What % body fat can be maintained without drugs?

[Dear Wiggo]

I know I've met my match in debating skills when the poster gets personal.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Because I agree with you and I disagree with Galic Ho about Wiggins who is an ectomorph and this is obvious from miles away.

On the other hand is more difficult to quote Galic Ho's posts, don't mention to keep a single phrase from his posts because they are huge. Less is more dear Galic Ho.. Less is more.. Think just for a while those who don't read that fast!

Ah gotcha. It's a mais oui of course, not a "duh" of course.

Desole.

 

[blackcat]

Because I agree with you and I disagree with Galic Ho about Wiggins who is an ectomorph and this is obvious from miles away.

On the other hand is more difficult to quote Galic Ho's posts, don't mention to keep a single phrase from his posts because they are huge. Less is more dear Galic Ho.. Less is more.. Think just for a while those who don't read that fast!

yeah, most folks third leg have a bigger circumference than wiggos waist

 

[Galic Ho]

Wiggins is quite clearly an ectomorph, so naturally will be skinnier than average.

I think body shape type (ecto, meso, endo) is far more important than "how big" someone is.

I don't think he is. When you job is a pro sportsmen, especially a cyclist, you appear to be ectomorph more or less. But you're really not. That is the scary thing here. You're saying an ectomorph is the best ITT for 2012 over Cancellara who is clearly not an ectomorph. That is wrong and defies common sense. I think it defies the natural order of things...

Read my above comment. Wiggins would have been the taller lanky guy as a teen, but never the 'skinny' guy. That is Andy Schleck. His track weight is his natural weight, or as close to it as he could get whilst being a pro. Don't forget that losing weight is what made him GT material. You should have caught onto that by now. Anyway, I've said enough. It's what I said about cyclists in a group, their actual shape is deceptive as a group. I don't think people get how much weight Wiggins really lost and how absurd it really is for a cyclist to do that. Froome as well. Where as Andy Schleck? Never had to. That's a sign of being a pure ectomorph. You don't have to take a drug to lose weight. You just do a minor adjustment to training or nutrition at most. Ectomorphs at physical peak don't have to worry about what they eat, heck, they don't do what Wiggins did after the Olympics. Did you read the reports about how much weight he put back on? If he were an ectomorph he'd have been 72kg or there abouts his entire career and your main reason for engaging his acolytes on this forum would be null and void.

Post cycling he will be 85kg no problem all the time. Maybe more. Andy Schleck will still be a skinny ******.

 

[Galic Ho]

unlike Betsy, they arent fat women.

If every straight man had a wife who looked as good as she does for her age, the world would be a much happier face. Personally I think they're jealous. All that time and all those drugs to look good and she more than likely did it all with a minimal of effort. Haters be hating and they be jelly.

 

[Galic Ho]

Because I agree with you and I disagree with Galic Ho about Wiggins who is an ectomorph and this is obvious from miles away.

On the other hand is more difficult to quote Galic Ho's posts, don't mention to keep a single phrase from his posts because they are huge. Less is more dear Galic Ho.. Less is more.. Think just for a while those who don't read that fast!

We can disagree with Wiggins natural build. I've stated why I don't think he is. Ironically if what Dear Wiggo and you believe is true, he's had no right stating half of his excessive number of posts in the Sky/Tenerife/Wiggins/Froome related threads in the Clinic. Why? Because the grand bulk of it was based on Wiggins losing substantial weight and maintaining his power levels and that is the minimal stance. Does that make sense to you given the entirety of those threads, one of which has 10K+ posts in it (most of which I have read)?

It doesn't to me. BTW, I type quickly and read quickly, so that is what I do. Yes I can ramble on and have a lot to say. Ultimately I don't care on this issue. My advice would be find out what you like, what you want and then discover how your body responds and what it likes. It's a selfish topic. It's about you as a person and nobody else. I was attempting to focus on the majority of people and what can be done clean.

Dear Wiggo likes the cycling approach. So do I to a degree. But I also like being strong. There is a limit, where when cycling and low body weight, if I go even two kilos lighter, I 'feel' weaker. Upper and lower body. For me that is 65kg. I have been lighter, had more body fat, but I was definitely not as strong. Lets also not forget lifting gives people a 'high' or a 'buzz'. One that cycling rarely ever replicates. It's more a struggle. A long hard struggle. It's also more dangerous (but that is irrelevant here).

There is a reason the fitness industry focuses on HIIT and the hard core people eat strictly protein with a complex carb every 3 hours religiously. That's how they get to the fat % of 10 and under as shown in those pictures a few pages back. That and when they get in their swimmers they don't look like Andy Schleck when he was swimming with Dolphins with Contador and Franck.

Also one last thing. Look at how RPM and Spin classes are oriented. They are built on HIIT ideology. 45min duration and mixed approaches. Do they ever stay purely as aerobic based oxygen fueled routines? No, they don't. Their energy demands rely a lot on body fat and glycogen. Only actual bike riding focuses on lower thresholds with stable rhythm and controlled heart rates, thus oxygen is the biggest fuel. When I did most of my hard core bike riding, I'd do an hour max, which is what I said HIIT should limit itself to. Doing that with weight training I can lose a lot of weight and body fat. Riding controlled? I think I explained that.

 

[alitogata]

We can disagree with Wiggins natural build. I've stated why I don't think he is. Ironically if what Dear Wiggo and you believe is true, he's had no right stating half of his excessive number of posts in the Sky/Tenerife/Wiggins/Froome related threads in the Clinic. Why? Because the grand bulk of it was based on Wiggins losing substantial weight and maintaining his power levels and that is the minimal stance. Does that make sense to you given the entirety of those threads, one of which has 10K+ posts in it (most of which I have read)?

First of all. I don't know what Dear Wiggo has written and what was his opinions in the thousands threads that this forum has. I agree with him that Wiggins is an ectomorph type and I didn't bother, neither I will, to read all Dear Wiggo's posts. So telling me what this guy is, is unnecessary and a third opinion that I will not bother to get in mind as well.

It doesn't to me. BTW, I type quickly and read quickly, so that is what I do. Yes I can ramble on and have a lot to say. Ultimately I don't care on this issue. My advice would be find out what you like, what you want and then discover how your body responds and what it likes. It's a selfish topic. It's about you as a person and nobody else. I was attempting to focus on the majority of people and what can be done clean.

You type quickly you read quickly but it seems that you don't discuss.. You just write and give answers. I was the first who posted to this thread and I said that the subject has to do with each one personally and nobody else. I agree with some of the things you say about diet and body types, but I really don't like the way you say it, because it is rude and doesn't help the discussion go on. The BS you write on your first post doesn't make your arguments more valid you know...

Dear Wiggo likes the cycling approach. So do I to a degree. But I also like being strong. There is a limit, where when cycling and low body weight, if I go even two kilos lighter, I 'feel' weaker. Upper and lower body. For me that is 65kg. I have been lighter, had more body fat, but I was definitely not as strong. Lets also not forget lifting gives people a 'high' or a 'buzz'. One that cycling rarely ever replicates. It's more a struggle. A long hard struggle. It's also more dangerous (but that is irrelevant here).

Dear Wiggo can like what he wants, but this is not a thread to talk about Dear Wiggo, but a thread to talk about % of BF. If you don't leave time and place for other people to express their opinions you will end up talking with yourself about yourself as you do now.

There is a reason the fitness industry focuses on HIIT and the hard core people eat strictly protein with a complex carb every 3 hours religiously. That's how they get to the fat % of 10 and under as shown in those pictures a few pages back. That and when they get in their swimmers they don't look like Andy Schleck when he was swimming with Dolphins with Contador and Franck.

I agree with this.

Also one last thing. Look at how RPM and Spin classes are oriented. They are built on HIIT ideology. 45min duration and mixed approaches. Do they ever stay purely as aerobic based oxygen fueled routines? No, they don't. Their energy demands rely a lot on body fat and glycogen. Only actual bike riding focuses on lower thresholds with stable rhythm and controlled heart rates, thus oxygen is the biggest fuel. When I did most of my hard core bike riding, I'd do an hour max, which is what I said HIIT should limit itself to. Doing that with weight training I can lose a lot of weight and body fat. Riding controlled? I think I explained that.

You explained everything but even if I had the will to reply to you, I didn't have the time to do so..Your posts are huge and you shot them so fast that in the end I missed most of your arguments. Even if you are right this is not the best way to talk about any subject and I'm sorry to tell you that you''ve got me tired and I'm going to sleep. So if you are patient I will tell you tomorrow what is my opinion about the things you said.

Have a nice day ( or night ) and I wish you the best

 

[D-Queued]

....

Also one last thing. Look at how RPM and Spin classes are oriented. They are built on HIIT ideology. 45min duration and mixed approaches. Do they ever stay purely as aerobic based oxygen fueled routines? No, they don't. Their energy demands rely a lot on body fat and glycogen. Only actual bike riding focuses on lower thresholds with stable rhythm and controlled heart rates, thus oxygen is the biggest fuel. When I did most of my hard core bike riding, I'd do an hour max, which is what I said HIIT should limit itself to. Doing that with weight training I can lose a lot of weight and body fat. Riding controlled? I think I explained that.

A bit off topic, but I think you are confusing what appeals to the masses when served up by the cycling neophyte.

That is what is driving RPM/spin class structure.

Dave.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

A bit off topic, but I think you are confusing what appeals to the masses when served up by the cycling neophyte.

That is what is driving RPM/spin class structure.

Dave.

Plus the fact that if you periodised it properly, people would spend the first 6-8 weeks feeling "cheated" for having paid for a "workout" that didn't feel like a "workout".

 

[Le breton]

Spot on

could you do that again in 20 words or less?

:d

you are absolutely right

 

[Le breton]

weight and old age

The topic looked interesting, but the discussion does not go very far.
I hoped to read real values for pros, observed and advisable.

(I understand % fat values are hard to determine and I don't even know what measurement method is considered the best.)

Now for myself

In my own case my %age body fat was estimated at 10.7% when I was 43 y. Unfortunately I had been stung by a bee the day before my appointment and was a bit bloated, maybe 1 extra kilo (64 instead of 63).

Over the following years I increased my training volume ( i.e. stopped slouching in the bad weather season) and started doing cyclosportive events (Marmotte, etc) which required longer training rides than intense 2-3 races.

Over the following 5 years or so I managed to drop to 62 kg, occasionally 61. By the way my legs looked I think I had not lost any muscle mass (and my times on reference climbs improved).

FAST FORWARD TO 2013

Now, at 71 y. my legs still look the same, but for the rest of my body I don't really know how it looks, except my torso has become shorter by a few cm.

For the past 5 years I have been worried about maintaining my body weight.
I have far less appetite, have to force myself to eat, even after hard training.

Right this minute, after breakfast, I am just under 60 kg. It's been a hard winter, done only 3 hours of exercise/week for the last 2 months. 25 years ago my weight would have climbed to 66 kilos.

Last year I dropped to 58 kg in the summer.

If you have some website to recommend for advice on how to maintain fitness and muscle mass at my age, I would be very much interested.

***: I ended up being just as verbose as GalicHo

 

[slowspoke]

OkAy, I'm going to get flamed for this, but I don't think it's that hard for an elite athlete to get down to 5%. Certainly for me it would have been no problem, and I was training 4-5 hours a day and never dieted. I think for a sport like cycling it would be "easy"

 

[peterst6906]

OkAy, I'm going to get flamed for this, but I don't think it's that hard for an elite athlete to get down to 5%. Certainly for me it would have been no problem, and I was training 4-5 hours a day and never dieted. I think for a sport like cycling it would be "easy"

I'm not going to flame you.

I maintained 8% for 4 years training 2 hours per day (not cycling) and went to 12% for some of that time, but could easily have gone lower if I wanted. No drugs involved. Just good exercise and great nutrition.

That's a while ago now and I'm nowhere near that, but I don't see it as a problem for athletes.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Do you think his performance was unattainable without enhancement? Or are you saying there are no members of the peloton with a BF% of ~5%? There are plenty of grotesque pictures of pro riders with jersey's unzipped & ribs exposed that suggest such a BF%.

To look at the photos it seems to me there are plenty of riders who seemingly have almost no muscle and fat yet they are bizarrely 6-7kg heavier than distance runners of the same height.

Also the "fitness industry" is total BS any article in "Men's Health" or "Men's Fitness" is full of crap, along with taking in six small meals a day and diets of 40% protein or higher.

 

[hrotha]

What I was getting at is that, in 2009, Wiggins said he couldn't hold that low body fat for long, as it would be very unhealthy. He was at 72 kg and 5% body fat, according to him, and that's why he could climb the way he did.

In 2012, Wiggins said to be at 69-70 kg for the Tour, and he was close to his top level pretty much from February to early August.

Something doesn't add up. If his weight and body fat figures are right, then he was holding unnaturally low figures for half a year. But Eric Boyer said Wiggins was already close to 5% body fat in top shape at Cofidis, weighing what, ~77 kg? When the figures being mentioned don't make any sense, it's only fair to wonder if we're witnessing some weight shenanigans of the sort Armstrong was so fond of.

Maybe he's just trying to hide ridiculous watt figures on top of all the AICAR.

 

[Le breton]

...........But Eric Boyer said Wiggins was already close to 5% body fat in top shape at Cofidis, weighing what, ~77 kg? ................

Do you have a reference for that?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Maybe he lost more muscle?

JV reckons Dekker is going to lose 4kg this year - 2kg muscle, 2kg of fat, and boost his absolute power. ... ...

 

[hrotha]

Do you have a reference for that?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=979316&postcount=427
That said, I haven't been able to find a primary source. It would seem the quote is only mentioned in message boards.

Also, if I may quote myself from that post:

Again, the Olympic Games site lists his weight as 77 kg. It would be interesting - nay, crucial, to know how they got that figure, if they measured it themselves or got it just by asking or whatever.

Maybe he lost more muscle?

JV reckons Dekker is going to lose 4kg this year - 2kg muscle, 2kg of fat, and boost his absolute power. ... ...

Yes, but we'd be talking 8-10 kg here...

 

[Le breton]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=979316&postcount=427
That said, I haven't been able to find a primary source. ......

Thanks
Using your quote I found this, from 2009
http://www.lavoixdessports.com/Tour...radley-wiggins-le-rouleur-qui-monte-qui.shtml

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

I have 5% body fat but I sure don't look like the guy in the picture on page 1

 

[alitogata]

Good morning, good afternoon and good evening to everyone.. and here are my comments to your posts Galic Ho. I will keep some phrases of your arguments because the forum's text editor doesn't allow me to write more than a number of words.

[...] You've got an entire fitness industry that says your full of it on this one. [...]To get to below 10% body fat eating what cyclists do and simply riding, it comes down to one thing. Time.

Bike riders eat how much protein versus carbohydrates? They do how much pure strength training? How much aerobic vs anaerobic exercise? [...]That is how little muscle mass cyclists have.

If the average person wants a low body fat % then the most obvious thing to do is cut out the $h1t ton of carbs [..] eat low GI vegetables, fruit, nuts and low fat meats. [..text editor explode!!! ] The fitness industry hardcore people, they eat clean. So clean, that half of what cyclists eat regularly is totally a no-no. [...]

A person follows cyclists diets, they have to train like one. But you missed that component didn't you? [...] You're over 40 right? You don't have time to train like they do in all probability. [...]

I agree with you that muscle and fat gain is a matter of energy you get, energy you can spend ( according always to your body type) and time of training.
The component you miss in the case of DearWiggo is not that he doesn't have enough time to train as a cyclist in order to loose weithg, but obviously his age. The older we get, the less well works our metabolic system. Even if Dear Wiggo had the time to train as a classic cyclist again his workout on loosing weight wouldn't gave him the right results, because he is over 40 yo and has a mesomorph body type. In order to loose body fat, has to follow a very strict low to fat, but not low in energy food diet. Clear protein diet wouldn't work again in his age because after 40s body can produce enough growth hormone in order to increase body mass.

I referred to this in my post about your brother. We build muscle mass in our 20s and 30s.. After 40 we just try to keep what we have build the previous decades. If we haven't manage to build this kind of body muscle then it is too late to do so.

[...] Most methods are estimates at best. Simplest way to tell? How much muscle tone is visible when your in the buff.

The only right method to estimate body fat is with medical tests, blood tests etc. What you say about the visible muscle tone is not again valid, because as I said above some people had never had any decent muscle tone, either because they didn't gain it in their youth, or because their muscle tone declines due to their age.

[...] TIME.

It is about time. The other factor is IMAGE. [..]. People who exercise do not want to look like a cyclist. I've met the cyclists at the gym who moan about not being able to pack on weight. The naturally skinny guys who should be cyclists. [...]

I like the purely aerobic approach, but anaerobic, with High Intensity Interval Training via resistance and weights,[...] is the Fitness Industry trend. [...]

Cycling's approach only works for pros or people with way too much spare time. For me, I drop more weight if I add in more cardio. More than what the industry hard cores do. [...]

The actual hardest part to follow, for most people, is the diet. [...]

You arbitrarily generalize situations for one more time in this post. Time is important but not the major factor. Image is a factor but not for everyone and not for sure for recreational cyclists above a certain age. And which is the image of a cyclist in the end of the day? Cancellara for example doesn't look like a cyclist, he looks like a man with a fit body. No one says that natural skinny guys have to be cyclists. As I said previously you can't be if you haven't build, when you had to build, your muscle mass. And there are very certain age periods in our lives that we can do this. After an age, it is just not possible. Cycling approach so works only for those who have build their bodies for cycling use. Don't judge from yourself you are already a cyclist.

Diet is hard to follow. For some age groups it is possible not to have results at all.

In any case diet, type of training, type of sport etc must be specialized differently for each individual. This is a little Utopian, but that's how things are.

The other concerning factor is cyclists, [...] have little muscle mass anywhere else. [...]Then they all started getting slim. That's the transition from EPO to blood bags. [..]. It's selective bias. In a group cyclists look normal. They're small guys. Really small. Contrast of their size relative to another group...big difference. The other group will look fat. They're not, but they don't look small. The percentile of pro cyclists who are naturally skinny, will be quite small. [...]

I think the potential for guys to dope to maintain a low body fat % nowadays is higher than it was 10-15 years back and that is down to changes in doping and anti-doping. [...]

I don't agree with your first argument. Cyclists can have any kind of muscle mass. Pros are a totally different category of athletes because their training and their diet is totally personalized. I agree that methods of doping have changed during the years, and that some doping techniques were abandoned or it was found out that worked better with specific body type athletes. I agree again that the regulations about doping have a lot to do with the drugs that were used and are used currently.

[...]

If a person focuses on cycling solely to drop weight and body fat, they need to do more for a longer time. Sure they can eat less, but it will catch up with them eventually. After a few weeks, or months, they will be fatigued and then they won't have the energy to keep it up. So they do have to up the calory intake. Unless of course they are a mesomorph. [...]

Weirdly you proved my point. If you don't want to up your calory intake (assuming you are dropping fat or lots of it) then the only conclusion is you are spending less time training. There is a time when the body will stop burning fat and switch it's energy source. Yes low level controlled cycling is mostly fat based, because it's aerobic based, but that doesn't drop fat quickest. The anaerobic stuff does. Hence why the fitness industry advocates HIIT anaerobic based workouts that last an hour max. Which when dropping lots of fat, is a definite must, because it drops the highest % of fat for time versus total physical exertion.
[...]

I agree that the right results come with persistent training and the right diet ( not only to loose but to gain weight). I agree as well that cycling without a high energy diet can't work and in the end will burn down the body of any one.. ( what i've said in previous posts about very low BF). The aerobic training burns fat, the anaerobic training gains muscles, but without the right and very specialized diet, for the right age and the right body type nothing of these can be done.

BUT the above apply to people that already have build their bodies. After an age these things don't work unfortunately as well and below you can read the personal experience of a fellow member of this forum.

The topic looked interesting, but the discussion does not go very far.
[... text editor explosion.. sorry ]

Over the following 5 years or so I managed to drop to 62 kg, occasionally 61. By the way my legs looked I think I had not lost any muscle mass (and my times on reference climbs improved).

FAST FORWARD TO 2013

Now, at 71 y. my legs still look the same, but for the rest of my body I don't really know how it looks, except my torso has become shorter by a few cm.

For the past 5 years I have been worried about maintaining my body weight.
I have far less appetite, have to force myself to eat, even after hard training.

Right this minute, after breakfast, I am just under 60 kg. It's been a hard winter, done only 3 hours of exercise/week for the last 2 months. 25 years ago my weight would have climbed to 66 kilos.

Last year I dropped to 58 kg in the summer.

If you have some website to recommend for advice on how to maintain fitness and muscle mass at my age, I would be very much interested.

***: I ended up being just as verbose as GalicHo

You are loosing height because your bone mass declines. This is normal. You don't loose that much muscle mass because you have trained and for as long you'll keep on training your muscles, you will maintain most of the mass you already have. You have to eat well thought and I would check out any possible reason for loosing my appetite or I would altered my diet, adding more supplements in order give to my system the energy it needs.. On the other hand a well trained metabolic system don't asks for more energy if it has no reason to. If you don't train as you did previously, is not strange that you don't have appetite to eat, what you used to ate, when you were younger and you were training more. No energy demand if you get my point.

For your current situation, weight loss is perhaps muscle lose due to ageing and not training as before. So count this thing in your weight-energy equation too. What you have taught your body to do, can't change in a two months period of time. Concluding I suppose that what happens to you is: Little training, not so much appetite because you don't loose energy, muscle mass declines due to age and not training as before = weight loss.

I don't know and so I can't recommend such a site, but I suggest ( without being a professional in training) that what you have to do, is to get back on your previous training and diet routine.

 

[blackcat]

Could you do that again in 20 words or less?

or twitter it atleast eyes roll smiley emoticon

 

[Jeremiah]

Apologies, I should have added a smilie - I am not taking this seriously at all.

I got it and burst out laughing at your initial post.

Good perspective too!

 

[Jeremiah]

Good morning, good afternoon and good evening to everyone.. and here are my comments to your posts Galic Ho. I will keep some phrases of your arguments because the forum's text editor doesn't allow me to write more than a number of words.



I agree with you that muscle and fat gain is a matter of energy you get, energy you can spend ( according always to your body type) and time of training.
The component you miss in the case of DearWiggo is not that he doesn't have enough time to train as a cyclist in order to loose weithg, but obviously his age. The older we get, the less well works our metabolic system. Even if Dear Wiggo had the time to train as a classic cyclist again his workout on loosing weight wouldn't gave him the right results, because he is over 40 yo and has a mesomorph body type. In order to loose body fat, has to follow a very strict low to fat, but not low in energy food diet. Clear protein diet wouldn't work again in his age because after 40s body can produce enough growth hormone in order to increase body mass.

I referred to this in my post about your brother. We build muscle mass in our 20s and 30s.. After 40 we just try to keep what we have build the previous decades. If we haven't manage to build this kind of body muscle then it is too late to do so.



The only right method to estimate body fat is with medical tests, blood tests etc. What you say about the visible muscle tone is not again valid, because as I said above some people had never had any decent muscle tone, either because they didn't gain it in their youth, or because their muscle tone declines due to their age.



You arbitrarily generalize situations for one more time in this post. Time is important but not the major factor. Image is a factor but not for everyone and not for sure for recreational cyclists above a certain age. And which is the image of a cyclist in the end of the day? Cancellara for example doesn't look like a cyclist, he looks like a man with a fit body. No one says that natural skinny guys have to be cyclists. As I said previously you can't be if you haven't build, when you had to build, your muscle mass. And there are very certain age periods in our lives that we can do this. After an age, it is just not possible. Cycling approach so works only for those who have build their bodies for cycling use. Don't judge from yourself you are already a cyclist.

Diet is hard to follow. For some age groups it is possible not to have results at all.

In any case diet, type of training, type of sport etc must be specialized differently for each individual. This is a little Utopian, but that's how things are.



I don't agree with your first argument. Cyclists can have any kind of muscle mass. Pros are a totally different category of athletes because their training and their diet is totally personalized. I agree that methods of doping have changed during the years, and that some doping techniques were abandoned or it was found out that worked better with specific body type athletes. I agree again that the regulations about doping have a lot to do with the drugs that were used and are used currently.



I agree that the right results come with persistent training and the right diet ( not only to loose but to gain weight). I agree as well that cycling without a high energy diet can't work and in the end will burn down the body of any one.. ( what i've said in previous posts about very low BF). The aerobic training burns fat, the anaerobic training gains muscles, but without the right and very specialized diet, for the right age and the right body type nothing of these can be done.

BUT the above apply to people that already have build their bodies. After an age these things don't work unfortunately as well and below you can read the personal experience of a fellow member of this forum.




You are loosing height because your bone mass declines. This is normal. You don't loose that much muscle mass because you have trained and for as long you'll keep on training your muscles, you will maintain most of the mass you already have. You have to eat well thought and I would check out any possible reason for loosing my appetite or I would altered my diet, adding more supplements in order give to my system the energy it needs.. On the other hand a well trained metabolic system don't asks for more energy if it has no reason to. If you don't train as you did previously, is not strange that you don't have appetite to eat, what you used to ate, when you were younger and you were training more. No energy demand if you get my point.

For your current situation, weight loss is perhaps muscle lose due to ageing and not training as before. So count this thing in your weight-energy equation too. What you have taught your body to do, can't change in a two months period of time. Concluding I suppose that what happens to you is: Little training, not so much appetite because you don't loose energy, muscle mass declines due to age and not training as before = weight loss.

I don't know and so I can't recommend such a site, but I suggest ( without being a professional in training) that what you have to do, is to get back on your previous training and diet routine.

The whole idea of muscle "tone" flies in the face of the "All or none law" of muscular contraction. All muscle fibers are "toned." Whoever has muscle (everyone) has "toned" muscle. Whether the muscle taken as a whole is "marbled" with fat is a whole different story.

 

[alitogata]

The whole idea of muscle "tone" flies in the face of the "All or none law" of muscular contraction. All muscle fibers are "toned." Whoever has muscle (everyone) has "toned" muscle. Whether the muscle taken as a whole is "marbled" with fat is a whole different story.

I supposed that Galic Ho means the muscle tone that exists from training and I answered according to this.

Of course all muscles are toned, otherwise we wouldn't be able to use them. But there is a huge difference between the muscles of a trained person and the muscles of someone who has never systematically got trained.