Need input from the intellects with scientific knowledge on how the body works

[bodyhard]

I have been training for a long time and in that time I learned how to train and eat to get the best in return for my body type, however I never paid much attention to the "scientific" sh!t behind the the way the body works, i.e catabolic anabolic endergonic exergonic state. (maybe I should have taken the time out to research it)

Anyway, so I am trying to figure out what happens to me, why do I lose weight so fast once I stop training? Now back in the days, whenever I stopped training, for whatever reason, I would also stopped eating so I attributed my mass loss to the no training coupled that with the no eating, pretty simple right? Well this year after my surgery I said I will continue to eat at a surplus so at the very least, maintain "some" of my size. Well it didn't work, since my surgery I have lost close to 18lbs. Not only did I lose weight, I have gotten "soft". I had one guy on FB tell me that it seems that my body goes into a catabolic state and feeds off my muscles for energy. As I said I have NO concept or understanding of that so I don't know if he was right with that analogy.

So you can get a perspective, here are two pics I put side to side, the one with my shorts was roughly a month ago when I was in Florida right before my surgery, the one with the pink shirt I took yesterday as I said, I lost roughly 18lbs between the two pics.

So I turn to you experts on the body for your input if you don't mind.

[acrawlingchaos]

What do you find the major contributor to your weight loss is? How much of it is stress related?

[Iceman1800]

Are you eating the same amount pre and post surgery? You might be eating less without even noticing since you aren't training.

[Iceman1800]

Also, I've noticed after all my surgeries (6), my metabolism seems to increase. I'm assuming my body is using extra calories in the healing process

[Brackneyc]

I am gain weight if I simply think of food. All kidding aside, I wish I had to eat more than I need to keep from losing weight. In my dreams.

[DuracellBunny]

Inactivity = dumping of localised glycogen
Stopped using creatine = dumping water
Surgery and post surgery stress/anxiety = higher cortisol levels (the anti-steroid)
Some level of atrophy due to lack of stimuli
Loss of appetite despite best intentions

Last time that I had surgery, I lost about 20lbs over 6 weeks iirc; it's a relatively common thing.

[bodyhard]

Thanks everyone, appreciate the common sense responses as I am truly lost with this.

The only good thing about all of this, is that I gain it back just as fast as I lose it, so there is always that. I know this happens to me, I am just trying to figure out why so fast. I am seriously researching this extensively, just out of sheer curiosity.

[DuracellBunny]

Thanks everyone, appreciate the common sense responses as I am truly lost with this.

The only good thing about all of this, is that I gain it back just as fast as I lose it, so there is always that. I know this happens to me, I am just trying to figure out why so fast. I am seriously researching this extensively, just out of sheer curiosity.

It's because a lot of it is water related, as either glycogen or from creatine. Any time that you gain and lose very fast, it isn't contractile tissue leaving and coming back as your body doesn't work like that.

[bodyhard]

It's because a lot of it is water related, as either glycogen or from creatine. Any time that you gain and lose very fast, it isn't contractile tissue leaving and coming back as your body doesn't work like that.

Can you elaborate more on the contractile tissue.

[DuracellBunny]

Can you elaborate more on the contractile tissue.

Look at a piece of steak. You have the actual stringy, meaty fibre bits, and you have the fat and "juice". The stringy bits are contractile tissue, they contract when you flex. Muscle tissue also has localised glycogen stored in it (carbs + water) and additional water from creatine. Depending on somebody's muscle makeup, they have varying amounts of sarcoplasm too (this bit gets hotly debated). You have previously stated that you get crazy pumps, you get a pump easily etc. That indicates a lot of liquid available to fill the muscle.

Think of contractile tissue as dry weight (jerky) and muscle tissue as wet weight (steak). You can move partway from one to the other and back again, with big changes in weight, quite quickly, because the stringy fibres haven't changed.

[bodyhard]

Look at a piece of steak. You have the actual stringy, meaty fibre bits, and you have the fat and "juice". The stringy bits are contractile tissue, they contract when you flex. Muscle tissue also has localised glycogen stored in it (carbs + water) and additional water from creatine. Depending on somebody's muscle makeup, they have varying amounts of sarcoplasm too (this bit gets hotly debated). You have previously stated that you get crazy pumps, you get a pump easily etc. That indicates a lot of liquid available to fill the muscle.

Think of contractile tissue as dry weight (jerky) and muscle tissue as wet weight (steak). You can move partway from one to the other and back again, with big changes in weight, quite quickly, because the stringy fibres haven't changed.

Ahhh OK thanks man, that made a lot of sense using steak for the analogy!

[Plateauplower]

Wow, that is a crazy difference in those two pics. I mentioned something similar to the above. Pump type training creates adapatations where the body stores more glycogen. This type of size is easily gained or lost, where contractile tissue will stay longer. It's like training for a fast mile time, you can get conditioned for that relatively easily but if you stop training for it, it is quickly lost. I see a pretty significant size increase when I increase carbs after dieting. It's mostly water, but it's very noticeable and I look much more muscular adding 10-12lbs of water weight.

[MrNismo]

The amount of size you lose and gain in such short periods of time is insane. I think you should quit work and make a living doing transformation contests

[x-trainer ben]

Check this out, evidently it is very common due to the pain, pain meds, and lack of regular eating habits. I googled the key words in your question and this is only one of the sites with similar info.

https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/...in-weight-back

[machined]

Its scientifically proven that no natural bodybuilder at 10% bf looks like they lift when wearing street clothes.

[bodyhard]

Wow, that is a crazy difference in those two pics. I mentioned something similar to the above. Pump type training creates adapatations where the body stores more glycogen. This type of size is easily gained or lost, where contractile tissue will stay longer. It's like training for a fast mile time, you can get conditioned for that relatively easily but if you stop training for it, it is quickly lost. I see a pretty significant size increase when I increase carbs after dieting. It's mostly water, but it's very noticeable and I look much more muscular adding 10-12lbs of water weight.

The only thing that confuses me about what you just wrote is that I have been training for a long time, shouldn't by now my body at the very least sustain/keep some of the LBM I gained throughout the years? Meaning, I may drop a few pounds, but still have some muscle size that over the years my body has "become" and not revert back to the build I had when I was like 20!

The amount of size you lose and gain in such short periods of time is insane. I think you should quit work and make a living doing transformation contests

I am seriously considering this and making a video for " Scrawny over 35 men to Well built men in just 3 months!

Check this out, evidently it is very common due to the pain, pain meds, and lack of regular eating habits. I googled the key words in your question and this is only one of the sites with similar info.

https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/...in-weight-back

i am at work and can't check links, i will check it when I get home after my PT tonight.

Its scientifically proven that no natural bodybuilder at 10% bf looks like they lift when wearing street clothes.

[dbx]

The only good thing about all of this, is that I gain it back just as fast as I lose it, so there is always that.

And that's the most important thing. DB offered about the same as what I told you (theorized) yesterday. But still, I have to admit that I'm baffled by how fast you really do lose it....AND....gain it back. I honestly, have never known anyone that can do both, like you do.

[DuracellBunny]

The only thing that confuses me about what you just wrote is that I have been training for a long time, shouldn't by now my body at the very least sustain/keep some of the LBM I gained throughout the years? Meaning, I may drop a few pounds, but still have some muscle size that over the years my body has "become" and not revert back to the build I had when I was like 20!

You are keeping the dry part of the LBM. As you like analogies, think of something absorbent. When it gets wet, it gets bigger and heavier, but it doesn't gain any more of the absorbent material. You are not losing or gaining "real" LBM, you are moving between wet and dry weight.

[dbx]

You are keeping the dry part of the LBM. As you like analogies, think of something absorbent. When it gets wet, it gets bigger and heavier, but it doesn't gain any more of the absorbent material. You are not losing or gaining "real" LBM, you are moving between wet and dry weight.

Yep, told him that too. You don't lose OR gain LBM that quickly, and it HAS to be due to water volume.

[bodyhard]

And that's the most important thing. DB offered about the same as what I told you (theorized) yesterday. But still, I have to admit that I'm baffled by how fast you really do lose it....AND....gain it back. I honestly, have never known anyone that can do both, like you do.

I would be a liar if I did not like the fact that I gain it back and I would be even more of a liar if I didn't say I get depressed very easily when I do lose my size. In fact I am in a mini depression right now because of this

You are keeping the dry part of the LBM. As you like analogies, think of something absorbent. When it gets wet, it gets bigger and heavier, but it doesn't gain any more of the absorbent material. You are not losing or gaining "real" LBM, you are moving between wet and dry weight.

I understand what you are saying completely, but shouldn't over the years with all this training I should have attained some LBM, more than what I originally started out with?

For example, lets say I started out at 150lbs, gained 40lbs of LBM over the years, shouldn't when I drop back down, I should drop down to say 160lbs, giving me 10lbs of LBM that I can "hold" on to? Does that make any sense?

[DuracellBunny]

I would be a liar if I did not like the fact that I gain it back and I would be even more of a liar if I didn't say I get depressed very easily when I do lose my size. In fact I am in a mini depression right now because of this



I understand what you are saying completely, but shouldn't over the years with all this training I should have attained some LBM, more than what I originally started out with?

For example, lets say I started out at 150lbs, gained 40lbs of LBM over the years, shouldn't when I drop back down, I should drop down to say 160lbs, giving me 10lbs of LBM that I can "hold" on to? Does that make any sense?

You gained 40lbs and dropped 20lbs, so you are ahead by 20lbs. I can't see you dropping much more, as you would need to lose fat or contractile tissue now, all of the water should be pretty much gone.

If you want to look at it another way, look at how much you weighed 2 months after you started training back then and look at what you will weigh 2 months after you start training again now. That is how much you have gained.

You have to compare apples to apples.

[Plateauplower]

Yep ^ it's not real tissue loss, or at least not very much. If you were eating a deficit and doing a bunch of cardio you could burn up some muscle tissue quickly. You are just losing fullness. It's the same reason every time I start a diet I look fatter at the beginning. I start to lose fullness in the muscle tissue due to less glycogen/water from running much lower carbs. The fatmass and muscle mass has not changed in terms of actual tissue, it just the muscles are deflated and I look fatter because of it.

You can lose the muscles ability to hold more glycogen quickly too. So that compounds it. You still look fit in the second pic, your just not "swole". Can you train legs yet on machines? That would probably get some scale weight back on.

[bodyhard]

You gained 40lbs and dropped 20lbs, so you are ahead by 20lbs. I can't see you dropping much more, as you would need to lose fat or contractile tissue now, all of the water should be pretty much gone.

If you want to look at it another way, look at how much you weighed 2 months after you started training back then and look at what you will weigh 2 months after you start training again now. That is how much you have gained.

You have to compare apples to apples.

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but you lost me. How did I gain 20lbs? My problem is my body goes back down to 150lbs, the same weight I was when I started seeing some size. (I actually weighed about 120lbs when I started but I was just a teen so I don't calculate that)

My body seems to want to go back to 150lbs although I have managed to get to 200lbs over time. I would think (Or like to to think, wishful thinking I guess) when I drop weight, for all the reasons you guys posted, that I would, at the very least drop down to say 170lbs, not back to 150lbs my starting weight. That would give me a + 20lbs gained in LBM.

Yep ^ it's not real tissue loss, or at least not very much. If you were eating a deficit and doing a bunch of cardio you could burn up some muscle tissue quickly. You are just losing fullness. It's the same reason every time I start a diet I look fatter at the beginning. I start to lose fullness in the muscle tissue due to less glycogen/water from running much lower carbs. The fatmass and muscle mass has not changed in terms of actual tissue, it just the muscles are deflated and I look fatter because of it.

You can lose the muscles ability to hold more glycogen quickly too. So that compounds it. You still look fit in the second pic, your just not "swole". Can you train legs yet on machines? That would probably get some scale weight back on.

I could train legs on machines, like the leg press etc. I can't put anything on my shoulders, like the squat machine, or squats themselves. I could however do squats with the dip belt and stand on two benches so as not to hit the weights on the floor, but then I would be looking like a f'cking idiot at the gym

[DuracellBunny]

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but you lost me. How did I gain 20lbs? My problem is my body goes back down to 150lbs, the same weight I was when I started seeing some size. (I actually weighed about 120lbs when I started but I was just a teen so I don't calculate that)

You have lost 18lbs, to lose more you would have to start losing some contractile tissue, which shouldn't happen unless you are eating in a meaningful deficit. I cannot see how a 40lbs loss would be possible without a deficit.



I stopped training for 2 years and lost 80-90lbs iirc, but that was because I ate less. After my last surgery, I spent 6 weeks out of the gym and lost ~20lbs, which I put back on over the next couple of months.

[induced_drag]

. Pump type training creates adapatations where the body stores more glycogen. This type of size is easily gained or lost, where contractile tissue will stay longer

I think this is the answer, and probably is for many "bodybuilders". People who base a lot of their training on volume, reps, and "pump". I see them all the time in the gym. Some "big" guys but are weak (relatively). These are the guys that quit training for a few months, (or come off super supplements) and shrink right back down.


I contrast with guys that train more for strength and their adaptations are less related to increased glycogen stores. Their adaptations are more myofibral growth rather than sarcoplasmic. Their mass is more permanent and less dependent on state of glycogen. Sure, they experience loss of volume as well, but maintain a base much better.

I quit training for almost 10 years, and still held on to decent size and strength. But my training was never "bodybuilder" like in nature. I have seen both cases, and it seems type of adaptation (or type of training that built it) has a large impact on how fast you lose it. It is one reason I believe in building a foundation of strength above all else. By all means, top it off with some volume, but for a natural guy (or mostly natural ) concentrate on building strength over time and let the rest happen with manipulation of your diet.

Regardless, your physique is great. If you quit training though, your body does not need to hold on to all the glycogen stores you have built up over the years you have trained. 1g of glycogen takes 3g of water to hold. You stop training, and you start dropping tons of water and your muscles basically deflate for lack of a better term.

[bodyhard]

You have lost 18lbs, to lose more you would have to start losing some contractile tissue, which shouldn't happen unless you are eating in a meaningful deficit. I cannot see how a 40lbs loss would be possible without a deficit.



I stopped training for 2 years and lost 80-90lbs iirc, but that was because I ate less. After my last surgery, I spent 6 weeks out of the gym and lost ~20lbs, which I put back on over the next couple of months.

I don't think I am explaining this correctly, I am not saying I lost 40lbs right NOW. Let me see if I can put this in perspective, bear with me, check this out in all my years of training I went from 150lbs to 200lbs, but when I stop training instead of my body dropping down to say 170lbs (letting me hold on to at the very least 20lbs of LBM) I lose all of it and go back down to 150lbs.

So what I am trying to say and I am failing miserably at articulating this, is why doesn't/didn't my body hold on to, at the very least SOME of the LBM I have gained over the years? Why is it that my body drops back down to 150lbs, regardless of where I am, weight wise, during my training?

For example, when I hit 200lbs, (which took me almost 10 years to do so) I got into a car accident, after the car accident I dropped back down to 150lbs, a 50lbs lost, but check this out, I stopped training for almost 2 years and within those 2 years my body maintained at 150lbs, I did not go under 150lbs. When I started back up I got to 180lbs, then I stopped and I dropped back down to 150lbs, last year before my brothers death I was up to 190lbs, after he killed himself I went into a depression and I went back to 150lbs. It is like for some reason my body just goes back to 150lbs, I NEVER go under 150lbs, just right back to 150lbs... I dunno man I am getting a headache trying to explain this

[kimm4]

I don't think I am explaining this correctly, I am not saying I lost 40lbs right NOW. Let me see if I can put this in perspective, bear with me, check this out in all my years of training I went from 150lbs to 200lbs, but when I stop training instead of my body dropping down to say 170lbs (letting me hold on to at the very least 20lbs of LBM) I lose all of it and go back down to 150lbs.

So what I am trying to say and I am failing miserably at articulating this, is why doesn't/didn't my body hold on to, at the very least SOME of the LBM I have gained over the years? Why is it that my body drops back down to 150lbs, regardless of where I am, weight wise, during my training?

For example, when I hit 200lbs, (which took me almost 10 years to do so) I got into a car accident, after the car accident I dropped back down to 150lbs, a 50lbs lost, but check this out, I stopped training for almost 2 years and within those 2 years my body maintained at 150lbs, I did not go under 150lbs. When I started back up I got to 180lbs, then I stopped and I dropped back down to 150lbs, last year before my brothers death I was up to 190lbs, after he killed himself I went into a depression and I went back to 150lbs. It is like for some reason my body just goes back to 150lbs, I NEVER go under 150lbs, just right back to 150lbs... I dunno man I am getting a headache trying to explain this

My only guess would be if you got down to 150 there was some type of deficit which got you there. If you didn't lose anymore you were basically eating enough to maintain 150 from there.

[DuracellBunny]

I don't think I am explaining this correctly, I am not saying I lost 40lbs right NOW. Let me see if I can put this in perspective, bear with me, check this out in all my years of training I went from 150lbs to 200lbs, but when I stop training instead of my body dropping down to say 170lbs (letting me hold on to at the very least 20lbs of LBM) I lose all of it and go back down to 150lbs.

So what I am trying to say and I am failing miserably at articulating this, is why doesn't/didn't my body hold on to, at the very least SOME of the LBM I have gained over the years? Why is it that my body drops back down to 150lbs, regardless of where I am, weight wise, during my training?

For example, when I hit 200lbs, (which took me almost 10 years to do so) I got into a car accident, after the car accident I dropped back down to 150lbs, a 50lbs lost, but check this out, I stopped training for almost 2 years and within those 2 years my body maintained at 150lbs, I did not go under 150lbs. When I started back up I got to 180lbs, then I stopped and I dropped back down to 150lbs, last year before my brothers death I was up to 190lbs, after he killed himself I went into a depression and I went back to 150lbs. It is like for some reason my body just goes back to 150lbs, I NEVER go under 150lbs, just right back to 150lbs... I dunno man I am getting a headache trying to explain this

You are eating down to 150lbs. The amount you naturally eat is the amount that maintains you at 150, so it feels like that is your natural weight, but it isn't, it just happens to match the amount that you naturally want to eat.

At 18, I weighed 160 something, went up to 250 (not fat) and when I stopped training for 2 years I dropped back down to 160 something as I have no natural appetite and ate less. I could have maintained some of the muscle if I had eaten more.

If you don't want to lose the weight, eat enough not to.

EDIT: and what Kimm said

[bodyhard]

My only guess would be if you got down to 150 there was some type of deficit which got you there. If you didn't lose anymore you were basically eating enough to maintain 150 from there.

When I see you in Boston I will talk to you about this, so much easier to get across what I am trying to say talking and not writing, but in a nutshell my question is, doesn't anyone then hold on to some of the LBM they acquired over the years? I am not talking about people who are ON because that is a different story I am just asking about a natural lifter who has been training for many many years.

You are eating down to 150lbs. The amount you naturally eat is the amount that maintains you at 150, so it feels like that is your natural weight, but it isn't, it just happens to match the amount that you naturally want to eat.

At 18, I weighed 160 something, went up to 250 (not fat) and when I stopped training for 2 years I dropped back down to 160 something as I have no natural appetite and ate less. I could have maintained some of the muscle if I had eaten more.

If you don't want to lose the weight, eat enough not to.

EDIT: and what Kimm said

Maybe one day you and I can talk on the phone because quite frankly I suck ASS at trying to explain what I mean

[Juggertha]

Look at a piece of steak. You have the actual stringy, meaty fibre bits, and you have the fat and "juice". The stringy bits are contractile tissue, they contract when you flex. Muscle tissue also has localised glycogen stored in it (carbs + water) and additional water from creatine. Depending on somebody's muscle makeup, they have varying amounts of sarcoplasm too (this bit gets hotly debated). You have previously stated that you get crazy pumps, you get a pump easily etc. That indicates a lot of liquid available to fill the muscle.

Think of contractile tissue as dry weight (jerky) and muscle tissue as wet weight (steak). You can move partway from one to the other and back again, with big changes in weight, quite quickly, because the stringy fibres haven't changed.

This is bang on. And does a far better job at describing what I was going to attempt. You'll notice tons of variation in individuals on this.

I've always been the type to "inflate my balloons" easily/quickly, but likewise deflate fast. I've attributed it to the make up of the muscle fiber types.