How long is it scientifically possible to hold onto muscle mass?

[BiggerThanYou]

My question is not HOW to preserve that mass, but how LONG will it take (considering my caloric intake stays the same) for my muscle mass to start decreasing? I'll be forced to go around 3 months without weights. How long do you think I have? My activity level will still be up (playing various sports, teaching swimming, working as a lifeguard, ect.), but the heavy weights I usually utilize will not be able to be part of my routine.
Thanks,
Scott

[Matthew]

I read somewhere that after a week you will notice your muscle size starting to decrease. Strength will take longer. Don't quote me on that though, and remember it doesn't just vanish, it's a long process.
If you cant use weights, why not try the 'death by bodyweight' program in the Fitness FAQ section?
A suggestion, eat as close to maintenance as possible. You don't want to be gaining fat, but losing fat usually also means losing muscle, though a smaller amount of muscle will be lost than fat.

[Matthew]

Maybe that was two weeks..

[ninja]

I think it's actually closer to six Matt. Because programs like the Smolov squat program have you take 3 weeks off after your three week cycle. When you test your new max after those three off weeks, you will be a lot stronger.

[][P3trarch]

He said a week for mass and longer for strength 0o... you might have missed that ^^

[Rev]

Slitely off topic but check this out.

Allright, I got all this background info out of science and practice of strength training, page 63, I'm not even close to this smart off the top of my head.

Background Info:

"Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy of muscle fibers is characterized by the growth of sarcoplasm (semifluid interfibrillar substance) and noncontractile proteins that do not directly contribute to production of muscle force."

"Myofibrillar hypertrophy is an enlargement of the muscle fiber as it gains more myofibrils and, correspondingly, more actin and myosin filaments. At the same time, contractile proteins are synthesized and filament density (the ratio of filament area to the muscle fiber area) increases. This type of fiber hypertrophy leads to increased muscle force production."

Myofibrils, actin, and myosin filaments gained by low rep strength training (ie maximal weight training).

versus

Sarcoplasm gained by higher rep endurance training (ie bodybuidling).

Which one of these forms of hypertrophy will have a longer sustaining effect?

I honestly don't know, I would guess and I've read a few books (granted it was written by Franco Columbu) that claim myofibril hypertrophy is sustained at a MUCH greater success than sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. And it is a known fact myofibril hypertrophy consist of higher filament density which pushes the notion.

[kylie]

After just a week without strenght or weight training, muscle mass seems to decrese slowly. But since you are a very active athlete, I am pretty sure you will maintain your shape, just not as much as when you exercised and stayed active.

[BiggerThanYou]

Well, I'm sure that every athlete's genetics, background, and previous training experience does come into play here.
However, I'm fairly confident it has to take more than a week. I've taken around 2 weeks off before to detrain, and take many back of weeks (where volume/intensity is lower than a normal workout). Also, every 2 months I take an entire week off from the weights. I never see and difference in muscle mass after 1, or even 2 weeks.
I was just wondering if anyone had a relative number. 3 weeks? 4 weeks? 2 months?
JP? Bill? Kaiser?

[kylie]

Of course muscle mass will not decrease visibly but scientifically proven, muscle mass decreases after seven days without any training at all. But it all comes up to how long and how much you have been exercising.
If the trainer is a beginner and declines to continue workouts for more than five days after, there will be a slight more decrease. It is considered "as if they have never worked out before."
But if you are a body builder, athlete, etc. the muscle mass will not eventually slow down in just a week. But it has been proven, that muscle mass will go down no matter what exercise routine you have. It is the amount that differs.

[von_Hayes]

reversal of hypertrophy can occur almost as rapidly as the hypertrophy process. RNA and protein are lost more rapidly than DNA.

[Jake]

I don't know much about science, but my personal anecdotal evidence: I spent 4 months last year in Quito, Ecuador. Before I left, I was eating the "standard" 3500 Kcals/day + heavy weight lifting, etc. In Ecuador, I lived at 10,000 feet elevation, ate 1500-2000 Kcals of mostly rice, didn't touch a weight, and did tons of endurance activity (distance running, hiking, high altitude mountaineering). At times, I had a hard time falling asleep at night because I was so hungry. Still, over 4 months of this, I only lost about 8 pounds of muscle and 7 pounds of fat. (And I could run 9 miles at 10,000 feet without breathing hard!) Upon returning to the US, I found it very easy to put the weight back on.

So, my advice: have fun and don't stress about losing mass. You can always get it back!

Hope that helps,
Jake

[Kaiser]

Originally posted by BiggerThanYou:

JP? Bill? Kaiser?

Wow - I'm honored to be listed on the same line as JP and Bill. [img]smile.gif[/img] Unfortunately, I have no idea, other than my own anecdotal evidence, but as others have mentioned, I think any individual's response will be just that - highly individual. But mnaybe one of the experts will have a study they've read with some general guidelines.

[Matthew]

I read in here that it takes only one day a week of lifting weights to maintain your current muscle mass. So doesn't that kind of suggest that after a week with zero training your muscle mass will star to decrease?
From personal experience, I notice tiny decreases in definition when I am not lifting for a week or more, it could be that I've gained fat or it could be that I've lost muscle. Everyone is different, but I think six weeks may be stretching it a little bit. I'll try and look around for some articles or something.

[BiggerThanYou]

Originally posted by Kaiser:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BiggerThanYou:

JP? Bill? Kaiser?

Wow - I'm honored to be listed on the same line as JP and Bill. [img]smile.gif[/img] Unfortunately, I have no idea, other than my own anecdotal evidence, but as others have mentioned, I think any individual's response will be just that - highly individual. But mnaybe one of the experts will have a study they've read with some general guidelines. [/quote]I've read a lot of your posts. You always have solid ideas...what happened this time? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Matt,
I understand what you are getting at now. By saying "muscle mass decreases" one can get the idea that they will see visible changes. However, you can lose muscle mass without seeing changes in the mirror (whoops!).

What I'm looking for here is just a relative number (maybe an average) coupled with a little scientific evidence that states how long it will take (considering I maintain around the same caloric intake and am still active, while noting that genetics will play a part) to start seeing noticeable changes in the mirror.

[Kaiser]

OK, maybe you're right. [img]smile.gif[/img]

So here's the answer: "research has shown that when you stop training, you experience a loss in muscle size of about 1% to 3% per week." (actually, I just read it in May's MF [page 117] - and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night).

[von_Hayes]

After 7 days of hypertrophy you can see increases in protein, RNA and Dna. On removal of the stimulus, regression back to normal weight and composition is complete in about 13 days except for total DNA content, which was still elevated after 29 days of regression. This process takes longer the longer you work out. for instance After 28 days of hypertrophy, the total amount of protein, RNA, DNA, and collagen are elevated. removal of the stimulus regression is again rapid, but reversal of the hypertrophy is not complete 35 days later .