gaining muscle mass vs burning fat

DavPul

It's very possible to do at the same time. My increasing calf and arm muscles and decreasing belly fat prove it.

You are probably just losing arm and lower leg fat along with your tummy fat, allowing the muscle mass you already had to show.

Last time I checked, if you can see a progress in strength (i.e. you can lift more), you are getting stronger, is that not a sign of building muscle??

Not necessarily. Central nervous system is adapting to the work as well.


I saw muscle gains for a while on a deficit. Newbie gains. That's over now for the most part, but when I started jump rope I found out my calves were still newbies.


Now, if I expect to make muscle gains I need to eat more.

Well.. would you say it would depend on your body type as well? Cause some gain muscle more easily than others. I know I gain muscle and strength fairly easily. Then again, I'm also not eating on much of a deficit. But I've always been one to gain muscle and strength easily.

yeah, but you're a female. everyone on MFP knows that females pack on the muscles more readily than the males do

almc170

It's very possible to do at the same time. My increasing calf and arm muscles and decreasing belly fat prove it.

You are probably just losing arm and lower leg fat along with your tummy fat, allowing the muscle mass you already had to show.

Last time I checked, if you can see a progress in strength (i.e. you can lift more), you are getting stronger, is that not a sign of building muscle??

Not necessarily. Central nervous system is adapting to the work as well.


I saw muscle gains for a while on a deficit. Newbie gains. That's over now for the most part, but when I started jump rope I found out my calves were still newbies.


Now, if I expect to make muscle gains I need to eat more.

Well.. would you say it would depend on your body type as well? Cause some gain muscle more easily than others. I know I gain muscle and strength fairly easily. Then again, I'm also not eating on much of a deficit. But I've always been one to gain muscle and strength easily.

yeah, but you're a female. everyone on MFP knows that females pack on the muscles more readily than the males do

Well there is that. Cuz we get bulky, yo.

ironanimal

It's very possible to do at the same time. My increasing calf and arm muscles and decreasing belly fat prove it.

You are probably just losing arm and lower leg fat along with your tummy fat, allowing the muscle mass you already had to show.

Last time I checked, if you can see a progress in strength (i.e. you can lift more), you are getting stronger, is that not a sign of building muscle??

Not necessarily. Central nervous system is adapting to the work as well.


I saw muscle gains for a while on a deficit. Newbie gains. That's over now for the most part, but when I started jump rope I found out my calves were still newbies.


Now, if I expect to make muscle gains I need to eat more.

Well.. would you say it would depend on your body type as well? Cause some gain muscle more easily than others. I know I gain muscle and strength fairly easily. Then again, I'm also not eating on much of a deficit. But I've always been one to gain muscle and strength easily.

yeah, but you're a female. everyone on MFP knows that females pack on the muscles more readily than the males do

If only it was so easy for those of us lifting heavy weights and full of testosterone.

almc170

It's very possible to do at the same time. My increasing calf and arm muscles and decreasing belly fat prove it.

You are probably just losing arm and lower leg fat along with your tummy fat, allowing the muscle mass you already had to show.

Last time I checked, if you can see a progress in strength (i.e. you can lift more), you are getting stronger, is that not a sign of building muscle??

Not necessarily. Central nervous system is adapting to the work as well.


I saw muscle gains for a while on a deficit. Newbie gains. That's over now for the most part, but when I started jump rope I found out my calves were still newbies.


Now, if I expect to make muscle gains I need to eat more.

Well.. would you say it would depend on your body type as well? Cause some gain muscle more easily than others. I know I gain muscle and strength fairly easily. Then again, I'm also not eating on much of a deficit. But I've always been one to gain muscle and strength easily.

yeah, but you're a female. everyone on MFP knows that females pack on the muscles more readily than the males do

If only it was so easy for those of us lifting heavy weights and full of testosterone.

Two words - Tracy Anderson.

sexymuffintop

I never knew we had so many genetic freaks who can pack on muscle while losing fat, you are truly amazing. You have obviously discovered the true secret to awesomeness and look muscle-tastic. I have no idea why bodybuilders even bother to bulk and cut. They should just come to MFP and get tips from the snowflakes on here. Pfffff

gfroniewski

It's possible in beginners to lifting, but not likely (and it won't be much)

You say you want to gain muscle definition. Definition is achieved just by lowering body fat and uncovering the muscle that you have already. Your best bet IMO would be to eat at a small deficit so you lose fat, lift weights to maintain the muscle that you have, and gradually you'll see more definition.

^^^ This right here.

Sarauk2sf

It's very possible to do at the same time. My increasing calf and arm muscles and decreasing belly fat prove it.

You are probably just losing arm and lower leg fat along with your tummy fat, allowing the muscle mass you already had to show.

Last time I checked, if you can see a progress in strength (i.e. you can lift more), you are getting stronger, is that not a sign of building muscle??

No, that's neuromuscular adaptation.

Exactly!

^^yep

Plus, that increase in size most people see when they start lifting - it's glycogen and water in the muscles, not an increase in muscle mass.

LBM is not only muscle.

Azdak

Here's an article on the subject:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

That's a good article. In a nutshell over fat beginners and those who are over fat returning to working out after a lay off of about 6 mths can gain muscle and lose fat. For those who have been lifting for a while are pretty much SOL as far as gaining muscle and losing fat.

And it's still a matter of perspective. This discussion, like so many others, always gets skewed to the viewpoint of the niche hobbyist. Most people who gain any muscle are going to stay within a very narrow range of gains, and for them what they achieve will be quite satisfactory.

pcastagner

Here's an article on the subject:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

That's a good article. In a nutshell over fat beginners and those who are over fat returning to working out after a lay off of about 6 mths can gain muscle and lose fat. For those who have been lifting for a while are pretty much SOL as far as gaining muscle and losing fat.

And it's still a matter of perspective. This discussion, like so many others, always gets skewed to the viewpoint of the niche hobbyist. Most people who gain any muscle are going to stay within a very narrow range of gains, and for them what they achieve will be quite satisfactory.

I'm not a niche hobbyist, and it's not enough for me.

I think you are assuming even more than the person you responded to, who gave a factual answer valid from any perspective or set of goals. OP knows his history and based on this very good answer can now decide what to do. If he hasn't been lifting, keep cutting, lift, and keep that up until he sees no more newbie gains, at which point he will need to bulk and cut if he wants to continue.

I started resistance training in January, and now I'm no longer building muscle as I cut. Results may vary of course but I think that's pretty typical.

pcastagner

I never knew we had so many genetic freaks who can pack on muscle while losing fat, you are truly amazing. You have obviously discovered the true secret to awesomeness and look muscle-tastic. I have no idea why bodybuilders even bother to bulk and cut. They should just come to MFP and get tips from the snowflakes on here. Pfffff

Stop taking roids, they're making you nasty.

Stop talking ****, it makes you look stupid.

Lmfao

wohlgangerc

To gain muscle mass, your body needs the protiens, sugars, etc. that it needs to rebuild muscle when it is rebuilding muscle. To lose fat, you need to put your body in a state where it is lacking readily available carbs/sugars and has to make energy by burning fats. It is difficult, but possible to do both. Obviously you will need a lot of exercise - cardio for the fat burn strength training for muscles. The other key is in what you eat and when. You should have very few carbs in your system when doing the cardio - so have a light meal or no meal before the workout. And you need protiens and sugars after the workout - when your body is rebuilding. That's why a lot of people drink protien shakes after work outs - the protien and sugar are necessary for building muscle. If you have an overall calorie defecit, the fat burned during cardio will stay burned, and if you have the protien and carbs/sugars when your muscles are rebuilding, you'll gain muscles.

Hexahedra

This is anecdotal, but I have seen manual laborers in a certain third world country packing a lot of muscle because they lift 50 kg (110 lbs) of rice sacks day in and day out. I can tell you that they can't exactly afford to eat at calorie surplus, yet they are obviously building muscle. My conclusion is that it's possible to gain muscle at a deficit, but it takes much longer time than doing it at a surplus. It takes years for these laborers to get as muscular as they are.

Professional bodybuilders use cut and bulk cycle because they schedule it around competition time. They cut right before they go on stage to increase definition, then they bulk afterward and not worry about a little additional fat that comes with it. They most certainly don't have time for the slow route.

Personally I like the cut and bulk cycle because it's encouraging to see visible results in a short period of time, whether the result sought is less fat or more muscle. It's easier to convince yourself that you're on the right path when you can see some hint of result in as short as 4 weeks.

pcastagner

What are these magic deficit muscles made of, exactly?


Last two posters, you lost me there. Carbon has to come from somewhere. Muscle is more complex than fat, and more dense, so where is all that carbon coming from, plus the energy needed to arrange it? Photosynthesis?

Hexahedra

What are these magic deficit muscles made of, exactly?


Last two posters, you lost me there. Carbon has to come from somewhere. Muscle is more complex than fat, and more dense, so where is all that carbon coming from, plus the energy needed to arrange it? Photosynthesis?

And your snide remark lost me too. Are you saying people on a deficit doesn't eat at all? It's all about priorities. Maintenance of vital organs obviously take top priority, but so does damage repairs. If healing is not a top priority, then people on a deficit would never heal when they get wounded, which is not true.

You build muscle by working it hard enough to create micro-tears. This tear needs to be repaired, otherwise you will stay sore forever, which negatively affects your ability to survive. The body wants to survive more than anything. I'm guessing that the repair during a surplus would be more substantial than during a deficit because there's no competing needs, but either way repairs will take place.

pcastagner

What are these magic deficit muscles made of, exactly?


Last two posters, you lost me there. Carbon has to come from somewhere. Muscle is more complex than fat, and more dense, so where is all that carbon coming from, plus the energy needed to arrange it? Photosynthesis?

And your snide remark lost me too. Are you saying people on a deficit doesn't eat at all? It's all about priorities. Maintenance of vital organs obviously take top priority, but so does damage repairs. If healing is not a top priority, then people on a deficit would never heal when they get wounded, which is not true.

You build muscle by working it hard enough to create micro-tears. This tear needs to be repaired, otherwise you will stay sore forever, which negatively affects your ability to survive. The body wants to survive more than anything. I'm guessing that the repair during a surplus would be more substantial than during a deficit because there's no competing needs, but either way repairs will take place.

Ok, let's go over this just for me.


You take a system with a given amount of carbon in it (it is a carbon based life form). It loses carbon every day in the form of co2 released when it breaks apart carbon compounds to get energy to power its movements and metabolic processes.

It releases more carbon than you put into it.


Yet it grows more carbon compounds than when you started, of increasing complexity?



This is violating the laws of thermodynamics, and the conservation of matter to boot. It's not possible. I won't repeat your racial slur, but this manual laborer has either reduced his expenditure of energy (likely through getting more efficient at the labor), or he has, contrary to your assessment, been eating something. Mammals are hetertrophs, he is a mammal. He must eat to grow.


If someone is blessed with tremendous fat reserves, it's possible eating at a daily deficit could result in more muscle and less fat for a time, but over a lifetime, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to grow a system in mass and complexity without adding more energy and matter to that system than you have taken out.



You are mistaken about either the intake or the output, which explains why you haven't found an exception to a natural law. "Priorities", as you put it, can't account for violating natural laws. Your body can't use priorities to create matter, only to allocate any left over resources.

pcastagner

Meant to say "eating something that results in a surplus" not just "eating something".

Hexahedra

What are these magic deficit muscles made of, exactly?


Last two posters, you lost me there. Carbon has to come from somewhere. Muscle is more complex than fat, and more dense, so where is all that carbon coming from, plus the energy needed to arrange it? Photosynthesis?

And your snide remark lost me too. Are you saying people on a deficit doesn't eat at all? It's all about priorities. Maintenance of vital organs obviously take top priority, but so does damage repairs. If healing is not a top priority, then people on a deficit would never heal when they get wounded, which is not true.

You build muscle by working it hard enough to create micro-tears. This tear needs to be repaired, otherwise you will stay sore forever, which negatively affects your ability to survive. The body wants to survive more than anything. I'm guessing that the repair during a surplus would be more substantial than during a deficit because there's no competing needs, but either way repairs will take place.

Ok, let's go over this just for me.


You take a system with a given amount of carbon in it (it is a carbon based life form). It loses carbon every day in the form of co2 released when it breaks apart carbon compounds to get energy to power its movements and metabolic processes.

It releases more carbon than you put into it.


Yet it grows more carbon compounds than when you started, of increasing complexity?



This is violating the laws of thermodynamics, and the conservation of matter to boot. It's not possible. I won't repeat your racial slur, but this manual laborer has either reduced his expenditure of energy (likely through getting more efficient at the labor), or he has, contrary to your assessment, been eating something. Mammals are hetertrophs, he is a mammal. He must eat to grow.


If someone is blessed with tremendous fat reserves, it's possible eating at a daily deficit could result in more muscle and less fat for a time, but over a lifetime, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to grow a system in mass and complexity without adding more energy and matter to that system than you have taken out.



You are mistaken about either the intake or the output, which explains why you haven't found an exception to a natural law. "Priorities", as you put it, can't account for violating natural laws. Your body can't use priorities to create matter, only to allocate any left over resources.

You're talking as if the human body is a simple machine that has no ability to adapt. If the crude BMR calculation formula shows that your body needs 1500 kcals, then by golly no growth or repair occurs unless you consume more than 1500 kcals? A fact that anyone with any experience here understands is that the first thing that would happen when you eat below BMR is a plateau in weight loss. That's right, the body stops shedding weight and people stay fat. How come? Because their metabolism slows down to reach a new homeostasis, in other word their actual (not theoretical) BMR becomes lower.

Losing weight the correct way is a balancing act, which is why we're here counting calories. Eat too much and you gain weight, eat too little and you stop losing it. You only begin to lose it again when your caloric intake is so low the body can't adjust low enough (real starvation).

What we are all trying to do here is to trick our bodies into maintaining a higher BMR and spending more calories than it takes a.k.a a deficit. However, this deficit is by no means set in stone because we are not doing real starvation, all the body needs to do if it senses a more pressing priority is to take care of it, reducing its work rate (metabolism) and energy expenditure if necessary.

If no maintenance / growth can occur in a catabolic state induced by a deficit, then how is it even possible to maintain muscle mass through exercise while you're in it? By your theory muscle waste would continue no matter what. The fact is that exercise continues to introduce micro tears into your muscle and elevates its priority, due to the repairs needed.

Hexahedra

Oh, by the way, I'm of the same ethnicity as these laborers I mentioned, and the term is not offensive in our language.

pcastagner

Who is calculating bmr? It doesn't even matter since we are taking about actual tdee, not average bmr. Please. You are claiming, flat out, that laborers are putting muscle on at an actual deficit. As in, taking in less than tdee. With, I assume, no huge amount of fat reserves to begin with. So according to your logic, this adaptation includes the ability to make more carbon out of nothing, and assemble that carbon into muscle tissue, using less energy than it needs for daily activities.

I can tell you that they can't exactly afford to eat at calorie surplus, yet they are obviously building muscle

It is ridiculous on its face. Which is why you can't actually give an answer about where the matter comes from that is winding up as skeletal muscle.


Yes the body can adapt, and no, your straw man doesn't hold up, and I don't see it as a simple machine. I see it as a complex ecosystem consisting of various species, but that still qualifies as a system bound by the laws of thermodynamics, as all energy systems are.


As for using ethnic slurs, I don't care what you do in other languages. You wrote it in English and it's derogatory and most definitely caught my eye. I figured you might not be aware of that, but now you know better. You're welcome.

bcattoes

is it possible to gain muscle mass and burn fat at the same time ive lost 88 pounds since jan and I wanna try n loose like 10 more pounds but mainly I wanna start building muscle and getting definition is it possible to do both or can I only do one?

Unless someone can offer another explanation of why I lost inches while gaining weight I'm going to say yes. It wasn't a lot, 4-5 inches 5-6 lbs overall, over about 4-5 months. But it made a big difference in the shape and tone (yes, I said tone!) of my body.