PDA

View Full Version : Losing 7 pounds of water weight in a week?



ray34iyf
05-10-2007, 08:15 PM
Is this normal? I have had no loss of strength(it's actually gone up) so I assume it's all water weight. Have been at roughly 2300 cals for a week(very clean) and I dropped from 174 to 167. I've heard of water weight loss but 7 pounds!! This is freaking me out a bit.

RedSpikeyThing
05-10-2007, 08:37 PM
Nah that's very possible. I've lost close to that over one long night of drinking lol

EDIT: What are your maintenance cals?

Gunshow
05-10-2007, 08:38 PM
yupp easily. fighters sometimes have to shed 20 or more lbs in a matter of days for weigh ins. Also the long nights of drinking can really take alot of weight off you... i think ive lost about 8 lbs at my friends cottage one time... although most of that weight should be back within a day or two.

ArchAngel777
05-10-2007, 08:39 PM
Is this normal? I have had no loss of strength(it's actually gone up) so I assume it's all water weight. Have been at roughly 2300 cals for a week(very clean) and I dropped from 174 to 167. I've heard of water weight loss but 7 pounds!! This is freaking me out a bit.

It is proably glycogen and crap (litterally) from eating clean and contueing to train. If you drop a few more pounds, you might want to do a refeed meal with clean carbs (few hundred grams).

FYI - For every gram of glycogen you burn, you drop 3-4 grams of water.

I would just like to take this opporunity to point out the BS claims that people make when gaining LBM. We have all heard people say they gained 20 pounds of LBM in two months - not really. What they did do first was deplete themselves from their cut which can be anywhere from 7 - 12 pounds below their "normal" weight and then they start eating more than they need, the body stores glycogen back to their normal weight, then they add some fat, then all the crap (poop, undigested food) and stuff, they weight themselves 20 pounds heavier than their cut and presumed they just gained 20 pounds of muscle... Anyway, this has NOTHING to do with you, just something I wanted to rant on... :D

ray34iyf
05-10-2007, 08:47 PM
I was maintaining at 2800-2900 cals. So I'm shooting for a 1.2-1.5 loss of weight per week.
This is kind of annoying seeing as now I have to drop below 160 to get where I want, but whatever. Who cares about the numbers when you have the mirror.

Also, quick question. When I cut to 12% at roughly 158, is that low enough to then go on a large, clean bulk of say, 50 lbs? And how many pounds of lean body mass to fat should I be able to put on if my diet is spot on with a good full body routine. Sorry for all the random questions but thanks in advance.

ray34iyf
05-10-2007, 09:11 PM
While we're at it, how's this for my cut diet?
Breakfast--
2% Milk
3 hardboiled eggs

Pre WO
.5 cup oats
1.5 cup skim
scoop nitrean

Post WO--
.5 cup oats
1.5 cup skim
scoop nitrean

Dinner--
2% milk
chicken or fish +veggies

Bedtime--
.5 cup peanuts
.75 cup cottage cheese

Cals: 2300 cals
Protein: 185 g
Fat: 87g
Carbs: 192 g

Supps
8 ETS
6 Thermocin
multivit
2 vit C
gallon h20

ArchAngel777
05-11-2007, 07:33 AM
I was maintaining at 2800-2900 cals. So I'm shooting for a 1.2-1.5 loss of weight per week.
This is kind of annoying seeing as now I have to drop below 160 to get where I want, but whatever. Who cares about the numbers when you have the mirror.

Also, quick question. When I cut to 12% at roughly 158, is that low enough to then go on a large, clean bulk of say, 50 lbs? And how many pounds of lean body mass to fat should I be able to put on if my diet is spot on with a good full body routine. Sorry for all the random questions but thanks in advance.

I seen your diet post, and I do not really comment on people's diets unless they are absolutely terrible. Yours is fine IMO and as long as you can adhere to it, all is well.

As for your concern about dropping below 160. Remember, when you are cutting, your weight isn't your real weight. For instance, right now I am 170.8 pounds as of this morning, but that isn't my real weight. It is easy to forget this... I am completely depletion of glycogen right now, I have very little food in me, very little waste. My *real* weight (the weight I would return too after my refeed + Maintenance for 1 week) is 180 - 182. So, again, be sure to know that dipping below 160, to even 158 is really probably more like 165 - 168 when you return back to normal.

So when people go from the end of their bulk to a cut, they should almost universally (Not in all cases, exception with those who recomp) remove 10-15 pounds from the lost weight figure. Likewise, the same applies when you finish your cut to a bulk! At least 10-15 of those pounds are misleading.

Your next issue was wondering if you could put on 50 pounds of LBM with little fat gain. To be honest, 50 pounds is a good goal, but you might want to first set another short term goal that is more realistic. For instance, lets pretend your weight is 158 (using the depleted weight number -remember, this is innacurate when figuring out LBM gain) you should set your goal for right around 180ish first, then observe. This would be adding around 10 pounds of solid LBM, a little fat as well. If you are happy with the way things turned out, take a break and maintain a little while longer, maybe do a mini cut and then take another slow bulk approach to 190 and then 200 and then so on.

I highly recomend to take this in steps are evaluate your progress. A lot of people have bulked to fatty mcfatty stages and regret it - not only do they regret it, but they spend the next year of their life trying to diet it off. Some of them give up completely. If you veer off to far from the path, you might not return and that is something I wish I had take to heart... Of course, my bulk was unintentional as 'Built' would say and now, only after 18 months, am I finally getting into the lean stages... It was been a long and tiring journey, don't make the same mistake... :D

Anyway, good luck mate!

ray34iyf
05-11-2007, 10:17 AM
Thanks for the advice!!

ray34iyf
05-11-2007, 10:23 AM
Yeah, so maybe I shouldn't have weighed myself again today(don't want it to become obssesive where I'm doing every morning) but I dropped another pound in a day. Dang! I had alot of stuff to get out of my body(glycogen, crap, etc..).

Vapour Trails
05-11-2007, 11:56 AM
IF you want to do a good bulk, keep going till 10%. If you still eating nearly 200g of carbs a day, your glycogen is not all that depleted.

I get the impression that people feel the moment they start eating fewer carbs they're glycogen stores drop to nothing. Once glycogen is in a muscle cell, it only gets depleted by exercise (contraction). It does not leave the cell for any other purpose (it can't). You could go 0 carb for a week and sit on the couch and have nearly full glycogen stores as any low intensity activity does not use glycogen as an energy source. Combine low carbs with high activity and then you get depletion. If you could sit on the couch and deplete, UD2 depletion workouts would not be necessary. In fact in takes me nearly 3 hours of sets of 15-20 with one minute rests combined with very low carb intake for 3 days to deplete to the point that I can do a carb load.

BFGUITAR
05-11-2007, 12:38 PM
IF you want to do a good bulk, keep going till 10%. If you still eating nearly 200g of carbs a day, your glycogen is not all that depleted.

I get the impression that people feel the moment they start eating fewer carbs they're glycogen stores drop to nothing. Once glycogen is in a muscle cell, it only gets depleted by exercise (contraction). It does not leave the cell for any other purpose (it can't). You could go 0 carb for a week and sit on the couch and have nearly full glycogen stores as any low intensity activity does not use glycogen as an energy source. Combine low carbs with high activity and then you get depletion. If you could sit on the couch and deplete, UD2 depletion workouts would not be necessary. In fact in takes me nearly 3 hours of sets of 15-20 with one minute rests combined with very low carb intake for 3 days to deplete to the point that I can do a carb load.

This seems unclear to me.
If you dont use glycogen on a 0 carb diet, than where does your body get its glucose? I can assure you, your body will use its glycogen stores before your muscle starts getting broken down (for example, if your starving or on some low calorie diet).

ArchAngel777
05-11-2007, 01:05 PM
IF you want to do a good bulk, keep going till 10%. If you still eating nearly 200g of carbs a day, your glycogen is not all that depleted.

I get the impression that people feel the moment they start eating fewer carbs they're glycogen stores drop to nothing. Once glycogen is in a muscle cell, it only gets depleted by exercise (contraction). It does not leave the cell for any other purpose (it can't). You could go 0 carb for a week and sit on the couch and have nearly full glycogen stores as any low intensity activity does not use glycogen as an energy source. Combine low carbs with high activity and then you get depletion. If you could sit on the couch and deplete, UD2 depletion workouts would not be necessary. In fact in takes me nearly 3 hours of sets of 15-20 with one minute rests combined with very low carb intake for 3 days to deplete to the point that I can do a carb load.


UD2 depletion workouts are NOT neccessary. They are if you want to "super compensate" with 1000g of carbs, but beyond that, it is not needed.

You can and WILL become depleted on 200g of carbs per day if you do cardio and lifting weights. I dropped UD2.0 and went down to a 2,200 calorie diet with about 200g of carbs per day and I assuredly tell you, I was depleted sufficiently.

You seem to forget that running alone use muscle glycogen from all over the body. Lifting weights is not the only way to deplete muscle glycogen and that is ridiculous to say the least. What is required, however, is the use of those muscles. Whether it be a nordic track, sprinting, or even running, you will deplete many muscle glycogen stores, for sure most of them from the lower body, back, and you will deplete many from the upper body.

Doing the UD2.0 workouts allow you deplete "more" glycogen, mainly in the upper body. But lifting weights with 45-60 seconds of TuT isn't the only way to deplete glycogen.

It is almost as if you think Lyle invented Carb Loading... You might want to read up on that. Runners, long distance also carb load, they just carb load with less (400 - 500grams). The reason is obvious - they carb load with less, because they don't deplete as far as Lyle takes you in UD2.0. Depletion is a series of stages anyway... If you completely deplete glycogen, you would be dead. Lyle doesn't have you fully deplete - so deplete is a relative term anyway.

ray34iyf
05-11-2007, 02:18 PM
So, 10% is a good number to cut to if I plan on doing a large bulk and don't want to get too fat? Any seconds on that?

ray34iyf
05-11-2007, 02:24 PM
Quick question. Since I dropped to 167 over the week from water weight drop, should I redo my calculations of how much I need to lose in order to get to 10% BF?
When I was 175, I would have needed a 13 pound drop to reach 10% at 162 lbs.
Now that I'm 167 a week later, I need to drop to 155 to reach 10%. Although it shouldn't really matter because 155 isn't my "true" weight due to glycogen loss, etc. Sorry, this is a pretty dumb question but bear with me, it's finals week and I'm stressed as hell.

ray34iyf
05-11-2007, 02:25 PM
And is 1.5 lbs of loss a week for 8 weeks too fast to reach my goal if I want to minimize muscle loss?

Coqui
05-11-2007, 02:29 PM
No it isn't.

ArchAngel777
05-11-2007, 02:29 PM
And is 1.5 lbs of loss a week for 8 weeks too fast to reach my goal if I want to minimize muscle loss?

Nope, 1.5 pounds per week is just about right for a dude...

As far as your calculation for BF%, I would not worry about it. You will know when you are cut. Cutting to 10% isn't an exact science, nor can anyone know if they are exactly 10% unless you get scanned with DEXA or get an autopsy done on yourself (chuckle). So, in other words, when Vapour told you to cut down to 10%, he didn't mean 10% exactly, he basically means cut down to a "lean" status.... So, wether you are 9% of 11% it really makes no difference, it is just a loose suggestion.

ray34iyf
05-11-2007, 02:30 PM
Sweet! A two month plan to 10% it is!!!! Thanks guys.

seK
05-11-2007, 02:30 PM
So, 10% is a good number to cut to if I plan on doing a large bulk and don't want to get too fat? Any seconds on that?

Just do a slow clean bulk. In my personal experience the lower % I cut too the more easily I gain fat when I switch back to bulking due to being on my cut for an extended period of time and my metabolism being slowed, even when I gradually switch from my cut to bulk.

Guido
05-11-2007, 02:31 PM
I would just like to take this opporunity to point out the BS claims that people make when gaining LBM. We have all heard people say they gained 20 pounds of LBM in two months - not really. What they did do first was deplete themselves from their cut which can be anywhere from 7 - 12 pounds below their "normal" weight and then they start eating more than they need, the body stores glycogen back to their normal weight, then they add some fat, then all the crap (poop, undigested food) and stuff, they weight themselves 20 pounds heavier than their cut and presumed they just gained 20 pounds of muscle... Anyway, this has NOTHING to do with you, just something I wanted to rant on... :DI'm pretty sure that when I gained 50lbs in 2005 that it was almost 100% poop weight. :D

ray34iyf
05-11-2007, 02:32 PM
The way I figure it, I'm roughly 16% BF right now at 167. Two months of a pound and a half of weight loss a week and I'll be at 155 and roughly 10%. Sweet. I think I'm good to go.

ArchAngel777
05-11-2007, 02:34 PM
I'm pretty sure that when I gained 50lbs in 2005 that it was almost 100% poop weight. :D

You did make great progress. I seen your pictures before and after... Great work.

ray34iyf
05-11-2007, 02:40 PM
As far as fat stimulants. How can I expect the 6 tabs of Thermocin to affect all of this? It just ensures that more of the weight that I'll be losing will be fat?

ArchAngel777
05-11-2007, 02:48 PM
As far as fat stimulants. How can I expect the 6 tabs of Thermocin to affect all of this? It just ensures that more of the weight that I'll be losing will be fat?

Depends on who you ask... My cynical viewpoint is this - Thermocin will help because it will give you more energy and therefore you will be able to exert more energy during your workout and therefore burn more calories, thus losing more weight (fat, preferably).

I do not believe it has magical properties to melt the fat off of you. Stimulants like Ephedra, Thermocin should be viewed as energy boosters, and appetite surpressents (not sure if Thermocin suppresses the app or not), not as miricle fat burners, but they do help a bit...

Others may have different opinions on it - that is mine.

seK
05-11-2007, 03:30 PM
As far as fat stimulants. How can I expect the 6 tabs of Thermocin to affect all of this? It just ensures that more of the weight that I'll be losing will be fat?

I personally wouldn’t waste the money.