[quote]susani wrote:
According to this it’s a normal reaction to an increase in exercise that can be down to two things:
increased glycogen stores (3 grams of water for every gram of glycogen stored)
water retention due to muscle damage - DOMS (3-4lb weight gain)
And it subsides within 2 - 3 weeks.
I guess the type of training I do could result in a bit of both which is why I get such a dramatic increase.
That, and the fact that you guys haven’t experienced it suggests maybe it’s a red herring. That it doesn’t necessarily lead to a slight permanent increase in muscle mass. Back to the drawing board then! LOL[/quote]
I am guessing you found the article, THEN posted here in this forum, looking for validation.
DOMS muscle retention does not take 2-3 weeks to subside. Also, given that total glycogen stores for an elite athlete is about 400-500 grams and glycogen is bound in roughly a 3-1 water to glycogen ration, you would have to store more glycogen than humanly possible, and would have had to be completely depleted, also not possible.
[quote]susani wrote:
According to this it’s a normal reaction to an increase in exercise that can be down to two things:
increased glycogen stores (3 grams of water for every gram of glycogen stored)
water retention due to muscle damage - DOMS (3-4lb weight gain)
[/quote]
…and that water comes from where, exactly?
It’s a common experience, and understandable once properly attributed.
I do think you’re finding some interesting correlations, though. Perhaps your experience is more likely interpreted as: “When I start a new (heavy for me) workout routine, the increase in my appetite and hydration needs causes an quick 3-4kg in weight. However, after 3 weeks due to a normalizing of my metabolism and appetite to this new, heavier workout, I only retain 1/2 kg or so of the weight.”
I posted then searched. I’m still searching and finding more. But that last link has been deleted so I think the rule is that we can only post links to research papers. Unfortunately nothing that answers my question - is this phenomenon a typical precursor to muscle growth?
I’m finding a few sources that say 2-3 weeks is the norm.
I guess what you’re thinking is the fluid retention from a single workout would subside in 48 hours. But this 2-3 week period seems to be how long it takes your body to adjust to a level of training that you’re unaccustomed to. Repeated training sessions keep breaking down the muscle. It’s only when you get used to the new volume/intensity that the muscles repair and stop retaining fluid.
A combination of fluid retention due to muscle damage and increased glycogen stores could well equate to 2kg or more from what I’m reading.
Still undecided though as to whether there’s any link to the increase in muscle mass. I suppose it does follow that if you’ve upped your training intensity/volume enough to cause this level or fluid retention then muscle growth will be likely to occur. I’ll just need to keep monitoring it and see if a clear pattern emerges.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
…and that water comes from where, exactly?
[/quote]
We drink water all the time - normally a couple of liters a day but much more when we train. Normally it flushes out of our bodies quickly. When something causes the body to retain fluid (hormones, increased need for glycogen, DOMS) that fluid is retained. It’s very easy to increase weight extremely quickly though fluid retention.
That wasn’t my query though - I already knew that (although not the detail that link provided!). I just wondered if others had noticed it as a precursor to little jumps in muscle mass. It seems not, but as I said, I’ll keep monitoring and see if a clear pattern emerges.
[quote]susani wrote:
I suppose it does follow that if you’ve upped your training intensity/volume enough… then muscle growth will be likely to occur. I’ll just need to keep monitoring it and see if a clear pattern emerges.
[/quote]
Yes, a pattern will emerge.
It’s the point of this entire website and countless others just like it.
[quote]susani wrote:
I’m judging fat levels by a combination of visual appearance and just monitoring levels with calipers. I have no idea how accurate my estimate of 20% is - that’s just a guess. But I am certain fat levels are reducing. Other people comment on it too.
[/quote]
I wondered about your measurement methods when you stated in another thread that you struggled for many years to stay above 10%. Women tend to vastly underestimate their bodyfat percentage. And calipers, while somewhat useful for trending, are far from accurate.
Anecdotally, I was calipered at 11% and then paid for the Bod Pod, which came in at slightly over 20%. Less than 10% bodyfat on a woman would be unhealthy for any length of time and most likely result in a loss of menses.
