Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: Really dumb question - why do we care about preserving lean body mass? page 2

  1. #11
    Gadsie's Avatar
    Gadsie is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Groningen, Netherlands
    Posts
    1,931
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirlot View Post
    Pretty much any Jamie Eason photo
    Why are you posting pics of my gf?
    Billie trips balls

  2. #12
    dgreenwood's Avatar
    dgreenwood is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    102
    Two major reasons I can think of:

    For Today: 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.

    For Tomorrow: 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.

  3. #13
    Wildrose's Avatar
    Wildrose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Calgary Alberta
    Posts
    1,064
    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.

  4. #14
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    9,532
    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?
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Current squat: 180 x 2. Current Deadlift: 230 x 2

  5. #15
    NZ primal Gwamma's Avatar
    NZ primal Gwamma is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    4,317

    Cool

    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 we might think that it looks worse than it is ????!!!!
    "never let the truth get in the way of a good story "

    ...small steps....

  6. #16
    Mr. Anthony's Avatar
    Mr. Anthony is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,327
    This girl is a good example of why we care:

    Meet Staci: Your New Powerlifting Super Hero | Nerd Fitness

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    70
    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.

  8. #18
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    9,532
    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.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Current squat: 180 x 2. Current Deadlift: 230 x 2

  9. #19
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,729
    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.

  10. #20
    Miscellangela's Avatar
    Miscellangela is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    136
    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.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •