How numbers lie (or: how you can do right and go wrong?)

kbits · Post by **kbits** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:32 pm

Allow me to regale you with a tale woe

I'm part of a study at my university on power and strength training, as it impacts sprint performance (amongst other things).

As part of this study, I get frequent (monthly) DEXA scans (Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry). DEXA is considered the 'gold medal standard' in body composition analysis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_energ ... rptiometry

Between my last scan and todays scan, I had started the No-s diet. I thought some of you might like to see some *interesting* results.

Note: I have 3 weeks of NoS on the board, with no red days (all green!).
http://everydaysystems.com/habitcal/vie ... =No_s_diet

So far, so good, right? .....

Firstly, my "weight" has decreased from 96.2kg to 92.5kg (a loss of 3.7kg or 8.14 lbs). Seemingly not bad for 3 weeks....

My overall bone mineral density is more or less unchanged (up by 26.2g), with a few % points in specific locations going up. Good news

My fat is down by 721.6g (yay)

however...

The bulk of my weight loss seems to have been....muscle

I have lost 3209.4g (3.29kg or 7.238 lbs) of muscle mass. Fortunately, as other tests indicate, neither my strength nor explosiveness have decreased (in fact, they have gone *up* - power to weight ratio, maybe).

Most ironic of all is - due to the muscle mass decrease, my overall bodyfat composition has actually increased by 0.2% (despite there being less fat on my body).

The moral/s of this story:

-Numbers are deceiving. Going just by the weight on the scales, I have lost 8 pounds. Looking more closely, 7.3 of those 8 pounds have been muscle.

-Food composition counts. Perhaps especially for men on No S. I need to make sure I get more protein in...perhaps a boiled egg with each meal?

-Scales, calipers and the ilk - as a metric - are of very limited use. They can - and will - show you a very incomplete picture. I'm still of the opinion that pictures are the best, easiest and most useful feedback...and I shall be keeping monthly happy snaps from now on

-One positive outcome of all this is that: No S works. Most definitely it works. However, like any tool...the indiscriminant application thereof can have some..."interesting" results. Keep your eye on your protein intake, I think is the message I take away from this one.

So, yeah: I don't know whether to call the results a +ve or a -ve...however at least the habit war seems to be going my way.

blueskighs · Post by **blueskighs** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:38 pm

kbits,

that is very interesting. are you doing just strength? you mention the study is for how it effects sprint performance ... are you doing much stength training vs." cardio"?

do you think you have decreased your overall food volume significantly since you started No S? like it would cause your body to go for the muscle since it was hungry?

Do you have a chance to know how the other participants progress is going?

that does seem like an outcome you would not expect ... i.e. to lose that much muscle.

Sorry so many questions, I just find this stuff fascinating.

Blueskighs

kbits · Post by **kbits** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:50 pm

blueskighs

For the duration of the study - so as to not fuddle any results - I have limited my exercise to just what what was prescribed. That is: 3 times a week: twice a week of unweighted plyometrics (x reps for y sets), once a week of weighted plyometrics (x sets for y reps at 30% of 1 repetition maximum in the squat: in my case, 313 lbs x 30% = 93.9 lbs)

My sprint time has improved by 0.42 seconds, which makes it one of the best improvements in the group (AFAIK).

To answer your question more directly: zero cardio outside of protocol.

Other participants: I know bits and pieces...strength improvements, vertical jump heights...but not the overall picture until the study is published in about 6 months time.

Food volume: it's possible I suppose. My biggest decrease was in snacking, I went from 3 (or 4 meals) + "grazing" to 3 meals and zero grazing. The main meal volume is identical, as far as I know (still using the same bowls and plates, for example). I certainly do not feel hungry, which puzzles me vis a vis muscle mass loss

Feel free to ask away! The only thing I can't share with you is the specifics of the training protocols used, as the university is *very* anal over it's intellectual property rights.

angelka71 · Post by **angelka71** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:43 am

I always thought if you were doing strength training you wouldn't lose muscle mass? Would eating more protein really keep you from losing muscle mass?

I read the Atkins diet and tried it along with Southbeach but I got so sick of eating so much protein and I seriously started doubing some of the diets' claims. Plus, if I did lose any weight it came right back and I mean RIGHT back as soon as I started eating more normally, making me think that what I was really losing was only water anyways.

But, my husband loved doing the low carb thing and has stuck with it. He stuffs himself with greasy hamburgers, plates of bacon and chicken nuggets...AND HE"S LOSING WEIGHT!

He recently started a new life insurance policy and had to undergo a complete physcial including lab work. He went in to pay his premium the other day and got his lab results at that time. Iwas STUNNED to see that his cholesterol level is 125!! If you don't know the doctors like for you to have it at 160.

This is absolutely amazing to me as my husband has the typical "heart attack body type" (round in the middle) and considering his diet! GREASY hamburgers ALL the time!! (no bun of coarse).

Here's the kicker though...his creatnine level is through the roof. I don't remember the exact number but it was more than DOUBLE what it ought to be, meaning that his low carb diet is wreaking havoc on his kidneys.

I know that when the protein breaks down it's harder for the kidneys to filter it which is why the stress so much for you to drink plenty of water while doing low carb and also getting in enough fiber in the form of vegetables. Both of which he obviously isn't doing.

At any rate, his lab results are another indicator of what can be good and bad about low carb.

kccc · Post by **kccc** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:42 am

Angelka... I am convinced that there is MUCH more variety in how individual bodies react to food (and medicine) than medical science has historically acknowledged. (It's beginning to recognize there are gender differences in how people respond to medication, etc.)

That would explain why SOME people do really well on certain diets, and others don't.

I could not handle an all-meat diet - the thought makes me queasy. I do very well on complex carbs, and very definitely have a sugar sensitivity. (Lots of diabetes in the family.)

Kbits - The loss of muscle mass is surprising. Would love to hear continuing reports. I do have to wonder if there isn't some element of measurement error there... and time would sort that out. Please keep us posted on your progress and the study itself (as you can, given your university's restrictions) - pretty interesting!

kbits · Post by **kbits** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:10 pm

I'm not especially concerned over it, truth be told. If I can lose muscle mass this quickly, I can sure as heck put it back on. My strength, as measured by 1RM in the squat hasn't decreased, and my power output as measured by force plates and accelerometers has *improved*. (Of course, there may be other factors at play in that)

I think this is just a minor course correction rather than a repudiation of basic principles. Clearly, for my activity level, I require more protein than I have been taking in sticking to three plates / bowls per day. I see this as an easy fix - home made protein shake with meals or a hardboiled egg ...certainly nothing that would violate the No S "commandments" or destroy the psychological impetus built.

I was very fortunate to have access to DEXA scans over this period...and also very fortunate to have some pre No-s food logging over at fitday.com that can help me pin down my "maintenance" protein level

EDIT: Summary statistic: averages in grams for typical pre No-s day. (Bear in mind that Fitday isn't super accurate...however, I was neither gaining nor losing mass following caloric intake similar to this)

Total: 1975 cals
Fat: 75g 673 35%
Sat: 26g 238 13%
Poly: 8g 71 4%
Mono: 20g 180 9%
Carbs: 240g 888 47%
Fiber: 18g 0 0%
Protein: 85g 340 18%
Alcohol: 0g 0 0%

(Interesting: perhaps my pre-Nos protein intake was just barely enough to maintain muscle mass...and no has decreased?)

Anyway...just thought I'd share some kooky results. I'm quite surprised that I've lost this much mass this quickly, surprised that a bunch of it was muscle and surprised that I don't feel hungry nor overly weak for doing so. It was interesting to see that the bulk of the muscle loss came from my torso (with slight muscle gains in other areas? I'd have to get the reports out to check. Maybe I should upload them as Jpegs here?)

BTW - it occurs to me that there may be one confounding error: I have just had two weeks off from training (as required by protocol: train 5 weeks, unload 1 week, testing following week). Maybe the combination of lower caloric intake + less exercise has had an impact on this.

I might keep a log at fitday.com for a day or two just to see what kind of caloric intake I am getting on NoS

Anyway...just sharin'

Thought it might be cool for others to see what happened to one nut following No-S, who just happened to have access to some high tech whiz bang gadgets.

blueskighs · Post by **blueskighs** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:18 pm

kbits,

thats interesting. I guess the reason I asked is I was just reading this book by a bodybuilder who was already low bodyfat and twice tried to further reduce bodyfat in short period of time for a competition, both times he restricted his calories significanlty and ended up losing muscle and increased body fat percent. He wrote that he was shocked and quit doing that

I don't know that much really, just really starting to learn and using my own body as my lab,

but it's fun and interesting! Please keep up us updated and it's great that you had the best sprint time improvement in the group.

But from your answer since you were doing basically no cardio that could not be an explanation since I understand too much cardio can be catabolic?

Blueskighs

kbits · Post by **kbits** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:06 am

Just for fun, here is todays food log. Note that I took extra special care to 'up' my protein intake. I suspect it was much lower than this, which could explain the muscle loss -

Bfast:
4 pieces of toast with Cottage Cheese
1 glass of whole milk with fortified Nesquik

Lunch:
2 Hardboiled eggs + curry powder + touch of mayo
1 piece of toast
1 glass whole milk + fortified Nesquik
1 medium Banana

Dinner:
1.5 "stuffed" potatoes (chedda cheese, capsicum, low fat sour cream, 2 slice of salami)

Totals (+/- 10% error via fitday)

Total: 1744 cals
Fat: 51g
Carbs: 240g
Protein: 81g
Alcohol: 0g

Have to say, fat content is pretty amazing (under 100g is what's considered "good", with 80g being "very good"). Protein - even with upped levels - is a little low (I should be somewhere closer to 100g: may need another glass of milk before bed).

