Muscle gains while losing fat (cont. from AT thread)
joshdann
Posts: 618 Member
EvgeniZyntx, I think you're right. Basically I knew all about newbie gains and growing initally on a deficit and growing muscle back if you were to that previous point before. My point was not everyone can do that.
And I don't think I was confused, but I still doubt those gains after 5 weeks are accurately measurable as muscle gains. Not a closed system, to much room for error to state it as fact, though I understand how you're feeling. With that said, keep as accurate tabs on your diet and measurements joshdann. I'd be interested in the results down the road, even if I'm not there to know how accurate the results are. Even though you are an ideal candidate (have weight to lose, previous strength training experience), I still doubt there's measurable growth in 5 weeks? More so because of the way I suspected you are measuring (which was accurate). I go up and down in size like crazy when exercising. But basically my logic being if you lost fat...and gained muscle...will that is a huge amount of muscle gained if something increased in size given the fat and weight loss. My best explanation:
Say someone lost 1lb of weight (or 5lbs, since that's what the pic shows, pick a number but keep the proportions in volume of that pic). If that someone lost 1lb of fat (left) from their bicep (heh heh yeah I'm realistic) you would have to put on a considerable amount of weight in muscle to show a size difference on the plus side on your bicep...significantly more then 1lb. And to still have a deficit in weight you would have to lose more then 1lb in fat to make up for the muscle size growth/weight which would be over a lb and the weight lost...it just seems unplausible in your case for 5 weeks to see a measurable gain in a particular part and assume it's muscle. Even if you are the ideal candidate, from what I understand, muscle isn't the easiest thing to put on.
Either way, gluck with it!
continued from here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss?page=9
So, I copied your post here to hopefully continue this interesting conversation in a more appropriate place. I'm about to go work out, but I really hope we can discuss further. If nothing else, I will be very happy to adjust my plans and expectation based on reality. I've been trying hard to gain as much knowledge as I can on this subject, but one I thing I know for a fact is that I don't know much. I do believe I can achieve my goal, and whatever it takes to get there... no matter if it means I'm right or wrong about any part (or all parts) of it
0
Replies
-
agreedI started a new thread here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1086773-muscle-gains-while-losing-fat-cont-from-at-thread?page=1 for the continuation of this topic. I want to discuss learn, not argue. I like the way this has leaned more towards the former. Hopefully some other people much smarter then the both of us chime in lol.
I know it's a rare thing but I'd love for someone to put their (reasonable) 2 cents in about the likely hood of seeing and measuring a noticeable muscle growth in 5 weeks of weight loss (on a deficit) by measuring (unflexed). Keeping in mind that the candidate has weight to lose and has previously done powerlifting and the like (newbie gains potential galore). It still seems unlikely to me given my explination about weight loss above.0 -
Anyway, just a thought:
Perhaps measuring tape isn't the best idea for muscle growth on a deficit. You can lose fat and weight on a calorie deficit, and still go down a size measurement even if you have muscle growth (long way of saying by volume: fat is larger then muscle).0 -
In to learn0
-
so, the cloth tape is not my *only* method of measuring, although it's the only one I would consider accurate. visuals, comments from other people, etc. play in a bit. My Fitbit Aria scale also has a bioelectric impedance meter. I know those are terribly inaccurate, but as a rough estimate of body fat percentage, it has value. That number has been going down steadily, with some obviously erroneous measurements along the way. If I throw out the outliers (something like 2.5x std. dev over mean) and smooth out the curve using a 3-day average at every point, I get a result of about 1.5 - 2 lbs lean mass gained since I bought this scale in July. My old scale had the same meter, but I didn't log the measurements. This new one tracks it for me automatically, so I have data to go back and look at.
Given the inaccuracy of this meter, I'm not claiming victory and saying I gained 1.5 lbs of muscle in the past 6 weeks. That said, I think I have gained some. The data, for all its faults, points towards a net gain. The circumstantial evidence like the cloth tape and visual appearance strengthen that hypothesis. At this point, I'd be more than happy with net zero since I was originally expecting to lose some muscle mass... but I think I'm doing better than that. Of course for an *average* person eating above maintenance (bulking), 1.5 lbs per month is about the max they could expect to gain in lean muscle. At 6'6", I have a lot bigger frame than the average person so for all things body (fat, muscle, skin, bone, organs, everything) my numbers are little bit higher. If I've actually gained even 10% of the amount that the data says I've gained, I call that success.
