Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Strength Training While Losing Weight??
FaithfuLEEfit
Posts: 72 Member
Do you think that it is better to strength train while trying to lose weight -OR- do you think that it is better to lose the desired amount of weight before trying to tone the body?
0
Replies
-
I've heard numerous people on here say "I wish I'd started lifting sooner."
I've never heard anyone say "I wish I'd started lifting later."39 -
Definitely start lifting as you lose. 100%. It will help preserve the muscle you have and improve your body composition as you get to goal.14
-
It depends on your personal goals.
At 275 all I wanted to do was lose the weight - it was my highest priority at that time.
Looking back I wished I had started with a more serious progressive resistance program, but hindsight is always 20/20.
I think it's more important to establish goals and ensure you develop habit and behaviors to meet these goals. Your priorities and goals may change over time, but once you nail down this process your potential is unlimited.5 -
FaithfuLEEfit wrote: »Do you think that it is better to strength train while trying to lose weight -OR- do you think that it is better to lose the desired amount of weight before trying to tone the body?
When you diet you lose both muscle and fat...in the absence of resistance training you will lose a higher ratio of muscle than need be. Resistance training mitigates the loss of muscle. It's a hell of a lot easier to preserve the muscle you have than it is to build it back later.17 -
Ahh that makes sense. When I started my weight loss journey, I was doing both cardio and strength training. However, I recently watched a YouTube video in which the YouTuber stated that you should lose weight first and then strength train. I had never heard that before, so I decided to come over and ask the real pros what they thought.5
-
FaithfuLEEfit wrote: »Ahh that makes sense. When I started my weight loss journey, I was doing both cardio and strength training. However, I recently watched a YouTube video in which the YouTuber stated that you should lose weight first and then strength train. I had never heard that before, so I decided to come over and ask the real pros what they thought.
Lifting while I lost weight was one of the best choices I ever made. Preserving muscle and having some curves when you're done losing is fantastic.6 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »I've heard numerous people on here say "I wish I'd started lifting sooner."
I've never heard anyone say "I wish I'd started lifting later."
QFT3 -
Here's the thing: you lose fat in a calorie deficit. You build muscle in a calorie surplus. So, I'm sure that there are people out there thinking, "Why should I strength train while losing weight? The two goals sound like they'll just cancel each other out!"
But that doesn't take two things into account.- With the exception of those people who are bedridden/quadriplegic/or otherwise unable to move around under their own steam, most of us HAVE built up a significant amount of muscle from having to haul our excess poundage around. I'm currently lifting a pair of 30lb dumbbells and it takes some decent effort. I've shed around 108lbs. Which means that at my heaviest, I was carrying about 3.5 30lb dumbbells with me every time I took a step. Trust me, under my flab, muscle happened.
- Strength-training while losing weight lets you preserve more of that muscle than you would through cutting calories and cardio alone. It's a case of "if you don't use it, you lose it". And when your body realizes it's not getting the same level of calories it used to, it starts looking at 'non-essential operations' it can cut. If you're strength-training and working your muscles, your body goes, "hang on, we need those!" (Caveat: run too aggressive a deficit, and you do risk greater muscle loss, but even in a modest deficit, without strength-training, more muscle will be shed.)
As my weight has come off, I've discovered some pretty well-defined arms, legs, and shoulders. Hoping to eventually see some definition in my mid-section as I lose the last 10-15lbs or so, but thanks to my genetics, that seems to be the area that holds onto fat the longest. But when I had surgery last year and was able to sit up in recovery unaided, the nurse complimented me on my trunk muscles... so while they might be hiding under my belly fat, I know they're there!14 -
@kami3006 yes! I'm definitely looking forward to keeping some of my curves.1
-
@estherdragonbat that's exactly what the video's reasoning was. I'm so glad to hear that I can work on my muscles while losing weight. It makes wayyy more sense to strength train now as oppose to waiting and struggling to rebuild muscle after I lose weight.4
-
Definitely start lifting now! I lost all my weight and I wasn't lifting (I didn't know I should), I was just doing cardio and light weight circuit training. My results were that I lost weight but I was skinny fat. Once I started lifting I saw major changes in my composition. So I'm one of those that says "I wish I would've started lifting sooner".4
-
FaithfuLEEfit wrote: »I recently watched a YouTube video in which the YouTuber stated that you should lose weight first and then strength train..
