Thread: Conflicting Advice - How much should I be trying to lose?

I would be really interested to hear the theory on this - As the amount of muscle you have is directly related to your strength then logic would suggest that if you lose muscle, you lose your strength. Happy for debate, but I doubt you will be able to disprove the correlation between muscle mass and strength, which you would have to in order to prove that you can keep your strength when losing muscle mass - remember we're not talking water weight here, actual lean muscle tissue.

I have been doing some searching to try and find the place where I originally read that they are different.

From what I am seeing - muscle mass and strength are directly related when talking about the strength of that particular muscle. So your quads will not be stronger unless they get bigger.

However - most people measure strength by what you can lift or how you perform. So you can increase the weight of your squat (for example) without increasing the size of your quads or your other primary muscles (and therefore your visible muscle mass) by increasing the recruitment of stabilisers, learning better technique and bettering your mind\body connection.

So in this way, muscle mass may be be steady or even declining while 'strength' (measured by lifts, etc) goes up by that extra recruitment, technique and mind\body connection.

The above is different to what I understood but I can see how I got the wrong message. Is this a compromise we can agree on?

It would mean that what my advisor meant was that I need to decrease the muscle mass of my primary muscle groups (particularly my quads) but increase my effective strength.

It also fits with the principles of pilates where they claim (and I believe this has directly benefitted me) to utilise deeper abdominal muscles, stabilisers along your spine, etc, so your effective strength goes up without someone gaining visible muscle mass.

I suppose we can agree, however, the point I was making (and I should have been more specific) was that all being equal and assuming pefect form etc then you cannot remain strong or get stronger without retaining or gaining muscle. Losing muscle equals getting weaker. Nobody wants to look like a marathon runner...

Originally Posted by CMinOZ

Losing muscle equals getting weaker. Nobody wants to look like a marathon runner...

I sure don't want to look like a marathon runner (although I will be one in July). However I would be happy with some compromise (I think) to help me with the current goals of Ironman. I find the whole subject of deliberately allowing some catabolisation of my muscles to be very threatening. The only upside I can see is that if\when I find myself very lean at the end of my ironman ambitions - it will be a perfect platform to pile meat onto!

I will challenge your comment about losing muscle equalling getting weaker. It would appear that while this is true to a point - for some ambitions, losing muscle equals getting better. Like the actual marathon runners.

Clownboy - I think you are talking about getting more efficient at a movement, rather than actually getting stronger. Am I right?

Tim

Originally Posted by Big Tim

Clownboy - I think you are talking about getting more efficient at a movement, rather than actually getting stronger. Am I right?

Tim

Probably - but I confess I may have confused the 2. You can probably exhibit more strength through greater efficiency and no growth in muscle mass or maintain strength through greater efficiency and a decrease in muscle mass.

This second being what the guy at LBs was trying to say. He doesn't care what I can squat but would want me to run faster by using same strength to carry less body weight. Recommending I find a way to maintain that same 'strength' when some of the body weight reduced is muscle.

1 - you can get stronger without getting bigger, strength is neurological
2 - if you lose muscle then 9/10 you'll lose strength
3 - i can see what the LB's bloke is trying to sday but wehit if you can only squat 50kgs? you'd run faster if you could squat 100kgs and use that strength

I'm confused, on one hand you say that you can get stronger without getting bigger (I assume you mean, without putting on muscle) yet then say that if you lose muscle you'll lose strength - Surely this is contrary to your first point - either way, all things being equal - I say BS

Muscle = Strength - If your technique is perfect and you lose muscle mass you will reduce the amount of your 1RM, if you have perfect technique and increase muscle mass relative to the lifts you are performing then your 1RM will increase.

I appreciate that a complete newbie can increase weights handled due to improved technique, but all things being equal, to lift more you need more muscle.

points 1 and 2 are not the same, not even close

do wt lifters get heavier each year? no, they get stronger and stay in their wt classes

it's also said that the best way to increase your becnh is to increase your bodyweight, not muscle weight, simply bodyweight at any cost (jim wendler i believe or dave tate)

i get stronger all the time but i don't put on wt

point 1 is BS either mate, it's fact

Originally Posted by Belmont

I'd view your above diet as moderate - high carb / low protein and your photo as someone who does not handle carbs well (at present)(or possibly is not digesting, assimilating their food). Carbohydrate intake aside, i'd say you are not meeting your daily protein, vegetable goal and possibly fiber goal. Although milk is a protein is has a high insulin load.

While I still feel I may have given the details on a bad day or what have you - and my protein is normally higher and vegie intake is good - I am concentrating on them more today and will continue to do so.

While this has led to the relatively normal addition of a protein shake to my brekky and a morning tea treat of a bacon and egg role (on turkish bread) - I am also getting wierd looks for my afternoon tea.

I was nibblish and as I reached for a muesli bar, I saw a box of velish. So I am hear drinking vegetable soup out of the carton. ;) Cold butternut pumpkin soup aint bad.

Originally Posted by swans05

it's also said that the best way to increase your becnh is to increase your bodyweight, not muscle weight, simply bodyweight at any cost (jim wendler i believe or dave tate)

So you might be referring to some sort of muscle density? (where a higher density muscle would have more weight and strength over less dense without a change in size?)

Originally Posted by swans05

points 1 and 2 are not the same, not even close

do wt lifters get heavier each year? no, they get stronger and stay in their wt classes

it's also said that the best way to increase your becnh is to increase your bodyweight, not muscle weight, simply bodyweight at any cost (jim wendler i believe or dave tate)

i get stronger all the time but i don't put on wt

point 1 is BS either mate, it's fact

Swans05 - Your points are ridiculous, are you saying that for a weight lifter to increase their lifts, they dont put on muscle - such bollocks - yes mentally on the "right day" we can all lift heavier. The point I am making is that "ALL BEING EQUAL" if you want to lift heavier, then you need more muscle. If a lifter is in a weight class they will decrease bf if they increase muscle in order to make a class ober the course of a year, that or they will go up a class.

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but what you have heard about increasing your weight to improve your bench is probably related to fat bastards being rounder and therefore the ROM required for a legal press is less. I very much doubt that you are getting stronger without increasing your muscle mass, in fact I flat out dont believe you - unless your increases have come from an improvement in technique - which brings me back to my point about "ALL BEING EQUAL". You can argue all you like, but if EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL, you will only improve when you add muscle.

no one is equal so the comment was pointless

take the bench press argument with dave and jim and see what response you get...when you can becnh a 1/4 of what they do, then you can say what you want

oh that's such a well made point - no basis in fact, you're just wrong! Good debate. As for your condescending remark about my bench press, I'm pretty confident that I can at least press 1/4 of what they do, unless they press more than 640kg, which I sincerely doubt - especially without ever needing to put on muscle to increase their 1RM. This debate is going nowhere due to your inability to acknowledge the very fundamentals of weight training. So rather than trying put me down, why not give some evidence of your increased lifts without increase in muscle mass. So man up, what is your bodyweight, BF% and maxes on the bench, squat and deadlift - give these numbers relative to increases in your lifts and will have some data to work with. I think you're wrong, I know for a fact that my lifts (1RM) increase in direct correlation to increases in my muscle mass and readily provide the information. Yes, technique has something to do with it, but it is not the sole contributing factor that you make it out to be.

i don't need to post my stats for your validation mate

if you want then, search for them