Muscle gain? anybody have any facts?

firegirlred

http://www.ironmagazine.com/viewarticle-3995.html

Okay, so i gained 5 pounds of muscle, water and glycogen during that 6 weeks. But I was already decently fit (firefighter), and eating about 2400-3000 calories a day. After factoring in the exercise calories, I was about 1900-2000 most days. At the beginning of that six weeks I started running hard, not just a moderate pace (for myself). My best time for 3.1 miles (5k) went from around 28 minutes to just under 24 minutes. So what I posted was just from personal experience.

I'm sorry if I offended any experts.

http://weighttraining.about.com/od/succeedingwithweights/a/muscle_month.htm

There were quite a few references when I web searched, google it and you can get some good information.

No one's going to be offended. In 6 weeks, if you were in a caloric excess, you might be looking at a .5-1lb gain in muscle and the rest coming from increased glycogen and water storage. Chronic aerobic work causes the release of cortisol, a stress-related hormone that breaks down muscle tissue, so it's actually even harder to gain muscle when you're performing cardiovascular activity at the same time. Increases in speed can be neurological or physiological; muscle innervations can change, mitochondrion can increase, stroke volume can change, haemoglobin can increase...so seeing an change in running time can't really be attributed to muscle gain entirely (btw, that is a very impressive gain in speed!)

Kinda what I figured after doing the research-
And stroke volume had to change-it's been harder and harder to keep rate up, resting hr dropped 20 bpm

Hubby's been impressed week after week when I come home with better and better times. Thanks!

cp005e

Wow, that's a lot of information that I didn't have before. Thanks, SBS!

So, when women take up weight training and find themselves gaining rather than losing inches - what accounts for that? Since muscle is denser, and if you're only looking at a 1/2 pound likely muscle gain per month (assuming extra calories), I wouldn't have thought it took up that much space.

songbyrdsweet

Wow, that's a lot of information that I didn't have before. Thanks, SBS!

So, when women take up weight training and find themselves gaining rather than losing inches - what accounts for that? Since muscle is denser, and if you're only looking at a 1/2 pound likely muscle gain per month (assuming extra calories), I wouldn't have thought it took up that much space.

You're welcome! Glad I could help.

The muscle fibers themselves don't; even the thickest muscle fibers (there are three types) are only as thick as a single hair! (Part of the reason I think they are SO cool).
However, they can swell with glycogen, the stored form of blood sugar. When we lift, we rapidly use up those stores of glycogen; they're 'for emergencies'. In reaction to that, we increase the capacity of glycogen storage, so the fibers get bigger without adding any tissue. Glycogen binds with water, which takes up even more space, and also adds weight. We also can't forget inflammation in response to the tissue damage caused by lifting, plus changes in osmotic pressure in the cells (which may also account for DOMS). Since most women lift with high rep sets, they're more likely to experience these changes (and DOMS...which I have right now, and it hurrrrts :sick: ).

His_Kelly

Wow, that's a lot of information that I didn't have before. Thanks, SBS!

So, when women take up weight training and find themselves gaining rather than losing inches - what accounts for that? Since muscle is denser, and if you're only looking at a 1/2 pound likely muscle gain per month (assuming extra calories), I wouldn't have thought it took up that much space.

You're welcome! Glad I could help.

The muscle fibers themselves don't; even the thickest muscle fibers (there are three types) are only as thick as a single hair! (Part of the reason I think they are SO cool).
However, they can swell with glycogen, the stored form of blood sugar. When we lift, we rapidly use up those stores of glycogen; they're 'for emergencies'. In reaction to that, we increase the capacity of glycogen storage, so the fibers get bigger without adding any tissue. Glycogen binds with water, which takes up even more space, and also adds weight. We also can't forget inflammation in response to the tissue damage caused by lifting, plus changes in osmotic pressure in the cells (which may also account for DOMS). Since most women lift with high rep sets, they're more likely to experience these changes (and DOMS...which I have right now, and it hurrrrts :sick: ).

You seem to be really on top of your game on this topic songbyrdsweet!

If gaining muscle is impossible on a calorie deficient diet, could you please enlighten me on the benefits of strength training while on a diet? I know that as you gain muscle, your BMR goes up, but does that really effect you if you aren't able to build any muscle?

Sorry if I seem uninformed on the subject, but I find it very confusing. Do you know the answer?

Thanks! :flowerforyou:

lotusfromthemud

Wow, that's a lot of information that I didn't have before. Thanks, SBS!

So, when women take up weight training and find themselves gaining rather than losing inches - what accounts for that? Since muscle is denser, and if you're only looking at a 1/2 pound likely muscle gain per month (assuming extra calories), I wouldn't have thought it took up that much space.

You're welcome! Glad I could help.

The muscle fibers themselves don't; even the thickest muscle fibers (there are three types) are only as thick as a single hair! (Part of the reason I think they are SO cool).
However, they can swell with glycogen, the stored form of blood sugar. When we lift, we rapidly use up those stores of glycogen; they're 'for emergencies'. In reaction to that, we increase the capacity of glycogen storage, so the fibers get bigger without adding any tissue. Glycogen binds with water, which takes up even more space, and also adds weight. We also can't forget inflammation in response to the tissue damage caused by lifting, plus changes in osmotic pressure in the cells (which may also account for DOMS). Since most women lift with high rep sets, they're more likely to experience these changes (and DOMS...which I have right now, and it hurrrrts :sick: ).

You seem to be really on top of your game on this topic songbyrdsweet!

If gaining muscle is impossible on a calorie deficient diet, could you please enlighten me on the benefits of strength training while on a diet? I know that as you gain muscle, your BMR goes up, but does that really effect you if you aren't able to build any muscle?

Sorry if I seem uninformed on the subject, but I find it very confusing. Do you know the answer?

Thanks! :flowerforyou:

Oh, that's the question I was trying to figure out how to word. Thanks.:flowerforyou:

shorerider

SBS (my new shortened version of Songbyrdsweet!) is great on these things! She's been tremendous help to me figuring out a lot of what is going on with my body and journey to healthy right now.

I gained 3 pounds in 2 days last week after a 45 mile bike ride and freaked! I PM'd her and she explained all about this glycogen stuff in our liver and muscles and depletion of it, gaining it back, etc. etc. Told me not to worry that it would go away almost as fast as it came--and she was right! Three days later, I woke up and had lost almost 4 pounds overnight!


SHE'S NOT ONLY A SMARTY BUT A CUTIE!

Fitness_Chick

bumpin to 'my topics' for later reading

Thanks for all the input gang!:drinker:

shorerider

bumpin to 'my topics' for later reading

Thanks for all the input gang!:drinker:

Fitness chick--you can save the link to this post (by clicking on the URL window in your explorer) and then save that link to your blog. That way, you'll have a link to it as long as you wish.

songbyrdsweet

Wow, that's a lot of information that I didn't have before. Thanks, SBS!

So, when women take up weight training and find themselves gaining rather than losing inches - what accounts for that? Since muscle is denser, and if you're only looking at a 1/2 pound likely muscle gain per month (assuming extra calories), I wouldn't have thought it took up that much space.

You're welcome! Glad I could help.

The muscle fibers themselves don't; even the thickest muscle fibers (there are three types) are only as thick as a single hair! (Part of the reason I think they are SO cool).
However, they can swell with glycogen, the stored form of blood sugar. When we lift, we rapidly use up those stores of glycogen; they're 'for emergencies'. In reaction to that, we increase the capacity of glycogen storage, so the fibers get bigger without adding any tissue. Glycogen binds with water, which takes up even more space, and also adds weight. We also can't forget inflammation in response to the tissue damage caused by lifting, plus changes in osmotic pressure in the cells (which may also account for DOMS). Since most women lift with high rep sets, they're more likely to experience these changes (and DOMS...which I have right now, and it hurrrrts :sick: ).

You seem to be really on top of your game on this topic songbyrdsweet!

If gaining muscle is impossible on a calorie deficient diet, could you please enlighten me on the benefits of strength training while on a diet? I know that as you gain muscle, your BMR goes up, but does that really effect you if you aren't able to build any muscle?

Sorry if I seem uninformed on the subject, but I find it very confusing. Do you know the answer?

Thanks! :flowerforyou:

I do know the answer...it's discouraging, and even I was surprised when I learned it. I will precede this information by saying that I normally take studies to mean VERY little--but 470 studies over 20 years, plus the principles of physiology, have convinced me.

Okay, so....

There are very few benefits to strength training in a caloric deficit.
It doesn't prevent down-regulation of BMR and it doesn't maintain muscle mass. Although you'll see a TON of sources that say otherwise, it's actually CALORIES, not resistance training, that determine how much muscle mass we lose while we are in a caloric deficit. If our deficit is too big, we lose muscle, and a lot of it, regardless of our strength training.

The benefits to strength training include the calories you burn while lifting (not a lot, but every little bit helps) and the neurological changes we can still experience that increase our strength. Also, it's a great habit to pick up for the times when we're not in a deficit and can put on some muscle mass. Resistance training with a full ROM can also increase our flexibility when followed with stretching.

Lastly, we can use resistance training to benefit us before a 'cheat'. (This does NOT apply to diabetics or those with insulin resistance). We can eat low-carb for a few days, while doing intense, high-rep lifting sessions and shorter, more intense cardio sessions. This will deplete glycogen. When we cheat with sugary foods, some of those sugars will be used to replenish glycogen instead of being stored as fat. However, this certainly can't be abused, and once you pass the 400 calorie mark or eat foods that are too high in fat, it won't be as effective. This would work if you wanted to splurge on something like light frozen yogurt or pasta, not donuts and full-fat ice cream.

So in terms of BMR and muscle retention....lifting won't help in that department. That's why you have to eat enough. But it does have other benefits, so DON'T stop lifting! :flowerforyou:

songbyrdsweet

SBS (my new shortened version of Songbyrdsweet!) is great on these things! She's been tremendous help to me figuring out a lot of what is going on with my body and journey to healthy right now.

I gained 3 pounds in 2 days last week after a 45 mile bike ride and freaked! I PM'd her and she explained all about this glycogen stuff in our liver and muscles and depletion of it, gaining it back, etc. etc. Told me not to worry that it would go away almost as fast as it came--and she was right! Three days later, I woke up and had lost almost 4 pounds overnight!


SHE'S NOT ONLY A SMARTY BUT A CUTIE!

Heheh thanks! :blushing:

I'm glad to hear that everything worked out for you! Your body is doing just what it's supposed to.

cp005e

You seem to be really on top of your game on this topic songbyrdsweet!

If gaining muscle is impossible on a calorie deficient diet, could you please enlighten me on the benefits of strength training while on a diet? I know that as you gain muscle, your BMR goes up, but does that really effect you if you aren't able to build any muscle?

Sorry if I seem uninformed on the subject, but I find it very confusing. Do you know the answer?

Thanks! :flowerforyou:

I do know the answer...it's discouraging, and even I was surprised when I learned it. I will precede this information by saying that I normally take studies to mean VERY little--but 470 studies over 20 years, plus the principles of physiology, have convinced me.

Okay, so....

There are very few benefits to strength training in a caloric deficit.
It doesn't prevent down-regulation of BMR and it doesn't maintain muscle mass. Although you'll see a TON of sources that say otherwise, it's actually CALORIES, not resistance training, that determine how much muscle mass we lose while we are in a caloric deficit. If our deficit is too big, we lose muscle, and a lot of it, regardless of our strength training.

WHOA. That is really interesting. :noway:

When you say CALORIES, I assume you mean both calories consumed and calories burned?

So do our bodies prefer to burn muscle over fat when we're in a caloric deficit? Or does it depend on other factors - like how big the deficit is, or the activity? I always thought that it didn't really matter too much whether I was exercising in the 'cardio' zone or the 'fat-burning' zone, because I figured if I had a calorie deficit overall, then I might be burning the fat in my sleep if I had already burned what I ate during my cardio. Is that at all accurate? Obviously, most of us here would be wanting to just burn off the fat and leave the nice muscles alone. I'm certainly noticing my muscles more now, so they don't SEEM like they are smaller at all. I guess it might not be as noticeable since the fibers are so small and dense. Is there anything else we can do to minimize muscle loss, if strength training doesn't do it?

Lastly, we can use resistance training to benefit us before a 'cheat'. (This does NOT apply to diabetics or those with insulin resistance). We can eat low-carb for a few days, while doing intense, high-rep lifting sessions and shorter, more intense cardio sessions. This will deplete glycogen. When we cheat with sugary foods, some of those sugars will be used to replenish glycogen instead of being stored as fat. However, this certainly can't be abused, and once you pass the 400 calorie mark or eat foods that are too high in fat, it won't be as effective. This would work if you wanted to splurge on something like light frozen yogurt or pasta, not donuts and full-fat ice cream.

That's interesting, too! You are just a wealth of useful information. :happy:

songbyrdsweet

WHOA. That is really interesting. :noway:

When you say CALORIES, I assume you mean both calories consumed and calories burned?

So do our bodies prefer to burn muscle over fat when we're in a caloric deficit? Or does it depend on other factors - like how big the deficit is, or the activity? I always thought that it didn't really matter too much whether I was exercising in the 'cardio' zone or the 'fat-burning' zone, because I figured if I had a calorie deficit overall, then I might be burning the fat in my sleep if I had already burned what I ate during my cardio. Is that at all accurate? Obviously, most of us here would be wanting to just burn off the fat and leave the nice muscles alone. I'm certainly noticing my muscles more now, so they don't SEEM like they are smaller at all. I guess it might not be as noticeable since the fibers are so small and dense. Is there anything else we can do to minimize muscle loss, if strength training doesn't do it?

When I say calories, I really mean caloric deficit.

Our bodies will utilize anything for energy. We sort of eat ourselves alive, really. Muscle turnover is constant--even if we aren't training, without sufficient calories, we'll need amino acids. When they can be replaced, they are. We do use a great % of fat for energy while resting (~60%), but the rest comes from glucose. That glucose can come from carbohydrates in the diet, glycerol from triglycerides, or some amino acids. Our blood calcium concentration must stay constant, so if it falls and we don't have dietary calcium available, we even have a hormone that will break down our own bones to increase our blood calcium level. Although we never technically reach homeostasis, our bodies will tear themselves down in an attempt to do so. Nothing is really 'preferred'--our bodies will use whatever is available to produce energy.

Working at higher intensities (>85% MHR) will result in a shorter exercise time due to the oxygen debt and lactic acid build up; even marathoners won't maintain a HR higher than that during a race. This type of activity utilizes a great deal of glucose. If you're not depleted, that doesn't matter, and in the end, your caloric deficit will mostly come from fat while you're resting. If you're glycogen-depleted due to fasting or a no/low-carb diet, you'll use some different ways to produce energy (and won't last very long), and it does pose a higher risk of muscle loss (you'll make glucose out of it).

I think working at moderate intensities (75-85% MHR) is really hitting the spot. This can be maintained for a longer period of time, and while you'll still be using a majority of glucose for energy, some fat can be utilized since you're in an aerobic environment. If you can hang out at 75% MHR for an hour, which is definitely doable for a jog, you'll be burning about 30% of calories from fat. Since you'll be burning a lot of calories here from a higher HR, that 30% of fat will be a good deal of calories.

Lower intensities (65-75% MHR) will burn a greater % of calories from fat, but not as many total calories as 75-85%, and still a majority of energy will come from carbohydrates unless you're doing for 90+ minutes. Here you might be looking at a 40-60 split and you'll still get CV benefits.

Under 65%, you'll be burning the greatest % of fat calories, but the lowest number of calories, and you won't be reaping the CV benefits. This would be better for someone with an injury or who couldn't withstand higher intensities.

With any of these methods, what you use during exercise is pretty much a spit in the bucket compared to the rest of your day; your caloric deficit will be filled using mostly fat. However, aerobic exercise does cause the release of cortisol, a stress-related hormone that breaks down muscle mass. It's harder to hold onto if you're in a deficit and doing a lot of CV work; that's just an unfortunate side effect of being active. Aerobic work impedes anaerobic performance (lifting).

If you're eating enough, only about 10% of your total lbs lost will come from muscle, which won't really be noticeable when spread out over the body. You may only notice something like 1/4 of an inch lost. But if you're following a VLCD for an extended period of time, you're looking at a far greater % of muscle and bone loss. So it's easy to prevent more than a small amount of LBM loss by just eating enough.

shorerider

Whatever it was you said SBS--it takes me usually several readings for your posts to sink in but the HR zones stuff is great--thanks! I will have to keep that in mind when doing my cycling. I've often wondered if short fast rides or longer slower ones were better--but it's hard to not go fast!!

You mentioned something about weight training being important for us {ahem} older women because of loss of bone something or other. I didn't understand how weight training can help with bone?

Also, basically what I'm hearing is weight training isn't going to be too much help when in a deficit to lose weight unless it's for bone density (I think that's what you said about us older folks)?

songbyrdsweet

Whatever it was you said SBS--it takes me usually several readings for your posts to sink in but the HR zones stuff is great--thanks! I will have to keep that in mind when doing my cycling. I've often wondered if short fast rides or longer slower ones were better--but it's hard to not go fast!!

You mentioned something about weight training being important for us {ahem} older women because of loss of bone something or other. I didn't understand how weight training can help with bone?

Also, basically what I'm hearing is weight training isn't going to be too much help when in a deficit to lose weight unless it's for bone density (I think that's what you said about us older folks)?

I can understand that! I used to bike a lot, I loved getting a flat road and really booking it hehe!

When you apply force to bone, either through increased weight or impact (like hitting an area repeatedly), it responds by becoming more dense so there's less of a chance for breakage. This is brought about by IGF-1, which is released after GH in response to the lactic acid buildup. It can also be brought about by damage, like tiny cracks or a full break, which will produce repair within hours.

That's right, resistance training doesn't burn a ton of calories, so CV activity is better for burning calories for a deficit. I am not sure whether there will be as great an increase in bone density in a caloric deficit. You'd have to make sure to get in enough calcium with a multivitamin. That's something I'll have to ask one of my prof's about.

shorerider

I can understand that! I used to bike a lot, I loved getting a flat road and really booking it hehe!

When you apply force to bone, either through increased weight or impact (like hitting an area repeatedly), it responds by becoming more dense so there's less of a chance for breakage. This is brought about by IGF-1, which is released after GH in response to the lactic acid buildup. It can also be brought about by damage, like tiny cracks or a full break, which will produce repair within hours.

That's right, resistance training doesn't burn a ton of calories, so CV activity is better for burning calories for a deficit. I am not sure whether there will be as great an increase in bone density in a caloric deficit. You'd have to make sure to get in enough calcium with a multivitamin. That's something I'll have to ask one of my prof's about.

Let me know because I'm not going to do a whole lot of weight training if it's not that beneficial. I take a Multi-vitamin for older woman now and drink at least 3 servings or more of soy milk-so I get plenty of calcium.

The reason I'd rather not invest time/energy in weight training unless of great benefit is that every time I have done it in the past, I saw either a weight gain or a plateau immediately afterwards that seemed to last "like FOREVER" {in best Valley Girl voice }. As I mentioned to you in a PM, I can't do that much upper body anyway because of my screwed shoulder, and don't do legs that much because the cycling seems to be really taking care of that; so really did more core-based weight machines than anything. But, as I said, the results with the scale were always very discouraging!

songbyrdsweet

I can understand that! I used to bike a lot, I loved getting a flat road and really booking it hehe!

When you apply force to bone, either through increased weight or impact (like hitting an area repeatedly), it responds by becoming more dense so there's less of a chance for breakage. This is brought about by IGF-1, which is released after GH in response to the lactic acid buildup. It can also be brought about by damage, like tiny cracks or a full break, which will produce repair within hours.

That's right, resistance training doesn't burn a ton of calories, so CV activity is better for burning calories for a deficit. I am not sure whether there will be as great an increase in bone density in a caloric deficit. You'd have to make sure to get in enough calcium with a multivitamin. That's something I'll have to ask one of my prof's about.

Let me know because I'm not going to do a whole lot of weight training if it's not that beneficial. I take a Multi-vitamin for older woman now and drink at least 3 servings or more of soy milk-so I get plenty of calcium.

The reason I'd rather not invest time/energy in weight training unless of great benefit is that every time I have done it in the past, I saw either a weight gain or a plateau immediately afterwards that seemed to last "like FOREVER" {in best Valley Girl voice }. As I mentioned to you in a PM, I can't do that much upper body anyway because of my screwed shoulder, and don't do legs that much because the cycling seems to be really taking care of that; so really did more core-based weight machines than anything. But, as I said, the results with the scale were always very discouraging!

Okay, I will definitely find out. My gut is telling me that it would still help with bone density because building bone is far different from building muscle tissue, so don't stop yet! :bigsmile: I certainly don't want you to hurt your shoulder though.
You'll see a gain with lifting for the same reason you see if after a looooong bike ride and carb ingestion--glycogen.

cmriverside

Song -

I was so proud of myself for actually following along and understanding your abbreviations! (Remember, we aren't in school.....) but what is VLCD?

Thanks for all your knowledge-sharing!

Cheryl-still-waiting-for-baby-pictures.

:glasses:

songbyrdsweet

Song -

I was so proud of myself for actually following along and understanding your abbreviations! (Remember, we aren't in school.....) but what is VLCD?

Thanks for all your knowledge-sharing!

Cheryl-still-waiting-for-baby-pictures.

:glasses:

Oh sorry lol....sometimes it get too lazy to type it all out hehe :blushing: VLCD is very-low-calorie-diet.

Okay okay I'll get some baby pictures lol! :laugh:

cmriverside

Oh sorry lol....sometimes it get too lazy to type it all out hehe :blushing: VLCD is very-low-calorie-diet.

Okay okay I'll get some baby pictures lol! :laugh:

thanks, rat-mom. I have dolphin-baby picture.

songbyrdsweet

Oh sorry lol....sometimes it get too lazy to type it all out hehe :blushing: VLCD is very-low-calorie-diet.

Okay okay I'll get some baby pictures lol! :laugh:

thanks, rat-mom. I have dolphin-baby picture.

Do you have dolphins?? :happy: