Over weight people bulking out of obesity
Replies
-
ok bulk was the wrong word but only focus on weight lifting to begin with.Sorry, but suggesting that an already obese person bulks makes no sense from a health perspective.
What if the person likes cardio? What if they're in a race or a competition? What if you guys realised that the heart is a MUSCLE as well?
they can walk for cardio? lifting weights gives your heart a good jolt and im more aiming this at the majority of overweight people. If you have a fitness goal like a race you not be looking for the easy option that im putting foward.
And why are so many people looking for an easy option?
Better yet, why are you bringing the easy option to MFP?
MFP supports a full lifestyle change for most people, not diets which people want to achieve overnight.
Yes, it may take a little bit of work but in the end it's worth it. How do you know what the MAJORITY of overweight people want?
well i say easy, if it works better youd be an idiot not to follow it. Im not thinking of single people om think of the health of the entire population. Since we have national healthy and the usa will soon be id prefer the most effective option is used on the obese. Dont get me wrong i couldnt care less about pther obese people. If missing out on 10 or more years of there kids growing up and dying a horrible death is there priority more power to them . But since we pay for their health care if an easier system is set up to get the obese out of the red then it should be the one used. Until they introduce a fat tax of some sort then finding the cheapest and most effective way to long term weight loss and staing their should be the main goal.0 -
exactly. weight loss as an obese person is only hard if you're doing something like drastically cutting your calories, trying to exercise 5 hours a day or a combination of the 2. slight calorie deficit (10-20% below TDEE), lifting like you're going to enter a strongman competition and doing a moderate amount of cardio for your heart health and you will lose body fat. none of that is much of a struggleHere's my logic. Kinda goes along with the op, just slightly. If you eat to lose, lift to gain, and do cardio for your health, weight loss is alot easier than most people make it.0 -
There are diet programs that encourage this, like LiveFit. The first month is strictly strength training, no cardio until month two.
Though for the record, I had much better luck losing weight and inches once I started lifting, and even better luck when I started eating more.0 -
ok bulk was the wrong word but only focus on weight lifting to begin with.Sorry, but suggesting that an already obese person bulks makes no sense from a health perspective.
What if the person likes cardio? What if they're in a race or a competition? What if you guys realised that the heart is a MUSCLE as well?
they can walk for cardio? lifting weights gives your heart a good jolt and im more aiming this at the majority of overweight people. If you have a fitness goal like a race you not be looking for the easy option that im putting foward.
And why are so many people looking for an easy option?
Better yet, why are you bringing the easy option to MFP?
MFP supports a full lifestyle change for most people, not diets which people want to achieve overnight.
Yes, it may take a little bit of work but in the end it's worth it. How do you know what the MAJORITY of overweight people want?
well i say easy, if it works better youd be an idiot not to follow it. Im not thinking of single people om think of the health of the entire population. Since we have national healthy and the usa will soon be id prefer the most effective option is used on the obese. Dont get me wrong i couldnt care less about pther obese people. If missing out on 10 or more years of there kids growing up and dying a horrible death is there priority more power to them . But since we pay for their health care if an easier system is set up to get the obese out of the red then it should be the one used. Until they introduce a fat tax of some sort then finding the cheapest and most effective way to long term weight loss and staing their should be the main goal.
Well, as I don't live in your country, you can go take your argument elsewhere.
Considering I have already lost 19kgs and gone from a Size 24(australian) to a size 12 australian I don't see why I should try your method when you can lose considerable body fat with weights, eating at a deficit. Bulking will make you gain fat along with the muscle?!0 -
exactly. weight loss as an obese person is only hard if you're doing something like drastically cutting your calories, trying to exercise 5 hours a day or a combination of the 2. slight calorie deficit (10-20% below TDEE), lifting like you're going to enter a strongman competition and doing a moderate amount of cardio for your heart health and you will lose body fat. none of that is much of a struggleHere's my logic. Kinda goes along with the op, just slightly. If you eat to lose, lift to gain, and do cardio for your health, weight loss is alot easier than most people make it.0 -
@ Sarauk2sf
Yeah i get what your saying but since you can gain muscle and loose fat at the same time until your body fat drops below say 15- 17% body fat im saying anyone above that would be better off long term doing the recomp until they stop gaining muscleat which point say 15% body fat they are at a much healthier body fat with almost no dieting at all.
which since most people prefer the easy option this allows them to reach a healthy body fat with no real calorie restriction. It all relays on the redistribution of the energy your consuming.
Where are you getting this 15 - 17% from?
Most of the stuff i read on body recomposition says thats the limit for gaining muscle and loosing fat
Please cite some of these as 15 - 17% is not obese and therefore at that BF% they will not be getting the gains that may be possible for an obese person.
Im searching but here is what i have
http://muscleevo.net/calorie-deficit/ that one mentions it only works to get out of the overweight beginer stage but for most obese people that is a vast improvment. That study was in a deficit and what im saying goes more along eating to stay at your current weight or just below if your very obese.
Im having real trouble finding any studies on it but the logic seems to fit.
You are say 30% body fat with little muscle and have been for a few years.
You add weight lifting and as your muscles repair and prepare for a larger load a little less is left to keep your fat stores going.
Over time your bodyfat drops slowly to a better level with no real change.0 -
ok bulk was the wrong word but only focus on weight lifting to begin with.Sorry, but suggesting that an already obese person bulks makes no sense from a health perspective.
What if the person likes cardio? What if they're in a race or a competition? What if you guys realised that the heart is a MUSCLE as well?
they can walk for cardio? lifting weights gives your heart a good jolt and im more aiming this at the majority of overweight people. If you have a fitness goal like a race you not be looking for the easy option that im putting foward.
And why are so many people looking for an easy option?
Better yet, why are you bringing the easy option to MFP?
MFP supports a full lifestyle change for most people, not diets which people want to achieve overnight.
Yes, it may take a little bit of work but in the end it's worth it. How do you know what the MAJORITY of overweight people want?
well i say easy, if it works better youd be an idiot not to follow it. Im not thinking of single people om think of the health of the entire population. Since we have national healthy and the usa will soon be id prefer the most effective option is used on the obese. Dont get me wrong i couldnt care less about pther obese people. If missing out on 10 or more years of there kids growing up and dying a horrible death is there priority more power to them . But since we pay for their health care if an easier system is set up to get the obese out of the red then it should be the one used. Until they introduce a fat tax of some sort then finding the cheapest and most effective way to long term weight loss and staing their should be the main goal.
Well, as I don't live in your country, you can go take your argument elsewhere.
Considering I have already lost 19kgs and gone from a Size 24(australian) to a size 12 australian I don't see why I should try your method when you can lose considerable body fat with weights, eating at a deficit. Bulking will make you gain fat along with the muscle?!
come back to me in 5 years without returning to your overweight state and i will accept my idea does not work for you. Bulking was the wrong word i was refering to gaining muscle you would gain no fat eating just what your body needs.0 -
OP: take a look at this study - its of actually obese folks and resistance training (not the 15% - 17% which I assume you are giving for guys). Obese is 40% of above for women and about 25% for men I believe.
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
Average body weight was 98 kg
LBM was 52 kg
BF% was 46%
With resistance training they maintained (within 1kg) their LBM while eating only 800 cals a day. They lost a total of 14kg over the 12 week study.
Why would you want to put off weight loss all to gain a pound or two of muscle which basically give you an additional incremental BMR of less than 6 cals per lb of muscle a day?0 -
@ Sarauk2sf
Yeah i get what your saying but since you can gain muscle and loose fat at the same time until your body fat drops below say 15- 17% body fat im saying anyone above that would be better off long term doing the recomp until they stop gaining muscleat which point say 15% body fat they are at a much healthier body fat with almost no dieting at all.
which since most people prefer the easy option this allows them to reach a healthy body fat with no real calorie restriction. It all relays on the redistribution of the energy your consuming.
Where are you getting this 15 - 17% from?
Most of the stuff i read on body recomposition says thats the limit for gaining muscle and loosing fat
Please cite some of these as 15 - 17% is not obese and therefore at that BF% they will not be getting the gains that may be possible for an obese person.
Im searching but here is what i have
http://muscleevo.net/calorie-deficit/ that one mentions it only works to get out of the overweight beginer stage but for most obese people that is a vast improvment. That study was in a deficit and what im saying goes more along eating to stay at your current weight or just below if your very obese.
Im having real trouble finding any studies on it but the logic seems to fit.
You are say 30% body fat with little muscle and have been for a few years.
You add weight lifting and as your muscles repair and prepare for a larger load a little less is left to keep your fat stores going.
Over time your bodyfat drops slowly to a better level with no real change.
Newbie gains gain be got whether you are obese or not. The logic does not fit imo.
ETA: there is no citation to a peer reviewed study in that article.0 -
ok bulk was the wrong word but only focus on weight lifting to begin with.Sorry, but suggesting that an already obese person bulks makes no sense from a health perspective.
What if the person likes cardio? What if they're in a race or a competition? What if you guys realised that the heart is a MUSCLE as well?
they can walk for cardio? lifting weights gives your heart a good jolt and im more aiming this at the majority of overweight people. If you have a fitness goal like a race you not be looking for the easy option that im putting foward.
And why are so many people looking for an easy option?
Better yet, why are you bringing the easy option to MFP?
MFP supports a full lifestyle change for most people, not diets which people want to achieve overnight.
Yes, it may take a little bit of work but in the end it's worth it. How do you know what the MAJORITY of overweight people want?
well i say easy, if it works better youd be an idiot not to follow it. Im not thinking of single people om think of the health of the entire population. Since we have national healthy and the usa will soon be id prefer the most effective option is used on the obese. Dont get me wrong i couldnt care less about pther obese people. If missing out on 10 or more years of there kids growing up and dying a horrible death is there priority more power to them . But since we pay for their health care if an easier system is set up to get the obese out of the red then it should be the one used. Until they introduce a fat tax of some sort then finding the cheapest and most effective way to long term weight loss and staing their should be the main goal.
Well, as I don't live in your country, you can go take your argument elsewhere.
Considering I have already lost 19kgs and gone from a Size 24(australian) to a size 12 australian I don't see why I should try your method when you can lose considerable body fat with weights, eating at a deficit. Bulking will make you gain fat along with the muscle?!
come back to me in 5 years without returning to your overweight state and i will accept my idea does not work for you. Bulking was the wrong word i was refering to gaining muscle you would gain no fat eating just what your body needs.
Sure, I have a better idea - I'll come back to you in 20. I'm never going back there now that I KNOW how to change my life. Why can't you be positive that some people actually have the WILLPOWER and DEDICATION which others lack? Is it cause you, yourself, have none?0 -
Why would you want to put off weight loss all to gain a pound or two of muscle which basically give you an additional incremental BMR of less than 6 cals per lb of muscle a day?
muscle mass = health.
better hormone function, higher bone density.. and its more than 6cals per muscle ur missing out on other variables that muscle building contributes too primarily hormonal and intracellular ones.0 -
Why would you want to put off weight loss all to gain a pound or two of muscle which basically give you an additional incremental BMR of less than 6 cals per lb of muscle a day?
muscle mass = health.
better hormone function, higher bone density.. and its more than 6cals per muscle ur missing out on other variables that muscle building contributes too primarily hormonal and intracellular ones.
I am not disagreeing that muscle mass is important. My point is, being obese is far worse for your health than the benefits of a few extra pounds of muscle.
ETA: article that gives the 9 calories for muscle (less the 3 for fat = 6) but also gives the additional benefits of muscle mass.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/3/475.full0 -
OP: take a look at this study - its of actually obese folks and resistance training (not the 15% - 17% which I assume you are giving for guys). Obese is 40% of above for women and about 25% for men I believe.
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
Average body weight was 98 kg
LBM was 52 kg
BF% was 46%
With resistance training they maintained (within 1kg) their LBM while eating only 800 cals a day. They lost a total of 14kg over the 12 week study.
Why would you want to put off weight loss all to gain a pound or two of muscle which basically give you an additional incremental BMR of less than 6 cals per lb of muscle a day?
Only yeah that is a good study and adds to another thought i had on loosing muscle. If a short deficit was less damaging that a long one since the net time in a catabolic state is so much less. Not health wise but muscle wise.
That is an option and currently seen as the best option. What im wondering and the point of my thread is the idea that you can gain muscle while eating at maintenance until you reach a healthy body fat for a man 15% or so. So you could make large gains in muscle mass over a year or so without making any changes to your diet at all. thus allowing almost everyone a way to drop to a healhy body fat without the restriction of calories.
It does not seem to be an area well studied but my thoughts are those whose bodies stay at a higher body fat naturaly could redirect that energy into the muscles. 100 years ago obesity was reserved for the wealthy and one of the main changes i see is the amount of physical labour we do. Perhaps those who sit at a higher bodyfat are suppost to carry a higher muscle mass but dont due to lack of use.
Sure a million other things factor in but any of that energy directed into building muscle mass instead of fat is an improvment.0 -
ok bulk was the wrong word but only focus on weight lifting to begin with.Sorry, but suggesting that an already obese person bulks makes no sense from a health perspective.
What if the person likes cardio? What if they're in a race or a competition? What if you guys realised that the heart is a MUSCLE as well?
they can walk for cardio? lifting weights gives your heart a good jolt and im more aiming this at the majority of overweight people. If you have a fitness goal like a race you not be looking for the easy option that im putting foward.
And why are so many people looking for an easy option?
Better yet, why are you bringing the easy option to MFP?
MFP supports a full lifestyle change for most people, not diets which people want to achieve overnight.
Yes, it may take a little bit of work but in the end it's worth it. How do you know what the MAJORITY of overweight people want?
well i say easy, if it works better youd be an idiot not to follow it. Im not thinking of single people om think of the health of the entire population. Since we have national healthy and the usa will soon be id prefer the most effective option is used on the obese. Dont get me wrong i couldnt care less about pther obese people. If missing out on 10 or more years of there kids growing up and dying a horrible death is there priority more power to them . But since we pay for their health care if an easier system is set up to get the obese out of the red then it should be the one used. Until they introduce a fat tax of some sort then finding the cheapest and most effective way to long term weight loss and staing their should be the main goal.
Well, as I don't live in your country, you can go take your argument elsewhere.
Considering I have already lost 19kgs and gone from a Size 24(australian) to a size 12 australian I don't see why I should try your method when you can lose considerable body fat with weights, eating at a deficit. Bulking will make you gain fat along with the muscle?!
come back to me in 5 years without returning to your overweight state and i will accept my idea does not work for you. Bulking was the wrong word i was refering to gaining muscle you would gain no fat eating just what your body needs.
If you eat clean, perfect macros ABOVE your maintenance - you WILL gain fat along with muscle. No matter what. Look it up.0 -
OP: take a look at this study - its of actually obese folks and resistance training (not the 15% - 17% which I assume you are giving for guys). Obese is 40% of above for women and about 25% for men I believe.
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
Average body weight was 98 kg
LBM was 52 kg
BF% was 46%
With resistance training they maintained (within 1kg) their LBM while eating only 800 cals a day. They lost a total of 14kg over the 12 week study.
Why would you want to put off weight loss all to gain a pound or two of muscle which basically give you an additional incremental BMR of less than 6 cals per lb of muscle a day?
Only yeah that is a good study and adds to another thought i had on loosing muscle. If a short deficit was less damaging that a long one since the net time in a catabolic state is so much less. Not health wise but muscle wise.
That is an option and currently seen as the best option. What im wondering and the point of my thread is the idea that you can gain muscle while eating at maintenance until you reach a healthy body fat for a man 15% or so. So you could make large gains in muscle mass over a year or so without making any changes to your diet at all. thus allowing almost everyone a way to drop to a healhy body fat without the restriction of calories.
It does not seem to be an area well studied but my thoughts are those whose bodies stay at a higher body fat naturaly could redirect that energy into the muscles. 100 years ago obesity was reserved for the wealthy and one of the main changes i see is the amount of physical labour we do. Perhaps those who sit at a higher bodyfat are suppost to carry a higher muscle mass but dont due to lack of use.
Sure a million other things factor in but any of that energy directed into building muscle mass instead of fat is an improvment.
But you will not get to a 15% BF by eating at maintenance.0 -
[/quote]
come back to me in 5 years without returning to your overweight state and i will accept my idea does not work for you. Bulking was the wrong word i was refering to gaining muscle you would gain no fat eating just what your body needs.
[/quote]
Sure, I have a better idea - I'll come back to you in 20. I'm never going back there now that I KNOW how to change my life. Why can't you be positive that some people actually have the WILLPOWER and DEDICATION which others lack? Is it cause you, yourself, have none?
[/quote]
I dont get why you take this as a personal attack? makes me think you are really worried you will gain it back or you would not take me posing a question as a personal attack. please pull your head out your *kitten*. Im talking about the entire population not you. If you have any input on my idea or papers i would love to see them. Please if you need to talk about yourself more start a new thread.0 -
OP: take a look at this study - its of actually obese folks and resistance training (not the 15% - 17% which I assume you are giving for guys). Obese is 40% of above for women and about 25% for men I believe.
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
Average body weight was 98 kg
LBM was 52 kg
BF% was 46%
With resistance training they maintained (within 1kg) their LBM while eating only 800 cals a day. They lost a total of 14kg over the 12 week study.
Why would you want to put off weight loss all to gain a pound or two of muscle which basically give you an additional incremental BMR of less than 6 cals per lb of muscle a day?
Only yeah that is a good study and adds to another thought i had on loosing muscle. If a short deficit was less damaging that a long one since the net time in a catabolic state is so much less. Not health wise but muscle wise.
That is an option and currently seen as the best option. What im wondering and the point of my thread is the idea that you can gain muscle while eating at maintenance until you reach a healthy body fat for a man 15% or so. So you could make large gains in muscle mass over a year or so without making any changes to your diet at all. thus allowing almost everyone a way to drop to a healhy body fat without the restriction of calories.
It does not seem to be an area well studied but my thoughts are those whose bodies stay at a higher body fat naturaly could redirect that energy into the muscles. 100 years ago obesity was reserved for the wealthy and one of the main changes i see is the amount of physical labour we do. Perhaps those who sit at a higher bodyfat are suppost to carry a higher muscle mass but dont due to lack of use.
Sure a million other things factor in but any of that energy directed into building muscle mass instead of fat is an improvment.
But you will not get to a 15% BF by eating at maintenance.
But you will improve your body composition by just lifting or thats my idea. Any lose of body fat is good and my thinking is even if you do not diet at all your natural level of bodyfat will be lower with weight lifting. So instead of someone loosing 10 pounds in a month then giving up and gaining back 12 they would reduce bodyfat and improve body composition. But as you point out i can not find one study on the long term effects of weight lifting on someone between 20-30 % body fat with no other changes in the diet apart from upping protein.0 -
OP: take a look at this study - its of actually obese folks and resistance training (not the 15% - 17% which I assume you are giving for guys). Obese is 40% of above for women and about 25% for men I believe.
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
Average body weight was 98 kg
LBM was 52 kg
BF% was 46%
With resistance training they maintained (within 1kg) their LBM while eating only 800 cals a day. They lost a total of 14kg over the 12 week study.
Why would you want to put off weight loss all to gain a pound or two of muscle which basically give you an additional incremental BMR of less than 6 cals per lb of muscle a day?
Only yeah that is a good study and adds to another thought i had on loosing muscle. If a short deficit was less damaging that a long one since the net time in a catabolic state is so much less. Not health wise but muscle wise.
That is an option and currently seen as the best option. What im wondering and the point of my thread is the idea that you can gain muscle while eating at maintenance until you reach a healthy body fat for a man 15% or so. So you could make large gains in muscle mass over a year or so without making any changes to your diet at all. thus allowing almost everyone a way to drop to a healhy body fat without the restriction of calories.
It does not seem to be an area well studied but my thoughts are those whose bodies stay at a higher body fat naturaly could redirect that energy into the muscles. 100 years ago obesity was reserved for the wealthy and one of the main changes i see is the amount of physical labour we do. Perhaps those who sit at a higher bodyfat are suppost to carry a higher muscle mass but dont due to lack of use.
Sure a million other things factor in but any of that energy directed into building muscle mass instead of fat is an improvment.
But you will not get to a 15% BF by eating at maintenance.
But you will improve your body composition by just lifting or thats my idea. Any lose of body fat is good and my thinking is even if you do not diet at all your natural level of bodyfat will be lower with weight lifting. So instead of someone loosing 10 pounds in a month then giving up and gaining back 12 they would reduce bodyfat and improve body composition. But as you point out i can not find one study on the long term effects of weight lifting on someone between 20-30 % body fat with no other changes in the diet apart from upping protein.
The problem with your theory is that generally people give up diets because they do not see a loss on the scale. Body composition improvements when obese are not observable generally so I do not see how this would be a motivator. Also, if they are the type to give up, they would give up resistance training and the LBM would also go back to its 'natural levels. Surely a better motivator is to strength train and lose weight? Win/win.0 -
OP: take a look at this study - its of actually obese folks and resistance training (not the 15% - 17% which I assume you are giving for guys). Obese is 40% of above for women and about 25% for men I believe.
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
Average body weight was 98 kg
LBM was 52 kg
BF% was 46%
With resistance training they maintained (within 1kg) their LBM while eating only 800 cals a day. They lost a total of 14kg over the 12 week study.
Why would you want to put off weight loss all to gain a pound or two of muscle which basically give you an additional incremental BMR of less than 6 cals per lb of muscle a day?
Only yeah that is a good study and adds to another thought i had on loosing muscle. If a short deficit was less damaging that a long one since the net time in a catabolic state is so much less. Not health wise but muscle wise.
That is an option and currently seen as the best option. What im wondering and the point of my thread is the idea that you can gain muscle while eating at maintenance until you reach a healthy body fat for a man 15% or so. So you could make large gains in muscle mass over a year or so without making any changes to your diet at all. thus allowing almost everyone a way to drop to a healhy body fat without the restriction of calories.
It does not seem to be an area well studied but my thoughts are those whose bodies stay at a higher body fat naturaly could redirect that energy into the muscles. 100 years ago obesity was reserved for the wealthy and one of the main changes i see is the amount of physical labour we do. Perhaps those who sit at a higher bodyfat are suppost to carry a higher muscle mass but dont due to lack of use.
Sure a million other things factor in but any of that energy directed into building muscle mass instead of fat is an improvment.
But you will not get to a 15% BF by eating at maintenance.
But you will improve your body composition by just lifting or thats my idea. Any lose of body fat is good and my thinking is even if you do not diet at all your natural level of bodyfat will be lower with weight lifting. So instead of someone loosing 10 pounds in a month then giving up and gaining back 12 they would reduce bodyfat and improve body composition. But as you point out i can not find one study on the long term effects of weight lifting on someone between 20-30 % body fat with no other changes in the diet apart from upping protein.
The problem with your theory is that generally people give up diets because they do not see a loss on the scale. Body composition improvements when obese are not observable generally so I do not see how this would be a motivator. Also, if they are the type to give up, they would give up resistance training and the LBM would also go back to its 'natural levels. Surely a better motivator is to strength train and lose weight? Win/win.0 -
@ Sarauk2sf yeah that is a good point and the main downfall.
although since weight lifting is fun if we could some how get it into schools and get kids into it from a young age i think it could help alot. Not only in the body fat % but i find weight training is a great help in every aspect of your life.
Thanks for all the input anyway people glad i could get this question out of my brain :laugh:0 -
@ Sarauk2sf yeah that is a good point and the main downfall.
although since weight lifting is fun if we could some how get it into schools and get kids into it from a young age i think it could help alot. Not only in the body fat % but i find weight training is a great help in every aspect of your life.
Thanks for all the input anyway people glad i could get this question out of my brain :laugh:
Just because you think weight lifting is fun, others might not. I think dancing and running is fun as well - so should we make sure every single kid has to dance and run as well? Of course not. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes.0 -
"come back to me in 5 years without returning to your overweight state."
"pull your head out of your *kitten*"
Seems like a personal attack to me right there ^0 -
@ Sarauk2sf yeah that is a good point and the main downfall.
although since weight lifting is fun if we could some how get it into schools and get kids into it from a young age i think it could help alot. Not only in the body fat % but i find weight training is a great help in every aspect of your life.
Thanks for all the input anyway people glad i could get this question out of my brain :laugh:
I absolutely agree with the many benefits of weight training, or at least some form of resistance training, and love it myself. I especially encourage it for women due to the benefits to bone density, which is of particular concern to women.
And welcome
0 -
Just read that article, I'm seeing a theoretical 10 cal/kg/day for Protein turnover only.
Why would you want to put off weight loss all to gain a pound or two of muscle which basically give you an additional incremental BMR of less than 6 cals per lb of muscle a day?
muscle mass = health.
better hormone function, higher bone density.. and its more than 6cals per muscle ur missing out on other variables that muscle building contributes too primarily hormonal and intracellular ones.
I am not disagreeing that muscle mass is important. My point is, being obese is far worse for your health than the benefits of a few extra pounds of muscle.
ETA: article that gives the 9 calories for muscle (less the 3 for fat = 6) but also gives the additional benefits of muscle mass.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/3/475.full
See first and last sentence:The synthesis and breakdown of muscle protein are principally responsible for the energy expenditure of resting muscle. Whereas the precise in vivo energetics of muscle protein turnover are uncertain, a conservative estimate can be made on the basis of muscle protein synthesis. The average 24-h (including response to meal feeding) fractional synthetic rate (FSR) of muscle protein is ≈0.075%/h (22). The absolute synthetic rate can be calculated as the product of the FSR and muscle mass. We have found the average muscle mass of young, healthy males to range from 35 to 50 kg (22). In contrast, an elderly woman may have ≤13 kg muscle. Thus, muscle protein synthesis ranges from ≈0.23 to 0.90 kg/d, depending on the amount of muscle mass. Because 4 mol ATP is utilized per mole of amino acids incorporated into protein (21), and because the hydrolysis of 1 mol ATP releases 20 kcal energy (23), the energy released per day as a result of muscle protein synthesis may range from ≈485 kcal/d in a well-muscled young man to ≈120 kcal/d in an active elderly woman. These estimates are consistent with the observed increase in REE during an infusion of amino acids at a rate known to stimulate muscle protein synthesis (24). Extremes in muscle mass, eg, young male body builders to frail elderly, would be even greater. In terms of whole-body energy balance, a difference in REE of ≈365 kcal/d, stemming from a difference in muscle protein turnover, would lead to a gain or loss of 47 g fat mass/d because 1 kg of fat stores 7700 kcal. If activity and diet remained constant, this would mean a gain or loss of ≈1.4 kg fat mass/mo. This effect on energy balance is particularly striking when it is realized that the estimate given above for the energy expenditure associated with muscle protein turnover is likely an underestimate, because protein breakdown also requires the hydrolysis of ATP, and the energy released in this process is above and beyond the contribution of muscle protein synthesis to energy production. It is evident from these estimations that, when a long-term perspective is considered, even relatively small differences (eg, 10 kg) in muscle mass could have a significant effect on energy balance. Every 10-kg difference in lean mass translates to a difference in energy expenditure of ≈100 kcal/d, assuming a constant rate of protein turnover.
This also assumes muscle tissue does not increase burn from NEAT or normal cell respiration.0 -
1) Gaining 18kg of muscle would take forever. Seriously, it would take a very long time. Unless the person is planning on being obese for that long I wouldn't bother.
2) Obese people already have a decent amount of muscle. If they focused on lifting and eating in a small deficit, they could lose all the excess fat (slowly) and maintain most if not all of their muscle.
3) With bulking you always put on fat.
The loose skin problem, as you mentioned, they will drop their body fat at some point anyway so they might still end up with loose skin. But losing weight slowly and while strength training along the way will very much help to reduce this.0 -
Why deliberately be fat for two extra years?
In any event, the statement that you can't gain muscle and lose fat at the same time should only really be applied to experienced body builders or athletes. You've got to be somewhat pushing your limits before you will hit a wall that requires dedicated bulking and cutting.
I mean, seriously just take the easy results while they are on offer, it's not so simple to get results after you have been at it for a few years. Don't have a stupidly large calorie deficit, get plenty of protein in, focus on the fat loss and take the added muscle as a bonus. Once the fat is gone focus on building muscle and MAYBE decide that a bulk cycle would be beneficial (but you will more likely appreciate your new found abs more than another inch on the biceps haha)0 -
I really don't want to read all of this cause it's much too early and I've got more important things to worry about (stupid hurricanes).
Lyle has stated that muscle mass gains are most efficient in the 10-15% BF range, Paul Carter has said the same (albeit with much less sciency reasoning).
In a podcast with PC and Jamie Lewis, Keifer was discussing his Carb Nite diet and claimed that the only diet he's seen that is more effective at LBM retention would be to bulk up to ~50% BF and then run a full ketogenic diet.
For citations you'd have to go to those folks directly, I really don't care enough to compile it but just wanted to post the opinions of folks whose work I follow.
Could you bulk first and then cut? Yes. Would it work? Possibly, but you can't get around the fact that eventually that person will have to cut weight. If this 'bulking' phase is part of a onboarding plan where you ease the person into a new lifestyle (get them working out regularly first, then focus on diet once that's down), I can understand and respect that. If you're actively trying to make gains in cutting BF% though on a surplus, it's stupid.
You want to cut BF% and lose weight? Eat at a deficit to lose weight, get adequate nutrition to cut BF%.0 -
I've been lifting weight from the start. I'm on 1800 calories without eating excercise cals back and i'm going for roughly 170g protein. I did weigh 285lbs with 40% BF and now im at 256 with 35%. I think ive got past the point of newbie gains and im sure i've put on a fair bit of newbie muscle. This weight loss is the easiest method i've ever done and im enjoying it so if i can keep this muscle i'm happy with that. You'd be suprised that you can actually gain muscle on a defecit when you're a big person, if you can get some newbie gains and maintain those then its still a win0
-
My opinion, stay about 300 calories below maintenance, get plenty of protein, and lift, lift, lift.0
-
Yes, it 's a quicker way to gain muscle first. The more muscle you have, the easier is to loose weght. Muscle burns much more fat, and your workouts will be also more efficient. The problem is that you won't be so satisfied when you look in the mirror.
I do the other way, because I didn't want to bulk up first, and that works also, especially if you have good supplements to support your muscles.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions