Is this true?

**VipeR** · 03-18-2005, 09:12 PM

The other night I was talking to my dad about missing workouts. And to my surprise he said that every time you miss a workout, you lose 2% of muscle. Now at first I believed him because, everything that he has said before, you guys basically repeated it whenever I saw a topic about it on IM. If all this is true, then that is fucking scary. It took me a year to get my figure, if im taking a few weeks off then I dont wanna fuck my self over.
Thank you,
Alex

**Vieope** · 03-18-2005, 09:15 PM

Ask him what happens if you lose 51 workouts.

**musclepump** · 03-18-2005, 10:02 PM

Uhm, he's wrong.

**luke c.** · 03-18-2005, 10:21 PM

Yea ive never heard anything like that. I have actually read/heard that it is good to take an enitire week off every 3 months or so. I dont remember where that is coming from though.

**myCATpowerlifts** · 03-18-2005, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Vieope

Ask him what happens if you lose 51 workouts.

genius

**Yanick** · 03-18-2005, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by Vieope

Ask him what happens if you lose 51 workouts.

i understand what your getting at, but that 2% would go from the new number. IE if you are 10% bf at 100lbs and you lose 2% bf, thats 2 lbs of bf you lost. then if you lose another 2% thats 2% of 98lbs not 100lbs...know what i mean?

but thats all irrelevant because you can't quantify how much muscle your going to lose on your off days. it would also depend on lots of factors, like caloric intake, stress levels (you'd theoretically lose more muscle if you are taking a week off to finish a project which will take sleepless nights and all than if you are going on a vacation to relax), stuff like that.

**CowPimp** · 03-19-2005, 03:31 AM

Yanick is right, there are too many factors to generalize with one single number: hormone levels, nutrition, sleep, training age, other activities, etc.

However, I can tell you right now that number is wrong. It is way too high. If you miss one workout, then you are not going to lose any muscle. Most people can get away with taking 2 weeks off, bare minimum, before they start to notice full on detraining effects.

**Vieope** · 03-19-2005, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by Yanick

i understand what your getting at, but that 2% would go from the new number. IE if you are 10% bf at 100lbs and you lose 2% bf, thats 2 lbs of bf you lost. then if you lose another 2% thats 2% of 98lbs not 100lbs...know what i mean?

In theory my frozen canadian friend.

Are you saying to me.. to me, that you can always take a little bit of something from somewhere for the period of eternity and it never ends? There comes a time when 2% is 100%. A little bit ..

bit more..

tiny bit more.

Try it in the calculatorness.

**Stu** · 03-19-2005, 04:34 AM

Yanick is right if it was true that you lose 2% muscle mass everywork out then after 51 work outs you would not have lost 100% of your muscle mass

**Vieope** · 03-19-2005, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by stu21Ldn

Yanick is right if it was true that you lose 2% muscle mass everywork out then after 51 work outs you would not have lost 100% of your muscle mass

In theory of high school books, not empirically.

Although the number 51 is a rough estimation based on common misconception.

**Dale Mabry** · 03-19-2005, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by Vieope

In theory of high school books, not empirically.

Although the number 51 is a rough estimation based on common misconception.

Empirically you would never reach 0% because you would never reach absolute zero. You'er wrong Vieope, now admit it or we will deport you.

**Vieope** · 03-19-2005, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Empirically you would never reach 0% because you would never reach absolute zero. You'er wrong Vieope, now admit it or we will deport you.

Of course in realityness it does reach zero Dale. I thought you were an engineer? Go fuck yourselfness anyway Dale.

**Dale Mabry** · 03-19-2005, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Vieope

Of course in realityness it does reach zero Dale. I thought you were an engineer? Go fuck yourselfness anyway Dale.

It doesn't reach zero, but it would reach an insignificant number.

I'm not an engineer, I am a clinical researcher and an FBI.

Oh, BTW, I spoteed a bunny in that new girl's pic, I think you have a shot.

**Vieope** · 03-19-2005, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Oh, BTW, I spoteed a bunny in that new girl's pic, I think you have a shot.

If I had a shot right now I would take it in my head.

Which new girl ?

**Dale Mabry** · 03-19-2005, 05:41 AM

To prove you are wrong Vieope, I offer you this...

Some horizontal...

A touch of this...

A dash of this

a ton of this,,,

and finally, a little of this for good measure...

**Dale Mabry** · 03-19-2005, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by Vieope

If I had a shot right now I would take it in my head.

Which new girl ?

That brazen girl. Hey, what time is it where you are?

Oh, I bet you can't find the bunny.

**Vieope** · 03-19-2005, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

That brazen girl. Hey, what time is it where you are?

Oh, I bet you can't find the bunny.

It is almost 10. I am up for quite a while.
I will try to find it.

**Vieope** · 03-19-2005, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

To prove you are wrong Vieope, I offer you this...

Some horizontal...

A touch of this...

A dash of this

a ton of this,,,

and finally, a little of this for good measure...

**Machher** · 03-19-2005, 10:45 AM

muscle loss occurs only when

calorie intake < calories required to maintain

period.

**luke c.** · 03-19-2005, 10:59 AM

muscle loss occurs only when

calorie intake < calories required to maintain

period.

I dont understand Machher...are you saying that you will never lose the strength and size you have as long as you eat alot?

**Squaggleboggin** · 03-19-2005, 11:00 AM

Wait, so you're saying that as long as you eat enough, you'll never lose muscle even if you never train again?

**musclepump** · 03-19-2005, 11:04 AM

Think about it this way (perhaps explaining why you're dad is on crack): You actually only GAIN muscle when you're resting. So maybe what you're dad MEANT to say was "You gain 2% muscle for every day you miss workout." Which for me, since I workout four days a week, would be 6% a week

**CowPimp** · 03-19-2005, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Vieope

In theory my frozen canadian friend.

Are you saying to me.. to me, that you can always take a little bit of something from somewhere for the period of eternity and it never ends? There comes a time when 2% is 100%. A little bit ..

bit more..

tiny bit more.

Try it in the calculatorness.

No, there doesn't come a time. If you were to graph a function where the end result decreased by 2% every time, it would create a curve that approached zero forever without ever reaching it. It's called an asymptote.

**joesmooth20** · 03-19-2005, 12:53 PM

maybe if your smoking meth during these times your missing your workouts

**Vieope** · 03-19-2005, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by CowPimp

No, there doesn't come a time. If you were to graph a function where the end result decreased by 2% every time, it would create a curve that approached zero forever without ever reaching it. It's called an asymptote.

**myCATpowerlifts** · 03-19-2005, 01:36 PM

All you have to do is Convert Percent into a decimal here

2%= 1/50

so 2 missed workouts would be 1/50 x 1/50= 1/2500
1/2500=.04 %
So in actuality the amount of muscle lost is significantly lowered

**Missfit4all** · 03-19-2005, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Machher

muscle loss occurs only when

calorie intake < calories required to maintain

period.

on this "Muscle Loss" note....may i ask a question? Is it true that if you have a % of BF and the body goes hungry, (or 2 much Cardio per say?) it would 1st gobble up the BF B4 it would gobble up the Muscle? Is this correct? This may very well B a dumb question?

____________________
bn meaning 2 ask...
i thank you 4 Ur answer.

**Mudge** · 03-19-2005, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin

Wait, so you're saying that as long as you eat enough, you'll never lose muscle even if you never train again?

No, because there is nothing signaling the body to require said excess muscle. But to come up with a figure of 2% is either a clever guess, or completely pulled out of thin air.

As for reaching absolute zero, what happens when you split atoms?

**Mudge** · 03-19-2005, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Missfit4all

on this "Muscle Loss" note....may i ask a question? Is it true that if you have a % of BF and the body goes hungry, (or 2 much Cardio per say?) it would 1st gobble up the BF B4 it would gobble up the Muscle?

If the body is in starvation mode it will get rid of all excess muscle first. If your body detects a lack of food, the way to survive the longest is to get rid of anything burning calories first. Then when you reach an acceptable point of having enough muscle to survive (walk, hunt occasionally - whatever) then it has a good enough reason to break into fat stores. But to get rid of fat first and have all this excess metabolic muscle, would be the fastest way to death. There is of course a balance of fat/muscle burn and that is probably going to be mostly genetically determined.

Otherwise dieting would be piss easy, we'd all just - stop eating or eat once a day, and we'd be huge and ripped.

**Mudge** · 03-19-2005, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by myCATpowerlifts

\so 2 missed workouts would be 1/50 x 1/50= 1/2500
1/2500=.04 %
So in actuality the amount of muscle lost is significantly lowered

Not quite.

2 percent of 100 is 2 pounds

2 percent of 98 is 1.96 pounds

2 percent of 96.04 pounds is 1.9208 pounds

Thread: Is this true?

Thread Tools

Display

Is this true?

Similar Threads

oh its so true....

Is it true?

is it true

is it true???

Is this true??

Posting Permissions