Harder to cut with less muscle?

[Drumboy354]

Hey guys, again, cutting question. Just wondering if it's harder to cut your body fat % without that much muscle. My LBM is about 125lb. (or around there) just wondering if it will take me more time to lose more bf% because the lack of muscle that most bb'ers have because they've been lifting a while. I know that some of you say you bulk until you get up to 12 - 13% bf, then cut down to 8% bf, like it's nothing! I'd like to get down to 10% bf, that's a big deal for me, trying to get almost 8% bf, just wondering if it would benefit me more to gain more muscle (bulk) and then cut, if it would go faster.

[Sobolic]

Originally posted by Drumboy354
Hey guys, again, cutting question. Just wondering if it's harder to cut your body fat % without that much muscle. My LBM is about 125lb. (or around there) just wondering if it will take me more time to lose more bf% because the lack of muscle that most bb'ers have because they've been lifting a while. I know that some of you say you bulk until you get up to 12 - 13% bf, then cut down to 8% bf, like it's nothing! I'd like to get down to 10% bf, that's a big deal for me, trying to get almost 8% bf, just wondering if it would benefit me more to gain more muscle (bulk) and then cut, if it would go faster.

It is easier for people with more muscle, basically there bodies metabolize calories faster, so they are able to eat more while still dropping bodyfat.

[djames84]

Since muscle is metabolicly active having less of it would mean your daily requirement of calories would be lower thats the only reason it would be harder to cut up I can see.

[Brant]

This is kinda like the bodyfat lowering while gaining muscle. You really dont lose any fat but you lose bodyfat percentage.

The only reason bigger people (I say bigger because I mean fat people too) have 'better' loss while working out is because of how much they weigh. There body needs more calories to run, therefore if you totally cut your intake in half you lose much more than someone half your size would with the same diet.

They really dont have better metabolism, etc.


So yes in theory you do, in reality...no. Did I make any sense or are you all lost and ****, cause when I read this I got lost myself...

[Drumboy354]

Originally posted by djames84
Since muscle is metabolicly active having less of it would mean your daily requirement of calories would be lower thats the only reason it would be harder to cut up I can see.

So you're saying that the loss would almost be the same (I know it depends on genetics blah blah blah) as if I had more muscle, but the only hard thing is that I have to eat less calories right?

And brant: You kinda lost me there buddy : )

[Brant]

Less calories than a bigger person yes.


If you weigh say 125, and you wanna lose weight Im guessing 1500-2000 would be enough for loss with some exercise (just guessing)


Someone that weighs freaking 200 if they ate 1500-2000 a day they'd lose massive fat, and probably muscle.

[djames84]

Originally posted by Brant
This is kinda like the bodyfat lowering while gaining muscle. You really dont lose any fat but you lose bodyfat percentage.

The only reason bigger people (I say bigger because I mean fat people too) have 'better' loss while working out is because of how much they weigh. There body needs more calories to run, therefore if you totally cut your intake in half you lose much more than someone half your size would with the same diet.

They really dont have better metabolism, etc.


So yes in theory you do, in reality...no. Did I make any sense or are you all lost and ****, cause when I read this I got lost myself...

i dont think he was asking why big people can make better fat loss. he wants to know if having more muscle provides an advantage in cutting up. yea people with more muscle may also have more bodyfat and still retain that low percentage.. but the only reason it would be easier for them to get a lower bf% is because there more muscular body burns more calories.

[Brant]

bleh....Yea now I see that. I should have read his question through.


Well now he knows lol

[djames84]

hehe

[Drumboy354]

So we're all basically saying that a person at 125 lb. LBM has a disadvantage of losing BF% than a person at 145lb. LBM, i.e. a disadvantage for me to lose BF quicker. Any body think that this would seriously affect bf% loss? Like, instead of losing 4 % bf in a month, the lower LBM would only lose 1 or 2%

[Brant]

Edit: I = dumb ass

[djames84]

Originally posted by Drumboy354
So we're all basically saying that a person at 125 lb. LBM has a disadvantage of losing BF% than a person at 145lb. LBM, i.e. a disadvantage for me to lose BF quicker. Any body think that this would seriously affect bf% loss? Like, instead of losing 4 % bf in a month, the lower LBM would only lose 1 or 2%

i dont think the difference is realy significant... if you wanted to make sure you could use a one of those Daily Caloric Intake calculators that includes your LBM in the calculation.... otherwise it assumes you have the average amount of muscle

[Mark21087]

Originally posted by Sobolic


It is easier for people with more muscle, basically there bodies metabolize calories faster, so they are able to eat more while still dropping bodyfat.

Bump I read that somewhere. For every pound of muscle, their body burns so many more calories.

[Drumboy354]

Okay well thanks for all of your replies guys, I've been reading up on some articles on whether to Bulk or Cut...I agree with some people that said that they were going to cut and just start a clean bulking phase. Sooo:

I think I will cut until 9 - 11% bf and then bulk clean. Any body else have any comments? I guess I'll run 5x in the morning at a moderate pace (Run/Walk) and then keep on my split which I have been doing for the last week or so.