Ironpants
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 889
- Reaction score
- 0
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).
Last edited: