Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Tired of the muscle weights more then fat agruement

First off it doesn't weigh more. If you have a pound of fat or a pound of muscle you still only have a pound:D It is a density issue, muscle is 7 times more dense then fat. So equal size cubes of muscle and fat would have the muscle weighing 7 times more.

But, here is my rant. People are always saying your weight loss is slowing or stopped because you are gaining mucsle. Unless you are in the gym lifting, most likely lifting would have to be your primary goal and not cycling, you are toning your muscles but not building many new ones.

Here's my logic. Say you weigh 350 and have 40% body fat, that is 210 of lean muscle. At 35% body fat you have about 247 of lean muscle. If you got down to a sleek 12% and didn't lose any body fat you would still weigh 235. Typically, you are going to lose muscle when you lose weight. Exercise helps to reduce the amount muscle lost, but to gain muscle is not easy. Your muscles may respond better to effort but that is through training not added muscle.

As a clyde you have more lean muscle then the skinnys have weight:twitchy:

Is my logic flawed? Done with rant for the day.

[QUOTE]Say you weigh 350 and have 40% body fat, that is 210 of lean muscle/QUOTE]

Don't forget you have organs, bones, fluid and other stuff inside you too, not just fat and muscle.

I just watched "Pumping Iron" and couldn't believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger only weighed 15 pounds more than me when he was in his prime, he was huge! It really shows the density/volume differences between fat and muscle. BTW he was 6'2" @ 240 lbs. I am 6'2" @ 225 lbs

First off it doesn't weigh more. If you have a pound of fat or a pound of muscle you still only have a pound:D It is a density issue, muscle is 7 times more dense then fat. So equal size cubes of muscle and fat would have the muscle weighing 7 times more.Seven times? Not hardly!

Muscle is a little denser than water, fat is a little less dense than water. The ratio between the two is about 1.18, not 7.

Yes and no.

If the measurements go down and weight stays the same then yes weight loss (not fat loss) is stalled. Argument stands. Your complaint is with people who whose measurements are not changing while weight remains the same then blaming muscle mass.

Depending on genetics and training type yes it is easy to put on muscle mass to a point. Pushups for example are one of the best (and most overlooked) exercises that do not require any gym equipment so that argument is out of the way too. As are dips and pull ups, you know, all those exercises we hated in gym class ;). Yes clydes may have more lean muscle mass than skinnies have weight altogether, did you think that extra 150lbs is moving itself?

An yes in the sense that a pound of feathers is the same as a pound of iron.

Just relax a bit then keep on doing what works for you :)

One thing I really miss about being in the 300lb. range was that with the number of calories it took to maintain that mass, all I had to do was just show up at the gym with any consistency and I'd add muscle like crazy...

I guess I'm in agreement with the whole BS line that people give about increasing their muscle mass to justify their lack of progress, but it is still possible to increase your fitness while staying at the same weight. But it's still no excuse for not losing weight.

I have been finding that im putting on a lot of leg muscle and while i havent been taking measurements i have been noticing a different fit to my clothes. My pants are looser at the waist and tighter in the thighs.

Pound for pound lead is no heavier than air. Pound for pound I am no heavier than Lance Armstrong. Uh?

If you prefer, it can be looked at as a body volume density argument. You are losing volume less quickly because as you reduce the lower density fat, you are increasing both the higher density muscle tissue AND Bone mass. This is particularly true if you're doing load bearing exercise like weights or strength training using body mass. You aren't losing weight, but you are losing inches shows a correlation of .95 to this theory, by the way.

Put another way, the weight you lose in fat is going to the leg muscles. ;) I have thigh measurements like the skinny guys have waist measurements, almost, for example.

Unless you are in the gym lifting, most likely lifting would have to be your primary goal and not cycling, you are toning your muscles but not building many new ones.I have built a crazy amount of muscle in just a few months by spending an average of 1-2 hours per week lifting weights. Usually 3 sets @ 10 reps. I never took measurements but I would say my arms and legs are the same size or bigger than they were when I was 323lbs in February. I'm 265 now and have problems finding shirts with big enough sleeves to be comfortable. I'm not trying to brag (well, maybe a little), but a significant amount of muscle can be gained with light/moderate weight training in a short amount of time even though cardio was my main focus. This picture was taken exactly 3 months after my first trip to the gym. I was nothing but flab before.

http://a677.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/63/l_bfbf8f72e2ae0c55fcf214fe5ad72824.jpg

I have built a crazy amount of muscle in just a few months by spending an average of 1-2 hours per week lifting weights. Usually 3 sets @ 10 reps. I never took measurements but I would say my arms and legs are the same size or bigger than they were when I was 323lbs in February. I'm 265 now and have problems finding shirts with big enough sleeves to be comfortable. I'm not trying to brag (well, maybe a little), but a significant amount of muscle can be gained with light/moderate weight training in a short amount of time even though cardio was my main focus. This picture was taken exactly 3 months after my first trip to the gym. I was nothing but flab before.

http://a677.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/63/l_bfbf8f72e2ae0c55fcf214fe5ad72824.jpg

There are 2 ways of lifting weights, you can lift heavy weights a few times, or light weights many times, for example at work I lift and carry boxes, the total weight per shift is around 6,000lbs:eek: Now that's only half the story though, there are about 600 pieces. Some will weigh one pound, some will weigh considerable more, but the average is around 10lbs. Both will build muscle and strength, but the many reps at light weights will not build bulky muscles. This is more important for women then men, a guy who looks like Arnie is fine, a woman that looks like Arnie, :rolleyes:

But, here is my rant. People are always saying your weight loss is slowing or stopped because you are gaining mucsle. Unless you are in the gym lifting, most likely lifting would have to be your primary goal and not cycling, you are toning your muscles but not building many new ones.
Yeah I love that line especially after
Well meaning coworker: Wow you look like you have lost alot of weight you have been cycling alot
EV: Yeah I'll be at 500 _Hours_ of cycling for the year by the end of the month lots of good cardio
WMCW: Oh wow that is alot how much weight have you lost lately
EV: .....Zero :(
WMCW: Oh............................... it must be muscle replacing fat has your size changed alot? I bet you have lost a few inches
EV: Nope
WMCW: Oh well maybe it just moved around a bit you look great *slinks off*
EV::crash::crash: Thanks :twitchy:

When I started riding, I didn't lose much weight but I lost inches around my waist. I look thinner but my legs bulked up quite a bit so I think that there is something to the fat loss muscle gain argument.

One thing I really miss about being in the 300lb. range was that with the number of calories it took to maintain that mass, all I had to do was just show up at the gym with any consistency and I'd add muscle like crazy...

I guess I'm in agreement with the whole BS line that people give about increasing their muscle mass to justify their lack of progress, but it is still possible to increase your fitness while staying at the same weight. But it's still no excuse for not losing weight.

i agree. most of the time when the statement is made it is being used as an excuse. pure and simple. later.

i agree. most of the time when the statement is made it is being used as an excuse. pure and simple. later.

I agree with that. I even used it once myself. I'm so ashamed :roflmao2:

then = sequence
than = alternative

So like all my friends say I looked bigger when I was at 220 lbs. So like I'm 245 now and fat so I think like fat weighs more than muscle!:D

As everyone mentioned a LBS = LBS no matter what the object. The only time that the "muscle weighs more than fat" is when a "FAT" person weighs less than a "SKINNIER" person. When I was bodybuilding, I carried about 4-6% bodyfat; therefore, my mass was more compact and dense. Often times, I weighed a lot more than other people who were visually much larger.

Overall fat is not as dense as muscle and takes up more space; thereby, giving the observer more mass to "SEE". This is the reason that people say "Muscle weighs more than Fat".

This is more important for women then men, a guy who looks like Arnie is fine, a woman that looks like Arnie, :rolleyes:

Why?

Why?

I personally think it's a preference and something to do with our male egos. I don't particularly want to think a woman can snap me in half like a twig. I also don't like the look of over built women. Women that are fit is one thing, ripped is another.

That all being said I'll just say that before I started cycling almost 2 years ago I weighed upwards of 220. The fat came off quickly and since I was already muscular in a cycling sense from my former years the muscles reappeared as the fat burned off. A year later I settled at a steady 182. I've added a little muscle to my legs but overall I just trimmed down.

If I look at my driver's license picture when I was 220, I look much heavier than now.

First of all, its in your DNA. Ben, you don't set what you weight, your Mom and Dad have already.

Second, are body image of ourselves is very important. If you don't have a good one, its all up hill.

Jerry

I personally think it's a preference and something to do with our male egos. I don't particularly want to think a woman can snap me in half like a twig. I also don't like the look of over built women. Women that are fit is one thing, ripped is another.


Well at least you are honest and say that it is your opinion and not generalised. Do you think it's an inferiority thing with other men as well? I'm curious as well, how 'overbuilt' does a woman have to be to become unattractive? Follow the link I am about to post. It's Hayley Bateup, who is just about the fittest woman in Australia currently and a bit of a rolemodel for me. Is she too buff for you?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/bring-on-the-ironmen/2006/10/07/1159641575872.html

But suggesting that women do not do heavy weights but instead to lighter with higher reps so they don't get bulky muscles is irresponsible. Firstly, it's not true. Secondly, it goes against medical opinions of better overall health for women. Thirdly, like most physical characteristics, some women will naturally have higher or lower muslce mass than others. I have a lot of respect for women with a lot of muscle because I know they have to work so much harder for it than men.

But mainly brining up body image and physical characteristics in such a way, especially of those who obviously worked hard for it and who do not have too much fat, isn't in the spirit of this forum.

And even if it was meant as a jest, it's not funny.

nothing tastes as good as fit feels....

nothing tastes as good as fit feels....

nothing tastes as good as fit feels....

aw, I fell better already!

Well at least you are honest and say that it is your opinion and not generalised. Do you think it's an inferiority thing with other men as well? I'm curious as well, how 'overbuilt' does a woman have to be to become unattractive? Follow the link I am about to post. It's Hayley Bateup, who is just about the fittest woman in Australia currently and a bit of a rolemodel for me. Is she too buff for you?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/bring-on-the-ironmen/2006/10/07/1159641575872.html

But suggesting that women do not do heavy weights but instead to lighter with higher reps so they don't get bulky muscles is irresponsible. Firstly, it's not true. Secondly, it goes against medical opinions of better overall health for women. Thirdly, like most physical characteristics, some women will naturally have higher or lower muslce mass than others. I have a lot of respect for women with a lot of muscle because I know they have to work so much harder for it than men.

But mainly brining up body image and physical characteristics in such a way, especially of those who obviously worked hard for it and who do not have too much fat, isn't in the spirit of this forum.

And even if it was meant as a jest, it's not funny.

So your saying that all women should be out there trying to lift as high a weight as possible? It's probably a safe bet that your example in the photo doesn't. Looks pretty athletic though, but you don't need huge bulky muscles for that.

I don't know about medical opinion, but let me give an illustration, which proves my point. Look at the guy who delivered your new 52" LCD TV had no problem even though the TV is over 100lbs and he doesn't look like a body builder. It's the 300 other pieces on the truck that averaged 10lbs each that have helped to build strength day after day, that allow that occasional heavier lift. Of course knowing the right techniques for lifting things beyond your abilities helps, gravity can be your best friend and your worst enemy when lifting. How do I know this? I'm the guy who at 2AM put that TV in the truck in the first place, also without a problem, and I definitely don't look like Arni either :D

For healthy living you need some fat, and women actually need a little more then men do, if your fat store is too low, that's not healthy either. Even though it is the Hollywood ideal.

For the women to get "over buff" they usually need help with drugs for their bodies to produce the extra muscle mass. I looked at your picture and that looks like a very fit or athletic build with a decent amount of body fat for a female. She is probably under the "standard" for women for body fat percentage, but that is always different for each person. The general rule is very good for the general public, but that is not the same for full time/professional athletes.

I know of a ironman triathlete who is probably still at the 15% body fat, as she is not a weight lifter. But, she can complete the full ironman in a great time, and also has a full time job as a dental assistant. I think she would love to win the lottery and work on her fitness full time, as some of these other people can do.

Should everyone lift weights - in my opinion yes. Do they all need to be doing the same type of weight lifting? Abosolutely not!!!.

Well at least you are honest and say that it is your opinion and not generalised. Do you think it's an inferiority thing with other men as well? I'm curious as well, how 'overbuilt' does a woman have to be to become unattractive? Follow the link I am about to post. It's Hayley Bateup, who is just about the fittest woman in Australia currently and a bit of a rolemodel for me. Is she too buff for you?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/bring-on-the-ironmen/2006/10/07/1159641575872.html


I don't think the rest of your response was meant for me so I'll answer what I think was. =) To me, there's a difference between fit and bodybuilders. Fit is attractive, women with bodybuilding physiques are not. I guess I just prefer the body of a woman to have a certain softness not some 12 pack ab 22" bicep muscular experiment. Other people may find that attractive, I don't. That's all I was trying to say. ;)

First off it doesn't weigh more. If you have a pound of fat or a pound of muscle you still only have a pound:D It is a density issue, muscle is 7 times more dense then fat. So equal size cubes of muscle and fat would have the muscle weighing 7 times more.

But, here is my rant. People are always saying your weight loss is slowing or stopped because you are gaining mucsle. Unless you are in the gym lifting, most likely lifting would have to be your primary goal and not cycling, you are toning your muscles but not building many new ones.

Here's my logic. Say you weigh 350 and have 40% body fat, that is 210 of lean muscle. At 35% body fat you have about 247 of lean muscle. If you got down to a sleek 12% and didn't lose any body fat you would still weigh 235. Typically, you are going to lose muscle when you lose weight. Exercise helps to reduce the amount muscle lost, but to gain muscle is not easy. Your muscles may respond better to effort but that is through training not added muscle.

As a clyde you have more lean muscle then the skinnys have weight:twitchy:

Is my logic flawed? Done with rant for the day.


You can gain muscle or lose fat, but its hard to lose both at the same time. However, can GAIN both at the same. Sucks don't it?

As for that muscle. We heavier peeps have more muscle mass just as the result of having to lug more weight around the the average peep. As your weight goes down, you will lose some muscle mass as you body doesn't find you to be in need of it like you were before unless you are actively lifting and consuming serious amounts of protein. Remember the body likes equilibrium and really hates to work harder that it has to.

Well at least you are honest and say that it is your opinion and not generalised. Do you think it's an inferiority thing with other men as well? I'm curious as well, how 'overbuilt' does a woman have to be to become unattractive? Follow the link I am about to post. It's Hayley Bateup, who is just about the fittest woman in Australia currently and a bit of a rolemodel for me. Is she too buff for you?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/bring-on-the-ironmen/2006/10/07/1159641575872.html




Yikes! That's a girl? Scary.

Sorry to say this about your role model, but she looks too masculine for my taste, but then who am I? It's all personal tastes and opinions, live and let let live, I say I admitted to myself, quite awhile ago, that I was a fat **()%^"", and have tried to create a new image of myself. To some extent I have succeeded, but that doesn't mean that any members of the opposite sex have noticed, or are impressed. In the end we are all doing this self-improvement thing for ourselves, and as a direct result of my cycling I feel just great. From 244 lbs to 216 lbs has taken me 3 years, I am not a superlative athlete, you wouldn't notice me in the street, but this feeling of energy to burn is wonderful, to feel alive is the everything, the entirety, of what I want to achieve. If I had the chance of looking like the current James Bond, I'd probably up my game, but that's genetically impossible. I know it sounds a bit like " knowing one's limitations ," but it isn't that, it's personal goals that we all have to set for ourselves, there are no hard and fast rules. Currently, I am so proud of myself, for the way I feel, and have found so much enjoyment and freedom in my cycling, that I don't need the incentive of losing more weight, looking better, or for that matter, looking like Daniel Craig. What am I going on about? I really don't know, let's just sum up by saying, cycling the way I have done, over the past 3 years, has improved my life, energy, wellbeing, outlook, and presumably, because of my time alone, has enabled me to introspect, to realise where I am as a person. I believe sincerely, that all you cyclists out there will know where I am coming from with all this verbosity. Perhaps I should just say, "CYCLING IS GREAT, IT DOES ONE AND ONE'S BODY GOOD, GIVES ONE ENERGY, A SENSE OF WELLBEING, CONTENTMENT ETC., ETC., AND SO ON......."

Sorry for going on. and on, but cycling is more than just buffing up.