[QUOTE=Dirlot;973465]Pretty much any [URL="http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/gallery/data/597/medium/l_ed75bff67caa3bfed0fc45f3fcd256fc.jpg"]Jamie Eason[/URL] photo[/QUOTE]
Why are you posting pics of my gf?
Two major reasons I can think of:
[B]For Today:[/B] Lean body mass burns calories so it lets you eat more without getting fat. It also allows you to perform better at physical activities which is really fun.
[B]For Tomorrow[/B]: Studies show that building/preserving muscle mass has a direct correlation to quality of life as you age. If you get old and weak, you can't do much physically. If you remain strong as you age you can extend your physically active years considerably.
Depends on how much muscle you have and how heavy you are, I suppose. I'm 280... I've lost 70 pounds! And I've gained some muscle from my training. But I bet as I finally get to goal I'll lose some of it. If the trainer's scale is remotely accurate... that's a big if... I have 140-150 pounds of lean muscle. That seems like a lot at 5'4.
I'd say I have about the same muscle definition in my legs as that attractive lady in the picture has in her legs. I can also see all kinds of lines and creases on me when I walk that are not visible in her picture. However, my legs are enormous. I would like both the padding AND the amount of muscle to just be less.
If my legs are any indication of the rest of me, my underlying muscular size seems large and the fat on top of it just adds to the largeness.
You know how you sometimes see these really big guys who have massive calves? That's me. Wouldn't people like us not need to care very much about losing muscle mass? You hear so much about preserving it, making sure you don't lose one bit of it, but don't some of us have too much lower body muscle from carrying around big huge bodies?
Sbhikes - just enjoy the journey, don't ask too many questions. You look great and that muscle has to be doing you huge favours. I was a competitive swimmer in my youth, have been a farmers wife all my married life, and I have a huge amount of muscle in my shoulders, arms, back. I am also carrying around a heap of fat still, but am working on it. I hate how big my shoulders and arms are. I am determined to dumb it down - and I'm sure it will as the weight drops off.
Anyway the point I am making is I think that [B]we might think [/B]that it looks worse than it is ????!!!!
This girl is a good example of why we care:
[url=http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/]Meet Staci: Your New Powerlifting Super Hero | Nerd Fitness[/url]
I think this is actually a very good question.
And some of our colleagues have noted part of the answer. If a person is significantly obese (say Type II or III), the amount of muscle needed just to move that person around will be substantial.
If such a person were to lose weight down to something approaching healthy weight on the BMI, even if they held onto lots of lean mass, they just wouldn't need as much to carry the significantly reduced weight around.
And trying to keep all that muscle-mass might put that person in the position of looking like a body builder or something. If that's what you want, then fine. But for most people, that level of musculature isn't what a lot of people are looking for.
That being said, then yes, lean mass burns more calories, etc. But perhaps the thing to look at is lean mass as a ratio or total to total mass. So if you are reducing total mass, then the actual amount of lean mass will go down, but the percentage might go up.
Okay, so here's another illustration. I can wear a size 4 woman's pants. That's a respectable size. I even have a size 2 in my closet that fits comfortably. However, I cannot wear a pair of Ugg boots. Now don't just poo-poo that with "ugg boots are ugly." I cannot wear any boots that come up to your calves. I don't think I've ever had any hair on the backs of my calves due to how tights pants tend to be there. I don't lift like Staci, either.
I guess Dan understands here. That if you lose weight you won't need so much muscle. I want more muscle on my upper body, but less fat AND muscle on the lower body. I just want to be strong enough. I don't want to be an upside-down Pop-eye.
Well lean mass is also organs and bones (minerals) and such. So when you lose lean mass it could also be coming from those sources. Not good. There is just no good reason to jettison the good stuff. Losing lean mass with fat will also not improve your strength/weight ratio. Some people are interested in being better able to control their own bodies in space which is where strength/weight is quite important.
Muscle is much easier to lose than fat. If your calves really bother you, de-emphasize them in your training. Overall, though, I wouldn't mess around with overall lean mass until you've lost all the fat you want to lose. Once you're there, then you can play around with fine tuning. I knew a figure competitor who purposely had to lose lean mass in her shoulders to fit the competition standard, even as she was trying like crazy to build up her lats.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to look a certain way. But take it from someone who has been on both sides of the spectrum, the muscle really does help you lose fat.