Skinny Fat (Muscle Gain or Fat Loss)

Noted. The reason the body puts on muscle "easier" in a caloric surplus is because, being in a caloric surplus, puts the body in a anabolic state. Being at a defecit will put you in a catabolic state. In which the body consumes both muscle and fat. Putting on new muscle while being at a a defecit is nearly impossible.

I know well the theoretical framework of anabolism vs catabolism in relation to hyper vs. hypocaloric feeding conditions. It's theoretical though, trust me. I've had the privilege of working with hundreds of people over my tenure as a coach and it's pretty common to see people losing fat and gaining muscle concurrently while eating hypocalorically. This happens quite often in overfat novices.

Are you a trainer or coach?

If so, I take it you don't have a lot of experience working with overfat novices. And that's not a jab... maybe you're just training a more advanced population. And with more advanced trainees... ones who have more time invested "under the bar" and who are leaner... I would agree with you... seeing any appreciable hypertrophy in the face of a deficit is unlikely sans drug users or those coming off injury. The body's simply too trained, to proximal to its genetic potential, and they're simply too lean for the body to "think" that adding muscle is a wise thing to do from an evolutionary standpoint.

The OP, though, although "skinny fat".... is still overfat. And relatively untrained.

As I noted previously... this is a recipe for concurrent body recomp.

If you're really interested in this topic, Lyle McDonald has some excellent information on it... you can start here:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

What you thought was muscle growth was in fact the development of nerve motor units being developed from putting the muscle under new load that it is not accustomed to. So you do see what appears to be muscle development and maturity, but there is no new muscle growth, your simply just maintaining at best...

Umm... no.

Sorry.

I think you have me mistaken as some blabber mouth who doesn't have experience or education on the subject at hand. I'm not blindly confusing neuromuscular adaptations for hypertrophy. Unfortunately for your ASSUMPTION is the fact that I've had the privilege of playing in labs at university where we were able to closely monitor such things as muscle cell cross sectional area.

And my experience aside, if you had any experience actually reading published data, you'd realize the error in your extreme categorical/binary thinking. Yes, the interwebz says it's absolutely impossible to gain muscle while eating hypocalorically. But real world data doesn't always agree with the e-experts, unfortunately for the case you're trying to make. There are plenty of papers showing subjects gaining lean tissue while eating hypocalorically.

As a general rule, yes, it's very hard for most anyone who has invested time resistance training to put muscle on while dieting. Especially if they're relatively lean. As you noted, the body doesn't have enough energy coming in the door to support the tissue it has in these cases... it's not going to make matters worse by adding a bunch of metabolically expensive stuff like muscle.

But this isn't the rigid, set in stone fact in each and every case you're making it out to be.

If memory serves me right, this paper had one of the craziest concurrent body comp changes while dieting I've seen:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9309627

I think over the course of the study the C group realized something like 9 lbs of muscle gain and 15 lbs of fat loss.

Very atypical for sure.

But it merely highlights why you can't approach this subject with an absolute mindset.

If your mind is actually open to learning something rather than parroting the soundbite "facts" you read on the 'net... I have the full paper on one of my external HDs. If you want it I'll dig it up for you... just message me your email addy.

But you don't have to look far in the research to see plenty of instances of subjects adding lean tissue while eating hypocalorically. Here's another for you:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.abstract

And i'm not trying to be a jerk here... if you read my posts around the forum they're all very supportive. I'll be honest... I'm not a fan of your stance... again... absolute thinking doesn't go over well with me. Especially when it contradicts much of the data out there. But that's okay... as long as you're willing to open your mind and do a little digging here.

Disagreements are great where I come from. They either i) confirm what you thought you new to be true or ii) lead you to learning something you didn't know prior to the debate. In either event it's a win as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully you'll agree.

I guess it all comes down to what's more important for the op. Op, is it more important for you at this point to get leaner and show some definition at the risk of getting to a low bodyweight? Or is it important to put on added muscle mass and gain lean body weight? If I were skinny fat, I would be eager to put on mass on my shoulders, chest, legs and back.. I would want to fill out and get as strong as possible! That's just me though, some rather be thin and cut, my goal is to be big and cut... Stroutman81, your a muscular dude, so psychologically we really don't know what its like to be "skinny fat"...

I started out skinny fat. I do know.

And in my practice... yeah, sure... what's most important to my clients obviously weighs heavily in the choices I make with the advice I give them. But it's not the only thing I consider. I also consider the data and what I know to be true. And if a skinny fat guy walks into my gym rocking a bf% that's over 15% or so and wants to "get jacked", in almost all cases I'm going to diet the fat off him first. I'll help him understand my rationale and 9 out of 10 times he's going to get on board with my reasoning. I frame it as a temporary step that helps establish a solid foundation to "bulk" from shortly on down the road.

If you look at things like p-ratio, how fat you are when you start overfeeding plays heavily on where the energy that's in excess of your maintenance needs will be partitioned or stored.

Yes, resistance training does influence partitioning as well... but I prefer to bulk while minimizing fat gain and bulking from an already overfat position isn't the most sensible thing to do in my model of physique optimization.

I'm not the god father of jackedness by any stretch so as I noted previously... you could skin this cat differently. If he took your advice, it's not as if he's going to wind up with belly rolls and stretch marks and no muscle to show for his efforts. It's simply not what I'd consider an ideal avenue in the context of my approach, is all.

I didn't think that catabolism and anabolism as it relates to caloric consumption was a theory....? But I'll take your word for it... So what your saying is that you could still remain in an anabolic state (which is what we want) while eating at a caloric defecit? What causes catabolism and how can we prevent this??

I used to be skinny fat, and I just bulked up first, gained some strength and built some muscle and then went on, and still am, on a cut, I feel this is the best way to do it because once you've built up some muscle, your metabolism will increase and make it easier and faster to get lean later on and you will see much more defninition in your muscles when your do get your bodyfat down low enough, good luck in which ever path you choose

I didn't think that catabolism and anabolism as it relates to caloric consumption was a theory....? But I'll take your word for it... So what your saying is that you could still remain in an anabolic state (which is what we want) while eating at a caloric defecit? What causes catabolism and how can we prevent this??

Being energy deficient is by default catabolic.

But in certain instances there can be what seems to be a tradeoff of fat for muscle.

Lyle McDonald has forgotten more than I know... I highly suggest reading his article that I linked to above. He presents a pretty logical explanation of it that I agree with.

And it's not something that has been studied specifically... at least to my knowledge. But it's something I've seen time and time again in the real world. No, my measurement tools aren't perfect.... but when you collect as much data (weight, bf%, anthropometric measurements, pictures) as I do with as many clients as I've worked with over the last 13 or so years, you start to pick up on certain things.

Then you combine the available research that wasn't specifically looking at concurrent body comp changes in a deficit, but as a side to studying something else, they tracked lean mass in hypocaloric conditions and realized gains.

It happens in select instances.

How exactly?

I don't think we're at a point where we can clearly outline the mechanisms exactly.

Point is you're very pressed to find any absolutes in the world of physiology. Context is everything and while there are plenty of general rules we can float around... there are almost always going to be exceptions to them.

Hey Jason,since you at the moment don't have access to a gym; I would consider adding sprints to your current training program/plans.. If you have access to hills. I would run sprints up-hill. Try 50 yard sprints, all out sprints!! If you try this, make sure you warm up first; and streach out your quads, hams, and especially your groin. Easy to pull your groin if not properly warmed up. This should help build up your quads while being a decent fat burner..good luck with your training, remember to stay consistent!
Stroutman, your post and sources are great. I wasn't going too argue against good advice and information. Also if his body fat was even a tad higher, let's say 17-18%, I would also recommend losing the fat first. The op is on the right path, I just hope he's able to get in a gym soon! Once he start doing compound lifts, that should definitely help increase recomposition.

Would you hurt your fat loss? No... you'd merely extend the length of time it takes to lose the total amount of fat you lose... that's all.

Now the question is are 2-week blocks of bulking substantial enough to add any real muscle? I'd argue you'd likely be doing more wheel spinning than anything else.

What makes you think you lost some muscle?