BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General diet questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Unread 01-08-2018, 10:20 PM
Raquel130 Raquel130 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmy72 View Post
So two responses saying that that is not possible, but no real answer as to why ?? Because Im post menopausal and its not possible ? or because Im not on HRT and that is why its not possible ???? Really like some scientific answer to my original post, without hormone replacement, does that mean I will have difficulty gaining muscle ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmy72 View Post
Well I came on here looking for answers, was a pretty simple question that didn't get answered, but instead I read smart arse condescending replies.
Yeah, that's quite bizzarre and laughable! As if you posting bikini photos or saying you're bikini photoshoot ready, to "prove" your bodyfat% helps them in any way to answer your question on menopause and muscle gain! pfft!

So here's a serious...and scientific answer:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12673136
Resistance training in postmenopausal women with and without hormone therapy.

Abstract
PURPOSE:
The main purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of a 1-yr resistance-training program on body composition and muscle strength in postmenopausal women, and to describe the impact of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on body composition changes, with and without exercise. Secondarily, we wanted to study dose-response relationships between measures of program compliance and changes in primary outcomes.

METHODS:
Subjects were postmenopausal women (40-66 yr) randomly assigned to an exercise (EX) group (N = 117) and a nonexercise group (N = 116). The EX group participated in a 1 yr trainer-supervised resistance-training program, 60-75 min.d-1, 3 d.wk-1. Lean soft tissue (LST) and fat tissue (FT) changes were measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and strength by one-repetition maximum testing.

RESULTS:
Significant (P < 0.001) gains in LST were observed for women who exercised, regardless of HRT status, whereas women who did not exercise lost LST (P < 0.05) if they were not taking HRT, and gained LST (P = 0.08) if they were on HRT. The only significant FT losses were observed for women who exercised while on HRT (P < 0.05). Strength increases were observed at all sites (P < 0.001). Total weight lifted by subjects in their training sessions was a significant predictor of changes in LST (P < 0.001) and strength (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS:
Resistance and weight-bearing exercise significantly changed total and regional body composition in postmenopausal women by increasing LST in all women and decreasing FT in women on HRT. Hormone therapy showed no independent effects on body composition, but it protected nonexercising women from losses in LST. The lean and muscle strength changes observed were partially dependent on the volume of training, as expressed by attendance and total weight lifted in 1 yr of training.


So, the short answer is that regardless of your menopausal and HRT status, then yes, with resistance and weight bearing exercise, you can gain muscle.

Last edited by Raquel130 : 01-08-2018 at 10:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 01-09-2018, 01:55 AM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,877
Default

Its not quite as laughable as your inability for reading comprehension though. My guideline was to ascertain whether the bf% was legit or not.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 01-09-2018, 06:14 PM
holly70 holly70 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Michigan
Posts: 299
Default

Not sure what was condescending OP.

Take a pic of yourself. Compare here:



Quick way to check, other than calipers or DEXA scan.

It is unusual for an older woman to be that lean. Not impossible, but unusual.



Why do you want to start HRT? Are you having symptoms?

Looked into this myself and saw my doctor. My cycle was getting wonky...close together, far apart/skipped, and very heavy.

I started on continuous low dose BC (10 mg) and so far so good.

As far as breast cancer risk I wouldn't worry too much if you don't have a family history since another big risk factor is obesity and that doesn't seem to apply.

The study that scared women off using hormones was one where they started women that were many years past menopause on estrogen.

Studies since then that look at women that start hormone treatment right away vs. years after menses stops don't seem to show a significant increase in breast cancer.

Got my info from here:
https://www.amazon.com/Menopause-Con...nopause+secret

She recommends continuous BC until 55 then trying to drop it and see if you are over it, or, IOW if you resume menstruation or suffer an major symptoms.

ETA: Re-read and saw you hit menopause at 38. So I guess it may depend how long ago that was.

Last edited by holly70 : 01-09-2018 at 06:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 01-10-2018, 07:19 AM
Raquel130 Raquel130 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by holly70 View Post
Not sure what was condescending OP.

Take a pic of yourself. Compare here:.........

Quick way to check, other than calipers or DEXA scan.

It is unusual for an older woman to be that lean. Not impossible, but unusual.
Arguing about what one's bodyfat is or isn't, especially for women, is meaningless considering the different methods mean you're just comparing apples to oranges. 18% on those images is NOT going to be 18% on a DEXA (that would be very lean as Lyle said). Those pictures will likely be at least 5-10 points higher on a DEXA. So even that chart stating what's a good % or not, is also meaningless (as a guide) because it doesn't state what method was used. Again, apples to oranges.

Plus, she said she's just 56kgs, that's 123 lbs! Looking at the ones at 18-19%, they look like they could be in that weight range. Plus we don't know how tall she is. And she said she exercises 5x/week, I'm not seeing what the big deal is, or why she couldn't be, even if we went by those images. And the fact she's "older" is also meaningless. Last year when I dropped to 116 lbs, I looked like the girls at 18% in those pictures, and I'm in my 40s. But I'm sure a dexa would have read closer to 25%. Right now, at 128 lbs, I could fall between 22-25% on those images but my body fat scale (which was identical to my dexa last month), currently puts me at 33%, with my waist at ~26" and hips at ~35". Other methods like the waist/hips/neck formula put me at 23%. It's all apples to oranges.

Last edited by Raquel130 : 01-10-2018 at 07:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 01-10-2018, 08:55 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,150
Default

DEXA give systematically higher BF% readings than older methods, 3-6% higher.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 01-10-2018, 08:57 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmy72 View Post
Yeah have bodyfat scales used at the gym current weight is between 56-57kg ...why do you say its off ???
BIA/bodyfat scales are garbage. That's why.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 01-10-2018, 09:13 AM
zLeeKo's Avatar
zLeeKo zLeeKo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 773
Default

Mirror > DEXA.

Someone should publish a book with images of all body fat percentages of both men and women. That would be awesome.
__________________
"He never had the makings of a varsity athlete"
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 01-10-2018, 10:31 AM
Determinism Determinism is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zLeeKo View Post
Mirror > DEXA.

Someone should publish a book with images of all body fat percentages of both men and women. That would be awesome.
Two words: fat partitioning.

Some guys/girls look awesome at relatively high BF%. But some will definitely not. The more you deviate from the "norm" (whatever the norm is), the less accurate eyeballing the mirror becomes. Whether that is for esthetic purposes or guestimating BF%.

In addition, the ones with bad genetics are "screwed". They need to diet down way below their settling point (before they look even remotely esthetic). It's hardly maintainable, let alone advisable.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 01-10-2018, 10:41 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post
Two words: fat partitioning.

Some guys/girls look awesome at relatively high BF%. But some will definitely not. The more you deviate from the "norm" (whatever the norm is), the less accurate eyeballing the mirror becomes. Whether that is for esthetic purposes or guestimating BF%.

In addition, the ones with bad genetics are "screwed". They need to diet down way below their settling point (before they look even remotely esthetic). It's hardly maintainable, let alone advisable.
People with 'even' fat patterning look good at higher BF%. But when they diet it seems like nothing is happening visually until BOOM it happens overnight.

People with traditional male/female fat patterning see everything else get lean before the stubborn areas.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.