prud3495

Hi there,
Great job on your weight loss. For muscle mass, go to your gym, any of the trainers should be able to measure you and figure out your specific BF percentage or Body Mass Indicator (BMI). As you do more exercise, weight training, you will gain more muscle mass. Muscle weighs more than fat, almost 4 times as much for the same volume (that's inches folks).

almeeker

I hear you and I'm sooo very in that park with you. I always say that I have the appetite of a much taller woman, which is no joke.

I agree that those calculations are sort of suspect, even the bathroom scale doesn't take everything in to consideration. Years ago I had a submersion BF test, actually I had them every other month for a couple of years. It was when I went 3-4 times/week to a Med Sport clinic for PT on a reconstructed knee. They basically treated everyone like a professional class athlete. It was crazy, my workout partner was in college on a tennis scholarship, and busting out all over in muscle, I was in Art School covered with paint. Talk about an unequal pairing. Anyway, they had a philosophy about total body wellness and post op conditioning, hence the BF tests. I think when I finished I was maybe at 15-16%, but I was much lighter then, like 125 lbs or so.

01gt4.6

as far as measuring BF%, I feel that unless you are getting hydrostatic tested or something that is known to be accurate, there is no telling how accurate your results will be. I say just use the same method everytime, that will be the true test of progress. They may not all be accurate against each other, but should be accuate against themselves.

When I joined the gym, I checked my BF% with my caliper and came up with 12.5%, I had it checked at the gym by a "trainer" with his caliper, and he came up with 21.xx%, I laughed. Then he had me hold on to a device that looked like a playstation controller that measure via electrical current (I think), and came up with 13.1%, which I could believe.

I know I'm back up around 12.5% since I packed on some insulation. I'd bet that if I went back to that same trainer, he'd check with the caliper and tell me that I was closer to my actual number. Then he could say... "see how well the gym is working for you, you went from 21% to 12%"... another sign of a saleman.

BTW anyone looking to use a caliper, I got an accumeasure capiler for cheap off of ebay.

midwestj

WeightlossBoo, unfortunately it is a very painstakingly slow process to be gaining muscle on a weight loss diet (calorie deficit.) Your muscles need a calorie surplus to add significant weight.

I have basically maintained my muscle mass over 5 months while losing weight. I am increasing resistance every workout, lifting heavy compound lifts like squats and deadlifts. Building muscle takes extra calories than your maintenance, not less, so doing so on a fat loss diet is slow or not at all.

For weight loss, maintenance, or muscle growth a few ballpark numbers work well. For maintenance body or lean mass x 15 works well, and a 170 pound man eats 2550 calories to maintain. If he gained 15 pounds of muscle his new maintenance number would be 2775. 15 pounds gained is only 225 calories.

I hope that is a good example of how increased muscle can make your calories increase.

For a man to gain muscle at the maximum natural rate of .5-1lb per week, he needs to be eating on a calorie surplus. Woman who lack testosterone are lower than that still. And while on a calorie deficit muscle growth is slowed even more.

Yes you do need more calories when your muscle mass increases. But you should ask yourself how much muscle you think you really gained? Its probably not as much as you think.

Running and cardio won't build muscle, only resistance training. Losing weight takes calorie deficits, building muscle takes calorie surplus. So if you are on a fat loss program restricting your calories you shouldn't really expect to gain too much muscle. 1 pound a month is more realistic, if that.

Jane850

I just had my body fat calculated on a scale at The Y and it said I had 42% body fat. With the home calculator I ended up with 34% body fat. That's a really big difference, but I'm pretty sure I did the measurements correctly. I wish the home test was the accurate one.

01gt4.6

oh Cassie, and almeeker, congrats on you BF% #'s. That's awesome.

BTW Cassie, how tall... or short are you? Oh yeah, I guess I don't need to see a shrink? (at least not for that)

almeeker

I'm 5'-1 7/8". You know what boo? I'm starting to think that the reason I'm so hungry all the time is because I've had to increase my workouts to keep the burn up there. The less you weigh the more you have to sweat to burn those calories.

cjohnson728

Mike, I'm probably the same size as almeeker. I can hit 5'2" if it's humid and my hair's frizzy, but otherwise it is just a teensy weensy shade under that.

I do use the #'s in terms of progression, not an ultimate answer. When I started, the scale said 27%. I think I'm kind of stable now (with respect to the body fat, that is...).

I'm wondering if the handheld thing was also a bioelectrical impedence thing like the scale is. Either way, it's sensitive to water weight, hydration, whatever, so I try to be consistent. I still wouldn't call myself "skinny" due to my thighs and what is probably remants of the baby belly 14 years ago, but between my ribs and my hip bones, I'm not interested in losing any more fat, just keeping the muscle as I get older.

I'm glad to be here for diet and nutrition and fitness...you're on your own with your other issues, my friend!