# "you cant gain muscle and lose fat at the same time" is bullshit



## zl214 (Jan 20, 2010)

this is inspired by another thread. ok, maybe i shouldnt have said its bulshit, but its definitely not true, too late to change now, but i think a lot of ideas in the "fitness industry" arent about helping people to be more fit/healthy but to improve appearance/self-esteem.

i think this "dogma" of bodybuilding is the biggest scam the suppliment companies have come up to get you to buy more of their products or the biggest excuse lazy trainers use to avoid cardio. 

of course you can gain muscle and lose weight at the same time, no matter what stage you are at with your training unless you are super lean and losing weight isnt too much of a concern for you. Just think about it, you gain muscle while resting, you burning fat while exercising, they arent mutual exclusive. 

suppose I embark on a regime that I train with heavy weights at the same time a lot of running and have a high calorie high protein diet for 5 years. whats the worst thats going to happen to me? dont think i am going to end up becoming fat/obese at all. i understand its hard to gain muscle and burning fat at the same time, but its even harder to loss muscle and gain fat at the same time when you have a remotely decent diet and an active life style.    

I think the whole idea is made up by suppliment companies to instill the notion that with their products (i.e. whey), you can bulk up fast then concentrating on losing fat (using their fat burning products). its funny how people percieve as normal is skewed by these companies.  just what i think, if you dont agree, happy to hear your thoughts


----------



## Gazhole (Jan 20, 2010)

The problem lies in the fact that to build muscle you need to be in a surplus of calories, not to mention taking in enough protein. Energy and protein are the things your body uses to repair existing muscle and build new muscle.

You can't make something out of nothing, you need the building blocks of what you're trying to build, and the energy to put those blocks together.

Fat is utilized by the body as an energy store for the times when our ancestors weren't in such an abundance of food. When we were hunter-gatherers we needed those fat stores to get us though hard times.

When you take in a surplus of energy that ISNT used for any purpose (such as building muscle) it is stored in adipose tissue (fat).

When there is no readily available source of energy (ie-food) to carry out processes in the body, fat stores are broken down to provide that energy.

When you go on a cut, you eat in a deficit of calories, taking in less than you need to maintain what you have. With no reason to keep muscle, your body would sooner break muscle protein down for energy, but if you provide a stimulus to keep it (weight training, exercise etc) your body will dip into your fat stores for energy instead.

If you are eating more than you need in order  to build muscle, your body has no reason to use your fat stores. In fact, most people eat more than enough even to build muscle, which is why people usually get a bit chubby on a bulk. When you are on a cut (to lose fat) there is not enough energy to even maintain, let alone build.

How can you be in a caloric surplus and a caloric deficit at the same time?

You CANT.

Your conclusion that cardio "burns fat" when you exercise is totally wrong. Doing cardio on a bulk minimises fat gain simply because you are using calories up during the cardio, leaving less available for building muscle. Cardio is counter-productive on a bulk and not necessary on a cut, simply because you can get into a caloric deficit by eating less.


----------



## nd2bhge (Jan 20, 2010)

*law* of thermodynamics! well put gaz


----------



## SouthsideCigar (Jan 20, 2010)

Gaz,
I totally understand what you are saying. but if you are eating a maint calorie diet with high protein, and lifting heavy, why is it not safe to assume your body could utilize the calories and reach into fat stores as well?
Not contradicting you, just trying to understand

Dave


----------



## kyoun1e (Jan 20, 2010)

I'd say for the most part it's impossible to gain lean muscle and lose fat at the same time unless you fall into one of these three segments:

1. Newbie to lifting
2. Genetic elite
3. You're using drugs

Otherwise, sorry. Either bulk or cut.

KY


----------



## PushAndPull (Jan 20, 2010)

I've seen overweight people lose fat and gain muscle. I think it depends on how overweight you are. If you're really overweight, which means you have likely been eating a surplus of calories for a long time and you start reasonably cutting calories below your maintenance level your body isn't going to think it's starving for awhile, and during this period it's possible to gain muscle and lose fat. In my experiences it takes awhile for the body to adjust, and the length it takes depends on how long your current pattern is. It's highly doubtful you're going to see good gains on a bulk cycle untill you've been on it for awhile, or see muscle loss when cutting untill after awhile. That's assuming you've stuck to bulking/cutting perviously for a decent period of time. Changing your metabolism doesn't happen overnight, and length of time it does take to change it is related to how long you have been in your current pattern of weight gain.
Just my 2 cents


----------



## brk_nemesis (Jan 20, 2010)

...you can lose fat and build quality muscle.














....when on gear.


----------



## kyoun1e (Jan 20, 2010)

PushAndPull said:


> I've seen overweight people lose fat and gain muscle. I think it depends on how overweight you are. If you're really overweight, which means you have likely been eating a surplus of calories for a long time and you start reasonably cutting calories below your maintenance level your body isn't going to think it's starving for awhile, and during this period it's possible to gain muscle and lose fat. In my experiences it takes awhile for the body to adjust, and the length it takes depends on how long your current pattern is. It's highly doubtful you're going to see good gains on a bulk cycle untill you've been on it for awhile, or see muscle loss when cutting untill after awhile. That's assuming you've stuck to bulking/cutting perviously for a decent period of time. Changing your metabolism doesn't happen overnight, and length of time it does take to change it is related to how long you have been in your current pattern of weight gain.
> Just my 2 cents



Someone who is seriously overweight is probably seriously undertrained. And that would be what I consider "newbie gains" -- one of the segments where it's possible to gain muscle/lose fat.

If you are highly trained and not on gear, good luck.

KY


----------



## PushAndPull (Jan 20, 2010)

kyoun1e said:


> Someone who is seriously overweight is probably seriously undertrained. And that would be what I consider "newbie gains" -- one of the segments where it's possible to gain muscle/lose fat.
> 
> If you are highly trained and not on gear, good luck.
> 
> KY



I disagree.
By that rational, someone who was starving for a period of time and was seriously undertrained then started working out could gain muscle mass and lose fat. I personally don't think that could happen. I agree that people new to training make gains easier in the beginning, but it ultimately depends on your metabolism and diet.


----------



## Marat (Jan 20, 2010)

SouthsideCigar said:


> Gaz,
> I totally understand what you are saying. but if you are eating a maint calorie diet with high protein, and lifting heavy, why is it not safe to assume your body could utilize the calories and reach into fat stores as well?
> Not contradicting you, just trying to understand
> 
> Dave



Eating at perfect maintenance (your body has no net caloric surplus or deficit) is difficult to do as a result of not being able to precisely determine what one's true caloric needs are. Generally, one would try to get as close as they can to maintenance which would result in not fluctuating too much over time. One week one may eat a bit above and then next week one may eat a bit below --- overall, one would stay at the same weight over the course of, say, a month. 

However, these micro-fluctuations may allow for a bit of body recomposition. Some weeks you may lose quarter of a pound and some weeks you may gain a quarter of a pound. Because one is training and eating properly: when one is in that micro-deficit, they may spare their muscle and lose a bit of fat; when one is in that micro-surplus, they may partition favorably and have that surplus result in a bit of muscle gain. 

These results will be relatively inappreciable in the short run. However, over time, one may notice a difference in body composition due to these favorable fluctuations.

All in all, one still cannot lose fat and gain muscle tissue simultaneously --- one's biochemistry gets in the way. Typically, people claim that they are doing so due to their appearance. Losing fat gives the effect of increased muscle mass due to increased definition. Unfortunately, this is just an illusion.


----------



## bill90 (Jan 20, 2010)

what about an individual say that does some hiit 1st thing in the morning when they are dipping into their stored fat cells and glycogen for energy rather then food throughout the rest of the day you eat a a very clean high protein diet along with some weight training would it be fair to say that you are losing fat from your morning cardio session and then adding lean muscle from your weight session and your clean diet throughout the rest of the day?


----------



## kyoun1e (Jan 20, 2010)

PushAndPull said:


> I disagree.
> By that rational, someone who was starving for a period of time and was seriously undertrained then started working out could gain muscle mass and lose fat. I personally don't think that could happen. I agree that people new to training make gains easier in the beginning, but it ultimately depends on your metabolism and diet.



Certainly it's not as simple as that, but newbies CAN gain muscle and lose fat...for a very short period of time.

Then they're screwed like the rest.

KY


----------



## Gazhole (Jan 20, 2010)

SouthsideCigar said:


> Gaz,
> I totally understand what you are saying. but if you are eating a maint calorie diet with high protein, and lifting heavy, why is it not safe to assume your body could utilize the calories and reach into fat stores as well?
> Not contradicting you, just trying to understand
> 
> Dave



Because if your body has the calories there, it will use them rather than go through the process of breaking down fat. Remember that building muscle doesn't just happen, its not easy for your body to build it unless it has a reason and the resources. If the energy would be better spent on keeping your heart beating, your body isn't going to build up your guns.


----------



## zl214 (Jan 20, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> The problem lies in the fact that to build muscle you need to be in a surplus of calories, not to mention taking in enough .....
> 
> How can you be in a caloric surplus and a caloric deficit at the same time?
> 
> You CANT.



