Originally Posted by
Jxhalt
I have read the book and enjoy the Youtube videos. The straightforward programming and the philosophy & community has been a huge help to me and without it I think I would have ever made real progress on my physical fitness if I had not stumbled upon it on Art of Manliness.
I am familiar with the maxim or motto that strength is the most important thing in life. My question is why isn't, say, skeletal muscle tissue (somewhat relative to overall weight) not the most important thing in life?
I am an intermediate trainee, unlike most posters on this internet admittedly lazy at times & not especially tough mentally, and liking to indulge in food, not work out for various periods and vote for moderate Democrats - but I followed the program quite well during coronavirus May-August in my garage, and my maxes were B 245 / S 345 / D 420. At the end of that run of some modicum of discipline I was barefoot 5-10 190, eating so much that all the minimum macros any nutrition plan would suggest were met without thinking about it including 190 g+ protein.
I began to feel fat in the thighs, double chinned, a little bellied and very slightly tittied - maybe even pink, clothes not fitting. The rate of progress on the lifts had really started to slow, and anytime we were away from the home gym at the lake or beach, when I came back the resets were big so I was spinning my wheels. I also had to take two breaks from some or most lifts due to tendonitis in my bicep and knee - I am 44.
As a result of this, I more recently downloaded myfitness pal, and lost 17 lbs with disciplined dieting (lot easier than strength training, creating about a 500 cal deficit between food and exercise). Bodyfat scans and other measurements were done more than once, at both beginning and current, and suggested I had at least 152 lbs lean mass before the diet, and at least 150 after. We can debate the accuracy of these things but my point is that change was small relative to strength loss. (I still have significantly more lean mass than when I did not work out in mid 2010s, about 20-25 lbs, but I had lost some gains I made lifting some in college and that came back quickly).
I continue to lift weights including the four major lifts and the chin-ups during the diet.
At the 173 bw, all the physical appearance problems went away. I did lose a lot of strength. Those lifts, while not tested (feeling lazy due to 2000 kcal day diet), are around 215 lb B / 295 S / 345 DL, by my best estimate - I have not tested 1RM because I am quite tired. I think I could get those numbers up significantly before new weight gain began by eating maintenance for a week or so, but still far below my summer personal bests other than chin-ups)
So I have lost this strength, but the amount of muscle loss is pretty low. 2 lbs of lean mass lost relative to 15 pounds of fat give or take.
In addition to my own qualms, I got some inspiration by Mike Matthews who I saw on your Youtube. He told me in his own videos "Don't ever let fat people tell you you shouldn't be lean." It was almost as straightforward as "strength is the most important thing in life."
Isn't keeping 150/152 lbs lean mass good enough (in percentage terms, even if you think it is not enough for someone 5-10)? Why should I care about deadlifting another 70 lbs? Isn't the muscle more important than the strength, when the strength is realistically already in the top 10% of US population for that bodyweight?) It is easier to play basketball with the kids, run when needed, and just generally not feel so heavy. Resting heart rate and other cardiovascular markers also improved.
I am trying to decide whether to get back on the real strength progression, or just keep close to this weight if I can make some progressive overload progress, even if very slow.