Good news for people who like eating fat!
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »rprussell2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »What is considered LCHF? When I was logging here, I was always over on fat and under on carbs, but I've never really considered my eating habits high or low anything.
Depends on how strict you're being. In essence, it's "as few carbs as you can get away with" and then sub fats in for them.
I'm following the 'keto' diet, so I try to keep below 15g per day, but generally end up around 30. Fiber "doesn't count."
I would also ask, is the point to enter ketosis at ALL? Because that affects the answer - if you're just cutting them because of BECAUSE, then maybe under 100 or so?
Alas, I'm a bit of an extremist, might be worth googling.
Holy crap! 15g of carbs per day?!?
No, that is not for me. I can't imagine how I could eat vegetables and keep carbs that low.
How many do you get from vegetables? I don't get much more than 15. Dairy is the big carb for me. And legumes.
Well, I condsider legumes a vegetable, but even without counting them I'm sure I get more than 15g. Many root vegetables have quite a few carbs. One medium sweet potato or a cup of butternut squash has more then 15g. A medium turnip or just one cup of brussel sprouts has more than half that. One cup of cooked kale would be almost half. And I can't think of any fruit I could eat trying to stay that low.
Ah, legumes. A different animal. Fruit as well. But leafy greens are generally quite low, as are many root vegetables surprisingly.
I eat more than 15 grams, but my vegetables don't constitute much more I don't think. And again, if you're subtracting fiber from vegetables, (and from legumes and fruit)...
ps: I have a long standing love affair with brussels.
0 -
peter56765 wrote: »I have lost weight with the Atkins diet and even kept it off for over a year. Ultimately I found the diet too restrictive and slowly gained it all back. This time around I just kept track of CICO and have managed to keep the weight off for over two years now. I like the freedom of being to eat anything that fits within my calorie limits. Literally the only thing I count are calories.
For weeks like this one (Thanksgiving) where I know I'm going to overeat on a certain day, I purposefully undereat on the days prior, plus maybe a day or two after if needed. No induction phases or other long strict regimens to follow. And yes, my body fat %, blood sugar levels, cholesterol and blood pressure are all fine. It's amazing how self regulating your body is when you are no longer obese!
Congrats on finding what works for you.0 -
"They" (whoever is in charge of naming things) should really change the name of dietary fat to something different...0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »rprussell2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »What is considered LCHF? When I was logging here, I was always over on fat and under on carbs, but I've never really considered my eating habits high or low anything.
Depends on how strict you're being. In essence, it's "as few carbs as you can get away with" and then sub fats in for them.
I'm following the 'keto' diet, so I try to keep below 15g per day, but generally end up around 30. Fiber "doesn't count."
I would also ask, is the point to enter ketosis at ALL? Because that affects the answer - if you're just cutting them because of BECAUSE, then maybe under 100 or so?
Alas, I'm a bit of an extremist, might be worth googling.
Holy crap! 15g of carbs per day?!? No, that is not for me. I can't imagine how I could eat vegetables and keep carbs that low.
How many do you get from vegetables? I don't get much more than 15. Dairy is the big carb for me. And legumes.
Well, I condsider legumes a vegetable, but even without counting them I'm sure I get more than 15g. Many root vegetables have quite a few carbs. One medium sweet potato or a cup of butternut squash has more then 15g. A medium turnip or just one cup of brussel sprouts has more than half that. One cup of cooked kale would be almost half. And I can't think of any fruit I could eat trying to stay that low.
Yes, I have the same experience. For example, one recent dinner included 9 carbs from beets, 9 from Brussels sprouts, 6 from cabbage (I think I was using up the cabbage), 6 from winter squash, and 2 from mushrooms, whereas the night before had 12 from leeks, 7 from fennel, 11 from Brussels, and 2 from mushrooms. That's not atypical, and that's 32 carbs in each, not including fruit and dairy.
Edit: Heck, just in breakfast today I had 14 carbs from cauliflower and zucchini, and 11 more from raspberries. And that's without counting the yogurt.
I tend to keep my carbs around 100-150, depending on my level of activity, and my fat higher than MFP's standard recommendation, but I don't consider that LCHF. I did keep carbs more like 100 or under when I was doing lower calories and found it the easiest way to keep a deficit, but keto wouldn't be for me.
Edit: I'll (obviously) join the Brussels lovers club.0 -
[/quote] Great to hear your health is doing well and great to hear you are reducing body fat.
However, I still think you're mistaken as it relates to "building muscle", so much as you're losing fat and the muscle is now becoming more visible. In order to add additional LBM, you would need to be a caloric surplus (outside of those who are entirely new to training or extremely obese - even in that case, the amount added would not be entirely noticeable).
You are not converting fat to muscle. [/quote]
I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »rprussell2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »What is considered LCHF? When I was logging here, I was always over on fat and under on carbs, but I've never really considered my eating habits high or low anything.
Depends on how strict you're being. In essence, it's "as few carbs as you can get away with" and then sub fats in for them.
I'm following the 'keto' diet, so I try to keep below 15g per day, but generally end up around 30. Fiber "doesn't count."
I would also ask, is the point to enter ketosis at ALL? Because that affects the answer - if you're just cutting them because of BECAUSE, then maybe under 100 or so?
Alas, I'm a bit of an extremist, might be worth googling.
Holy crap! 15g of carbs per day?!? No, that is not for me. I can't imagine how I could eat vegetables and keep carbs that low.
How many do you get from vegetables? I don't get much more than 15. Dairy is the big carb for me. And legumes.
Well, I condsider legumes a vegetable, but even without counting them I'm sure I get more than 15g. Many root vegetables have quite a few carbs. One medium sweet potato or a cup of butternut squash has more then 15g. A medium turnip or just one cup of brussel sprouts has more than half that. One cup of cooked kale would be almost half. And I can't think of any fruit I could eat trying to stay that low.
Keto people talk "net carbs", so they subtract out fiber. It makes veggies much easier to fit in if they are not starchy veggies.
As I said, this is not the plan for me. But out of curiosity, what would a typical days worth of vegetables look like at 15g net grams of carbohydrates.
No clue as I also don't follow keto. And I get super annoyed at all the "net carb" entries clogging up the database. There are several keto people in this discussion, so hopefully some of them can shed some light on it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »rprussell2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »What is considered LCHF? When I was logging here, I was always over on fat and under on carbs, but I've never really considered my eating habits high or low anything.
Depends on how strict you're being. In essence, it's "as few carbs as you can get away with" and then sub fats in for them.
I'm following the 'keto' diet, so I try to keep below 15g per day, but generally end up around 30. Fiber "doesn't count."
I would also ask, is the point to enter ketosis at ALL? Because that affects the answer - if you're just cutting them because of BECAUSE, then maybe under 100 or so?
Alas, I'm a bit of an extremist, might be worth googling.
Holy crap! 15g of carbs per day?!? No, that is not for me. I can't imagine how I could eat vegetables and keep carbs that low.
How many do you get from vegetables? I don't get much more than 15. Dairy is the big carb for me. And legumes.
Well, I condsider legumes a vegetable, but even without counting them I'm sure I get more than 15g. Many root vegetables have quite a few carbs. One medium sweet potato or a cup of butternut squash has more then 15g. A medium turnip or just one cup of brussel sprouts has more than half that. One cup of cooked kale would be almost half. And I can't think of any fruit I could eat trying to stay that low.
Keto people talk "net carbs", so they subtract out fiber. It makes veggies much easier to fit in if they are not starchy veggies.
As I said, this is not the plan for me. But out of curiosity, what would a typical days worth of vegetables look like at 15g net grams of carbohydrates.
No clue as I also don't follow keto. And I get super annoyed at all the "net carb" entries clogging up the database. There are several keto people in this discussion, so hopefully some of them can shed some light on it.
hmm I got more annoyed by folks who only input calories. As long as it's labeled net carbs it doesn't bother me a bit.0 -
Great to hear your health is doing well and great to hear you are reducing body fat.
