Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Getting thinner without losing weight

I have been back on my bike for about nine months now and I certainly look and feel better than I have in years. My wife, who would know best, has told me that I am slimming down and I can see that for a fact in the mirror as well. The odd thing is that I haven't really lost any weight. Am I losing fat and gaining muscle? What's going on?

You are dropping fat and gaining muscle and bone mass. Exercise will do that for you.

Cool. It really does feel good.

I have the same problem :( Im doing a sprint triathlon in June I workout at least 2 hours a day and I think I have lost a total of four pounds :( It's so frustrating. But Im hoping that I am just laying the groundwork, and that eventually the weightloss will catch up and then I'll just be dropping weight left and right with little to no extra effort.... that is my hope anyhow :)

I noticed the same thing. I lost 15 pounds initially, but the last 2 months or so I have fluctuated +/- 3 pounds. However, I keep gaining holes in my belt. I do feel I have more muscle mass and can see the difference, just not on the scale. I am OK with this, because I feel wonderful.
I am sure I would lose weight if I was more careful with my caloric intake, but I am satisfied for the time being.
Congrats and keep moving in a positive direction.

Familiar story for me, too. I expected more weight loss when I started bike commuting 70-75+ miles a week a little over a year ago. A lot of my weight loss happened initially, too, and I've since started losing it much more slowly.

However, I do continue to gain holes on the belt and am now to the point I need to start looking for smaller size clothes. I've been measuring my actual waistline (not where I actually put my pants but up around my belly button), and I've lost about 6" in that year. I feel so much better, look better, and have gotten into much better shape.

I plan on continuing to exercise (maybe add some training activities to work my upper body more) and I hope that it will translate into more weight loss. In the meantime, I know the weight I am carrying, though not down as much as I had hoped, is a healthier kind of weight to be carrying around.

I am glad to hear I am not the only one. I have dropped a few pounds. It's not like I haven't lost anything but I haven't lost much. I have a feeling the pounds may start to come off soon. This month has been fairly good in terms of weight loss but not that great. I can feel that I am getting much stronger now. I have a hunch the weight will start shedding soon.

Bracketing my TKR - 30 days either side of it, I lost bout 45LBS. Since then (11-09), I've regained about 6lbs, but, I have shrunk more since then without weight loss - I know, muscle weighs more than fat... But Still, I expected *some* consistant weight loss simply from more exercise, but it doesn't appear that way for me.

Can't wait to see the heart DR on the 24th - hasn't seen me since 09-09, so I am hoping for good words!

I know, muscle weighs more than fat...

Please do not take this the wrong way, but muscle does not weigh more than fat. A pound of muscle weighs exactly the same as a pound of fat. However, a pound of muscle does take up less space than a pound of fat. It is a matter of density, not weight. Sorry, it is the science teacher in me:) Keep up the good work and I am sure you will get good words from your heart Doc.

Please do not take this the wrong way, but muscle does not weigh more than fat. A pound of muscle weighs exactly the same as a pound of fat. However, a pound of muscle does take up less space than a pound of fat. It is a matter of density, not weight. Sorry, it is the science teacher in me:) Keep up the good work and I am sure you will get good words from your heart Doc.

OK, but you could correctly say that one cubic inch of muscle is heavier than one cubic foot of fat, assuming both are under the same amount of pressure, yes?

OK, but you could correctly say that one cubic inch of muscle is heavier than one cubic foot of fat, assuming both are under the same amount of pressure, yes?

I assume you mean a cubic inch of muscle is heavier than a cubic inch of fat. Which as I said makes it a matter of Density. A cubic unit such as the cubic inch is a unit of volume and density = mass/volume. So yes a cubic inch of muscle would have a higher weight than a cubic inch of fat. Muscle has a density of 1.06 g/ml vs fat at .9 g/ml.

I have had the same happening, slowly. I have changed my diet (lots of fruits/veggies instead of fatty, sugary snacks) and gotten outside a little more. My girlfriend has told me on more than one occasion that I felt smaller when she hugs me.

Keep up what your doing, I would rather loose inches than lbs though the weight loss will come!

Please do not take this the wrong way, but muscle does not weigh more than fat. A pound of muscle weighs exactly the same as a pound of fat. However, a pound of muscle does take up less space than a pound of fat. It is a matter of density, not weight. Sorry, it is the science teacher in me:) Keep up the good work and I am sure you will get good words from your heart Doc.

No offence taken Sir. I mis-spoke / mis-wrote. Please allow me to correct my words...

A pound of feathers weighs as much as a pound of steel - but the steel will be much smaller in size/shape than the feathers will be in the same gravity.

Same as the fat guy known as Peter. My "shape" (size, measurements, etc) are shrinking, even without the actual loss of "weight" - so my comment should correctly be, "I know, muscle is smaller in size than is the same amount (weight-wise) of fat.

The point being, without splitting hairs is the fact that my clothing is looser without weight loss, and so I *assume* it is because my body is changing? Less fat (generic term) but more muscle (generic term) - does this satisfy?

Here are the ratios: Muscle = 7X the density of fat
Bone = 15 times the density of fat.

You are gaining both muscle and bone mass as you lose the fat mass. As of now, the loss/gain ratio is equal, however, as your percentages shift, fat is a storage medium vs muscle being a dynamic medium. Fat just sits there and uses very little metabolic basal capacity and muscle uses far more, just existing, since it's a high energy tissue. Once your muscle: fat ratio shifts a bit further, you will start burning more calories just for your basal metabolic rate because of the greater percentage of muscle to fat. When the balance shifts far enough that your body can no longer compensate sufficiently to maintain homeostasis, you will also start dropping weight until you hit a new homeostasis balance.

I love how this has turned into science class (I really mean that - I'm sort of a dork like that).

I was once told that a pound of muscle will burn 50 calories a day by existing. So, that's 350 calories a week. Gain 10 lbs of muscle and that's 3500 calories burned a week...which is about how many calories are in a pound. :)

Awhile back I posted about stopping loosing weight - well, it's changed a little.

Not the weight, but my clothes are getting all stretched out! I can't keep my pants up any more!

I try to ride between 30-50 miles every day, and don't really watch what I eat or drink. ( I have done this mileage, for quite a few years.) I started at about 210-215, and have maintained 190 for quite some time now.

Recently, I changed my riding, to include more all out sprinting, sprinting uphill whenever one is available, and making sure my last couple miles are hard ones. I changed my cadence, to include more "faster" spinning - doing more between 90-100, while I still try to keep my comfort zone of 80-86 for the majority of my miles. I've become more conscious of mixing up distances (day to day), and taking one or two days off (sometimes connected), just to keep my body guessing. My spinning is still limited, as between 100-110, I start to bounce in the saddle, and at 110-120, my legs fly off my body (at the hips), and I have to go back to find my feet along the side of the trail/road.

I must be working the muscles a lot differently, because I end up with more cramping after 40 mile rides - more than I ever used to experience after even 60 mile rides. I always feel fine the next morning, and potassium pills, peanuts, and bananas seem to control it. Even my shoulders and arms get more sore now.

I'm climbing hills much faster than before, and maintaining the climbing much longer. I can see the diference in the structure of my legs.

I, actually , even look forward to the sprints now!

I'm even getting faster, all around... guess there's hope for me yet!

Sooooooo, while the scale isn't showing it yet, more fat is coming off. And, the scale alone, isn't always a good indicator.

I gotta go look for my "braces" --

start knocking out pushups 4 nights a week and you will be amazed at how much that will add to your good problem. they are great for your core and chest. i got to where i was gaining weight and slimming down.

I assume you mean a cubic inch of muscle is heavier than a cubic inch of fat. Which as I said makes it a matter of Density. A cubic unit such as the cubic inch is a unit of volume and density = mass/volume. So yes a cubic inch of muscle would have a higher weight than a cubic inch of fat. Muscle has a density of 1.06 g/ml vs fat at .9 g/ml.

Um, yeah, that's what I meant. :o

We are all after the same thing here so it is all good. We may bike for many different reasons but the one common denomenator is improving our health!!!!! Keep up the good work.

I assume you mean a cubic inch of muscle is heavier than a cubic inch of fat. Which as I said makes it a matter of Density. A cubic unit such as the cubic inch is a unit of volume and density = mass/volume. So yes a cubic inch of muscle would have a higher weight than a cubic inch of fat. Muscle has a density of 1.06 g/ml vs fat at .9 g/ml.


Here are the ratios: Muscle = 7X the density of fat
Bone = 15 times the density of fat.


The two numbers given are very different. I like Tom's answer better(7x vs 18% more). Not sure if it's correct, but I would like it to be.

They say to measure progress with the fit of clothes, not with a scale. We are way too fixated on weight in this culture instead of health.

I'm kind of in the same boat. Just remember that there are different types of clydes. I'm the type of clyde that is still fairly obese at 99kg. That means I'm at a much higher risk of heart problems and a crapload of other health issues unless I lose the weight. It doesn't matter how much muscle I put on. I'm also much more likely to hurt myself on the bike. If you are that type of clyde it's time to start counting calories no matter what anyone in this thread says. Belt loops and mirror images are nifty and useful but BMI is a pretty reliable determinate of health risks.

I'm kind of in the same boat. Just remember that there are different types of clydes. I'm the type of clyde that is still fairly obese at 99kg. That means I'm at a much higher risk of heart problems and a crapload of other health issues unless I lose the weight. It doesn't matter how much muscle I put on. I'm also much more likely to hurt myself on the bike. If you are that type of clyde it's time to start counting calories no matter what anyone in this thread says. Belt loops and mirror images are nifty and useful but BMI is a pretty reliable determinate of health risks.

I disagree with this. BMI is arbitrary and does not take age, body type or level of fitness into account, and it seems to be markedly skewed. I admit to being a clyde, and I admit that at one point I had gained about 100 pounds since my college days nearly forty years ago, but according to the BMI charts I should weigh less now than I did in junior high.

You are dropping fat and gaining muscle and bone mass. Exercise will do that for you.
+1k
Don't be so caught up in the weight. You can tell how you feel, every morning when you wake up and get out of bed. Do you feel more energized rather than before? Do you find it easier to get to sleep when you want to at night rather than before? Weight is just one TINY little factor in the world of health, and although it is fantastic to pay attention to it, it is not in your best interests to worry more about weight than health and fitness.

Enjoy the more powerful engine on your bike, and ride ride ride!

+1k
Don't be so caught up in the weight. You can tell how you feel, every morning when you wake up and get out of bed. Do you feel more energized rather than before? Do you find it easier to get to sleep when you want to at night rather than before? Weight is just one TINY little factor in the world of health, and although it is fantastic to pay attention to it, it is not in your best interests to worry more about weight than health and fitness.

Enjoy the more powerful engine on your bike, and ride ride ride!

I like the way you put that. I always look at body fat and waist instead of weight.

The two numbers given are very different. I like Tom's answer better(7x vs 18% more). Not sure if it's correct, but I would like it to be.

It's not. The 1.06 g/cc number is right for typical human muscle. Adipose tissue (what we think of as "fat", which is really only about 80% fat.) has a density of about 0.9 g/cc. There's a bit of variation between individuals and tissue types, but not enough to really matter. I have no idea where Tom got his numbers.

Belt loops and mirror images are nifty and useful but BMI is a pretty reliable determinate of health risks.

Not so fast... (see link below)


I disagree with this. BMI is arbitrary and does not take age, body type or level of fitness into account, and it seems to be markedly skewed.

+100

As for BMI, there's a new kid in town... or there should be.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/93638-whtr-the-new-determinant-health-risk/

No offence taken Sir. I mis-spoke / mis-wrote. Please allow me to correct my words...

A pound of feathers weighs as much as a pound of steel - but the steel will be much smaller in size/shape than the feathers will be in the same gravity.

Same as the fat guy known as Peter. My "shape" (size, measurements, etc) are shrinking, even without the actual loss of "weight" - so my comment should correctly be, "I know, muscle is smaller in size than is the same amount (weight-wise) of fat.

The point being, without splitting hairs is the fact that my clothing is looser without weight loss, and so I *assume* it is because my body is changing? Less fat (generic term) but more muscle (generic term) - does this satisfy?

Either way, enjoy the progress and respect the work in the future. Congrats on the 50 lbs so far man! Good job.

It's not. The 1.06 g/cc number is right for typical human muscle. Adipose tissue (what we think of as "fat", which is really only about 80% fat.) has a density of about 0.9 g/cc. There's a bit of variation between individuals and tissue types, but not enough to really matter. I have no idea where Tom got his numbers.

The 1.06 number I see quoted on many articles is from a study a long time ago that measured the density of muscle in rats. Just from cooking and butchering animals, I thought 7x was a little(a lot) high for humans, even if our muscle is much more dense than rats. After looking at a few studies, it does appear 1.06 is pretty close to the human density. I have heard the 7x number before, but perhaps an "average person" has 7x more muscle than fat - i.e. 20lbs of fat and 140lbs of muscle in a "health" body?

The 1.06 number I see quoted on many articles is from a study a long time ago that measured the density of muscle in rats. Just from cooking and butchering animals, I thought 7x was a little(a lot) high for humans, even if our muscle is much more dense than rats. After looking at a few studies, it does appear 1.06 is pretty close to the human density. I have heard the 7x number before, but perhaps an "average person" has 7x more muscle than fat - i.e. 20lbs of fat and 140lbs of muscle in a "health" body?

There's very little difference in mammalian skeletal muscle tissue from species to species. Lots of difference in the shape and sizes, but not in the actual structure of the cells. 100 cc of rat muscle is going to weigh the same as 100 cc of horse muscle and as 100 cc of human muscle.

As for the 7X number, I have no idea. What you say is possible, but I tend to tune relative numbers out, because very often, the people quoting them have no clue what they mean.

It seems my weight has finally started dropping. I don't feel like I doing too much differently. It just seems like my body made a decision. Who am I to argue?

I know I am going to repeat a lot on here. Buy my first year of biking was also my summer of getting back in shape, but most of it was road biking. I intentionally didn't get on a scale. I lost so much fat, was slimmer, looser clothes, etc etc. I got back on the scale and expected to see big numbers, and it was like 5 pounds. I was really surprised. but the goal is to feel better, look better, lose fat, and lose weight. In my opinion that is the right order of thinking.....now to do it again

When at the doctor's office for a visit yesterday I was reminded about another health benefit from all the cardio exercise I get from cycling, even if the weight isn't as quick to come off as I'd perhaps like it to at times. Namely, my blood pressure, which used to often run borderline-high (130/90 territory) is now MUCH lower. Yesterday's reading: 115/65, and that's in the ballpark of a couple other readings I've had lately. I had to do some research to satisfy my curiosity as to when blood pressure is too LOW! :)

Given the battery of health benefits of reduced blood pressure and the fact that I have no negative symptoms/effects from the lower pressure, I'm ecstatic about it!

Still want to work to take weight off, but one more reminder that it's not all just about weight loss and that there are other (complementary) metrics of overall health as well.

cool huh?

When at the doctor's office for a visit yesterday I was reminded about another health benefit from all the cardio exercise I get from cycling, even if the weight isn't as quick to come off as I'd perhaps like it to at times. Namely, my blood pressure, which used to often run borderline-high (130/90 territory) is now MUCH lower. Yesterday's reading: 115/65, and that's in the ballpark of a couple other readings I've had lately. I had to do some research to satisfy my curiosity as to when blood pressure is too LOW! :)

Big clue: you faint if you stand up fast. I've got really low blood pressure. (like 90/50, give or take) This causes consternation when I have my blood pressure measured (to me, now that everyone uses automatic sphygmomanometers, too. I've been bruised by the things.) because no one believes it. They think their instrument is broken. Then they ask "do you ahve problems with dizzineess?" etc.)

Big clue: you faint if you stand up fast. I've got really low blood pressure. (like 90/50, give or take) This causes consternation when I have my blood pressure measured (to me, now that everyone uses automatic sphygmomanometers, too. I've been bruised by the things.) because no one believes it. They think their instrument is broken. Then they ask "do you ahve problems with dizzineess?" etc.)

Yeah. Fainting would be bad. If it weren't for the cuff readings at occasional doctors' office visits, I'd have no clue that my blood pressure was loewr now than it was a few years ago. Trust me, if I faint from standing up too fast, I'll be trying to figure out what the hell is wrong with me. Until then I'm just happy to have a good, healthy BP number.