very basic gaining question

T

terp

New Member
I frequently see questions like "How can I gain muscle and lose fat at the same time?" or "Should I lose the fat 1st, or gain muscle 1st?" The answer is usually to gain weight you must have a caloric surplus & to lose you must have a caloric deficit. What I've never fully understood is if a person just kept their calories at maintenance level, shouldn't their body pull the calories needed for muscle growth from stored bodyfat? And wouldn't this allow the person to gain muscle while losing fat?

thanks in advance.
 
As you train, energy expenditure goes up. Consequently, hunger goes up to compensate. So, you eat more. Homeostasis is maintained. The reverse is true as well. As you eat less, you expend less energy so your training session isn't as productive. In other words, you can't apply as much force as you could if you ate adequately. Homeostasis is maintained.

The opposite situations of both the above is also true. As you sit on your couch doing nothing, energy expenditure goes down. Hunger goes down to compensate. You eat less. Homeostasis is maintained. Reverse. As you eat more, energy expenditure goes up but not automatically in strength production. Some will invariably be lost as heat. Heat production is one way to spend surplus energy.

The above takes care of homeostasis. Now for the difficult part. Carbohydrate, insulin and adipose tissue.

The primary regulator of adipose tissue is insulin. The primary regulator of insulin is carbohydrate. As we eat carbs, insulin goes up, fat is trapped in adipose tissue. As we eat less carbs, insulin goes down, fat is released from adipose tissue. It's about as oversimplified as I can make it.

As we flex muscles, insulin resistance goes down. This has the immediate effect of increasing glucose disposal. But it does little to the fat trapped in adipose tissue because the carbs are still coming in, insulin is still elevated and fat is still trapped in adipose tissue. So if we eat as much food as before, what's going to happen is that we will use this food and that's about it. The fat will remain where it is until insulin drops sufficiently to allow it to be released in the blood and subsequently used as fuel by lean tissue.

So, if you want to eat as much food but lose fat and gain muscle, cut carbs and increase fat intake. Calorie intake will remain the same but there will be a caloric surplus anyway because the fat from adipose tissue will be released in the blood thereby increasing available fuel.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So, if you want to eat as much food but lose fat and gain muscle, cut carbs and increase fat intake. Calorie intake will remain the same but there will be a caloric surplus anyway because the fat from adipose tissue will be released in the blood thereby increasing available fuel. </div>

I am eating carbs as I read this...
 
<div>
(colby2152 @ Apr. 10 2008,11:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So, if you want to eat as much food but lose fat and gain muscle, cut carbs and increase fat intake. Calorie intake will remain the same but there will be a caloric surplus anyway because the fat from adipose tissue will be released in the blood thereby increasing available fuel. </div>

I am eating carbs as I read this...</div>
I'm not. What's your point?
 
Martin, you're on ignore, so I am unable to read your posts. Any how, terp raises a solid question that relates to the Diet Optimization thread that you degraded.

Terp, I have been exploring the methods to truly optimize your diet / caloric intake. I have shied away from the low carb scene, so I cannot comment directly on it, but choosing good carbs (low GI) over bad ones seems to have a good effect. Nevertheless, all these tricks just sway your gains and losses by a few percent. In order to lose fat, you have to cut calories - period.
 
<div>
(colby2152 @ Apr. 10 2008,11:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Martin, you're on ignore, so I am unable to read your posts. Any how, terp raises a solid question that relates to the Diet Optimization thread that you degraded.

Terp, I have been exploring the methods to truly optimize your diet / caloric intake. I have shied away from the low carb scene, so I cannot comment directly on it, but choosing good carbs (low GI) over bad ones seems to have a good effect. Nevertheless, all these tricks just sway your gains and losses by a few percent. In order to lose fat, you have to cut calories - period.</div>
Moron, why do you make a point of telling me I'm on ignore? Just fucking ignore me, dipshit.

Further, you are not answering his question. He wants to know how to cut fat and gain lean tissue simultaneously. All you can come up with is that to cut fat he must cut calories? That's the extent of your knowledge on the subject? Where's the information regarding gaining lean tissue? You don't have it, obviously. Otherwise, you'd have given it to him.

Nice going, colby. Not only did you just crap in his thread in an obvious attempt to offend me but you missed the entire point of his question.
 
<div>
(terp @ Apr. 10 2008,08:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I frequently see questions like &quot;How can I gain muscle and lose fat at the same time?&quot; or &quot;Should I lose the fat 1st, or gain muscle 1st?&quot;  The answer is usually to gain weight you must have a caloric surplus &amp; to lose you must have a caloric deficit.  What I've never fully understood is if a person just kept their calories at maintenance level, shouldn't their body pull the calories needed for muscle growth from stored bodyfat?  And wouldn't this allow the person to gain muscle while losing fat?

thanks in advance.</div>
In certain situations the body can can build muscle while losing fat.
The typical situations are:
1)Newbie trainee with little muscle mass.
2)Very obese person training while dieting.
3)Use of anabolic hormones.

In most other situations, you need a caloric surplus in order for the body to have enough resources to build muscle.
And you need a caloric deficit in order for the body to lose fat.
So for most people, eating at maintenance will not cause any significant changes in body composition.
The two most accepted ways to add muscle and lose fat are both cyclical:
1) long bulking period of caloric surplus and heavy weight-training to build muscle mass; followed by long cutting period of caloric deficit to burn fat while still weight-training to maintain the new muscle mass.
2)The same as above but for very short periods. Sometime called 're-comping' essentially bulking for a short period of time and cutting for a short period of time alternated strategically around training sessions.
Lyle Mcdonald's book Ultimate Diet 2.0. has an example of this.
The first option is simpler and easier to follow, the second option works well for people who are trying to get really lean but maintain as much muscle as possible. (contest bodybuilders for example)

Hope that answers your questions, Terp.
 
Sci, don't forget the slow bulk option!
biggrin.gif
The slow bulk is basically a hedge against the prototypical bulk/cut cycles.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Apr. 10 2008,12:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
In most other situations, you need a caloric surplus in order for the body to have enough resources to build muscle.
And you need a caloric deficit in order for the body to lose fat.
...</div>
By cutting carbs and boosting fat intake, we simultaneously reach a caloric deficit and a caloric surplus. The caloric deficit applies to adipose tissue: Fat is released. The caloric surplus applies to lean tissue: More fat is available as fuel because fat is released from adipose tissue and into the blood.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 10 2008,12:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(scientific muscle @ Apr. 10 2008,12:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
In most other situations, you need a caloric surplus in order for the body to have enough resources to build muscle.
And you need a caloric deficit in order for the body to lose fat.
...</div>
By cutting carbs and boosting fat intake, we simultaneously reach a caloric deficit and a caloric surplus. The caloric deficit applies to adipose tissue: Fat is released. The caloric surplus applies to lean tissue: More fat is available as fuel because fat is released from adipose tissue and into the blood.</div>
I agree that cutting carbs (while restricting overall calories) can have a great effect on fat loss.  I don't agree that its a good way to build muscle.
Nor that you can have this theoretical 'surplus and deficit' at the same time in the majority of situations.
I have never seen any compelling evidence.
 
<div>
(terp @ Apr. 11 2008,02:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I frequently see questions like &quot;How can I gain muscle and lose fat at the same time?&quot; or &quot;Should I lose the fat 1st, or gain muscle 1st?&quot;  The answer is usually to gain weight you must have a caloric surplus &amp; to lose you must have a caloric deficit.  </div>
You can lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, but within specific situations

Noobs, the fat and the drug assisted.

the amount of energy able to be released from adipose tissue relates to the total volume of adipose tissue. If you lower BF to low levels, there is not a huge amount of energy that can be drawn (it may still store a lot of energy, but releasing it into circulation is the limiting factor)


Noobs have a good partitioning effect on top of their potential fat levels, and being drug assisted helps to drive energy towards muscle.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 10 2008,12:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">By cutting carbs and boosting fat intake, we simultaneously reach a caloric deficit and a caloric surplus. The caloric deficit applies to adipose tissue: Fat is released. The caloric surplus applies to lean tissue: More fat is available as fuel because fat is released from adipose tissue and into the blood.</div>
LOL wut
 
<div>
(bgates1654 @ Apr. 11 2008,11:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 10 2008,12:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">By cutting carbs and boosting fat intake, we simultaneously reach a caloric deficit and a caloric surplus. The caloric deficit applies to adipose tissue: Fat is released. The caloric surplus applies to lean tissue: More fat is available as fuel because fat is released from adipose tissue and into the blood.</div>
LOL wut</div>
Such eloquence, bgates. I take it that &quot;LOL wut&quot; is your way of saying you don't have a clue what has just been said. That's alright. I'll write very slowly from now on because now I know you do not read very fast. Let's get you up to speed, shall we?

Adipose tissue as an endocrine organ

&quot;Endocrine functions of adipose tissue.&quot;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum


&quot;Adipose tissue as an endocrine organ: from theory to practice.&quot;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum


Start with this. If you have trouble understanding the long words, speak to your dad or your english teacher. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to help you along with you learning difficulty.

Surely you have heard of another function of adipose tissue: Fat accumulation or fat storage. You haven't? We shall correct this situation at once. But we will use small words for now because it seems that's all you can write, or read, at the moment.


Fat is stored in adipose tissue until it's needed. Normally, we need to store fat for a few hours only. So we eat, what we eat is stored in adipose tissue, when nutrients level in the blood fall below a certain threshold, fat is released from adipose tissue to be replenish nutrients level in the blood. This is normally done on a local level. Meaning that each cell knows how much it needs and only calls for nutrients when it needs it. In other words, adipose tissue is a local purse for use by local cells.

Insulin changes all that. It transforms adipose tissue in a full fledged savings accounts.

As we eat carbohydrate, insulin levels increase and fat is trapped in adipose tissue. Now adipose tissue keeps nutrients in for a fairly longer time than just a few hours. More like a few years. So we grow fat. The point is there is a caloric surplus locally at the adipose tissue. Lean tissue doesn't growing fat. It's adipose tissue that grows fat.

But that just means lean tissue isn't getting its fair share of nutrients that comes in the feed pipe. We could say that there's a caloric deficit locally at the lean tissue. There's not enough nutrients for lean tissue. So we're hungry and we eat more. But don't despair, we can reverse this situation.

As we stop eating carbohydrate, insulin levels decrease and the situation at adipose tissue and at lean tissue changes for the better. Now, fat can be released from adipose tissue so that means there's a caloric deficit locally. Because of this, there's more nutrients available for lean tissue so there's a caloric surplus locally there.


Now before you make a hasty reply and should look like a 4 year old again, show it to your teacher or mum and dad so they can teach you the proper words to use to look at least half decent. Maybe like a 12 year old?
 
i sense some anamosity in this thread.....

anywho martins post makes perfect sense and i can attest to this as i have recently lowered my carb intake and suplimented it with good fats and a slight increase in protein.

the result is im gettin leaner.
 
I won't get in the middle of anything since I have an open mind and a curiosity as well, but it occurred to me that were Martin to simply post a pic or two of himself - and perhaps a few other BB'ers that use this method, it may or may not temper some of the replies; couldn't hurt, and I'd be curious anyway. The best anecdote is experience. The best evidence is seen.
We have endless photos of carb-using BB'ers; none of the other that we're aware of. Even Tom Venuto uses carbs, and he wrote &quot;Burn the fat, feed the muscle.&quot; I'll bet there is much out there that we're not all aware of.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Apr. 11 2008,14:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I won't get in the middle of anything since I have an open mind and a curiosity as well, but it occurred to me that were Martin to simply post a pic or two of himself - and perhaps a few other BB'ers that use this method, it may or may not temper some of the replies; couldn't hurt, and I'd be curious anyway. The best anecdote is experience. The best evidence is seen.
We have endless photos of carb-using BB'ers; none of the other that we're aware of. Even Tom Venuto uses carbs, and he wrote &quot;Burn the fat, feed the muscle.&quot; I'll bet there is much out there that we're not all aware of.</div>
That argument is fallacious. Here's where it fails. By your logic, if I'm fat, the arguments I present are false. If I'm lean, the arguments I present are valid. It's that simple. It's that illogical. I could be in a wheel chair, or a woman, or 90 years old, or even running for office, or weigh 1200lbs. And still my arguments would remain valid. But not by your logic. See?

It's the same for the high carb crowd. If they are lean and muscular, then their arguments are valid. I've already shown how cutting calories invariably results in a reduction of carbohydrate intake which in turn lowers insulin levels which in turn allows fat to be released from adipose tissue. I've also shown how cutting all food intake altogether produces the same result at the adipose tissue. The mechanisms here is not at issue. What is at issue is the acknowledgment of this mechanism by the Positive Caloric Balance crowd. They just don't want to admit that's what's really going on.

In the past, I've shown how a picture, even a full motion film, lies. It doesn't tell the whole story. The image on film is not the reality. It's only a representation of reality captured through the inherently faulty mechanism of the camera.

Then, there's this part where the morons in this forum will jump at the occasion to make insipid comments about how I look. It wouldn't matter if I'm lean or not. They would find some fault just because they are so shallow. They have proven this countless times already. They've already shown their dislike of me. I don't want to give them more ammunition.

Certainly, you could consider this an admission that I'm fat. That's your right to think so. After all, you did ask for a picture since that's how you judge the validity of the arguments I present. But now that I refuse to do so, it can only mean one thing in your mind.

I've shown the science. I've explained to the best of my abilities. Now it's your job to resolve the logic conflict that arises from those arguments.


And you will have to do this without a picture of me.
 
rock.gif
??...do you buy CARS without looking at them? Keep your picture; it's not relevant as you say. I'm not stupid. But looking across the net, who do I find in the BB community (who are relevant to us) that is doing lowcarb magic? A picture is worth a thousand words they say, and the influence was merely suggested: I did not make any demands. My last statement was analogous: I propose that we don't know it all.

But since you're on a permanent rant, backed into a corner, even attacking the neutral parties, perhaps your influences would be better recieved elsewhere? Were it me, I'd give it up. You're steppin' on the wrong toes bud.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Apr. 12 2008,00:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
rock.gif
??...do you buy CARS without looking at them? Keep your picture; it's not relevant as you say. I'm not stupid. But looking across the net, who do I find in the BB community (who are relevant to us) that is doing lowcarb magic? A picture is worth a thousand words they say, and the influence was merely suggested: I did not make any demands. My last statement was analogous: I propose that we don't know it all.

But since you're on a permanent rant, backed into a corner, even attacking the neutral parties, perhaps your influences would be better recieved elsewhere? Were it me, I'd give it up. You're steppin' on the wrong toes bud.</div>
It was not my intent to offend you in any way. But you did ask for a picture of the messenger implying that it could prove or refute the message. I won't provide that. As for pictures of other people who use the method, see lowcarb.ca , in the forums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top