Current Events > If you need calories to build muscle, but you need to cut calories to lose fat

(+) Yeah! (+)

does that mean you cant build muscle and lost fat at the same time? :v I have to pick one? What happens if you lift weights on a calorie deficit then? do your muscles just fall apart?
---

you can but its a slower process. you need to move in stages. decide where you are if you want to cut or gain. alternate between the two. i keep my same routine when i'm cutting.
---

You will likely still get stronger and improved muscular function, but you will not gain much size. Your muscles will also take a bit longer to heal, depending on how much you lift or how much your deficit is.

Unless you are ready to do a 6 day a week >2 hour workout, you will likely have to pick one and then the other afterwards via alternating cycles. That is, unless you have a body type that can manage both. Your body type matters a lot here.
---

Isn't it widely agreed the best thing to do is to lose the fat first, then work on building muscle?

I'm not a bodybuilder, I'm just going on what I've heard. Someone more knowledgeable please correct me if I'm wrong.
---

Calories aren't even a good measure for diet

DK9292 posted...

Isn't it widely agreed the best thing to do is to lose the fat first, then work on building muscle?

I'm not a bodybuilder, I'm just going on what I've heard. Someone more knowledgeable please correct me if I'm wrong.

that's what i recently did over the past several months. i cut way down while lifting and built some muscle in the process but when i got down to where i thought would be a good point i increased my calories and have been building. i just didn't want to be too big. i wanted to be lean with definition so i figured cutting all the way down was the best way to do that...i don't know if it is the best way but it worked for me.
---

DeadSite posted...

Calories aren't even a good measure for diet

Why? It worked for me. Counting my calories enabled me to lose 70 pounds.
---

Master_Bass posted...

DeadSite posted...

Calories aren't even a good measure for diet

Why? It worked for me. Counting my calories enabled me to lose 70 pounds.

probably because you were at a weight where calories were the thing causing you to be so heavy
---

Master_Bass posted...

DeadSite posted...

Calories aren't even a good measure for diet

Why? It worked for me. Counting my calories enabled me to lose 70 pounds.

Calories aren't an end all be all number. Sure you can count them and do a decent job of losing weight, but to build muscle calories are hardly what you want to track

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

Master_Bass posted...

DeadSite posted...

Calories aren't even a good measure for diet

Why? It worked for me. Counting my calories enabled me to lose 70 pounds.

probably because you were at a weight where calories were the thing causing you to be so heavy

Of course, I was eating too many calories before I kept track.

DeadSite posted...

Master_Bass posted...

DeadSite posted...

Calories aren't even a good measure for diet

Why? It worked for me. Counting my calories enabled me to lose 70 pounds.

Calories aren't an end all be all number. Sure you can count them and do a decent job of losing weight, but to build muscle calories are hardly what you want to track

Oh yeah, counting calories isn't going to help you build muscles. It just helps you get to and maintain a healthy weight.
---

Master_Bass posted...

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

Master_Bass posted...

DeadSite posted...

Calories aren't even a good measure for diet

Why? It worked for me. Counting my calories enabled me to lose 70 pounds.

probably because you were at a weight where calories were the thing causing you to be so heavy

Of course, I was eating too many calories before I kept track.

sorry i probably didn't say what i meant properly

i mean, you were probably at a stage where calories had a GREATER EFFECT on your weight loss because they were such a huge problem

obviously calories in calories out works for most people but sometimes it's not the solution
---

VipaGTS posted...

DK9292 posted...

Isn't it widely agreed the best thing to do is to lose the fat first, then work on building muscle?

I'm not a bodybuilder, I'm just going on what I've heard. Someone more knowledgeable please correct me if I'm wrong.

that's what i recently did over the past several months. i cut way down while lifting and built some muscle in the process but when i got down to where i thought would be a good point i increased my calories and have been building. i just didn't want to be too big. i wanted to be lean with definition so i figured cutting all the way down was the best way to do that...i don't know if it is the best way but it worked for me.

don't most people have a "bulking phase", where they consume a ton of calories to gain a lot of muscle and fat at the same time. After the muscles are built up, they start cutting and start getting shredded.
---

I've lost 35 pounds counting calories. :v so I wanna keep that up
---

It's more about efficiency of calories than counting them, to be honest

Abyssea posted...

does that mean you cant build muscle and lost fat at the same time? :v I have to pick one? What happens if you lift weights on a calorie deficit then? do your muscles just fall apart?

It depends.

If you're really fat, you can build muscle and lose weight at the same time since the rate at which you gain muscle is dramatically slower than the rate that you're losing fat. The way to know that this is happening is to both weigh AND measure yourself. If you see your inches are going up and your weight is going down, then you're both building muscle and losing weight.

