Gaining Muscle on a Caloric Deficit

[mrPPincer]

Here's a simple 10 minute read.... Gary Taubes on Exercise and Weight Loss...
Exercise and weight loss

Interesting read, it helped put some pieces together for me, particularly the part about the role of insulin and what triggers it.

some quotes:

"...'Fat is mobilised [from fat tissue] when insulin secretion diminishes,' the American Medical Association Council on Foods and Nutrition explained back in 1974..."

"...As it turns out, it's carbohydrates - particularly easily digestible carbohydrates and sugars - that primarily stimulate insulin secretion. 'Carbohydrates is driving insulin is driving fat,' ..."

The history lesson of how our present views in regards to the role of exercise in weight loss evolved doesn't surprise me at all.
The popular media can have a lot stronger pull on public perception than any piddling replicated scientific studies.

[brad]

It's worth pointing out that a lot of experts disagree with Gary Taubes on the insulin hypothesis. There's an entire chapter in "Why Calories Count" (Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim) devoted to debunking Taubes and providing counter-evidence that calls the theory into question. Nobody disputes that carbs provoke an insulin response; it's the insulin-to-fat connection that is controversial. They also call Taubes to task for oversimplifying the causes of obesity, which are many and can't be boiled down simply to carbohydrates. Nestle and Nesheim have exactly the same criticisms of observational studies (e.g. the China study, the Havard nurses' study) that Taubes does, and they've studied his arguments. They aren't stuck in the past or blindly following the scientific consensus without questioning it.

Stephan Guyenet, an obesity researcher, has a very detailed post here explaining some of the biggest holes in the insulin hypothesis: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca...ivity-and.html.

I don't claim to know who's right, but it's clear that the jury is still out.

[steve41]

One of the interesting points he makes is that the Germans and Austrians were the acknowledged experts in obesity science in the early 20s and 30s. There was a huge body of research which was completely deep-sixed after the war. Remember Taubes isn't the researcher, he is collating what hundreds of scientists and research studies have developed over the years. I lost 60 pounds lo-carbing, so my own particular research (population 1) has caused me to enthusiastically embrace the lo-carb methodology.

[mrPPincer]

Interesting to learn that enlarged fat cells have less sensitivity to insulin and that they regain a more normal response as they decrease in size.

Seems to me that this could be part of the reason previously obese people have trouble keeping the pounds off after they've lost a lot of weight.

I imagine if a body is used to dieseling it's way through life, with easy access to the energy contained in the body's fat cells regardless, and then after the weight is lost, every time insulin levels spike, that access to the body's fat energy is restricted, where it wasn't before.

I don't doubt that the complex role of brain chemistry and it's part in hunger are an important part of the whole picture as well, but I'm not convinced that all these ideas are necessarily contradictory. I should make a trip to the library soon and check out those books.

[brad]

Yes, but nobody has questioned whether a low-carb diet is effective for losing weight: it's clear that it works, and at least some comparative studies show that it achieves faster weight loss than most other diets. What's not clear is the other side of the equation: whether consuming carbohydrates (as opposed to eating an excess of calories regardless of their source) causes the body to preferentially create more fat. This is where the controversy lies. According to Stephan Guyenet, "almost all researchers who actually study insulin biology, and the large majority of those who study obesity as well" reject the insulin hypothesis.

[GoldStone]

I'm too lazy to review all 14 pages, so not sure if this was posted before.

How to Lose Fat and Gain Muscle At the Same Time

[gtprince]

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-t...losing-muscle/

[KaeJS]

I am going to neg this entire thread.

1. You can build muscle while losing fat.

2. When you run a calorie deficit, you will not lose muscle if you have a constant flow of amino acids/protein.

3. So long as you eat whole, natural foods with a multivitamin each day, you will not be nutrient deficient.

/ case closed.

My diet yesterday was:

Breakfast, 8:45am:
Casein Protein: 100 calories, 25grams of protein.
Watermelon: 50 calories, mostly carbs/sugar (for brain function and protein sparing)

Lunch 5:15pm:
Banana: 100 calories, mostly carbs/sugar (for brain function and protein sparing + absorption of vitamin)
Egg: 70 calories, 7 grams of protein + healthy fats.
1/2 of a Daily Multivitamin

Then I did a 1 hour workout, lifting extremely heavy weights (Chest, Triceps, Shoulders)

Dinner 7:00pm:
Whey Protein: 110 calories, 27 grams of protein

Then I walked on the treadmill for 45 minutes and burned 225 calories

Dinner 2 8:45pm:
Chicken breast: 200 calories, 40ish grams of protein.
Watermelon: 50 calories, mostly carbs/sugar (for brain function and protein sparing + absorption of vitamin)
1/2 of a Daily Multivitamin

Bedtime, 10:45pm:
Casein Protein, 100 calories, 25 grams of protein.

As you can see, that's a daily caloric intake of 780 calories, with 225 calories burned during cardio (walking) + my weight lifting routine. Of these calories, there is over 125 grams of protein. This protein is spread out between the day. Using the Casein in the morning and nights, I am able to effectively inject tons of essential amino acids into my diet that digest slowly at a relatively low calorie cost.

I woke up at 8am feeling refreshed and 3.2lbs lighter. (this is pure fat, as my glycogen stores had already been exhausted as I have been doing this for a few days now). Muscle was not burned. Why? Because I had a constant flow of amino acids. Muscle was saved, and most probably built/repaired due to strenuous activity and more than enough protein in my diet. (about 3x as much just for regular maintenance).

With that said, my diet looks the same today, except I substituted an apple for the banana and salmon for the chicken. And because I lifted weights yesterday and am currently experiencing DOMS (Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness), I will be burning 300 calories on the treadmill by walking.

And yes..... my heart is still working, brain still functioning, and my arms/chest don't look any smaller.

Will post pics in the months ahead when I'm lean and ripped.

/end thread.

[andrewf]

How hungry are you throughout the day?

You are probably burning more than 225 cals during 1 hr high intensity strength training.

Ask your doctor if he/she advises you to go on a severe calorie restricted diet. This sounds like anorexia to me.

[KaeJS]

Depends on which part of the day. Around 11am-12pm, I am starving. Then it subsides until around 5pm when I eat, then I'm usually hungry non-stop until bedtime.

I'd hardly call it anorexia. People who are anorexic are afraid of gaining weight and think they are fat when they are not. I simply want to reduce my body fat levels while maintaining/building muscle so that I can "bulk" up in order to build more muscle (which will naturally put on fat).

I am simply trying to reduce fat levels, probably only for another 10lbs, at which point I will continue eating healthy but reverse the process to eat a surplus of calories each day.

Keep in mind that I do have a couple days per week where I eat a surplus of calories.