10% wasn’t intended as an accurate assessment of fat levels back then - I have no accurate idea of what they were. Just making the point that my fat levels were at an unhealthily low level until probably my early twenties. To the point where they turned me down as a blood doner because I was too thin. People used to suspect that I was anorexic. I wasn’t - I just couldn’t put on weight though. My brother was the same. A genetic thing. I didn’t start to put on weight until I started training in martial arts.
As I said, my current estimate of 20% is a complete guess - based upon comparing myself with photos of people that have been reliably measured. According to the caliper calculation (the instructions that came with the calipers) I’m 15% fat but that’s definitely not right!! I use the calipers to give me a clearer indication as to whether fat levels on arms, belly, back and thighs is going up or down. It’s going down - slowly but surely (as in the skinfold measurements are getting smaller).
I’d like to think my fat levels were higher than 20% because that gives me more scope to get relative strength up a bit higher. The more fat I have the more I can lose and the lighter I’ll be without any loss of strength. If I could keep the same strength and drop my weight by 5kg that would give me a huge boost in relative strength - I don’t think I can get away with loosing that much through. Maybe 2kg. I don’t want bodybuilder fat levels. Just as low as I can go naturally without going to extremes.
Maximising relative strength is my number one goal. I’m monitoring fat levels because I want to be sure that muscle mass isn’t increasing too much. I’m trying to learn the best way to train for relative strength - not much is known about it because most of the strength trainers and people writing articles about strength training typically don’t really care about relative strength. I think most of the info you find is pretty unreliable. So a lot of trial and error and monitoring things - such as the pattern described in this thread.
Interesting that you - a man - should underestimate your fat levels so much. Not just a failing in women it seems [Sorry - I take that back - I just clicked through to your hub and see that you’re not a man!!]
[quote]susani wrote:
Interesting that you - a man - should underestimate your fat levels so much. Not just a failing in women it seems [Sorry - I take that back - I just clicked through to your hub and see that you’re not a man!!][/quote]
Naw. Not a man. And I didn’t underestimate my bodyfat level. The calipering was done by a trainer. I have never really had much interest in BF percentage. The reason I wanted to know was that I compete in PLing and was considering cutting a weight class (52 to 48 kg). Wondered if I could do it and still be at healthy levels.
I knew that 11% figure was off so I decided to cough up the money for accuracy. Made me realize how inaccurate most BF assessments are and how many women really low ball their number.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
True, but this is simply a movement of fluid from one part of the body to another. Barring a change in food/water intake, your weight would remain the same.
[/quote]
Generally it is still an increase in weight, due to increase thirst, and/or decrease of fluid excretion. But still, it is not a large amount of weight, maybe a pound for someone her size. [/quote]
that was my understanding. Couldn’t work out where an extra 3k was coming from!
[quote]susani wrote:
10% wasn’t intended as an accurate assessment of fat levels back then - I have no accurate idea of what they were. Just making the point that my fat levels were at an unhealthily low level until probably my early twenties. To the point where they turned me down as a blood doner because I was too thin. People used to suspect that I was anorexic. I wasn’t - I just couldn’t put on weight though. My brother was the same. A genetic thing. I didn’t start to put on weight until I started training in martial arts.
As I said, my current estimate of 20% is a complete guess - based upon comparing myself with photos of people that have been reliably measured. According to the caliper calculation (the instructions that came with the calipers) I’m 15% fat but that’s definitely not right!! I use the calipers to give me a clearer indication as to whether fat levels on arms, belly, back and thighs is going up or down. It’s going down - slowly but surely (as in the skinfold measurements are getting smaller).
I’d like to think my fat levels were higher than 20% because that gives me more scope to get relative strength up a bit higher. The more fat I have the more I can lose and the lighter I’ll be without any loss of strength. If I could keep the same strength and drop my weight by 5kg that would give me a huge boost in relative strength - I don’t think I can get away with loosing that much through. Maybe 2kg. I don’t want bodybuilder fat levels. Just as low as I can go naturally without going to extremes.
Maximising relative strength is my number one goal. I’m monitoring fat levels because I want to be sure that muscle mass isn’t increasing too much. I’m trying to learn the best way to train for relative strength - not much is known about it because most of the strength trainers and people writing articles about strength training typically don’t really care about relative strength. I think most of the info you find is pretty unreliable. So a lot of trial and error and monitoring things - such as the pattern described in this thread.
Interesting that you - a man - should underestimate your fat levels so much. Not just a failing in women it seems [Sorry - I take that back - I just clicked through to your hub and see that you’re not a man!!][/quote]
So at 10% so long. Did you hsve amenorrhea? Most woman amenorrhea when they start dropping into low body fat like that. Women’s bodies don’t like being that way. Just as most men will have a solid drop in testosterone when they drop to true single digits. 7-8% and they have some pretty reduced levels. Even worse if someone continues to diet
Did you drop that weight class? If so, what impact did it have on your strength / strength gains - if any?
[/quote]
I did not.
I am convinced I could maintain my strength or have very little loss. But getting that lean at my age would be so much work. I do not have the mindset to monitor my diet that neurotically.
Ryan: I said the same thing about amenorrhea in my post above. That’s why I really doubted her bodyfat percent was what she claimed (10% or less).
[quote]susani wrote:
I can get big variations in weight just from normal hormonal fluctuations throughout the month. All down to fluid retention. But this is over and above that.
[/quote]
Perhaps over and above what you are accustomed to. As time goes by things change.
I’ve never understood the impetus for even figuring out your bodyfat percentage to any level of accuracy. There is no contest in which that is the metric for victory. The only thing that matters even in physique, bodybuilding, figure, etc. is how you appear. In other physical avenues not even that matters.
[quote]csulli wrote:
I’ve never understood the impetus for even figuring out your bodyfat percentage to any level of accuracy. There is no contest in which that is the metric for victory. The only thing that matters even in physique, bodybuilding, figure, etc. is how you appear. In other physical avenues not even that matters.[/quote]
I agree 100%.
[quote]csulli wrote:
I’ve never understood the impetus for even figuring out your bodyfat percentage to any level of accuracy. There is no contest in which that is the metric for victory. The only thing that matters even in physique, bodybuilding, figure, etc. is how you appear. In other physical avenues not even that matters.[/quote]
I agree 100%. [/quote]
I agree 100% too.
But it can be helpful to know if they’re going up or down! That can be gauged pretty reliably by just looking, but if you’re wanting to track over a period of time to get an idea of how fat levels affect performance then skin fold testing with calipers is a very reliable method. Especially if you use lots of measuring sites. Although fluid retention from hard training puts skin fold thickness up temporarily too, so it’s something to be aware of.
When it comes to maximising relative strength anything that isn’t strong, efficient muscle is deadweight (in theory). So it might seem that just getting fat levels as low as possible is the obvious way to go. Not just fat levels, but fluid too.
Yet my figures so far are showing that even that might not be so simple. That there might be a level of fat and intracellular fluid that’s optimal and actually helps make you BETTER able to shift your body despite it being heavier.
[quote]csulli wrote:
I’ve never understood the impetus for even figuring out your bodyfat percentage to any level of accuracy. There is no contest in which that is the metric for victory. The only thing that matters even in physique, bodybuilding, figure, etc. is how you appear. In other physical avenues not even that matters.[/quote]
This times a million. When I was a nice skinny tiny 160 I had less body fts then I do now but I have to admit I think I look better now at 210-215. Uh oh bf is higher. Yet I look leaner. This is a predicament
[quote]csulli wrote:
I’ve never understood the impetus for even figuring out your bodyfat percentage to any level of accuracy. There is no contest in which that is the metric for victory. The only thing that matters even in physique, bodybuilding, figure, etc. is how you appear. In other physical avenues not even that matters.[/quote]
That’s because you’re looking at it as a performance metric. When you view it as a health metric, it becomes another arrow in the quiver much like blood pressure, cholesterol levels, hematocrit, A-1C, CRP, etc.
<------ number junkie, gets annual dunk tank or DEXA scans.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
That’s because you’re looking at it as a performance metric. When you view it as a health metric, it becomes another arrow in the quiver much like blood pressure, cholesterol levels, hematocrit, A-1C, CRP, etc.
[/quote]
I forgot that some people think about their health lol