If you're already really lean / mostly muscle mass, then you pretty much have to bulk up for a few weeks before you can begin building muscle again.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Abyssea posted...

does that mean you cant build muscle and lost fat at the same time? :v I have to pick one? What happens if you lift weights on a calorie deficit then? do your muscles just fall apart?

It depends.

If you're really fat, you can build muscle and lose weight at the same time since the rate at which you gain muscle is dramatically slower than the rate that you're losing fat. The way to know that this is happening is to both weigh AND measure yourself. If you see your inches are going up and your weight is going down, then you're both building muscle and losing weight.

If you're already really lean / mostly muscle mass, then you pretty much have to bulk up for a few weeks before you can begin building muscle again.

So basically, you can still lift weights and get benefits from it, you just might not gain much mass from it? That's the consensus that I'm getting.
---

not to hijack the topic or anything, but what i'm confused about is this idea that people seem to have about fat not being able to turn into muscle. if fat is just stored calories, so why wouldn't the body be able to pull on those in order to help build muscle?
---

Abyssea posted...

does that mean you cant build muscle and lost fat at the same time? :v I have to pick one? What happens if you lift weights on a calorie deficit then? do your muscles just fall apart?

Yes you can do both. I do both. Id rather always look good then be a fatty half the year.
---

Kombucha posted...

not to hijack the topic or anything, but what i'm confused about is this idea that people seem to have about fat not being able to turn into muscle. if fat is just stored calories, so why wouldn't the body be able to pull on those in order to help build muscle?

It does. You just physically cant turn adipose tissue into muscle fiber.
---

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Kombucha posted...

not to hijack the topic or anything, but what i'm confused about is this idea that people seem to have about fat not being able to turn into muscle. if fat is just stored calories, so why wouldn't the body be able to pull on those in order to help build muscle?

It does. You just physically cant turn adipose tissue into muscle fiber.

oh okay, so it does, just indirectly. seems like it would clear up a lot of confusion if people stopped the saying fat doesn't turn into muscle if that's the case. at face value it seems kind of deceptive.
---

Kombucha posted...

not to hijack the topic or anything, but what i'm confused about is this idea that people seem to have about fat not being able to turn into muscle. if fat is just stored calories, so why wouldn't the body be able to pull on those in order to help build muscle?

I think that's because your body doesn't burn fat fast enough to use in muscle recovery. Its better at using food (i.e. calories) to do so, so that's why you see body builders who eat obscene amounts of food to use in "bulking." Obviously you can't do that if you're trying to lose weight firstmost.
---

Abyssea posted...

Kombucha posted...

not to hijack the topic or anything, but what i'm confused about is this idea that people seem to have about fat not being able to turn into muscle. if fat is just stored calories, so why wouldn't the body be able to pull on those in order to help build muscle?

I think that's because your body doesn't burn fat fast enough to use in muscle recovery. Its better at using food (i.e. calories) to do so, so that's why you see body builders who eat obscene amounts of food to use in "bulking." Obvioulsy you can't do that if you're trying to lose weight firstmost.

yeah, hence cutting and bulking. makes sense.
---

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Abyssea posted...

does that mean you cant build muscle and lost fat at the same time? :v I have to pick one? What happens if you lift weights on a calorie deficit then? do your muscles just fall apart?

Yes you can do both. I do both. Id rather always look good then be a fatty half the year.

im gonna strive to do the same then. :o gotta be more interesting than endless cardio at least. it gets so boring.
---

Kombucha posted...

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Kombucha posted...

not to hijack the topic or anything, but what i'm confused about is this idea that people seem to have about fat not being able to turn into muscle. if fat is just stored calories, so why wouldn't the body be able to pull on those in order to help build muscle?

It does. You just physically cant turn adipose tissue into muscle fiber.

oh okay, so it does, just indirectly. seems like it would clear up a lot of confusion if people stopped the saying fat doesn't turn into muscle if that's the case. at face value it seems kind of deceptive.

The fitness industry relies entirely on deception.
---

Abyssea posted...

I've lost 35 pounds counting calories. :v so I wanna keep that up

It depends how much muscle you want to build. If you want to hulk up you'll need to eat more but it still needs to be healthy with proteins being a larger part of your fuel source than sugars and carbs.

I'd learn about macros and how to eat around them efficiently to gain the desired size you're looking for.

iClockwork posted...

Abyssea posted...

I've lost 35 pounds counting calories. :v so I wanna keep that up

It depends how much muscle you want to build. If you want to hulk up you'll need to eat more but it still needs to be healthy with proteins being a larger part of your fuel source than sugars and carbs.

I'd learn about macros and how to eat around them efficiently to gain the desired size you're looking for.

should I get some of that whey powder those guys drink all the time? :o I'm already trying to cut back on sugar and carbs already (its a struggle).
---

Abyssea posted...

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Abyssea posted...

does that mean you cant build muscle and lost fat at the same time? :v I have to pick one? What happens if you lift weights on a calorie deficit then? do your muscles just fall apart?

Yes you can do both. I do both. Id rather always look good then be a fatty half the year.

im gonna strive to do the same then. :o gotta be more interesting than endless cardio at least. it gets so boring.

Just for the record when I started lifting I was 63 173 lbs. Im up to 230 lbs now doing both.
---

Abyssea posted...

does that mean you cant build muscle and lost fat at the same time? :v I have to pick one? What happens if you lift weights on a calorie deficit then? do your muscles just fall apart?

If you lift in a calorie deficit it helps keep the muscle you have and you can possibly get stronger, but unlikely.

DK9292 posted...

Isn't it widely agreed the best thing to do is to lose the fat first, then work on building muscle?

I'm not a bodybuilder, I'm just going on what I've heard. Someone more knowledgeable please correct me if I'm wrong.

Depends on your starting point but yes. For most people cut down until you have decently visible abs, you dont wanna look like a holocaust victim and the lack of lean mass means that to hit lower single digits for body fat % the lack of calories would be painful and bordering starvation.

If youre already really skinny then start finishing your food.

Regardless you can bulk up while staying lean and still looking good year round. Get lean, watch the mirror and dont binge on in complete shit. As you get more muscle/lean mass your body fat % gets lower because math.

Source: Im jacked.
---

EdgeMaster posted...

If you lift in a calorie deficit it helps keep the muscle you have and you can possibly get stronger, but unlikely.

I can live with that. Better than losing the muscle with the fat.
---

Also just about any bodybuilder you see that looks freakish is probably juicing or has been lifting for years. If they are young good chance they juice. Its sadly way more common than you think.
---

Abyssea posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Abyssea posted...

does that mean you cant build muscle and lost fat at the same time? :v I have to pick one? What happens if you lift weights on a calorie deficit then? do your muscles just fall apart?

It depends.

If you're really fat, you can build muscle and lose weight at the same time since the rate at which you gain muscle is dramatically slower than the rate that you're losing fat. The way to know that this is happening is to both weigh AND measure yourself. If you see your inches are going up and your weight is going down, then you're both building muscle and losing weight.

If you're already really lean / mostly muscle mass, then you pretty much have to bulk up for a few weeks before you can begin building muscle again.

So basically, you can still lift weights and get benefits from it, you just might not gain much mass from it? That's the consensus that I'm getting.

So there's this kind of idea going around that your body burns carbs for energy first, then fat, then protein.

That's not really true. Energy in your body isn't stacked like that. You will actually burn all three sources for energy simultaneously. You will burn more carbs than fat, more fat than protein, and protein is burnt up less than the others provided there isn't a deficiency, but the short end of the story is if you're lifting you NEED calories or else you basically won't get anywhere as you're cannibalizing your own muscles.

This is why you bulk first, so your body has enough fat to burn so that it doesn't have to burn muscles as much.

But if you're already fat, then you can skip that part and just start lifting weights to build muscle mass.
---

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Also just about any bodybuilder you see that looks freakish is probably juicing or has been lifting for years. If they are young good chance they juice. Its sadly way more common than you think.

i dont get the obsession with being huge. i just want to be healthy and look nice. I'm just glad I'm finally getting my weight back under control. It really creeps up on you when you work in an office. Especially when the whole office orders out practically everyday. >_>
---

Abyssea posted...

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Also just about any bodybuilder you see that looks freakish is probably juicing or has been lifting for years. If they are young good chance they juice. Its sadly way more common than you think.

i dont get the obsession with being huge. i just want to be healthy and look nice. I'm just glad I'm finally getting my weight back under control. It really creeps up on you when you work in an office. Especially when the whole office orders out practically everyday. >_>

Women arent attracted to it anyway if thats your goal. Otherwise its just like any other weird mental complex.
---

There are about a million articles about this online
---

also, is protein as crucial to muscle recovery as everyone makes it out to be?
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Abyssea posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Abyssea posted...

does that mean you cant build muscle and lost fat at the same time? :v I have to pick one? What happens if you lift weights on a calorie deficit then? do your muscles just fall apart?

It depends.

If you're really fat, you can build muscle and lose weight at the same time since the rate at which you gain muscle is dramatically slower than the rate that you're losing fat. The way to know that this is happening is to both weigh AND measure yourself. If you see your inches are going up and your weight is going down, then you're both building muscle and losing weight.

If you're already really lean / mostly muscle mass, then you pretty much have to bulk up for a few weeks before you can begin building muscle again.

So basically, you can still lift weights and get benefits from it, you just might not gain much mass from it? That's the consensus that I'm getting.

So there's this kind of idea going around that your body burns carbs for energy first, then fat, then protein.

That's not really true. Energy in your body isn't stacked like that. You will actually burn all three sources for energy simultaneously. You will burn more carbs than fat, more fat than protein, and protein is burnt up less than the others provided there isn't a deficiency, but the short end of the story is if you're lifting you NEED calories or else you basically won't get anywhere as you're cannibalizing your own muscles.

This is why you bulk first, so your body has enough fat to burn so that it doesn't have to burn muscles as much.

But if you're already fat, then you can skip that part and just start lifting weights to build muscle mass.

Could have swore the body prefers glycolysis over everything, ketosis when carbs are low, and gluconeogenesis as last ditch effort. I may be wrong, shit changes quick.
---

Doesnt having muscle mass help with metabolism and cutting fat though?
---

CapnMuffin posted...

Doesnt having muscle mass help with metabolism and cutting fat though?

Yes, it increases your metabolic demand. Thats how you do both. You progressively increase your calories instead of bulk and cut.
---

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Could have swore the body prefers glycolysis over everything, ketosis when carbs are low, and gluconeogenesis as last ditch effort. I may be wrong, shit changes quick.

No you're correct I'm just saying that despite preferences your body Burns all 3 at the same time in different proportions depending on what you have available.
---

Abyssea posted...

also, is protein as crucial to muscle recovery as everyone makes it out to be?

yes

Focus on strength rather than size, imo. Unless you are full on powerlifting you don't really need to take in a shit ton of calories to work out. Just push yourself every time and keep adding on more weight when you can. You'll still gain strength and because you're in a caloric deficit you'll be burning fat too. Adding muscle will help improve overall body composition too, and make you look better.

You don't need to go hard with the protein either. Lots of guys say a gram of protein per pound of bodyweight but nah, you really don't need that much to build strength or to even get gains. Like, no need to down three whey shakes a day or whatever. Maybe have one after your workout, then the rest of the time just be mindful to include some protein with every meal.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

This is why you bulk first, so your body has enough fat to burn so that it doesn't have to burn muscles as much.

...you definitely do NOT bulk in order to gain fat to avoid muscle catabolism. That's crazy.
---

Pow Pow Punishment posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

This is why you bulk first, so your body has enough fat to burn so that it doesn't have to burn muscles as much.

...you definitely do NOT bulk in order to gain fat to avoid muscle catabolism. That's crazy.

not to avoid it, but to actually gain muscle mass.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

not to avoid it, but to actually gain muscle mass.

But you just said that, so it doesn't have to burn muscle. That's avoiding catabolism.
---

Pow Pow Punishment posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

not to avoid it, but to actually gain muscle mass.

But you just said that, so it doesn't have to burn muscle. That's avoiding catabolism.

The catabolism happens if you expend energy under a calorie deficit while already lean. That's what I meant.
---

You may be changing what you said but that is originally what you said, lol. You said the reason you bulk is so you have bodyfat so you can avoid muscle catabolism.

Also, muscle catabolism isn't a foregone conclusion under those conditions. If you take measures like a high protein diet you'll skew your body to prefer lypolysis (or glycolysis if you eat a lot of carbs and are about to lift, for example). I'm already lean but want to get leaner. It's not like muscle catabolism automatically happens when I train.
---

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Abyssea posted...

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Also just about any bodybuilder you see that looks freakish is probably juicing or has been lifting for years. If they are young good chance they juice. Its sadly way more common than you think.

i dont get the obsession with being huge. i just want to be healthy and look nice. I'm just glad I'm finally getting my weight back under control. It really creeps up on you when you work in an office. Especially when the whole office orders out practically everyday. >_>

Women arent attracted to it anyway if thats your goal. Otherwise its just like any other weird mental complex.

Yeah, thatll change lol. Make some (actual) progress and youll want more. My original goal from 180lbs skinny fat was get abs... then to be 200lbs lean, still felt small, 225lbs sounded like a good number.. now 240-250lbs does.

And lol yes they are. Depends on your definition of huge I guess... but huge, lean and proportionate looks pretty impressive and Ive never heard youre too big or any real objections that middle age overweight women type on the internet.

Have to be single digit body fat % though. Otherwise youre just a strong fat guy in their eyes.
---

Yeah, people who say women aren't attracted to huge muscles are delusional. Many aren't attracted to that, many are.
---

Pow Pow Punishment posted...

Yeah, people who say women aren't attracted to huge muscles are delusional. Many aren't attracted to that, many are.

Agreed. Pretty much textbook definition of coping when someone says that.

260lbs at 56 with a turtle shell gut? Yeah sure.

But Ive yet to meet a single girl who doesnt like 62, 220lbs with 17-18in arms at single digit bf%.
---