Building muscles vs losing fat dilemma

**JohnY** · 05-20-2003, 12:57 AM

Skip down to the question part if you don't wanna read background.

A little background.

I'm 5'7" and I am now 225, I don't however look like I'm 225. I look like i'm 180's 190's as some of my friends tell me. But anyways that's at 5' 7" and 225 that's bad. I used to workout alot and very serious when I was 18 - 21. I went into college at 17 and I began to study alot instead of doing sports like I did in high school. And without knowing it I had put on 30 pounds of fat. I started at 18 and overweight at 180, but I cut down to 135 in 6 months. Then I started putting on muscle and going to the gym religiously. I took some breaks from working out but never longer then 1 month. Over the course of 3 years I packed on about 30 pounds of muscle and was at around 165. I lifted because I like to gain strength, and I liked the way I look. I was lean and had 6 pack, was able to put up 315 on the bench and also squat 315 for 10 reps and 4 sets. I was also able to play alot of basketball and even able to grab the rim with ease. I did alot of cardio. I quit working out after my junior year in college because I had to get a job. Anyway to make a long story short, I gained a boat load of fat and ballooned up to even 240's at one point. I didn't really care about buying a whole new wardrobe, or the way I looked. Usualy I would care a whole lot but I just didn't, I was so focused on my work, school and girlfriend. But finally came the day where I ran into an old college workout partner. He was shocked at the way I looked and the wuss I became. He always looked up to me because of how hard I worked out in the gym. After that meeting I then realized I am a fat ass and I shouldn't have to live like this. So I joined a local gym, and promised myself NEVER EVER get this badly out of shape again! Bad shape meaning walking up 2 flight of stairs was making me breathe hard.

Question:

I know that gaining muscle is very important and harder then losing fat. At what point should you stop gaining muscles and concentrate on losing fat?

Well I guess my main concern is that my weight has been staying the same for 2 months now and idealy I'd like to be where I was at 165 with about 8 - 10 percent body fat. I started going to the gym again at 230 lbs, but I quickly lost alot of water weight after the first week of switching to good food instead of taco bell / kfc / burger king. But over the course of the 8 weeks I've gain ALOT of strength and endurance. I wrote everything down on what I ate and what I did(in terms of workout). During the first week: 20 minutes on the bike at 130 - 140 heart beats per minute was VERY hard. And I could only do rep 135 7 times on the flat bench. Squats with 135 I could only do 6 times. Now I am doing 225 4 times with no help on flat bench and doing 225 10 reps for 4 sets. I know alot of it is muscle memory but that is pretty good gains. And 40 minute cardio session at 140 heart beats per minute ain't nothing now.

My diet is pretty decent at around 2200 calories, I do cardio about 3 - 4 times a week and lift weights about 4 - 5 times a week. I started on a 40 40 20 diet but then switch to CKD(ketonsis) at the start of week 2. My weight is staying around 220 - 230. Usualy 225.

Could it be that I am STILL losing fat / gaining muscle? I know I shouldn't be so impatient but some shirts are starting to feel small now. I have taken pictures every week, and I don't see much difference from week 2 to today's picture. There is alot of difference between week 1 and week 2 because of water weight and I was bloated I think. Oh and I have only lost 1 inch from my waist the whole time.

I was thinking bout maybe stopping with my 4 - 6 rep type workout and going for the 10 rep range and start cutting more calories. But I also want to gain muscle too. I don't know what to do. I know I should keep going the way I am going because I am gaining so much strength. But when it comes to the time to take the weekly picture I seem to be NEEDing a change.

I was thinking bout going off CKD and doing 40 40 20 diet. But I don't know if that is wise atm because of my strength gains every time I go in.

What do you think I should do? I still got about 50 - 60 pounds of fat to lose lol. Losing fat first then gaining muscle would make me happy losing fat first but then gaining muscle has always been harder then losing fat IMO. Such the dilemma.

I think I should keep going at the rate I am going and see how it is in another month. But losing 1 inch in the waist and not losing any weight in 2 months doesn't seem to be very good progress. Maybe it's the fat that is hiding my muscle gains in the pictures. Maybe I am losing fat and gaining muscle at a very good rate but just the high amount of bodyfat I have is underminding my progress.

Damn I wrote alot, too much.

