No reason to be sour, Malkore was only explaining..

Time and again and AGAIN and AGAIN I keep hearing this notion "You can't gain muscle AND lose fat"

Okay, so get this: it's not impossible, but granted: it's not TYPICAL.

I was on a typical mediocre diet for about 4-5 months, then I got hooked-up with a nutritionist who took all my measurements. (We've all heard this before, but it's for the OP)...then I got uber-serious about making some kick-ass progress. I rode my mountain bike for hours with sweat pouring from my helmet, laps in the pool and I moved heavy weights 2-3x each week....all while cutting back on calories.

2 months later I went in...looking leaner, feeling slimmer. I got on the scale and GAINED 2.5 pounds!!!! But then he took my body-fat% and the calipers said I lost 2.8%......FAT GONE, MUSCLE GAINED.....end of discussion.

I asked my nutritionist how freakish this is, he said it was off the scale freakish....but from my perspective I'll tell anyone it can be done! And these guys are clearly experiencing the same thing!

BUT in general, my nutritionist explains, that up to 1/3 of most weight lost in the initial dieting period is actually lean muscle. Most people don't gain muscle while losing fat...so the mod's are TOTALLY CORRECT in what they say.

FWIW, I consistenly see muscle gain AND fat loss with each visit. My last visit was a wash on the scale...no change, yet the body-fat calipers showed a drop of .06% which relates to about one pound of fat off my body...but the lack of movement on the scale suggest I've gained muscle. I'd think hydration, but I was really thirsty, so it pointed to...yes, muscle. Truth is, we never know exactly what came from what...but I consistently look leaner, clothes are fitting looser, smaller sizes are fitting and the scale sometimes hardly moves...but the BF% is always dropping!

You also have to remember, muscle often gets denser and not always just larger. Also, Mreik is spot-on with his remark about how a loss of fat alone can make someone look larger...but that doesn't mean the OP or ff aren't gaining muscle! Fact is, if their clothes are fitting looser and they're looking leaner....yet the scale isn't dropping, then they're probably gaining muscle and certainly losing fat.

There is NOTHING more frustrating then working your ass off and getting on the scale and not seeing results!!!! The scale is a poor measure of what is going on, it just tells you what you weigh...but we still religiously turn to it and just about everyone, knowing you are on a diet, will ask "so, how much weight have you lost???".

Let's get to point and help this guy.

First-off....10 minutes isn't cardio, it's a warm-up! You're barely burning-up the sugars in your blood....popular theory suggest you don't even break into your fat reserves for the first 20 minutes, so increase your cardio to at least 30 minutes, work up to 45 minutes and aspire to perspire** for an HOUR.

** "Aspire to Perspire" copyright Chillen 2005, July 14th, thread#02734321

Secondly, I'd prefer you do your weights one day and your cardio on another day. If you must combine, do your weights FIRST and your cardio SECOND. Why? Because you can't burn fat fast enough to fuel the intense muscle contractions involved with weights. Weights are largely anerobic and require the energy you have at-ready. Do weights up to one hour but no more. You'll use your sugars and high-energy for weights, THEN your body is more so reverting (or "spinning-up" as I like to say) fat to replenish energy....that's the time to get into some Low-Intensity-Steady-State (LISS) cardio and burn-up some fats. After weights you can top-off with maybe 30 minutes cardio...but be darn sure to get some quality protein and carbs into your body afterwards!

Given your goals, here is what I'd suggest & why:

Diet is the key....keep a journal, get OCD over everything you put in your mouth, go ahead and run a 30-35% deficit. Most people will shoot for 20%, but that's a general rule....screw it, you want results, go 30-35% but understand you don't want to run this deficit for sustained time....I'll cycle between 20-35%. But yeah, diet is the key!!!!! Don't let that exercise fool you into thinking you're entitled or burned enough to accidently take-in an extra 1,000 calories! On days you do more then 1,000 calories of exercise, you may eat an extra 25% of those calories burned (burn 1k calories, eat an extra 250 and do it in 3 parts clean carb, 1 part protein).

Weights....gotta hit 'em. Building muscle is fine, but more then anything your body is going to cope with the calorie deficit by trying to reduce overhead: yep...kiss your lean muscle goodbye UNLESS you let your body know you need that muscle. How? Simply by placing a load on those muscles. You don't have to shoot for muscle beach and pro-wrestling (steroids!!) size...just use those muscles, hit every group and let your body know: don't spare the muscle!

Cardio....burns fat! Legs are your biggest muscles....elliptical, bike, spin, treadmill...work 'em , run 'em, light 'em up! Up to an hour a day. The tubbies on Biggest Loser sometimes go 3 hours. I'm sorry, I'm sorry....did I hear you right when you said you wanted FAST results? 10 minutes you say? You call that cardio?...no my friend. I want to see an f-in puddle under your machines. As Jillian is fond of saying "Keep going until you puke, die or pass-out or I'll rip your ****in' arms off and ****ing ****ing shove your ****ing hamster ****ing purple monkey ****ing hamstring ****ing ****ing your ass!

Want a bump? Your upper body isn't used to doing cardio....discover the joys of rowing or swimming, it'll not only burn calories but stimulate new muscle development on account of the new demand. Hint: the bigger your chest, the smaller by proportion your waist will look! Nothing will build, tone, chisel, cut, burn-fat and develop your upper body like swimming! Can you say Butterfly stroke?

Diet pills, NO
Stimulants, NO
Energy drinks, NO
Smacking the monkey to pictures of Courtney Cox, as needed

Here's your schedule:

Monday 1-3 hours cardio
Tuesday 1-hour weights, 30 minutes light cardio
Wedsnesday 1-3 hours cardio
Thursday 1-hour weights, 30 minutes light cardio
Friday 1-3 hours cardio
Saturday 1-2 hours cardio
Sunday rest

One day a week you get to eat whatever you want....NO

Any questions?

About the cardio and fat burning thing, I don't think that's the case The body will burn mostly fat with low intensity, but if you go high intensity it will burn more sugar because the anaerobic pathways run almost exclusively on sugar, but fat is still being burned, and even tough the % fat of the total calories burned go down, the total calories burned go up, so in some cases, you burn just as much fat, it's just not as high of a % as with low intensity cardio.

Also, you can discuss whether how much fat you burn during exercise plays an important role or if the important thing is just how many calories.

And when you first gained muscle and lost fat, wasn't that at the start of you getting seriously into exercise? that could explain it. And the later measurement with 0.6 decrease in BF, well, calipers aren't very accurate so you need to make room for some measurement error.

But yes, it is possible, but is it worth trying to do over just trying to lose fat and then trying to gain muscle separately?

Screw spanking it to courtney cox....i'll take me some scarlett johansson

FWIW I broke out my calipers again this morning. 2 months ago my 1 pinch measure at my waist was 24 millimeters. Today it was 16 mm. Both were in the AM just after waking up, similar levels of hydration, done by me, in the same exact spot on my waistline. So I've dropped somewhere around 4% BF using an inaccurate means of calculating it. I know the 9 point would be better, but thats damn hard to do by yourself.

you can't really tell how much BF you've dropped from calipers.. specially not with just one measurement. IMO, calipers are great for seeing if the fat right under your skin at the area you are measuring is decreasing or not. I don't see the point in calculating it into a BF%, that's just a number.

so you don't think that fat just under your skin counts as part of your BF%? I'm sorry but thats how I just read your post...

I realize the 1 point measurement is not a good representation of my true BF%. If I had someone to help me with doing the 9 point test I would do it. If I knew of somewhere that I could get the body density test I might consider going to that too.

Any body fat is a part of your BF%, but calipers don't measure BF%, they measure skinfold thickness. The same way that measuring your biceps, tighs, chest, etc, doesn't measure muscle mass, it measures curcumference. Sure, you can use calipers to get an idea of what way the BF is going, but I don't think it's good to measure BF%, and there is really no need to do so. Why does everyone get hung up in their BF, when what matters is how you look, how you perform, etc.

And like I said, there is potential for error when using calipers. What if your body took some fat from the one place you measured, but that it also gained a little fat in another area? Not of course, if you are in a calorie deficit, the chanse of this happening might be slim, but it's just to demonstrate that 1 measurement is not enough to calculate BF, neither are 10,15 or 20. You must also consider that calipers do nothing to measure your visceral fat.

See if someone in your area has a DEXA machine, it is very accurate and reliable. It will cost you a few bucks, though. This is how I get my BF measured, but, I get it for free, since the doctor is a family friend .

Pertaining to the thread topic:

For some (and sometimes this takes some bumps up side the head to figure out), cardio simply isn't the fat-burning machine that most "think" it is--dependent on the person.

For some reason, people default to cardio when trying to lose BF, when there are simply other viable and extremely capable methods.

I have performed cardio, but if I had say where I got the most personal benefit (in the physique response, with diet correct, when lowering BF), is when I perform station training with little rest, mixing and matching body parts, where a very high level of energy was expended. This has a benefit over cardio: Muscle being worked, and they can be very hungry little suckers.

Certainly, I would put circuit type training with very little rest up against cardio (for its fat burning "capability" --and--most important muscle/strength improving capability). And, circuit type training I am referring to is when you set up a series of stations that works different body parts (where you could go from doing squats----directly to Bench Press--without rest (and, so on and so forth in a full-body routine).

IMO, cardio (in the sense of fat burning, especially steady state) can be over rated (this doesn't mean it doesn't have benefits--of course, do not misunderstand the context I am trying to put this in).


Best wishes

Chillen

Karky,

Are you serious or are you just trying to demotivate and upset people? I've been told by several many professionals that, in the hands of a trained person, the BF%-calipers are extremely accurate. The guy I go to uses a digital caliper that is quite costly and he takes pinches from several areas. The unit then runs the data through an algorhythm and accounts for many factors, he then repeats this process three times to ensure accuracy and generate an average. The unit usually comes in very close with all three readings. If you go in one month and your, say, 18% and the next month you're at 17.2%....you've darn well lost Body-Fat and the unit can project what you're overall BF% likely is.

Please dude...it's bad enough our muscle gains offset numerical loses on the scale, but to now suggest (or so it would seem) that our results on the BF% are bunk is just.....

My nutritionist himself conducted an interesting test....he used a digital scale to measure his BF%, then a hand-held unit, then the calipers, then a water-tank and finally the most elaborate body-scan, DEXA. All methods produced different results and the deviation was as much as 4.8%...that's huge and perhaps that serves your point that these methods are not entirey accurate for telling you what your actual BF% is....BUT these methods, if used consistently, can tell you (like a barometer) if you're rising or falling and that's an indication of what's happening. I'm OCD, I need that measure of progress. I'm the guy wearing the HR-monitor w/calorie-counter when I exercise...I live for results.

How you look in the mirror? Well gosh....when I have my cycling shorts on and a sleeveless shirt I look pretty good, but with typical shorts (which nowadays run down to the knees and are baggy) and a polo shirt...I look pretty blah. How you look is often relative to what you wear, right down to the color, cut & style. How you look and how your clothes fit are a factor, but I (we) need numerical accountability.

What I was suggesting about the lower intensity cardio was for after doing an hour or weights. After an hour of weights you're pretty depleted and that would be a good time to pick-up some LISS cardio. If you have the energy to do higher intensity cardio, you probably didn't lift hard enough with your weights. Also, as theory goes, you've just burned the muscle and worked it hard...do you really want to push more then low-intensity and risk catabolism? Kark's, you of all people know catabolism cause I've heard you voice concern over it. So LISS after weights, yes...and for just 30 minutes at most. On other days when you haven't done weights beforehand, you can use HIIT or kick-up the intensity as much as you'd like.

I was not suggesting low-intensity burns more fat....while it may burn a higher percentage of fat, it overall burns less total fat then if you were working at a higher intensity. I was just suggesting to avoid the higher intensity after doing weights, as explained above.


And FWIW.....every single visit to my nutritionist has lower and lower BF% results, but varying results on the scale. On rare occassion the scale will go up, sometimes it's a wash and generally it's on the way down. But typically I'll be told "The scale shows you losing 2.8 pounds, but accounting for BF% measurements, the calculations reflect a true net fat-loss of 3.6 pounds with a net gain of .80 pounds of lean muscle gain.

Lost fat in one area and gained fat in another??? What if the moon was in retrograde and the gravitational pull was inversely infused with the diametric field coefficient of Pamela Anderson Lee's swelled breast? I'll concede that the body works in unusual ways, but if the fat is on an exit strategy....things are going to get leaner overall.

I've never put much stock in BF measurements because there really is no way to ascertain overall BF, particularly with calipers.

I've had my BF taken with calipers by 10 different PTs at the gym I go to, and the measurements ranged from 15% to 25% (on the same day), depending on which trainer took it. I let each of them take my BF for two weeks. The overall results were not very conclusive, because the results were vastly different each time (even with the same trainer).

Calipers are not a good way to measure BF because the results are "iffy" at best.

I think the mirror (or your eye) is the best way to measure BF. If you can see your abs, and you have excellent vascularity, your BF is probably low. If you can't see your abs and finding veins is difficult, chances are your BF is high.

I'm not trying to demotivate people, and I am serious. I'm simply uttering my opinion that calipers aren't totally accurate at measuring body fat, and that you can't use caliper measurements to say if you've lost a small amount of your BF, because that small amount could fall inside the standard error for the measurement method.

Like I said, they can be used for knowing what direction you are going (rhyme not intended!) and they are good at that, but knowing how much bf you lost or gained, that is another thing.

How you look in the mirror.. was that paragraph directed at my comment that BF is just a number and it is how you look that matters. well, I thought it was a given that it was how you look naked. If your goal is to look a certain way, then you reach that goal and you think you are defined enough, then does it matter what your BF is? If it is 8,9 or 10? It wouldn't, it is just a number. Of course, low BF means higher definition, but it is still just a number, what matters is how you look, not the number itself. If I say that I want to go down to 7% BF (this is assuming there exists a way to measure your exact BF. this is just hypothetical), but then I get to 8 and I find that I look as defined as I want, I don't want more definition, do I then go further down to 7 just because that was the number goal I set? No, I don't.

About the cardio, I was not discussing what you said about when you do weights first, I was just pointing out your possibly flawed assumption about LISS cardio.
This was what I was commenting to:
Now, we could get into doing LISS after weights. If your glycogen stores are depleted, you won't just NOT burn any glucose and run 100% on fat, your body will catabolize protein to make into glucose. Doing low intensity cardio will not hinder this, though doing HIIT might make gluconeogenesis (creating glucose from things like glucogenic amino acids) go faster because of the great need for carbs in anaerobic metabolism. However the way I read it, theparagraph where you talked about 1 hour cardio did not have weightlifting done first as a premise

I'm just sick of people whining about BF and caliper saying they gained x amount of muscle and lose x amount of fat because their God given calipers told them so.
Like I said, calipers are awesome for telling you how fast and how much of the flab you are losing, but why calculate that number into BF? why obsess about BF? Does the BF magically tell you something that the skinfold thickness numbers don't? How could they, the BF is derived from the damn numbers.

I hear ya, makes sense.

I don't think the BF% calipers are as dismissible as some would suggest. My guy consistently gets the same results when he takes my measurements three times...and at each meeting the calipers seem to reflect what he see's visually as well. They've impressed me as quite consistent and accurate when used to determine which direction you're going.

I'd have to agree entirely that it's not a way to judge overall BF%....it just tells you what's going on at those spots being pinched, and it just tells you what's under the skin, not the visceral fat. It's like looking at one bedroom, the kitchen and a living room of a house and trying to determine everything about the whole property!

I understand about looking at yourself while naked....but trying to guage your own weight loss is like trying to watch hair grow. I've lost a lot of girth and I still can't really see much...so I love & need the numbers.

It's all good....

I agree with BSL. I lost 35 pounds pretty quickly but now the scale has been consistently at 204/205. Does it piss me off? YES! Do I understand that it gets a little tougher now? YES! But, as he says, my clothes are loser, I can see my face getting thinner etc. So, although the scale thoroughly pisses me off, I know that I can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. If you aren't lucky enough to be in the same category as BSL and I...Sorry! You are likely the ones that stay super lean without even trying and we envy you. So, take what the good Lord gave you and make the most of it. We are all different and react to weights/cardio/diet differently. But, we all pretty much have the same goal but have to reach it differently depending on what our body tells us. Good luck in the long run!

Right on GT2003.....good attitude!

I'm telling ya right now...I've been doing a fair amount of cardio, but I've also been lifting heavier weights with more intensity. I've been pre-eating before the workout, sipping a protein shake during the workout and following-up with a good protein meal afterwards: there WILL be muscle gain and there will be BF% loss both. I guarantee it.

I can get the info for a particular clinical study...they gave some woman all of only 800-calories per day on a diet and had them moving weights, even they had muscle gains. All this talk about not being able togain muscle while losing fat....I'm sorry, I respect the people with certifications and backgrounds....but I know what I know, and it can and is done, and it's not that uncommon. And hey, if you can do it, great...if not, enjoy what you do have. I know lots of scrawny guys who just can't put-on muscle. I also know people who eat a lot of food and just don't gain weight....and I know people who don't seem to eat much and tend to be heavy. We're all dealt our cards, but just cause you don't the the gain-muscle/lose-fat genes doesn't mean others don't.

I am a meat popsicle