PDA

View Full Version : Gain muscle...lose fat...



Tank23
04-26-2003, 01:25 AM
Hey dudes and dudettes....

I'm making this thread so that we can compile as much info as possible on gaining lean muscle while leaning out.
I don't want any replies telling me 'you can't do both at once..choose one'. lol. Because I believe it is possible, and I know there are some other people on this board with the same mindset.

I've decided, bulking, as fun as it is....is unneccessary. I think there are better ways to go about gaining lean muscle mass.

I've done some research on the ABCDE diet in the past, and I just came across this article today: http://www.chez.com/sauvage/growENG.html

The diet seems pretty cool. You do get to BULK heavily, then CUT hard, each in 2 week alternating blocks.


-Tank

bradley
04-26-2003, 05:08 AM
Well I think that the ABCDE diet leaves something to be desired. The huge jumps from high calories to low calories would make it difficult to stick to the diet for one thing. I mean it recommend something like (12*bw)+1500 cals for the high calorie phase and then 8*bw for the low calorie phase (in the article posted). For me that would equal 4100 cals on the high calorie cycle and 1720 on the low calorie cycle. I think the only thing this will accomplish is to make me gain bf and then shut down my metabolism on the low calorie cycle.

I am skeptical of the protein cycling concept. Three days with 60g of protein?

If you are trying to gain LBM and lose fat I would think your best approach would be to eat around your maintenance level of calories.

bradley
04-26-2003, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by Tank23
The diet seems pretty cool. You do get to BULK heavily, then CUT hard, each in 2 week alternating blocks.


I am also skeptical about how much of the weight that you are gaining and losing between each cycle is actually just glycogen and water weight.

captnjosh
04-26-2003, 08:30 AM
Yeah two weeks isn't alot of time to really gain or lose much.

gino
04-26-2003, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Tank23
I don't want any replies telling me 'you can't do both at once..choose one'. lol. Because I believe it is possible, and I know there are some other people on this board with the same mindset.

I've decided, bulking, as fun as it is....is unneccessary. I think there are better ways to go about gaining lean muscle mass.


Depends on your goals. I've tried that diet in the past and it is OK, but nothing special. Your body will not recover from your workout as quickly on that diet as it will with a straight bulking diet. If you schedule 3 rest days each week, it's pretty good. Bulking is THE BEST WAY to gain muscle mass, especially for highly trained athletes like myself. I've been training and playing sports for 10 years, so gains come slower for me, and I can pretty much forget about putting on any significant amount of muscle mass while not gaining some bodyfat too. I did put on 18 lbs while bulking this winter and I could not have gained the amount of muscle I did without bulking. The only people who can put on large amounts of muscle without bulking are those on steroids, and those who have not been training long - hell, I put on 60 lbs in my first 3 years of training without any special diet.

Ironman8
04-26-2003, 10:00 AM
Wow, those cutting calories seem too low to me.

ace dogg
04-26-2003, 01:32 PM
ABCDE sounds reasonable in theory...but doesn't everything? In the end you'll gain just as much as you would from a set calorie mark that gives you the same total cals as the up and down cal levels do. And you don't gotta go through the drastic changes every two weeks.

As far as protein cycling, your body synthesizes protein as a needed. You're not gonna "trick" your body into doing anything cool like that. Your body is smarter than you are. If you eat more protein than needed, you end up just getting more glucose via gluconeogensis. and gain basically nothing...although if dieting, the process itself burns calories, so your metabolism is increased...and you dont get the insulin spikes from eating straight carbs...so fat storage won't be sparked every few hours and neither will your energy level/moods (if you're noticablely effected by it).

As far as the Q, I'm not really a believer in being able to effectively/efficiently being able to gain muscle while losing fat. Pick one or the other...but you don't want that answer.

So I'd say your best bet would be to eat around 500 cals above maintenance, and alternate carb and fat meals. For example, meal one on a 3500 cal diet...40-30-30 ratios/6 meal per day:

55-60 pro
85-90 carbs
0-5 fat

Meal 2

55-60 pro
0-5 carb
35-40 fat

And you'd wanna structure it so that breakfast would be a carb meal, as would post workout.

