Muscle gain from cardio?

Ctrum69

I gather you are drawing a distinction between isometric and walking, and that's fine.

I'm just curious as to why you think isometric won't build muscle. I agree it won't build it AS FAST as resistance training, but I cannot for the life of me see why it wouldn't build it at all, especially dynamic resistance style, where you are, effectively, upping the resistance by getting stronger progressively.

There are 2 types of hypertrophy...sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar. Strength training (yoga, powerlifting, isometric) works by improving the strength of the muscle without necessarily increasing it's size (myofibrillar). Being able to hold a plank longer and longer isn't going to increase arm size, chest size or back size because the contraction doesn't allow for lengthening of the muscles in either direction.
The "pump" is what is needed to help break down muscle fibers for rebuilding as well as challenging concentric and eccentric contractions (sarcoplasmic).

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Ahh. Interesting.

I will have to read more on that.

Waggoner83

Absolutely not. You might have a water retention spike but you're not building pounds of muscle doing cardio. Cardio is the opposite of muscle-building.

QuietBloom

Absolutely not. You might have a water retention spike but you're not building pounds of muscle doing cardio. Cardio is the opposite of muscle-building.

Tell that to my calves. :huh:

OP - you are not building muscle in a calorie deficit. Either you are eating too much, or your muscles are retaining water while they get used to the new routine.

MoreBean13

OP: Nope, When you start any exercise from a previously sedentary condition, you'll see Neuromuscular adaptation and muscle swelling- which is the same thing that makes people think they've gained muscle when they start lifting weights at a deficit. Your muscles feel taut, look bigger, work better so you get stronger- etc. All things that would lead someone to believe they're gaining muscle- except you're not. Your brain is just learning to fire up the muscle you have.

Myhaloslipped

I've been goin to the gym since the start of the year and my diary has been solid almost always under my goal yet I've put on the last 2 weeks? I know I'm gaining muscle but how much muscle can you gain from just doing cardio and nothing but cardio? Enough to put 2.5 lb in a week?

Do you weigh your food and properly calculate your calorie burns? This fixed my problem when I was having a similar issue.

pinkraynedropjacki

In for the popcorn


But if you gained muscle from doing nothing but cardio then I'd have no need to be doing strength training 2 years later cause I'd be the size of a house. I put no muscle on at all & all I did daily was cardio.

You do not put on...or even retain muscle doing nothing but cardio. Why do you think runners can't lift for ****?

Fullsterkur_woman

Absolutely not. You might have a water retention spike but you're not building pounds of muscle doing cardio. Cardio is the opposite of muscle-building.

Tell that to my calves. :huh:

They're the hardest place to add mass!!

Iron_Feline

Tell that to my legs and if the muscle stops growing there from all the cardio I might believe you. Truth is depends on the workout and the diet. Cardio and muscle growth are not mutually exclusive. Now having cast the shot across the bow of that ship...break it down...

Muscles are grown primarily through the tearing of the tissue and then the body repair mechanism. So to grow muscles your workout has to create micro tears and your diet needs to provide the correct nutriements (mostly protein) to buld them back up. Cardio will only consume muscle if you do so in a manner consistent with kicking over into body tissue consumption on an extented period of time (for most people about 40 minutes).

You can gain some muscle from cardio but only to a small extent. Your body/muscles will quickly adapt to cardio. I think what people see from doing cardio is a reduction of fat, which makes the body appear to be more muscular. That said, cardio is an ineffective way to build muscle, while lifting weights IS an effective way to gain muscle, being that you can always increase the weights so your body doesn't adapt to lifting. That is how muscles are "torn down". When I see someone who runs have legs that look like someone who squats 400lbs, then I might buy into what you're saying.

That said, no way can one gain 2.5lbs of muscle doing cardio. It's hard enough gaining that much muscle by lifting weights.

Yeah,. that's why I've put an inch and half on my calves since I started doing cardio.. it's fat going away.

So much bad broscience from the 80s being repeated as fact.

your body IS a weight. When you start doing cardio from a dead stop, you are effectively lifting weights.

Is it true that someone who is already at an extreme level of low body fat, and right on the knife edge maintaining vs building, will have to go into a surplus to build muscle? Sure.

But guys like me, carrying an extra 40 or 50 lbs, who have been on a couch, effectively for years, will convert to muscle, and build muscle, without hitting the lat tower. Not as fast, mind you, but it will happen.

^^^This. I started doing cardio about 4 years ago, building up to running 19 miles a week for over 2 years. No strength training or weights (although of course there are more benefits to doing both). My body slowly lost all excess fat and I got more muscly than I would have liked as a woman but I guess because I had built up that lean muscle I was able to maintain my weight for a year even after I stopped running completely and ate what I wanted. I am proof you can convert muscle from doing pure cardio but as I have just recently started running properly again I also intend to supplement it with a little weight training.

EDIT: I mean to add that I appreciate I am not really gaining muscle with cardio but converting it.

Yeah no, unless you were eating at a surplus and lifting you weren't building muscle - just revealing the muscle hidden under the fat. Women have a very hard time adding muscle - you did not do it by running 19 miles a week.

MoreBean13

Tell that to my legs and if the muscle stops growing there from all the cardio I might believe you. Truth is depends on the workout and the diet. Cardio and muscle growth are not mutually exclusive. Now having cast the shot across the bow of that ship...break it down...

Muscles are grown primarily through the tearing of the tissue and then the body repair mechanism. So to grow muscles your workout has to create micro tears and your diet needs to provide the correct nutriements (mostly protein) to buld them back up. Cardio will only consume muscle if you do so in a manner consistent with kicking over into body tissue consumption on an extented period of time (for most people about 40 minutes).

You can gain some muscle from cardio but only to a small extent. Your body/muscles will quickly adapt to cardio. I think what people see from doing cardio is a reduction of fat, which makes the body appear to be more muscular. That said, cardio is an ineffective way to build muscle, while lifting weights IS an effective way to gain muscle, being that you can always increase the weights so your body doesn't adapt to lifting. That is how muscles are "torn down". When I see someone who runs have legs that look like someone who squats 400lbs, then I might buy into what you're saying.

That said, no way can one gain 2.5lbs of muscle doing cardio. It's hard enough gaining that much muscle by lifting weights.

Yeah,. that's why I've put an inch and half on my calves since I started doing cardio.. it's fat going away.

So much bad broscience from the 80s being repeated as fact.

your body IS a weight. When you start doing cardio from a dead stop, you are effectively lifting weights.

Is it true that someone who is already at an extreme level of low body fat, and right on the knife edge maintaining vs building, will have to go into a surplus to build muscle? Sure.

But guys like me, carrying an extra 40 or 50 lbs, who have been on a couch, effectively for years, will convert to muscle, and build muscle, without hitting the lat tower. Not as fast, mind you, but it will happen.

^^^This. I started doing cardio about 4 years ago, building up to running 19 miles a week for over 2 years. No strength training or weights (although of course there are more benefits to doing both). My body slowly lost all excess fat and I got more muscly than I would have liked as a woman but I guess because I had built up that lean muscle I was able to maintain my weight for a year even after I stopped running completely and ate what I wanted. I am proof you can convert muscle from doing pure cardio but as I have just recently started running properly again I also intend to supplement it with a little weight training.

EDIT: I mean to add that I appreciate I am not really gaining muscle with cardio but converting it.

I don't understand what you mean by converting. What are you saying you're converting to muscle? Or are we talking about developing slow twitch vs. fast twitch here? What is being converted to what exactly?

Ctrum69

I don't understand what you mean by converting. What are you saying you're converting to muscle? Or are we talking about developing slow twitch vs. fast twitch here? What is being converted to what exactly?

STored fat + dietary protein into muscle growth.

fast_eddie_72

This is one I find confusing. I mean, I didn't measure my legs before I started running, so I can't say for sure. But it sure does look to me like my calves got a lot bigger. I'm sure there was some fat in my legs - I guess - but they were never the "fatty" part of me. But I've read this so many times I'm just not sure. Maybe everything just toned up. I know my legs look a lot stronger, and I can do things I couldn't do with them before I ran. It just seems like there has to be more muscle there.

But when I read what the lifters say, they have to eat a surplus to gain weight. Makes sense, since losing weight works exactly the other way. That muscle has to get built out of something. So I can see how it wouldn't be possible to build muscle without eating more. But this is confusing.

I started working out with a personal trainer at the beginning of the year. My wife and I both think my arms look bigger from all the work. And I know I can do more push ups now. But I've lost 15 lbs. So on the one hand, I see what I think is more muscle and can feel the result. But my brain also kinda says that can't be right. The theory is easy to understand, but in practice, it is kind of confusing. It just seems like if I did push ups every day and did more and more of them my arms and chest would have to build muscle even if I was eating at a deficit. That can never happen? Your body never burns fat to build muscles that are being used more?

meshashesha2012

in to see first hand the magical work of fat converted to muscle and 2.5 pounds of muscle being created in a week

Timshel_

Enough to put 2.5 lb in a week?

I can vary +/- 5 pounds a day depending on water, and to a lesser extent food, intakes.

Hornsby

Stronger does not equal muscle growth. You can be stronger with your muscles the same size.

Ctrum69

This is one I find confusing. I mean, I didn't measure my legs before I started running, so I can't say for sure. But it sure does look to me like my calves got a lot bigger. I'm sure there was some fat in my legs - I guess - but they were never the "fatty" part of me. But I've read this so many times I'm just not sure. Maybe everything just toned up. I know my legs look a lot stronger, and I can do things I couldn't do with them before I ran. It just seems like there has to be more muscle there.

But when I read what the lifters say, they have to eat a surplus to gain weight. Makes sense, since losing weight works exactly the other way. That muscle has to get built out of something. So I can see how it wouldn't be possible to build muscle without eating more. But this is confusing.

I started working out with a personal trainer at the beginning of the year. My wife and I both think my arms look bigger from all the work. And I know I can do more push ups now. But I've lost 15 lbs. So on the one hand, I see what I think is more muscle and can feel the result. But my brain also kinda says that can't be right. The theory is easy to understand, but in practice, it is kind of confusing. It just seems like if I did push ups every day and did more and more of them my arms and chest would have to build muscle even if I was eating at a deficit. That can never happen? Your body never burns fat to build muscles that are being used more?

I'm thinking a lot of the lifters aren't 40 lbs overweight and going from a dead stop.

Iron_Feline

Tell that to my legs and if the muscle stops growing there from all the cardio I might believe you. Truth is depends on the workout and the diet. Cardio and muscle growth are not mutually exclusive. Now having cast the shot across the bow of that ship...break it down...

Muscles are grown primarily through the tearing of the tissue and then the body repair mechanism. So to grow muscles your workout has to create micro tears and your diet needs to provide the correct nutriements (mostly protein) to buld them back up. Cardio will only consume muscle if you do so in a manner consistent with kicking over into body tissue consumption on an extented period of time (for most people about 40 minutes).

You can gain some muscle from cardio but only to a small extent. Your body/muscles will quickly adapt to cardio. I think what people see from doing cardio is a reduction of fat, which makes the body appear to be more muscular. That said, cardio is an ineffective way to build muscle, while lifting weights IS an effective way to gain muscle, being that you can always increase the weights so your body doesn't adapt to lifting. That is how muscles are "torn down". When I see someone who runs have legs that look like someone who squats 400lbs, then I might buy into what you're saying.

That said, no way can one gain 2.5lbs of muscle doing cardio. It's hard enough gaining that much muscle by lifting weights.

