How long does it take to lose muscle?

aberry33 · 01-Mar-04, 12:54 AM

I had an injury and it's kept me from lifting my upper body for 4 weeks now but I should be getting back into the gym this week. Since then i've been doing legs and also keeping my protein intake high. I was just wondering if there have been any type of studies showing how long it takes an unworked muscle to start getting smaller. I've heard around 7 weeks but that just seems like a long time to maintain muscle without working it out any.

Teach · 01-Mar-04, 07:21 PM

About twenty years ago in Strength and Fitness class in college coach told us you started to lose 2% of your strength after 48 hours of not exercising it. I think alot depends on diet and exercise. On my rest week after about lifting for eight I find my strength about the same if I eat well and rest. However, If I eat alot of junk food and stay up late watching ballgames I find my strenght is less.

DaRkAnGel · 01-Mar-04, 08:52 PM

Well i do not think you can lose your strength in 2 days, permanently at least. You can lose it if say you havn't had a meal in a few hours, but not permanently. The catabolic state does not take place until you have depleted muscle glycogen i believe and then your body takes in your muscles and fat as fuel. Now there is increased protein synthesis up to 48 hours after a workout, but for the time after this you are just balancing nutrients within your boidy and the time would really depend i believe.

Goon · 01-Mar-04, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaRkAnGel

Well i do not think you can lose your strength in 2 days, permanently at least. You can lose it if say you havn't had a meal in a few hours, but not permanently. The catabolic state does not take place until you have depleted muscle glycogen i believe and then your body takes in your muscles and fat as fuel. Now there is increased protein synthesis up to 48 hours after a workout, but for the time after this you are just balancing nutrients within your boidy and the time would really depend i believe.

I've done many a search, and still have found no good sources that say it is better to do cardio in the morning on an empty stomach rather than when youre have glycogen ready to burn. Wouln't cardio on an empty stomach be totally defeating the purpose (ie. burning a greater ratio of muscle to fat)? Anyone?

CJNY · 02-Mar-04, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberry33

I was just wondering if there have been any type of studies showing how long it takes an unworked muscle to start getting smaller.

Don't know about published studies, but I did no upper body work for over a month once due to an injury. I did do some squats and other lower body work. I lost no weight, gained no measurable fat and, when I returned to full training, my upper body strength was almost unchanged. I lost at most 1 rep on a max set of some exercises.

**Firehawk** · 02-Mar-04, 08:03 AM

Goon, heres an interesting article all about cardio.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/likness24.htm

I disagree with it about the morning thing. IT claims to do cardio when you are feeling your best. I kinda disagree with this statement, because it believes you should do cardio at night or later in the day when you are loaded with energy.

IMO, your fat will not get used if you do that. You only feel loaded with energy because your glycogen stores are all full. Doing cardio in the morning, your body is forced to use the fat for energy. Thats why I personally believe cardio in the morning is better.

Also, your metabolism gets spiked if you work out in the morning, thereby you should be burning more calories the rest of the day. If you do cardio in the evening, then go to sleep a few hours later, you dont get quite the same effect, its like you are working against it. Thats just my 2 cents.

Besides, after about a week of doing it in the morning, your body starts to EXPECT you to be doing workouts in the AM and you awaken much easier, at least i do now.

In fact, I cannot believe i did 12 weeks worth of workouts prior to these past 4 weeks now at night. I wish i woulda done them all in the morning.

Mark350 · 02-Mar-04, 05:56 PM

Depends on what shape you were in. If you where competion worthy, muscle atrophy happens a lot faster, like 2-3 weeks. If you weren't than it will take something like 6 weeks. Got that out of Muscle and Fitness.

mesomorph · 03-Mar-04, 09:38 PM

Found a useful text with a single paragraph under a sub heading of "reversibility".
In summary, it states that, generally we lose aerobic fitness faster than anaerobic as the muscles quickly lose their ability to effeciently utilise O2.
Strength gains are lost at about ONE THIRD of their rate of gain. (World of Sport Examined, Beashel,Taylor 1997) eg 4wks to gain/improve/progress, 12 wks to get back to original start position
Therefore it's not unusual for long time, experienced lifters to leave the gym for extended periods of time and come back with only minimal losses to catch up.
Mate, I'm officially no longer paranoid about missing my w/o!! lol cheers

buff151 · 04-Mar-04, 11:53 AM

I have not located the study I am citing yet, but I do remember research being done that stated the fact that after a period of 2 weeks atrophy begins to set in.

Efulitz · 11-Mar-04, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buff151

I have not located the study I am citing yet, but I do remember research being done that stated the fact that after a period of 2 weeks atrophy begins to set in.

I can confirm that from my limited experience. After a 6 week New Years resolution workout stint (Jan 1st to mid Feb), I haven't worked in 3 weeks. It actually seemed like I was continuing to gain muscle the first couple weeks off, but has either equalized or begun to decrease the 3rd week. Just the experience of a complete newbie. I need to get myself back in the gym today and start a serious total body workout routine.