Fat Loss to Muscle Mass Loss Ratio

Bigger Stronger Leaner Christian Thibaudeau Coaching
1

hello, I’d be very grateful if you could find a little time to help me, according to my Renpho scales I lost twice as much lean mass than fat, whilst theoretically doing everything right (perfect diet, with macros on 30% fat, 35% carbs and 35% protein from nuts, whole foods, fruit and veg, roughly 500cal deficit, 5+ days a week on a "High Volume Workout Plan for Natural Bodybuilders ", plus some extra accessory work on off days). Sleeping well, on creatine, multivitamin + magnesium complex and L-carnitine. Lifting on and off for10+ years

Height 183cm, 45 years old
Starting weight on 14.1.2023 was 84 kg, and on 12.3.2023 it was 79.35 kg, which is a decrease of 4.65 kg.

Fat mass = 84 kg x 15.7% = 13.188 kg
Fat-free mass = 84 kg - 13.188 kg = 70.812 kg
Muscle mass = 67.28 kg
End weight:

Fat mass = 79.35 kg x 14.7% = 11.662 kg
Fat-free mass = 79.35 kg - 11.662 kg = 67.688 kg
Muscle mass = 64.27 kg
Therefore, the muscle loss was 67.28 kg - 64.27 kg = 3.01 kg. The fat loss was 13.188 kg - 11.662 kg = 1.526 kg.

I’m quite desperate to find out what could the problem be, thank you very much again for you reply,

Prema

2

Your scale is junk, don’t trust it.

You drank less water today than yesterday? +7%BF for you.

1 Like
3
Time of Measurement Weight(kg) BMI Body Fat(%) Fat-free Body Weight(kg) Subcutaneous Fat(%) Visceral Fat Body Water(%) Skeletal Muscle(%) Muscle Mass(kg) Bone Mass(kg) Protein(%) BMR(kcal) Metabolic Age Remarks
2023-01-28 09:43:42 83.15 24.8 15.5 70.26 13.3 8 61 54.6 66.77 3.49 19.3 1877 43
2023-02-06 10:43:31 82.55 24.7 15.4 69.84 13.2 8 61.1 54.6 66.37 3.47 19.3 1868 43
2023-02-07 11:08:15 82.45 24.6 15.4 69.75 13.2 7 61.1 54.6 66.29 3.46 19.3 1864 43
2023-02-08 11:30:54 82.5 24.6 15.4 69.79 13.2 7 61.1 54.6 66.33 3.47 19.3 1868 43
2023-02-09 07:18:43 81.9 24.5 15.3 69.37 13.1 7 61.2 54.7 65.93 3.44 19.3 1855 42
2023-02-10 06:37:00 82.45 24.6 15.4 69.75 13.2 7 61.1 54.6 66.29 3.46 19.3 1864 43
2023-02-11 09:14:32 82.4 24.6 15.4 69.71 13.2 7 61.1 54.6 66.25 3.46 19.3 1864 43
2023-02-12 07:55:09 82.65 24.7 15.4 69.92 13.2 8 61.1 54.6 66.45 3.47 19.3 1868 43
2023-02-13 05:07:48 81.95 24.5 15.3 69.41 13.1 7 61.2 54.7 65.97 3.44 19.3 1855 42
2023-02-14 10:22:58 81.75 24.4 15.2 69.32 13.1 7 61.2 54.8 65.89 3.43 19.3 1851 42
2023-02-15 10:54:41 81.45 24.3 15.2 69.07 13.1 6 61.2 54.8 65.65 3.42 19.3 1846 42
2023-02-16 11:22:02 81.85 24.4 15.3 69.33 13.1 7 61.2 54.7 65.89 3.44 19.3 1855 42
2023-02-17 05:36:06 82.6 24.7 15.4 69.88 13.2 8 61.1 54.6 66.41 3.47 19.3 1868 43
2023-02-18 06:14:11 82.2 24.6 15.3 69.62 13.1 7 61.2 54.7 66.17 3.45 19.3 1859 42
2023-02-19 07:27:41 81.85 24.4 15.3 69.33 13.1 7 61.2 54.7 65.89 3.44 19.3 1855 42
2023-02-20 04:52:16 81.7 24.4 15.2 69.28 13.1 7 61.2 54.8 65.85 3.43 19.3 1851 42
2023-02-21 05:05:50 81.65 24.4 15.2 69.24 13.1 7 61.2 54.8 65.81 3.43 19.3 1851 42
2023-02-22 04:59:37 81.7 24.4 15.2 69.28 13.1 7 61.2 54.8 65.85 3.43 19.3 1851 42
2023-02-23 10:27:39 81.2 24.3 15.1 68.94 13 6 61.3 54.8 65.53 3.41 19.4 1842 42
2023-02-24 11:13:58 80.85 24.1 15 68.72 12.9 6 61.4 54.9 65.25 3.47 19.4 1868 42
2023-02-25 10:46:12 80.95 24.2 15.1 68.73 13 6 61.3 54.8 65.33 3.4 19.4 1838 42
2023-02-26 10:39:59 80.95 24.2 15.1 68.73 13 6 61.3 54.8 65.33 3.4 19.4 1838 42
2023-02-27 10:57:58 81 24.2 15.1 68.77 13 6 61.3 54.8 65.37 3.4 19.4 1838 42
2023-02-28 09:57:02 80.8 24.1 15 68.68 12.9 6 61.4 54.9 65.21 3.47 19.4 1868 42
2023-03-02 12:04:38 80.4 24 14.9 68.42 12.9 6 61.4 55 64.96 3.46 19.4 1864 42
2023-03-03 10:40:02 80.9 24.2 15 68.77 12.9 6 61.4 54.9 65.29 3.48 19.4 1872 42
2023-03-04 11:06:16 81.45 24.3 15.2 69.07 13.1 6 61.2 54.8 65.65 3.42 19.3 1846 42
2023-03-05 10:35:24 80.95 24.2 15.1 68.73 13 6 61.3 54.8 65.33 3.4 19.4 1838 42
2023-03-06 10:00:33 80.25 24 14.9 68.29 12.9 6 61.4 55 64.84 3.45 19.4 1859 42
2023-03-07 10:15:17 80.8 24.1 15.1 68.6 13 6 61.3 54.8 65.21 3.39 19.4 1833 43
2023-03-08 09:18:40 80.55 24.1 15 68.47 12.9 6 61.4 54.9 65 3.47 19.4 1868 43
2023-03-09 06:30:33 79.95 23.9 14.9 68.04 12.9 6 61.4 55 64.6 3.44 19.4 1855 43
2023-03-10 05:12:43 80.1 23.9 14.9 68.17 12.9 6 61.4 55 64.72 3.45 19.4 1859 43
2023-03-11 07:53:13 79.65 23.8 14.8 67.86 12.8 6 61.5 55 64.44 3.42 19.4 1846 43
2023-03-11 07:53:35 79.65 23.8 14.8 67.86 12.8 6 61.5 55 64.44 3.42 19.4 1846 43
2023-03-12 10:43:31 79.35 23.7 14.7 67.69 12.7 6 61.6 55.1 64.27 3.42 19.4 1846 43

these are the data from a daily first thing in the morning measurements, so you can see that there are no unexplained jumps of any sort, so I don’t think the issue here is a junk scale (Renpho ES-CS20M).

4

So either:
A) losing a ton of muscle in a deficit while following the tried and true muscle-sparing fat-loss protocol used by every bodybuilder and athlete ever.
B) your $30 bathroom scale that can show a deviation of 10% BF between pre and post workout isn’t as accurate as you’d hoped.

… Which is more likely?

3 Likes
5

well I wouldn’t expect the figures’ absolute values to be true, but I’d expect the trend to be quite accurate, i.e. maybe the true value isn’t 67kg lean mass and 64kg lean mass, but the roughly 3kg difference should be fairly accurate

6

I highly doubt you are losing muscle in your cut unless you are under 10%BF. I also think a bit of a semantics question would be “If you were losing muscle in your cut, would you end your cut - or keep dieting?”

To give you some of @Christian_Thibaudeau’s own words:

If you’re extremely concerned about the muscle loss - make sure you’re training heavy, and getting your protein in at a rate at least 2.2g/kg BW.

2 Likes
7

I’d be very relieved if you were right, and thank you for your input. I’d like to cut/bulk somewhere between 10 and 13% BF, I will have to lose few more kilos as my lower abs are still obscured, I do store a lot of my fat there as most people

8

As it was pointed out, these bio-impedance scales pretty much suck. I personally tested at 15% one morning and 9% in the evening OF THE SAME DAY.

One of my coaches actually did an experiment where he tested himself under various conditions (dehydrated, overhydrated, after a solid meal, after 16h of fasting, etc.) and got highly fluctuating results even if they were all taken within a few days.

Heck, I once trained a pro hockey players with veins on his abs test at 18% on one of the high-end bio-impedance scale right after a practice (he was closer to a true 8-9%).

Also, water and glycogen stores (heck, even stomach content if you just hate) are actually measured as “fat free mass” and muscle mass is extrapolated from the fat free mass. So artificially increasing or decreasing fat free mass via nutrition, water intake, food intake, will affect the muscle mass reading up or down.

Basically, it’s crap.

If you are getting stronger, or even maintaining your strength, you are not losing muscle mass.

3 Likes
9

Ok, never use “cut” and “bulk” ever on my forum. That sounds like a 15 years old “bro”… muscle gain and fat loss is what we say. Cut and bulk annoys me

10

No because that would mean that the error in measurement is the same every time.

For example, let’s say that you use a normal scale (not one that measures body fat) and that scale is 3lbs off… well everytime you weigh yourself you will have the same 3lbs off. So yeah, measures of progress are accurate.

But with bio-impendance scales MANY things can change the readings (not in weight but in fat-free and fat mass calculations). Level of hydration plays a big role. Also, glycogen stores, mineral/electrolytes levels play a factor and so can stomach content.

This means that the error is not constant. So you can’t even use it as a measure of progression.

It is absolutely worthless.

1 Like
11

thank you very much for your input, I’m a big fan! Also of late coach Charles…and I won’t use those terms again I’m sorry, I just use what I hear on Youtube, I never had a trainer, my native language is Czech, and I started lifting pretty late in my life so I don’t know what’s bro and what’s not :sweat_smile:

12

No worries :slight_smile: