Building muscle AND losing fat at the same time!

FabulousKP

Bump so that I can read all this GOOD info!

Brige2269

tag

aakaakaak

It's....it's about me!

Is this linked in the big sticky of linked threads?

Edit: Nevermind. I don't know how I missed reading it.

ghfit

Bumping!!

Fithealthyforlife

My own interpretation is that this idea fits under the classic umbrella of calories in vs. calories out.

Overweight individuals have two advantages imho:
1) bodyfat is an energy source
2) overnutrition (if they keep eating in the way that made them overweight when they start their muscle building program)

#2 is just a fancy way to say they're eating a caloric surplus. There are huge hormonal effects, as well.

#1 is just saying that even if they taper off their surplus, if they still eat correctly and work out correctly for muscle gain, the fatty acids stored in the body can be oxidized as an energy source to power muscle repair. In other words, obese people already have a caloric surplus built into their body, and can get away with eating a bit less than a skinny person...and still build muscle for a while in theory. I'd like to see studies that bear these ideas out.

Edited to add: Athletic overweight individuals arguably have even more advantages:
-their system is primed for muscle gain due to their sports history
-the accidental bulking due to eating a surplus during their time as an athlete means they have more muscle to begin with
-maintaining a high calorie diet even in the months after ceasing or doing less athletic activity likely helps them retain this muscle (but causes even more fat gain)

The ideas we've explored in this thread also shatter the myth of skinny people having faster metabolisms, and the idea of somatotypes when it comes to muscle gain.

Bottom line: Assuming both work out properly, a fat woman eating a surplus will always build more muscle faster than a skinny man eating a deficit (who will actually lose muscle over time)...regardless of how many times more testosterone the man has than the woman. This is why, imho, it's best to always start strength training when you're bigger, rather than losing the fat first (even if you could in theory do so without losing any muscle). We all know that bulking diets have to be tightly controlled in order to make a skinny person gain lean mass but minimal fat...

I'd like to see studies of obese individuals eating a perfect diet right at maintenance level (including eating back exercise calories) and working out hard with weights. I bet the concurrent muscle gains and fat loss are rapid and maybe even sustainable longer than we might have guessed.

DChabibi

bump

neanderthin

There's also what's referred to as regional muscle mass gain in a deficit, I'll try and find the paper, it's been a few years. Basically muscle is built in areas that are stressed and taken from areas that aren't. Has a person actually increased total muscle mass, no, but the ones that get worked do increase.......

SideSteel

There's also what's referred to as regional muscle mass gain in a deficit, I'll try and find the paper, it's been a few years. Basically muscle is built in areas that are stressed and taken from areas that aren't. Has a person actually increased total muscle mass, no, but the ones that get worked do increase.......

Interesting, I'd like to see it if you can find it. Please pm me or post it here if you'd prefer.

neanderthin

There's also what's referred to as regional muscle mass gain in a deficit, I'll try and find the paper, it's been a few years. Basically muscle is built in areas that are stressed and taken from areas that aren't. Has a person actually increased total muscle mass, no, but the ones that get worked do increase.......

Interesting, I'd like to see it if you can find it. Please pm me or post it here if you'd prefer.

I looked but can find the right phraseology to make it happen. It's there, and if I find it I will post it. Keep in mind this was 1 study. The interesting part was they were trained athletes.

jonesin_am

Save

heybales

There's also what's referred to as regional muscle mass gain in a deficit, I'll try and find the paper, it's been a few years. Basically muscle is built in areas that are stressed and taken from areas that aren't. Has a person actually increased total muscle mass, no, but the ones that get worked do increase.......

Interesting, I'd like to see it if you can find it. Please pm me or post it here if you'd prefer.

I looked but can find the right phraseology to make it happen. It's there, and if I find it I will post it. Keep in mind this was 1 study. The interesting part was they were trained athletes.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet

Sarauk2sf

There's also what's referred to as regional muscle mass gain in a deficit, I'll try and find the paper, it's been a few years. Basically muscle is built in areas that are stressed and taken from areas that aren't. Has a person actually increased total muscle mass, no, but the ones that get worked do increase.......

Interesting, I'd like to see it if you can find it. Please pm me or post it here if you'd prefer.

I looked but can find the right phraseology to make it happen. It's there, and if I find it I will post it. Keep in mind this was 1 study. The interesting part was they were trained athletes.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet

I do not think that this is what they were referring to. Those studies are really showing what is generally taken as the situations where people can gain muscle (or LBM with water/glycogen). Neanderthin was referring to gaining muscle in one area at the 'expense' of another.

heybales

There's also what's referred to as regional muscle mass gain in a deficit, I'll try and find the paper, it's been a few years. Basically muscle is built in areas that are stressed and taken from areas that aren't. Has a person actually increased total muscle mass, no, but the ones that get worked do increase.......

Interesting, I'd like to see it if you can find it. Please pm me or post it here if you'd prefer.

I looked but can find the right phraseology to make it happen. It's there, and if I find it I will post it. Keep in mind this was 1 study. The interesting part was they were trained athletes.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet

I do not think that this is what they were referring to. Those studies are really showing what is generally taken as the situations where people can gain muscle (or LBM with water/glycogen). Neanderthin was referring to gaining muscle in one area at the 'expense' of another.

DOH - 3 posts to delete!

I did misread that comment.

Makes intuitive sense. Studies already show you'll lose muscle mass in a deficit if no resistance training and/or not enough protein.
Studies such as above show you can gain muscle (LBM) in areas that are newbie areas in deficit.
Combine the 2.

Like say, break an ankle in 3 spots and pretty much lay off the lower body for 6 weeks while doing better and better upper body lifting only, while in slight deficit.
Then stupidly lose some of your gains when you can eventually do cardio better and cause bigger deficit with more of it, with less time for upper body being done.

Sarauk2sf

There's also what's referred to as regional muscle mass gain in a deficit, I'll try and find the paper, it's been a few years. Basically muscle is built in areas that are stressed and taken from areas that aren't. Has a person actually increased total muscle mass, no, but the ones that get worked do increase.......

Interesting, I'd like to see it if you can find it. Please pm me or post it here if you'd prefer.

I looked but can find the right phraseology to make it happen. It's there, and if I find it I will post it. Keep in mind this was 1 study. The interesting part was they were trained athletes.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet

I do not think that this is what they were referring to. Those studies are really showing what is generally taken as the situations where people can gain muscle (or LBM with water/glycogen). Neanderthin was referring to gaining muscle in one area at the 'expense' of another.

DOH - 3 posts to delete!

I did misread that comment.

Makes intuitive sense. Studies already show you'll lose muscle mass in a deficit if no resistance training and/or not enough protein.
Studies such as above show you can gain muscle (LBM) in areas that are newbie areas in deficit.
Combine the 2.

Like say, break an ankle in 3 spots and pretty much lay off the lower body for 6 weeks while doing better and better upper body lifting only, while in slight deficit.
Then stupidly lose some of your gains when you can eventually do cardio better and cause bigger deficit with more of it, with less time for upper body being done.

Agreed re 'returning lifter gains'. I would even venture so far as to hypothesize that you can get some gains by varying stimulus (to a degree - and this is conjecture that myself and SideSteel have nerded out about to each other before and not something I have seen in studies specifically).

However, I *think* that this is re something different - but will have to see the study or have Neanderthin confirm.

paprad

So that means that while on a deficit, combining lifting and cardio I will be losing fat. Should I be seeing a change in my body from lifting though the gains will be slim to none?

Bodyweight will go down assuming you are in an energy deficit. Your strength should go up for quite a while until you get quite lean and/or quite experienced with lifting. Your muscles will probably appear larger assuming you are only losing fat and not LBM. Initially you will likely retain some additional fluids/glycogen which may also make your muscles look larger.

Sidesteel, you said "assuming you are only losing fat and not LBM"

Would that be possible, to lose only fat? I thought some amount of weight loss would be loss of LBM, even if one were doing resistance training, yes? Is there any way, other than doing resistance and upping protein intake, to ensure that all of weight loss is predominantly fat loss

Sarauk2sf

So that means that while on a deficit, combining lifting and cardio I will be losing fat. Should I be seeing a change in my body from lifting though the gains will be slim to none?

Bodyweight will go down assuming you are in an energy deficit. Your strength should go up for quite a while until you get quite lean and/or quite experienced with lifting. Your muscles will probably appear larger assuming you are only losing fat and not LBM. Initially you will likely retain some additional fluids/glycogen which may also make your muscles look larger.

Sidesteel, you said "assuming you are only losing fat and not LBM"

Would that be possible, to lose only fat? I thought some amount of weight loss would be loss of LBM, even if one were doing resistance training, yes? Is there any way, other than doing resistance and upping protein intake, to ensure that all of weight loss is predominantly fat loss

It depends on how lean you get and a bunch of other factors (age, training routine, length and severity of deficit, gender, genetics etc) as to whether you can maintain muscle mass.

The other thing to do is not have a significant deficit (assuming the resistance training is a good program with progressive loading and the protein is adequate).

paprad

Is there any way, other than doing resistance and upping protein intake, to ensure that all of weight loss is predominantly fat loss

It depends on how lean you get and a bunch of other factors (age, training routine, length and severity of deficit, gender, genetics etc) as to whether you can maintain muscle mass.

The other thing to do is not have a significant deficit (assuming the resistance training is a good program with progressive loading and the protein is adequate).

Thanks Sara.

What would constitute a sweet spot for the optimum deficit ? Is that why the TDEE-20% is recommended?

Sarauk2sf

Is there any way, other than doing resistance and upping protein intake, to ensure that all of weight loss is predominantly fat loss

It depends on how lean you get and a bunch of other factors (age, training routine, length and severity of deficit, gender, genetics etc) as to whether you can maintain muscle mass.

The other thing to do is not have a significant deficit (assuming the resistance training is a good program with progressive loading and the protein is adequate).

Thanks Sara.

What would constitute a sweet spot for the optimum deficit ? Is that why the TDEE-20% is recommended?

It depends on how lean you are in the first place. While there is no one answer as it depends on a range of factors, TDEE - 20% is usually a good point until you start getting very lean and then this should be scaled back if you want to really be careful. This is not to say that TDEE - 20% will result in muscle loss - but sometimes its best to play it safe.

I actually prefer to look at it as a % of weight. The deficit that gives a 1% of total body weight loss a week is generally considered fine, and then this gets scaled back to 0.5% a week when getting very lean.

paprad

I actually prefer to look at it as a % of weight. The deficit that gives a 1% of total body weight loss a week is generally considered fine, and then this gets scaled back to 0.5% a week when getting very lean.

Thanks Sara, that's a much more useful metric to monitor

towens00

Bump