For some backstory: I'm putting in the effort that could potentially gain my a lot of lean mass if I wasn't eating at a deficit, but without the extra calories. I'm also not eating at as large of a deficit as it may seem (should you look at my diary), because my actual BMR is significantly lower than the online estimators give. I shoot for somewhere between 1800 and 2000 calories, and almost always hit that goal. I am eating a lot more protein than any other macro (a tactic designed to not only build muscle but spare my existing muscle protein) and have recently been adding some fat back in for the same reason.
So, let's break down some of the terminology around this thing. Generally, those concerned with gaining muscle are concerned with gaining a /lot/ of muscle. So, when someone says "I'm gaining muscle" the natural tendency is to think about body building. In reality, I'm not expecting that much gain. I'm looking to counteract the lean mass losses I know come with fat loss. Again, anything net positive will make me happy. Also, when most people talk about eating at a deficit, they're not always thinking about it in terms of the obese. Yes, I'm obese... I don't really look or feel obese, but according to the numbers that's the case. If my body fat % is accurate at all, I'm currently carrying around just over 80 lbs of fat (29.5-ish% BF). For someone my size, every exercise I do burns just a bit more than the average person. I'm constantly carrying around this 80 lbs of extra weight, but I have more muscle and a larger frame to carry it... so I'm physically capable of doing more with it than someone who is 5'9" and has 80 extra pounds. I'm no marathon runner, to be sure... but even at my heaviest (350 lbs a year ago, 297 today) I was still playing my favorite sport which involves hiking 2-3 miles over rough terrain 2-3 times per week. Maybe all of that makes me an ideal candidate for gaining muscle while losing fat, or maybe it doesn't. I only mention that stuff to give you an idea of where I'm at. So, there might need to be a term for the condition described. I'm fat, yes. But I'm not couchpotato fat. If there can be a skinny fat, there needs to be something to describe me, too
I have not been keeping track of measurements very well, but I may start doing that. I just encouraged my wife to do that the other day... no reason I can't follow suit. I will come out of this thing leaner, stronger, and with more muscle than I had a year ago. You just wait and see
0 -
this is an interesting read:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
by an author I have read much of, and have come to trust.0 -
The person would have to be a genetic freak in order to put on that kind of muscle on a caloric deficit or is using anabolics.0
-
what person and what kind of muscle? I can't tell to whom and to what you refer.The person would have to be a genetic freak in order to put on that kind of muscle on a caloric deficit or is using anabolics.0 -
Notice how that's about maintenance, and not calorie deficits (it starts by saying "is it possible to stay the same weight".this is an interesting read:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
by an author I have read much of, and have come to trust.
And if you haven't been keeping track of measurements very well, how do you know specific muscles grew (which you noted before)0 -
actually, he doesn't specifically say "maintenance" or "deficit" but he does mention that the body, in this specific scenario, will be taking calories from fat and using them to build muscle. If you're not at some kinda of deficit, you don't need to take calories from anywhere... so the assumption is that if you're burning fat you're at a deficit. Small deficit, perhaps, but a deficit nonetheless. To add to that, he frequently talks about using his "Ultimate Diet 2.0" which most definitely has you eating at a deficit, most of the time.
As for keeping track, it only takes two measurements to notice a gain in size. I've done maybe 3 cloth-tape measurements in 6 weeks, although I track my BF% every day. I don't consider that to be "keeping track", so I intend to up the frequency.0 -
He doesn't specifically use those 2 words you picked but he does start off with the question "Is it possible to stay at the same weight..." with the rest of the post being the answer to that question. That my friend, is maintenance.actually, he doesn't specifically say "maintenance" or "deficit" but he does mention that the body, in this specific scenario, will be taking calories from fat and using them to build muscle. If you're not at some kinda of deficit, you don't need to take calories from anywhere... so the assumption is that if you're burning fat you're at a deficit. Small deficit, perhaps, but a deficit nonetheless. To add to that, he frequently talks about using his "Ultimate Diet 2.0" which most definitely has you eating at a deficit, most of the time.
As for keeping track, it only takes two measurements to notice a gain in size. I've done maybe 3 cloth-tape measurements in 6 weeks, although I track my BF% every day. I don't consider that to be "keeping track", so I intend to up the frequency.
I'd consider that keeping track but as far as measurements go I'd only look at the changes monthly. The steps will look more like a saw then a staircase or hill. The same as weight loss. Exercise and just biology in general will have you gaining inches on some days. So yeah, definitely don't go by a few readings over a few weeks. Some people think they're gaining weight on a huge deficit because they weigh at a day they increased weight. Some people think they're gaining mass because they measure a day after they worked a particular area hard.0 -
in fairness, you picked those words, not me
but I don't really think either is the point of the article. Sure, he talks about a 1 for 1 swap of fat for muscle in the beginning, but also says that weight loss usually becomes predominant. That would indicate a deficit... but this is not why I linked the article here.that's about maintenance, and not calorie deficits
The reason I found this read interesting is that he talks about a net muscle gain with a net fat loss at the same time, giving specific ways it's possible. He also talks about how he once fell into the incorrect assumption that it wasn't possible. The takeaway from this should be that he directly contradicts the idea of "can't build muscle while losing fat", which is what started this tangent on the other thread in the first place.0 -
I picked those words because I did not want to say: that's about staying the same weight and losing fat and gaining muscle, not losing weight and losing fat and gaining muscles....wordy.in fairness, you picked those words, not me
but I don't really think either is the point of the article. Sure, he talks about a 1 for 1 swap of fat for muscle in the beginning, but also says that weight loss usually becomes predominant. That would indicate a deficit... but this is not why I linked the article here.that's about maintenance, and not calorie deficits
The reason I found this read interesting is that he talks about a net muscle gain with a net fat loss at the same time, giving specific ways it's possible. He also talks about how he once fell into the incorrect assumption that it wasn't possible. The takeaway from this should be that he directly contradicts the idea of "can't build muscle while losing fat", which is what started this tangent on the other thread in the first place.
The question in that article was about staying the same weight. And nowhere did it mention growth in body size.
And that's not the tangent I was on. I believe some can build muscle and lose fat on a calorie deficit. It's just usually short lived, and more reasonable for a small portion (obese individuals who have previously been muscular is the greatest ideal for it), and the part I couldn't get over is increasing in size while losing weight and thinking that the gain is muscle....that's what my tangent is about. Increasing size in general with muscle growth while losing weight. If you lose fat you need to tack on more pounds of muscle...that makes you heavier. You can gain muscle, but you'd still be decreasing in size.0 -
It sounds like we're starting to devolve into an argument over semantics, and that's not what I think either of us (or any other lurkers here) wants. I'll go back and re-state my goal: I want to drop the fat while adding muscle. It doesn't need to be a lot of size, it just needs to be some. I'd be happy with enough to counteract the muscle loss that normally comes with fat loss. I'd be thrilled if it's more than that. In no way do I expect to have a bodybuilder type level of muscle mass any time soon. If I ever go for that (and currently, that's not on my radar) the majority of the large gains in lean mass will probably be after the fat is gone.
So, given that goal: I'm interested in thoughts/recommendations on how best to accomplish it. Currently I'm lifting heavy 3x per week, alternating between 1x legs, 2x arms and 2x legs, 1x arms (per week). I'm also focusing on dietary protein. I'm considering switching to one of the many variants of 5x5 soon, possibly next week. Thoughts?0 -
Men, so better hormones, eating at maintenance so not a deficit, newbie gains since starting a lifting program.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/778012-potential-muscle-gain-lifting-and-metabolism-improvement
Sadly they did not do a DEXA scan to get an idea of muscle mass gains, only LBM gains. Probably did have some muscle gains, just not sure how much.
Considering the small 3.5 lb gain in total LBM over 16 weeks, we ain't talking about a lot even eating at maintenance. And less than that if in a deficit.
And as I read through the posts of the other topic that lead to this - far too many times someone says lose LBM or gain LBM, and then flat out refer to that being muscle mass.
It MUST be remembered that muscle mass is merely a part of LBM. You can lose glucose stores and the associated water weight, you just lost LBM, and you just lowered your metabolism. Because a big part of metabolism is actually dealing with water management in the cells.
So just keep that in mind in any studies. A study reporting less LBM doesn't mean less muscle mass, because you can easily live on deficient glucose stores. Evidenced by the fact you eat at maintenance and instantly gain 2-4 lbs, obviously not fat, just good water weight. And increased metabolism then.0 -
actually, he doesn't specifically say "maintenance" or "deficit" but he does mention that the body, in this specific scenario, will be taking calories from fat and using them to build muscle. If you're not at some kinda of deficit, you don't need to take calories from anywhere... so the assumption is that if you're burning fat you're at a deficit. Small deficit, perhaps, but a deficit nonetheless. To add to that, he frequently talks about using his "Ultimate Diet 2.0" which most definitely has you eating at a deficit, most of the time.
As for keeping track, it only takes two measurements to notice a gain in size. I've done maybe 3 cloth-tape measurements in 6 weeks, although I track my BF% every day. I don't consider that to be "keeping track", so I intend to up the frequency.
It's a bad assumption that if burning fat you are in a deficit. You are always taking calories from somewhere, only if you are eating small meals constantly using that available energy right then, might you not be tapping in to existing stores.
Outside of the 3-4 hrs post eating, and if at rest, you are burning 95-99% fat for energy. Not until you get up to some level of aerobic exercise do you reach the 50% fat supplied energy.
Deficit or not doesn't matter.
It's really a matter that if you used glucose stores, post eating, your window of elevated insulin and no fat burning is shortened, as glucose goes for current energy needs and filling those stores, if that happens fast because there was a lot to fill, then blood sugar drops, glucagon is released, insulin drops, and back in to fat burning mode.
Sooner rather than later now.
Being at deficit means that window is smaller than it would be otherwise anyway. If a bunch of glucose to refill, even smaller.0 -
It sounds like we're starting to devolve into an argument over semantics, and that's not what I think either of us (or any other lurkers here) wants. I'll go back and re-state my goal: I want to drop the fat while adding muscle. It doesn't need to be a lot of size, it just needs to be some. I'd be happy with enough to counteract the muscle loss that normally comes with fat loss. I'd be thrilled if it's more than that. In no way do I expect to have a bodybuilder type level of muscle mass any time soon. If I ever go for that (and currently, that's not on my radar) the majority of the large gains in lean mass will probably be after the fat is gone.
So, given that goal: I'm interested in thoughts/recommendations on how best to accomplish it. Currently I'm lifting heavy 3x per week, alternating between 1x legs, 2x arms and 2x legs, 1x arms (per week). I'm also focusing on dietary protein. I'm considering switching to one of the many variants of 5x5 soon, possibly next week. Thoughts?
I think anything that hits all the muscles will be good. You don't want any muscle as seen as unneeded. Well, I guess you could really.
Some people would love to lose their large calves no longer needed for carrying an extra 200 lbs. And would rather have muscle elsewhere.
SL 5x5 with some isolation lifts for muscles not touched as much, or ones you want to keep in balance, works nicely and still usually less than 60 min lifting session.0 -
thanks for all the replies - you've been busy
first, I apparently need to put in some time researching the effects and behavior of the glucose stores you're talking about. I do understand *what* they are, but I'd like to know more about how to manipulate them to my advantage. I know this is something bodybuilders do (some of them without realizing it) and while that's not my ultimate goal, I think I might be able to make use of some of their techniques. Of course, being overweight I have different levels of insulin sensitivity than the average bodybuilding hopeful, so I'll figure out how I can adjust the techniques accordingly.
Second, I do understand that LBM is more than pure muscle. That should be obvious to anyone who realizes there is more than fat and muscle in a body... I'm not a biologist but I do consider myself fairly intelligent. I have done quite a bit of reading about LBM fluctuations during weight loss, and as I understand it muscle is the thing that fluctuates the most. Sure, water is a big part of it too. But when tracking long-term changes, water and glycogen fluctuations should not affect the overall trend. They are more short-term fluctuations (again, from what I have read). Day to day, water and glycogen weight is certainly going to skew numbers this way or that... but I'm more concerned with the long-term muscle gain/loss. My main goal remains to counteract the muscle loss I'm bound to experience while losing fat, hopefully ending up with a net positive gain in muscle. Right now, based on what I know and what I can measure, I think I'm on the right track.0 -
Actually, the comment about saying LBM and muscle mass interchangeably was almost everyone in that other thread, all of whom know there is indeed a difference, I even saw from your comments you knew the difference.
It's just interesting to read through many posts at once, and realize that difference is not being taken into account during discussions sometimes, and is flat out wrong other times.0 -
Really like that pic, makes you really realize what you'd prefer in your body.0
-
Thanks for 'weighing' in heybales. I always appreciate your insightful input. I wish I had that brain of yours about these topics sometimes.Really like that pic, makes you really realize what you'd prefer in your body.
Yep! Don't mistake that for intake though. What you put in your body doesn't necessarily reflect what your body turns into. Fat is still important for the diet. And it makes things delicious! Nobody should be afraid of the bigger glob lol. Like the pic indicates, you need a balance 0 -
a little update: I'm still burning fat, and my leg and arm measurements have increased (slightly) yet again... and my measured BMR has even gone up slightly. I'm lifting more this week than I could last week. The more research (and gym work) I do, the more I realize that as long as you have fat to burn, your body *can and will* use the nutrients stored in that fat to repair and build muscle. I've found more and more people who have built muscle while burning fat.
If it matters at all, my bench press 5rm is up 20 lbs in 7 weeks. Squat is up 30 lbs. Still nowhere near what it used to be, but I'm getting stronger. I've just started a more aggressive training plan (stronglifts 5x5 with some modifications) and expect to increase my strength even more quickly. Being stronger certainly does not mean I have *less* muscle than before... anwyay I'm happy with the progress. I'll bump this thread occasionally as I have more progress to report.0 -
This is indeed the best time for it, as you point out, new and fat to burn.
It's not so much that the fat is used to build muscle, it really doesn't have the right stuff to do so, but what you eat is used to do that building and repair, meaning whatever you eat is wiped out quickly by refilling glucose and being used to build muscle, then the insulin goes back down, and you enter right back into fat-burning mode as you were before you ate.
Might say you spend less time time in elevated insulin state using what you ate while not burning fat. What may have been 4-5 hrs without lifting becomes say 2 hrs. And then with more LBM increasing metabolism too, and repair process doing so also, more fat burned for normal body functions.
You get out of that state quickly now, because body is hungry for those raw materials and puts them to use, and right back on over to fat-burning mode.
Same thing can happen briefly for endurance cardio too, but really there is a max to the amount of carbs stored, so you don't keep getting that similar effect for very long.0 -
I admit I have not read all the above responses in detail but I wanted to add my .02 to the main topic.
In my experience it is certainly possible to simultaneously promote muscle anabolism and fat catabolism over a similar time frame.
The key is in synergy of ones approach as well as the correct macro and micro timing cycles of nutrition, training time/type, supplementation, and optimal rest.
It is scientific FACT that if a muscle is stimulated it WILL respond via hypertrophy of said tissues. This a physiology and beyond reproach. The multitude of factors resulting in the level and speed of growth is the question. But it is simple logic that we must continually stimulate our muscles to make them larger and stronger( preferably provide them with optimal amino acids at the correct times as well)
Burning excess fat calories is a relatively complex process. In my experience, verified clinically and with multiple experiments, HIIT versions of aerobic exercise placed at the proper times within ones daily/weekly cycles provide the optimal fat loss stimulus while having minimal catabolic effects on skeletal muscle tissue(as well as the nervous system).
The body has an uncanny ability to adapt quickly to any skewed system that will force the body out of homeostastis. This is why we MUST properly change/rotate/cycle our calorie intake, macronutrient intake, supps,training intensity, and training type. this allows us to accurately hypothesize what the bodies next action/reaction factor will be so we can stay in tune with our natural physiological adaptations. When one properly learns their adaptations and can get in tune with them the results can be pretty amazing. 0 -
Here's how prove it to clients:
Made sure we measured say arm circumference in a flexed position before going on calorie deficit. Also at this time I check the millimeter skin fold of the bicep and triceps notate it.
Now they calorie deficit and lose weight (say 20lbs) and now have more definition so they must have built muscle in their arms right?
Check circumference and it's smaller. Check millimeter skin fold and a decrease of a millimeter happened. What does this tell me? That body fat was lost. Had the circumference stayed closed to the same and millimeter skin fold was less, this would possibly indicate a small build in muscle. But I haven't yet had a client (male or female) meet this criteria since I've been a trainer.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
If this was entirely true, then labor workers should be some of the most muscular people on the planet. Just stimulating a muscle doesn't cause sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. You can stimulate muscle with an electostimulator machine and not have hypertrophy happen.It is scientific FACT that if a muscle is stimulated it WILL respond via hypertrophy of said tissues.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Some fair points here. Technically speaking, the stuff in the fat is put into the muscle, but it's in the form of glycogen. The protein in my diet is what is actually being used to build the muscle. Of course, since the body does not need to metabolize as much of the protein to synthesize more glycogen (since it already got what it needs from fat) it's free to use those protein chains (and fats) to repair and build the muscle. From what I have been able to find via reputable sources (not just bodybuilding bro-mags), the body prefers carbs, then protein and fat for its glycogen needs. In a period of strenuous exercise, the body will burn off carbs first, then turn to a combination of fat (stored and dietary) and protein (stored and dietary). Dietary sources are broken down at a mostly constant rate, too. That leads me to believe that even when dietary fat and protein is available in the stomach, some stored fat and protein is consumed during heavy exercise, and more is available for later use. Dietary carbs are broken down much more quickly, so they get exhausted relatively quickly. Dietary carbs also play a role in insulin stimulation, which works out differently for obese versus fit individuals.This is indeed the best time for it, as you point out, new and fat to burn.
It's not so much that the fat is used to build muscle, it really doesn't have the right stuff to do so, but what you eat is used to do that building and repair, meaning whatever you eat is wiped out quickly by refilling glucose and being used to build muscle, then the insulin goes back down, and you enter right back into fat-burning mode as you were before you ate.
Might say you spend less time time in elevated insulin state using what you ate while not burning fat. What may have been 4-5 hrs without lifting becomes say 2 hrs. And then with more LBM increasing metabolism too, and repair process doing so also, more fat burned for normal body functions.
You get out of that state quickly now, because body is hungry for those raw materials and puts them to use, and right back on over to fat-burning mode.
Same thing can happen briefly for endurance cardio too, but really there is a max to the amount of carbs stored, so you don't keep getting that similar effect for very long.
All of that, if it made any sense, dictates how I try to time my macro/micro intake. Of course there's no way to really control what happens after you consume food, but trying to understand what happens has led me to the following, somewhat relaxed ritual:
- On rest days, I consume more of my daily carbs in the mornings. The thinking is that the increased insulin response will help speed muscle recovery and stimulate growth. Of course, I include protein with these meals.
- On workout (strength training) days, I consume fewer carbs in the morning, saving them for an hour or so before and after my workout. The before carbs are mostly burned off by the mild cardio I do at the beginning of my workouts (about 45 mins on a treadmill at a brisk walk - also helps warm up my muscles a bit). The after carbs are designed to bring insulin levels back up a bit and start the repair process. My fat cells *should* be more insulin resistant than my muscle cells, so I'm repairing more muscle than I am storing fat.
- Every day, I consume lots of protein all the time. I figure that it's a multi-purpose tool, used for energy and muscle repair, as necessary. There have also been studies that observed dietary protein having a positive impact even on subjects who are dieting only, helping to mitigate LBM loss.
- I'm active every day possible, creating a caloric deficit through exercise. I strength train (with mild cardio) 3 days per week, and walk/hike/do other stuff the other 4 days. The only time I have a "couch potato day" is if I'm feeling particularly exhausted. It's only happened once so far. I've found that even when I'm really worn out I get re-energized and feel much better going for a walk than sitting on my tuchus.
edited for somewhat better formatting, and to include that my "workout" days are when I lift. Currently, I'm following the Stronglifts 5x5 routine, with some added stuff like lat pulldowns and curls. I technically exercise every day, just not with weights.0 -
Some fair points here. Technically speaking, the stuff in the fat is put into the muscle, but it's in the form of glycogen. The protein in my diet is what is actually being used to build the muscle. Of course, since the body does not need to metabolize as much of the protein to synthesize more glycogen (since it already got what it needs from fat) it's free to use those protein chains (and fats) to repair and build the muscle. From what I have been able to find via reputable sources (not just bodybuilding bro-mags), the body prefers carbs, then protein and fat for its glycogen needs. In a period of strenuous exercise, the body will burn off carbs first, then turn to a combination of fat (stored and dietary) and protein (stored and dietary). Dietary sources are broken down at a mostly constant rate, too. That leads me to believe that even when dietary fat and protein is available in the stomach, some stored fat and protein is consumed during heavy exercise, and more is available for later use. Dietary carbs are broken down much more quickly, so they get exhausted relatively quickly. Dietary carbs also play a role in insulin stimulation, which works out differently for obese versus fit individuals.
Excellent routine for exercise and diet, especially being able to move around your macros like that for max benefit.
Always found this a good primer which you've probably found already.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html
To your point above about still using what's in the body instead of what is digested, really depends on insulin level. Insulin being anabolic, if you get it to lower before digesting everything then that would be true.
But since it can stay elevated above normal easily for 3-5 hrs, it generally doesn't happen. You go right on using what you've digested if needed. If the protein can be put to good use beyond an energy source - there it goes to the muscles. If carbs stores need to be refilled, there ya go. If there are more pressing energy demands, glucose used there too along with the dietary fat in normal ratios that would be used, though if carbs are available they are used first.
So what could be a gentle cardio workout normally using 80% fat, could turn into 80% carbs if you consumed a big bagel right before doing it.
To your point about exercise, cardio specifically, is interesting. Because though you might have eaten a high carb meal, have elevated insulin, and not burning fat because of that while at rest or walking, if the intensity is enough, then the body starts to go back to normal fat/carb ratio no matter the elevated insulin.
The level in studies has generally been found to be 64% of VO2max, which works out to about 74% of HRmax. So as you approach that level of intensity, despite elevated insulin (like even from refeed during the workout), you start getting back in to the ratio of energy use you'd have anyway.
To that order of getting glycogen, very true in order of efficiency, but during the exercise with lifting burning mainly carbs but not much of them, it's really not bad at all. You should have enough glucose in the muscles to make it.
That's why it's generally found even in endurance cardio the contribution of protein (already readily available, meaning unused yet not muscle breakdown) from 60-90 min is maybe up to 10%, depending on training and intensity and ingestion during the workout.
Over 90 min might get up to 20%, and that's if you totally did the wrong intensity, used up muscle glucose stores, and now to find some to burn with the fat, the muscle is going to slow you way down to do those conversions fast enough, like protein as you say.
That's the "wall" weekend warrior marathoners hit going out too fast. Plenty of fat to burn, but used up muscle glucose way too fast, conversion from protein and fat and lactic acid is too slow and inefficient for current pace energy needs, you back way down to make it, if you can mentally. With low blood sugar there too, that mental battle is hard one too for many.
I've never hit it, that I'm aware of, so not total experience on how it feels. Because I learn from others mistakes, hah!
I think you have convinced me though during my next bulking session in Dec/Jan, to give more attention to the carbs, see if I can't mess with the diet better to enhance that, beyond just the caloric levels. Gotta bulk after these months of cardio training for races.0 -
I appreciate the feedback on the methods I'm using in this little adventure. I might try to make some adjustments based on what you're saying. I want to give this current plan a month or two and see how it goes, unless you see something in there that is an obvious mistake or misinterpretation of what I *think* happens.
I'm not saying I've got it all figured out (yet
) but I'm trying to compile credible data from as many sources as possible to figure out the best way to accomplish my goal. The stuff Lyle MacDonald writes about carb cycling and how to make them work *for* you is very interesting to me. I don't think I want to try the bodybuilding cycling methods, at least not any time soon, but I think i might be able to make use of some of the physiology. Again, my goal is to offset muscle loss and actually gain some, while on a deficit. And I want to be as close as I can be to my old 21-yr old physique and ability before I hit 35 years old (in about 14 months). That means, roughly, 215 lbs body weight (about 20%BF, maybe less if I really make some progress), 315-ish bench (1rm), 450-ish squat (5rm again - this is less than before, but I also injured my knee back then), and 450-ish deadlift (1rm, I think this will be the easiest of the three). Those are some lofty goals, but that's what I'm shooting for. If I get close, I'll be more than happy.
I need to be at about 200-225 bench (and similarly progressed on the other exercises) within a couple months to be on track. Right now I can do 155 comfortably for 5 reps, with the 4th and 5th sets of 5 being pretty difficult, barely finishing that 25th rep. It *sucks* lifting so little compared to what I used to... but I have to keep reminding myself that I have basically let these muscles slowly waste away for the last 13 or so years. It does feel great to be back in the weight room though. I made the mistake of sticking to machines for the first couple months of this effort. Sure, I rekindled some old muscle fibers in the major muscle groups... but I also let the supporting ones stay dormant. Freeweights should be fixing that for me. Going back to squats makes that the most obvious - my legs are hating me right now. Each workout they complain a little less
I think my biggest point of confusion right now is the cardio. I *think* I'm using it correctly, but I'm not all that convinced. I'm talking about the pre-workout treadmill here. The walking/hiking/mild running I do on off days is just to create a larger caloric deficit and rebuild a level of conditioning. The pre-workout treadmill is designed to do what I described in my last post, but any input on its theoretical effectiveness is much appreciated. I do the "brisk walking" pace as a warmup and to kindof kick-start my system (in addition to the carbs) for the lifting session. With my old knee injury, and the extra weight I'm carrying, I'm hesitant to run enough to keep my heart rate at the levels you're talking about. When I first started back, a 3 mph walk (1% incline or less) would elevate my HR to about 145bpm, or something like 78% of HRmax. Now, after a couple months of conditioning, 2% incline and 3.5 mph is only getting me up to about 130bpm. I can hit 145 if I bump it up to 3% and 3.8 mph, but that feels like it's draining more energy than what I want... my thinking on that might be way off. Keep in mind, the only real barrier from doing HIIT on the treadmill is shin splints and knee issues. The shin splints *are* getting less frequent as the weight comes off and conditioning goes up. I suppose I could get on the elliptical, but... I have a misguided aversion to doing that. Maybe I just need to get over it.
Anyway, thanks again for the thoughts. Feel free to deconstruct my methods all you want. I'm making myself somewhat of an informal case study (for me only, and I guess the MFP boards, not for a real scientific study) as I do this. I really want to prove the naysayers wrong, and build up a significant amount of muscle (15+ pounds would be awesome. 10 would be satisfactory) and raise my BMR while I drop the rest of this fat. So far it seems to be working... but I'd like to hedge my bets and get it as right as possible. I'm willing to put in the work and adjust diet timing, whatever it takes. Hit me up if you think of anything.0 -
Great goals. And your job and schedule is what made me think I can at least be adjusting my carb intake better for couple months.
Like you mentioned, nothing too complex, basically just eating more carbs prior and post lifting workout for 24 hrs to encourage anabolic nature of insulin, then less the other 24 hrs basically prior to lifting.
So squat not causing any problems to knee yet?
So true on knowing you used to do more and not there right now, but great recognition it's the supporting muscles, likely tendons too. I know you'd hate to injure those though and be out for weeks, since they are weaker anyway usually, more prone to injury jumping from machines to free weights.
Brisk walking with some arm swinging is about the only thing you need for good blood flow and muscle warmup. I'm sure you've seen the recommendations that a warm-up set or two at lighter weight more reps will do the same thing.
I won't even attempt running yet. That comment about level of intensity so that insulin normal response is put on hold was merely to fill in details regarding the only time you can override the normal insulin response post-meal. Not needed, and that level of intensity would merely drain you prior to lifting, not worth it.
I always say if you are doing lifting, skip the HIIT.
HIIT is the suggestion for those that only want to do cardio but no lifting, gives them a lifting like response of strength gain, possible muscle gain for their sport, and recovery fat burn (all out anaerobic effort, followed by rest, repeat 8-10 times).
But you already get that better with lifting. Unless you got cardio sport that needs it, skip it.
There is rarely a place to put it in a good lifting routine schedule, either you are effecting lifting recovery, or effecting getting a good lift, or not really doing HIIT anyway because muscle is too tired.0 -
So squat not causing any problems to knee yet?
Not yet, but I'm doing relatively light weights. 185 5x5 was doable, but made me a bit too sore at first. I backed off to 135-155 for a couple workouts while I get used to the lift again. My knee actually feels pretty good these days. It's kinda crazy... I mean the pain and other issues with it have been there since I was young. It was just a regular part of my life. So much that I used to get physical therapy for it (targeted massage and heat/ice cycles, stuff like that) to alleviate the pain for a few hours at a time. I've dropped almost 70 lbs in the past year, and almost 30 in the past couple of months. That weight relief along with the strength training has made the daily pain all but go away. It will still stiffen up if I keep my leg bent for more than 30 minutes or so (which sucks being 6'6" - the world is not made for tall people to be able to stretch out) but it's not as severe as it was. I fully expect my injury to be a mere whisper of its old self once I reach my weight and strength goals. I'm just being cautious that I don't screw it up again while I try to fix it.
As for HIIT, you are the first person I've seen mention that it's not all that necessary with a solid lifting regime. That makes sense though, especially since the vast majority of info available on the web and in books is focused on either losing fat *or* gaining muscle. Very, very little info exists on how to do both at the same time. So little info that some people insist it's simply impossible. There are plenty of case studies that prove otherwise, but somehow that data has not made it into the popular cookie-cutter type routines. Stronglifts being an exception... and as much as I cringe at some of the stuff Medhi says (and how he says it) at least he believes that my goal is possible, at least for the average joe. I am just trying to find and pick apart the science behind *why* various things work, and build my own routine0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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