Losing Size

I'm just starting foundation 1 and am wondering if I will retain the muscle size that I have worked for years to gain.  I'm a small framed guy so I don't retain my size easily.  Did people who switched from lifting weights to foundation one loose size?  I realize later down the road I will gain it back, but for now should I add just some basic weight exercises to retain muscle? but I'm also worried by doing so I may cut into my recovery.

I know gymnasts try to avoid building large muscle mass but I'm not looking to compete or anything in the future.  I know it's a bit shallow but aesthetics, strength and mobility are my main goals.

Thanks

Follow F1, do some extra mobility on the side, and make sure you get enough sleep and enough food. You will maintain.

blueonblack0 said:

I'm just starting foundation 1 and am wondering if I will retain the muscle size that I have worked for years to gain.  I'm a small framed guy so I don't retain my size easily.  Did people who switched from lifting weights to foundation one loose size?  I realize later down the road I will gain it back, but for now should I add just some basic weight exercises to retain muscle? but I'm also worried by doing so I may cut into my recovery.

 

I know gymnasts try to avoid building large muscle mass but I'm not looking to compete or anything in the future.  I know it's a bit shallow but aesthetics, strength and mobility are my main goals.

 

Thanks

I had the same thoughts about loosing size from doing this style of training and I believe it comes down to clearly defining what your intentions are for gymnastic training. Since you're in the same boat as me with not really looking to compete at all in the future but doing this for fun and challenge; I think this should be refined some more as a specific goal for your next/current cycle.

I broke down this methodology as do I want to make gymnastic training my main staple of training with intention to focus on getting advanced moves or is it just supplementary work for something else like aesthetics and weightlifting?

Personally I couldn't stay away from the weight lifting world forever as I love deadlifting so I plan to have a separate powerlifting cycle for it altogether with calisthenics thrown in as accessory exercises to allow a familiarity of body weight exercise conditioning (possibly weighted) without doing barbell squats at an intensity, volume, and frequency level to cause hypertrophy but just strength and conditioning (aka barbell complexes). Once a week, I think it would be best to have a single barbell ATG squat session for maximal strength if you wanted to for fun and if you have plenty of energy.

There's nothing wrong with aesthetics if that is what makes you happy. In the end that's what really counts when it comes to training.

If you aren't enjoying the process nor the results coming from your current training program/sport, you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place aha. Adding size from hypertrophy just makes gymnastics training goals that much harder and longer to achieve than it is by adding your own body tissue slowly over time but it does allow potential for more gains in maximal strength. (Granted, the process to even put on tissue is long and tedious with specifically training for hypertrophy in its own right..but that's for another discussion altogether and it's not entirely relevant to GST.)

One thing you could do is try resistance bands for gradually increasing maximal strength which will therefore allow some hypertrophy that is specific to this sport. I've seen folks tie them to rings for dips and iron crosses to become stronger as they slowly decease the thickness of the bands they use alongside reps, sets, and tempo.

Think to bare in mind that coach's program (I've seen so far, who knows what will be released for F3 or F4) doesn't have bands included in training so if you do decide to use them, its based on your own experience with how in tune you are with your body and understanding how to include bands into his program. It couldn't hurt to mess around with them and experiment if you have some.

I made the switch 3 months ago. I have dropped 5 kg though this is mainly extra fat and from my legs. However the latter is skewed as I have an ankle injury and am going very easy on the SLS. Though I do believe reading from what others have said you will loose size on your legs.

As for upper body I am curious as to what others have experienced. For me I believe I have gotten a little bit smaller but everything is changing shape and as such I am looking strong. My chest has changed, my arms are expanding and my stomach and back is straightening really helping my posture!!! 

This is all from PE1's and only three months. Scared as to what will happen after a year or two.

All in all you might sure, but for me it's worth it. Especially since I saw a circus last night and am incredibly enthused. I'd rather do amazing feats than lift a heavy thing up and put it back down again. (With the exception of C&J and snatch). On that note this stuff makes you feel young again!

You don't have to choose between lifting heavy things, performing cool feats of bodyweight strength, and/or feeling young

The key is to make sure you know what's important. The integrated mobility of F1 is the most important part of feeling young, but the complexity and novelty of even the "simple" PE1 exercises will stimulate more neural development. You're teaching your brain new patterns, and that influences a LOT of things.

If you're afraid of losing size in a specific area, like your legs, do a set or two of squats on the leg day. You will maintain, believe me. I seriously doubt there's much need to worry about upper body mass. If you already have a lot, and your development is fairly balanced, you're going to move through a lot of the F1 exercises fairly quickly, and you will not lose any mass. If you're unbalanced, you are honestly better off letting your body redistribute its mass as you progress through Foundation. You will look better, probably feel better, and definitely be more injury-proof.

I started F1 and H1 in about March and, although I think I'm making pretty slow progress through the elements, I'm definitely gaining size in my upper body.

My biceps look bigger than before and feel really round and full, my shoulders look much wider than before, and are especially significantly improved in the rear delt. My traps are much improved (probably mostly down to H1 PE1 IM!) and I actually have visible abs and obliques for the first time ever. Not great ones but abs nonetheless.

Granted I probably wasn't as fit as you when I started this, and I didn't want this post to be about me congratulating myself, but I just wanted to share with any doubters that this program does build muscle as well as strength and flexibility.

I spent years trying to get size. All I did was create dysfunction and asymmetries in my body. I know it may seem important, but it is an unhealthy focus. I think if you focus on what you can achieve with your body in terms of performance you will end up with a better looking and healthy body.

As you get further into Foundation and Handstand the exercises will be more than enough.

I can not answer your question. However, I feel like there are missing details here. Height, weight, bf, previous activity, etc. 

Also, remember that if you do lose some mass, it will be much easier to put back on later, than it was to aquire in the first place. The anatomical changes from previous training (cell-wise) are not un-done by not maintaining your muscles. Some parts of the muscle cells shut down so to speak, but will restart fairly easily when you need them (with sufficient training stimuli). 

Sorry for "spamming" this discussion. Kasper, could you please suggest some references on what you stated? I'd be interested in having a look at them. Thanks a lot!

Kasper Stangerup said:

Also, remember that if you do lose some mass, it will be a bit easier to put back on later, than it was to acquire in the first place. 

That is true. My changes are in bold.

 

The anatomical changes from previous training (cell-wise) are not un-done by not maintaining your muscles. Some parts of the muscle cells shut down so to speak, but will restart fairly easily when you need them (with sufficient training stimuli). 

That is not really true. the number of sarcomeres in series changes, capillary density changes, mitochondrial size and density changes intercellular connective protein linkages change, myosin heavy chain types change, and the number of parallel myofibrils can change, to name a few things. It depends on what timeframe we are looking at.

Put another way, if this WERE true you would never have to work out again in order to keep your muscle mass, or anaerobic endurance, or blood pressure improvements, but we know better than that.

Your first sentence and your second are in direct contradiction, because if no anatomical changes disappear when one doesn't train there is no need to rebuild muscle, because it does not disappear. Even if that first sentence wasn't there, what you have said regarding anatomical changes is completely incorrect. 

That's why I asked for references, I wanted to look at the experimental setting people have used to come up with such statements. As if this would have been true, it would have had a huge impact on regenerative medicine as well.

You may find the following post helpful; where Alex shows that he not only maintained, but improved his strength despite only focusing on F1:

https://www.gymnasticbodies.com/forum/topic/12737-playing-with-hbp-while-maintaining-my-f2/

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

My experience:

After 3-4 months of F1 and and one month of H1 my body composition have changed to the better. I feel leaner, stronger and more mobile and I have stopped all weight training since starting Foundation as I feel it's not nessesary. If I ever decide to add some weight training in the future I know I will benifit more from it as I will be more well-rounded as an athlete after building a good foundation.

 

Put another way, if this WERE true you would never have to work out again in order to keep your muscle mass, or anaerobic endurance, or blood pressure improvements, but we know better than that.

 

 

I wasn't saying that no changes take place during a lay-off from training. What I was saying was that you do not move back to square one even after months of inactivity. I'm deliberately vague about the exact anatomical effects, since I have not read this article myself (my MSc is in chemical engineering, not physiology), but only had it paraphrased to me a couple of years ago. For this reason, I can't give you the refs either. 

The gist of the article as I remember it was this: If you have built actual increased mucle mass (myofibrillar, not just sarcoplasmic growth), then if you have a lay-off in your training for some reason (eg. injury or change of lifestyle) you will not lose everything that you have built. So the cells do not undergo complete apoptosis, but are simply "reduced" in some way. IIRC, only a few elements of the original cells remain (nucleii maybe?), so you do have to work in order to regain your size, but it will be easier than building that size in the first place.

 

 

Your first sentence and your second are in direct contradiction, because if no anatomical changes disappear when one doesn't train there is no need to rebuild muscle, because it does not disappear.

I believe the misunderstanding is a matter of semantics, specifically my use of the word "undone" which means

 

 

To reverse or erase; annul

according to TheFreeDictionary. So when I say that the anatomical changes are not un-done by not maintaining yours muscles, I mean that these changes are not erased, or completely reversed (unspecified time frame).

I will gladly concede that I'm no expert in this field (and I will not guarantee the veracity of the article, though it is consistent with my own experience), but I take exception to people claiming that I contradict myself. 

I said that your statements, as written, do contradict each other. I am sorry if you disagree, but that's what happens when you repeat information that came from a secondary source along with using non-specific language. It happens to me too... just a part of life at times. I'm not saying you're an idiot, you are clearly not! I realize that your intent was different than it originally appeared, and I appreciate the explanation.

I do happen to be an expert in this area, physiology, and I can tell you for sure that everything in this area is age, activity level, nutritionally dependent and time-frame dependent, to say the least. 

There appears to be very little mass difference over the first 4 weeks of inactivity, but after that you do appear to start to lose myofibrils.  When I say lose, I mean they are no longer there. Erased. Annulled. Pick whatever word you like that means "gone." These are real, anatomical structures.

Transcriptional factors are also lost, and have to be rebuilt when you start exercising again. They don't just "shut down," the ones you lose are literally not there when you lose them due to lack of exercise. You make more of then when you start exercising again. Same goes for cytoplasmic enzymes and mitochondria.

You won't lose myofibers, which are the muscle cells themselves, until you hit the age of 60 or so, at least according to the body of research that is out there. You lose myofibrils, which are the actual contractile proteins that create force. Of course, the predominant opinion in existing research is that you don't GAIN myofibers either when you exercise, but I don't believe that's a hard and fast rule. I have absolutely no idea whether you would lose myofibers that you gained as a result of exercise, if they were not a part of your baseline numbers... that's so far outside of the current body of research that there's just no way to have much of a real discussion about it

You don't go back to square one if you've been training for years and you take 6 months off, in terms of mass OR strength, but you really do go back to square one in terms of cellular recovery ability and resistance to eccentric damage. And, of course, you adapt to it quite rapidly, just like you did at first. However, if you wait long enough you can absolutely lose everything you gained, particularly if your nutrition really sucks. This complete reversal, under normal circumstances, would take a long time. I have no way to estimate how long because of how many variables can affect muscle mass retention.

You won't lose myofibers, which are the muscle cells themselves, until you hit the age of 60 or so, at least according to the body of research that is out there. You lose myofibrils, which are the actual contractile proteins that create force. Of course, the predominant opinion in existing research is that you don't GAIN myofibers either when you exercise, but I don't believe that's a hard and fast rule. I have absolutely no idea whether you would lose myofibers that you gained as a result of exercise, if they were not a part of your baseline numbers... that's so far outside of the current body of research that there's just no way to have much of a real discussion about it

There is a good bit of research that does suggest that it takes around 33% less time to put on the amount of muscle mass you have previously carried,if you used to be bigger. I am not sure if we know exactly why this is... I am familiar with a few hypotheses such as fascial stretching, myostatin downregulation, other temporary epigenetic changes, and perhaps there are a few more nuclei in the muscle cells for a certain period of time... Whatever the case may be, it seems that the longer you wait to start rebuilding the less of an accelerated growth you will see.

The genes that code for these proteins will become more methylated, which makes them less active (so this part could be referred to as shut down a bit), and will become hypomethylated as you exercise regularly and call on them to work more often. What's really cool about this is that these same changes seem to be passed on in gametes, which means that you can pass on your adaptations to a more physical lifestyle to some degree. You can give your children a better genetic "baseline" from which to start, and the reverse is true if you decide to have kids during a particularly inactive and unhealthy period in your life. It's not the end of the world, of course, but an extra advantage never hurts.

Nice info Joshua, thank you. I have been out of the works due to injury since July with a broken clavicle, I have wondered about the atrophy - the effects of inactivity, and what will happen when I start again.

Joshua Naterman said:

(...)  these same changes seem to be passed on in gametes, which means that you can pass on your adaptations to a more physical lifestyle to some degree. You can give your children a better genetic "baseline" from which to start, and the reverse is true if you decide to have kids during a particularly inactive and unhealthy period in your life. It's not the end of the world, of course, but an extra advantage never hurts.

This is really interesting Joshua, thanks for bringing that up!

Do you have knowledge of other traits that could be transmitted like this?

Very well written! I work in epigenetics/epigenomics and yes, indeed, dynamic DNA methylation patterns have been extensively reported in the system. Fred, yes there is more to come, these are traits that are mitotically inherited at first and meiotically stable.

But...you don't give your children a better genetic setup, you give them a better epigenetic setup. Interestingly enough, however, methylation patterns are erased in the embryo before being re-established. A lot of research, e.g. on imprinted loci, is getting us to unravel an amazing complexity in the field.

federicoC said:

Very well written! I work in epigenetics/epigenomics and yes, indeed, dynamic DNA methylation patterns have been extensively reported in the system. Fred, yes there is more to come, these are traits that are mitotically inherited at first and meiotically stable.

 

But...you don't give your children a better genetic setup, you give them a better epigenetic setup. Interestingly enough, however, methylation patterns are erased in the embryo before being re-established. A lot of research, e.g. on imprinted loci, is getting us to unravel an amazing complexity in the field.

Thanks, my knowledge in Genetics dates from Mendel....................

You guys are actually answering the questions and wonders we had 30 years ago, this is great!

federicoC said:

Very well written! I work in epigenetics/epigenomics and yes, indeed, dynamic DNA methylation patterns have been extensively reported in the system. Fred, yes there is more to come, these are traits that are mitotically inherited at first and meiotically stable.

 

But...you don't give your children a better genetic setup, you give them a better epigenetic setup. Interestingly enough, however, methylation patterns are erased in the embryo before being re-established. A lot of research, e.g. on imprinted loci, is getting us to unravel an amazing complexity in the field.

Iam certainly not an epigenetics expert I have some knowledge, but not the whole picture. I don't even know if there is a whole picture to have, yet! An exciting field though, for sure.

A question for you: My understanding is that, based on studies in mice at least, there is a higher prevalence of obesity, on an isocaloric diet, in the children that come from parents who are both eating poorly and not physically active for several months before and during conception, as compared to children who come from parent mice with a healthier lifestyle. The specifics I am familiar with are that this has been recorded with just a single parent, both female and male,  contributing a gamete during this period of activity. This appears to be epigenetics that gets passed on as some kind of a shift towards adaptations the parents made during gamete production and maturation. Since this has happened even in healthy female + unhealthy male combinations, to my knowledge at least, that seems to indicate that even if the mother is healthy during pregnancy (which is of course important) the prior lifestyle of the father still seems to exert an influence.

Do you think that this represents the epigenetic methylation patterns of the parents being partially or fully re-established in the forming embryo, or are there alternate hypotheses that are being formed to explain this?

I guess epigenetic setup is a much better term, since the actual codons aren't changing. Thanks for all the info, looking forward to more!

Just to tell you a bit more, I am not an "expert", I am just doing my PhD (3rd year) in ETH Zurich. Should you want to have a closer look, here is a link to our website: http://www.bsse.ethz.ch/egg

Our interest within epigenetics is more on the basic mechanisms underlying maintenance of cellular identity, e.g. the role of PcG (Polycomb) / trx (trithorax) group proteins in determining cell fate. Particularly, my personal interest is on how established patterns of gene regulation are challenged by DNA replication and how do they survive this genome-wide process that requires disruption and accurate reassembly of chromatin structure at each and every cell cycle. Overall, I am a computational biologist with a biology (biotech) background, so I can basically cover a broad range of subjects with decent depth.

Coming back to your question. I can tell you that to my knowledge there is no clear picture yet. The field of environmental epigenetics, whereby an external stimulus is integrated at chromatin and possibly trans-generationally inherited, is very controversial. It is true, certainly true, that environmental stimuli do modulate classical epigenetic patterns such as changes in histone modifications or extent of DNA methylation of CpG islands. However, one has to be extremely careful in distinguishing between changes that occur very rapidly, and hence that can transiently affect chromatin (e.g. transcriptional readouts) from changes that can be memorized (namely, that at least survive the cell cycle and are established either de novo or from templating processes). 

If you want me to be more precise, you can maybe give me the original references you read. I'll be happy (and interested) in having a closer look.

Absolutely fascinating topic.

 

 

There is a good bit of research that does suggest that it takes around 33% less time to put on the amount of muscle mass you have previously carried,if you used to be bigger. I am not sure if we know exactly why this is... I am familiar with a few hypotheses such as fascial stretching, myostatin downregulation, other temporary epigenetic changes, and perhaps there are a few more nuclei in the muscle cells for a certain period of time...

This sounds like the kind of study I was referring to. I do know that you are a physiology professional, so I'm not doing anything other than repeating what I have been told (which I would argue is all you can ever do, unless you do the study your self). 

Regarding the time frame, the original poster was worried over potential size loss until the excercises in F1 become sufficiently challenging. From his description it sounds as if he is quite strong, so he should be able to test out of a few of the PEs and soon find himself doing excercises that are sufficiently challenging. So, I would estimate a timeframe of about 4-8 months. 

When I was partially paralyzed from a neck-injury some years ago, the affected muscles deflated in almost no time (I couldn't tense them at all, so loss of muscle tone was doubtless part of it). The condition persisted for some months, after which I began rehab and then, after a few more months, real strength training. It only took about three months from this point for me to reach my previous level of strength and size. 

A similar course of events took place earlier in my life, in connection with a semi-serious disease which caused me to be bed-ridden but unable to sleep and with almost zero appetite for a prolonged period. I lost about 20 % of my bodyweight (and I was lean to begin with), and had to put a pillow on my chair because my glutes were almost gone. 

However, once I had recovered from the disease itself, I regained my strength and size within about 6 months.

Your last experience is really impressive. 20% of BW from a lean body must be sick and tough.

In my case, I faced a completely different situation, though with completely different stimuli. I always face difficulties in gaining weight. When I started PLing, I moved from 65-67kg to 80kg in 4 years, and I could do that only by far exceeding my estimated maintenance calories intake.

After that, back to cycling for <2 years (with still 2/3 sessions/week in the gym) was sufficient to reach back to 70. 20 days ago I was 70.0 sharp. I then gradually increased my kcal and reached a stable intake at ~3000 for the last 10 days. Then, I started to gain a little bit and I'm now slightly above 71.