Whatever YouTuber said this, never watch anything else they post. Lifting while cutting is definitely beneficial.
12 -
Definitely start strength training as soon as you can if you're losing weight, as it most definitely will help counteract the risk of losing muscle as you lose fat.2
-
FaithfuLEEfit wrote: »Do you think that it is better to strength train while trying to lose weight -OR- do you think that it is better to lose the desired amount of weight before trying to tone the body?
Shhhhh... Don't tell anyone about my secret weapon to melt body fat.... Muscle.
Muscle is the friend of my metabolism and the enemy of my fat. Why not direct those calories to work, grow and keep muscle instead of shuttling those calories off to storage? Why would I want to melt away my body and lose my secret weapon muscle?
Ultimately the calorie deficit is what burns the fat but the muscle helps tilt the body fat percentage towards less fat and more muscle. The more muscle I grow the easier that process gets. I build myself up to get lean, I don't deprive and strip myself down.... at least at the age of 41 that is what I have learned from the past 26 years of doing just that.
3 -
To be honest, I think that particularly in my demographic (older women), strength/resistance training is good regardless of whether you're losing, gaining or maintaining. We are naturally losing muscle as we age, and it's very difficult to gain it, so the strength training is fighting against that. I can't see a reason not to do it!5
-
Another vote for training while losing. The only thing I would add is that it's highly recommended to follow a vetted program. The great news is that there's lots to choose from, depending on what you enjoy and your goals. Here's a great thread just for that.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/p11 -
Regardless if you're losing, maintaining, or gaining weight it is more beneficial to train than not to period.
Train.5 -
Definitely start lifting. You will tone up while losing weight.0
-
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FaithfuLEEfit wrote: »Do you think that it is better to strength train while trying to lose weight -OR- do you think that it is better to lose the desired amount of weight before trying to tone the body?
Shhhhh... Don't tell anyone about my secret weapon to melt body fat.... Muscle.
Muscle is the friend of my metabolism and the enemy of my fat. Why not direct those calories to work, grow and keep muscle instead of shuttling those calories off to storage? Why would I want to melt away my body and lose my secret weapon muscle?
Ultimately the calorie deficit is what burns the fat but the muscle helps tilt the body fat percentage towards less fat and more muscle. The more muscle I grow the easier that process gets. I build myself up to get lean, I don't deprive and strip myself down.... at least at the age of 41 that is what I have learned from the past 26 years of doing just that.
Every lb of muscle you add burns 6 to 8 calories per day more. And let's not forget that fat is metabolically active at about 4 calories per lb. The net gain in calories burned is not exactly a game changer. There are lots of reasons to weight train but increased metabolism is not one of the best ones.6 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FaithfuLEEfit wrote: »Do you think that it is better to strength train while trying to lose weight -OR- do you think that it is better to lose the desired amount of weight before trying to tone the body?
Shhhhh... Don't tell anyone about my secret weapon to melt body fat.... Muscle.
Muscle is the friend of my metabolism and the enemy of my fat. Why not direct those calories to work, grow and keep muscle instead of shuttling those calories off to storage? Why would I want to melt away my body and lose my secret weapon muscle?
Ultimately the calorie deficit is what burns the fat but the muscle helps tilt the body fat percentage towards less fat and more muscle. The more muscle I grow the easier that process gets. I build myself up to get lean, I don't deprive and strip myself down.... at least at the age of 41 that is what I have learned from the past 26 years of doing just that.
Every lb of muscle you add burns 6 to 8 calories per day more. And let's not forget that fat is metabolically active at about 4 calories per lb. The net gain in calories burned is not exactly a game changer. There are lots of reasons to weight train but increased metabolism is not one of the best ones.
I am aware of this but let's not think of it in terms of "Simple Interest", let's think of it in terms of "Compound Interest":
a) Just working the muscle itself uses calories.
b) Growing the new muscle uses calories.
c) Keeping the new muscle uses calories.
d) Working the muscle floods the body with youthful anabolic hormones.
e) Having muscle helps a person feel strong, confident and capable of more activity.
f) Muscle provides shape, fills out lose skin, creates curves etc.
The "toning" everybody wants is just more muscle and less fat. Not including the "muscle" part of this equation will probably not result in that "toned" goal. I would rather have a body with an extra 30 lbs of muscle craving calories to survive than 30 lbs of body fat craving calories to survive.
In extreme cases, bodybuilders can eat 5000 calories and have very little body fat. An average joe, non drug user, 175lb middle aged man like me can eat 2700 calories and have a six pack? Why? It isn't because I am starving myself and shrinking my body to be smaller. I have to eat 2700 calories to build myself up to support my muscle or else I will shrink. I know that it is my muscle that keeps me at 175 lbs and the second I stop lifting weights I will get smaller (less muscle), softer (less muscle), I'll lose my six pack (less muscle), I'll be weaker (less muscle)... I will probably look older (less muscle) and I will probably turn 'skinny fat'. In my world, my muscle and metabolism are part of the equation to burn fat and stay lean. It is tough to argue with that kind of real world result.
5 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FaithfuLEEfit wrote: »Do you think that it is better to strength train while trying to lose weight -OR- do you think that it is better to lose the desired amount of weight before trying to tone the body?
Shhhhh... Don't tell anyone about my secret weapon to melt body fat.... Muscle.
Muscle is the friend of my metabolism and the enemy of my fat. Why not direct those calories to work, grow and keep muscle instead of shuttling those calories off to storage? Why would I want to melt away my body and lose my secret weapon muscle?
Ultimately the calorie deficit is what burns the fat but the muscle helps tilt the body fat percentage towards less fat and more muscle. The more muscle I grow the easier that process gets. I build myself up to get lean, I don't deprive and strip myself down.... at least at the age of 41 that is what I have learned from the past 26 years of doing just that.
Every lb of muscle you add burns 6 to 8 calories per day more. And let's not forget that fat is metabolically active at about 4 calories per lb. The net gain in calories burned is not exactly a game changer. There are lots of reasons to weight train but increased metabolism is not one of the best ones.
I am aware of this but let's not think of it in terms of "Simple Interest", let's think of it in terms of "Compound Interest":
a) Just working the muscle itself uses calories.
b) Growing the new muscle uses calories.
c) Keeping the new muscle uses calories.
d) Working the muscle floods the body with youthful anabolic hormones.
e) Having muscle helps a person feel strong, confident and capable of more activity.
f) Muscle provides shape, fills out lose skin, creates curves etc.
A. Relatively few. A strength work out is probably around a few hundred calories per hour above non-activity.
B. Again, relatively few. Just look at the amount of calories studied to be necessary to permit optimal growth is probably 200 calorie surplus a day or less, and that not all of that is going to be the work the actual growth is doing.
C. Yeah, 6 to 8 calories per day per pound.
D. Not seeing the relevance, nor evidence for a flood.
E. Not sure the relevance to a discussion on the metabolic activity of muscles.
f. Not sure the relevance to a discussion on the metabolic activity of muscles.7 -
FaithfuLEEfit wrote: »Ahh that makes sense. When I started my weight loss journey, I was doing both cardio and strength training. However, I recently watched a YouTube video in which the YouTuber stated that you should lose weight first and then strength train. I had never heard that before, so I decided to come over and ask the real pros what they thought.
I'm glad you decided to come here and ask. There is SO MUCH bad information out there, especially on YouTube. Weight lifting and strength training are great tools that can be incorporated by anyone regardless of what their goal is: lose, maintain, or gain. That YouTuber telling people to lose without doing strength training because "they cancel each other out" has no idea what they are talking about and really should just cancel their channel.5 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FaithfuLEEfit wrote: »Do you think that it is better to strength train while trying to lose weight -OR- do you think that it is better to lose the desired amount of weight before trying to tone the body?
Shhhhh... Don't tell anyone about my secret weapon to melt body fat.... Muscle.
Muscle is the friend of my metabolism and the enemy of my fat. Why not direct those calories to work, grow and keep muscle instead of shuttling those calories off to storage? Why would I want to melt away my body and lose my secret weapon muscle?
Ultimately the calorie deficit is what burns the fat but the muscle helps tilt the body fat percentage towards less fat and more muscle. The more muscle I grow the easier that process gets. I build myself up to get lean, I don't deprive and strip myself down.... at least at the age of 41 that is what I have learned from the past 26 years of doing just that.
Every lb of muscle you add burns 6 to 8 calories per day more. And let's not forget that fat is metabolically active at about 4 calories per lb. The net gain in calories burned is not exactly a game changer. There are lots of reasons to weight train but increased metabolism is not one of the best ones.
I am aware of this but let's not think of it in terms of "Simple Interest", let's think of it in terms of "Compound Interest":
a) Just working the muscle itself uses calories.
b) Growing the new muscle uses calories.
c) Keeping the new muscle uses calories.
d) Working the muscle floods the body with youthful anabolic hormones.
e) Having muscle helps a person feel strong, confident and capable of more activity.
f) Muscle provides shape, fills out lose skin, creates curves etc.
A. Relatively few. A strength work out is probably around a few hundred calories per hour above non-activity.
B. Again, relatively few. Just look at the amount of calories studied to be necessary to permit optimal growth is probably 200 calorie surplus a day or less, and that not all of that is going to be the work the actual growth is doing.
C. Yeah, 6 to 8 calories per day per pound.
D. Not seeing the relevance, nor evidence for a flood.
E. Not sure the relevance to a discussion on the metabolic activity of muscles.
f. Not sure the relevance to a discussion on the metabolic activity of muscles.
Weight training has a huge range of methods, level of intensity etc. I am going to phrase this answer with the understanding that we are talking about "average" gym goers training which likely have room for improvement.
A. 200 calories is a great start for an average person. As muscle and knowledge is built it should go up from there. Luckily 200 is a number that can likely be grown over time.
B. 100 calories to grow. Great! That is more demand on top of the original 200 plus.
C. 6-8 calories per pound... Great! That means that if I put on 12 lbs of muscle I'll be able to burn an extra 72 to 96 calories, 24 hours per day or 504 to 672 calories per week? Great!... and in my case, I know that I easily have 20lbs of extra muscle which means I have an extra 120 to 160 calories to eat every single day which is up to 1,120 calories per week. Great! That is on top of what I burn in the gym and the grow after? Good news.
So far it sounds like muscle is a great way to build the metabolism and the starting point should grow over time.
D. I may be out on a limb here but doesn't Testosterone and other hormones surge during intense weight lifting? I believe Testosterone is a positive hormone for both strength and fat burning. Doesn't weight lifting help balance hormones which should be good for keeping a healthy weight? This effect may be a little less direct but I think it is a part of the formula for staying lean. No?
F. Again I think this is relevant to the end goal of staying lean. Someone who gets "skinny" will probably still think they are "fat" if their skin hangs and the muscles are flat and weak. I have seen plenty of people who are "skinny" but think they are "fat" because of the lack of muscle and shape of their body. Again, the answer is muscle.
G. My real world point was not addressed. Paraphrasing, 'if I stop lifting weights and lose muscle I will ultimately get 'skinny fat' and my body fat percentage will increase.' Again, the answer is muscle to allow me to eat more calories. That is my reality, not a theory.
H. Finally, I get that we can "isolate" a very, very specific point such as "metabolic activity of muscles" and then exclude very real helpful points to get and stay lean. I think this is very unfortunate because the narrow view distracts from the bigger picture and real strategies to reach real goals. Ultimately most people are trying to find a way to get and stay lean in which case point A, B, C, D, E, F & G are likely very valid. It is hard to argue with real world results and in the real world I have experienced and seen that muscle and proper nutrition create bodies that are fat burning machines.
(These are just my opinions. Not advice to anyone specific.)
In regards to getting and staying lean aren't these points generally correct?
1 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FaithfuLEEfit wrote: »Do you think that it is better to strength train while trying to lose weight -OR- do you think that it is better to lose the desired amount of weight before trying to tone the body?
Shhhhh... Don't tell anyone about my secret weapon to melt body fat.... Muscle.
Muscle is the friend of my metabolism and the enemy of my fat. Why not direct those calories to work, grow and keep muscle instead of shuttling those calories off to storage? Why would I want to melt away my body and lose my secret weapon muscle?
Ultimately the calorie deficit is what burns the fat but the muscle helps tilt the body fat percentage towards less fat and more muscle. The more muscle I grow the easier that process gets. I build myself up to get lean, I don't deprive and strip myself down.... at least at the age of 41 that is what I have learned from the past 26 years of doing just that.
Every lb of muscle you add burns 6 to 8 calories per day more. And let's not forget that fat is metabolically active at about 4 calories per lb. The net gain in calories burned is not exactly a game changer. There are lots of reasons to weight train but increased metabolism is not one of the best ones.
I am aware of this but let's not think of it in terms of "Simple Interest", let's think of it in terms of "Compound Interest":
a) Just working the muscle itself uses calories.
b) Growing the new muscle uses calories.
c) Keeping the new muscle uses calories.
d) Working the muscle floods the body with youthful anabolic hormones.
e) Having muscle helps a person feel strong, confident and capable of more activity.
f) Muscle provides shape, fills out lose skin, creates curves etc.
A. Relatively few. A strength work out is probably around a few hundred calories per hour above non-activity.
B. Again, relatively few. Just look at the amount of calories studied to be necessary to permit optimal growth is probably 200 calorie surplus a day or less, and that not all of that is going to be the work the actual growth is doing.
C. Yeah, 6 to 8 calories per day per pound.
D. Not seeing the relevance, nor evidence for a flood.
E. Not sure the relevance to a discussion on the metabolic activity of muscles.
f. Not sure the relevance to a discussion on the metabolic activity of muscles.
Weight training has a huge range of methods, level of intensity etc. I am going to phrase this answer with the understanding that we are talking about "average" gym goers training which likely have room for improvement.
A. 200 calories is a great start for an average person. As muscle and knowledge is built it should go up from there. Luckily 200 is a number that can likely be grown over time.
B. 100 calories to grow. Great! That is more demand on top of the original 200 plus.
C. 6-8 calories per pound... Great! That means that if I put on 12 lbs of muscle I'll be able to burn an extra 72 to 96 calories, 24 hours per day or 504 to 672 calories per week? Great!... and in my case, I know that I easily have 20lbs of extra muscle which means I have an extra 120 to 160 calories to eat every single day which is up to 1,120 calories per week. Great! That is on top of what I burn in the gym and the grow after? Good news.
So far it sounds like muscle is a great way to build the metabolism and the starting point should grow over time.
D. I may be out on a limb here but doesn't Testosterone and other hormones surge during intense weight lifting? I believe Testosterone is a positive hormone for both strength and fat burning. Doesn't weight lifting help balance hormones which should be good for keeping a healthy weight? This effect may be a little less direct but I think it is a part of the formula for staying lean. No?
F. Again I think this is relevant to the end goal of staying lean. Someone who gets "skinny" will probably still think they are "fat" if their skin hangs and the muscles are flat and weak. I have seen plenty of people who are "skinny" but think they are "fat" because of the lack of muscle and shape of their body. Again, the answer is muscle.
G. My real world point was not addressed. Paraphrasing, 'if I stop lifting weights and lose muscle I will ultimately get 'skinny fat' and my body fat percentage will increase.' Again, the answer is muscle to allow me to eat more calories. That is my reality, not a theory.
H. Finally, I get that we can "isolate" a very, very specific point such as "metabolic activity of muscles" and then exclude very real helpful points to get and stay lean. I think this is very unfortunate because the narrow view distracts from the bigger picture and real strategies to reach real goals. Ultimately most people are trying to find a way to get and stay lean in which case point A, B, C, D, E, F & G are likely very valid. It is hard to argue with real world results and in the real world I have experienced and seen that muscle and proper nutrition create bodies that are fat burning machines.
(These are just my opinions. Not advice to anyone specific.)
In regards to getting and staying lean aren't these points generally correct?
A. It isn't going to grow much.
B. No, that isn't a demand, it is a facilitation. It puts a cap on the maximum reasonable value of daily cost of growing a muscle.
C. 12 pounds is a lot of muscle to put on. For la week of calories burn less than a hour of cardio can burn.
D. No, I believe it actually drops during it, but a person's testosterone will generally increase with fitness. Testosterone is also an appetite increaser. I'm also not sure the point of putting in a signalling mechanism as if it is independently changing metabolism to some great extent above the muscle.
F. Still not seeing the relevance, it sounds like you're trying to broaden the discussion.
G. Why do you think I need to engage with the debate you want me to have to disagree with your particulars?
H. So moving the goal posts to ignore the areas that need correction? If you're conceding the other points so you can ultimately say building muscle is often found beneficial, to ahead, I don't find it an interesting or controversial claim.0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FaithfuLEEfit wrote: »Do you think that it is better to strength train while trying to lose weight -OR- do you think that it is better to lose the desired amount of weight before trying to tone the body?
Shhhhh... Don't tell anyone about my secret weapon to melt body fat.... Muscle.
Muscle is the friend of my metabolism and the enemy of my fat. Why not direct those calories to work, grow and keep muscle instead of shuttling those calories off to storage? Why would I want to melt away my body and lose my secret weapon muscle?
Ultimately the calorie deficit is what burns the fat but the muscle helps tilt the body fat percentage towards less fat and more muscle. The more muscle I grow the easier that process gets. I build myself up to get lean, I don't deprive and strip myself down.... at least at the age of 41 that is what I have learned from the past 26 years of doing just that.
Every lb of muscle you add burns 6 to 8 calories per day more. And let's not forget that fat is metabolically active at about 4 calories per lb. The net gain in calories burned is not exactly a game changer. There are lots of reasons to weight train but increased metabolism is not one of the best ones.
I am aware of this but let's not think of it in terms of "Simple Interest", let's think of it in terms of "Compound Interest":
a) Just working the muscle itself uses calories.
b) Growing the new muscle uses calories.
c) Keeping the new muscle uses calories.
d) Working the muscle floods the body with youthful anabolic hormones.
e) Having muscle helps a person feel strong, confident and capable of more activity.
f) Muscle provides shape, fills out lose skin, creates curves etc.
A. Relatively few. A strength work out is probably around a few hundred calories per hour above non-activity.
B. Again, relatively few. Just look at the amount of calories studied to be necessary to permit optimal growth is probably 200 calorie surplus a day or less, and that not all of that is going to be the work the actual growth is doing.
C. Yeah, 6 to 8 calories per day per pound.
D. Not seeing the relevance, nor evidence for a flood.
E. Not sure the relevance to a discussion on the metabolic activity of muscles.
f. Not sure the relevance to a discussion on the metabolic activity of muscles.
Weight training has a huge range of methods, level of intensity etc. I am going to phrase this answer with the understanding that we are talking about "average" gym goers training which likely have room for improvement.
A. 200 calories is a great start for an average person. As muscle and knowledge is built it should go up from there. Luckily 200 is a number that can likely be grown over time.
B. 100 calories to grow. Great! That is more demand on top of the original 200 plus.
C. 6-8 calories per pound... Great! That means that if I put on 12 lbs of muscle I'll be able to burn an extra 72 to 96 calories, 24 hours per day or 504 to 672 calories per week? Great!... and in my case, I know that I easily have 20lbs of extra muscle which means I have an extra 120 to 160 calories to eat every single day which is up to 1,120 calories per week. Great! That is on top of what I burn in the gym and the grow after? Good news.
So far it sounds like muscle is a great way to build the metabolism and the starting point should grow over time.
D. I may be out on a limb here but doesn't Testosterone and other hormones surge during intense weight lifting? I believe Testosterone is a positive hormone for both strength and fat burning. Doesn't weight lifting help balance hormones which should be good for keeping a healthy weight? This effect may be a little less direct but I think it is a part of the formula for staying lean. No?
F. Again I think this is relevant to the end goal of staying lean. Someone who gets "skinny" will probably still think they are "fat" if their skin hangs and the muscles are flat and weak. I have seen plenty of people who are "skinny" but think they are "fat" because of the lack of muscle and shape of their body. Again, the answer is muscle.
G. My real world point was not addressed. Paraphrasing, 'if I stop lifting weights and lose muscle I will ultimately get 'skinny fat' and my body fat percentage will increase.' Again, the answer is muscle to allow me to eat more calories. That is my reality, not a theory.
H. Finally, I get that we can "isolate" a very, very specific point such as "metabolic activity of muscles" and then exclude very real helpful points to get and stay lean. I think this is very unfortunate because the narrow view distracts from the bigger picture and real strategies to reach real goals. Ultimately most people are trying to find a way to get and stay lean in which case point A, B, C, D, E, F & G are likely very valid. It is hard to argue with real world results and in the real world I have experienced and seen that muscle and proper nutrition create bodies that are fat burning machines.
(These are just my opinions. Not advice to anyone specific.)
In regards to getting and staying lean aren't these points generally correct?
A. It isn't going to grow much.
B. No, that isn't a demand, it is a facilitation. It puts a cap on the maximum reasonable value of daily cost of growing a muscle.
C. 12 pounds is a lot of muscle to put on. For la week of calories burn less than a hour of cardio can burn.
D. No, I believe it actually drops during it, but a person's testosterone will generally increase with fitness. Testosterone is also an appetite increaser. I'm also not sure the point of putting in a signalling mechanism as if it is independently changing metabolism to some great extent above the muscle.
F. Still not seeing the relevance, it sounds like you're trying to broaden the discussion.
G. Why do you think I need to engage with the debate you want me to have to disagree with your particulars?
H. So moving the goal posts to ignore the areas that need correction? If you're conceding the other points so you can ultimately say building muscle is often found beneficial, to ahead, I don't find it an interesting or controversial claim.
Fair enough. Let's respectfully agree to disagree.
A) I would guess that I burn more calories lifting weights than the average person. I have seen what most people do and it sometimes looks like there is a whole lot of room for improvement. If I can build myself up from the average, I'm sure others can too.
C) I don't think 12 pounds is unrealistic. I explained why below.
D) So weights isn't good for testosterone and testosterone isn't good for lean body composition? Ok?
F) Perhaps. I fist firmly believe that more muscle means more calories are burned. Then to help drive home the multiple other benefits that results in people like me actually achieving real world goals, I tend to elaborate. To me, a bird in the hand is more valuable than two in the bush.
G) Sorry I missed your point here.
H) I still think all of the points are valid.
To summarize I would simplify it all down to the extreme examples like a bodybuilder which I think also applies to the average person. The reality is that those who have a lot of muscle to work, weight more and eat more calories to feed that extra muscle and their body fat percentage is generally lower. Those muscles are hungry for calories 24 hours a day. Putting aside all of the other benefits for those trying to get and keep off body fat this is a reality that can not be denied.
I can appreciate that if you limit the expectation for the average person to only gain a pound or two of muscle then you may have a point but I believe that the average person has more potential than that. I think that a lot of people probably have a lot of untrained muscle that could easily support 12 pounds more. Again, the average person probably does not follow the proper protocols to gain 12 pounds of muscle but if they did I don't think it is at all unrealistic. At 41, without using drugs, I probably have around 25 lbs of extra muscle, or possibly more based on my fathers size. Using that as a very rough benchmark, I think others are likely capable of achieving half or possibly as much or even more success than me. Why not? As a 5 foot 11, middle age, small framed, 31 inch waist, medium t-shirt wearing man, I'm not exactly a big person.
But at the end of the day I really have nothing to prove as I have walked the walk for nearly 3 decades. I prove my argument to myself every day as it is in my results. I am lean and fit because I build muscle and watch my nutrition. If I did not lift weights my body fat percentage would increase. I believe that speaks for itself. For me, in my reality, the extra muscle I carry has boosts my metabolism so that I can eat more calories to support the muscle. That along with smart eating keeps me lean year after year. Again, the bird in the hand thing. Haha. No hard feelings though. I wish you all the best. It is perfectly fine to agree to disagree. I wish you well. 0 -
Some minor flaws in the analysis. Might get newbie gains of 12 pounds. Someone whose been at it a while may not see that sort of gain.
Someone who carried around a 300# body is going to have some muscles to start with, so are they even going to be a newbie in their legs and perhaps their core? Assuming of course they were not bed ridden and never ever moved.
Second, assuming someone is gaining that 12# of muscle, are they losing any fat? So if I gain 12# of muscle, but have also lost 12# of fat, then my increased calorie burn to support that tissue isn't 72 extra calories / day, but maybe only 24-48 extra calories.
Still better than a kick in the plums, but lets not oversell it.
I'm not against resistance training. I do a combination of cardio and resistance training to keep core strength and to keep arthritis at bay. Like most things in life, I think balance is required. Functional fitness.
And I think it was alluded to in the last of the post, eating is a very large lever in the tool box. It's far easier to eat an extra 500+ calories each day than it is to work them off with either cardio or adding muscle.2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Some minor flaws in the analysis. Might get newbie gains of 12 pounds. Someone whose been at it a while may not see that sort of gain.
Someone who carried around a 300# body is going to have some muscles to start with, so are they even going to be a newbie in their legs and perhaps their core? Assuming of course they were not bed ridden and never ever moved.
Second, assuming someone is gaining that 12# of muscle, are they losing any fat? So if I gain 12# of muscle, but have also lost 12# of fat, then my increased calorie burn to support that tissue isn't 72 extra calories / day, but maybe only 24-48 extra calories.
Still better than a kick in the plums, but lets not oversell it.
I'm not against resistance training. I do a combination of cardio and resistance training to keep core strength and to keep arthritis at bay. Like most things in life, I think balance is required. Functional fitness.
And I think it was alluded to in the last of the post, eating is a very large lever in the tool box. It's far easier to eat an extra 500+ calories each day than it is to work them off with either cardio or adding muscle.
This is great because I really think it helps people see a less understood way of looking at these things. Let me address your points.
YOUR NEWBIE POINT:
A newbie should have an easy 12 lbs to gain. Someone who has been 'at if for a while' should already have extra muscle and the goal is to learn how to get more or keep the muscle they have. If someone already added 15 lbs, don't stop and melt it away. That would not be good. That muscle is your friend and secret weapon.
YOUR 300 Lbs OBESE POINT:
There are exceptions to every rule and I don't think this situation applies to most people. I have no advice here but I would think that medically supervised exercise of many types, appropriate cardio, appropriate weights and diet would all be very important.
YOUR SAME WEIGHT, MORE MUSCLE, LESS FAT, SMALL DIFFERENCE IN CALORIES POINT:
YES!! This is the best case scenario. The goal is not to simply up calorie intake, the real end goal is to burn fat and have more healthy muscle. If goal was simply upping calorie intake then someone could eat unlimited food and store it all. If someone has 10 lbs of fat the best case scenario is to burn 10 lbs of fat and add strong, healthy, youthful muscle to replace it. At this point the few extra calories are inconsequential. The goal has been achieved and those delicious calories are now going towards strength, power, confidence... not body fat. If only the fat was lost then the calorie budget would be lower and any extra calories would be stored as fat instead of feeding hungry muscle.
YOUR DIET POINT:
YES!! Exactly! Diet is huge! Like the fit 20 somethings, the best case scenario is a good balance been muscle (weights) and body fat (diet). Attention to both details are required.
(Of course there are many aspects to health that can't be covered here. Just some general opinions.)
4 -
Here is another external blog post you might enjoy that delves into this question...
https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/lose-weight-and-build-muscle-or-do-one-then-the-other
2 -
I have lost weight while lifting weight.1
-
Here is another external blog post you might enjoy that delves into this question...
https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/lose-weight-and-build-muscle-or-do-one-then-the-other
Nice, that seems to back up loads of the good info I've gotten from folks here. thanks0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions