Recomp Math

CrusaderSam

A lot of people have a hard time understanding how someone can both build muscle and lose fat at the same time. How can you gain mass when you are losing mass right. So the key point of understanding, is what makes up the mass.

So one lb of fat is as much as one lb of muscle its all mass right but that is where the mistake comes in. So let me go over the numbers

1 lb = 453.6g
1g of fat=9 cal
1g of protein= 4 cal
1g of water = 0 cal

This is stuff we all know, we also know that one lb of fat =3500 cal but 453.6g x 9cal= 4082cal. So how can this be right the numbers just don't add up right. The problem is fat is not all "fat", fat is made up of cells, that are mostly made up of water, but they hold a large amount of oil in them. So a lb of fat is made up of about 86% oil so that would about 390g of fat and 63g of water. Ok so more math now.

1lb=453g
390g oil x 9= 3510
63g water x0=0
390g+63g= 453g=1 lb

So now all the math works out that a lb of fat can both be 453g and only be 3500 cal. Lets look at muscle now, a lb of muscle 453gx4cal=1812cal but that also wrong, as muscle is made up of mostly water not protein. Seeing as how I do not have the exact numbers for uncooked human muscle and it can change so much lets just go with 75% water so that would be about 340g water and 113g protein.

113g protein x4 =452
340g water x0 =0
113+340g=453g=1lb

So 450 cals, and the macros of fat free uncooked meat is very close to what we know.

Ok ok enough about that we want to know about building muscle right. Lets just say we had a magic box that could turn fat cals in to protein and all you had to do was add water to make up the mass.

875g protein= 3500 cal
2625g water= 0 cal
875g+2625g=3500g
3500g/453=7.7 lb

So that is right you could turn 1lb of fat in to 7.7 of muscle by just adding water and all the cal's would stay the same. Sad to say there is no magic box, but as you can see, the fact that muscle is made of almost all water(0 cal's) and fat is almost all oil. This is why so many people can both gain muscle and lose fat at the same time because, lets stress the fact ,muscle is almost all water and fat has a lot of cal's in it.

Lets go back over what most of us all know:

Who can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.
People that are new to lifting (noob gainz)
returning lifters after a long lay off
the very overweight
So that's just about everyone

Who can not build muscle and lose fat
People that have been lifting right, for a very long time, and don't need random strangers on the internet to tell them what to do.
So that's almost no one.


TLDR
The math works out that you can do both because muscle is almost all water . I

f I messed something up, I will edit it later. Happy lifting with recomping and may the gains be ever in your favor.

NRBreit

I'm lost. It seems you are directly correlating dietary fat to the composition of adipose tissue. My understanding is that there is no correlation. You are also directly correlating dietary protein to muscle composition. Most people would agree there is a correlation between dietary protein consumption and muscle mass, but you seem to be referring to a direct 1:1 correlation. You also seem to refer to fat and muscle 'containing' calories (i.e. 'Muscle is mostly water and fat has a lot of cals in it'). A calorie is only a unit of measure. You talk about fat turning into muscle by adding water. How? I do agree that (for the majority) it is possible to simultaneously lose fat and gain muscle by maintaining a neutral calorie/energy balance, but I don't see how this math helps explain how that happens. Can you explain further and provide references? I'm just trying to understand the logic. Thanks.

fivethreeone

Substitute "caloric transmogrification" for "alien sighting/encounter" and you're pretty much set.

brower47

I'm lost. It seems you are directly correlating dietary fat to the composition of adipose tissue. My understanding is that there is no correlation. You are also directly correlating dietary protein to muscle composition. Most people would agree there is a correlation between dietary protein consumption and muscle mass, but you seem to be referring to a direct 1:1 correlation. You also seem to refer to fat and muscle 'containing' calories (i.e. 'Muscle is mostly water and fat has a lot of cals in it'). A calorie is only a unit of measure. You talk about fat turning into muscle by adding water. How? I do agree that (for the majority) it is possible to simultaneously lose fat and gain muscle by maintaining a neutral calorie/energy balance, but I don't see how this math helps explain how that happens. Can you explain further and provide references? I'm just trying to understand the logic. Thanks.

Wow, you actually tried to make sense of that? You're a better person than I.

OP, you are mixing and matching so many non interchangeable things that I just can't begin to break this down logically.

DopeItUp

Do what now?

_John_

"most" people are newbies. Newbies can gain fat and lose muscle at the same time (pretty accepted).

why are we flipping our (feces) here?

Iron_Feline

No


And lol at the almost everyone category :laugh:

_John_

why is this in the "gaining weight" section? (grabs spatula for self)

Iron_Feline

why is this is the "gaining weight" section? (grabs spatula for self)

Makes as much sense as the post itself. :laugh:

mustgetmuscles1

Recomp is code for I suck at cutting. :glasses:

TX_Thundercat

Summed it up perfectly. Meatwad to the rescue.

Do what now?

jimmmer

Recomp is code for I suck at cutting. :glasses:

Guess that's why I'm recomping!

CrusaderSam

I'm lost. It seems you are directly correlating dietary fat to the composition of adipose tissue. My understanding is that there is no correlation. You are also directly correlating dietary protein to muscle composition. Most people would agree there is a correlation between dietary protein consumption and muscle mass, but you seem to be referring to a direct 1:1 correlation. You also seem to refer to fat and muscle 'containing' calories (i.e. 'Muscle is mostly water and fat has a lot of cals in it'). A calorie is only a unit of measure. You talk about fat turning into muscle by adding water. How? I do agree that (for the majority) it is possible to simultaneously lose fat and gain muscle by maintaining a neutral calorie/energy balance, but I don't see how this math helps explain how that happens. Can you explain further and provide references? I'm just trying to understand the logic. Thanks.

CrusaderSam

I'm lost. It seems you are directly correlating dietary fat to the composition of adipose tissue. My understanding is that there is no correlation.

No that's not what I said at all

You are also directly correlating dietary protein to muscle composition. Most people would agree there is a correlation between dietary protein consumption and muscle mass, but you seem to be referring to a direct 1:1 correlation. You also seem to refer to fat and muscle 'containing' calories (i.e. 'Muscle is mostly water and fat has a lot of cals in it').

Once more not what I said

A calorie is only a unit of measure. You talk about fat turning into muscle by adding water. How? I do agree that (for the majority) it is possible to simultaneously lose fat and gain muscle by maintaining a neutral calorie/energy balance, but I don't see how this math helps explain how that happens. Can you explain further and provide references? I'm just trying to understand the logic. Thanks.

You cant, I said it was a hypothetical. It was to show the amount of energy to build one lb of fat was more than that of 7 lb of muscle.

I spent about an hour typing up the biology of how the body builds muscle but somehow the internet didnt like it and it didnt post and this is an edit but I will retype it in a bit.

CrusaderSam

Given that localized acute inflammation is a necessary component for muscle growth, and that chronic low-grade inflammation is associated with a disruption of anabolic signals initiating muscle growth, it has been theorized that a signal-to-noise model may best describe the relationship between inflammation and muscle growth.[90] By keeping the "noise" of chronic inflammation to a minimum, the localized acute inflammatory response signals a stronger anabolic response than could be achieved with higher levels of chronic inflammation.

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

Read the whole thing if toy want to know all the biochemical pathways and whatnot but the basics is you dont need a surplus to heal a cut in your skin and will make new skin cells to heal heal it. The same goes for healing a muscle tear and the building of new muscle.

Also lets not b.s. each other here a lot of people use steroids but they just speed up what is already going on in your body and here is the study to show that they work. (as if people didnt know that already)

A review spanning more than three decades of experimental studies in men found that body weight may increase by 2–5 kg as a result of short-term (<10 weeks) AAS use, which may be attributed mainly to an increase of lean mass. Animal studies also found that fat mass was reduced, but most studies in humans failed to elucidate significant fat mass decrements. The effects on lean body mass have been shown to be dose-dependent. Both muscle hypertrophy and the formation of new muscle fibers have been observed. The hydration of lean mass remains unaffected by AAS use, although small increments of blood volume cannot be ruled out.[5]

The upper region of the body (thorax, neck, shoulders, and upper arm) seems to be more susceptible for AAS than other body regions because of predominance of androgen receptors in the upper body. The largest difference in muscle fiber size between AAS users and non-users was observed in type I muscle fibers of the vastus lateralis and the trapezius muscle as a result of long-term AAS self-administration. After drug withdrawal, the effects fade away slowly, but may persist for more than 6–12 weeks after cessation of AAS use.[5]

The same review observed strength improvements in the range of 5–20% of baseline strength, depending largely on the drugs and dose used as well as the administration period. Overall, the exercise where the most significant improvements were observed is the bench press.[5] For almost two decades, it was assumed that AAS exerted significant effects only in experienced strength athletes, particularly based on the studies of Hervey and coworkers.[23][24] In 1996, a randomized controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated, however, that even in novice athletes a 10-week strength training program accompanied by testosterone enanthate at 600 mg/week may improve strength more than training alone does.[5][25] The same study found that dose to be sufficient to significantly improve lean muscle mass relative to placebo even in subjects that did not exercise at all.[25] A 2001 study by the same first author, showed that the anabolic effects of testosterone enanthate were highly dose dependent.

