Lose fat first or work on muscle while losing fat?

love22step

While losing, I did 3 days a week of cardio and 3 days a week of lifting (Chalean Extreme with dumbbells) at home. Alternating workouts worked well for me. I'm starting to get a little old, and I still have some loose skin, but I love my muscles. I'm a believer that muscle increases your metabolism and, therefore, burns fat.

I'm also 5'5", and my goal was 130.

chonji4ever

Do it at the same time, if you have the time to work out. People like to have the perfect moment to start something "perfectly", but that time never seems to be right now. Just jump in, and you reap the rewards.

AngryDiet

Yes, look into Stronglifts 5x5.

You start light, concentrating on form. It will take a while to build up to challenging weights, which is good. You can focus on weight loss during this period.

Despite that, you should see some positive changes to your physique if you're new to lifting. Your body will respond, regardless of your being on a calorie deficit.

I have fat to lose, and am doing 5x5 on a calorie deficit. I've seen noticeable if modest muscle growth over the past couple of months. They call it "noob gains" and it won't continue forever, but why not take advantage of it while you can?

To really gain muscle, you need to eat a calorie surplus. Something which you likely don't want to do until you've reached your target fat percentage.

But there's something very satisfying in knowing that when the scale drops, it's all fat which is disappearing.

AngryDiet

Oh, I've seen reference to a study or two which suggests that there's very few extra calories burned due to increased muscle mass. Contradicting generally held beliefs. I can't speak to that, but it's worth mentioning.

Sublog

Oh, I've seen reference to a study or two which suggests that there's very few extra calories burned due to increased muscle mass. Contradicting generally held beliefs. I can't speak to that, but it's worth mentioning.

At rest extra muscle doesn't really burn more calories, but it has the capacity to do so, assuming you actually use it.

Meaning. Someone with high muscle mass has the capacity to burn more calories. But at rest, I think I've read something like 2kcals per lb extra or something really low.

AngryDiet

Oh, I've seen reference to a study or two which suggests that there's very few extra calories burned due to increased muscle mass. Contradicting generally held beliefs. I can't speak to that, but it's worth mentioning.

At rest extra muscle doesn't really burn more calories, but it has the capacity to do so, assuming you actually use it.

Meaning. Someone with high muscle mass has the capacity to burn more calories. But at rest, I think I've read something like 2kcals per lb extra or something really low.

So what would one need to be doing all day long to take advantage of this extra calorie burning opportunity?

I doubt I do it. Other than when I'm specifically exercising, my life tends to be pretty sedentary.

I guess the key point here is that there might not be any significant "automatic" calorie burning due to extra muscle mass.

BOLO4Hagtha

A balance of both. I've come to understand that cardio will get you lean, and weight training will give you shape. Also the more lean mass you (i.e more muscle), the more calories you burn when you are inactive

TXHunny84

I'm in the same boat as you... I'm 5'6" 143 and trying to get to 130lbs... I'm going to start doing pilates and yoga in with my Couch to 5k(cardio only exercise) that I've been doing. I'm hoping the new exercise will give me some added strength and help my weight loss. I want to try Jillian Michael's Body revolution. Have you heard of it? I'm going to start her 30 Day shred at the start on August. She gets you results! Check it out! the DVD is like $10 at walmart.