Were you tracking your intake at this time? I'm sure you weren't coming close to maintenance as well.
-
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 IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
"you cant gain muscle and lose fat at the same time" is bullshit
- Thread starter zl214
- Start date
Were you tracking your intake at this time? I'm sure you weren't coming close to maintenance as well.
May I reset the conversation? It seems like we are missing the big picture of fat loss or muscle gain. This is not a question of whether or not one can gain muscle while running (cardio) or lose fat without running (cardio). Rather, the bottom line comes to down to the thermodynamics of taking in vs. expending energy on the macro level.
The body is constantly oxidizing and storing fat as well as storing and oxidizing amino acids. However, to a achieve appreciable fat loss or muscle gain, one needs to swing that net energy loss or gain in one direction or the other.
Are you suggesting that, over time, one can appreciably increase their muscle mass while in a caloric deficit (or maintenance)?
additionally,
Are you suggesting that, over time, one can appreciably decrease their body fat while in a caloric surplus (or maintenance)?
Just an aside and for the sake of information: You had mentioned that one's brain cannot use fat as a energy source. However, in the absence of glucose, your brain is perfectly happy to use ketones (from fat) as a long term energy source.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,167
- Reaction score
- 549
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Curling in the squat rack!!!!!!!!
I wouldn't say perfectly happy, i've been on extremely low carb diet and my brain wasn't happy
Haha...I'm using some ketones right now. Friday night with my girlfriends birthday celebration might end that though.
I wouldn't say perfectly happy, i've been on extremely low carb diet and my brain wasn't happy
Yea, mine either. Haha I'm personally not a fan of the experience, but some seem to enjoy it.
I hate ketosis. It works, but shit is it uncomfortable to me 
And in no way did i ever say that the body doesn't use fat so long as theres glycogen around (i mentioned a fasting state, the glycerol precursor to pyruvate in gluconeogenesis is from a lipid source.)
I'm just saying that in an EXERCISE context if there is another, easier, source of energy available your body is going to take it because in terms of a physiological response your body is highly stressed at that point and needs the energy as quick as possible.
Certainly in terms of aerobic exercise glycogen is IT. Carb loading for endurance runners is an age-old concept, as im sure you know, and it's point is to increase glycogen levels. Im not disputing that fatty acids and proteins aren't broken down in extremely long endurance races, but they're by no means a primary fuel and your body will do everything it can to RESTORE that fuel after a stressful race by replenishing - glycogen stores, repairing muscle, storing fat (insulin release, mainly). What it WONT do is - BUILD NEW MUSCLE.
An important point to remember is that fatty acids can't be converted into glucose, even though most of our bodily energy stores are fat.
This happens (which i think is in Lehninger, but its definitely in Stryer - i'll check next time i get it out of the library
) because of oxaloacetate being used up in gluconeogenesis, so acetyl coA cant enter the citric acid cycle and builds up, and is converted into ketones. Theres more than one, i can only remember one of them is acetoacetate.
As you can see, this isn't a favourable situation for the body since ketones can be toxic, so thats one reason the body isn't going to take that pathway unless its starved of other nutrients.
Like m11 and others have said, to keep this constant fat utilization going you need to be in a CONSTANT caloric deficit (or starvation state), not just bits and pieces here and there, if you want to appreciably impact your fat stores.
Im not necessarily advocating a ketosis diet (though i know people here have had good results on them) you don't have to go THAT extreme, but the principle of a negative energy balance for fat loss can't really be disputed.
When you take into account the NEED for surplus energy for building muscle, it becomes apparent that these two states simply CANT co-exist. They ARE mutually exclusive, and somebody said on the first few posts of this thread - the law of thermodynamics is pretty relevant here.
And in no way did i ever say that the body doesn't use fat so long as theres glycogen around (i mentioned a fasting state, the glycerol precursor to pyruvate in gluconeogenesis is from a lipid source.)
I'm just saying that in an EXERCISE context if there is another, easier, source of energy available your body is going to take it because in terms of a physiological response your body is highly stressed at that point and needs the energy as quick as possible.
Certainly in terms of aerobic exercise glycogen is IT. Carb loading for endurance runners is an age-old concept, as im sure you know, and it's point is to increase glycogen levels. Im not disputing that fatty acids and proteins aren't broken down in extremely long endurance races, but they're by no means a primary fuel and your body will do everything it can to RESTORE that fuel after a stressful race by replenishing - glycogen stores, repairing muscle, storing fat (insulin release, mainly). What it WONT do is - BUILD NEW MUSCLE.
An important point to remember is that fatty acids can't be converted into glucose, even though most of our bodily energy stores are fat.
This happens (which i think is in Lehninger, but its definitely in Stryer - i'll check next time i get it out of the library
) because of oxaloacetate being used up in gluconeogenesis, so acetyl coA cant enter the citric acid cycle and builds up, and is converted into ketones. Theres more than one, i can only remember one of them is acetoacetate.As you can see, this isn't a favourable situation for the body since ketones can be toxic, so thats one reason the body isn't going to take that pathway unless its starved of other nutrients.
Like m11 and others have said, to keep this constant fat utilization going you need to be in a CONSTANT caloric deficit (or starvation state), not just bits and pieces here and there, if you want to appreciably impact your fat stores.
Im not necessarily advocating a ketosis diet (though i know people here have had good results on them) you don't have to go THAT extreme, but the principle of a negative energy balance for fat loss can't really be disputed.
When you take into account the NEED for surplus energy for building muscle, it becomes apparent that these two states simply CANT co-exist. They ARE mutually exclusive, and somebody said on the first few posts of this thread - the law of thermodynamics is pretty relevant here.
Last edited:
dave 236
Elite Member
Hey Gaz is it possible (and if so under what conditions) during a bulk phase to increase muscle at a greater rate than you increase fat? I think under certain conditions it is leading to a drop in bf% while increasing weight and this may be confusing some people. If I'm way off feel free to let me know. I bring this up because I have this debate with people quite often.I don't believe you can add muscle without adding fat as someone else put it that would be like standing up and sitting down at the same time. I do think it may be the whole bf % thing thats confusing though.I hate ketosis. It works, but shit is it uncomfortable to me
And in no way did i ever say that the body doesn't use fat so long as theres glycogen around (i mentioned a fasting state, the glycerol precursor to pyruvate in gluconeogenesis is from a lipid source.)
I'm just saying that in an EXERCISE context if there is another, easier, source of energy available your body is going to take it because in terms of a physiological response your body is highly stressed at that point and needs the energy as quick as possible.
Certainly in terms of aerobic exercise glycogen is IT. Carb loading for endurance runners is an age-old concept, as im sure you know, and it's point is to increase glycogen levels. Im not disputing that fatty acids and proteins aren't broken down in extremely long endurance races, but they're by no means a primary fuel and your body will do everything it can to RESTORE that fuel after a stressful race by replenishing - glycogen stores, repairing muscle, storing fat (insulin release, mainly). What it WONT do is - BUILD NEW MUSCLE.
An important point to remember is that fatty acids can't be converted into glucose, even though most of our bodily energy stores are fat.
This happens (which i think is in Lehninger, but its definitely in Stryer - i'll check next time i get it out of the library
As you can see, this isn't a favourable situation for the body since ketones can be toxic, so thats one reason the body isn't going to take that pathway unless its starved of other nutrients.
Like m11 and others have said, to keep this constant fat utilization going you need to be in a CONSTANT caloric deficit (or starvation state), not just bits and pieces here and there, if you want to appreciably impact your fat stores.
Im not necessarily advocating a ketosis diet (though i know people here have had good results on them) you don't have to go THAT extreme, but the principle of a negative energy balance for fat loss can't really be disputed.
When you take into account the NEED for surplus energy for building muscle, it becomes apparent that these two states simply CANT co-exist. They ARE mutually exclusive, and somebody said on the first few posts of this thread - the law of thermodynamics is pretty relevant here.
A lot of it is perception with this sort of thing. Somebody might start a "bulking program" that is geared towards putting on muscle, but dont change their diet. In that instance they may actually start losing weight by doing a lot of volume in their weights, lose fat, and LOOK like they have more muscle because they are more ripped up.
Similarly, the more muscle mass you have , the bigger you look, and the same amount of fat might not be so noticable because of that change in body shape.
Assuming that neither of these things is happening, and your diet is geared towards gaining weight (caloric surplus) and you are training right, you can minimize fat gain by staying in a surplus but making that surplus smaller.
Im making these numbers up and its impossible to know EXACTLY what you need, but lets say you require 300 calories over maintenance a day to gain muscle at the maximum rate of muscle synthesis - it doesn't matter whether you eat 600 over maintenance, or 900, or 350, that rate will stay the same. So if you go on a bulk at 500 calories over maintenance, some will go towards muscle building (300), and when that system is maxed out you'll store the rest as fat (200).
Obviously the way to decrease this surplus is to either eat a little less, or do a little more exercise. This is whats known as a "slow bulk" and is a little trickier than your regular bulk because you need to hit that sweet spot where you are gaining muscle with the least amount of fat possible. On a regular bulk you just eat and eat and eat and worry about the fat when you cut down.
Other than that, you can increase the rate of muscle synthesis and protein absorption through anabolics/prohormones etc. Thats pretty much what steroids like testosterone do. They just increase the rate at which you can utilize protein and calories to repair and build muscle.
Does that make sense?
Okay your body is constantly burning fat and restoring it, and the same with muscle.
I think what you might not be getting (i dont mean it in an opressive way) zl214, is that it's almost impossible to have a net gain of muscle with a net loss of fat of the same given time period, assuming that you don't change your diet or routine throughout this period (like a bulk).
You may end up with a lower BF% if you're lucky by having a slightly increased fat mass but an even bigger increase in muscle mass but you're still not burning fat while building muscle. Furthermore, this will take much longer than a bulk/cut cycle.
I think what you might not be getting (i dont mean it in an opressive way) zl214, is that it's almost impossible to have a net gain of muscle with a net loss of fat of the same given time period, assuming that you don't change your diet or routine throughout this period (like a bulk).
You may end up with a lower BF% if you're lucky by having a slightly increased fat mass but an even bigger increase in muscle mass but you're still not burning fat while building muscle. Furthermore, this will take much longer than a bulk/cut cycle.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,167
- Reaction score
- 549
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Curling in the squat rack!!!!!!!!
zl214, here is the problem I have. Stay on the topic. Nobody was demonizing running or saying you shouldn't do it, that simply wasn't what the thread was about or what anyone was saying. Making up bullshit to enhance your argument makes it weaker not stronger.
dave 236
Elite Member
Yes ,that is a very clear explanation. One of the reasons I was asking was due to studies I've read about using testosterone.The subjects lbm increased at a greater rate due to the introduction of the hormone,but since there was no real change in caloric intake fat mass stayed the same or increased very little.Thanks
Well of course with the introduction of Test. That's a whole different cup of monkeys!
JohnnyO
Registered
Nope. I'm eating the same foods that I was when I was long distance training, just more of them. And yet my bodyfat is still going down. May have something to do with the fact that I'm a teenager.
Some people know when to eat. They know what they want and how much naturally.
I think most don't.
Some people know when to eat. They know what the want and how much then they come to a place like this and get their minds fucked with.
I think most don't.
Some people know when to eat. They know what the want and how much then they come to a place like this and get their minds fucked with.
jmorrison
Registered
Absolutely outstanding posts Gaz.
I am living proof of this by the way. When I got back into lifting I was dieting and put on a little muscle while cutting. All of this was muscle memory and newbie gains.
Built told me repeatedly to slow down with my cardio, but noooo, I was supremely confident in my super human ability to build muscle at the same time I was cutting.
End result, I got thin and fairly ripped. And scrawny. And weak. Now after doing a 10 week bulk to get my muscle back, I am cutting again...but doing it right this time with slow calorie reduction.
I am living proof of this by the way. When I got back into lifting I was dieting and put on a little muscle while cutting. All of this was muscle memory and newbie gains.
Built told me repeatedly to slow down with my cardio, but noooo, I was supremely confident in my super human ability to build muscle at the same time I was cutting.
End result, I got thin and fairly ripped. And scrawny. And weak. Now after doing a 10 week bulk to get my muscle back, I am cutting again...but doing it right this time with slow calorie reduction.
How did your bulk go this time?
jmorrison
Registered
It went well man. I did a cycle of Mdrol and P-Plex, with a good PCT and I gained 25lbs in 10 weeks. After shedding the water during PCT it looks like I gained about 15 solid pounds. I only gained an inch to my waist, so I am pretty happy with it.
Now to get that nice belly back, WITHOUT looking and feeling like a 13 year old girl.
Now to get that nice belly back, WITHOUT looking and feeling like a 13 year old girl.
dave 236
Elite Member
I pretty convinced that even using test,you would only be able to do this in the beggining or after a layoff.The calories still have to be in surplus to really gain any amount of muscle,and that means some fat as well.
It's simple.
People are talking about a calorie surplus needed to gain muscle, but that's incorrect. A calorie surplus is needed to gain WEIGHT, not muscle.
And anyone wishing to lose fat is obviously already eating in surplus of what their LEAN ideal requires. So, their "maintenance" calories are actually already a calorie surplus of their lean body mass requirements. And what evidence at all is their that the muscle building process requires as great a (or a greater) surplus of calories than what already result in the extra unnecessary fat ?
FAT is actually a sign that you're going well over on calorie requirements. As long as you have unwanted fat you can afford to burn it, and as long as you eat enough protein you can build muscle at the same time.
Then again, many bodybuilders love the ritual of getting fat and cutting down. Bulking up is fun.
You do know that protein synthesis requires energy, right? The protein in your diet doesn't just float to your muscles and mold itself onto the tissue. This paragraph is so nonsensical i can't believe what i'm seeing, its wide of the mark even by anecdotal standards. Even the most ill-informed newbie bodybuilder knows that an energy surplus is required to build muscle! Yes you need sufficient protein aswell, but you also need to energy to put those proteins together!
My paragraph wasn't nonsensical at all.
I addressed the calorie surplus issue. The "surplus" energy needed is less than the surplus that is already being taken in that is contributing to FATNESS. The body will heal and overcompensate the muscle cells as priority above storing extra energy as relatively useless fat.
To lose fat you can still eat calories ABOVE what your LEAN BODY MASS requires, and in doing so you are still taking in the "surplus" energy needed to synthesise the protein and build the muscle, while you lose fat.
It's simple.
..... a lot less than he thinks he knows. Usually what he reads in bodybuilding magazines.
I've been training 16 years. I'm just sharing some knowledge. My "opinion" is backed with 16 years training experience, personal training experience, commonsense, and logic. None of it is new.
The knowledge has been out there for years, several decades, probably sixty years or more. But the myth of "The necessity of bulking up" will always be alive and well, because it's easy and it's psychologically comforting.
If you like bulking up and you think it works best for you, then carry on with it by all means. But dont go around saying things are scientifically IMPOSSIBLE when they are not.
jwalk127
Registered
Gaz your posts are excellent, but clearly some of these guys have a better understanding of exercise physiology than you do 
Gaz your posts are excellent, but clearly some of these guys have a better understanding of exercise physiology than you do
He has a good understanding of the principles but somehow manages to draw the wrong conclusion.
For example :
Correct.
Correct.
Correct.
Partially correct. Partially incorrect.
Your body would sooner break down fat stores for energy. After all, that's the evolutionary purpose of fat stores.
Yes, weight training/exercise is required to maintain (and build !) muscle.
If you have fat stores that are covering up your abs then you are eating "more than you need" anyway, from the perspective of someone who trains to be muscular.
Maintain what ? Fat ?
You're talking about maintaining the current condition of someone who is already a bit chubby, maintaining fat weight as well as muscle !
In a slight calorie surplus of your LEAN BODY MASS's requirements, while in a caloric deficit of your current (excess flab) BODY WEIGHT requirements.
