Question on muscle mass

[spaximus]

Hi All, I know there are a few very knowledgeable people on here. I go to the gym three time per week and do an 86 min routine with cardio and weights. I am strong, but today I had a session with the gym staff to measure all my stats which were.

Age 60, weight 115kg height 5"7" hydration 52% fat 35%, visceral fat 12% and muscle mass 72%.

They checked the figures twice and apart from the fat were very happy. I questioned the figures but they were adamant these new super duper scales were accurate. They said lose weight, by doing more weights and I will be fine as these were good results, surprisingly.

I have issues with stamina especially climbing on the rotating stair machine. So are these good figures as the muscle mass seems high and I am no bodybuilder.

[PBDirector]

Well, that the numbers don’t add up to 100% is an indication of something.

To be honest, as unreliable as any gym based method is likely to be, if you’re not questioning a 35% fat number then I would focus on reducing that rather than my hypothetical muscle mass value.

[spaximus]

PBDirector said:

Well, that the numbers don’t add up to 100% is an indication of something.

To be honest, as unreliable as any gym based method is likely to be, if you’re not questioning a 35% fat number then I would focus on reducing that rather than my hypothetical muscle mass value.

Yes I did point out that was over 100% but apparently it is correct. On my electronic scales at home, they measure water and fat and are similar figures to these expensive ones that measures much more.

I am still fat so no question there

[popeyewhite]

Just come across this thread while procrastinating over some work.

OP - your muscle mass percentage is way out, and your fat % is high enough to be considered pretty unhealthy. At your height and weight the much maligned BMI scale would probably rate you as obese.

Sorry.

[anonymous-user]

115 kg at 5’7” would require a properly spectacular musculature not to be unhealthy.

35% fat says you don’t have that musculature. I’d say the gym people were blowing smoke up you arse.

Sorry.

[spaximus]

Well no need to apologise I know I am fat. Now down to 107Kg, working out three times a week for 90 mins each time mixture of weights and cardio.

Obviously the weight coming down is helping the BMI as well.

I will go on their scales again and see if the figures are still showing something I and you guy's don't get.

Cheers..

[deckster]

Honestly, I'd ignore the figures unless you're intending to enter a body building competition.

As you say, you really just want to lose weight and spending time in the gym is a good way to do it. Total weight is an easy way to keep score, but the muscle/fat/water measurements, as well as being little more than a guess, are largely irrelevant. Of course, as has been said many times exercise is about 20% of weight loss, at best. You can't outrun a bad diet as the saying goes so I trust you're looking hard at your diet as well.

[spaximus]

deckster said:

Honestly, I'd ignore the figures unless you're intending to enter a body building competition.

As you say, you really just want to lose weight and spending time in the gym is a good way to do it. Total weight is an easy way to keep score, but the muscle/fat/water measurements, as well as being little more than a guess, are largely irrelevant. Of course, as has been said many times exercise is about 20% of weight loss, at best. You can't outrun a bad diet as the saying goes so I trust you're looking hard at your diet as well.

Yes we did employ a dietician to help us and overall the diet was not too bad, quantity and time of eating was the biggest issue to sort out.

Not making excuses but I had treatment on my thyroid which has left me having to take thyroxine daily as that was not working correctly but it took a long time to get as fat as I did so taking longer than I would like to sort out, but having gone from 133kg to now 107 is in the right direction so just need to keep it up.

[popeyewhite]

deckster said:

Of course, as has been said many times exercise is about 20% of weight loss, at best.

If you mean crash diet, then maybe. Diet as lifestyle change? - Regular exercise is more important.

[AJB88]

Greg66 said:

115 kg at 5’7” would require a properly spectacular musculature not to be unhealthy.

35% fat says you don’t have that musculature. I’d say the gym people were blowing smoke up you arse.

Sorry.

I was 108kg at 5'8' and looked like Mr Blobby haha

[deckster]

popeyewhite said:

deckster said:

Of course, as has been said many times exercise is about 20% of weight loss, at best.

If you mean crash diet, then maybe. Diet as lifestyle change? - Regular exercise is more important.

Depends on your goals of course but as a general rule it is much easier to not eat those 500 calories than it is to exercise them off.

[Regiment]

spaximus said:

Yes we did employ a dietician to help us and overall the diet was not too bad, quantity and time of eating was the biggest issue to sort out.

Not making excuses but I had treatment on my thyroid which has left me having to take thyroxine daily as that was not working correctly but it took a long time to get as fat as I did so taking longer than I would like to sort out, but having gone from 133kg to now 107 is in the right direction so just need to keep it up.

If you're down from 133kg to 107 then things are going really well, i shudder to think what you looked like at 133kg though when you're 35% now, it might have just been an anomaly anyway but if the scales are saying you're getting lighter and your clothes are fitting more loosely, then don't worry about what body fat percentage you are. Do you feel like you're able to do more now than you were doing at 133kg, are you able to spend more time at a particular resistance and are you able to lift more weight?

[popeyewhite]

deckster said:

popeyewhite said:

deckster said:

Of course, as has been said many times exercise is about 20% of weight loss, at best.

If you mean crash diet, then maybe. Diet as lifestyle change? - Regular exercise is more important.

Depends on your goals of course but as a general rule it is much easier to not eat those 500 calories than it is to exercise them off.

If lifestyle change is more important than crash dieting (where you'll more than likely put the weight back on quite quickly) then no, the general rule is start exercising and change your lifestyle. Not sure 500 calories will make much difference, you'd burn that sitting watching TV in 8 hours. Regular exercise starts in motion a chain of physical and mental change that will increase weightloss and health exponentially.

[spaximus]

Regiment said:

spaximus said:

Yes we did employ a dietician to help us and overall the diet was not too bad, quantity and time of eating was the biggest issue to sort out.

Not making excuses but I had treatment on my thyroid which has left me having to take thyroxine daily as that was not working correctly but it took a long time to get as fat as I did so taking longer than I would like to sort out, but having gone from 133kg to now 107 is in the right direction so just need to keep it up.

If you're down from 133kg to 107 then things are going really well, i shudder to think what you looked like at 133kg though when you're 35% now, it might have just been an anomaly anyway but if the scales are saying you're getting lighter and your clothes are fitting more loosely, then don't worry about what body fat percentage you are. Do you feel like you're able to do more now than you were doing at 133kg, are you able to spend more time at a particular resistance and are you able to lift more weight?[/quot

Funnily enough, yes I looked big but most put my weight at around 17-18 stone not the 21 if they had a guess but when I look at photographs now you can see the huge difference, but I never looked like I was a mass of fat and blubber, honestly.

Exercise wise I am lifting more reps but as I am 60 it isn't easy to build muscle mass anyway so really for me it is a balance between all of the things I do. What I have noticed is that my recovery rate is much quicker and blood pressure has come down significantly.

When I look at what others are doing my exercise weights and what I do on all the cardio machines is not too shabby but my stamina still isn't what I want it to be but it is working.

I am pragmatic, it took me a lot of years to get so big, although I have always been big, playing rugby etc. so it will take sometime to get down to a sensible condition and keep it there. If I lose it steadily and keep exercising then long term it will be okay.

[RobM77]

spaximus said:

PBDirector said:

Well, that the numbers don’t add up to 100% is an indication of something.

To be honest, as unreliable as any gym based method is likely to be, if you’re not questioning a 35% fat number then I would focus on reducing that rather than my hypothetical muscle mass value.

Yes I did point out that was over 100% but apparently it is correct. On my electronic scales at home, they measure water and fat and are similar figures to these expensive ones that measures much more.

I am still fat so no question there

According to the link below, both fat and muscle contain water, so we shouldn't expect fat, water and muscle to add up to 100%. Also, obviously visceral fat is part of the total fat. What confuses me is why the fat % and muscle % add up to more than 100%.

https://eatsmartproducts.com/knowledge-base/why-yo...

The gym's claim that the percentages are super accurate is misleading - body composition is very difficult to measure without specialist lab equipment.

Nevertheless, inaccuracies aside and as you say yourself, 170cm and 115kg gives a BMI of nearly 40, which is extremely high, so let's not worry about a few percentages points of inaccuracy here and there. BMI assumes an average muscle mass, so for those who do regular sport or lift weights it isn't very accurate, but even the most devoted weight lifters aren't going to raise their BMI by more than a few points, so with your level of activity I'd have thought a BMI of 25 tops would be healthy.

[spaximus]

RobM77 said:

spaximus said:

PBDirector said:

Well, that the numbers don’t add up to 100% is an indication of something.

To be honest, as unreliable as any gym based method is likely to be, if you’re not questioning a 35% fat number then I would focus on reducing that rather than my hypothetical muscle mass value.

Yes I did point out that was over 100% but apparently it is correct. On my electronic scales at home, they measure water and fat and are similar figures to these expensive ones that measures much more.

I am still fat so no question there

According to the link below, both fat and muscle contain water, so we shouldn't expect fat, water and muscle to add up to 100%. Also, obviously visceral fat is part of the total fat. What confuses me is why the fat % and muscle % add up to more than 100%.

https://eatsmartproducts.com/knowledge-base/why-yo...

The gym's claim that the percentages are super accurate is misleading - body composition is very difficult to measure without specialist lab equipment.

Nevertheless, inaccuracies aside and as you say yourself, 170cm and 115kg gives a BMI of nearly 40, which is extremely high, so let's not worry about a few percentages points of inaccuracy here and there. BMI assumes an average muscle mass, so for those who do regular sport or lift weights it isn't very accurate, but even the most devoted weight lifters aren't going to raise their BMI by more than a few points, so with your level of activity I'd have thought a BMI of 25 tops would be healthy.

That makes a bit more sense. To get to a BMI of 25 from the online calculators that would mean getting to around 75KG, which seems very light for me to become, but realistically any reduction I am making is better than none.

I will keep on plugging away and see how far it goes and how long it takes.

[dave_s13]

BMI of 40 ifms fkin huge!

Keep going with the weight loss but focus more on your calorie intake I'd say

[spaximus]

dave_s13 said:

BMI of 40 ifms fkin huge!

Keep going with the weight loss but focus more on your calorie intake I'd say

Yes I agree, calorie intake is monitored, low carb. As I said if you saw a picture of me you would not think I was that heavy and that is not me trying to make excuses but I was never huge to look at but clearly unhealthy.

As I said it did not help having a dodgy thyroid which was treated with radiation to fix but again I ate too much which when added to that made the problem worse.

I will keep on with this as it is important to me and my family

[RobM77]

spaximus said:

RobM77 said:

spaximus said:

PBDirector said:

Well, that the numbers don’t add up to 100% is an indication of something.

To be honest, as unreliable as any gym based method is likely to be, if you’re not questioning a 35% fat number then I would focus on reducing that rather than my hypothetical muscle mass value.

Yes I did point out that was over 100% but apparently it is correct. On my electronic scales at home, they measure water and fat and are similar figures to these expensive ones that measures much more.

I am still fat so no question there

According to the link below, both fat and muscle contain water, so we shouldn't expect fat, water and muscle to add up to 100%. Also, obviously visceral fat is part of the total fat. What confuses me is why the fat % and muscle % add up to more than 100%.

https://eatsmartproducts.com/knowledge-base/why-yo...

The gym's claim that the percentages are super accurate is misleading - body composition is very difficult to measure without specialist lab equipment.

Nevertheless, inaccuracies aside and as you say yourself, 170cm and 115kg gives a BMI of nearly 40, which is extremely high, so let's not worry about a few percentages points of inaccuracy here and there. BMI assumes an average muscle mass, so for those who do regular sport or lift weights it isn't very accurate, but even the most devoted weight lifters aren't going to raise their BMI by more than a few points, so with your level of activity I'd have thought a BMI of 25 tops would be healthy.

That makes a bit more sense. To get to a BMI of 25 from the online calculators that would mean getting to around 75KG, which seems very light for me to become, but realistically any reduction I am making is better than none.

I will keep on plugging away and see how far it goes and how long it takes.

For reference, I do an hour in the gym twice a week along with a little running and I surf/windsurf once a week. Not too dissimilar to you in many ways. I also drink 5/6 nights out of 7. I'm 5'10"/177cm and 74kg (BMI 23.5) and a little podgy if I'm honest; when I was fitter I was 70kg. I think somewhere between those two weights for someone shorter than me should be achievable. It'll obviously take a lot of work though starting from over 100kg.

[spaximus]

RobM77 said:

For reference, I do an hour in the gym twice a week along with a little running and I surf/windsurf once a week. Not too dissimilar to you in many ways. I also drink 5/6 nights out of 7. I'm 5'10"/177cm and 74kg (BMI 23.5) and a little podgy if I'm honest; when I was fitter I was 70kg. I think somewhere between those two weights for someone shorter than me should be achievable. It'll obviously take a lot of work though starting from over 100kg.

Makes me feel worse as I don't drink!! Aim is to get under 100KG by Christmas which should be about right 2 lbs per week as recommended to keep it off.

Thanks for you interest