Not at a specific moment in time, you cant. 

but imagine, i wake up in the morning, have breakfast. go out and run 10 miles in an hour. during this one hour i am running, i am going to burn a lot of fat, yes, lot of energy is going be from the breakfest, but when you run for an hour, the second half an hour is going to be aerobic which is driven by fatty acid oxidation (fat burning). then rest properly. eat well. 8 hours later, do weights for an hour. eat more, the overall caloric intake for the day is going to be in excess, but i have lost fat, and you cant say that the excess energy is going to produce more fat than what i have burned, because surely some the excessof it is going to muscle growth.  and whether the rest of excess energy is going to offset the energy burn is unknown. that makes the following statements not ture either.

1. i have not gained muscle and lost fat at the same time (in the same day).  

2. I would have gained more muscle if i hadnt run that 10 miles.

running burns fat, it makes sense, when you arent running you are gain muscle from doing weights. they arent happening at the same time during a day. but the overall effect is gaining muscle and burning fat as the same time.


----------



## zl214 (Jan 20, 2010)

m11 said:


> Eating at perfect maintenance (your body has no net caloric surplus or deficit) is difficult to do as a result of not being able to precisely determine what one's true caloric needs are. Generally, one would try to get as close as they can to maintenance which would result in not fluctuating too much over time. One week one may eat a bit above and then next week one may eat a bit below --- overall, one would stay at the same weight over the course of, say, a month.
> 
> However, these micro-fluctuations may allow for a bit of body recomposition. Some weeks you may lose quarter of a pound and some weeks you may gain a quarter of a pound. Because one is training and eating properly: when one is in that micro-deficit, they may spare their muscle and lose a bit of fat; when one is in that micro-surplus, they may partition favorably and have that surplus result in a bit of muscle gain.
> 
> ...




ok, in that sense you are right, but when i say "at the same time", i mean figuratively. you definitely cant do that simultaneously. I mean more like during a day or a few days.


----------



## Merkaba (Jan 20, 2010)

zl214 said:


> ok, in that sense you are right, but when i say "at the same time", i mean figuratively. you definitely cant do that simultaneously. I mean more like during a day or a few days.



Two posts for you to show how ignorant of this matter you are?


----------



## Marat (Jan 20, 2010)

zl214 said:


> but imagine, i wake up in the morning, have breakfast. go out and run 10 miles in an hour. during this one hour i am running, i am going to burn a lot of fat, yes, lot of energy is going be from the breakfest, but when you run for an hour, the second half an hour is going to be aerobic which is driven by fatty acid oxidation (fat burning). then rest properly. eat well. 8 hours later, do weights for an hour. eat more, the overall caloric intake for the day is going to be in excess, but i have lost fat, and you cant say that the excess energy is going to produce more fat than what i have burned, because surely some the excessof it is going to muscle growth.  and whether the rest of excess energy is going to offset the energy burn is unknown. that makes the following statements not ture either.



I understand where you are coming from. However, in short, metabolism doesn't work in the fashion that you are describing.

I recommend that you re-read Gaz's post.


----------



## Gazhole (Jan 21, 2010)

zl214 said:


> but imagine, i wake up in the morning, have breakfast. go out and run 10 miles in an hour. during this one hour i am running, i am going to burn a lot of fat, yes, lot of energy is going be from the breakfest, but when you run for an hour, the second half an hour is going to be aerobic which is driven by fatty acid oxidation (fat burning).



Conveniently forgetting about glycogen i see! An average person has around 600 calories of glycogen readily available in the body, and thats first thing in the morning before any food, and in a non-athlete.

Assuming an hour of fairly low intensity cardio will burn off say...500 calories? By your reckoning if that comes entirely from fat, you will have burned a whopping 55g. Oh wait, only half of that hour is from fat, well done thats 27.5g of fat you have burned - only another 36 hours of cardio before you burn off a whopping 2lbs.

Considering a regular 3-days-a-week trainee, you only have about 12 hours training time in a month, so this 2lbs would take about 3 months? And this is assuming glycogen stores don't exist for one thing.

Besides, if you had some carbs for breakfast insulin will go some way to preventing using fat as energy and make sure those carbs are stored as glycogen.

Even if your understanding of metabolism wasn't flawed as hell, its still an absolutely piss-poor method of getting rid of your fat.



zl214 said:


> 8 hours later, do weights for an hour. eat more, the overall caloric intake for the day is going to be in excess but i have lost fat, and you cant say that the excess energy is going to produce more fat than what i have burned, because surely some the excess of it is going to muscle growth.  and whether the rest of excess energy is going to offset the energy burn is unknown.



No, you'll probably replenish your glycogen stores first, then repair the muscle you damaged in the weight session and the cardio session. You might store some as fat after that, and then if theres any left you might build a bit of muscle if you have enough protein. With all that extra deficit from the cardio, its doubtful you'll have enough energy after that though - unless you're eating in a large surplus that is, which will likely lead to storing some fat unless you've worked out how much energy you need every day down to the calorie with no excess at all.



zl214 said:


> running burns fat, it makes sense, when you arent running you are gain muscle from doing weights. they arent happening at the same time during a day. but the overall effect is gaining muscle and burning fat as the same time.



It makes sense to YOU. Running doesn't burn fat, fat is utilized when there is a negative energy balance in the body. Your body has ATP, glucose, glycogen, and protein to break down for energy before that (excess amino acids cant be stored, so are much easier to get energy from than fat stores). Muscle is built when there is a positive energy balance in the body, lots of protein that isn't being broken down for energy/repair, and the body is at rest and not using those muscles.

Maybe decreasing fat levels and building muscle IS possible in a loose theoretical sense, and we could debate the biochemistry of it all day, but for any sort of practical purposes - you dont NEED to do both at the same time. If by some miracle of thermodynamics you managed to figure it out, the process would be so fiddly and yield results so slowly, it wouldn't be worth it.

You're being a fool to yourself. Stop arguing something that really doesn't need to be argued. Telling people you can't burn fat and gain muscle at the same time is sound practical advice, especially for newbies, because most people don't have the knowledge, time, mental focus, or resources to do ONE of those things properly let alone two. Even in terms of psychology, focusing on one single goal at a time greatly improves your chance of succeeding at it.

The bottom line:

*Maybe it is possible, but who really gives a flying fuck?*


----------



## Merkaba (Jan 21, 2010)

Great dam Post Gaz.  I don't know why people that don't know what they are talking about still choose to try to argue a point on something like this.


----------



## Gazhole (Jan 21, 2010)

Merkaba said:


> Great dam Post Gaz.  I don't know why people that don't know what they are talking about still choose to try to argue a point on something like this.



Thanks man 

Its like trying to reinvent the wheel, the cycle of bulking and cutting works great. For people who aren't into the competitive side of things, a few hundred calories either side of maintenance usually does the trick without drastic changes in their body shape.

Wheres the problem there? Lol.


----------



## theCaptn' (Jan 21, 2010)

fasted AM cardio - will burn fat. Keep yourself just under maintenence cals, and you will add muscle as well . . albiet slowly


----------



## zl214 (Jan 21, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> Conveniently forgetting about glycogen i see! An average person has around 600 calories of glycogen readily available in the body, and thats first thing in the morning before any food, and in a non-athlete.
> 
> Assuming an hour of fairly low intensity cardio will burn off say...500 calories? By your reckoning if that comes entirely from fat, you will have burned a whopping 55g. Oh wait, only half of that hour is from fat, well done thats 27.5g of fat you have burned - only another 36 hours of cardio before you burn off a whopping 2lbs.




when you wake up in the morning, after 8 hours of fasting, there isnt much glycogen left. but after a meal, glycogen is replenished quite quickly.

i don't know how fit you are, but 10 miles in 1 hour is not low intensity card to anyone. i didn't say that its entirely from fat. i am just saying how much carb and fat have burnt  you don't know. i don't whats cardio to you, but i always keep my heart rate over 150, thats not low intensity exercise to anyone.

i don't even know where you get the 500 calories from, people with different weight/ running techniques burn a different number, 500 calories is by any means an way under-estimation for a 10k run in an hour.



Gazhole said:


> Besides, if you had some carbs for breakfast insulin will go some way to preventing using fat as energy and make sure those carbs are stored as glycogen.



i don't know where you have heard that from, insulin converts glucose to glycogen. it has nothing to do with fat metabolism 



Gazhole said:


> It makes sense to YOU. Running doesn't burn fat, fat is utilized when there is a negative energy balance in the body. Your body has ATP, glucose, glycogen, and protein to break down for energy before that (excess amino acids cant be stored, so are much easier to get energy from than fat stores). Muscle is built when there is a positive energy balance in the body, lots of protein that isn't being broken down for energy/repair, and the body is at rest and not using those muscles.



thats a ridiculous thing to say that you don't burn fat while running, do you even run regularly? long distance running is one of the most effective way to burn fat and improve cardiovacular function. muscle is built when there is positive NITROGEN balance in the body, even though a positive nitrogen balance is always associate with an surplus of calorie of intake. but excess calorie isn't absolutely necessary for a nitrogen gain.  

you burn fat before you started burning protein, this is many supplement companies don't want to know. you don't have to have two three shakes a day. only under extreme starvation (fasting for more than 24 hours), you start to use protein as an energy source. its actually quite life threatening when that do happen.

wait, you are talking about alanine/ glutamine amidotransferase cycle, yes, muscle does burn amino acids before burning fat, but that only accounts for a very small proportion of the overall muscular metabolism. there isn't that much free glutamine in the blood. 



Gazhole said:


> Maybe decreasing fat levels and building muscle IS possible in a loose theoretical sense, and we could debate the biochemistry of it all day, but for any sort of practical purposes - you dont NEED to do both at the same time. If by some miracle of thermodynamics you managed to figure it out, the process would be so fiddly and yield results so slowly, it wouldn't be worth it.
> 
> You're being a fool to yourself. Stop arguing something that really doesn't need to be argued. Telling people you can't burn fat and gain muscle at the same time is sound practical advice, especially for newbies, because most people don't have the knowledge, time, mental focus, or resources to do ONE of those things properly let alone two. Even in terms of psychology, focusing on one single goal at a time greatly improves your chance of succeeding at it.
> 
> ...



someone has asked whether running is going to make pope lose muscle. people tell him that you can only do one at a time. I say it doesn't matter, as long as you are lifting weights and eating heaps, keep up the running, you can still be big and lean at the same time. don't worry about bulking//trimming, as long as you are living an active health life style. you'll get to wherever you want. *as a weightlifter and a runner, i hate it when people say "i don't workout because i don't want to get as big as arnold" just as much as i hate it when people say "i don't want to run because it makes me lose muscle."*
*
STOP DEMONISING RUNNING*


----------



## Gazhole (Jan 21, 2010)

zl214 said:


> when you wake up in the morning, after 8 hours of fasting, there isnt much glycogen left. but after a meal, glycogen is replenished quite quickly.



Actually, according to Stryer there is plenty of glycogen after a nights fasting, and to be honest im going to believe a renown biochemist over you. Don't take it personally. 

Interestingly, during starvation such as an overnight fast, fatty acids taken from adipose tissue are used by the liver to provide energy for gluconeogenesis, converting pyruvate into glucose. The main sources of this pyruvate are amino acids and glycerol. No glycogen.



zl214 said:


> i don't know how fit you are, but 10 miles in 1 hour is not low intensity card to anyone. i didn't say that its entirely from fat. i am just saying how much carb and fat have burnt  you don't know. i don't whats cardio to you, but i always keep my heart rate over 150, thats not low intensity exercise to anyone.
> 
> i don't even know where you get the 500 calories from, people with different weight/ running techniques burn a different number, 500 calories is by any means an way under-estimation for a 10k run in an hour.



It was a number i pulled out of my ass to illustrate the point that in terms of 'burning' fat directly, the effect on your overall bodyfat % is negligible. Even at double that amount the point still stands. If you used 1000 calories thats still only 100 grams of fat, even if all of it DOES come from there. Which it doesn't.



zl214 said:


> i don't know where you have heard that from, insulin converts glucose to glycogen. it has nothing to do with fat metabolism



Actually insulin promotes the uptake of glucose into muscle tissue where its joined with other glucose molecules into glycogen by glycogen synthase. It also promotes glycolysis in the liver, which increases the synthesis of fatty acids from glucose-6-phosphate usually in the VLDL form of cholesterol, which is then stored in adipose tissue.



zl214 said:


> thats a ridiculous thing to say that you don't burn fat while running, do you even run regularly? long distance running is one of the most effective way to burn fat and improve cardiovacular function. muscle is built when there is positive NITROGEN balance in the body, even though a positive nitrogen balance is always associate with an surplus of calorie of intake. but excess calorie isn't absolutely necessary for a nitrogen gain.



I agree, running is great to improve cardiovascular function. I run, cycle, swim, and box to that same end. I dont want a heart attack or atherosclerosis, heart and lung function is essential and cardio is the best way to do that - but thats not what we're talking about, now is it?



zl214 said:


> you burn fat before you started burning protein, this is many supplement companies don't want to know. you don't have to have two three shakes a day. only under extreme starvation (fasting for more than 24 hours), you start to use protein as an energy source. its actually quite life threatening when that do happen.



This sounds a little conspiracy-theoryish to me. Its also unintelligible. What do you mean "you burn fat before you started burning protein"? Stop using bullshit words like "burning" in a scientific context.



zl214 said:


> wait, you are talking about alanine/ glutamine amidotransferase cycle, yes, muscle does burn amino acids before burning fat, but that only accounts for a very small proportion of the overall muscular metabolism. there isn't that much free glutamine in the blood.



No, im talking about free amino acids taken in the diet - they can't be stored, so they get broken down for energy.



zl214 said:


> someone has asked whether running is going to make pope lose muscle. people tell him that you can only do one at a time. I say it doesn't matter, as long as you are lifting weights and eating heaps, keep up the running, you can still be big and lean at the same time. don't worry about bulking//trimming, as long as you are living an active health life style. you'll get to wherever you want. *as a weightlifter and a runner, i hate it when people say "i don't workout because i don't want to get as big as arnold" just as much as i hate it when people say "i don't want to run because it makes me lose muscle."*
> *
> STOP DEMONISING RUNNING*



Who the hell said anything about running being bad? I never said any of that shit you put in *bold*. Running is great. You certainly can run and gain muscle at the same time if you take in enough calories to compensate for what you used in the running. You just seem to have this unbreakable link in your head and think "fat loss" and "running" are synonymous.

We're not talking about whether the processes of running and weight training can co-exist, we're talking about fat loss and muscle gain co-existing. Two very different discussions.

The reason you can gain muscle and stay fairly lean when you do a lot of cardio, isn't because you are losing fat, its because you're cutting into your surplus of calories with extra activity. You would get the same effect from just eating less, though without the CV benefits obviously
*
SHOUTING UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS.*


----------



## bill90 (Jan 21, 2010)

Gazhole you make all valid points and not trying to argue with them just wondering what about someone who goes from a very poor diet pizza fried food etc.. to a clean weight training diet and is still in a small surplus of calories would that individual not see some sort of fat loss and muscle gain due to drastic diet change or would that fat just stay because your body is still in surplus regardless of the new diet and training?  Also I'm very intereested in seeing if am cardio before eating and a small surplus of calories with a clean diet can burn fat yet produce muscle so I'll be going to get my bodyfat and weight recorded then follow normal workout routine for 2 months with added am cardio on an empy stomach 3 times a week gear free to see what the results are. That should make this conversation a little more interesting. Once I get a chance to et bodyfat measured I will make a journal so yall can follow. Hell why not I'll still be in small surplus of calories so I don't have to worry about losing muscle and maybe ill c a little fat loss (doubt it) but we'll c.


----------



## T_man (Jan 21, 2010)

You do know. Even down to the simplest form. Protein synthesis requires energy. Not just positive nitrogen balance.

Running is good. Just use it as an accessory for your health rather than a fail safe option to burn fat. Sure it will burn fat. But say bye to your muscle as well. 

Michael Phelps consumes 12000 calories a day during training. Anybody would make many many lbs of muscle through this. I'm also pretty sure he's way into positive nitrogen balance. Why is he not bigger than arnold then?


----------



## dave 236 (Jan 21, 2010)

Wouldn't let me rep you again Gaz,so I got Merkaba for having your back.


----------



## zl214 (Jan 21, 2010)

T_man said:


> You do know. Even down to the simplest form. Protein synthesis requires energy. Not just positive nitrogen balance.
> 
> Running is good. Just use it as an accessory for your health rather than a fail safe option to burn fat. Sure it will burn fat. But say bye to your muscle as well.
> 
> Michael Phelps consumes 12000 calories a day during training. Anybody would make many many lbs of muscle through this. I'm also pretty sure he's way into positive nitrogen balance. Why is he not bigger than arnold then?



i dont want to accuse for using steroids, but i am sure he is just got better genetics than phelp.


----------



## zl214 (Jan 21, 2010)

this is getting way out of proportion for an online discussion. I am going to stop this now before someone jumps out and call me "a nerd who spend all his time on the internet". I didn't not make up the biochemistry myself either. everything is from Lehninger. Americans have this habit of refering to a book as if everything thats printed on paper is always right. I admit that what i have learned may not representative of the true physiological event. 

I can confirm that most of the things you have said are not wrong. the body does prefer carbs and amino acid to fat as an energy source (since you don't like the word "burning" so much) and tend to use fat last. 

But i am also going to say this. All organs in your body other than the brain are capable of using fat as an energy source. and whether you like it or not, the body is constantly using fat as a small part of the energy source, even sitting here typing. how much fat is used varies on different activities. But if you are so convinced that the body do not use any fat at all when there is glycogen around. there is no way you are going to believe what i say. so I am going to stop saying it.

This thread has devolved into a competition of "who knows more about biochemistry". but whos right isn't important. you have said that you can gain muscle while running, which is what i wanted to hear. its great to see that there are still trainers that arrant afraid of running and use it as a tool to gain muscle and get lean.


----------



## JohnnyO (Jan 21, 2010)

Here's why I think too much running is bad-

I ran cross country and track for the last 3 years, and I've been skinny-fat and weak, with a high BF% (guesstimating around 17-18). We'd run upwards of 30 miles a week, and I always wondered why I never got leaner.

Ever since I started lifting around 6 months ago, I've gotten much stronger (obviously), my physique has vastly improved, and my BF has gone down dramatically (I can see the outline of my abs for the first time in my life). 

I haven't stopped running- I do 10 minutes at high intensity on the treadmill after each workout- but I really feel that any kind of running other than HIIT is detrimental to gaining muscle mass. In my opinion, long distance running really does make you lose muscle. 

Also, it's boring as shit.


----------



## Merkaba (Jan 21, 2010)

zl214 said:


> i dont want to accuse for using steroids, but i am sure he is just got better genetics than phelp.



It wouldn't matter if he took steroids or had better genetics.  It would be because he didn't do a shit load of sustained cardio burning away at lean muscle mass! Period.  But Gaz's point was based on the fact that protein alone doesn't build muscle.  But since you commented on it I thought I would too. 




zl214 said:


> this is getting way out of proportion for an online discussion. I am going to stop this now before someone jumps out and call me "a nerd who spend all his time on the internet". I didn't not make up the biochemistry myself either. everything is from Lehninger. Americans have this habit of refering to a book as if everything thats printed on paper is always right. I admit that what i have learned may not representative of the true physiological event.
> 
> I can confirm that most of the things you have said are not wrong. the body does prefer carbs and amino acid to fat as an energy source (since you don't like the word "burning" so much) and tend to use fat last.
> 
> ...



What's getting out of proportion?  Others knowledge base in relation to yours?  I don't think anyone has called you any names or veered off subject.  Everything seems to be on point for the most part.  Can you build muscle from Running?  Sure.  Will you build more muscle from running 10 miles in an hour vs. a diet and tension based approach over time, then a cut based on diet?  Negative.  

And come on man I can't stand it when people take things out of context to try to bolster their point.  Be accurate.   I don't recall anyone saying that the body doesn't burn fat as a way of life.  It just doesn't burn as much as you obviously think it does, and when you obviously think it does.


----------



## Merkaba (Jan 21, 2010)

JohnnyO said:


> Here's why I think too much running is bad-
> 
> I ran cross country and track for the last 3 years, and I've been skinny-fat and weak, with a high BF% (guesstimating around 17-18). We'd run upwards of 30 miles a week, and I always wondered why I never got leaner.
> 
> ...



Were you tracking your intake at this time?  I'm sure you weren't coming close to maintenance as well.


----------



## Marat (Jan 21, 2010)

zl214 said:


> But i am also going to say this. All organs in your body other than the brain are capable of using fat as an energy source. and whether you like it or not, the body is constantly using fat as a small part of the energy source, even sitting here typing. how much fat is used varies on different activities. But if you are so convinced that the body do not use any fat at all when there is glycogen around. there is no way you are going to believe what i say. so I am going to stop saying it.



May I reset the conversation? It seems like we are missing the big picture of fat loss or muscle gain. This is not a question of whether or not one can gain muscle while running (cardio) or lose fat without running (cardio). Rather, the bottom line comes to down to the thermodynamics of taking in vs. expending energy on the macro level.

The body _is_ constantly oxidizing and storing fat as well as storing and oxidizing amino acids.  However, to a achieve appreciable fat loss or muscle gain, one needs to swing that net energy loss or gain in one direction or the other.

Are you suggesting that, over time, one can appreciably increase their muscle mass while in a caloric deficit (or maintenance)? 

additionally,

Are you suggesting that, over time, one can appreciably decrease their body fat while in a caloric surplus (or maintenance)?



Just an aside and for the sake of information: You had mentioned that one's brain cannot use fat as a energy source. However, in the absence of glucose, your brain is perfectly happy to use ketones (from fat) as a long term energy source.


----------



## PushAndPull (Jan 21, 2010)

m11 said:


> However, in the absence of glucose, your brain is perfectly happy to use ketones (from fat) as a long term energy source.



I wouldn't say perfectly happy, i've been on extremely low carb diet and my brain wasn't happy


----------



## Merkaba (Jan 21, 2010)

PushAndPull said:


> I wouldn't say perfectly happy, i've been on extremely low carb diet and my brain wasn't happy



Haha...I'm using some ketones right now.  Friday night with my girlfriends birthday celebration might end that though.


----------



## Marat (Jan 21, 2010)

PushAndPull said:


> I wouldn't say perfectly happy, i've been on extremely low carb diet and my brain wasn't happy



Yea, mine either. Haha I'm personally not a fan of the experience, but some seem to enjoy it.


----------



## Gazhole (Jan 22, 2010)

I hate ketosis. It works, but shit is it uncomfortable to me 

And in no way did i ever say that the body doesn't use fat so long as theres glycogen around (i mentioned a fasting state, the glycerol precursor to pyruvate in gluconeogenesis is from a lipid source.)

I'm just saying that in an EXERCISE context if there is another, easier, source of energy available your body is going to take it because in terms of a physiological response your body is highly stressed at that point and needs the energy as quick as possible.

Certainly in terms of aerobic exercise glycogen is IT. Carb loading for endurance runners is an age-old concept, as im sure you know, and it's point is to increase glycogen levels. Im not disputing that fatty acids and proteins aren't broken down in extremely long endurance races, but they're by no means a primary fuel and your body will do everything it can to RESTORE that fuel after a stressful race by replenishing - glycogen stores, repairing muscle, storing fat (insulin release, mainly). What it WONT do is - BUILD NEW MUSCLE.

An important point to remember is that fatty acids can't be converted into glucose, even though most of our bodily energy stores are fat.

This happens (which i think is in Lehninger, but its definitely in Stryer - i'll check next time i get it out of the library ) because of oxaloacetate being used up in gluconeogenesis, so acetyl coA cant enter the citric acid cycle and builds up, and is converted into ketones. Theres more than one, i can only remember one of them is acetoacetate.

As you can see, this isn't a favourable situation for the body since ketones can be toxic, so thats one reason the body isn't going to take that pathway unless its starved of other nutrients.

Like m11 and others have said, to keep this constant fat utilization going you need to be in a CONSTANT caloric deficit (or starvation state), not just bits and pieces here and there, if you want to appreciably impact your fat stores.

Im not necessarily advocating a ketosis diet (though i know people here have had good results on them) you don't have to go THAT extreme, but the principle of a negative energy balance for fat loss can't really be disputed.

When you take into account the NEED for surplus energy for building muscle, it becomes apparent that these two states simply CANT co-exist. They ARE mutually exclusive, and somebody said on the first few posts of this thread - the law of thermodynamics is pretty relevant here.


----------



## dave 236 (Jan 22, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> I hate ketosis. It works, but shit is it uncomfortable to me
> 
> And in no way did i ever say that the body doesn't use fat so long as theres glycogen around (i mentioned a fasting state, the glycerol precursor to pyruvate in gluconeogenesis is from a lipid source.)
> 
> ...


Hey Gaz is it possible (and if so under what conditions) during a bulk phase to increase muscle at a greater rate than you increase fat? I think under certain conditions it is leading to a drop in bf% while increasing weight and this may be confusing some people. If I'm way off feel free to let me know. I bring this up because I have this debate with people quite often.I don't believe you can add muscle without adding fat as someone else put it that would be like standing up and sitting down at the same time. I do think it may be the whole bf % thing thats confusing though.


----------



## Gazhole (Jan 22, 2010)

dave 236 said:


> Hey Gaz is it possible (and if so under what conditions) during a bulk phase to increase muscle at a greater rate than you increase fat? I think under certain conditions it is leading to a drop in bf% while increasing weight and this may be confusing some people. If I'm way off feel free to let me know. I bring this up because I have this debate with people quite often.I don't believe you can add muscle without adding fat as someone else put it that would be like standing up and sitting down at the same time. I do think it may be the whole bf % thing thats confusing though.



A lot of it is perception with this sort of thing. Somebody might start a "bulking program" that is geared towards putting on muscle, but dont change their diet. In that instance they may actually start losing weight by doing a lot of volume in their weights, lose fat, and LOOK like they have more muscle because they are more ripped up.

Similarly, the more muscle mass you have , the bigger you look, and the same amount of fat might not be so noticable because of that change in body shape.

Assuming that neither of these things is happening, and your diet is geared towards gaining weight (caloric surplus) and you are training right, you can minimize fat gain by staying in a surplus but making that surplus smaller.

Im making these numbers up and its impossible to know EXACTLY what you need, but lets say you require 300 calories over maintenance a day to gain muscle at the maximum rate of muscle synthesis - it doesn't matter whether you eat 600 over maintenance, or 900, or 350, that rate will stay the same. So if you go on a bulk at 500 calories over maintenance, some will go towards muscle building (300), and when that system is maxed out you'll store the rest as fat (200).

Obviously the way to decrease this surplus is to either eat a little less, or do a little more exercise. This is whats known as a "slow bulk" and is a little trickier than your regular bulk because you need to hit that sweet spot where you are gaining muscle with the least amount of fat possible. On a regular bulk you just eat and eat and eat and worry about the fat when you cut down.

Other than that, you can increase the rate of muscle synthesis and protein absorption through anabolics/prohormones etc. Thats pretty much what steroids like testosterone do. They just increase the rate at which you can utilize protein and calories to repair and build muscle.

Does that make sense?


----------



## T_man (Jan 22, 2010)

Okay your body is constantly burning fat and restoring it, and the same with muscle.

I think what you might not be getting (i dont mean it in an opressive way) zl214, is that it's almost impossible to have a net gain of muscle with a net loss of fat of the same given time period, assuming that you don't change your diet or routine throughout this period (like a bulk).

You may end up with a lower BF% if you're lucky by having a slightly increased fat mass but an even bigger increase in muscle mass but you're still not burning fat while building muscle. Furthermore, this will take much longer than a bulk/cut cycle.


----------



## PushAndPull (Jan 22, 2010)

zl214, here is the problem I have. Stay on the topic. Nobody was demonizing running or saying you shouldn't do it, that simply wasn't what the thread was about or what anyone was saying. Making up bullshit to enhance your argument makes it weaker not stronger.


----------



## dave 236 (Jan 22, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> A lot of it is perception with this sort of thing. Somebody might start a "bulking program" that is geared towards putting on muscle, but dont change their diet. In that instance they may actually start losing weight by doing a lot of volume in their weights, lose fat, and LOOK like they have more muscle because they are more ripped up.
> 
> Similarly, the more muscle mass you have , the bigger you look, and the same amount of fat might not be so noticable because of that change in body shape.
> 
> ...


Yes ,that is a very clear explanation. One of the reasons I was asking was due to studies I've read about using testosterone.The subjects lbm increased at a greater rate due to the introduction of the hormone,but since there was no real change in caloric intake fat mass stayed the same or increased very little.Thanks


----------



## Merkaba (Jan 22, 2010)

dave 236 said:


> Yes ,that is a very clear explanation. One of the reasons I was asking was due to studies I've read about using testosterone.The subjects lbm increased at a greater rate due to the introduction of the hormone,but since there was no real change in caloric intake fat mass stayed the same or increased very little.Thanks



Well of course with the introduction of Test.  That's a whole different cup of monkeys!


----------



## JohnnyO (Jan 22, 2010)

Merkaba said:


> Were you tracking your intake at this time?  I'm sure you weren't coming close to maintenance as well.



Nope. I'm eating the same foods that I was when I was long distance training, just more of them. And yet my bodyfat is still going down. May have something to do with the fact that I'm a teenager.


----------



## Hoglander (Jan 22, 2010)

Some people know when to eat. They know what they want and how much naturally. 

I think most don't. 

Some people know when to eat. They know what the want and how much then they come to a place like this and get their minds fucked with.


----------



## jmorrison (Jan 24, 2010)

Absolutely outstanding posts Gaz.  

I am living proof of this by the way.  When I got back into lifting I was dieting and put on a little muscle while cutting.  All of this was muscle memory and newbie gains.

Built told me repeatedly to slow down with my cardio, but noooo, I was supremely confident in my super human ability to build muscle at the same time I was cutting.

End result, I got thin and fairly ripped.  And scrawny.  And weak.  Now after doing a 10 week bulk to get my muscle back, I am cutting again...but doing it right this time with slow calorie reduction.


----------



## Gazhole (Jan 24, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> Absolutely outstanding posts Gaz.
> 
> I am living proof of this by the way.  When I got back into lifting I was dieting and put on a little muscle while cutting.  All of this was muscle memory and newbie gains.
> 
> ...



 How did your bulk go this time?


----------



## jmorrison (Jan 24, 2010)

It went well man.  I did a cycle of Mdrol and P-Plex, with a good PCT and I gained 25lbs in 10 weeks.  After shedding the water during PCT it looks like I gained about 15 solid pounds.  I only gained an inch to my waist, so I am pretty happy with it.

Now to get that nice belly back, WITHOUT looking and feeling like a 13 year old girl.


----------



## Gazhole (Jan 25, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> It went well man.  I did a cycle of Mdrol and P-Plex, with a good PCT and I gained 25lbs in 10 weeks.  After shedding the water during PCT it looks like I gained about 15 solid pounds.  I only gained an inch to my waist, so I am pretty happy with it.
> 
> Now to get that nice belly back, WITHOUT looking and feeling like a 13 year old girl.



Good work, sounds like you had your shit well figured out!


----------



## Cindy007 (Jan 25, 2010)

Hoglander said:


> Some people know when to eat. They know what they want and how much naturally.
> 
> I think most don't.
> 
> Some people know when to eat. They know what the want and how much then they come to a place like this and get their minds fucked with.


 

*Giggle*


----------



## SNC (Jan 25, 2010)

*


----------



## SNC (Jan 25, 2010)

Of course you CAN lose fat and gain muscle at the same time. WITHOUT DRUGS.

It's incorrect to say the two things are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Merkaba (Jan 25, 2010)

SNC said:


> Of course you CAN lose fat and gain muscle at the same time. WITHOUT DRUGS.
> 
> It's incorrect to say the two things are mutually exclusive.



As people have said before, if you're totally new to training or if you've taken some time off you can.  Otherwise please explain in metabolic or laymen's terms how one can achieve this...Ok go.


----------



## Gazhole (Jan 25, 2010)

SNC said:


> Of course you CAN lose fat and gain muscle at the same time. WITHOUT DRUGS.
> 
> It's incorrect to say the two things are mutually exclusive.



Well i dont know about anybody else but im convinced.

Am i being hopelessly optimistic in you having any sort of backing for your opinion?


----------



## dave 236 (Jan 25, 2010)

Merkaba said:


> As people have said before, if you're totally new to training or if you've taken some time off you can.  Otherwise please explain in metabolic or laymen's terms how one can achieve this...Ok go.


I pretty convinced that even using test,you would only be able to do this in the beggining or after a layoff.The calories still have to be in surplus to really gain any amount of muscle,and that means some fat as well.


----------



## T_man (Jan 25, 2010)

Gaz your avatar really is the dog's bollocks


----------



## SNC (Jan 25, 2010)

Merkaba said:


> As people have said before, if you're totally new to training or if you've taken some time off you can. Otherwise please explain in metabolic or laymen's terms how one can achieve this...Ok go.


 
It's simple.
People are talking about a calorie surplus needed to gain muscle, but that's incorrect. A calorie surplus is needed to gain WEIGHT, not muscle.
And anyone wishing to lose fat is obviously already eating in surplus of what their LEAN ideal requires. So, their "maintenance" calories are actually already a calorie surplus of their lean body mass requirements. And what evidence at all is their that the muscle building process requires as great a (or a greater) surplus of calories than what already result in the extra unnecessary fat ?
FAT is actually a sign that you're going well over on calorie requirements. As long as you have unwanted fat you can afford to burn it, and as long as you eat enough protein you can build muscle at the same time.

Then again, many bodybuilders love the ritual of getting fat and cutting down. Bulking up is fun.


----------



## Gazhole (Jan 26, 2010)

SNC said:


> It's simple.
> People are talking about a calorie surplus needed to gain muscle, but that's incorrect. A calorie surplus is needed to gain WEIGHT, not muscle.
> And anyone wishing to lose fat is obviously already eating in surplus of what their LEAN ideal requires. So, their "maintenance" calories are actually already a calorie surplus of their lean body mass requirements. And what evidence at all is their that the muscle building process requires as great a (or a greater) surplus of calories than what already result in the extra unnecessary fat ?
> FAT is actually a sign that you're going well over on calorie requirements. As long as you have unwanted fat you can afford to burn it, and as long as you eat enough protein you can build muscle at the same time.
> ...



You do know that protein synthesis requires energy, right? The protein in  your diet doesn't just float to your muscles and mold itself onto the tissue. This paragraph is so nonsensical i can't believe what i'm seeing, its wide of the mark even by anecdotal standards. Even the most ill-informed newbie bodybuilder knows that an energy surplus is required to build muscle! Yes you need sufficient protein aswell, but you also need to energy to put those proteins together!


----------



## SNC (Jan 26, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> You do know that protein synthesis requires energy, right? The protein in your diet doesn't just float to your muscles and mold itself onto the tissue. This paragraph is so nonsensical i can't believe what i'm seeing, its wide of the mark even by anecdotal standards. Even the most ill-informed newbie bodybuilder knows that an energy surplus is required to build muscle! Yes you need sufficient protein aswell, but you also need to energy to put those proteins together!


 
My paragraph wasn't nonsensical at all. 
I addressed the calorie surplus issue. The "surplus" energy needed is less than the surplus that is already being taken in that is contributing to FATNESS. The body will heal and overcompensate the muscle cells as priority above storing extra energy as relatively useless fat. 
To lose fat you can still eat calories ABOVE what your LEAN BODY MASS requires, and in doing so you are still taking in the "surplus" energy needed to synthesise the protein and build the muscle, while you lose fat. 

It's simple.



> Even the most ill-informed newbie bodybuilder knows


 
..... _a lot less than he thinks he knows_. Usually what he reads in bodybuilding magazines.

I've been training 16 years. I'm just sharing some knowledge. My "opinion" is backed with 16 years training experience, personal training experience, commonsense, and logic. None of it is new. 

The knowledge has been out there for years, several decades, probably sixty years or more. But the myth of "The necessity of bulking up" will always be alive and well, because it's easy and it's psychologically comforting.

If you like bulking up and you think it works best for you, then carry on with it by all means. But dont go around saying things are scientifically IMPOSSIBLE when they are not.


----------



## jwalk127 (Jan 26, 2010)

Gaz your posts are excellent, but clearly some of these guys have a better understanding of exercise physiology than you do


----------



## SNC (Jan 26, 2010)

jwalk127 said:


> Gaz your posts are excellent, but clearly some of these guys have a better understanding of exercise physiology than you do


 
He has a good understanding of the principles but somehow manages to draw the wrong conclusion.

For example :



> When you take in a surplus of energy that ISNT used for any purpose (such as building muscle) it is stored in adipose tissue (fat).


 
Correct.



> When there is no readily available source of energy (ie-food) to carry out processes in the body, fat stores are broken down to provide that energy.


 
Correct.



> When you go on a cut, you eat in a deficit of calories, taking in less than you need to maintain what you have.


 
Correct. 



> With no reason to keep muscle, your body would sooner break muscle protein down for energy, but if you provide a stimulus to keep it (weight training, exercise etc) your body will dip into your fat stores for energy instead.


 
Partially correct. Partially incorrect. 
Your body would sooner break down fat stores for energy. After all, that's the evolutionary purpose of fat stores. 
Yes, weight training/exercise is required to maintain (and build !) muscle.




> If you are eating more than you need in order to build muscle, your body has no reason to use your fat stores.


 
If you have fat stores that are covering up your abs then you are eating "more than you need" anyway, from the perspective of someone who trains to be muscular. 





> In fact, most people eat more than enough even to build muscle, which is why people usually get a bit chubby on a bulk. When you are on a cut (to lose fat) there is not enough energy to even maintain, let alone build.


 
Maintain what ? Fat ?
You're talking about maintaining the current condition of someone who is already a bit chubby, maintaining fat weight as well as muscle !



> How can you be in a caloric surplus and a caloric deficit at the same time?


 
In a slight calorie surplus of your LEAN BODY MASS's requirements, while in a caloric deficit of your current (excess flab) BODY WEIGHT requirements.


----------



## SNC (Jan 26, 2010)

For example, let's say there's a man of 200 pounds and is 15% body fat. But he wants to be ripped, which for him would be at 8% body fat.
His lean mass is 170 pounds. If he tweaks his diet, or adds in cardio, or both (whatever he prefers for the caloric deficit) so that's he'll level off at 8% body fat with the same lean mass, then he'll be eating to maintain about 184 pounds, instead of his current 200. 
If he's eating to maintain 184 pounds, why on earth should he worry about not eating enough calories to build muscle on his lean 170 pounds ?


----------



## rayray715 (Jan 26, 2010)

SNC said:


> In a slight calorie surplus of your LEAN BODY MASS's requirements, while in a caloric deficit of your current (excess flab) BODY WEIGHT requirements.



what about calorie partitioning? only so much will go into muscle. so if the rest isnt burned off, then it is stored as fat. if it is burned off, how can you burn off existing fat without being on a calorie deficit?


----------



## SNC (Jan 26, 2010)

rayray715 said:


> what about calorie partitioning? only so much will go into muscle. so if the rest isnt burned off, then it is stored as fat. if it is burned off, how can you burn off existing fat without being on a calorie deficit?


 
You must be on a caloric deficit to burn off existing fat. I think everyone here agrees with that. 

What I'm pointing out is that you dont have to be on a caloric surplus (ie. enough calories to increase your current body weight) to build muscle.

People here are saying "you have to be in caloric surplus to build muscle", but that's a complete distortion (or misunderstanding) of the facts, the truth is YOU HAVE TO BE IN CALORIC SURPLUS TO ADD *WEIGHT,* not muscle.

Shedding fat with a diet adjustment is the same as simply re-calibrating the "maintenance" line between surplus and deficit. If you are already fat then you are maintaining that fat with your current diet. To lose some fat you just eat less, whereby you are eating enough to maintain a LOWER body weight. In time you will get down to that weight. That's dieting. It's simple. 
Now, what exactly in that suggests that at any time during the diet the trainee wasn't eating enough to repair and build muscle (as some here are suggesting) ?


----------



## dave 236 (Jan 26, 2010)

SNC said:


> For example, let's say there's a man of 200 pounds and is 15% body fat. But he wants to be ripped, which for him would be at 8% body fat.
> His lean mass is 170 pounds. If he tweaks his diet, or adds in cardio, or both (whatever he prefers for the caloric deficit) so that's he'll level off at 8% body fat with the same lean mass, then he'll be eating to maintain about 184 pounds, instead of his current 200.
> If he's eating to maintain 184 pounds, why on earth should he worry about not eating enough calories to build muscle on his lean 170 pounds ?


Because unless you do this very slowly the weight you lose will not be all fat. You will lose muscle too


----------



## rayray715 (Jan 26, 2010)

SNC said:


> You must be on a caloric deficit to burn off existing fat. I think everyone here agrees with that.
> 
> What I'm pointing out is that you dont have to be on a caloric surplus (ie. enough calories to increase your current body weight) to build muscle.
> 
> ...





i can only see that happening with newbies to the game. if thats not the case, how can muscle grow without it being fed more? same if you lift with the same weight all the time, if you dont increase the weight, you wont grow. muscle is still being broken down and repaired, but under certain circumstances, they will only build stronger fibers(without a surplus) or build and recruit more stronger fibers( with surplus).


----------



## SNC (Jan 26, 2010)

rayray715 said:


> i can only see that happening with newbies to the game. if thats not the case, how can muscle grow without it being fed more? same if you lift with the same weight all the time, if you dont increase the weight, you wont grow. muscle is still being broken down and repaired, but under certain circumstances, they will only build stronger fibers(without a surplus) or build and recruit more stronger fibers( with surplus).


 
A muscle will grow if it is stressed sufficiently AND fed sufficiently AND rested sufficiently.

Why should the sufficient feeding amount to MORE THAN CURRENT LEVELS if the body is already being fed to the point of FATNESS ?
That makes no sense.

If someone eats 4000 calories a day on average to maintain his current weight, and he's carrying enough flab to cover his abs, if he goes to a strict 3800 a day are we going to say he's not eating enough to build muscle ? 
If he's training hard and heavy his muscles will grow !


----------



## Merkaba (Jan 26, 2010)

SNC I see what you're saying, but you're speaking as if, from what I see, that the subject will be in perpetual surplus just because they are currently overweight which in my also 15 years of experience isn't always the case.  and you're not showing how muscle mass will be gained during the process!  Yes you will if you're Fat or sedentary and you start working out, I think we all agree on that as well due to just basic partitioning principles.   Now say 3 months down the road and you're running a 20-25% caloric deficit and and losing 5 lbs a month yet still building muscle?  Is this what you're saying?


----------



## SNC (Jan 26, 2010)

Merkaba said:


> SNC I see what you're saying, but you're speaking as if, from what I see, that the subject will be in perpetual surplus just because they are currently overweight which in my also 15 years of experience isn't always the case. and you're not showing how muscle mass will be gained during the process! Yes you will if you're Fat or sedentary and you start working out, I think we all agree on that as well due to just basic partitioning principles. Now say 3 months down the road and you're running a 20-25% caloric deficit and and losing 5 lbs a month yet still building muscle? Is this what you're saying?


 
Yes. With hard, heavy work-outs, sufficiently nutritious food intake and adequate rest the subject should still be gaining muscle. 
The hormonal response to the stimulus dictates that building the over-compensatory muscle tissue becomes one of the body's priorities, just another natural function. Even in a fat burning state the body wants to build that damn muscle !
The body doesn't know that we just want muscles for aesthetic purposes, bragging rights or posing infront of the mirror. It doesn't just say "no more muscle" when it is forced to use fat stores. The body adapts to the stresses put on it, and if the adaptation process requires energy during a time of limited calorie intake that fat-burning process will serve the body's needs in turn. Of course, organ cells, brain-function, respiratory functions  etc. are the priority, but that's always the case. FORTUNATELY.


----------



## awhites1 (Jan 26, 2010)

I haven't read all the post b/c its getting too long but I always thought it really only worked in the case of someone that was really out of shape.

Take a lard ass at around 30% body fat and get them on bulking work out program (deadlifts, squats, bench), now to put on muscle there is going to be some fat. It is in the muscle like you see it in steak, no way around it. But as they work out and tear down muscle, the body takes in calories/protein and builds up new muscle. As they build new muscle there metabolism goes up and they start to burn more calories. 
If they are on a caloric deficient diet they're going to lose weight. I guess thinking out loud about it though your body can't use fat storage to repair and build muscle but if you had a high enough protein intake I guess you could maintain, repair and build new muscle while still loosing fat b/c your so overweight and in a negative calorie swing.  
obviously for someone whos a little healthier this is going to be impossible. I've never thought about the pyschics of it though and could be way off. 
In any case you can't argue with if your fat you need to limit your calories and burn up that fat however your method. if your skinny eat lots and lift. its that simple


----------



## kyoun1e (Jan 26, 2010)

Everyone should read this:

Adding Muscle While Losing Fat - Q&A | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

KY


----------



## jmorrison (Jan 26, 2010)

I know from personal experience that when I cut from 30% to about 15% I got stronger and built some muscle.  When I went sub 15% on a small deficit of 300-500 cals per day, it ate my muscle up and I lost a lot of size and strength DESPTITE keeping my workouts intense and heavy.

I do not see how I could build muscle during this time when my body was basically eating itself for sustenance.  What would it build out of?  Or would the caloric deficit need to be smaller?  I just don't see it as possible for a fairly lean individual to build muscle while becoming MORE lean.

I understand what you are saying that a fatty (like I was) can build muscle because even in the deficit to lose weight I was still over cals for my lean tissue, but how the hell would this be possible for a lean individual?  You can't build something from nothing.


----------



## SNC (Jan 27, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> I know from personal experience that when I cut from 30% to about 15% I got stronger and built some muscle. When I went sub 15% on a small deficit of 300-500 cals per day, it ate my muscle up and I lost a lot of size and strength DESPTITE keeping my workouts intense and heavy.


 
How much muscle did you lose precisely ?
Strength loss could be from a number of things.



> I do not see how I could build muscle during this time when my body was basically eating itself for sustenance. What would it build out of?


 
Some of the energy from fat stores and some of the protein intake. Muscle-building is part of the body's "sustenance" if it's being hit with a stress/stimulus to cause a hormonal adaptation. 



> Or would the caloric deficit need to be smaller?


 
Probably. The more gradual and small the adjustment the better. But then, for bodybuilders who "need" to bulk up or live in a bulky condition for 3/4 of a year, I guess a slow diet is not acceptable. 

I believe in a moderate diet, and zig-zagging the calories, nutrients and meal frequency. But everyone has their own methods.



> I just don't see it as possible for a fairly lean individual to build muscle while becoming MORE lean.


 
It's possible for a fairly lean person to go to "six-pack" and "ripped" and continue to build muscle, and unless we're talking extreme peaks and "unnaturally" low levels of body fat it's absolutely possible. 



> I understand what you are saying that a fatty (like I was) can build muscle because even in the deficit to lose weight I was still over cals for my lean tissue, but how the hell would this be possible for a lean individual? You can't build something from nothing.


 
It's a matter of where you draw the line between possible and impossible. Where you draw the line between the fatty and the lean person. Personally, I think it's only the already ripped individuals who should worry about losing muscle or failing to gain any as a necessary result of a diet - and if they are already ripped then the only reason to diet further is for some extreme reason (eg. contest), that's their choice, their dilemma. But for the average trainer who has a fairly slim and flat midsection but wants to be ripped - the abs to show, veins, clear sharp definition all over - I think the feat is possible.


----------



## T_man (Jan 27, 2010)

Jus a question. If you have alot of fat. And you lift alot. And eat enough protein, while on a slight deficit. Why doesn't your body tap into that fat as an energy source to build muscle, rather than dietary calories, because, after all, it's dead weight and there's so much of it?


----------



## kyoun1e (Jan 27, 2010)

T_man said:


> Jus a question. If you have alot of fat. And you lift alot. And eat enough protein, while on a slight deficit. Why doesn't your body tap into that fat as an energy source to build muscle, rather than dietary calories, because, after all, it's dead weight and there's so much of it?



If you're a "fat newbie," this can happen, but for a short period. Your fat cells are pretty damn full so they're resistant to additional fat storage. Add the new training stimulus and encouraging an anabolic response and these calories that are pushed away from the fat cells are used to build muscle. Ta da...lose fat and gain muscle.

That said, if you've been training for a while, you're not going to be so lucky. You have to be both "fat" and "new" to experience the above. As you lose more fat and train more, it's much harder to either pull fat out of storage or build muscle. That's the price of getting better/bigger/slimmer.

People need to understand that we're talking about two separate, complicated processes here. The mechanisms for fat loss and muscle growth are two different things...they're not mashed together. And your body in general doesn't like to do two things at once.

Outside of the segments I outlined initially (newbie, drugs, genetic elite) the only situation where I think gaining muscle and losing fat is possible is UD2 (Ultimate Diet 2.0). Some have experienced this. I haven't been so lucky. And even if you're lucky to gain some muscle, it's very little in comparison to the fat loss.

Think most need to accept reality.

Or start taking drugs.

KY


----------



## SNC (Jan 27, 2010)

""


----------



## Marat (Jan 27, 2010)

T_man said:


> Jus a question. If you have alot of fat. And you lift alot. And eat enough protein, while on a slight deficit. Why doesn't your body tap into that fat as an energy source to build muscle, rather than dietary calories, because, after all, it's dead weight and there's so much of it?



In addition to what kyoun1e said,

I'm going to go layman's terms: it takes more energy input to release stored energy than to utilize what is already floating around from one's food intake. As usual, one's body prefers to take the path of least resistance. 

By going into a caloric deficit, one is 'convincing' their body to pull energy from the fat stores. 

Going full circle: For most cases, losing fat requires one to convince their body that it needs to utilize the energy in the fat stores. By going into a sustained caloric deficit, one is 'telling' their body that there isn't any food around, and to fill the deficit with energy from fat stores [your body needs 2500 cals (maintenance) and one is consistently taking in 2000 (deficit intake), one's mitochondria needs to make up that 500 calorie deficit by pulling energy out of fat stores.  

In order for that to be done, one's body needs to up or downregulate plenty of hormones and generally shuffle around a lot of one's biochemistry.

This 'shuffling' is opposite of the 'shuffling' needed to build muscle. Muscle tissue is not 'designed' to store proteins. It is simply a contractile unit. Taking in a ton of energy alone will not make one's muscles grow. The protein does provide the 'building blocks' and the other macronutrients do provide the 'elbow grease' to build up the muscle. However, because muscle is not designed as a storage unit, they respond to work in order to grow.

When you apply work to your muscles, they can either adapt to the work (get stronger and/or bigger --- this means increasing muscle mass) or acquiesce to the work and simply not grow. At surplus and proper work, they will grow.

The most common reason why the latter occurs is that the individual is not taking in enough calories. Even eating at true maintenance (calories in = out, this is nearly impossible to do, and this is why people recompose slowly over time), one does not have the 'bricks(protein surplus/positive nitrogen balance) and mortar (caloric surplus) in order to build a house (muscle).  Bodybuilding and physics are overlapping magisteria, and physics says that you cannot build something out of nothing. 


When one is eating at deficit, not only does one not have enough energy to sustain their own mitochondrial needs at, but now the body is required to defend against the work that it is being exposed to. As mentioned, one option is to grow bigger and stronger, however, there is no materials available to do so, the muscles will not grow bigger and stronger. 

These concepts are why it is recommended to lift with low volume during a cut. One is trying to apply enough pressure to the muscles to let one's body know that they are needed without forcing one's body to surrender to the work applied. 

All in all, bodybuilding is a game of thermodynamics -- fat loss responds to taking in less energy than required. Muscle gain responds to work, however surplus calories are needed in order to build muscle (thermodynamics, again). 

As stated earlier, one cannot be in deficit and in surplus simultaneously.


----------



## CowPimp (Jan 27, 2010)

Well, it looks like the original poster has already been ripped a new Gazhole.  All I have to say is good luck getting anywhere like that.  Yes, in theory, it is possible.  In practice, good luck.  We'll see where you are in a few years trying to do both at the same time constantly.


----------



## Merkaba (Jan 27, 2010)

Well Dam SNC, when does the body ever go into a catabolic state then?


----------



## Moze (Jan 27, 2010)

Please respond SNC.  You're the underdog here, and I was rooting for ya.  I personally Lost 26 pounds of pure fat over a period of 6 months from January to June last year, and I was proud of that, 196 lbs down to 170 lbs.  I kept a detailed diary of all exercises, and weight amounts lifted. And I measured all carbs, proteins and fats. I kept the calorie intake slightly under maintenance, except for my once a week cheat meal.  And I did get stronger!  Of course I was in the range of 25% bf. and dropped to 15% bf. but still.... My bench press went up 25 lbs. ! I actually didn't even do that much cardio.  I'm 40 and have been lifting on and off since high school.  Plus my nights are riddled with severe insomnia.  I don't think I am a newbie, but maybe that's relative.  Doesn't this qualify as losing fat and building muscle at the same time?  Without getting too scientific. Come on people, work with me here.


----------



## CowPimp (Jan 27, 2010)

Moze said:


> Please respond SNC.  You're the underdog here, and I was rooting for ya.  I personally Lost 26 pounds of pure fat over a period of 6 months from January to June last year, and I was proud of that, 196 lbs down to 170 lbs.  I kept a detailed diary of all exercises, and weight amounts lifted. And I measured all carbs, proteins and fats. I kept the calorie intake slightly under maintenance, except for my once a week cheat meal.  And I did get stronger!  Of course I was in the range of 25% bf. and dropped to 15% bf. but still.... My bench press went up 25 lbs. ! I actually didn't even do that much cardio.  I'm 40 and have been lifting on and off since high school.  Plus my nights are riddled with severe insomnia.  I don't think I am a newbie, but maybe that's relative.  Doesn't this qualify as losing fat and building muscle at the same time?  Without getting too scientific. Come on people, work with me here.



Yup, you're a newbie, first of all.  Second of all, how are you so certain that you didn't lose any muscle anyway?  Simply weighing yourself and looking in the mirror does not qualify as accurate.  Finally, you can get stronger while not gaining muscle mass.  There are a variety of other factors, but if you are new to lifting or haven't lifted in a while, you see huge neural gains right away even with no appreciable change in body composition.


----------



## Moze (Jan 27, 2010)

Cowpimp,

I know you are quite well read in the areas of fitness.  I've read dozens of your 15,000+ posts.  And I've always liked them.  You have a pedantic manner in your presentations.  I'm going to jump off topic for a second, now that I have your attention.  I've dealt with severe insomnia since I was 18. It went away for a while in my twenties, and resurfaced again in my thirties.   In the last year it has been particularly bad.  It is always the early morning variety.   Meaning I go to sleep quickly at around 10:30 pm and wake up at around 200 or 300 a.m. and never go back to sleep.  I've tried many strategies.  Homeopathic remedies, L-Tryptophan, tea with valerian root, Casein protein at night, over the counter sleep medicines.  Some work for a little while.  If you saw my thread on Insomnia and weightlifting, you would know that it is the not being satisfied with my career obsession, that I feel is the real problem.  Since you seem quite intelligent, maybe you might have a solution to my endless insomnia problem.


----------



## SNC (Jan 28, 2010)

kyoun1e said:


> People need to understand that we're talking about two separate, complicated processes here. The mechanisms for fat loss and muscle growth are two different things...they're not mashed together. And your body in general doesn't like to do two things at once.


The body does several things at once. 
And the question of fat loss and muscle gain "at the same time" is in the context of being spread over a period of a number of weeks, so they two mechanism dont necessarily have to be operating literally at the very same instant. And that shouldn't be a problem. Muscles aren't growing ALL THE TIME. Fat isn't disappearing at a constant steady rate. These are processes that are going to occur for portions of the day and night, in cycles, manipulated by stimulus and influenced by and influencing other processes and cycles, according to training, diet specifics, body temperature, sleep, eating, drinking, fasting etc.


----------



## Marat (Jan 28, 2010)

SNC said:


> The body does several things at once.



This is true. Your body, on the *micro *level, does burn fat and rebuild muscle at the same time.

However, this conversation is relatively moot if it cannot be applied to bodybuilding. 

SNC, are you suggesting that one can gain an *appreciable* amount of muscle mass and lose an appreciable amount of fat while on, say, a 500 calorie deficit?

For instance: an individual is on a 500 calorie deficit for a period of time, perhaps a month or two; are you suggesting that the individual can gain, say,  5lbs of lean mass and lose 5lbs of fat? The actual numbers are not the point, the idea is that they can gain and lose an appreciable amount of weight. We can hold that the individual does not take any performance enhancing drugs and has great genetics, nutrition, and training.


----------



## SNC (Jan 28, 2010)

Merkaba said:


> Well Dam SNC, when does the body ever go into a catabolic state then?


 
At various times, and that's unavoidable. 
This anabolism and catabolism, muscle gain and fat loss, these hormonal increases and decreases are all happening in what are micro-cycles of the actual period of time we should be concerned about. 

I might be growing tonight because of what I did in the gym 10 days ago, and the growth and its extent a consequence too of the certain meals I ate, in certain amounts, at certain times in the last few days.  
It's not necessarily whether I ate a net caloric surplus over the entire 10 days, or 2 weeks or whatever. 
7 days ago I might have been losing fat AND breaking down muscle, but the stimulus I hit the body with 10 days ago is taken its toll and reaping the rewards now, and an isolated overly-catabolic day might have been a necessary unavoidable piece of the entire process in my mission to lose fat and gain muscle.

Of course, losing fat and gaining muscle simultaneously isn't the ideal mission to be on. I would advise staying lean all the time. If you stay within a few pounds of being as ripped as you would want to be, it's never really an issue.


----------



## SNC (Jan 28, 2010)

m11 said:


> This is true. Your body, on the *micro *level, does burn fat and rebuild muscle at the same time.
> 
> However, this conversation is relatively moot if it cannot be applied to bodybuilding.
> 
> ...


 
It's difficult for any individual who has been training properly for some time (and is carrying as much mass as he ever has, ie. not coming back off a layoff) to gain an *appreciable* amount of muscle in a month or two, whether on the fat-loss diet or not.

For such individuals, it's a lot harder to gain muscle than lose fat.
Losing fat is the easiest thing apart from gaining fat !
Gaining _pounds per month_, say, of muscle is quite hard, undoubtedly, even with good genetics.
But losing muscle is a lot harder (for the conscientious bodybuilder) than a lot of bodybuilders seem to think. Bodybuilders seem to revel or wallow in worrying about losing muscle.

It's possible to gain muscle and lose fat, and the muscle gain might be small and very gradual, but for the non-beginner muscle gain will naturally be gradual in any case. Once you get to a certain size the growth slows down.


----------



## SNC (Jan 28, 2010)

Moze said:


> Please respond SNC. You're the underdog here, and I was rooting for ya. I personally Lost 26 pounds of pure fat over a period of 6 months from January to June last year, and I was proud of that, 196 lbs down to 170 lbs. I kept a detailed diary of all exercises, and weight amounts lifted. And I measured all carbs, proteins and fats. I kept the calorie intake slightly under maintenance, except for my once a week cheat meal. And I did get stronger! Of course I was in the range of 25% bf. and dropped to 15% bf. but still.... My bench press went up 25 lbs. ! I actually didn't even do that much cardio. I'm 40 and have been lifting on and off since high school. Plus my nights are riddled with severe insomnia. I don't think I am a newbie, but maybe that's relative. Doesn't this qualify as losing fat and building muscle at the same time? Without getting too scientific. Come on people, work with me here.


 
Well, for those who say it's IMPOSSIBLE for anyone other than a newbie or someone coming back off a layoff, you'll be in one of those categories. And that's fair enough.

BUT I think the difference between the muscle-building potential of a beginner and a non-beginner isn't a exact science. It's not like someone was physically and biologically still a "newbie" on a Monday session and not so by the Wednesday !

I mean, anyone who who's still training to gain size - who believes he can still add muscle mass - must still have some of that "newbie" biology in him. That's the principle every bodybuilder works on - ie. that there is something he can do in the gym to stimulate more growth !
Things DO change in the body as a bodybuilder gets more advanced, and for a number of reasons gaining muscle becomes harder the closer he gets to maxing out. It gets dramatically harder.
Gaining muscle is easier for a beginner.
Gaining muscle while losing fat is easier for a beginner.
But neither of those things are impossible for someone who's more advanced.
In fact losing fat per se should be easier for the more muscular individual.


----------



## kyoun1e (Jan 28, 2010)

CowPimp said:


> Yup, you're a newbie, first of all.  Second of all, how are you so certain that you didn't lose any muscle anyway?  Simply weighing yourself and looking in the mirror does not qualify as accurate.  Finally, you can get stronger while not gaining muscle mass.  There are a variety of other factors, but if you are new to lifting or haven't lifted in a while, you see huge neural gains right away even with no appreciable change in body composition.



And there's a problem right there. Many claim they've lost fat and gained muscle, but I'd like to see accurate metrics. And they never have 'em.

KY


----------



## Gazhole (Jan 28, 2010)

This thread is epic.

Have mid term exams and assignments due in, but im still reading, and loving the back and forth.


----------



## Merkaba (Jan 28, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> This thread is epic.
> 
> Have mid term exams and assignments due in, but im still reading, and loving the back and forth.



Yes I agree.  I just stepped in for a sec too I gotta go write a contract on a home see ya!


----------



## Moze (Jan 28, 2010)

Here's an interesting approach to losing fat while building muscle.  If anyone is interested, please read the article and let me know what you think.  I guess the key is major fluctuations in diet, and timing, which I think snc was eluding to earlier.

Bodybuilding.com - Build Muscle & Lose Fat Simultaneously? - Kelly Baggett


----------



## kyoun1e (Jan 28, 2010)

Moze said:


> Bodybuilding.com - Build Muscle & Lose Fat Simultaneously? - Kelly Baggett



This program switches gears quite a bit. On a daily basis you're flip flopping from diet to muscle building mode. I'd fear that you basically accomplish neither goal on this program.

What's interesting is that it does have some similarities with UD2 (where participants have seen both fat loss and muscle gains...although the muscle gains are smaller than the fat gains). Both approaches use low carb diets and glycogen depletion workouts in a "diet phase" that increases insulin sensitivity and paves the way for an anabolic rebound or a "growth phase." Big difference here is Baggett's program does this daily. UD2 has a weekly cycle where the first 3.5 days are focused on fat loss and the 2nd 3.5 days are focused on growth. 

On UD2 lots of research was put into making it a seven day cycle (vs say Baggett's 2 day) and I believe that the optimum length is 8 days. Unfortunately, 8 days has a hard time fitting into your average week...(Duh)...so for adherence sake, make it 7.

So my opinion: I don't think Baggett's approach will work...unless you're on drugs.

KY


----------



## CowPimp (Jan 28, 2010)

Moze said:


> Cowpimp,
> 
> I know you are quite well read in the areas of fitness.  I've read dozens of your 15,000+ posts.  And I've always liked them.  You have a pedantic manner in your presentations.  I'm going to jump off topic for a second, now that I have your attention.  I've dealt with severe insomnia since I was 18. It went away for a while in my twenties, and resurfaced again in my thirties.   In the last year it has been particularly bad.  It is always the early morning variety.   Meaning I go to sleep quickly at around 10:30 pm and wake up at around 200 or 300 a.m. and never go back to sleep.  I've tried many strategies.  Homeopathic remedies, L-Tryptophan, tea with valerian root, Casein protein at night, over the counter sleep medicines.  Some work for a little while.  If you saw my thread on Insomnia and weightlifting, you would know that it is the not being satisfied with my career obsession, that I feel is the real problem.  Since you seem quite intelligent, maybe you might have a solution to my endless insomnia problem.



Ooph, sorry to say but that is not something I know much about.  I could give you some basic recommendations, but I imagine they are things you've already been suggested.  You know, make sure the room is really dark, try to go to bed at a consistent time, etc.  I don't know enough about the endocrinology of sleep or the physiological changes that take place to even venture a guess at the problem.

If you feel it is some kind of mental stressor, maybe you should try meditation or relaxation techniques before bed?  You could also just get really stoned; I bet you'll stay asleep then, haha.


----------

