not going to happen. Sorry. Your body will be metabolizing protine at that point for energy. Thats why you can't "build" muscle when your undereating. Go take your jackass knowledge elsewhere

 

[Sweekaters]

No you can't be in a positive balance when your in a caloric deficit, thats just not going to happen. Sorry. Your body will be metabolizing protine at that point for energy. Thats why you can't "build" muscle when your undereating. Go take your jackass knowledge elsewhere

Alright, now provide a source for that other than the fact that you 'think' it happens.