However, I still think you're mistaken as it relates to "building muscle", so much as you're losing fat and the muscle is now becoming more visible. In order to add additional LBM, you would need to be a caloric surplus (outside of those who are entirely new to training or extremely obese - even in that case, the amount added would not be entirely noticeable).
You are not converting fat to muscle. [/quote]
I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post. [/quote]
How are you measuring that? BIA0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »rprussell2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »What is considered LCHF? When I was logging here, I was always over on fat and under on carbs, but I've never really considered my eating habits high or low anything.
Depends on how strict you're being. In essence, it's "as few carbs as you can get away with" and then sub fats in for them.
I'm following the 'keto' diet, so I try to keep below 15g per day, but generally end up around 30. Fiber "doesn't count."
I would also ask, is the point to enter ketosis at ALL? Because that affects the answer - if you're just cutting them because of BECAUSE, then maybe under 100 or so?
Alas, I'm a bit of an extremist, might be worth googling.
Holy crap! 15g of carbs per day?!? No, that is not for me. I can't imagine how I could eat vegetables and keep carbs that low.
How many do you get from vegetables? I don't get much more than 15. Dairy is the big carb for me. And legumes.
Well, I condsider legumes a vegetable, but even without counting them I'm sure I get more than 15g. Many root vegetables have quite a few carbs. One medium sweet potato or a cup of butternut squash has more then 15g. A medium turnip or just one cup of brussel sprouts has more than half that. One cup of cooked kale would be almost half. And I can't think of any fruit I could eat trying to stay that low.
Yes, I have the same experience. For example, one recent dinner included 9 carbs from beets, 9 from Brussels sprouts, 6 from cabbage (I think I was using up the cabbage), 6 from winter squash, and 2 from mushrooms, whereas the night before had 12 from leeks, 7 from fennel, 11 from Brussels, and 2 from mushrooms. That's not atypical, and that's 32 carbs in each, not including fruit and dairy.
Edit: Heck, just in breakfast today I had 14 carbs from cauliflower and zucchini, and 11 more from raspberries. And that's without counting the yogurt.
I tend to keep my carbs around 100-150, depending on my level of activity, and my fat higher than MFP's standard recommendation, but I don't consider that LCHF. I did keep carbs more like 100 or under when I was doing lower calories and found it the easiest way to keep a deficit, but keto wouldn't be for me.
Edit: I'll (obviously) join the Brussels lovers club.
oh beets. And beet greens. Oh my.0 -
I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
Obviously not natty
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Edit: I'll (obviously) join the Brussels lovers club.
Wait, there's a brussels lovers club?! Sign me up! Love those things (and I'm sad that I didn't have my first one until I was about 22 thanks to my mom and dad both hating them).0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
If your body is burning/loosing a pound of body fat a week that is 500 calories that you can add each day to what you eat?
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
If you consider a 177lb female, who exercises ~4 times per week (not a body builder) and eats ~1400 calories per day (keto breakdown) a deficit. Just because I don't eat a ton of calories doesn't mean I'm not building muscle - where the heck does that even make sense? I'm not bulking up - but I am working muscles I have not really used in a while - and I can physically feel them toning showing. (not just from an "exposure" from the fat - I still have PLENTY of fat.)0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
If you consider a 177lb female, who exercises ~4 times per week (not a body builder) and eats ~1400 calories per day (keto breakdown) a deficit. Just because I don't eat a ton of calories doesn't mean I'm not building muscle - where the heck does that even make sense? I'm not bulking up - but I am working muscles I have not really used in a while - and I can physically feel them toning showing. (not just from an "exposure" from the fat - I still have PLENTY of fat.)
You need an energy surplus in order to build muscle. If you are in a caloric deficit, you are then not in a surplus. So, you cannot be doing so. It's like trying to drive a car forward and in reverse at the same time.
I listed above:
"In order to add additional LBM, you would need to be a caloric surplus (outside of those who are entirely new to training or extremely obese - even in that case, the amount added would not be entirely noticeable)."
For sake of clarity, you are reducing body fat. Reduction in body fat makes it so muscle will show much more easily, and appear more shapely.
I'm not being mean, I'm just being honest and clarifying misinformation.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
If you consider a 177lb female, who exercises ~4 times per week (not a body builder) and eats ~1400 calories per day (keto breakdown) a deficit. Just because I don't eat a ton of calories doesn't mean I'm not building muscle - where the heck does that even make sense? I'm not bulking up - but I am working muscles I have not really used in a while - and I can physically feel them toning showing. (not just from an "exposure" from the fat - I still have PLENTY of fat.)
Strong evidence to support your claims? Physically feel them toning? Doesn't get much more rigorous and accurate than that
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
Obviously not natty
Let me try to describe it this way - when I first started working with a trainer - I couldn't do 10 pushups without feeling like I was going to die. I can do 40 now - non-stop before I become depleted. (Not great - but for me that's huge!) I couldn't do ball slams, squats (with weights) or lunges without darn near falling over - I do all of those things now with better control. Are you saying that because of the way I eat that I can't be building muscle? (This being a message board it leaves much to be desired in intent.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Edit: I'll (obviously) join the Brussels lovers club.
Wait, there's a brussels lovers club?! Sign me up! Love those things (and I'm sad that I didn't have my first one until I was about 22 thanks to my mom and dad both hating them).
I didn't have my first until I met my husband. I was 30 something. Bless that man.0 -
In addition, she is likely getting stronger since she is using the muscles more than she ever did before. But strength gains do not equal mass gains.LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
If you consider a 177lb female, who exercises ~4 times per week (not a body builder) and eats ~1400 calories per day (keto breakdown) a deficit. Just because I don't eat a ton of calories doesn't mean I'm not building muscle - where the heck does that even make sense? I'm not bulking up - but I am working muscles I have not really used in a while - and I can physically feel them toning showing. (not just from an "exposure" from the fat - I still have PLENTY of fat.)
You need an energy surplus in order to build muscle. If you are in a caloric deficit, you are then not in a surplus. So, you cannot be doing so. It's like trying to drive a car forward and in reverse at the same time.
I listed above:
"In order to add additional LBM, you would need to be a caloric surplus (outside of those who are entirely new to training or extremely obese - even in that case, the amount added would not be entirely noticeable)."
For sake of clarity, you are reducing body fat. Reduction in body fat makes it so muscle will show much more easily, and appear more shapely.
I'm not being mean, I'm just being honest and clarifying misinformation.
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
Obviously not natty
Let me try to describe it this way - when I first started working with a trainer - I couldn't do 10 pushups without feeling like I was going to die. I can do 40 now - non-stop before I become depleted. (Not great - but for me that's huge!) I couldn't do ball slams, squats (with weights) or lunges without darn near falling over - I do all of those things now with better control. Are you saying that because of the way I eat that I can't be building muscle? (This being a message board it leaves much to be desired in intent.)
I'm saying you have zero evidence to support your claims, burden of proof is on the claim maker. Improving conditioning isn't evidence
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
Obviously not natty
Let me try to describe it this way - when I first started working with a trainer - I couldn't do 10 pushups without feeling like I was going to die. I can do 40 now - non-stop before I become depleted. (Not great - but for me that's huge!) I couldn't do ball slams, squats (with weights) or lunges without darn near falling over - I do all of those things now with better control. Are you saying that because of the way I eat that I can't be building muscle? (This being a message board it leaves much to be desired in intent.)
Yes. What you are experiencing are neuromuscular adaptations rather than actual LBM being added. In simple terms... you're becoming stronger through an increase of efficiency recruiting and using those muscle fibers.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
If you consider a 177lb female, who exercises ~4 times per week (not a body builder) and eats ~1400 calories per day (keto breakdown) a deficit. Just because I don't eat a ton of calories doesn't mean I'm not building muscle - where the heck does that even make sense? I'm not bulking up - but I am working muscles I have not really used in a while - and I can physically feel them toning showing. (not just from an "exposure" from the fat - I still have PLENTY of fat.)
Strong evidence to support your claims? Physically feel them toning? Doesn't get much more rigorous and accurate than that
I'm trying really hard to enjoy this conversation and learn something here if you have something to teach. Otherwise I really don't appreciate you just chiming in to be a smart-*kitten*.
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
Obviously not natty
Let me try to describe it this way - when I first started working with a trainer - I couldn't do 10 pushups without feeling like I was going to die. I can do 40 now - non-stop before I become depleted. (Not great - but for me that's huge!) I couldn't do ball slams, squats (with weights) or lunges without darn near falling over - I do all of those things now with better control. Are you saying that because of the way I eat that I can't be building muscle? (This being a message board it leaves much to be desired in intent.)
You are not building muscle mass. You are working with the mass you already have and are getting stronger. Those are not the same things. You are definitely improving at the exercise, and no one is doubting that. You build muscle by eating in a surplus and following a progressive resistance program.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
If you consider a 177lb female, who exercises ~4 times per week (not a body builder) and eats ~1400 calories per day (keto breakdown) a deficit. Just because I don't eat a ton of calories doesn't mean I'm not building muscle - where the heck does that even make sense? I'm not bulking up - but I am working muscles I have not really used in a while - and I can physically feel them toning showing. (not just from an "exposure" from the fat - I still have PLENTY of fat.)
Strong evidence to support your claims? Physically feel them toning? Doesn't get much more rigorous and accurate than that
I'm trying really hard to enjoy this conversation and learn something here if you have something to teach. Otherwise I really don't appreciate you just chiming in to be a smart-*kitten*.
Perhaps you'll learn not to make claims that you can't substantiate if you don't want such comments?
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
Obviously not natty
Let me try to describe it this way - when I first started working with a trainer - I couldn't do 10 pushups without feeling like I was going to die. I can do 40 now - non-stop before I become depleted. (Not great - but for me that's huge!) I couldn't do ball slams, squats (with weights) or lunges without darn near falling over - I do all of those things now with better control. Are you saying that because of the way I eat that I can't be building muscle? (This being a message board it leaves much to be desired in intent.)
Yes. What you are experiencing are neuromuscular adaptations rather than actual LBM being added. In simple terms... you're becoming stronger through an increase of efficiency recruiting and using those muscle fibers.
So my perception of strength (that I am noticing) is not the muscles getting "bigger" they are just getting stronger? I don't think I necessarily want bigger. But if I do, you're saying I need to increase my caloric intake to make that happen. Wouldn't (and I don't know - I haven't researched this part on ketones) the additional "energy" generated from the ketones pulling energy from body fat be enough to offset? (Assuming I'm increasing my protein intake?) Which I do on workout days (but only by 20g).0 -
Considering I wasn't even talking to you - my comments/conversation were with someone else. But thanks anyway.LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
If you consider a 177lb female, who exercises ~4 times per week (not a body builder) and eats ~1400 calories per day (keto breakdown) a deficit. Just because I don't eat a ton of calories doesn't mean I'm not building muscle - where the heck does that even make sense? I'm not bulking up - but I am working muscles I have not really used in a while - and I can physically feel them toning showing. (not just from an "exposure" from the fat - I still have PLENTY of fat.)
Strong evidence to support your claims? Physically feel them toning? Doesn't get much more rigorous and accurate than that
I'm trying really hard to enjoy this conversation and learn something here if you have something to teach. Otherwise I really don't appreciate you just chiming in to be a smart-*kitten*.
Perhaps you'll learn not to make claims that you can't substantiate if you don't want such comments?
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
Obviously not natty
Let me try to describe it this way - when I first started working with a trainer - I couldn't do 10 pushups without feeling like I was going to die. I can do 40 now - non-stop before I become depleted. (Not great - but for me that's huge!) I couldn't do ball slams, squats (with weights) or lunges without darn near falling over - I do all of those things now with better control. Are you saying that because of the way I eat that I can't be building muscle? (This being a message board it leaves much to be desired in intent.)
You probably did build a bit of muscle in the beginning, deficit or not. As has been pointed out above, gaining strength and gaining muscle is not the same thing. Your muscles may also be more visible due to water retention.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
Obviously not natty
Let me try to describe it this way - when I first started working with a trainer - I couldn't do 10 pushups without feeling like I was going to die. I can do 40 now - non-stop before I become depleted. (Not great - but for me that's huge!) I couldn't do ball slams, squats (with weights) or lunges without darn near falling over - I do all of those things now with better control. Are you saying that because of the way I eat that I can't be building muscle? (This being a message board it leaves much to be desired in intent.)
Yes. What you are experiencing are neuromuscular adaptations rather than actual LBM being added. In simple terms... you're becoming stronger through an increase of efficiency recruiting and using those muscle fibers.
So my perception of strength (that I am noticing) is not the muscles getting "bigger" they are just getting stronger? I don't think I necessarily want bigger. But if I do, you're saying I need to increase my caloric intake to make that happen. Wouldn't (and I don't know - I haven't researched this part on ketones) the additional "energy" generated from the ketones pulling energy from body fat be enough to offset? (Assuming I'm increasing my protein intake?) Which I do on workout days (but only by 20g).
Yes, for the strength side of things. Coupled with the fact that you have less body fat covering them, and they appear lager and more shapely.
Your caloric intake would need to be larger than your caloric expenditure in order to add LBM.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
Obviously not natty
Let me try to describe it this way - when I first started working with a trainer - I couldn't do 10 pushups without feeling like I was going to die. I can do 40 now - non-stop before I become depleted. (Not great - but for me that's huge!) I couldn't do ball slams, squats (with weights) or lunges without darn near falling over - I do all of those things now with better control. Are you saying that because of the way I eat that I can't be building muscle? (This being a message board it leaves much to be desired in intent.)
Yes. What you are experiencing are neuromuscular adaptations rather than actual LBM being added. In simple terms... you're becoming stronger through an increase of efficiency recruiting and using those muscle fibers.
So my perception of strength (that I am noticing) is not the muscles getting "bigger" they are just getting stronger? I don't think I necessarily want bigger. But if I do, you're saying I need to increase my caloric intake to make that happen. Wouldn't (and I don't know - I haven't researched this part on ketones) the additional "energy" generated from the ketones pulling energy from body fat be enough to offset? (Assuming I'm increasing my protein intake?) Which I do on workout days (but only by 20g).
Yes, for the strength side of things. Coupled with the fact that you have less body fat covering them, and they appear lager and more shapely.
Your caloric intake would need to be larger than your caloric expenditure in order to add LBM.
OK - thank you. I associated strength with growth. (The whole "muscle weighs more than fat" thing - as I went through a spell where I gained.) So theoretically with what you're saying, I can continue to gain strength without growing the muscle (physically). Out of curiosity - how many calories do you eat each day to make muscles bigger? (And I know it depends on the person generally - I'm just asking ballpark figures.)0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I never said I was converting fat to muscle - I said I'm building muscle and reducing fat. That statement was made in another post.
While in a calorie deficit?
If you consider a 177lb female, who exercises ~4 times per week (not a body builder) and eats ~1400 calories per day (keto breakdown) a deficit. Just because I don't eat a ton of calories doesn't mean I'm not building muscle - where the heck does that even make sense? I'm not bulking up - but I am working muscles I have not really used in a while - and I can physically feel them toning showing. (not just from an "exposure" from the fat - I still have PLENTY of fat.)
You need an energy surplus in order to build muscle. If you are in a caloric deficit, you are then not in a surplus. So, you cannot be doing so. It's like trying to drive a car forward and in reverse at the same time.
I listed above:
"In order to add additional LBM, you would need to be a caloric surplus (outside of those who are entirely new to training or extremely obese - even in that case, the amount added would not be entirely noticeable)."
For sake of clarity, you are reducing body fat. Reduction in body fat makes it so muscle will show much more easily, and appear more shapely.
I'm not being mean, I'm just being honest and clarifying misinformation.
LolBroScience you may be honest in the sense that you think you are typing correct facts even when science states you are wrong. Volfan22 gave you an example and you want it to go way with black magic but she is not the only one who builds muscle while loosing body fat. Many of us can go months without the scales dropping because we are consuming some of our own body fat as well as what we eat.
scoobysworkshop.com/gain-muscle-lose-fat/
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions