A few years ago, while I was living in California, a member at a gym I worked at approached me and asked how she could get down to 90 lbs. Mind you, this woman worked out several hours a day and probably weighed a buck five. She actually needed to put ON weight. My knee jerk reaction was to roll my eyes, smack her upside the head and say, "Seriously Woman?!" But being a model of professionalism...haha, I didn't. To be honest with you, I don't remember what I said in response to her grossly overreaching request...though I do know how she could have gotten down to 90...or at least close to it.
simply...
- Strip down to your birthday suit, and you'll weigh less
- Don't eat for 12 straight hours, and you'll weigh less
- Don't drink water for a day, and you'll weigh less
- Cut off your right arm, and you'll weigh less, Guaranteed!
I'm confident most of you looking to lose weight aren't cutting off limbs or body parts. But, I do know many who try other popular methods: crash diets, endless hours of cardio, liquid only diets, and other starvation or restrictive tactics. Let me ask you this...do you think you're making progress even if the number on the scale is dropping?
I found this study online quite interesting and telling. This illustrates my point exactly!
Jane Jones (before diet)
- 160 lbs
- 30% body fat
- = 55 pounds of fat, 105 pounds of lean body mass
She decides to go on a super low calorie diet and doing only cardio three times a week. No strength training. After three months these are her new results:
Jane Jones (after diet)
- 140 pounds
- 28% body fat
- = 46.5 pounds of fat, 93.6 pounds of lean body mass
- 140 pounds
- 28% body fat
- = 46.5 pounds of fat, 93.6 pounds of lean body mass
What do you think? Was she successful? Many would say yes. In some ways I agree. But, if you're looking in the long term, or the big picture, I'm not so sure. She did drop 20 pounds, but at what cost? Her body fat didn't drop much. But the biggest red flag was that her lean muscle mass decreased significantly, leaving her metabolism compromised.
I'm guessing Jane was pretty happy with her results. (I would be too if I didn't know any better.) After all, she set out to lose weight, and she did. She probably didn't know that losing that much lean muscle, however, would sabotage her "weight loss" goals in future. In fact, that's exactly what happened. Jane lost the weight, saw no need to continue her extremely limiting and restrictive diet regiment, and eventually relapsed back into old eating habits. Now, flash forward three months...
Jane Jones (3 months later)
- 160 lbs
- 35% body fat
- = 62.5 pounds of fat, 97.5 pounds of lean body mass
I'm guessing Jane was pretty happy with her results. (I would be too if I didn't know any better.) After all, she set out to lose weight, and she did. She probably didn't know that losing that much lean muscle, however, would sabotage her "weight loss" goals in future. In fact, that's exactly what happened. Jane lost the weight, saw no need to continue her extremely limiting and restrictive diet regiment, and eventually relapsed back into old eating habits. Now, flash forward three months...
Jane Jones (3 months later)
- 160 lbs
- 35% body fat
- = 62.5 pounds of fat, 97.5 pounds of lean body mass
As you can see, Jane not only returned to her original weight, she also ended up with 5% more body fat and 8.5 pounds less muscle than when she started. This loss of muscle contributed to a slower metabolism thus making it harder to lose body fat and then even easier to gain more. This is why conventional "diets" rarely work.
What do you think about that? Through the years I've known many individuals who've actually become fatter because of dieting. I'm sure you've heard of the term "yo-yo" dieters. I used to be one, and I was getting fatter with each diet. Then I broke through the viscous cycle and never looked back. The number on the scale became rather obsolete as I focused more on total wellness...and perhaps doing 5 "big girl" pull-ups to measure my success and self worth instead of a stupid scale.
I tell my "weight loss" clients regularly that the scale number is actually a farce. Truth is, it doesn't accurately reflect the body's composition or weight distribution. It doesn’t take into account the ratio of fat
to lean muscle tissue. I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "muscle weighs more than fat." Really? How do you figure? A pound is a pound no matter what its constitution is. But, there is a difference in SIZE, at least in terms of muscle vs. fat. Take for example, 5 lbs of fat and 5 lbs of muscle. Which takes up more space? Which "5 lbs" would you rather have?
Still not convinced? Well, here's a few more interesting facts to stew over...
Body fat, adipose tissue, is metabolically inactive, which means its' primary function is to store calories, not consume them. A pound of fat burns about 2 calories a day to maintain itself. Muscle, on the other hand, burns about 6 calories per pound per day. When you exercise the muscle, (example, during weight training) you can burn more than 250 calories!
Also, unlike muscle, body fat isn't meant to be "active." Its' main purpose is to store energy (in the form of excess calories). Basically, fat just sits there waiting until it's needed. "This is an evolutionary adaptation based on the way we lived thousands of years ago, when the availability of food was spotty." Today, with the abundance of food (at least in the United States), we don't have to eat like it's our last meal. But, many of us do anyway. Consistently...consuming and storing more than enough calories to maintain the body's basic functions.
So, what do you think about all of this? Your comments and feedback are always welcome and encouraged. I'm wondering now, glancing back to the photo at the top, which "number" would you choose?