The "building muscle and losing fat" debate

<div>
(vagrant @ Feb. 26 2007,18:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I don't know about 5K being an impossibly high need.  I'm not terribly active.  My job involves lots of naps and TV time plus I only have to work every 4th day.

I lift EOD.  I do conditioning work and fight training EOD.  On 4300 cals I picked up a few pounds then stalled.  Stuck at 205 right now and about to bump the cals up again.  Sneaking up on 5K.

Berardi's &quot;massive eating&quot; calculator says I need 4300 but it's not enough to grow on right now.</div>
4300 cals at 205lbs is @ bw X 21. i havent come across too many folks who could gain on that ratio. i dont really know how long or intensive your fight training/conditioning is but im guessing its signif enough to bring the whole week (avg) back down to maint. level.

what ever the reason, like quad said, it doesnt matter as long as you know what you need to do to grow.

good luck
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Berardi's &quot;massive eating&quot; calculator says I need 4300 but it's not enough to grow on right now.</div>

Question is are you gaining fat?

What Bluejacket points out is true, your fighting is costing you calories that you are not counting, therefore you need to up things a tad!
wink.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You`d have to have a helluva lot of activity to cover those 5000 calories(you`re talking about intake, or have I misunderstood you?). And again, unless human physiology changes in a major fashion, unless you`re:a)fat;b)new to training(as in new or coming after a very long lay-off);c)chemically assisted, losing fat while building muscle is arguably impossible. </div>

Morgoth

I was referring to activities of 5000 - 6000 calories, rather than the intake alone. How possible/impossible is that? Something to the tune that if your activity is rather high the chances of building muscle on high calories are better than on low activities.

Makes some sense, but I am not that clued up about it!
wink.gif
 
<div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Feb. 26 2007,11:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">a)fat; b)new to training (as in new or coming after a very long lay-off);
c)chemically assisted</div>
so who is left?
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Feb. 26 2007,09:14)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Pierre

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I guess I made a mistake. What I wanted to say is that it is simply not true that one cannot gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. </div>

Could it be that Berardi was on thr right track, stating that high activity coupled with weight lifting (5000 + calories) will equate to fat loss while gaining muscle?</div>
I have found most of what berardi says has been said already by many others for many years.

I can´t say if it is true or not, I believe it is to subjective. Eating 5000 calories is hard, simply time-wise, if you want to burn 5000 calories.

A 6 hour bike tour at medium tempo gets you close to 5000 calories.

I haven´t tried it, I am having good results with under 2500 calories per day.

as far asa adding muscle and losing fat: I think we are dealing with an expectation problem here on this forum. Everyone is talking about &quot;Visible&quot; results within 8 weeks etc..... This is great of you are 18 but for me at 41, my body composition changes have taken place over 2 years. I know I am gaining muscle as 1. my strength is going up and 2. I see muscles in before and after pictures. I know I am losing fat because my weight has declined over the same time. And I can measure the fat fold with calipers.

Can you go from being obese to arnold at the same time over night? no.
Can you do the same over 5 years? more likely.

For the majority of non-chemical people lifting weights who just want a hard, strong body can lose fat and gain muscle over time.

For those who are impatient then they I would say they need to get a grip with life. We are not dealing with a drive-thru window although this is what many want.
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Feb. 27 2007,05:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Morgoth

I was referring to activities of 5000 - 6000 calories, rather than the intake alone. How possible/impossible is that? Something to the tune that if your activity is rather high the chances of building muscle on high calories are better than on low activities.

Makes some sense, but I am not that clued up about it!
wink.gif
</div>
Well, sure, higher activity levels should have a positive effect on partitioning, the quest is to achieve balance between productive and counter-productive, when do you slip into counter-productive mode? Look for example at what DoggCrapp has his trainees do:morning cardio, shitloads of protein and so on and so forth. Many ppl swear by it, and I think Blade is also doing DC training and enjoying it. But the dudes doing DoggCrapp are seldom average trainees.

My point was that for the average trainee, getting a 5000-6000 daily caloric expenditure is hard, considering time constraints and the general propensity of the average trainee to do stuff. Sure, a maniacal bodybuilder has no issue with doing a billion hours of cardio a day, coupled with training, coupled with a perfectly set up diet coupled with Vitamin S, but that regimen is hardly generally applicable, no?

Also, getting say 5500-6500(considering an excedent here, otherwise building anything would be hard) calories in daily is quite a feat in itself, I think. Even if you like food. Not impossible, but not the most feasible scenario.

One last thing to consider, which Berardi and all authors that simply spew forth a certain universal formula disregard, is individual variance. Some ppl may get an unwanted ammount of fat with the goofier, really high caloric reccomendations, whilst others may thrive on them. There are many variables to consider, like starting BF %age, p-ratio and so on and so forth.(Gee, I`m a wordy bastard
blush.gif
)
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ Feb. 27 2007,06:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">as far asa adding muscle and losing fat: I think we are dealing with an expectation problem here on this forum. Everyone is talking about &quot;Visible&quot; results within 8 weeks etc..... This is great of you are 18 but for me at 41, my body composition changes have taken place over 2 years. I know I am gaining muscle as 1. my strength is going up and 2. I see muscles in before and after pictures. I know I am losing fat because my weight has declined over the same time. And I can measure the fat fold with calipers.

Can you go from being obese to arnold at the same time over night? no.
Can you do the same over 5 years? more likely.

For the majority of non-chemical people lifting weights who just want a hard, strong body can lose fat and gain muscle over time.

For those who are impatient then they I would say they need to get a grip with life. We are not dealing with a drive-thru window although this is what many want.</div>
Nice post, Pierre. I think that you've described a lot of the problem well.

One further complication is that a lot of guys on bbing sites are obsessive about fat. When someone else would think they're very lean they think they're fat because they can't see every little muscle fiber. Someone at 20% BF going to 12% will have an easier time losing fat and adding some muscle simultaneously than someone trying to go from 12% to 6%. There is a point, which may differ a lot between individuals, below which it's very hard to lose fat without also risking muscle loss.

I suspect that this is a lot of the reason for the idea that you can't lose fat and add muscle at the same time. People try to do it at very low body fat percentages and find it impossible, and draw the conclusion that it can't be done at all.
 
Thanks for the thread everyone. I have learned the answers to more questions by reading your posts than questions i could have thought to ask..

if that makes sense ?!?

Anyway, these back and forth threads are so great to read, cannot wait for the next one...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top