Curiouser and curiouser....

funfuture · Post by **funfuture** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:32 pm

Wow, that doesn't sound like much food for a tall man whose also an athlete! No wonder you have lost so much in 3 weeks (but maybe I'm just jealous - I've a long way to go in my weight loss journey.

)

kbits · Post by **kbits** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:56 pm

I'll give the calorie counting a few more days, just to see if there is a trend that develops.

FWIW, I think even pre No-s I wasn't getting more than 1800-2000 a day - and was neither gaining nor losing weight. Keep in mind though that Fitday.com is only a "guesstimate" (+/- 10-20%)

(So much for the RDI's, huh?)

kbits · Post by **kbits** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:55 pm

Second verse, much like the first

One thing I'm noting is that - in fact - it's a pretty easy "habit" to eat more protein

1662 calories
Fat: 57g
Carbs: 178 g
Protein: 98g
Alcohol: 0g

Bfast:
Quick oats with milk and fortified Nesquik

Lunch:
Medium sized lean beef burger
*2 scrambled eggs with Bergen bread
*2 glass of milk

Dinner:
Chicken thigh and breast with steamed veg
Coffee

* I legitimately forgot I ate lunch twice! Crazy and not intentional! Visiting my folks and had some eggs to shut mum up, as I thought I had not eaten lunch yet. Or maybe I had the intent of counting that as dinner? Who knows....

I'm wanting to chalk that up to virtual plating....but I dunno...seems like a
"Red" to me. What say you?

Post by **reinhard** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:05 pm

You're thinner, faster, stronger, and somehow have less muscle? That doesn't make sense.

I would sooner think that this measurement is off than that you have to eat more protein (I'm not knocking science, I work in a lab, but even scientists CAN make mistakes!). From what I understand, the average american eats too much protein, if anything. Certainly far more than the historical (or geographical) norm. If you enjoy eating more protein -- wonderful. But don't make yourself crazy -- you're doing great.

Reinhard

kbits · Post by **kbits** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:29 am

reinhard wrote:You're thinner, faster, stronger, and somehow have less muscle? That doesn't make sense.

No it doesn't. Being a science type myself, I just can't leave well enough alone.

So I went and talked to the operator today. I specifically asked "how can this be?"

The reply was

-slight calibration error on one of the scans, affecting the other

-stomach contents during first vs second scan: apparently a full stomach can sometimes be interpreted as something else. I'm reasonably certain I had porridge for breakfast during scan two, so I can appreciate that can be a little more radio-dense than water or empty stomach. Plus, scan two was around 10am vs a later in day (5 or 6pm) for scan 3.

-thigh muscle mass difference explained by handedness

In any case, did a power retest today. My weight is down another pound. My power output is UP another few hundred watts. I am stronger again. Certainly the most part of this is down to grooving the technique and losing some mass...but it goes to proving that I chose an apt title for this thread

Numbers - even numbers on fancy machines - can be misleading.

Maybe the adage should be "A picture is worth a thousand *numbers* instead?

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:44 pm

Well, anytime you are eating below maintenance caloric levels, you WILL lose muscle as well as fat. In fact, your body is programmed to do so -- it assumes that there is a famine going on, and it jettisons the muscle first as it requires more calories for maintenance than fat.

This is why bodybuilders usually do a "bulking" cycle, wherein they eat above maintenance and lift heavily to build up as much muscle mass as possible, to offset the inevitable muscle loss during the "cutting" cycle during which time they diet down to competition-level leanness.

There are some ways you can minimize muscle mass loss; eating adequate protein is one, lifting weights is another, especially lifting heavy weights for low reps (example: 4 sets of 6 reps, vs. 3 sets of 20 reps). But muscle mass decrease is pretty much inevitable when you are losing weight, especially if you are doing a lot of cardio exercise. That's why distance runners and cyclists are usually pretty skinny and not terribly muscular.

The good part, though, is that on a thinner body, even less-impressive musculature will usually be more visible due to less subcutaneous body fat. Bodybuilders competing at 6% bodyfat have considerably diminished muscle mass compared to their "off-season" physiques, but because they have lost so much fat as well the remaining muscle is more visible.

The other thing to remember is that bodyfat analysis is notoriously inaccurate; things like hydration level, etc., can affect it.

Personally, I would go by how you look and feel. Do the mirror test -- stand naked or scantily clad in front of the mirror, and jump up and down. Are you more or less jiggly than before? Less jiggly = good.