• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 🔥Check Out Muscle Gelz HEAL® - A Topical Peptide Repair Formula with BPC-157 & TB-500! 🏥

"you cant gain muscle and lose fat at the same time" is bullshit

zl214

Registered User
Registered
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
IML Gear Cream!
this is inspired by another thread. ok, maybe i shouldnt have said its bulshit, but its definitely not true, too late to change now, but i think a lot of ideas in the "fitness industry" arent about helping people to be more fit/healthy but to improve appearance/self-esteem.

i think this "dogma" of bodybuilding is the biggest scam the suppliment companies have come up to get you to buy more of their products or the biggest excuse lazy trainers use to avoid cardio.

of course you can gain muscle and lose weight at the same time, no matter what stage you are at with your training unless you are super lean and losing weight isnt too much of a concern for you. Just think about it, you gain muscle while resting, you burning fat while exercising, they arent mutual exclusive.

suppose I embark on a regime that I train with heavy weights at the same time a lot of running and have a high calorie high protein diet for 5 years. whats the worst thats going to happen to me? dont think i am going to end up becoming fat/obese at all. i understand its hard to gain muscle and burning fat at the same time, but its even harder to loss muscle and gain fat at the same time when you have a remotely decent diet and an active life style.

I think the whole idea is made up by suppliment companies to instill the notion that with their products (i.e. whey), you can bulk up fast then concentrating on losing fat (using their fat burning products). its funny how people percieve as normal is skewed by these companies. just what i think, if you dont agree, happy to hear your thoughts
 
Last edited:
The problem lies in the fact that to build muscle you need to be in a surplus of calories, not to mention taking in enough protein. Energy and protein are the things your body uses to repair existing muscle and build new muscle.

You can't make something out of nothing, you need the building blocks of what you're trying to build, and the energy to put those blocks together.

Fat is utilized by the body as an energy store for the times when our ancestors weren't in such an abundance of food. When we were hunter-gatherers we needed those fat stores to get us though hard times.

When you take in a surplus of energy that ISNT used for any purpose (such as building muscle) it is stored in adipose tissue (fat).

When there is no readily available source of energy (ie-food) to carry out processes in the body, fat stores are broken down to provide that energy.

When you go on a cut, you eat in a deficit of calories, taking in less than you need to maintain what you have. With no reason to keep muscle, your body would sooner break muscle protein down for energy, but if you provide a stimulus to keep it (weight training, exercise etc) your body will dip into your fat stores for energy instead.

If you are eating more than you need in order to build muscle, your body has no reason to use your fat stores. In fact, most people eat more than enough even to build muscle, which is why people usually get a bit chubby on a bulk. When you are on a cut (to lose fat) there is not enough energy to even maintain, let alone build.

How can you be in a caloric surplus and a caloric deficit at the same time?

You CANT.

Your conclusion that cardio "burns fat" when you exercise is totally wrong. Doing cardio on a bulk minimises fat gain simply because you are using calories up during the cardio, leaving less available for building muscle. Cardio is counter-productive on a bulk and not necessary on a cut, simply because you can get into a caloric deficit by eating less.
 
Gaz,
I totally understand what you are saying. but if you are eating a maint calorie diet with high protein, and lifting heavy, why is it not safe to assume your body could utilize the calories and reach into fat stores as well?
Not contradicting you, just trying to understand

Dave
 
I'd say for the most part it's impossible to gain lean muscle and lose fat at the same time unless you fall into one of these three segments:

1. Newbie to lifting
2. Genetic elite
3. You're using drugs

Otherwise, sorry. Either bulk or cut.

KY
 
I've seen overweight people lose fat and gain muscle. I think it depends on how overweight you are. If you're really overweight, which means you have likely been eating a surplus of calories for a long time and you start reasonably cutting calories below your maintenance level your body isn't going to think it's starving for awhile, and during this period it's possible to gain muscle and lose fat. In my experiences it takes awhile for the body to adjust, and the length it takes depends on how long your current pattern is. It's highly doubtful you're going to see good gains on a bulk cycle untill you've been on it for awhile, or see muscle loss when cutting untill after awhile. That's assuming you've stuck to bulking/cutting perviously for a decent period of time. Changing your metabolism doesn't happen overnight, and length of time it does take to change it is related to how long you have been in your current pattern of weight gain.
Just my 2 cents
 
...you can lose fat and build quality muscle.














....when on gear.
 
I've seen overweight people lose fat and gain muscle. I think it depends on how overweight you are. If you're really overweight, which means you have likely been eating a surplus of calories for a long time and you start reasonably cutting calories below your maintenance level your body isn't going to think it's starving for awhile, and during this period it's possible to gain muscle and lose fat. In my experiences it takes awhile for the body to adjust, and the length it takes depends on how long your current pattern is. It's highly doubtful you're going to see good gains on a bulk cycle untill you've been on it for awhile, or see muscle loss when cutting untill after awhile. That's assuming you've stuck to bulking/cutting perviously for a decent period of time. Changing your metabolism doesn't happen overnight, and length of time it does take to change it is related to how long you have been in your current pattern of weight gain.
Just my 2 cents

Someone who is seriously overweight is probably seriously undertrained. And that would be what I consider "newbie gains" -- one of the segments where it's possible to gain muscle/lose fat.

If you are highly trained and not on gear, good luck.

KY
 
Someone who is seriously overweight is probably seriously undertrained. And that would be what I consider "newbie gains" -- one of the segments where it's possible to gain muscle/lose fat.

If you are highly trained and not on gear, good luck.

KY

I disagree.
By that rational, someone who was starving for a period of time and was seriously undertrained then started working out could gain muscle mass and lose fat. I personally don't think that could happen. I agree that people new to training make gains easier in the beginning, but it ultimately depends on your metabolism and diet.
 
Gaz,
I totally understand what you are saying. but if you are eating a maint calorie diet with high protein, and lifting heavy, why is it not safe to assume your body could utilize the calories and reach into fat stores as well?
Not contradicting you, just trying to understand

Dave

Eating at perfect maintenance (your body has no net caloric surplus or deficit) is difficult to do as a result of not being able to precisely determine what one's true caloric needs are. Generally, one would try to get as close as they can to maintenance which would result in not fluctuating too much over time. One week one may eat a bit above and then next week one may eat a bit below --- overall, one would stay at the same weight over the course of, say, a month.

However, these micro-fluctuations may allow for a bit of body recomposition. Some weeks you may lose quarter of a pound and some weeks you may gain a quarter of a pound. Because one is training and eating properly: when one is in that micro-deficit, they may spare their muscle and lose a bit of fat; when one is in that micro-surplus, they may partition favorably and have that surplus result in a bit of muscle gain.

These results will be relatively inappreciable in the short run. However, over time, one may notice a difference in body composition due to these favorable fluctuations.

All in all, one still cannot lose fat and gain muscle tissue simultaneously --- one's biochemistry gets in the way. Typically, people claim that they are doing so due to their appearance. Losing fat gives the effect of increased muscle mass due to increased definition. Unfortunately, this is just an illusion.
 
IML Gear Cream!
what about an individual say that does some hiit 1st thing in the morning when they are dipping into their stored fat cells and glycogen for energy rather then food throughout the rest of the day you eat a a very clean high protein diet along with some weight training would it be fair to say that you are losing fat from your morning cardio session and then adding lean muscle from your weight session and your clean diet throughout the rest of the day?
 
I disagree.
By that rational, someone who was starving for a period of time and was seriously undertrained then started working out could gain muscle mass and lose fat. I personally don't think that could happen. I agree that people new to training make gains easier in the beginning, but it ultimately depends on your metabolism and diet.

Certainly it's not as simple as that, but newbies CAN gain muscle and lose fat...for a very short period of time.

Then they're screwed like the rest.

KY
 
Gaz,
I totally understand what you are saying. but if you are eating a maint calorie diet with high protein, and lifting heavy, why is it not safe to assume your body could utilize the calories and reach into fat stores as well?
Not contradicting you, just trying to understand

Dave

Because if your body has the calories there, it will use them rather than go through the process of breaking down fat. Remember that building muscle doesn't just happen, its not easy for your body to build it unless it has a reason and the resources. If the energy would be better spent on keeping your heart beating, your body isn't going to build up your guns.
 
The problem lies in the fact that to build muscle you need to be in a surplus of calories, not to mention taking in enough .....

How can you be in a caloric surplus and a caloric deficit at the same time?

You CANT.

Not at a specific moment in time, you cant.

but imagine, i wake up in the morning, have breakfast. go out and run 10 miles in an hour. during this one hour i am running, i am going to burn a lot of fat, yes, lot of energy is going be from the breakfest, but when you run for an hour, the second half an hour is going to be aerobic which is driven by fatty acid oxidation (fat burning). then rest properly. eat well. 8 hours later, do weights for an hour. eat more, the overall caloric intake for the day is going to be in excess, but i have lost fat, and you cant say that the excess energy is going to produce more fat than what i have burned, because surely some the excessof it is going to muscle growth. and whether the rest of excess energy is going to offset the energy burn is unknown. that makes the following statements not ture either.

1. i have not gained muscle and lost fat at the same time (in the same day).

2. I would have gained more muscle if i hadnt run that 10 miles.

running burns fat, it makes sense, when you arent running you are gain muscle from doing weights. they arent happening at the same time during a day. but the overall effect is gaining muscle and burning fat as the same time.
 
Eating at perfect maintenance (your body has no net caloric surplus or deficit) is difficult to do as a result of not being able to precisely determine what one's true caloric needs are. Generally, one would try to get as close as they can to maintenance which would result in not fluctuating too much over time. One week one may eat a bit above and then next week one may eat a bit below --- overall, one would stay at the same weight over the course of, say, a month.

However, these micro-fluctuations may allow for a bit of body recomposition. Some weeks you may lose quarter of a pound and some weeks you may gain a quarter of a pound. Because one is training and eating properly: when one is in that micro-deficit, they may spare their muscle and lose a bit of fat; when one is in that micro-surplus, they may partition favorably and have that surplus result in a bit of muscle gain.

These results will be relatively inappreciable in the short run. However, over time, one may notice a difference in body composition due to these favorable fluctuations.

All in all, one still cannot lose fat and gain muscle tissue simultaneously --- one's biochemistry gets in the way. Typically, people claim that they are doing so due to their appearance. Losing fat gives the effect of increased muscle mass due to increased definition. Unfortunately, this is just an illusion.


ok, in that sense you are right, but when i say "at the same time", i mean figuratively. you definitely cant do that simultaneously. I mean more like during a day or a few days.
 
ok, in that sense you are right, but when i say "at the same time", i mean figuratively. you definitely cant do that simultaneously. I mean more like during a day or a few days.

Two posts for you to show how ignorant of this matter you are?
 
but imagine, i wake up in the morning, have breakfast. go out and run 10 miles in an hour. during this one hour i am running, i am going to burn a lot of fat, yes, lot of energy is going be from the breakfest, but when you run for an hour, the second half an hour is going to be aerobic which is driven by fatty acid oxidation (fat burning). then rest properly. eat well. 8 hours later, do weights for an hour. eat more, the overall caloric intake for the day is going to be in excess, but i have lost fat, and you cant say that the excess energy is going to produce more fat than what i have burned, because surely some the excessof it is going to muscle growth. and whether the rest of excess energy is going to offset the energy burn is unknown. that makes the following statements not ture either.

I understand where you are coming from. However, in short, metabolism doesn't work in the fashion that you are describing.

I recommend that you re-read Gaz's post.
 
but imagine, i wake up in the morning, have breakfast. go out and run 10 miles in an hour. during this one hour i am running, i am going to burn a lot of fat, yes, lot of energy is going be from the breakfest, but when you run for an hour, the second half an hour is going to be aerobic which is driven by fatty acid oxidation (fat burning).

Conveniently forgetting about glycogen i see! An average person has around 600 calories of glycogen readily available in the body, and thats first thing in the morning before any food, and in a non-athlete.