And not necessarily alternating meals...just so that carbs and fat are not together. If you want a explanation behind the concept lemme know, I'm just sick of typing.

Saint Patrick
04-26-2003, 09:46 PM
Gain Muscle OR Lose Fat.


Pick one.

Tank23
04-26-2003, 10:01 PM
Yeh I agree with you all that the ABCDE diet does seem a little screwed up. I found this modified version of the ABCDE on the testosterone site:
http://t-mag.com/html/body_59abcde.html

It does seem a little bit more reasonable, as the over and underfeeding caloric intakes aren't so extreme, and the cycles are only 5 days long.


Bradley, I agree that the easiest way to add some LBM while dropping some bodyfat is to eat at maintenance. But, you know us BB dudes, always looking for better ways to get bigger and leaner, faster. :D

As for the protein cycling on the ABCDE, I too, am skeptical of it. I think it's based on the belief that bodybuilders eat too much protein, thereby decreasing our body's efficiency at processing it. From what I've read, there a diet out there that is all about protein cycling, and it doesn't work.

There's a bit of info here on a variety of diets, and how successful they are:
http://www.t-mag.com/html/body_135diet.html


ace dogg: If you have the time, go ahead and explain the concept of the alternating carb/fat theory. I'm always open to new ideas..

bradley
04-27-2003, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by Tank23
If you have the time, go ahead and explain the concept of the alternating carb/fat theory. I'm always open to new ideas..

This thread has a little info about Berardi's theories, which is the person responsible for advocating the separtion of fat and carbohydrates:

http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30448

bradley
04-27-2003, 04:39 AM
Here is another Berardi article that will go into a little more detail:
http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/masseating_2.htm

Tank23
04-28-2003, 06:24 AM
Thanks for those links Bradley. That Berardi article was a good read, only had time to read the first bit though. Berardi's theories really appeals to me. I think it's all very logical and makes a lot of sense to me. What do you all think?

-Tank

The_Chicken_Daddy
04-28-2003, 07:34 AM
Well i see the theory of the no fat and carbs in the same meal, but i don't think it makes head-nor-tail difference due to gastric emptying rates, and lets not forgte that Lyle McDonald tore Berardi a new arsehole on MFW about that theory.

But keeping slightly with the original topic, i've said in the past that i don't believe that you can really gain significant (noticable) amount of muscle while dieting (read: in calorie deficit), which i still stand by. However, i'm starting to see that carb cycling on any diet is extremely beneficial for fat loss, but also muscle gain if you schedule your workouts around the refeed/carb up.

The refeed takes you out of calorie deficit for about a day or 36 hours (approx, due to carbs still digesting/absorbing after ingestion), and during this time can be remarkably anabolic, i've found. I've been really working my shoulder in a special sort of way to get some growth despite dieting, and i'm really starting to notice differences. I'm going to do the same for traps very soon also, to see if they response in a similar manner.

While "bulking", or "gaining" as i prefer to call it, cause i find the word bulk quite a misleading word that means accept or aim for fat gain, is a phase where some fat accumulation should be accepted (as Gino has pointed out), i think controlling calorie tight enough to keep this accumulation minimal is the best idea. That way, when you diet afterwards, you won't have to do it for a long, or wait as long before you start to look 'lean'.

aka23
04-28-2003, 10:22 AM
In my opinion, the key to gaining muscle while losing fat is doing a combination of cardio & lifting while eating near maintenance calories. Special diets with macronutrient or calorie cycling all may have an effect, but I think this effect is less significant.

I have seen many studies of untrained or overweight persons who followed this cardio/lifting approach and gained significant amounts of muscle while losing significant amounts of fat. In some of these studies, the groups were in a small calorie deficit (250-500 calories per day). Fat loss is most effective with a small calorie defecit, and muscle gain is most effective with a small calorie surplus. Several such studies are linked at http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss.html (site appears to be down at the moment). I followed this approach and lost a good amount of fat while gaining muscle when starting out.

At a certain point, limits are reached and progress becomes slower. Persons have different set points for fat loss, muscle gain, and overtraining. If a person has reached a point where it is difficult to gain muscle or lose fat, then it will probably be very difficult to do both activities at the same time. For these reasons, results tend to be less effective in trained persons. Having said that, most people can gain muscle or lose fat at faster rates, if they focus on one activity or the other and adjust calorie levels accordingly.

The_Chicken_Daddy
04-28-2003, 10:36 AM
I'd wager that those gaining "significant" amounts of musckles while dropping "significant" amounts of fat had high bodyfat levels at the start of the trials.

pagan058
04-28-2003, 10:37 AM
Phat post tank....answered a lot of questions I was having

gino
04-28-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
I'd wager that those gaining "significant" amounts of musckles while dropping "significant" amounts of fat had high bodyfat levels at the start of the trials.

...and were "untrained" individuals, who had rarely, if ever, picked up any weights, unlike everyone here.

The_Chicken_Daddy
04-28-2003, 10:59 AM
yep.

aka23
04-28-2003, 11:09 AM
I agree. Like I said in my post, the studies were with untrained or overweight persons, and results tend to be less effective in trained persons. I would expect that most of the experienced lifters on this site would have better results with a bulking/cutting approach.

If a person is eating near maintenence calories, then they are maintaining their weight, so the only changes are in body composition. Body composition changes can only go so far. At a certain point progress slows, and a certain point progress stops. For me progress slowed down significantly when I reached about 8%, and my body composition stopped changing at about 5% body fat.

Even so, certain aspects of the idea can be incorporated into experienced lifters' programs. For example, one might want to have a bulk in which calories were controlled (fixed amount above maintenance) or do cardio a couple days per week when bulking.

Vido
04-28-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by aka23
For example, one might want to have a bulk in which calories were controlled (fixed amount above maintenance)

That's not an example...that's what bulking is. Counting calories is just as important when bulking as it is when cutting.

aka23
04-28-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Vido
That's not an example...that's what bulking is. Counting calories is just as important when bulking as it is when cutting.

I have similar feelings. However, a good number of posts advise readers to not be concerned about calories when bulking.

Ironman8
04-28-2003, 05:24 PM
Ya, it's pretty true what AKA said. Why count calories when bulking? Sure, you want to get past 3,500 calories, but it's easier when you're not counting.

bradley
04-29-2003, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by Ironman8
Ya, it's pretty true what AKA said. Why count calories when bulking? Sure, you want to get past 3,500 calories, but it's easier when you're not counting.

I believe he was agreeing as to the importance of counting calories on a bulk.

Why would you not want to count calories when bulking? If you are serious about gaining as much LBM as you can with minimal fat gain then I would recommend counting calories. Granted you would not have to be as strict on yourself as you would when cutting, but counting calories is important when trying to lose or gain weight, IMO.

What does 3,500 calories have to do with anything? Size, activity level, metabolism, etc. will determine the amount of calories necessary to bulk, not just some arbitrary number.

Tank23
04-29-2003, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by pagan058
Phat post tank....answered a lot of questions I was having

Thanks man.


I agree that it's definitely important to count calories while bulking.

I managed to read the rest of that Berardi link that Bradley posted up, and his ideas make a lot of sense to me.

Think about it, look at how many people out there are obese. I bet that most, if not all of these people eat crap foods, which are high in carbs and fat. If the carbs are being used for energy, then where is the fat gonna go? Obviously insulin levels are high, increasing the probability of fat storage. You've got all this fat in the system, it's gotta go somewhere, straight to adipose tissue!

These same obese people are probably also eating a caloric surplus, but I bet if they were eating clean foods and partioning their carbs/prot/fat as Bernardi suggests, but still eating the same amount of calories, they probably wouldn't have got so fat.

I also agree with the notion that inevitably progress (in gaining muscle and losing fat simultaneously) will slow down. When one brings their bodyfat % below their set point, it's logical that the body will do what it can to screw you up and bring you back up to your set point.




In my opinion, the key to gaining muscle while losing fat is doing a combination of cardio & lifting while eating near maintenance calories.

I think that cardio will definitely be beneficial for gaining muscle and losing fat. I read an article some time ago, can't remember where, which was presenting the idea that cardio can actually help muscle gains. Generally, bodybuilders stay away from cardio when bulking. Has anyone else read this article, or know where I can find it again?

-Tank

bradley
04-29-2003, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by Tank23

Think about it, look at how many people out there are obese. I bet that most, if not all of these people eat crap foods, which are high in carbs and fat. If the carbs are being used for energy, then where is the fat gonna go? Obviously insulin levels are high, increasing the probability of fat storage. You've got all this fat in the system, it's gotta go somewhere, straight to adipose tissue!

These same obese people are probably also eating a caloric surplus, but I bet if they were eating clean foods and partioning their carbs/prot/fat as Bernardi suggests, but still eating the same amount of calories, they probably wouldn't have got so fat.


You must also consider that if you are following a clean diet then you really don't have to worry about this as much. Most bodybuilders are eating clean so that eliminates the pizza, snack foods, etc. which are the main culprits of combining high GI carbs and fat.

gino
04-29-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Tank23


I think that cardio will definitely be beneficial for gaining muscle and losing fat. I read an article some time ago, can't remember where, which was presenting the idea that cardio can actually help muscle gains. Generally, bodybuilders stay away from cardio when bulking. Has anyone else read this article, or know where I can find it again?

-Tank

This is one thing I disagree with. Moderate cardio can deplete the same resources that are helping your muscles repair following intense weight training. There are two reasons bodybuilders always have, and probably always will stay away from cardio while bulking

1) cardio sucks
2) years/generations of experience - inactivity of the muscle between weight training sessions speeds up the healing process and promotes muscle gains

Vido
04-29-2003, 11:52 AM
I don't want to get into the whole argument about whether weightlifting is going to keep you in good cardiovascular shape because no one seems to agree on this. Regardless of your view on that topic, I think it's safe to assume that most people feel a helluva lot better when performing some type of cardiovascular activity on a regular basis. Maybe this changes if one is trying to become a professional bodybuilder, but I don't think many of us on this site are, so I say that the positives of cardio strongly outweigh the negatives.

As far as Berardi's theories go, I don't really know what to think. I read the don't combine fats and carbs in the same meal thing along time ago, and adopted that into my daily routine. The only reason I still do it is because it's second nature now. I can't say that it works or it doesn't, but I know a lot of people who do not follow it and they are just as lean or leaner than myself. Lyle McDonald also discredits that theory in the following post:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=L...0onr.com&rnum=1

As for his bulking tips I think they are complete $%@#. Metabolism plays a HUGE role in one's diet, and he doesn't even address it in his formula. I'm sure many 200 lbers could get away with eating over 5000 cals every day on a bulk, and make some pretty decent gains to boot. However, I also know for a fact that a lot couldn't. To me, any "diet guru" who doesn't talk about metabolism in his recommendations is automatically discredited.

aka23
04-29-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Tank23
I think that cardio will definitely be beneficial for gaining muscle and losing fat. I read an article some time ago, can't remember where, which was presenting the idea that cardio can actually help muscle gains. Generally, bodybuilders stay away from cardio when bulking. Has anyone else read this article, or know where I can find it again?

I have seen a few studies that found this effect. One example is the one at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11880817&dopt=Abstract , which found slightly larger Quadriceps and Type II fiber growth in the combined strength+endurance group than in the strength only group. However, these studies were with untrained persons. I expect that this would not be true with bodybuilders, and they would not see improved gains by doing cardio.

I think that performing moderate cardio a few times per week should not impact muscle gains significantly, when performed in the desired manner. This includes separating it from weight workouts and not doing it on an empty stomach or other times when glycogen reserves are low. A couple times per week is enough to maintain fat oxidation efficiency adapations. If you are especially worried about muscle damage, you could try short sessions of HIIT type cardio, and separate it from your leg day and other HIIT sessions by 48 hours.

Tank23
04-30-2003, 03:44 AM
whereas the increase (P < 0.004) in Type I area with S training (19%) was also similar to the nonsignificant (P = 0.041) increase with CC training (13%).

Hey aka23, I don't understand this area of the study. Firstly, which muscle fibre type is Type I, is that the slow twitch sort?

If so, then I agree with this study in saying that there is insignificant effects of endurance style training on strength/muscle gains, since slow twitch fibres don't have much potential for hypertrophy.

Although, taking into account, as you have already pointed out above, the subjects were untrained individuals, not bodybuilders. So it will probably be a totally different ball game with bodybuilders.


I agree that performing moderate cardio a few times per week shouldn't have a significant impact on muscle gains. I was doing HIIT regularly for a little while, but discontinued it because between leg day and deads there really wasn't enough recovery time for it. HIIT makes my legs pretty sore the next day, and there is still soreness lingering 2 days after. So I think that HIIT cardio isn't ideal for strength/muscle gains, while moderate cardio should be fine (for me anyways, other BB's may find HIIT to be fine for them).

bradley
04-30-2003, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by Tank23
Firstly, which muscle fibre type is Type I, is that the slow twitch sort?


Yes, these would be the slow twitch muscle fibers.

Tank23
04-30-2003, 06:20 AM
Thanks dude

aka23
04-30-2003, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Tank23
Hey aka23, I don't understand this area of the study. Firstly, which muscle fibre type is Type I, is that the slow twitch sort?

As bradley mentioned Type I is slow twitch and Type II is fast twitch. Some researchers further divide Type II into Type IIa, IIb, and IIc.


If so, then I agree with this study in saying that there is insignificant effects of endurance style training on strength/muscle gains, since slow twitch fibres don't have much potential for hypertrophy.

In resistance training that includes eccentric and concentric contractions, both types of twich fibers tend to hypertrophy. Fast twitch fibers tend to hypertrophy first and to a greater extent.


I agree that performing moderate cardio a few times per week shouldn't have a significant impact on muscle gains. I was doing HIIT regularly for a little while, but discontinued it because between leg day and deads there really wasn't enough recovery time for it. HIIT makes my legs pretty sore the next day, and there is still soreness lingering 2 days after. So I think that HIIT cardio isn't ideal for strength/muscle gains, while moderate cardio should be fine (for me anyways, other BB's may find HIIT to be fine for them).

I know how you feel. It takes me more time to recover from HIIT than from traditional cardio. The first few times tend to be the worst. After your body starts adapting, it becomes much easier. These adaptions may including building muscle.

Tank23
04-30-2003, 10:18 AM
These adaptions may including building muscle.

I agree. If you ever look at a soccer player's legs (or any other sport that requires sprinting) you'll see that they're fairly big even if they don't weight train.

This dude that I know, he plays soccer. He only weight trains for his upper body, coz he says his legs are big enough from soccer. He has pretty decent legs, that includes calves too.

-Tank

carolinagirl
05-01-2003, 08:17 AM
Tank, I am extremely interested in this same subject. Read the sticky about "cutting and cheat days" in this forum if you haven't already - ST knows a LOT about this and there is some good information in that thread.

Also, the Avant boards have a LOT of information on this topic - just do a search under 'repartitioning' or 'nutrient partitioning'.
(I'll try and post some links when I get time.)

Tank23
05-01-2003, 09:38 AM
Heya carolinagirl! I have actually already noticed that you have an interest in this topic, and yes I have already read that thread u mentioned. And yes I know ST knows a lot about this topic, that's why I PM'd him :D

It would be good if u could post those links up when u get the time. Thanks a lot.....

-Tank