Legit question regarding building muscle and calories

Sp1nGoddess

I've been able to build muscle (at least get stronger and see some nice bumps on my arms...) and lose fat by lifting weights and making sure I eat enough quality protein. For me that seems to be between 80 and 120 grams per day. After a training session I down a protein shake immediately after getting home.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/randy46.htm

A square inch of muscle weights more than a square inch of fat. You can prove that to yourself with a piece of steak and a food scale.

I'm checking out all of the great links everyone provided!

tigersword

i am pretty small and it seems that whatever weight-work or strenthg training i do i GAIN muslce almost immediately - i cant explain the reasons for this, other than perhaps becuase im small that it shows easily?/

i do know that the scales go up very fast, and that if i have a few days 'off' the gym' i lose... go figrue?!

That's because you retain water to help with muscle repair after strength training. It takes about 4 weeks of heavy strength training and 2800 calories above your TDEE in order to build a pound of muscle. when you eat at a caloric deficit, your body needs every bit of extra energy it can get just to power itself, and maintain and repair damage. It's not going to burn so much fat that it will make up the caloric deficit you're eating, and them burn more to add new muscle tissue. Biological priority is fat is more important than muscle. The body will sacrifice muscle to save fat. The only way to burn fat and build muscle at the same time is basically to eat at maintenance, however, it's a very slow process.

Losing fat makes muscles look bigger, but that's an optical illusion. In fact, cardio, which I believe the OP mentioned, actually makes your muscles smaller, by making them more efficient.

jacksonpt

Great article SHBoss

But, I think where I lot of confusion comes in is when it comes to layman's terms about what constitutes "building muscle". Yes from a biological/anatomical standpoint building muscle is only when more fibers are created etc, etc.

But to the average person at the gym, when more fibers are activated, and the ensuining build up of fluid around them, which induces greater size because more fibers are being activated, everyone is going to call that building muscle.

If a person sees their muscles getting bigger, and they are getting stronger, it's human nature that they are going to say they are building muscle. And I really don't think a single one cares that it's only because dormant fibers have been activiated, and the "building" is the fluid gain side effects associated with it.

While I see your point, are you suggesting we talk in "laymen" terms even if they are incorrect? Isn't learning/being informed part of the purpose of the forums?

To me, it's kind of like using BMR and TDEE interchangably. For 90% of the people on the forums, they don't know the difference and using either term will make the same point. That doesn't make it accurate.

I completely get that the vast majority of the people on the boards just want to be told what to eat and how to workout so they will lose weight. But there are people reading these threads who actually want to learn and understand what is happening and why. And for those people I think it's important to use the correct terms and make distinctions like building new tissue vs stimulating existing muscle.

tigersword

Muscle and fat are two completely different types of cells... your body can in no way convert one to the other. Your body cannot convert muscle into fat and you cannot convert fat into muscle.

Right. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that I have a lot of fat to lose (which, as it turns out, I do). If I'm eating at a deficit, my body is going to be burning that fat for basic metabolic functions, correct? Meanwhile, I'm tearing the hell out of my muscle fibers by lifting heavy, and I'm eating protein in higher proportion to the other macros. Now, doesn't it make sense that my body's going to utilize that protein intake for muscle repair/growth, because that's basically *all* it can be used for? Meanwhile, energy for all other processes continue to come from stored fat and/or glucose (carbs) intake, yes?

So, in a simplified way, I *would* be burning fat to build muscle, it's just not a direct conversion, which is, as you say, impossible.

Muscle is only one small part of protein use. Protein also makes up skin, bone, tendons, ligaments, organs, blood vessels, nerves, over 70% of your dry weight is protein, and the vast majority of that is not muscle. Fingernails, toe nails, hair, and the list goes on and on what protein is needed for. Also, when you eat at a deficit, and eat a lot of protein, your body uses protein for general repair, and then starts gluconeogenesis, which is a metabolic system that converts extra protein into glucose, and uses that for energy.

As long as you have food being processed in your system, you aren't burning fat, your body will use up all the food first, and will only start burning fat once you've fasted long enough to be empty. For most people, they only get to that point while sleeping.

inuit

This is something i have been thinking about a lot recently, i have shifted some weight (still have at least 40 - 50 lbs to go) and started to improve my health by doing cardio - swim 5 days a week, but i have also been doing various ab exercises and just started doing some work with heavier weights.

I am on a 1200ish upto 1400ish net calories a day (i eat my excercise calories back) but i know even being obese, eating at 1200 would make it really hard to build any muscle. But i do now have, or what appears to be muscles in my legs and arms, presume there where already there but a bit saggy and lose and the exercise has helped. So in muscle terms i am not building much if any but i am firming them and making them stronger only?

So is all this weight and ab work somewhat of a waste of time at my weight of 210lbs (female) at present? I am hoping that it is buidling small amounts and toning my muscles up (which in theory helps to burn calories) so that when some more fat has gone, there will be a good base there to actually then build on?

SHBoss1673

Great article SHBoss

But, I think where I lot of confusion comes in is when it comes to layman's terms about what constitutes "building muscle". Yes from a biological/anatomical standpoint building muscle is only when more fibers are created etc, etc.

But to the average person at the gym, when more fibers are activated, and the ensuining build up of fluid around them, which induces greater size because more fibers are being activated, everyone is going to call that building muscle.

If a person sees their muscles getting bigger, and they are getting stronger, it's human nature that they are going to say they are building muscle. And I really don't think a single one cares that it's only because dormant fibers have been activiated, and the "building" is the fluid gain side effects associated with it.

While I see your point, are you suggesting we talk in "laymen" terms even if they are incorrect? Isn't learning/being informed part of the purpose of the forums?

To me, it's kind of like using BMR and TDEE interchangably. For 90% of the people on the forums, they don't know the difference and using either term will make the same point. That doesn't make it accurate.

I completely get that the vast majority of the people on the boards just want to be told what to eat and how to workout so they will lose weight. But there are people reading these threads who actually want to learn and understand what is happening and why. And for those people I think it's important to use the correct terms and make distinctions like building new tissue vs stimulating existing muscle.

I would tend to agree, it's all well and good to say "I don't want to know the details, just tell me what I need to do" or something like that, but it's the details that keep you from hitting plateaus. for instance, what happens when in say, 8 weeks you suddenly can't build any strength to save your life, no matter how hard you work. If you don't know why this is happening, you may become frustrated and change things, which may be fine, but you're doing it for the wrong reasons and that will eventually catch up to you. this is not theoretical, this is reality, you MUST learn a little about the human body to be successful in the long run.

in the example above, I would have expected this, and changed the routine based on the goals, but I would have a plan already in place to maximize the person to reach their goals most effectively. Someone who doesn't get the concept of full muscle fiber activation wouldn't know that this is a normal body response to weight training and maybe try something like upping protein or changing the type of workout (not the workout routine or exercises, the TYPE, I.E. go from anaerobic to cardio or HIIT) which is wrong.
See what I'm saying?

rybo

Great article SHBoss

But, I think where I lot of confusion comes in is when it comes to layman's terms about what constitutes "building muscle". Yes from a biological/anatomical standpoint building muscle is only when more fibers are created etc, etc.

But to the average person at the gym, when more fibers are activated, and the ensuining build up of fluid around them, which induces greater size because more fibers are being activated, everyone is going to call that building muscle.

If a person sees their muscles getting bigger, and they are getting stronger, it's human nature that they are going to say they are building muscle. And I really don't think a single one cares that it's only because dormant fibers have been activiated, and the "building" is the fluid gain side effects associated with it.

While I see your point, are you suggesting we talk in "laymen" terms even if they are incorrect? Isn't learning/being informed part of the purpose of the forums?

To me, it's kind of like using BMR and TDEE interchangably. For 90% of the people on the forums, they don't know the difference and using either term will make the same point. That doesn't make it accurate.

I completely get that the vast majority of the people on the boards just want to be told what to eat and how to workout so they will lose weight. But there are people reading these threads who actually want to learn and understand what is happening and why. And for those people I think it's important to use the correct terms and make distinctions like building new tissue vs stimulating existing muscle.

I'm just trying to explain why there is such a "gap" in understanding. The things people see and experience intuitively tell them one thing, even though the actual mechinism of what is happening is another.

SHBoss1673

This is something i have been thinking about a lot recently, i have shifted some weight (still have at least 40 - 50 lbs to go) and started to improve my health by doing cardio - swim 5 days a week, but i have also been doing various ab exercises and just started doing some work with heavier weights.

I am on a 1200ish upto 1400ish net calories a day (i eat my excercise calories back) but i know even being obese, eating at 1200 would make it really hard to build any muscle. But i do now have, or what appears to be muscles in my legs and arms, presume there where already there but a bit saggy and lose and the exercise has helped. So in muscle terms i am not building much if any but i am firming them and making them stronger only?

So is all this weight and ab work somewhat of a waste of time at my weight of 210lbs (female) at present? I am hoping that it is buidling small amounts and toning my muscles up (which in theory helps to burn calories) so that when some more fat has gone, there will be a good base there to actually then build on?

No, it's absolutely not a waste of time. Please read my blog. You can activate dormant muscle fiber while in caloric deficit. In fact, it's a biological requirement to activate dormant muscle fiber before your body will build new mass. In other words, before you will ever grow "new muscle" (that doesn't really happen by the way, the body will increase the size and density of existing fibers, but there's no documented evidence of humans ever growing new muscle fibers after childhood) you must activate all of the existing muscle fibers in a muscle group.

so keep doing what you are doing, not only does active muscle look better and make you stronger, it burns calories at rest, which means more fat loss.

jacksonpt

Great article SHBoss

But, I think where I lot of confusion comes in is when it comes to layman's terms about what constitutes "building muscle". Yes from a biological/anatomical standpoint building muscle is only when more fibers are created etc, etc.

But to the average person at the gym, when more fibers are activated, and the ensuining build up of fluid around them, which induces greater size because more fibers are being activated, everyone is going to call that building muscle.

If a person sees their muscles getting bigger, and they are getting stronger, it's human nature that they are going to say they are building muscle. And I really don't think a single one cares that it's only because dormant fibers have been activiated, and the "building" is the fluid gain side effects associated with it.

While I see your point, are you suggesting we talk in "laymen" terms even if they are incorrect? Isn't learning/being informed part of the purpose of the forums?

To me, it's kind of like using BMR and TDEE interchangably. For 90% of the people on the forums, they don't know the difference and using either term will make the same point. That doesn't make it accurate.

I completely get that the vast majority of the people on the boards just want to be told what to eat and how to workout so they will lose weight. But there are people reading these threads who actually want to learn and understand what is happening and why. And for those people I think it's important to use the correct terms and make distinctions like building new tissue vs stimulating existing muscle.

I would tend to agree, it's all well and good to say "I don't want to know the details, just tell me what I need to do" or something like that, but it's the details that keep you from hitting plateaus. for instance, what happens when in say, 8 weeks you suddenly can't build any strength to save your life, no matter how hard you work. If you don't know why this is happening, you may become frustrated and change things, which may be fine, but you're doing it for the wrong reasons and that will eventually catch up to you. this is not theoretical, this is reality, you MUST learn a little about the human body to be successful in the long run.

in the example above, I would have expected this, and changed the routine based on the goals, but I would have a plan already in place to maximize the person to reach their goals most effectively. Someone who doesn't get the concept of full muscle fiber activation wouldn't know that this is a normal body response to weight training and maybe try something like upping protein or changing the type of workout (not the workout routine or exercises, the TYPE, I.E. go from anaerobic to cardio or HIIT) which is wrong.
See what I'm saying?

Exactly.

An even more common situation (for which there are threads on here daily to prove) is someone being told what to eat and when to eat it, but then can't think for themselves when they have a business lunch or are going out to dinner for someone's birthday or whatever.

Without understanding the bigger pictures AND the finer details it's much harder to make good decisions for yourself when the circumstances change for whatever reason.

jacksonpt

Great article SHBoss

But, I think where I lot of confusion comes in is when it comes to layman's terms about what constitutes "building muscle". Yes from a biological/anatomical standpoint building muscle is only when more fibers are created etc, etc.

But to the average person at the gym, when more fibers are activated, and the ensuining build up of fluid around them, which induces greater size because more fibers are being activated, everyone is going to call that building muscle.

If a person sees their muscles getting bigger, and they are getting stronger, it's human nature that they are going to say they are building muscle. And I really don't think a single one cares that it's only because dormant fibers have been activiated, and the "building" is the fluid gain side effects associated with it.

While I see your point, are you suggesting we talk in "laymen" terms even if they are incorrect? Isn't learning/being informed part of the purpose of the forums?

To me, it's kind of like using BMR and TDEE interchangably. For 90% of the people on the forums, they don't know the difference and using either term will make the same point. That doesn't make it accurate.

I completely get that the vast majority of the people on the boards just want to be told what to eat and how to workout so they will lose weight. But there are people reading these threads who actually want to learn and understand what is happening and why. And for those people I think it's important to use the correct terms and make distinctions like building new tissue vs stimulating existing muscle.

I'm just trying to explain why there is such a "gap" in understanding. The things people see and experience intuitively tell them one thing, even though the actual mechinism of what is happening is another.

Gotcha... and I understand why people think what they think based on what they perceive to be happening. I'm just trying to clear up some of that misinterpretation, especially when it comes to terminology.

grinch031

This "caloric deficit" concept is so misused its not even funny. There are two ways to look at caloric deficit. One way is to look at the body as a complete system:

Calories IN = Change in Fat + Change in Muscle + Calories OUT

You can also look at caloric deficit strictly in terms of fat (which is how most people do):

Calories IN = Change in Fat + Calories OUT

You could burn a lot of fat while gaining muscle while on a caloric deficit (as in deficit of fat storage). Its all about eating the right amounts of each nutrient and also doing the right exercise to train the muscles. Getting it right isn't an easy task, but its possible.

jacksonpt

This "caloric deficit" concept is so misused its not even funny. There are two ways to look at caloric deficit. One way is to look at the body as a complete system:

Calories IN = Change in Fat + Change in Muscle + Calories OUT

You can also look at caloric deficit strictly in terms of fat (which is how most people do):

Calories IN = Change in Fat + Calories OUT

You could burn a lot of fat while gaining muscle while on a caloric deficit (as in deficit of fat storage). Its all about eating the right amounts of each nutrient and also doing the right exercise to train the muscles. Getting it right isn't an easy task, but its possible.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but your body burns carbs and muscle as well for energy, so it wouldn't only be a change in fat.

tigersword

If the body is not getting enough fuel to support the amount of muscle is it currently has, it will not add more. It's that simple.

grinch031

This "caloric deficit" concept is so misused its not even funny. There are two ways to look at caloric deficit. One way is to look at the body as a complete system:

Calories IN = Change in Fat + Change in Muscle + Calories OUT

You can also look at caloric deficit strictly in terms of fat (which is how most people do):

Calories IN = Change in Fat + Calories OUT

You could burn a lot of fat while gaining muscle while on a caloric deficit (as in deficit of fat storage). Its all about eating the right amounts of each nutrient and also doing the right exercise to train the muscles. Getting it right isn't an easy task, but its possible.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but your body burns carbs and muscle as well for energy, so it wouldn't only be a change in fat.

Ok maybe I should clarify. The second equation would really only apply to the fat storage system (ignoring the rest of the body like the muscles). Most people over-simplify the equation without understanding what it is actually modeling.

Fat can be used to fuel the muscles, which would lead to a deficit in fat, and a surplus of muscles. But its also dependent upon adequate protein intake as well.

SHBoss1673

I would agree with that grinch.

If you really want to get into the weeds, you have to think about each individual as their own platform.

everyone stores fat a little differently, everyone's vascular system is different, everyone's metabolic rate and hormonal response is different, and everyone's cardiac efficiency is different (oxygen delivery). These factors all play a role into whether you are at, below, or above homeostasis.

In other words, someone can't just make a blanket statement about calories in vs calories out and expect it to apply the same to everyone, depending on a person's individual situation, the rules must be altered a little to fit their needs and requirements.

grinch031

I would agree with that grinch.

If you really want to get into the weeds, you have to think about each individual as their own platform.

everyone stores fat a little differently, everyone's vascular system is different, everyone's metabolic rate and hormonal response is different, and everyone's cardiac efficiency is different (oxygen delivery). These factors all play a role into whether you are at, below, or above homeostasis.

In other words, someone can't just make a blanket statement about calories in vs calories out and expect it to apply the same to everyone, depending on a person's individual situation, the rules must be altered a little to fit their needs and requirements.

The mathematical relationshiop between Calories in vs. Calories out does apply the same to everyone as long as the equation is used properly. If its over-simplified and used to imply causation as opposed to association, then it is wrong. It is also wrong to assume that either Calories IN or OUT are or need to be constant for certain individuals, because like you said, everybody's body works differently.

RonSwanson66

Fat can be used to fuel the muscles, which would lead to a deficit in fat, and a surplus of muscles.

Your body doesn't work like that.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

grinch031

Fat can be used to fuel the muscles, which would lead to a deficit in fat, and a surplus of muscles.

Your body doesn't work like that.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

He doesn't say its impossible, just that it is difficult just like I said.

RonSwanson66

Fat can be used to fuel the muscles, which would lead to a deficit in fat, and a surplus of muscles.

Your body doesn't work like that.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

He doesn't say its impossible, just that it is difficult just like I said.

Did you even read the article?

Then please explain how fat is used to fuel muscle growth, or how one can "burn a lot of fat while gaining muscle."

A detailed explanation of the metabolic processes involved please.

grinch031

Fat can be used to fuel the muscles, which would lead to a deficit in fat, and a surplus of muscles.

Your body doesn't work like that.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

He doesn't say its impossible, just that it is difficult just like I said.

Did you even read the article?

Then please explain how fat is used to fuel muscle growth, or how one can "burn a lot of fat while gaining muscle."

A detailed explanation of the metabolic processes involved please.

Not worth the time and effort to get into this with you. You are being deliberately obtuse because you have already decided everything I say must be false.