# Either Build Muscle OR Lose Fat?



## Karlito (Mar 18, 2003)

I know a lot of people adhere to bulking and cutting cycles, but is it not possible to gain lean muscle WHILE you burn off bodyfat?  Some people seem to think this simply isn't possible, others seem to argue that as long as you're taking in protein and eating correctly, you can do it, albeit slowly....

Which side is right?

I'm at the point where I want to do BOTH before summer, both gain lean muscle AND lose the remaining 15 lbs i have left....am I fooling myself?


----------



## w8lifter (Mar 18, 2003)

I think you can do both generally...but it is much slower...and how effective it is probably depends on how long you've been training. Someone new to fitness is going to have an easier time adding muscle and dropping fat.


----------



## Robboe (Mar 18, 2003)

You can, if:

a. You're extremely fat.

2. You're a new lifter.

d. You're on AAS.




You can't (put on anything significant), if:

1. You're an experienced lifter.

c. You're already quite lean (~12-15% and below).


----------



## Robboe (Mar 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Karlito *_
> I'm at the point where I want to do BOTH before summer, both gain lean muscle AND lose the remaining 15 lbs i have left....am I fooling myself?



What do you mean by 15lbs you have "left"?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> You can, if:
> 
> a. You're extremely fat.
> ...



I agree.


----------



## Fit Freak (Mar 18, 2003)

I agree too...nice post


----------



## Karlito (Mar 18, 2003)

> What do you mean by 15lbs you have "left"?



I've only been on this weightlifting and diet plan six weeks without ever having done serious lifting before.  I probably have around 15 lbs of extra fat left, primarily around the waist that I'd like to lose while I add muscle....

I'd like to hit my six pack here early on so I know where "zero line" is,  and how hard it is to get there (low bf, visible abs, slightly cut) if that makes any sense....


----------



## Mudge (Mar 18, 2003)

Sure, you can do both, but it will be slower for both, hence the reasoning to do one or the other. Kind of like trying to walk forwards and backwards at the same time, not a 1:1 relationship but similar.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> Kind of like trying to walk forwards and backwards at the same time, not a 1:1 relationship but similar.



wouldn't that be impossible? 

it would be either or, you cannot go forward and backwards simultaneously.


----------



## LiftHardGainBig (Mar 18, 2003)

yes you just stay still...  DUH!


----------



## Mudge (Mar 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> it would be either or, you cannot go forward and backwards simultaneously.



Thats why I only said it was sort of like, obviously not a 1:1 comparison. If you do the splits you can do it once right? Thats kind of like going forwards and backwards 

Meaning you are telling the body to do two things, lose weight and gain weight, so obviously there has to be a compromise, or in the case of extremes where the body would love to dump that weight because you eat out of hand like TCD mentioned.

If someone is willing to live with slower fat loss, just clean up the diet and keep working out, but no need to starve yourself  I am willing to slowly trade fat for muscle by not changing my calories, just eating the same things and trying to continue to gain strength/muscle. I am cutting my sodium down though.


----------



## w8lifter (Mar 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> 
> 
> Meaning you are telling the body to do two things, lose weight and gain weight, so obviously there has to be a compromise,




For that to work you need to distinguish between fat and muscle. You can't gain "weight" and lose "weight" at the same time...but you can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time  ...and your bodyweight may even stay the same (for a time).


----------



## Karlito (Mar 19, 2003)

So being only six weeks in to a program...it is still possible for me to ditch this small spare tire AND continue making some steady gains provided I'm eating correctly and working out well?


----------



## P-funk (Mar 19, 2003)

> So being only six weeks in to a program...it is still possible for me to ditch this small spare tire AND continue making some steady gains provided I'm eating correctly and working out well?



In my opinion, yes.  I have been able to gain muscle and loose fat on a cut by manipulating my macros and eating really clean.


----------



## Tank316 (Mar 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by w8lifter *_
> For that to work you need to distinguish between fat and muscle. You can't gain "weight" and lose "weight" at the same time...but you can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time  ...and your bodyweight may even stay the same (for a time).


   good post W8


----------



## Robboe (Mar 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Karlito *_
> So being only six weeks in to a program...it is still possible for me to ditch this small spare tire AND continue making some steady gains provided I'm eating correctly and working out well?




I wouldn't say "steady" gains.


----------



## cornfed (Mar 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> You can, if:
> 3. You're on AAS.


and I was about to disagree 

seriously, though, I think/know it's possible, but not common.  
A. It all depends on how your body adjusts to changes in diet 
--1. keep a low carb diet long enough, and your metabolism will normalize again @ that diet.
--2. timing is everything w/ carbs IMO

B. training
I think that a non-(or low)-cardio heavy training is still the way to go, only changing diet

JMO


----------



## Karlito (Mar 19, 2003)

> I wouldn't say "steady" gains.



Well, you know what I mean....

I started 6 weeks ago...I don't want to be eating my ass off as summertime approaches, I'd like to get cut and add some lean muscle too, then focus on bulking in the fall....


----------



## Twin Peak (Mar 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> You can, if:
> 
> a. You're extremely fat.
> ...



Exactly.  And if you are 1 or c, you can be far more productive, over the course of a year, if you adhere to one specific goal at a time.

The reason, is simple.  To gain appreciable muscle you need to eat more calories than you burn.  To lose fat you need to burn more than you eat.


----------



## cornfed (Mar 19, 2003)

Good to see ya 'round, bro


----------



## Twin Peak (Mar 19, 2003)

Thanks!


----------



## Karlito (Mar 19, 2003)

> The reason, is simple. To gain appreciable muscle you need to eat more calories than you burn. To lose fat you need to burn more than you eat.



But at the same time, the more muscle you're adding, the more calories you're burning at rest....

So is it in fact EASIER to get cut after you've put on serious muscle?


----------



## Twin Peak (Mar 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Karlito *_
> But at the same time, the more muscle you're adding, the more calories you're burning at rest....
> 
> So is it in fact EASIER to get cut after you've put on serious muscle?



The later question is a true statement, but probably for reasons you are not considering.

Define "cut".  The only way to get "cut" is to lose BF.  How much muscle  you do or do not have is irrelavant to how "cut" one is.  

Its easier to get "cut" (i.e. leaner) when you have more muscle mass for the simple reason that muscle increases your base metabolic rate, thus you burn more clas when resting.

So, I do not understand the implications of your first statement, in this context, although I would agree with what you said.

The point of what I wrote, is unrelated to your comment and question.

If you burn 2000 or 3000 or 4000 cals a day is not the point.  Whatever you burn, generally, you need to consumer MORE than that amount to add appreciable muscle (except under the circumstances Rob mentioned) and you need to consume less than that amount to lose BF.


----------



## Karlito (Mar 19, 2003)

Well what I meant is that if I kept my diet the same while gaining muscle, I'd wind up naturally cut as my body would be burning more calories with its new found muscle than I was expending....

So it's fair to assume I could stay on this healthy diet for the spring and summer, and get a little built and cut, then worry about bulking this fall?  Only having been working out for 6 weeks puts me in Chicken Daddy's '2' group of new lifters?

Like I said I don't want to start bulking now that summer's coming....as I really want to see this six pack, just to achieve it as a goal.


----------



## Twin Peak (Mar 19, 2003)

The point is, when you diet, you don't have to forgo the notion of not gaining, or losing muscle.  And yes, this is particularly true in your case since (1) you are new to training and (2) you only have to lose a little.

Given your goals (long and short term) your best bet would be to eat slighly less than maintenance calories.  That way you will lose the fat you want.  Doing so, all the while lifting hard.  You will likely add *some* muscle (since you are new to training) though not as much if you had been eating differently.  Then, after the summer, and you have some training under your belt, you can switch to slightly above maintenance cals and look to put on muscle while gaining a bit of fat (not an excuse to gain a ton).


----------



## DaMayor (Mar 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Karlito *_
> Well what I meant is that if I kept my diet the same while gaining muscle, I'd wind up naturally cut as my body would be burning more calories with its new found muscle than I was expending....



I understand your point here, and theoretically, it seems plausible, at least to some extent...assuming that you could continue to gain muscle with no change in diet. Personally, I wish this were the case. Because if it were true, I could compete in the next year or two. 
However, (and please correct me TP,DP,TCD et al) to rely on muscle gain and/or the increase in metabolism due to this gain as the sole means of decreasing bodyfat levels would take a very long time.....and only under the most optimal circumstances.


----------



## Karlito (Mar 19, 2003)

Thanks guys...looks like I'm on the right track.  

I guess just something about the science of dieting and lifting seems odd to me.

Take a man, who's 20 lbs overweight.  Have him ingest the perfect amount of calories (perfect maintenence), with all the necessary nutrients (healthy fats, high protein, slow burning carbs).  Have him sleep well, and drink plenty of water.  He'll still grow, yes?  Probably for a while.  And he'll probably lose that 20 lbs given long enough too.....just slower.

Yet if you do a google search you can find plenty (just as in this thread) who say it's impossible, and equate it to trying to sit and stand at the same time.  Yet this only really applies to weightlifters who have been doing it for a while.  So the answer to the question is different depending on who's asking it.....

So if some out of shape guy hits the web and asks "can I lose fat and gain muscle at the same time", the answer would be yes...it's possible.

But if a lifter or very active person, whose body is already conditioned and bulked, with very little fat already asks the question,the answer would be no, because the body has done as much as it can with what it has been given, and needs added calories and more protein in order to see improved gains....

Am I understanding this correctly?


----------



## Twin Peak (Mar 19, 2003)

Basically, yes.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Exactly.  And if you are 1 or c, you can be far more productive, over the course of a year, if you adhere to one specific goal at a time.
> 
> The reason, is simple.  To gain appreciable muscle you need to eat more calories than you burn.  To lose fat you need to burn more than you eat.


I agree with this totally. If you can can gain muscle while loosing fat if already lean, you are one lucky sumbeach!


----------



## Robboe (Mar 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Karlito *_
> Well what I meant is that if I kept my diet the same while gaining muscle, I'd wind up naturally cut as my body would be burning more calories with its new found muscle than I was expending....




If you kept your diet the same while gaining muscle, say at 200kcals above maintenance, eventually you'd come to a point where the extra muscle gained will knock your metabolic rate up so that you are no longer 200kcals above maintenance, but actually at maintenance level calories. At this point, the chance of adding further muscle or shedding much fat is slim. You'll just maintain. If you want to do one or the other and achieve noticable results, you'll have to either increase calories further to support muscle growth or reduce calories to ensure further fat loss.

Alternatively, you can give it a go of dropping 15lbs of fat while gaining muscle at the same time. If it works, then bump this bad boy and say "ner ner nee ner ner". If not, which i'm betting it probably won't, then: 


"I told you so".


----------



## Dr. Pain (Mar 19, 2003)

So hypothetically...what if his BMR is say 2800 calories.....he  eats 2800 calories, yet oxidizes 250 calories of  his own  BF.........is it not possible that the surplus  (marconutrient ingested) 250 calories could go to both LBM synthesis and repair  (mostly likely would go  to a thermic response)...but it is possible...and we know depending on his stage of development, probable that some LBM building would occur? 


DP


----------



## Yanick (Mar 19, 2003)

Uh oh, not this again.

Quick everyone, to the bomb shelters...here comes a biggy (debate, that is)


----------



## Dr. Pain (Mar 19, 2003)

No...I'm done...just reiterating...

TCD can have his point...most people have to have their planets in alignment...including theiranus (Uranus) to pull this off....


----------



## Robboe (Mar 20, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Dr. Pain *_
> So hypothetically...what if his BMR is say 2800 calories.....he  eats 2800 calories, yet oxidizes 250 calories of  his own  BF.........is it not possible that the surplus  (marconutrient ingested) 250 calories could go to both LBM synthesis and repair  (mostly likely would go  to a thermic response)...but it is possible...and we know depending on his stage of development, probable that some LBM building would occur?
> 
> 
> DP




If the body is recieving all the calories it requires, then it has no reason to oxidise it's own bodyfat stores. The deposits are there for when the body isn't sensing the calories coming in, and it needs the calories to meet requirements. However, any changes in bodyfat or LBM would be so minimal it would be a near pointless endeavour.

But if the lad's BMR really is 2800 and that's what he's taking in, no doubt he'd be involved in at least some activity, so the body's net calories would be lower than 2800 overall, so he wouldn't have a 250kcal "surplus".

By the way, that is a real stretch of a question, since i seriously doubt the body would oxidise ~27g of fat while the body is recieving maintenance calories, unless he is doing some sort of activity - but then his calories would no longer be at maintenance, so back we come.

And Yan, this is a bit different. The last one was about adding muscle while in calorie deficit. This is more shedding fat while at calorie maintenance/surplus.

But i will admit, there is a much higher possibility that you'll manage to achieve it at maintenance calories than you will in calorie surplus.

If you fall into the criteria i posted earlier, then have a good go at it, but if not, no doubt you'll have to sacrifice a lot of effort and your social life to manage it. And i think you'll be wasting your efforts trying personally, but it's your life.


----------



## cornfed (Mar 21, 2003)

Well then I'm as evolutionarily fuqqed up as the bombadier beetle...

I was 182 @ 14.5%bf (mod hydrated) this time in January... my calories have stayed right @ 2200kcals/day, PCF about 67/10/23...
same diet ... same training... no supps or gear
Today... 187.5 @ 13-13.5% (dry as can be legally), same diet.

How the fuq is this explained?   ... My feeling is that there are more variables here that cal in/cal out. 

BTW, I'm a big fan of the Socratic method...


----------



## Robboe (Mar 21, 2003)

So you hadn't just carbed up prior to weighing yourself second time round?

You hadn't facd a bit of a layoff before weighing in at 182?

How did you test your bf?


----------



## cornfed (Mar 21, 2003)

6pt caliper, I know... I know... 9pt or hydroSt... 

the 1st weighing was actually the day after a mild carb up... more hydrated than on average.  I'd laid off from dec 23-jan4, so I guess I'd laid off.

also, my strength went up significantly over the past 3wks or so.


----------



## cornfed (Mar 21, 2003)

I haven't had carbs in a 6days, except 20g post W/O.
The second wt is today... the bf% is from Tues evening.
I'm actually fluctuating b/w 187.5 and 191.5, but 187.5 is on use of some OTC diuretics (that I decided to toy w/ to check their effects for future use)... so 187.5 VERY dry


----------



## Dr. Pain (Mar 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by cornfed [/b][/i]
> Well then I'm as evolutionarily fuqqed up as the bombadier beetle...
> 
> I was 182 @ 14.5%bf (mod hydrated) this time in January... my calories have stayed right @ 2200kcals/day, PCF about 67/10/23...
> ...



Explain it?  "Your're a Freak!" 

Like, myself and  hundreds I've known.....lol

You know, the calories in/out things has always bugged me too........I have seen dozens gain w8 or not lose w8 doing an hour of cardio 6 days a week and on 600 calories/day diets....

One lady gainned w8 eating just one bowl of hot air pop corn/day...lol  :gofigure:

DP


----------



## Robboe (Mar 21, 2003)

Cornfed, i imagine the layoff contributed a bit. The deconditioning kinda makes your muscles more sensitive to growth - which is why HST incorporates a 9 day layoff quite regularly.

And i imagine since you're on such low carbs, that you incorporate regular carb ups, which generally end up in your calories going OVER maintenance, which means you're not in deficit at all. if you were in a continuous loop of calorie deficit, you wouldn't have gained that weight. Low carbs tend to make the muscles more insulin sensitive, so the carb ups end up being quite anabolic in nature. They also aid in a slight surge of anabolic hormones, which usually results in a bit of growth.

You need the energy balance to be going in one direction or the other for extended periods of time to make any significant changes, save for the slight changes that you'd kill yourself making by going inbetween.

DP, the 600kcal thing + cardio. It'll be down to majorly shot metabolisms from stupid dieting techniques over long periods of time.

And i'd wager that the lady eating "one bowl of hot air pop corn" wasn't giving the entire picture of her eating habbits.


----------



## Dr. Pain (Mar 21, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> 
> 
> DP, the 600kcal thing + cardio. It'll be down to majorly shot metabolisms from stupid dieting techniques over long periods of time.



Exactly! :cheers:

DP


----------



## cornfed (Mar 21, 2003)

20g/ post WO  and a 75-100g (carb up over a day), maybe 3-400kcals xtra in an already deficit cal intake doesn't acount for that much.  @ 2200kcal, I'm already a hair under BMR, not including cal expenditures.  I'm not trying to argue, just stating the results.

0 cardio, 
35-40min 1x/part/wk (w/ @ least 1 day of secondary work)
2200kcals
LBM gain? (156 -> 167)   a couple lbs fat loss?  (27 -> 25)

Still doesn't add up and the results haven't laid off too much after 2 mo of it?  @ least strength wise (rest is hard to calculate day by day).


----------



## Robboe (Mar 21, 2003)

But how frequently do you carb up?


(and are you saying you only carb up on 75-100g carbs?)


----------



## cornfed (Mar 24, 2003)

yes, used to go every 4th day, but I'm down to 1 a wk... it's more for personal sanity than a true "carb up" ie >300g.  So factor that in...

also, I hit about 275g carbs Fri night and another 300 Sat morning to see what my weight would do.  198.5 Sun am.


----------



## cornfed (Mar 24, 2003)

as for the ammount of carbs... my body gains more than proportional wt w/ carb intake vs the calories thereof.  And I'm not including water wt.  Another 1 of those cal in/out fallacies for me.  That's why I'm very conservative w/ carbs.


----------

