[travisglines]

After noticing the percentage differences and the weight drop, I wanted to do the math to figure out how much muscle vs. fat he lost.

He went from 219.2 at 35% body fat to 195.8 at 28.1%. If you do the back of the napkin math real quick that works out as follows:

    219.2 * .35 = 76.72 lbs of initial fat
    219.2 - 76.72 = 142.48 lbs of lean mass

    195.8 * .281 = 55.02 lbs of final fat
    195.8 - 55.02 = 140.78 lbs of lean mass

That means he lost ...

    1.7 lbs of muscle
    21.7 lbs of fat

Normally I say that these diets are often bad, and end up putting you back further where you started because you lose so much muscle and therefore regain it all much quicker.

However in this case 92% of his weight loss was fat, which is awesome.

[cfn]

I am not at all up to speed on these things but I guess there's more to the human body than fat and muscle. Those 1.7 lbs will certainly also include water, for example.

[travisglines]

Typically how these things are measured is body fat and lean mass. Lean mass is all the stuff other than fat (muscle, water, organs etc).

You're right, I did assume that the lean mass lost came out of muscle in retrospect. Given his weight loss ratios I'd guess that it has to be, but it may be all water.

One interesting point here is if he lost significant water weight then he could have actually gained muscle as he lost fat. (that one's hard to tell though)

[jdbentley]

Math! What can't it do?

Thanks for these numbers. It's interesting to see how it really breaks down.

[tsahyt]

> Math! What can't it do?

Real randomness, or actually explain what it is. And some other things. But it's pretty powerful :)