Muscle gains while losing fat (cont. from AT thread)

joshdann

I dunno if you're doing it right, but you're doing it pretty much the same way I am. So far, the only results I can speak to are basically immeasurable. I do feel like I get a better workout and I do feel like I recover faster using this method.

That said, I don't consume 2500 calories. I focus on protein (1g per lb of LBM. about 200g for me, which I sometimes struggle to reach) and take in far fewer carbs, but I still try to save them for before and after my workouts. I also usually eat cereal the morning after a workout instead of my usual protein shake, which has seemed to help some too.

pavrg

I should note I didn't read far enough to see how they defined 'prolonged strenuous physical activity.' I envision that as playing a game of soccer or going through a 3 hour football practice, not lifting something heavy for 15 sets which equates to 5-10 minutes of actual work throughout a 30-40 min time frame. Also, I FEEL like my 20 min daily runs @ 7 to 7.5 min/mi are 'prolonged strenuous physical activity,' but I don't think they qualify, either. On a scale of 1 to athletic that is a negative 50.

So while the numbers state I should need as many as 1850 calories/day to restore nutrients used by physical activity and stimulate muscular hypertrophy, I can probably do with much less than that. There's really no way of knowing, though, without using measuring instruments that are beyond my means to obtain. But since my TDEE - 500 is at or above that number, there's really no reason for me to worry about it.

Also, those numbers are the maximum. It's not like your body just turns itself off it doesn't get enough; it will do what it can with what it has.

This goes back to my original point: The loss of LBM with weight loss is primarily focused on bodybuilders and athletes who are already at 10-12% bodyfat. The male body doesn't want to go lower than that even though it can and they don't have abundant excess stores of energy to pull from, so their bodies synthesize LBM. There are no studies I've seen that put a 15%+ bf person on a strength and cardio training routine while maintining a caloric deficit and measure LBM throughout the process. As far as I can tell, it's all 'broscience' applying those studies or personal experiences training bodybuilders to people with completely different body compositions. I'd love to see one (or a few), though.

heybales

Following on, I found these recommendations from the Australian sports ministry. Note these are for "real" athletes, as far as I can tell...

24-hour refuelling needs:

"The single most important factor driving post-exercise muscle glycogen resynthesis is the amount of carbohydrate consumed following exercise. To date, two studies have investigated the relationship between the amount of carbohydrate consumed following exercise and muscle glycogen refuelling over a 24-hour recovery period. These studies have shaped current daily carbohydrate intake recommendations for athletes and show a glycogen storage threshold at a daily carbohydrate intake of ~7-10 g per kg body mass (Costill et al. 1981; Burke et al. 1995)."

I read that to say that IF you fully deplete glycogen, you'll need 7-10g of carbs per kg body weight. Adjust downward based on actual glycogen depletion.

Immediate post-exercise refuelling:

A separate guideline is required to cover the carbohydrate needs of the early phase (0–4 hours) of recovery which can be addressed in a well planned, directed nutritional recovery system. Numerous studies demonstrate that the threshold for early glycogen recovery is reached by feeding carbohydrate at a rate of 1.2g/kg/h(van Loon et al. 2000; Jentjens et al. 2001).
The highest rates of muscle glycogen storage occur during the first hour after exercise (Ivy et al. 1988 ). Failure to consume carbohydrate in the immediate phase of post-exercise recovery leads to very low rates of glycogen restoration.

Now this is interesting because it has Pavrg's "1.2 g/kg" number, but in a slightly different context.

I'm just loving this conversation....if we're not careful, we might just end up zeroing in on something actually useful to folks!

So that 10 g per kg is more known in the endurance sports areas, folks not on a diet. Get in that much before your next workout basically, to confirm you really did top off glucose stores as best as possible. Since lifting probably never got to state of emptying them that bad, not as important.

You can also estimate what your workout must have burned in carbs, and confirm you get that plus whatever the day would have been anyway. You'll find some pro-references to that method, since they have VO2 testing and good knowledge of just what they burn, they also must factor in carb intake during the workout for long ones.

As you did the math though, do the protein and fat needs first based on LBM, and likely even in a deficit, you'll hit that 7 g figure easy enough.

Also tested for the endurance aspect, and may be useful to lifting type recovery, is the post-exercise carb:protein ratio that shows best results for a workout the next day. Chocolate milk low fat happens to hit that 4:1 ratio.

http://oakbrooksc.com/docs/stager_chocmilk_study.pdf

The resynthesis of glycogen between training sessions occurs most rapidly if carbohydrates (CHO) are consumed within 30 min to 1 h after exercise (9, 13, 17). Indeed, delaying carbohydrate ingestion for 2 h after a workout can reduce the rate of glycogen resynthesis by half (20, 22). To maximize the rate of glycogen resynthesis, it is suggested that 50 to 75 g of CHO be ingested within 30 to 45 min after exercise (1), with ingestion of 1.2 to 1.5 g CHO/kg of body weight/hour for the next few hours (12, 19, 20, 24, 29). Ingesting protein along with carbohydrate (at a CHO-to-protein ratio of 2 to 2.9:1) has been shown to hasten the rate of glycogen synthesis and improve endurance performance, especially when the amount of carbohydrate ingested is less than current recommendations (20, 21, 35, 39). Of particular importance is the study of Ivy et al. (23), who found that the ingestion of a solution containing a 4:1 CHO-to-protein ratio improved endurance performance ....

Mr_Knight

Putting it all together for that mythical 250 pound male dieter, it would seem you could do the following:

- 2000 calories/day intake, with a roughly 275g carb, 75g fat, 175g protein split
--> this meets all macro requirements as discussed earlier
--> meets (estimated) BMR
- 2500 calories/day exercise program (equivalent to 6 hrs of brisk walking)
--> meets the "31 calories/kg-fat/day requirement

This gives a TDEE of 4500, a staggeringly high weekly deficit of 17,500, and estimated weekly loss of 5 pounds of fat while maintaining all existing LBM. At that rate of weight loss, everything would have to be recalculated weekly, but if I've done the math right, there's enough margin to sustain that level of loss for a full month.

I would be willing to do this for a few weeks just to gather the data, but I just don't have that kind of time. And I'm not fit enough to swap the 6 hours of walking (which I am physically capable of) with, say, two hours of racing-speed cycling (which I am not physically capable of). I do know from military experience that infantry boot camp can create a huge caloric deficit in a regimen of high exercise and well-fedness, and people generally leave the experience both much lighter AND much stronger. I would assume the military folks have hard data on this, but I don't know if it's publicly available.

joshdann

confession: I skipped my lifts today. I'll never succeed now...

actually, my wife had to go out of town on a family emergency, and she's the only one who knows how to find things around here. I spent 45 minutes looking for my gym badge and said screw it, I'll go run. Anyway. As you were.

heybales

I kept forgetting to get this in here - for that 31 cal max deficit aspect.

http://www.weightrainer.net/losscalc.html

So they appear to use the rec of 1 g per lb of LBM.
And fat at 0.35 g per lb of weight.
And carbs gets rest.

joshdann

I like the concept of that calculator, but it clearly has some issues. For instance, it tells me I need 233g of protein per day and -101 carbs to meet a total caloric intake of 731... I'm not sure how to eat negative carbs though

What I'd prefer is a calculator that, rather than trying to estimate my "TDEE" based on one of 5 arbitrary activity levels, uses an estimated (or better yet, and actual manually-entered) BMR/RMR, then calculates the minimum nutrients and calorie burn required to reach a specific goal without losing LBM. I might have to write one myself...

EvgeniZyntx

I like the concept of that calculator, but it clearly has some issues. For instance, it tells me I need 233g of protein per day and -101 carbs to meet a total caloric intake of 731... I'm not sure how to eat negative carbs though

What I'd prefer is a calculator that, rather than trying to estimate my "TDEE" based on one of 5 arbitrary activity levels, uses an estimated (or better yet, and actual manually-entered) BMR/RMR, then calculates the minimum nutrients and calorie burn required to reach a specific goal without losing LBM. I might have to write one myself...

Why aren't you better off with estimating your actual TDEE from say a month of data?

neanderthin

I like the concept of that calculator, but it clearly has some issues. For instance, it tells me I need 233g of protein per day and -101 carbs to meet a total caloric intake of 731... I'm not sure how to eat negative carbs though

What I'd prefer is a calculator that, rather than trying to estimate my "TDEE" based on one of 5 arbitrary activity levels, uses an estimated (or better yet, and actual manually-entered) BMR/RMR, then calculates the minimum nutrients and calorie burn required to reach a specific goal without losing LBM. I might have to write one myself...

Why aren't you better off with estimating your actual TDEE from say a month of data?

And why I've said BMR should be banished from the nutritional landscape. Real data takes too much time it appears, for most people.

joshdann

I do estimate my own TDEE, but the point was that this calculator does not allow for manual entering of data, other than height, weight, and BF%

neanderthin

I do estimate my own TDEE, but the point was that this calculator does not allow for manual entering of data, other than height, weight, and BF%

It would be interesting to see if more manual data points actually makes it more accurate. I suspect for most people it wouldn't and possibly be more confusing resulting in a wider variances of numbers, but who knows. Personally I just make adjustments to my intake based on how I look in the mirror, which again isn't accurate but over the months it's been fairly reliable.

heybales

I like the concept of that calculator, but it clearly has some issues. For instance, it tells me I need 233g of protein per day and -101 carbs to meet a total caloric intake of 731... I'm not sure how to eat negative carbs though

What I'd prefer is a calculator that, rather than trying to estimate my "TDEE" based on one of 5 arbitrary activity levels, uses an estimated (or better yet, and actual manually-entered) BMR/RMR, then calculates the minimum nutrients and calorie burn required to reach a specific goal without losing LBM. I might have to write one myself...

Take this and tweak things, should make it easier.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/813720-spreadsheet-bmr-tdee-deficit-macro-calcs-hrm-zones

After the stats, or most, on the Simple Setup tab, go to the TDEE Deficit tab at the bottom.

There's room to add your own section using the TDEE, or whatever you want to do, but at least the major values have range names already (and in kg already).

joshdann

yeah, I calculate everything myself right now, too. I was mainly thinking that some improvements to that calculator make it easier for the masses. The ones currently available (including this one) make far too many generalizations and assumptions, yet people use them and think the results they get are gospel. If they're going to do that, at least they should be able to do it from a different angle. Something like this:

Enter your BMR, BF% and total weight
internally calculate the maximum fat-only loss per week
Given that data, output macro / calorie burn plans for fat-only loss in 0.5 lb increments, from 0 (maint) to max

Given a proper calculation, a user would be able to see just how much they need to eat and burn for safe, LBM-sparing weight loss. Of course some disclaimers and caveats about how important measurement is, what the term "estimate" means, etc... the weight loss world needs this.

heybales

I kept forgetting to get this in here - for that 31 cal max deficit aspect.

http://www.weightrainer.net/losscalc.html

So they appear to use the rec of 1 g per lb of LBM.
And fat at 0.35 g per lb of weight.
And carbs gets rest.

I went back to the theory study on this. That 31 cal / kg didn't sound right.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615

A limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290+/-25) kJ/kgd.

Now, that 290 kJ would be:
69.3 cal / kg
31.4 cal / lb

Now, since they only looked at FFM, or LBM, as reducing, and we now LBM is muscle and water with glucose, I think as any dieter will tell you, you don't top off glucose stores when under a deficit. When you go back to maintenance for a day or two, you gain 1-4 lbs fast water weight, and not just because extra sodium was eaten. My taper weeks leading up to a race are same decent diet, just more calories, and gain goes up.

But since it's the total LBM and not just muscle mass that makes the metabolism what it is, I guess it's good not to lose any more of it than needed earlier than needed.

I noticed on the calc though, if you put in desired weight loss greater than what that study came up with as max, yes you get negative values.
But the section right under on max deficit is positive values. Low carb, wow, but positive.

There's also this study, showing LBM gains and the amount of deficit that allow, and how much did not allow it.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571

Mr_Knight

The other question that comes to mind is again about the energy from fat stores. That 31 cal/lb-fat/day doesn't generate all at once, it generates over time. For our hypothetical 250 lb male dieter, it generates at a bit over 100 calories/hour - but two hours of vigorous cardio obviously burns much more than that.

It would be really useful to see something like a 24 hour timeline of a highly active, well-nutritioned athlete mapping exactly where/when energy is ingested, and where/when it is drawn from.

james6998

I am a living example of someone whos eating on a deficit and still gaining muscle while losing fat, 8 weeks 2 lbs of muscle and loss of 1-1.5% body fat. I was just recently tested and those where the results.
I eat daily 1900-2000 was the most and 2000 was only for a day lol.
low carbs, high protein
Note is is not on purpose, just what i like to eat... tuna, chicken breast, etc are low in carbs.
I weigh 222lbs now and consume around 200grams of protein a day. I try not to go below that number.
I try not to eat more then 30 grams of protein at a time for maximum absorbing effect.
I dont work, go to the gym 4 times a week for 2hrs at a time, rest time in between sets is no more then 60seconds.
Sets range from 4-7, reps range from 6-8 sometimes 12.

Mr_Knight

...I think as any dieter will tell you, you don't top off glucose stores when under a deficit.

I have heard that as well, but my own experience has me questioning the validity of that claim for those ingesting above BMR. If that claim were true, it would not be possible to maintain vigorous cardio exercise while dieting, yet we have considerable evidence contrary to that.

heybales

...I think as any dieter will tell you, you don't top off glucose stores when under a deficit.

I have heard that as well, but my own experience has me questioning the validity of that claim for those ingesting above BMR. If that claim were true, it would not be possible to maintain vigorous cardio exercise while dieting, yet we have considerable evidence contrary to that.

Well, there's a wide range between depleted and topped off totally.

Even the marathoners who do a proper carb feed before a race can pack in more, and without being on a diet prior.

You can be hovering at ranges below that depending on amount of deficit. And it seems to be dynamic, you use the muscle a lot for endurance, you get more, you stop using it, you store less. Constant use and eat enough, topped off.

Mr_Knight

Well, there's a wide range between depleted and topped off totally.

Not over the long run. If the claim is correct, anybody eating at a meaningful deficit while doing vigorous cardio will inevitably - and in relatively short period of time (as in small number of days) - deplete all glycogen reserves. Once its used, it's gone, according to the claim, and rate of energy extraction from fat stores is nowhere near enough to fuel the exercise activity.

This would have a severe impact on ability to continue training. Unless people are consistently having to remove vigorous cardio from their weight loss plans, it strongly suggests glycogen can and does replenish while in a caloric deficit.

pavrg

Impossible to tell if the above mechanism occurred, but last Tues hit a wall where I felt really weak. I had been averaging about 1600-1700 cal/day for a few weeks, getting at least 100 g of protein, and felt just fine. I ate a bigger sandwich with thicker bread and dinner to put me up to 1900 for two days and I just increased my run speed and shoulder pressed a PR and felt like I got a bad workout for it being too easy.

It's possible my feeling weak was because I had used up all my glycogen reserves, but there's a lot of other theories on why that would happen, too. I think that this notion that carbs shouldn't be a part of a healthy diet misses the mark and can be detrimental to physical performance, although few people at my gym workout with my intensity so maybe it's okay advice for the guy reading a magazine on the stationary bike not breaking a sweat or lifters who do little to no cardio.

heybales

The other question that comes to mind is again about the energy from fat stores. That 31 cal/lb-fat/day doesn't generate all at once, it generates over time. For our hypothetical 250 lb male dieter, it generates at a bit over 100 calories/hour - but two hours of vigorous cardio obviously burns much more than that.

It would be really useful to see something like a 24 hour timeline of a highly active, well-nutritioned athlete mapping exactly where/when energy is ingested, and where/when it is drawn from.