Assuming an hour of fairly low intensity cardio will burn off say...500 calories? By your reckoning if that comes entirely from fat, you will have burned a whopping 55g. Oh wait, only half of that hour is from fat, well done thats 27.5g of fat you have burned - only another 36 hours of cardio before you burn off a whopping 2lbs.

Considering a regular 3-days-a-week trainee, you only have about 12 hours training time in a month, so this 2lbs would take about 3 months? And this is assuming glycogen stores don't exist for one thing.

Besides, if you had some carbs for breakfast insulin will go some way to preventing using fat as energy and make sure those carbs are stored as glycogen.

Even if your understanding of metabolism wasn't flawed as hell, its still an absolutely piss-poor method of getting rid of your fat.

8 hours later, do weights for an hour. eat more, the overall caloric intake for the day is going to be in excess but i have lost fat, and you cant say that the excess energy is going to produce more fat than what i have burned, because surely some the excess of it is going to muscle growth. and whether the rest of excess energy is going to offset the energy burn is unknown.

No, you'll probably replenish your glycogen stores first, then repair the muscle you damaged in the weight session and the cardio session. You might store some as fat after that, and then if theres any left you might build a bit of muscle if you have enough protein. With all that extra deficit from the cardio, its doubtful you'll have enough energy after that though - unless you're eating in a large surplus that is, which will likely lead to storing some fat unless you've worked out how much energy you need every day down to the calorie with no excess at all.

running burns fat, it makes sense, when you arent running you are gain muscle from doing weights. they arent happening at the same time during a day. but the overall effect is gaining muscle and burning fat as the same time.

It makes sense to YOU. Running doesn't burn fat, fat is utilized when there is a negative energy balance in the body. Your body has ATP, glucose, glycogen, and protein to break down for energy before that (excess amino acids cant be stored, so are much easier to get energy from than fat stores). Muscle is built when there is a positive energy balance in the body, lots of protein that isn't being broken down for energy/repair, and the body is at rest and not using those muscles.

Maybe decreasing fat levels and building muscle IS possible in a loose theoretical sense, and we could debate the biochemistry of it all day, but for any sort of practical purposes - you dont NEED to do both at the same time. If by some miracle of thermodynamics you managed to figure it out, the process would be so fiddly and yield results so slowly, it wouldn't be worth it.

You're being a fool to yourself. Stop arguing something that really doesn't need to be argued. Telling people you can't burn fat and gain muscle at the same time is sound practical advice, especially for newbies, because most people don't have the knowledge, time, mental focus, or resources to do ONE of those things properly let alone two. Even in terms of psychology, focusing on one single goal at a time greatly improves your chance of succeeding at it.

The bottom line:

Maybe it is possible, but who really gives a flying fuck?
 
Last edited:
Great dam Post Gaz. I don't know why people that don't know what they are talking about still choose to try to argue a point on something like this.

Thanks man :)

Its like trying to reinvent the wheel, the cycle of bulking and cutting works great. For people who aren't into the competitive side of things, a few hundred calories either side of maintenance usually does the trick without drastic changes in their body shape.

Wheres the problem there? Lol.
 
IML Gear Cream!
fasted AM cardio - will burn fat. Keep yourself just under maintenence cals, and you will add muscle as well . . albiet slowly
 
Conveniently forgetting about glycogen i see! An average person has around 600 calories of glycogen readily available in the body, and thats first thing in the morning before any food, and in a non-athlete.

Assuming an hour of fairly low intensity cardio will burn off say...500 calories? By your reckoning if that comes entirely from fat, you will have burned a whopping 55g. Oh wait, only half of that hour is from fat, well done thats 27.5g of fat you have burned - only another 36 hours of cardio before you burn off a whopping 2lbs.


when you wake up in the morning, after 8 hours of fasting, there isnt much glycogen left. but after a meal, glycogen is replenished quite quickly.

i don't know how fit you are, but 10 miles in 1 hour is not low intensity card to anyone. i didn't say that its entirely from fat. i am just saying how much carb and fat have burnt you don't know. i don't whats cardio to you, but i always keep my heart rate over 150, thats not low intensity exercise to anyone.

i don't even know where you get the 500 calories from, people with different weight/ running techniques burn a different number, 500 calories is by any means an way under-estimation for a 10k run in an hour.

Besides, if you had some carbs for breakfast insulin will go some way to preventing using fat as energy and make sure those carbs are stored as glycogen.

i don't know where you have heard that from, insulin converts glucose to glycogen. it has nothing to do with fat metabolism

It makes sense to YOU. Running doesn't burn fat, fat is utilized when there is a negative energy balance in the body. Your body has ATP, glucose, glycogen, and protein to break down for energy before that (excess amino acids cant be stored, so are much easier to get energy from than fat stores). Muscle is built when there is a positive energy balance in the body, lots of protein that isn't being broken down for energy/repair, and the body is at rest and not using those muscles.

thats a ridiculous thing to say that you don't burn fat while running, do you even run regularly? long distance running is one of the most effective way to burn fat and improve cardiovacular function. muscle is built when there is positive NITROGEN balance in the body, even though a positive nitrogen balance is always associate with an surplus of calorie of intake. but excess calorie isn't absolutely necessary for a nitrogen gain.

you burn fat before you started burning protein, this is many supplement companies don't want to know. you don't have to have two three shakes a day. only under extreme starvation (fasting for more than 24 hours), you start to use protein as an energy source. its actually quite life threatening when that do happen.

wait, you are talking about alanine/ glutamine amidotransferase cycle, yes, muscle does burn amino acids before burning fat, but that only accounts for a very small proportion of the overall muscular metabolism. there isn't that much free glutamine in the blood.

Maybe decreasing fat levels and building muscle IS possible in a loose theoretical sense, and we could debate the biochemistry of it all day, but for any sort of practical purposes - you dont NEED to do both at the same time. If by some miracle of thermodynamics you managed to figure it out, the process would be so fiddly and yield results so slowly, it wouldn't be worth it.

You're being a fool to yourself. Stop arguing something that really doesn't need to be argued. Telling people you can't burn fat and gain muscle at the same time is sound practical advice, especially for newbies, because most people don't have the knowledge, time, mental focus, or resources to do ONE of those things properly let alone two. Even in terms of psychology, focusing on one single goal at a time greatly improves your chance of succeeding at it.

The bottom line:

Maybe it is possible, but who really gives a flying fuck?

someone has asked whether running is going to make pope lose muscle. people tell him that you can only do one at a time. I say it doesn't matter, as long as you are lifting weights and eating heaps, keep up the running, you can still be big and lean at the same time. don't worry about bulking//trimming, as long as you are living an active health life style. you'll get to wherever you want. as a weightlifter and a runner, i hate it when people say "i don't workout because i don't want to get as big as arnold" just as much as i hate it when people say "i don't want to run because it makes me lose muscle."

STOP DEMONISING RUNNING
 
when you wake up in the morning, after 8 hours of fasting, there isnt much glycogen left. but after a meal, glycogen is replenished quite quickly.

Actually, according to Stryer there is plenty of glycogen after a nights fasting, and to be honest im going to believe a renown biochemist over you. Don't take it personally.

Interestingly, during starvation such as an overnight fast, fatty acids taken from adipose tissue are used by the liver to provide energy for gluconeogenesis, converting pyruvate into glucose. The main sources of this pyruvate are amino acids and glycerol. No glycogen.

i don't know how fit you are, but 10 miles in 1 hour is not low intensity card to anyone. i didn't say that its entirely from fat. i am just saying how much carb and fat have burnt you don't know. i don't whats cardio to you, but i always keep my heart rate over 150, thats not low intensity exercise to anyone.

i don't even know where you get the 500 calories from, people with different weight/ running techniques burn a different number, 500 calories is by any means an way under-estimation for a 10k run in an hour.

It was a number i pulled out of my ass to illustrate the point that in terms of 'burning' fat directly, the effect on your overall bodyfat % is negligible. Even at double that amount the point still stands. If you used 1000 calories thats still only 100 grams of fat, even if all of it DOES come from there. Which it doesn't.

i don't know where you have heard that from, insulin converts glucose to glycogen. it has nothing to do with fat metabolism

Actually insulin promotes the uptake of glucose into muscle tissue where its joined with other glucose molecules into glycogen by glycogen synthase. It also promotes glycolysis in the liver, which increases the synthesis of fatty acids from glucose-6-phosphate usually in the VLDL form of cholesterol, which is then stored in adipose tissue.

thats a ridiculous thing to say that you don't burn fat while running, do you even run regularly? long distance running is one of the most effective way to burn fat and improve cardiovacular function. muscle is built when there is positive NITROGEN balance in the body, even though a positive nitrogen balance is always associate with an surplus of calorie of intake. but excess calorie isn't absolutely necessary for a nitrogen gain.

I agree, running is great to improve cardiovascular function. I run, cycle, swim, and box to that same end. I dont want a heart attack or atherosclerosis, heart and lung function is essential and cardio is the best way to do that - but thats not what we're talking about, now is it?

you burn fat before you started burning protein, this is many supplement companies don't want to know. you don't have to have two three shakes a day. only under extreme starvation (fasting for more than 24 hours), you start to use protein as an energy source. its actually quite life threatening when that do happen.

This sounds a little conspiracy-theoryish to me. Its also unintelligible. What do you mean "you burn fat before you started burning protein"? Stop using bullshit words like "burning" in a scientific context.

wait, you are talking about alanine/ glutamine amidotransferase cycle, yes, muscle does burn amino acids before burning fat, but that only accounts for a very small proportion of the overall muscular metabolism. there isn't that much free glutamine in the blood.

No, im talking about free amino acids taken in the diet - they can't be stored, so they get broken down for energy.

someone has asked whether running is going to make pope lose muscle. people tell him that you can only do one at a time. I say it doesn't matter, as long as you are lifting weights and eating heaps, keep up the running, you can still be big and lean at the same time. don't worry about bulking//trimming, as long as you are living an active health life style. you'll get to wherever you want. as a weightlifter and a runner, i hate it when people say "i don't workout because i don't want to get as big as arnold" just as much as i hate it when people say "i don't want to run because it makes me lose muscle."

STOP DEMONISING RUNNING

Who the hell said anything about running being bad? I never said any of that shit you put in bold. Running is great. You certainly can run and gain muscle at the same time if you take in enough calories to compensate for what you used in the running. You just seem to have this unbreakable link in your head and think "fat loss" and "running" are synonymous.

We're not talking about whether the processes of running and weight training can co-exist, we're talking about fat loss and muscle gain co-existing. Two very different discussions.

The reason you can gain muscle and stay fairly lean when you do a lot of cardio, isn't because you are losing fat, its because you're cutting into your surplus of calories with extra activity. You would get the same effect from just eating less, though without the CV benefits obviously

SHOUTING UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS.
 
Gazhole you make all valid points and not trying to argue with them just wondering what about someone who goes from a very poor diet pizza fried food etc.. to a clean weight training diet and is still in a small surplus of calories would that individual not see some sort of fat loss and muscle gain due to drastic diet change or would that fat just stay because your body is still in surplus regardless of the new diet and training? Also I'm very intereested in seeing if am cardio before eating and a small surplus of calories with a clean diet can burn fat yet produce muscle so I'll be going to get my bodyfat and weight recorded then follow normal workout routine for 2 months with added am cardio on an empy stomach 3 times a week gear free to see what the results are. That should make this conversation a little more interesting. Once I get a chance to et bodyfat measured I will make a journal so yall can follow. Hell why not I'll still be in small surplus of calories so I don't have to worry about losing muscle and maybe ill c a little fat loss (doubt it) but we'll c.
 
You do know. Even down to the simplest form. Protein synthesis requires energy. Not just positive nitrogen balance.

Running is good. Just use it as an accessory for your health rather than a fail safe option to burn fat. Sure it will burn fat. But say bye to your muscle as well.

Michael Phelps consumes 12000 calories a day during training. Anybody would make many many lbs of muscle through this. I'm also pretty sure he's way into positive nitrogen balance. Why is he not bigger than arnold then?
 
You do know. Even down to the simplest form. Protein synthesis requires energy. Not just positive nitrogen balance.

Running is good. Just use it as an accessory for your health rather than a fail safe option to burn fat. Sure it will burn fat. But say bye to your muscle as well.

Michael Phelps consumes 12000 calories a day during training. Anybody would make many many lbs of muscle through this. I'm also pretty sure he's way into positive nitrogen balance. Why is he not bigger than arnold then?

i dont want to accuse for using steroids, but i am sure he is just got better genetics than phelp.
 
this is getting way out of proportion for an online discussion. I am going to stop this now before someone jumps out and call me "a nerd who spend all his time on the internet". I didn't not make up the biochemistry myself either. everything is from Lehninger. Americans have this habit of refering to a book as if everything thats printed on paper is always right. I admit that what i have learned may not representative of the true physiological event.

I can confirm that most of the things you have said are not wrong. the body does prefer carbs and amino acid to fat as an energy source (since you don't like the word "burning" so much) and tend to use fat last.

But i am also going to say this. All organs in your body other than the brain are capable of using fat as an energy source. and whether you like it or not, the body is constantly using fat as a small part of the energy source, even sitting here typing. how much fat is used varies on different activities. But if you are so convinced that the body do not use any fat at all when there is glycogen around. there is no way you are going to believe what i say. so I am going to stop saying it.

This thread has devolved into a competition of "who knows more about biochemistry". but whos right isn't important. you have said that you can gain muscle while running, which is what i wanted to hear. its great to see that there are still trainers that arrant afraid of running and use it as a tool to gain muscle and get lean.
 
Here's why I think too much running is bad-

I ran cross country and track for the last 3 years, and I've been skinny-fat and weak, with a high BF% (guesstimating around 17-18). We'd run upwards of 30 miles a week, and I always wondered why I never got leaner.

Ever since I started lifting around 6 months ago, I've gotten much stronger (obviously), my physique has vastly improved, and my BF has gone down dramatically (I can see the outline of my abs for the first time in my life).

I haven't stopped running- I do 10 minutes at high intensity on the treadmill after each workout- but I really feel that any kind of running other than HIIT is detrimental to gaining muscle mass. In my opinion, long distance running really does make you lose muscle.

Also, it's boring as shit.
 
i dont want to accuse for using steroids, but i am sure he is just got better genetics than phelp.

It wouldn't matter if he took steroids or had better genetics. It would be because he didn't do a shit load of sustained cardio burning away at lean muscle mass! Period. But Gaz's point was based on the fact that protein alone doesn't build muscle. But since you commented on it I thought I would too.


this is getting way out of proportion for an online discussion. I am going to stop this now before someone jumps out and call me "a nerd who spend all his time on the internet". I didn't not make up the biochemistry myself either. everything is from Lehninger. Americans have this habit of refering to a book as if everything thats printed on paper is always right. I admit that what i have learned may not representative of the true physiological event.

I can confirm that most of the things you have said are not wrong. the body does prefer carbs and amino acid to fat as an energy source (since you don't like the word "burning" so much) and tend to use fat last.

But i am also going to say this. All organs in your body other than the brain are capable of using fat as an energy source. and whether you like it or not, the body is constantly using fat as a small part of the energy source, even sitting here typing. how much fat is used varies on different activities. But if you are so convinced that the body do not use any fat at all when there is glycogen around. there is no way you are going to believe what i say. so I am going to stop saying it.

This thread has devolved into a competition of "who knows more about biochemistry". but whos right isn't important. you have said that you can gain muscle while running, which is what i wanted to hear. its great to see that there are still trainers that arrant afraid of running and use it as a tool to gain muscle and get lean.

What's getting out of proportion? Others knowledge base in relation to yours? I don't think anyone has called you any names or veered off subject. Everything seems to be on point for the most part. Can you build muscle from Running? Sure. Will you build more muscle from running 10 miles in an hour vs. a diet and tension based approach over time, then a cut based on diet? Negative.

And come on man I can't stand it when people take things out of context to try to bolster their point. Be accurate. I don't recall anyone saying that the body doesn't burn fat as a way of life. It just doesn't burn as much as you obviously think it does, and when you obviously think it does.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top