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

I just don't have the time to retype what I had before but most people dont know or care to learn how muscle works from a biological stand point and will make very poor choices on how to best gain lean body mass and the setting of their goals. All the math was to prove just how little energy it takes to build a lb of muscle next to a lb of fat because of all the water.

Iron_Feline

Yeah,

Its still a No from me I'm afraid.

You basically appear to be saying that it is easier to put on muscle than fat due to maths.


Sadly that is not how the body works. :noway:

CrusaderSam

Maybe that's what you want to read, but its not what I am saying.

What I am saying is due to maths and a purely energy standpoint you need very little energy to build muscle.


So you know so much how about it, so maybe you could write up the in depth instead of me.

Large skeletal muscle fibers form by the fusion of thousands of individual muscle cells. The multinucleated (symplastic) arrangement is important in pathologic states such as myopathy, where focal necrosis (death) of a portion of a skeletal muscle fibers does not result in necrosis of the adjacent sections of that same skeletal muscle fiber, because those adjacent sections have their own nuclear material. Thus, myopathy is usually associated with such "segmental necrosis", but with some of the surviving segments being functionally cut off from their nerve supply via loss of continuity with the neuromuscular junction.

Please go on and tell me how the body works with the growth factors and how a surplus will activate the biochemical path ways to repair the junction.

Iron_Feline

Maybe that's what you want to read, but its not what I am saying.

What I am saying is due to maths and a purely energy standpoint you need very little energy to build muscle.


So you know so much how about it, so maybe you could write up the in depth instead of me.

Large skeletal muscle fibers form by the fusion of thousands of individual muscle cells. The multinucleated (symplastic) arrangement is important in pathologic states such as myopathy, where focal necrosis (death) of a portion of a skeletal muscle fibers does not result in necrosis of the adjacent sections of that same skeletal muscle fiber, because those adjacent sections have their own nuclear material. Thus, myopathy is usually associated with such "segmental necrosis", but with some of the surviving segments being functionally cut off from their nerve supply via loss of continuity with the neuromuscular junction.

Please go on and tell me how the body works with the growth factors and how a surplus will activate the biochemical path ways to repair the junction.

Copy and pasta jobs from a Wiki page do not your point make.

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



If you are not saying it easier to put on muscle than fat then what are you saying?

Edit: I don't want to read anything - but you don't appear to be making a coherent point.

emtjmac

So... if a train carrying 1,000 gallons of fat leaves Los Angeles at 8am and passes a train from New York carrying 1,000 pounds of muscle, leaving an hour later, the previous day, before either of them reaches St. Louis MO, and neither of them has any Grey Poupon, I can lose fat and gain muscle at the same time? 1.21 gigawatts? WHO WILL SAVE THE CLOCK TOWER?!

CrusaderSam

But they do because that's how the body works. Or you are you saying the wiki is wrong? See I can twist stuff around too.


That is the problem no one likes to read. Maybe you should read more wikis. Then you would have a basic understanding of how how things work.

If you want to look it up you can see in the 3 decade study it only takes a very small amount of energy to build a lb of muscle, but dont take my word for it look it up and then tell everyone. It doesn't take a lot of cals to put on lean body mass, the math backs it up and so does the science. Just read the wikis and learn.

Iron_Feline

But they do because that's how the body works. Or you are you saying the wiki is wrong? See I can twist stuff around too.


That is the problem no one likes to read. Maybe you should read more wikis. Then you would have a basic understanding of how how things work.

If you want to look it up you can see in the 3 decade study it only takes a very small amount of energy to build a lb of muscle, but dont take my word for it look it up and then tell everyone. It doesn't take a lot of cals to put on lean body mass, the math backs it up and so does the science. Just read the wikis and learn.