So lets get our 45 yr old guy running at 6 mph for 60 min, avg 2% incline. Decent aerobic shape with VO2max of 50 mL/kg/min, HR 154, or 87% of HRmax. So really hualing, can only do this every other day cause of the joints.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

This effort would burn 1314 gross calories (including RMR calories) at 77% of VO2max.
So about 10% of energy coming from fat on avg, or about 131 calories coming from fat. And actually, it takes about 30 min to drop in to that final ratio of carbs:fat. So really less than that first 30 min.
http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators//fat-versus-carbohydrate-utilization-during-exercise-calculator.aspx

During sleep and rest, almost total fat burn, but also at BMR and RMR level calorie burn.

So with that math of about 100 cal / hr on avg - doesn't look like you'd have a problem getting in there.

joshdann

I think the very nature of how the body uses glycogen dictates that it must replenish to some extent, under all conditions except perhaps actual starvation. Just looking at my own muscles the morning after an evening lifting session, still with some "pump" to them, tells me that there is extra water (and by association glycogen) being stored. Perhaps my reasoning is off there, but that's how I currently understand it. The electrical analogy makes sense to me - glycogen stores in muscles are like capacitors. On-tap energy for quick usage under stress (even mild stress). These capacitors are refilled by the actual energy sources - food and stored fat. With muscle tissue breakdown happening when the other two are simply not able to cope with energy demands. Both sources are rate limited by the digestive and metabolic processes. Does that seem accurate?

pavrg

Also re boot camp, guys come out of that with more endurance, not strength. The people who don't workout regularly prior to gain some strength, but the athletes who did strength training before all lose their power. Even though they gain the ability to do 100+ pushups and hold a 10 lb rifle in an awkward position for 15 min, they lose the ability to bench or OHP as much raw weight.

The army doesn't care about raw muscle power - there's firearms for that. It cares about its soldiers staying in the fight.

pavrg

The other question that comes to mind is again about the energy from fat stores. That 31 cal/lb-fat/day doesn't generate all at once, it generates over time. For our hypothetical 250 lb male dieter, it generates at a bit over 100 calories/hour - but two hours of vigorous cardio obviously burns much more than that.

It would be really useful to see something like a 24 hour timeline of a highly active, well-nutritioned athlete mapping exactly where/when energy is ingested, and where/when it is drawn from.

So lets get our 45 yr old guy running at 6 mph for 60 min, avg 2% incline. Decent aerobic shape with VO2max of 50 mL/kg/min, HR 154, or 87% of HRmax. So really hualing, can only do this every other day cause of the joints.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

This effort would burn 1314 gross calories (including RMR calories) at 77% of VO2max.
So about 10% of energy coming from fat on avg, or about 131 calories coming from fat. And actually, it takes about 30 min to drop in to that final ratio of carbs:fat. So really less than that first 30 min.
http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators//fat-versus-carbohydrate-utilization-during-exercise-calculator.aspx

During sleep and rest, almost total fat burn, but also at BMR and RMR level calorie burn.

So with that math of about 100 cal / hr on avg - doesn't look like you'd have a problem getting in there.

Your calculator doesn't let me use my workout hr of 190. At 185 I'm using 100% carbs for 20 min.

RivenV

In for all the science.

heybales

Not over the long run. If the claim is correct, anybody eating at a meaningful deficit while doing vigorous cardio will inevitably - and in relatively short period of time (as in small number of days) - deplete all glycogen reserves. Once its used, it's gone, according to the claim, and rate of energy extraction from fat stores is nowhere near enough to fuel the exercise activity.

This would have a severe impact on ability to continue training. Unless people are consistently having to remove vigorous cardio from their weight loss plans, it strongly suggests glycogen can and does replenish while in a caloric deficit.

And people actually do reach that state with several days of vigorous and either eating low calorie and or low carb.
I have.

Check out the Primal and Paleo sites for the articles where they recognize their common recommendations don't meet the needs of those wanting to do what they call "chronic or killer cardio" beyond what they recommend.

And you are correct that if trying to do intense, you need those carbs, as fat takes too much oxygen to use (intense being relative), you do reach "the wall". I've seen folks in spin class reach it, it's not limited to the weekend marathoner with a poorly run race hitting the wall, where muscle glucose is gone. Now the fat needs to be burned with converted glucose, and since that is a slower process, body slows down to allow it to happen.

But if you are realistic, it does replenish, but the way many folks try to hit protein and fat goals first, carbs fill the rest, there is always some not topped off.

I'm just saying for the 1500-2500 potential storage, many can easily do their daily routines and exercise running an avg carb storage deficit of say 1000 calories worth, and still have plenty of stores to do everything. I'm not saying daily deficit in needed carbs of 1000, just what is stored. The 400-500 in the liver helps out too.

heybales

The other question that comes to mind is again about the energy from fat stores. That 31 cal/lb-fat/day doesn't generate all at once, it generates over time. For our hypothetical 250 lb male dieter, it generates at a bit over 100 calories/hour - but two hours of vigorous cardio obviously burns much more than that.

It would be really useful to see something like a 24 hour timeline of a highly active, well-nutritioned athlete mapping exactly where/when energy is ingested, and where/when it is drawn from.

So lets get our 45 yr old guy running at 6 mph for 60 min, avg 2% incline. Decent aerobic shape with VO2max of 50 mL/kg/min, HR 154, or 87% of HRmax. So really hualing, can only do this every other day cause of the joints.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

This effort would burn 1314 gross calories (including RMR calories) at 77% of VO2max.
So about 10% of energy coming from fat on avg, or about 131 calories coming from fat. And actually, it takes about 30 min to drop in to that final ratio of carbs:fat. So really less than that first 30 min.
http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators//fat-versus-carbohydrate-utilization-during-exercise-calculator.aspx

During sleep and rest, almost total fat burn, but also at BMR and RMR level calorie burn.

So with that math of about 100 cal / hr on avg - doesn't look like you'd have a problem getting in there.

Your calculator doesn't let me use my workout hr of 190. At 185 I'm using 100% carbs for 20 min.

That's because that site makes a whole lot of assumptions, and won't accept data outside of what they figure must be right.

Usually starts with HRmax, while you can easily have a HRmax much higher that the 220-age they use (or close enough to it), they do the majority of their calcs with that assumption.

From that is then based your VO2max, and where those match up. They also base your lactate threshold on that.
So it's fine for imaginary people, and very rough estimate on real people. I can't use it at all, my tested HRmax is 18 higher than calculated. My LT is about 7% higher than avg expected.

Just like building the math for calories on a bad BMR estimate, they do it with the burn side of the equation too.

heybales

I think the very nature of how the body uses glycogen dictates that it must replenish to some extent, under all conditions except perhaps actual starvation. Just looking at my own muscles the morning after an evening lifting session, still with some "pump" to them, tells me that there is extra water (and by association glycogen) being stored. Perhaps my reasoning is off there, but that's how I currently understand it. The electrical analogy makes sense to me - glycogen stores in muscles are like capacitors. On-tap energy for quick usage under stress (even mild stress). These capacitors are refilled by the actual energy sources - food and stored fat. With muscle tissue breakdown happening when the other two are simply not able to cope with energy demands. Both sources are rate limited by the digestive and metabolic processes. Does that seem accurate?

Muscles also retain water outside glucose stores just for repair process. Think inflammation response.

Glucose stores will always replenish, after every meal when insulin goes up, any glucose not shuttled off to top of liver stores and not needed for energy right then, is off to the muscles.

Glucose stores actually don't get refilled from fat, but fat can provide through conversion (slow and inefficient) some glucose for energy needs right then. Lactate acid is in that same group, you produce it when exercising, varying amounts, and while it can be used for energy use, it's slow process compared to using glucose, hence the reason if too intense it builds up and starts preventing the muscle from actually working.

For really long endurance events the digestive aspect of glucose uptake would come into play, but not under normal exercise.

Metabolic yes, hence the reason the more intense, the more glucose used since it's fast supply compared to fat needing oxygen and a tad slower.

joshdann

wait, so if body fat metabolizes into glycogen (and other things), why wouldn't that glycogen be used to replenish muscles?

heybales

wait, so if body fat metabolizes into glycogen (and other things), why wouldn't that glycogen be used to replenish muscles?

Well, the rate is minor if ever, debate on that. And only when needed from any source actually, because the conversion is energy intensive. And as the body seems to show, efficiency of use. No need to convert if liver stores are available to keep blood sugar up already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis