humor me please

[slipbobber]

I know that this may sound funny or odd but if some one could humor me I would greatly appreciate it. This may not be that hard or a question but I have a simple mind.


Say for example some one is 45% body fat and 55% lean muscle. After 9 months they drop there body fat down to 34% and there lean muscle down to 66%. Now they clam that they lost 11% fat and gained 11% muscle. Now keep in mind that this was on a calorie restricted diet (anywhere between 1200-1500 cal\day)
This is a female and I do not now how much she weighs or her age. All I now is that her BMI is 28.5 if that helps.


How do you go about telling them that they did not fiscally gain that much muscle while on a low calorie diet? Is there a formula or anything solid or concrete that I could show them that it is near imposable to make that kind of gain? Anything?

 

[SgtSlaughter]

you've got me Slipbobber... bump for possible answers?

 

[*Bunny*]

I know that this may sound funny or odd but if some one could humor me I would greatly appreciate it. This may not be that hard or a question but I have a simple mind.


Say for example some one is 45% body fat and 55% lean muscle. After 9 months they drop there body fat down to 34% and there lean muscle down to 66%. Now they clam that they lost 11% fat and gained 11% muscle. Now keep in mind that this was on a calorie restricted diet (anywhere between 1200-1500 cal\day)
This is a female and I do not now how much she weighs or her age. All I now is that her BMI is 28.5 if that helps.


How do you go about telling them that they did not fiscally gain that much muscle while on a low calorie diet? Is there a formula or anything solid or concrete that I could show them that it is near imposable to make that kind of gain? Anything?

My first impression is that water is throwing off these #'s. After reading further, it's really hard, impossible, to say without knowing the weight of this person.

In 9 months you can lose 11% no problem, but to gain 11% is nearly impossible for a woman, but there are no start and end weight to go by. There really isn't enough data to make a judgment.

**EDIT** I just thought of something else ... ASSUMING HERE

When I say water was the cause, I am referring to her being 'swollen' when she started tracking and when she lost it (the water), her bf looked like it went down on a caliper. That's what usually happens and is very common when women start to diet and exercise.

In other words, she was holding alot of water when she started so the inital readings were inaccurate. I could assume the inital readings were off to begin with, they would have to be with bf that high, esp. in a woman.

Take this as an example, your body hold 4gr of water to process 1 gr of carbs. Start cutting the carbs and you lose the water. That's why people drop 8 pounds when they start atkins, and then stop

BUT again, you can't really tell without knowing what her diet was, as well as her beginning and ending weight.

Hope this helps some ...

 

[cyrex]

I know that this may sound funny or odd but if some one could humor me I would greatly appreciate it. This may not be that hard or a question but I have a simple mind.


Say for example some one is 45% body fat and 55% lean muscle. After 9 months they drop there body fat down to 34% and there lean muscle down to 66%. Now they clam that they lost 11% fat and gained 11% muscle. Now keep in mind that this was on a calorie restricted diet (anywhere between 1200-1500 cal\day)
This is a female and I do not now how much she weighs or her age. All I now is that her BMI is 28.5 if that helps.


How do you go about telling them that they did not fiscally gain that much muscle while on a low calorie diet? Is there a formula or anything solid or concrete that I could show them that it is near imposable to make that kind of gain? Anything?

You are asking a trick question. You are speaking in percentages or ratios...

If you have a 2 sided ratio and you adjust 1 number, the other will adjust with an inverse relationship equally!
So yes. as far as the ratios go 11% fat was lost and 11% muscle was gained HOWEVER the real numbers..

WEIGHT
LBM
Body Fat
have ALL most likely gone down


Just for the sake of argument I'm gonna toss some numbers in here
Our constants:
Beginning BF 45% @ 200lbs LBM 110 (55%)

Example 1 AFTER
160 lbs Fat 54.4 (34%) LBM 105.6 (66%)
In this scenario our subject has lost 40 lbs of weight 35.6 lbs of which was fat and 4.4 lbs of which was muscle

Example 2 AFTER
170 lbs Fat 57.8 (34%) LBM 112.2 (66%)
In this scenario our subject has lost 30 lbs of weight 32.2 lbs of which was fat but she actually gained 2.2 lbs of muscle

EXTREME EXAMPLE
300 lbs Fat 102 (34%) LBM 198 (66%)
In this scenario our subject has taken 20 dbol a day along with 1g of deca and 1g of test per week for 9 months. She has gained 100 lbs of which 12 lbs was fat and 88 lbs was muscle. She now has a miniature penis.

In your question the closest scenario is probably something like the first but as you can see the ratios really give no indication on how much actual MUSCL was lost/gained and how much actual FAT was lost/gained

 

[cyrex]

How you said "Humor me please" I thought my post was PRETTY DAMN funny and scientific at the same time...


BF % really mean nothing when it comes to fat loss until you know the real numbers you are working with (weight before and after)

 

[slipbobber]

i still love it!

Absolutely, example # 3 was great. and who knows....
I sat here most of the day trying to figure out something. I came to the conclusion that I needed her weight before and after to get any were. Then again I don’t always think things all the way through. That is why I asked.

Cyrex, thank you I needed that this morning.
Thanks to the rest that responded.

 

[cyrex]

glad to be of service