Food Calorie Surplus to Gain Muscle Mass…Really?
Replies
-
I had a significant amount of fat that I was aiming at losing. I ate at a deficit, worked out 6 days a week/ 3 of those heavy resistance training, 3 boxing.
After 10 weeks, I lost 5% BF and gained muscle. I ate appropriately 6 times a day (carb protein combo).
I did not mean to gain muscle (and it was a gain, I had no shoulders, now I have significant shoulder muscles; biceps went up .5 inch each; thighs went up .5 inch each as well. Calves no longer fit in my knee high boots dammit)
So I know it wasn't getting rid of the fat to see the muscle.
I believe in some instances given the right genetics (I do build muscle very easily) you can do both simultaneously.
I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing but I eased up on my whey and casein consumption as i needed to focus on the fat first since I was building muscle faster it seemed than I was losing the fat. I was begining to look a little like a linebacker with ridiculously cut legs. We'll see what that does for the next 10 weeks.
Quite honestly, I don't believe I am turning fat into muscle. I think that my engine is burning while I tear and repear the muscles causing growth due to the high protein intake. But I'm not a scientist. Just my observations.
BTW- I am a 44 year old woman.0 -
I think we were typing the exact same thing at the exact same time.So if the person feeds properly around their workouts, why couldn't they build muscle during that 4 or 6 or 10 hours when muscles are being worked, damaged, and repaired? Then if they ended up in a slight calorie deficit over the course of a week, why wouldn't there be fat loss? I'm not saying those gains would be the same as those seen during a traditional bulk, but seems like they would be more than the "negligible gains" most people are willing to concede when on a deficit.
THIS.0 -
I'd like to figure this out myself.
I started lifting in March and was eating about 2200 a day. I was pretty inconsistent with lifting, as I had not found a program I liked. Managed to go up a size and gain about 10lbs. Dropped my calories to 2000 and started working out more when I could, maintained my weight. But I was starting to see very minimal fat loss.
Dropped to 1800 some weeks ago and have been doing an A/B, somewhat modified stronglifts program. Since then I have lost a pant size and only about 4 pounds. I know that my muscles are probably just more prominent now that there is less fat covering them but I have muscle in places I never noticed before, especially by back and forearms, which are now solid. I had a friend visit this weekend and she was feeling my arms and back and said she was shocked that my body was "hard' Sadly, I'm not losing much fat from my belly, where most of it is, but I am seeing more muscle in places that I never had much fat.
You were in a surplus for a while and at maintenance for some time. New muscle was possible in that time for sure. Now you have started cutting body fat but increased the workouts. You are probably not gaining actual new muscle but the muscles can firm up from fluid. This is what most people see when they think they are getting lots of new muscle. Engorged muscles and less body fat covering it can make a big difference in appearance.
Body fat comes off differently for everyone but for most people it comes of extremities first. Arms, legs and face seem to lean out fast while the core areas hang onto body fat until the end. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do to change this. It does help explain why people think their arms and legs are growing muscle even while dieting.0 -
Any muscle mass that is gained while eating at a deficit will be minimal, and will only happen for the obese, those who have never trained, and those who are returning to training.
Again, it will be minimal. Muscle density may change (less intramuscular fat) but if someone is seeking to alter the overall dimensions of the muscle, then it is necessary to eat at a calorie surplus.
Strength is a whole different ball game, and people often confuse mass growth with strength increases. Many new lifters will note remarkable (for them) strength increases and will note some change in dimensions and believe it is adding to muscle mass and volume when it isn't.0 -
I've been doing a recomp for last 6 months and I would say it's working well.
Majority of that time was a maintenance with a spell at deficit.
Need to get a second body analysis done but approximate figures are:
2kg of weight lost, 4kg of fat lost and 2kg of muscle gained.
Being an old fart who is restricted by injuries and whose focus has been mainly cycling I'm hardly an ideal candidate but I'm very happy with progress to date.
Maybe a cut/bulk cycle might have produced better results but I think recomp is a valid choice for many people.0 -
The question is why would anyone want to eat a prolonged deficit for any longer then they have to?0
-
I had a significant amount of fat that I was aiming at losing. I ate at a deficit, worked out 6 days a week/ 3 of those heavy resistance training, 3 boxing.
After 10 weeks, I lost 5% BF and gained muscle. I ate appropriately 6 times a day (carb protein combo).
I did not mean to gain muscle (and it was a gain, I had no shoulders, now I have significant shoulder muscles; biceps went up .5 inch each; thighs went up .5 inch each as well. Calves no longer fit in my knee high boots dammit)
So I know it wasn't getting rid of the fat to see the muscle.
I believe in some instances given the right genetics (I do build muscle very easily) you can do both simultaneously.
I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing but I eased up on my whey and casein consumption as i needed to focus on the fat first since I was building muscle faster it seemed than I was losing the fat. I was begining to look a little like a linebacker with ridiculously cut legs. We'll see what that does for the next 10 weeks.
Quite honestly, I don't believe I am turning fat into muscle. I think that my engine is burning while I tear and repear the muscles causing growth due to the high protein intake. But I'm not a scientist. Just my observations.
BTW- I am a 44 year old woman.
How do you know if you gained muscle or just developed existing, dormant muscle tissue? Dexa Scan? Hydrostatic testing? Bodpod readings? Observations are just anecdotal and don't prove hypertrophy at all.0 -
My thoughts on this were along the lines of this:The question then is....how tight can you get those timeframes? Can you do this on a week to week basis? At what point are you cycling so fast between bulking and cutting that the benefits of either/both are lost?
and this:Yes, clearly this is influenced by all the reading I've done on things like IFing, carb backloading, calorie cycling, etc. But much the way the lay person's logic says you can't build if you're short on materials, the same logic says you can build if you have the materials when the body wants to build.
I think there is something to the idea of calorie cycling for building muscle. Nobody would really argue about the effectiveness of bulk and cut cycles, but I have the same question about timeframes. How narrow can you make them?
If you were doing a bulk for 8 weeks and then a cut for 8 weeks, that doesn't mean that your body is anabolic for 8 straight weeks and then catabolic for 8 straight weeks. But you could average everything out and say, "Hey, during these 8 weeks I was in a surplus, and for these other 8 weeks I was in a deficit." But on a day or weekly basis, how often can you go in and out of a "surplus?" If I was in a surplus for these 12 hours and in a deficit for those 12 hours, yet over the course of the day I was technically in a deficit, could I not have built muscle in the time that I was in the surplus?
So I guess my question is how prolonged a surplus really must be in order to facilitate muscle growth.
I don't know if there are any studies about this kind of thing, so we might be stuck with speculation (please do enlighten if you know of one). I thought it was worth pondering anyhow.0 -
My thoughts on this were along the lines of this:The question then is....how tight can you get those timeframes? Can you do this on a week to week basis? At what point are you cycling so fast between bulking and cutting that the benefits of either/both are lost?
and this:Yes, clearly this is influenced by all the reading I've done on things like IFing, carb backloading, calorie cycling, etc. But much the way the lay person's logic says you can't build if you're short on materials, the same logic says you can build if you have the materials when the body wants to build.
I think there is something to the idea of calorie cycling for building muscle. Nobody would really argue about the effectiveness of bulk and cut cycles, but I have the same question about timeframes. How narrow can you make them?
If you were doing a bulk for 8 weeks and then a cut for 8 weeks, that doesn't mean that your body is anabolic for 8 straight weeks and then catabolic for 8 straight weeks. But you could average everything out and say, "Hey, during these 8 weeks I was in a surplus, and for these other 8 weeks I was in a deficit." But on a day or weekly basis, how often can you go in and out of a "surplus?" If I was in a surplus for these 12 hours and in a deficit for those 12 hours, yet over the course of the day I was technically in a deficit, could I not have built muscle in the time that I was in the surplus?
So I guess my question is how prolonged a surplus really must be in order to facilitate muscle growth.
I don't know if there are any studies about this kind of thing, so we might be stuck with speculation (please do enlighten if you know of one). I thought it was worth pondering anyhow.
I dont know of any studies on this specifically but I do suspect it is not just an on/off switch.
When you are in a deficit you use stored energy. This is not always body fat but can be from glycogen stores. Your body will replenish those with some of your next surplus eating away at some of your assumed surplus. In your example of 12 hours shifts you were in a deficit for 12 hours and used stored energy. You might very well spend part of the 12 hour surplus paying that back. I dont think it reverses the same way though. Meaning glycogen will not be tapped into to build muscle when in deficit.
Muscle gain is a very slow process even in optimal conditions. Just eating a lot on workout days may give you fractional muscle gain if any at all after all other functions that have priority are "paid" for. Muscle protein synthesis is elevated for around 36 hours after a workout. If you are only eating at surplus for a few hours after you are really limiting muscle gain. You also lose some LBM while in a deficit. What will be the end overall gain. More than likely very little as most people realize when trying to do a recomp.0 -
I keep reading that in order to gain muscle mass, one needs to have a caloric surplus that includes appropriate quantities of protein (and of course muscle mass building exercises). My question focuses on the food piece of this equation – I want to know if body fat calories count toward the surplus.
My hypothesis: Given appropriate exercise and protein levels, a person can build muscle mass while eating at a calorie deficit that will result in loss of body fat (and perhaps even weight loss). My contention is that the body fat contributes to the body’s calorie needs as well as food, and until there is insufficient body fat a person should expect to be able to gain muscle mass AND lose body fat and even body weight simultaneously. What think ye?
I am looking forward to the debate as to why this may not be true and learning a few things along the way...
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, from an evolutionary perspective, for the body to use fat reserves to build muscle when eating at a deficit. We didn't evolve in an environment where high carb, high fat food was available over the phone without someone even having to get their lazy butt of the sofa. In evolutionary terms, eating at a deficit = food shortage, and in a food shortage, fat means being able to survive longer. Burning fat to build muscle would be a huge liability, i.e. you'd starve to death much more quickly than people whose bodies didn't build muscle in a food shortage. i recently read about a study, where analysis of the bones of neanderthals showed that 75% of them had suffered from a food shortage at some point in their lives. That suggests that the ability to survive a food shortage was a major factor in human evolution.
So any genes for building muscle while eating at a deficit would have been lost from human populations, due to natural selection, because people who had them died early on in food shortages, and we're descended from the survivors of food shortages, not the ones who died first.
Exceptions to this rule (e.g. noob gains in people who have a too high body fat percentage when they start training) are less relevant in evolutionary terms, because it would be extremely hard to have a too high body fat percentage if you only have palaeolithic technology, additionally, no-one would be sedentary.... so what happens to the bodies of people who are sedentary and have a too high body fat percentage is not something natural selection could act upon, because it didn't happen in our evolutionary past.0 -
I had a significant amount of fat that I was aiming at losing. I ate at a deficit, worked out 6 days a week/ 3 of those heavy resistance training, 3 boxing.
After 10 weeks, I lost 5% BF and gained muscle. I ate appropriately 6 times a day (carb protein combo).
I did not mean to gain muscle (and it was a gain, I had no shoulders, now I have significant shoulder muscles; biceps went up .5 inch each; thighs went up .5 inch each as well. Calves no longer fit in my knee high boots dammit)
So I know it wasn't getting rid of the fat to see the muscle.
I believe in some instances given the right genetics (I do build muscle very easily) you can do both simultaneously.
I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing but I eased up on my whey and casein consumption as i needed to focus on the fat first since I was building muscle faster it seemed than I was losing the fat. I was begining to look a little like a linebacker with ridiculously cut legs. We'll see what that does for the next 10 weeks.
Quite honestly, I don't believe I am turning fat into muscle. I think that my engine is burning while I tear and repear the muscles causing growth due to the high protein intake. But I'm not a scientist. Just my observations.
BTW- I am a 44 year old woman.
congratulations you just discovered the holy grail of exercise...lose body fat and gain muscle...please share how you accomplished this?
More than likely a combination of losing body fat to show muscles that you did not know that you had, and some water retention that made your "new" muscles appear bigger...0 -
Pretty good dialogue - really appreciate the thoughtful comments. My hypothesis is changing - not reversing, but changing...evolving. Thanks!0
-
tagging0
-
OK, conventional wisdom here has clearly been that muscles do not "grow" without a calorie surplus to feed that growth (except in peculiar instances), despite our best efforts. So next question...
How do muscles react to heavy strength training in a calorie deficit environment?0 -
I have really struggled to gain muscle unless I am eating at a surplus. 1 to 1 ratio of muscle n fat seems about normal. I'd love to build muscle and burn fat at the same time but that doesn't work for me. During my 1st round of P90X I lost fat and seemed to gain muscle but I was a newbie and it may have been newbie gains.
This is an good topic.0 -
OK, conventional wisdom here has clearly been that muscles do not "grow" without a calorie surplus to feed that growth (except in peculiar instances), despite our best efforts. So next question...
How do muscles react to heavy strength training in a calorie deficit environment?
muscles can get a LOT stronger without a calorie surplus, and even in a deficit, due to neuromuscular adaptation. This means the nervous system gets better/more efficient at getting all the muscle fibres to work together. Usually when you do something, you're not using the entire muscle, but training increases the efficiency of the muscle used, i.e. firing more fibres, making the muscles work together more efficiently... .also improvements in form result in being able to lift greater loads.... all of this can and does make you stronger, without any actual muscle growth taking place. So you can get much stronger, even eating at a deficit. But to grow actual new muscle tissue, you need a surplus (there are some exceptions to this, e.g. noob gains, muscle memory gains)0 -
OK, conventional wisdom here has clearly been that muscles do not "grow" without a calorie surplus to feed that growth (except in peculiar instances), despite our best efforts. So next question...
How do muscles react to heavy strength training in a calorie deficit environment?
Your body will retain as much of it as it can. again evolutionary. If you were sedentary and in a caloric deficit your body will shed a lot of lean muscle, which would lower BMR, which means you would need less calories to survive. So your body shedding muscle for survival makes sense. Now if you use, or need those muscles (work them) your body will more than likely hold on to what is being used (evolution, chasing food/fighting for food, strength etc would have been needed), and use up fat stores instead.
If your muscles are not sufficiently challenged, then why would your body hold on to the caloric hungry muscle, instead of the fat, which will prolong your life, while not using very many cals to maintain itself.0 -
Neandermagnon (and Eric), your point seems good here, but to your earlier allegory where you described the body's evolutionary response to deficits, I would infer that the body would also not allow the muscles to even remain the same size - seems that there could be forced reduction (atrophy) of muscle mass in spite of heavy strength training (and even as you point out here - strength gain). Thoughts?0
-
Neandermagnon (and Eric), your point seems good here, but to your earlier allegory where you described the body's evolutionary response to deficits, I would infer that the body would also not allow the muscles to even remain the same size - seems that there could be forced reduction (atrophy) of muscle mass in spite of heavy strength training (and even as you point out here - strength gain). Thoughts?
That is true, and depends on training routine, amount of protein and size of deficit. The more protein, and smaller the deficit the less lean muscle will be lost as a % of total loss.
But ask any body builder cutting for a competition, they lose a *kitten* ton of muscle in the process of cutting fat. The above will just reduce the amount lost.0 -
Neandermagnon (and Eric), your point seems good here, but to your earlier allegory where you described the body's evolutionary response to deficits, I would infer that the body would also not allow the muscles to even remain the same size - seems that there could be forced reduction (atrophy) of muscle mass in spite of heavy strength training (and even as you point out here - strength gain). Thoughts?
When you couple a caloric deficit with high intensity strength training, you signal your body that despite the fact that it is running into problems with energy supply, it still can't afford to let loose of any existing muscle, because those muscles are being tested to their limits on a regular basis (and as far as your body knows, if it lets you get weaker, you might become even less capable of obtaining adequate food supplies).0 -
Neandermagnon (and Eric), your point seems good here, but to your earlier allegory where you described the body's evolutionary response to deficits, I would infer that the body would also not allow the muscles to even remain the same size - seems that there could be forced reduction (atrophy) of muscle mass in spite of heavy strength training (and even as you point out here - strength gain). Thoughts?
That is true, and depends on training routine, amount of protein and size of deficit. The more protein, and smaller the deficit the less lean muscle will be lost as a % of total loss.
But ask any body builder cutting for a competition, they lose a *kitten* ton of muscle in the process of cutting fat. The above will just reduce the amount lost.
^Yep. Most people are trying to just maintain the muscle they have while cutting body fat. Most have already stated how incredibly hard it is to grow it in the first place. Thats why it so funny when people claim they can grow all sorts of new muscle while dieting.
Muscle has a metabolic cost just sitting there doing nothing. In a deficit the body looks for all sorts of ways to adapt to meet its energy needs and become more efficient. Extra muscle that is not being used is one of the first targets.
Small deficit, heavy resistance training and a good amount of protein are all muscle sparing steps while cutting body fat.
I notice a difference in strength, recovery times, energy levels between cutting and bulking cycles. When you go through this it gets very easy to understand why the thought of growing new mass seems very unlikely when normal functions and energy slows down.0 -
I keep reading that in order to gain muscle mass, one needs to have a caloric surplus that includes appropriate quantities of protein (and of course muscle mass building exercises). My question focuses on the food piece of this equation – I want to know if body fat calories count toward the surplus.
My hypothesis: Given appropriate exercise and protein levels, a person can build muscle mass while eating at a calorie deficit that will result in loss of body fat (and perhaps even weight loss). My contention is that the body fat contributes to the body’s calorie needs as well as food, and until there is insufficient body fat a person should expect to be able to gain muscle mass AND lose body fat and even body weight simultaneously. What think ye?
I am looking forward to the debate as to why this may not be true and learning a few things along the way...
It happens all the time on "The Biggest Loser". I think the difference is that those people are overweight/obese. A thin person with virtually no muscle mass will probably have to eat a calorie surplus.
Did you just use a reality TV show as evidence for...anything?
Yeah, probaby a bad idea. But they were at a calorie deficit, and they have muscles at the end of the show. Well, most of them, anyway. I think someone earlier made much more sense though when they said that they likely had all that muscle to begin with carrying their 300 or 400 pound bodies, and losing the fat just made them visible. Now bulk? They wouldn't fit into most definitions of bulky because they look lean, not huge like a bodybuilder.
Yes, exactly. Honestly, if anything, they all probably lost a significant amount of muscle. Extreme diets and extreme amounts of cardio will result in lots of lean body mass lost. So regardless of how muscular they looked at the end, they had probably still lost a significant amount over the course of the show. A slower rate of loss and less cardio would have yielded better body composition results over the long term (especially since the vast majority of them gain it back anyway).0 -
Neandermagnon (and Eric), your point seems good here, but to your earlier allegory where you described the body's evolutionary response to deficits, I would infer that the body would also not allow the muscles to even remain the same size - seems that there could be forced reduction (atrophy) of muscle mass in spite of heavy strength training (and even as you point out here - strength gain). Thoughts?
in a food shortage, you usually would get loss of muscle, as the body will burn unused muscle in preference to fat. However, if you're talking in evolutionary terms, muscle that you use on a regular basis *is* important to survival, as exercise = food acquisition. So while your body will jettison unused muscle in a food shortage (which results in loss of lean mass and slowing of the metabolism, both of which are well known side effects of dieting, especially if the deficit is quite big), regularly used muscle is maintained provided that the food shortage isn't that severe or prolonged. This is why lifting heavy weights and keeping the calorie deficit small results in fat loss without significant loss of lean mass while eating at a deficit. There will be a small amount of lean mass loss even with the most careful deficit, but a small deficit + strength training will minimise it. Too big a deficit, or eating at a deficit too long, will result in loss of lean mass even if the muscle is being used regularly, along with a loss in strength.
Given that this is what happens in the real world, i.e. sensible deficit + heavy lifting = conservation of lean mass and loss of fat, then it's reasonable to say that our bodies evolved this way because the muscles that humans used regularly in the palaeolithic era were important for food acquisition, and therefore conserving it while eating at a calorie deficit has an important survival advantage. The two factors are balanced against each other, i.e. surviving as long as possible versus conserving enough muscle to still be able to acquire food.0 -
Thanks for so succinctly summing up the philosophy I have been following for the last hundred-odd days! I have sussed out that 300-400 calorie deficit is about my sweet spot. More than that, my performance suffers and compliance nosedives. I want to have as much of that calorie-hogging muscle as possible left when I'm ready to transition to maintenance!in a food shortage, you usually would get loss of muscle, as the body will burn unused muscle in preference to fat. However, if you're talking in evolutionary terms, muscle that you use on a regular basis *is* important to survival, as exercise = food acquisition. So while your body will jettison unused muscle in a food shortage (which results in loss of lean mass and slowing of the metabolism, both of which are well known side effects of dieting, especially if the deficit is quite big), regularly used muscle is maintained provided that the food shortage isn't that severe or prolonged. This is why lifting heavy weights and keeping the calorie deficit small results in fat loss without significant loss of lean mass while eating at a deficit. There will be a small amount of lean mass loss even with the most careful deficit, but a small deficit + strength training will minimise it. Too big a deficit, or eating at a deficit too long, will result in loss of lean mass even if the muscle is being used regularly, along with a loss in strength.
Given that this is what happens in the real world, i.e. sensible deficit + heavy lifting = conservation of lean mass and loss of fat, then it's reasonable to say that our bodies evolved this way because the muscles that humans used regularly in the palaeolithic era were important for food acquisition, and therefore conserving it while eating at a calorie deficit has an important survival advantage. The two factors are balanced against each other, i.e. surviving as long as possible versus conserving enough muscle to still be able to acquire food.0 -
I wish this was true, but in my case it's not.. I have to be in a surplus to build muscle.. That's why i'm here, using MFP to count calories.. Because i wish to stay in a minimal surplus to build muscle but stay as lean as possible at the same time..0
-
OK, so a new twist to the question (you think you’re so smart)...
A person is male has 22% body fat, is relatively fit and strong. Eats well and maintains a zero deficit/surplus calorie diet. Works hard in the gym within a proven muscle building weight lifting program.
If a person cannot build muscle and burn fat without a surplus calorie diet – he will stay the same weight and maintain the same muscle/fat ratio in spite of any workouts. He may get stronger (somehow), but there will be no corresponding muscle mass increase.
If a person does nothing in the gym, using this same diet, because he is at a zero deficit/surplus intake, his body will not need to store fat and would therefore maintain the same muscle/fat composition.
Tear it up…0 -
OK, so a new twist to the question (you think you’re so smart)...
A person is male has 22% body fat, is relatively fit and strong. Eats well and maintains a zero deficit/surplus calorie diet. Works hard in the gym within a proven muscle building weight lifting program.
If a person cannot build muscle and burn fat without a surplus calorie diet – he will stay the same weight and maintain the same muscle/fat ratio in spite of any workouts. He may get stronger (somehow), but there will be no corresponding muscle mass increase.
If a person does nothing in the gym, using this same diet, because he is at a zero deficit/surplus intake, his body will not need to store fat and would therefore maintain the same muscle/fat composition.
Tear it up…
1) You can get stronger with zero change (or even negative change) in muscle mass.
2) You can lose fat and gain muscle mass at the same time. It is a slow process, though.0 -
OK, so a new twist to the question (you think you’re so smart)...
A person is male has 22% body fat, is relatively fit and strong. Eats well and maintains a zero deficit/surplus calorie diet. Works hard in the gym within a proven muscle building weight lifting program.
If a person cannot build muscle and burn fat without a surplus calorie diet – he will stay the same weight and maintain the same muscle/fat ratio in spite of any workouts. He may get stronger (somehow), but there will be no corresponding muscle mass increase.
If a person does nothing in the gym, using this same diet, because he is at a zero deficit/surplus intake, his body will not need to store fat and would therefore maintain the same muscle/fat composition.
Tear it up…
1) You can get stronger with zero change (or even negative change) in muscle mass.
2) You can lose fat and gain muscle mass at the same time. It is a slow process, though.
Agreed. What often comes out as "you'll build zero muscle unless your in a surplus" is actually "you'll build very small amounts of muscle over very long periods of time if you aren't in a surplus." And the further from a surplus you get, the smaller the gains and the longer the timeframe.0 -
^^^ This. You get stronger via neuromuscular adaptation.OK, so a new twist to the question (you think you’re so smart)...
A person is male has 22% body fat, is relatively fit and strong. Eats well and maintains a zero deficit/surplus calorie diet. Works hard in the gym within a proven muscle building weight lifting program.
If a person cannot build muscle and burn fat without a surplus calorie diet – he will stay the same weight and maintain the same muscle/fat ratio in spite of any workouts. He may get stronger (somehow), but there will be no corresponding muscle mass increase.
If a person does nothing in the gym, using this same diet, because he is at a zero deficit/surplus intake, his body will not need to store fat and would therefore maintain the same muscle/fat composition.
Tear it up…
1) You can get stronger with zero change (or even negative change) in muscle mass.
2) You can lose fat and gain muscle mass at the same time. It is a slow process, though.0 -
I'm so confused :huh: I have a LOT of weight to lose but i want to build muscle too...:sad:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions