What is the exact science of losing fat, but still gaining muscle?

[ucimigrate]

Hi Everyone,

I am curious what is the exact science of losing fat, but still gaining muscle.

Tom Venuto explained this in his book "The Holy Grail." But I would love more science and discussion.

1. I am almost 40 years old, completely detrained, about 30% bodyfat, etc.

If I suddenly did a 2000 calorie diet, 200 grams of that high quality protein, and pumped iron hard 3-4x a week, I would almost surely lost fat while also gaining muscle and strength.

2. Laypeople could clearly explain that:

"You are just getting back to levels you once were."

3. What is the deeper scientific reason?

• Nerve pathways re-connecting = strength going up
• Satellite cells restimulated = more muscle hypertrophy
• Positive nitrogen balance + caloric deficit = muscle retained while fat is lost

 

[Resolve10]

In partly just to see what kind of answers you get asking this.

If I have more time later today I’ll try to get you a good response.

 

[ucimigrate]

Thanks. I am just trying to explore.

a. Old-school bodybuilders said, "It was impossible to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time."

Technically, that is true because the liver cannot be anabolic or catabolic at the same instant but can vary over the course of the day. Still, someone in vigorous exercise could be catabolically breaking down adipose tissue while the muscle cells are anbolically building up: a dream come true.

b. Common sense says, "It is possible to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, but it is very hard to do in practice."

Yes, couch potatoes that went to Marine Corps BootCamp may have the same weight, but look drastically different after 12-16 weeks. Why?

They have a well-designed program that works and keeps discipline at all odds.

c. Tom Venuto et. al worked on a well-designed system that allows people to lose fat and gain muscle within the span.

I have read his "Holy Grail" book. It requires immense planning, preparation, and execution, but can be done.

d. Still, I am interested what specific markers would be useful. My guess is nitrogen balance.

AIDS-wasting patients, cancer patients, etc., who were given anabolic steroids, etc. showed they were able to gain muscle (they once had) and even lose fat on their already very lean or even emaciated bodies.

Contrast that with normal appetite raising drugs where they simply gained fat. (Progestin, Corticosteroids, etc.).

Although it is difficult, in a hypothetical situation, someone who was on anabolic steroids, growth hormone, doing heavy resistance training, but still in a caloric deficit could lose fat and gaining muscle.

Certainly, we have seen this on oxandrolone and primobolan depot. I would think it would be hard to do on equipoise, Deca, Anadrol, but certainly not impossible.

 

[Smont]

In partly just to see what kind of answers you get asking this.

If I have more time later today I’ll try to get you a good response.

Same

 

[BCseacow83]

Well, people who devote themselves 100% to losing bodyfat OR gaining muscle still get impatient and frustrated due to the perceived "slow" progress. SO, sure do them both and take twice as long as the already slow process.

While I will say it is 100% possible to do this I know of NO ONE who has ever been able to do this longterm and repeatably. It's always guys coming back from layoff, guys who never trained, guys who use drugs for the first time and guys who throw caution to the wind and go extra heavy(in relation to their previous usage) on drugs who are able catch the proverbial lightning in the bottle.

That being said no one is saying you have to chose A or B for 16 weeks. You can go eight weeks "gaining" then 2-3 weeks "cutting" wash rinse repeat.

 

[ucimigrate]

Well, people who devote themselves 100% to losing bodyfat OR gaining muscle still get impatient and frustrated due to the perceived "slow" progress. SO, sure do them both and take twice as long as the already slow process.

While I will say it is 100% possible to do this I know of NO ONE who has ever been able to do this longterm and repeatably. It's always guys coming back from layoff, guys who never trained, guys who use drugs for the first time and guys who throw caution to the wind and go extra heavy(in relation to their previous usage) on drugs who are able catch the proverbial lightning in the bottle.

That being said no one is saying you have to chose A or B for 16 weeks. You can go eight weeks "gaining" then 2-3 weeks "cutting" wash rinse repeat.

This is quite insightful.

 

[Resolve10]

Honestly glad I hadn’t responded because I kind of misunderstood or focused too much on the latter half of your post. Was going to talk about muscle memory, but if it’s more about how to gain muscle while losing fat, I’m not sure I have the motivation to go into it because it’s pretty nuanced and people don’t like nuance, always argue about semantics, or just misunderstand what certain words even mean so the discussion doesn’t really go anywhere.

You are better off not worrying about it and moving into the present instead of focusing on anything more recent than some old Tom Venuto book.

 

[ucimigrate]

I appreciate that.

1. To me, I just love the intellectual discussion and debate of "what actually causes people to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time."

For example, everyone uses common sense to show "lifting something makes you stronger," but few people can explain neurological adaptation pathways.

2. In my specific situation, you are correct. I just need to get back into the gym with a known method.

Then, when I hit an inevitable plateau, I can look at my specific situational details of this time, and adjust.

I will never know these situations until I get it.

 

[Resolve10]

I'll be honest this discussion already feels a little bit all over, with moving from losing fat and gaining muscle to neurological adaptations, but I fully understand the want/need/desire to understand "how" things may work or having intellectual discussions even if that doesn't actually change what needs to be done.

Fwiw maybe I am misunderstanding about what "few people can explain neurological adaptation pathways" means. Sure most laypeople probably can't explain it and even those kind of people who think they always know the answer and talk a lot probably don't either, but there is plenty of information on subjects like that out there. Neurological adaptions are also just one (potentially) small factor in lifting making you stronger. I think looking at actual research studies may help you "dive deeper" into these actual topics, rather than books, ebooks, etc. that you find online or that people generally use to get a very basic grasp of a lot of these kinds of things because many are just unfortunately used as pitches for people trying to make money.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00192.2021?rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org

You could look at studies like this then look at "related" research linked within it and go down rabbit holes endlessly if that is your kind of thing.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I always thought that having more muscle mass is key to simultaneous fat loss. If you perform high intensity resistance training exercise, then you mobilize more fatty acids from fat cells. Intense training also activates adrenaline, epinephrine, norepinephrine which then sucks out glucose from muscle cells, making them more insulin sensitive. As your muscle grows in size, there is more surface area to make muscle cells even more insulin-sensitive. All this stabilizes insulin levels thus allowing for better fat oxidization/lipolysis. Lifting weights also burns calories during a workout and keeps burning calories after. Every pound of muscle your put on required 50-100 calories extra to maintain.

Naturally it helps if you consume less calories to achieve fat loss but you don't need to do anything drastic because resistance training does so much at the back end.

 

[Resolve10]

I always thought that having more muscle mass is key to simultaneous fat loss. If you perform high intensity resistance training exercise, then you mobilize more fatty acids from fat cells. Intense training also activates adrenaline, epinephrine, norepinephrine which then sucks out glucose from muscle cells, making them more insulin sensitive. As your muscle grows in size, there is more surface area to make muscle cells even more insulin-sensitive. All this stabilizes insulin levels thus allowing for better fat oxidization/lipolysis. Lifting weights also burns calories during a workout and keeps burning calories after. Every pound of muscle your put on required 50-100 calories extra to maintain.

Naturally it helps if you consume less calories to achieve fat loss but you don't need to do anything drastic because resistance training does so much at the back end.

I hate to be depressing, but here we go.

I think if you take a step back you'll realize pretty quick that this just doesn't add up.

First, if having more muscle mass made it much easier to achieve then we wouldn't see the opposite where it seems easiest for those newest to training or particular stimulus having the easiest time achieving both fat loss and muscle gain at the same time. The closer someone is to their potential (the more muscular they are) the less likely this seems to be (many reasons for this).

Second, every pound of muscle you gain doesn't burn close to that at all. Just think about that for a second. It is unfortunately FAR less than that. While it is more than just the tiny amount of 6 calories in this study, since the study is only on the resting rates and not the work also done, it still is quite a few levels lower than 50 per pound.

People also massively over estimate how much they burn with training and the idea you are burning a ton extra after training isn't really a well held idea anymore.

Having more muscle does potentially help you burn more calories, but only if you are doing more actual work and there are many things working against you in that regards as far as efficiency of how it all works as well.

Kind of sucks from a certain aspect, but I don't want this to deter people too much from training hard and using muscle to build that metabolism! Just important to have realistic expectations so when things don't line up with the wrong line of thinking one doesn't get overly discouraged.

 

[ucimigrate]

I appreciate the trajectory of this discussion.

At least for most people who are not advanced, including me, it is possible to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.

I just need to start the two hours of intense training per day that could be done; equally important, I need to maintain a sensible diet. Let us see if I can do this in summer.

 

[Resolve10]

I mean as long as discussing things and being interested in the details doesn’t slow you down or keep you from getting started or doing what’s needed I don’t see why it’s a problem.

Just don’t feel like everything needs to be perfect just get started, it’s better than never starting anything.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I hate to be depressing, but here we go.

I think if you take a step back you'll realize pretty quick that this just doesn't add up.

First, if having more muscle mass made it much easier to achieve then we wouldn't see the opposite where it seems easiest for those newest to training or particular stimulus having the easiest time achieving both fat loss and muscle gain at the same time. The closer someone is to their potential (the more muscular they are) the less likely this seems to be (many reasons for this).

Second, every pound of muscle you gain doesn't burn close to that at all. Just think about that for a second. It is unfortunately FAR less than that. While it is more than just the tiny amount of 6 calories in this study, since the study is only on the resting rates and not the work also done, it still is quite a few levels lower than 50 per pound.

People also massively over estimate how much they burn with training and the idea you are burning a ton extra after training isn't really a well held idea anymore.

Having more muscle does potentially help you burn more calories, but only if you are doing more actual work and there are many things working against you in that regards as far as efficiency of how it all works as well.

Kind of sucks from a certain aspect, but I don't want this to deter people too much from training hard and using muscle to build that metabolism! Just important to have realistic expectations so when things don't line up with the wrong line of thinking one doesn't get overly discouraged.

Only 6 calories for a 1 lbs of muscle!? :O Well, I guess the quote is appropo, "You can't out-train a bad diet".

 

[PolishHamm3r77]

I mean as long as discussing things and being interested in the details doesn’t slow you down or keep you from getting started or doing what’s needed I don’t see why it’s a problem.

Just don’t feel like everything needs to be perfect just get started, it’s better than never starting anything.

I completely agree! I have only been back at it for just over a year. I am doing things in phases. Step one was getting back into the routine of exercise. I don’t pretend to be a master of this craft but making progress in routines, diet, and lifestyle choices. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Doing something is better than doing nothing.