Yeah,. that's why I've put an inch and half on my calves since I started doing cardio.. it's fat going away.

So much bad broscience from the 80s being repeated as fact.

your body IS a weight. When you start doing cardio from a dead stop, you are effectively lifting weights.

Is it true that someone who is already at an extreme level of low body fat, and right on the knife edge maintaining vs building, will have to go into a surplus to build muscle? Sure.

But guys like me, carrying an extra 40 or 50 lbs, who have been on a couch, effectively for years, will convert to muscle, and build muscle, without hitting the lat tower. Not as fast, mind you, but it will happen.

^^^This. I started doing cardio about 4 years ago, building up to running 19 miles a week for over 2 years. No strength training or weights (although of course there are more benefits to doing both). My body slowly lost all excess fat and I got more muscly than I would have liked as a woman but I guess because I had built up that lean muscle I was able to maintain my weight for a year even after I stopped running completely and ate what I wanted. I am proof you can convert muscle from doing pure cardio but as I have just recently started running properly again I also intend to supplement it with a little weight training.

EDIT: I mean to add that I appreciate I am not really gaining muscle with cardio but converting it.

Yeah no, unless you were eating at a surplus and lifting you weren't building muscle - just revealing the muscle hidden under the fat. Women have a very hard time adding muscle - you did not do it by running 19 miles a week.

I would argue that going from doing no cardio to doing some moderate cardio is going to gain you some muscle albeit mainly in the legs. I've read several articles over the years that state doing cardio of some kind can help with muscle growth, as long as its not intense. From personal experience my legs definitely got stronger the more training I did.

Stronger =/= muscle growth

It isn't the same thing.

you can have some noobie muscle gains IF you are brand new to exercising and its strength work or IF you are very overweight - where you either of these things?

However these are small and limited. You really won't gain muscle doing cardio on a deficit - you are just revealing what was already there.

People don't say this to be mean - it's a common fallacy that magazines like to spout to sell more copies, that's why so many people believe it.

Ctrum69

Stronger =/= muscle growth

It isn't the same thing.

you can have some noobie muscle gains IF you are brand new to exercising and its strength work or IF you are very overweight - where you either of these things?

However these are small and limited. You really won't gain muscle doing cardio on a deficit - you are just revealing what was already there.

People don't say this to be mean - it's a common fallacy that magazines like to spout to sell more copies, that's why so many people believe it.

And yet I have looked and looked, and can only find the mantra of "you cannot build muscle on a deficit" or "you cannot build muscle doing anything but lifting weights" on forums and other magazines, also sold to convince people that 2 cups of this miracle in a bottle and pinkie lifts will make you the next Mr Universe.

I suspect the reality lies somewhere in the middle.

Iron_Feline

This is one I find confusing. I mean, I didn't measure my legs before I started running, so I can't say for sure. But it sure does look to me like my calves got a lot bigger. I'm sure there was some fat in my legs - I guess - but they were never the "fatty" part of me. But I've read this so many times I'm just not sure. Maybe everything just toned up. I know my legs look a lot stronger, and I can do things I couldn't do with them before I ran. It just seems like there has to be more muscle there.

But when I read what the lifters say, they have to eat a surplus to gain weight. Makes sense, since losing weight works exactly the other way. That muscle has to get built out of something. So I can see how it wouldn't be possible to build muscle without eating more. But this is confusing.

I started working out with a personal trainer at the beginning of the year. My wife and I both think my arms look bigger from all the work. And I know I can do more push ups now. But I've lost 15 lbs. So on the one hand, I see what I think is more muscle and can feel the result. But my brain also kinda says that can't be right. The theory is easy to understand, but in practice, it is kind of confusing. It just seems like if I did push ups every day and did more and more of them my arms and chest would have to build muscle even if I was eating at a deficit. That can never happen? Your body never burns fat to build muscles that are being used more?

I'm thinking a lot of the lifters aren't 40 lbs overweight and going from a dead stop.

40lbs isn't a massive amount and noob gains only last for a very short period of time. The muscle gains are also generally spread across the entire body - so won't be that noticeable.

Iron_Feline

Stronger =/= muscle growth

It isn't the same thing.

you can have some noobie muscle gains IF you are brand new to exercising and its strength work or IF you are very overweight - where you either of these things?

However these are small and limited. You really won't gain muscle doing cardio on a deficit - you are just revealing what was already there.

People don't say this to be mean - it's a common fallacy that magazines like to spout to sell more copies, that's why so many people believe it.

And yet I have looked and looked, and can only find the mantra of "you cannot build muscle on a deficit" or "you cannot build muscle doing anything but lifting weights" on forums and other magazines, also sold to convince people that 2 cups of this miracle in a bottle and pinkie lifts will make you the next Mr Universe.

I suspect the reality lies somewhere in the middle.

Sadly I have seen it spouted in many many women's magazines, though I wouldn't expect you to read those :laugh:

It has lessened over the last few years - but it still comes up :noway:

QuietBloom

Tell that to my legs and if the muscle stops growing there from all the cardio I might believe you. Truth is depends on the workout and the diet. Cardio and muscle growth are not mutually exclusive. Now having cast the shot across the bow of that ship...break it down...

Muscles are grown primarily through the tearing of the tissue and then the body repair mechanism. So to grow muscles your workout has to create micro tears and your diet needs to provide the correct nutriements (mostly protein) to buld them back up. Cardio will only consume muscle if you do so in a manner consistent with kicking over into body tissue consumption on an extented period of time (for most people about 40 minutes).

You can gain some muscle from cardio but only to a small extent. Your body/muscles will quickly adapt to cardio. I think what people see from doing cardio is a reduction of fat, which makes the body appear to be more muscular. That said, cardio is an ineffective way to build muscle, while lifting weights IS an effective way to gain muscle, being that you can always increase the weights so your body doesn't adapt to lifting. That is how muscles are "torn down". When I see someone who runs have legs that look like someone who squats 400lbs, then I might buy into what you're saying.

That said, no way can one gain 2.5lbs of muscle doing cardio. It's hard enough gaining that much muscle by lifting weights.

Yeah,. that's why I've put an inch and half on my calves since I started doing cardio.. it's fat going away.

So much bad broscience from the 80s being repeated as fact.

your body IS a weight. When you start doing cardio from a dead stop, you are effectively lifting weights.

Is it true that someone who is already at an extreme level of low body fat, and right on the knife edge maintaining vs building, will have to go into a surplus to build muscle? Sure.

But guys like me, carrying an extra 40 or 50 lbs, who have been on a couch, effectively for years, will convert to muscle, and build muscle, without hitting the lat tower. Not as fast, mind you, but it will happen.

^^^This. I started doing cardio about 4 years ago, building up to running 19 miles a week for over 2 years. No strength training or weights (although of course there are more benefits to doing both). My body slowly lost all excess fat and I got more muscly than I would have liked as a woman but I guess because I had built up that lean muscle I was able to maintain my weight for a year even after I stopped running completely and ate what I wanted. I am proof you can convert muscle from doing pure cardio but as I have just recently started running properly again I also intend to supplement it with a little weight training.

EDIT: I mean to add that I appreciate I am not really gaining muscle with cardio but converting it.

Yeah no, unless you were eating at a surplus and lifting you weren't building muscle - just revealing the muscle hidden under the fat. Women have a very hard time adding muscle - you did not do it by running 19 miles a week.

I would argue that going from doing no cardio to doing some moderate cardio is going to gain you some muscle albeit mainly in the legs. I've read several articles over the years that state doing cardio of some kind can help with muscle growth, as long as its not intense. From personal experience my legs definitely got stronger the more training I did.

Mine got stronger and bigger. Of course, I was not in a calorie deficit.