Strength Loss After Sickness

I’m going to try and hit the gym today. It’s been 6 days since I’ve done any weight training while I was sick from food poisoning.

This is a good experiment on muscle atrophy and strength gain/loss.

During the past week I’ve been dehydrated, I”ve eating very little food and almost zero protein. My average protein intake per day has probably been under 25 grams.

By conventional fitness and bodybuilding wisdom I should be all but completely wasted to nothing by now considering I haven’t had a chance to eat a full days worth of protein yet or hit the gym.

The reality is I’ll probably be no different than I was 6 days ago (besides a bit leaner from eating less)

If you’re consistently weight training your muscles will not atrophy if you take a week off. It’s just not that big of a deal, and in many cases it might be a welcome rest and recovery period.

Once I finish my workout I’ll report in on strength and energy vs a regular workout and we’ll see how close I am to normal.

John

Posted by johnbarban in Muscle Building
Tags: strength training |46 Comments

46 Responses to “Strength Loss After Sickness”

  1. Donatello Says:
    March 19th, 2010 at 11:01 am

    While reading this blog post it reminds me about something I’ve been meaning to ask but I’m not sure how to phrase it, anyway here it goes: if a person’s requirement to maintain a certain weight is 2,300calories a day, why will eating 2000 calories (assuming 120g of protein is met per day) lead to muscle growth? Shouldn’t the body lose weight because it doesn’t have the requirements it needs from the daily intake of 2000 calories? And if the is true, does this mean that the body uses the food it takes in before burning off the fat? And if this is true, then wouldn’t the body not have enough resources to build muscle (since the protein being consumed goes towards burning the 2,300 calories the body requires anyway)? Would appreciate if you could clear all of this up for me. Many thanks John. :)

  2. Cooper Says:
    March 19th, 2010 at 11:37 am

    Hey John,

    What do you think is the reason for the existence of skinny fat people? Skinny fat people are often used as proof that if you go too low in calories and/or protein, you will lose muscle mass just as quickly as you lose fat, and you will end up a smaller version of your old flabby self and not much leaner.

    Is it simply that skinny fat people don’t do resistance training?

    Thanks!

  3. BobbyO Says:
    March 19th, 2010 at 11:56 am

    John, I have been working out since middle school. I am 5’11 235 lbs with about 15-16% body fat. Over the past three months, due to my hectic work schedule, I have worked out maybe 5 times and no has noticed a change. I am eating less so I can see my stomach shrinking but as far as muscle loss, when I tell people I have been in the gym they say I am lying. Dont believe the hype, find out for yourself what the truth is. Don’t be lazy and take everyone elses word for it.

  4. Andrew Says:
    March 19th, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Many athletes don’t do a ton of work during the season and still maintain their muscle. I think this myth partly started because most people aren’t athletes that do other kinds of physical activity during the week. For most people, the gym is the only exercise they’ll get.

  5. Lars Says:
    March 19th, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    I had to live on noodles for a week and I did notice it on my lifts (way too little protein). My STRENGHT wasn’t gone, but I lost a lot of STRENGHT-ENDURANCE.

    Like, a 10-rep squat turned into a struggling 6 rep squat, still sore from that, and all my supposed 10-rep sets turned into 6-rep sets.

    I don’t think it’s just from protein though, a general lack of micronutrients might have mentally fucked things up a bit (just from feeling really “weak”). If you’ve ever done high-rep squatting or deadlifting, you know that it’s mostly a mental challenge.

  6. anthony Ramos Says:
    March 19th, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    yeah during 2 weeks of flu / not eating, i lost 10 lbs, even my wrists look skinnier. funny how quickly the “muscle” came back, why? b/c it was all water weight.

  7. Mike Says:
    March 19th, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    John,

    I was wondering pretty much the exact same thing as Donatello. I eat in a pretty heavy Caloric Deficit (10,000 Kcal per week when BMR is at 14,000 per week), only eat between 100 and 150 grams of protein a day so how does my body possibly build muscle while burning fat. Theoretically this shouldn’t work but my shoulders have gone from 48.5 to 50.5 in two months time and my waist is smaller 33.5 to 32 (I am 6 feet tall for a reference point). My Biceps are also bigger so I know that you are right I was just wondering how this works physiologically.

    Thanks,

    ~Mike

  8. johnbarban Says:
    March 19th, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    Mike and Donatello,

    There is no scientific evidence suggesting that a caloric surplus is required to build muscle. Whatever ‘extra’ energy is require will be drawn from fat stores (this is why we store fat in the first place)

    From what I can tell from the research all that you need is to hit a base minimum level of protein (70-120grams per day is our best estimate) and train hard and consistently in the gym.

    This is assuming that you’re not using steroids. Perhaps if you’re using steroids you might actually need more protein, but there is good evidence that a guy on steroids will easily gain big time muscle without increasing his calorie intake or his protein intake past that of a natural guy.

    The idea that you need extra calories to build muscle is most likely something that came from guys who couldn’t gain muscle as fast as they hoped (and didn’t want to use steroids) and then fool themselves into thinking that gaining weight (even if its water and fat) is somehow going to help build muscle. This just stems from a lack of patience with the muscle building process and a false belief that you can gain steroid like muscles without using steroids. It’s the case of wanting to be ‘big’ even though it’s not muscle.

    JB

  9. johnbarban Says:
    March 19th, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    Cooper,

    What do you mean by ‘skinny fat’?

    JB

  10. Cooper Says:
    March 19th, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    People that have a BMI in the normal range but still seem to have a flabby belly. Usually they have pretty skinny arms and legs. Basically they have really strange body shape. I think the scientific literature calls it “normal weight obesity”.

    According to the “gurus”, this is what will happen to a fat person if they go on a low calorie and/or protein diet.

  11. Donatello Says:
    March 19th, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    Alright John, if what you said is true, then by consuming 2000 calories a day, would that mean that you will get ripped in time? If your body draws the deficit of energy from fat stores, then is it possible that your body will notice this and switch from burning fat to just the carbs and proteins it is consuming from day to day in an effort to preserve these fat stores? Wouldn’t the body have a safeguard mechanism from eating into its own fat stores, even the essential fat that the body needs to maintain proper function?

  12. johnbarban Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 12:20 am

    Donatello,

    The body preferentially burns fat when there isn’t enough calories ingested, that’s the only reason we store fat in the first place.

    JB

  13. keith Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 2:08 am

    Hey JOhn
    What is the reasoning for eating tons of carbs/or calories after after a deficit and looking crazy defined the hours and day after. I know a lot of people do this before a photoshoot(carb loading), but how come you cannot maintain this type of look permanently?

  14. Donatello Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 5:28 am

    John, what is essential fat then? If we kept on eating 2000 calories as the program recommended wouldn’t we eventually finish up our fat stores? It seems quite implausible that the body would continuously burn fat, just the same way our body would continuously burn muscle. Fat loss will have to slowly go down as our body realises that it is eating too far into its fat stores and my guess is that it will start switching to burning protein instead in order to keep essential fat in place. Please correct me if I’m wrong but I believe fat has other purposes than just simply being a food store for us.

  15. Donatello Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 5:31 am

    in the 3rd sentence of my previos post, i meant to say “continuously build muscle”, not “continuously burn muscle”.

  16. johnbarban Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Donatello,

    I think you’re getting confused over the naming of ‘essential fats’. These are just called essential because you have to eat them as it seems your body cannot manufacture them itself. these fats are used to in various processes around your body and don’t have much to do with the adipose tissue where fat is stored.

    There isn’t a mass of stored ‘essential fat’ that the body needs to hold onto.

    In other words, stored body fat is called Adipose tissue, and it is different than essential dietary fat. One has nothing much to do with the other.

    JB

  17. johnbarban Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 10:46 am

    Keith,

    Bodybiulders ‘carb up’ in order to try and get their muscles to look full/round for a show. If they do it right they’ll look pretty good, but if they mess it up they can end up losing the show and looking good the next day.

    At the final stage of a diet down for a show these people are usually messing around with diuretics and water content and carb depleting so they end up looking a bit drawn and flat…this is when they add carbs back in hoping to look bigger without losing any definition.

    JB

  18. johnbarban Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 10:48 am

    So the first day back in the gym was mediocre…I still feel sick, starting to think this might actually be the flu and not food poisoning. Either way it sucks.

    I managed to push at about 70% of what the workout called for…so all in all it wasn’t a complete waste of time. Felt pretty good to get going and move around and bit.

    Hitting another workout today, hopefully it goes better.

    JB

  19. Donatello Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    John it’s good to hear you’re doing fine! Slowly does it really. From what I read, I know that our body needs fat, especially to cushion our kidneys, heart and other vital organs. Which is why bodybuilders cannot and shouldn’t attain a bodyfat of less than 4% because the body still needs this fat for vital function. If this clears up the definition of “essential fat” then I’d like to know if our body will continue to burn this fat when we continue to eat less than our daily requirements. You can read my previous post to see what I’m trying to get at. Thanks for being patient! :)

  20. MikeGP Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Donatello has a point. How come when youre reaching single BF digits, weight loss becomes slower, even if youre eating with the same deficit. if you have a 500 calorie deficit each day, you should lose a pound of fat a week like clock work, and fat loss would be predictable. But then there are plateaus, slow weight loss,etc…I used to say this happened because of Leptin, but then you said leptin didnt matter that much. Then why all this happens when you dont have that much fat to lose?

  21. johnbarban Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    No this isn’t essential fat.

    I think you’re overthinking this. There is very little chance of every eating in a calorie deficit long enough to actually become dangerously low on bodyfat.

    you would eventually start eating enough food to maintain your body at a healthy level (regardless of what some diet told you). I think you’re imagining a scenario that is almost impossible to achieve unless you were anorexic and managed to starve yourself to death.

    JB

  22. johnbarban Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    Mike,

    You’re assuming that the calorie deficit is constant which it might not be at all.

    And your mixing your definitions. ‘weight loss’ and ‘fat loss’ are two different things.

    The initial stages of ‘weight loss’ include lots of water loss due to decreased inflammation/water retention.

    Actual ‘fat loss’ is always going slower than ‘weight loss’ is.

    It is mostly likely that towards the end of a diet down that there is little water left to lose and the only loss you are seeing is just fat (which happens relatively slowly).

    JB

  23. MikeGP Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    But 500 calories less a day is 3500 a week, which is a pound of fat…shouldnt you lose this pound of fat every week regardless of water loss? At the moment i have around 11% body fat, i can see my abs, but are not as tight as i would like. And i cant seem to lose weight as fast as i did, when i was maybe 15% BF. I lose maybe 1 pound every 2 weeks if that, and im pretty sure i have a 500 calorie deficit if not more.

  24. johnbarban Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Mike,

    You don’t have a 500 calorie deficit. There are far too many errors inherent with calorie counting to ever be completely sure how many calories you’re ingesting and burning. The safe bet for weight loss is to always assume you’re eating more calories than you’re estimating and assume your burning less than your estimating.

    And it actually takes more than 500 calories deficit per day to lose 1 pound of fat in a week. There is an associated metabolic cost of actually burning the fat, so to burn a pound of fat might actually be closer to a 4000 calorie deficit per week

    The obvious answer is you still have to eat less.

    JB

  25. Cooper Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Hi John, you’re really having to work at this blog post, lol. I like the point about the errors in calorie counting. I’ve always thought we need to be doing more calorie estimating than calorie counting. Whenever I try to count calories, I always notice the symptoms of what Brad calls OCE.

    Not sure if you noticed but I did clarify what I meant by ‘skinny fat’ above. It would be great to get an answer to this. I’ve probably answered it myself but I’d like to know if what I think is correct.

  26. johnbarban Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    Cooper,

    If you go really low calorie you will end up burning body fat. How you look underneath the fat is a matter of how much strength training you do. Some people have a nice looking physique without touching a weight, others don’t (which I suppose is your skinny fat person). But the differences aren’t going to be monumental. When you strip the fat away we’re all relatively similar (assuming no weight training). The differences in ‘natural’ muscle mass you would see would be from somatotype.

    JB

  27. Cooper Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Very interesting John. Thanks for clarifying! I better start working out harder. I’m noticing the fat stripping away but I it’s already looking like I’m going to be much skinnier than I’d hoped!

  28. Cooper Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    And I should add I was really skinny as a kid so it makes sense. All these years of trying to build muscle, all I was really doing was getting fat.

  29. Jordan Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    John, I’m a little confused by the statement: “There is an associated metabolic cost of actually burning the fat, so to burn a pound of fat might actually be closer to a 4000 calorie deficit per week”

    Why would a metabolic cost of burning fat mean that one needs a greater deficit?

  30. johnbarban Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    Jordan,

    Good point…my mistake, that logic only follows for the cost of storing not burning fat. It actually takes more than a 3500 calorie excess to store 1 pound of fat.

    The issue is that we’re never burning 100% fat alone. There is always some mix of fat as well as glucose being used as fuel. So even in a 500 calorie deficit all 500 calories aren’t coming from fat alone but rather some amount is coming from stored glycogen as well.

    JB

  31. Wood Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    So if we have twinns with same bodytype, hormone level etc. and the same training routine. 1 of them use every supplement (protein, mass gainger, glutamin, no, etc) and eat about 4000 kcal a day, the other only eat slightly under the BMR. (2000kcal) The result will be he same muscle mass? The 1st will be only fatter?

  32. biggahboy Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Hey JB I’ve been trying to help my cousin gain some strenght and muscle for afew months now & he has hit a plateau, he is 5’9 & weighs 150ish….his bench press is stuck at 145lbs. (He has not prior experience with weight training) How can I help him increase in strength and muscle gain? Or other how would you train a weak person to be stronger and muscular?

  33. Jordan Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    That makes sense. So it takes more than 3500 calories to store body fat, and it also takes more than a 3500 calorie deficit to burn one pound of body fat. So either way, the number is closer to 4000 than 3500.

  34. johnbarban Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    Biggahboy,

    If he wants to be able to bench press more he’s got to do a lot more bench pressing.

    My question would be, why does he want to be stronger?

    JB

  35. johnbarban Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    Wood,

    Correct.

    JB

  36. biggahboy Says:
    March 20th, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    Well John, he has no specific reason to be stronger other than to be able to push more weight, because he is not involved in any athletics or any form of competitive sports. Its more of a personal goal and just a desire to be able to lift more than he is right now.

  37. johnbarban Says:
    March 21st, 2010 at 11:02 am

    biggahboy,

    If he wants to be stronger on bench press, he’s gotta do a lot of bench pressing.

    JB

  38. Wood Says:
    March 21st, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    The food and supplement doesnt matter, so is there any method to speed up the muscle building process?

  39. johnbarban Says:
    March 21st, 2010 at 10:10 pm

    Wood,

    There is no way to speed up muscle building. That is why guys use steroids.

    This is also why guys who aren’t willing to use steroids get suckered into spending lots of money on supplements that don’t do anything.

    JB

  40. sule Says:
    March 23rd, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    thanks john for this blog post, its really awsome i just got one question.

    i read brad pilons book and it shows a study of people an 800 calorie liquid diet, so i wanted to try it. i initially lost 5kg fom ESE, but i wanted to ramp it uop. i then start lyle mcdonalds rapid fat loss. this was the same reasoning of your that i would not burn up muscle if i weight traing. i was consistently hitting the gym HARD, but only eating 700-800 calories a day from ONLY protein. i further lost 5KG. however after 3 weeks the fat loss stopeed imediately. on week 4 and 5, i did not loose ANYTHING. i mean for 2 weeks at that low cal deficit, i was pissed. so taking some advice i went on holiday, and did not train and ate anything i want. i gained 5kg, which i lost in 2 weeks when i came back through healthy eating( didnt care about cals just ate healthily) and circuit training.

    this past 2 weeks i resumed ESE, and even through in some protein only days ( 700-800 calories), yet i did not budge from 80kg. this seems to be my new set point, yet your theory says i would not plateu. what do i do to fix this? i cant go below such low calories can i?

  41. johnbarban Says:
    March 24th, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    Sule,

    You might not be eating exactly the amount of calories you think you are. You could actually be eating more than you think.

    Also, are you are measuring ‘weight loss’ not ‘fat loss’. After eating very low calorie for extended periods of time many people hit a plateau in “weight loss” due to edema (water retention). A temporary bump in calories might help get rid of the water retention.

    Bottom line is measuring ‘weight’ isn’t the same as ‘fat’.

    JB

  42. sule Says:
    March 24th, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    but john i am sure it is fat loss because i have lost no strength ( infact increased strength) on ever lift.

    also the calories were the exact same ( i have the same meals ), and yeh, the calories i ate at the time may have been more than what i thought but no more than say a thousand right? i cant go below this, can i?

    also the temporary bump in calories you mentioned, as i said, i took one week of eating liberally ( very high calories), and all i did was gain 5kg and then loose it. i never went to go below 80kg again :( i will weight in again this sunday, having had a carb up on the previous weekend. for this week i am having 2×24 hour fast, and 1 protein only day ( 800 calories give or take a hundred). and if i dont go below 80kg i dont know what else to do. everything you have said so far makes sense, but now that i am at a plateu everything is falling apart

  43. Jordan Says:
    March 24th, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    John, how long should that temporary bump in calories be?

  44. johnbarban Says:
    March 24th, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    Sule,

    Have you tried adding in a bit of extra exercise?

    JB

  45. sule Says:
    March 25th, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    no i actually havent tried that, would reccomend more cardio?

    right now i only trainig three times a weeek. doing full body circuits folowed by HIIT, VERY INTENSE, to the point where i am on the floor gasping for air. i thought this was all that was needed, brief but intense workouts?

  46. shred Says:
    May 5th, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    Hi John, thanks for the article. I have a question. I made some good gains while I was working out fairly consistently, however due to circumstance I couldn’t workout for about 3 or 4 months. I lost a lot of my gains but I have started working out. It has been about 3 or 4 weeks and I am still much weaker than I was before, yet I weigh around the same weight. My routine before was achieving a 10 reps for 3 sets of a weight, and then moving on (ex. 225 lbs 3 10 reps x 3 sets), but now I can barely press 225 lbs, maybe 3 reps max. I have been doing a 5×5 routine, and am working on achieving 215 lbs for 5×5. However, I’m not sure how my progress is, I was hoping for it to be faster. One week I was doing a reverse paramyd, 135lbs for warmup, then 185 lbs for 10 reps, and then when I got to 205 lbs I could only do it two or three times. Did I get weaker? Was it because my muscle endurance, besides the strength, is also way down? Should I go back to doing my old 10×3 routine? I have to admit I am disappointed.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>