**JohnY** · 05-20-2003, 01:11 AM

I wasn't very clear about my question, I ramble alot. Losing the majority of the fat first then gaining muscle is fun because you see direct result. But Gaining muscle is very hard and the more muscle you have the easier it is to lose fat. That was the reasoning of my attempt to gain muscle / lose fat at the same time. But my weight has been staying the same even tho I've been eating at around 2200 calories and also lifting / doing cardio.

So I guess i'm looking for reassurance of my theory that I should keep on doing what i've been doing since i've been gaining alot of strength. Strength = muscle most of the time. More muscles = burning more calories.

Don't know, I'll stop myself from rambling now. Opinions please.

**as0l0** · 05-20-2003, 01:42 AM

i reckon you might know a lot more about this caper than me, but I've got 2 cents, so I'll spend it.

I reckon a ckd is a good way to spin your wheels, it keeps you at the same weight. I've been hovering around the 93kg mark for about 5 weeks on Atkins and CKD (down from 103 on Atkins (Atkins is bogus)).

Moved myself to 40/40/20 and did some serious cardio (plus lifting (beginner at lifting)) and I'm after only 2 weeks I'm down to 91 kg. I'm looking forward to going under 90 real soon.

My cardio is 20km's in the morn, 20km's at night (bike). That might be too much for you, since you have muscle to protect.....Those sessions started out at 40 minutes but I have them down to about 37 minutes now. Just like lifting I try to get better at the cardio.

Anyways, Keto is bogus. Cals count, so count cals.

**Original Poster** · 05-20-2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by as0l0

Anyways, Keto is bogus. Cals count, so count cals.

Why is it bogus ? Maybe because you did not see your weight decrease as fast as you wanted ?

Moved myself to 40/40/20 and did some serious cardio (plus lifting (beginner at lifting)) and I'm after only 2 weeks I'm down to 91 kg. I'm looking forward to going under 90 real soon.

Do you think for a minute that the addition of the weight lifting may have had some effect ? What about your increasing cardio ?

Hmmmmmmmmmm............let me think.

Becareful not to add to much cardio as you may begin to burn muscle.

The only thing BOGUS are some of your statements that are substantiated, by nothing. If you read your own posts, you will find what your problem was.

PEACE

**as0l0** · 05-20-2003, 02:46 PM

actually that's not true, I lost 10kg's on Keto, but it wasn't the Keto that did it, it was the satisfying effect of fat which by default made cals go low.

like I said, it's my opinion that "Keto is bogus".

I certainly think that the combo of lifting and cardio is what causes the effect. I wouldn't give up either....although I will give up cardio when it's not needed.

*bump* for the real topic of the thread....

**Builderofmuscle** · 05-20-2003, 03:19 PM

u now a lot!

Stop worrying!

**JohnY** · 05-20-2003, 03:30 PM

Hrmm I still think the question is not too clear. I'll try to make it more clear here.

Should a person start building muscle to the point of platuea first or lose majority of the fat first then build muscle? I'm doing the building muscle to platuea first along with cutting fat at the same time. Alot of people say this is very hard to do but it seems to be working but the fat isn't coming off as fast as I'd like. Plus building muscle is harder then losing fat, and the more muscle you got the more calories you burn. Saying that when you lose majority of the fat first thenbuild muscle you can see results faster and basically it's more pleasing to your mind.

It's a mental thing I think. I should be more patient.

**as0l0** · 05-20-2003, 04:13 PM

flip a coin.

**bkman4** · 05-20-2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by as0l0
like I said, it's my opinion that Keto is bogus.

That's funny, your opinion is bogus.

**as0l0** · 05-20-2003, 05:23 PM

just gotta get that bullet outta my foot now.

**Original Poster** · 05-21-2003, 05:49 AM

I almost would always lean toward builing muscle then cutting fat later. Muscle burns (can) fat and the more you carry, the easier cutting should be for the most part.

**eddylj** · 04-24-2013, 12:57 AM

i have been working out for only 4 weeks and lost 6 lbs.I have burned a lot of my stomac fat but i would like to get a litlle bigger.I lost fat because i been eating halthy.Does that means i should eat more or just to keep going.I am working out 4-5 times a week.I am 5.9 and 161 lbs.

**Wellington** · 04-24-2013, 01:51 AM

The amount of fat muscle burns is largely insignificant and the "new" muscle you put on will burn a negligible amount of calories to maintain.

Personally I think in the vast majority of cases you should always get your BF to sub 14% before considering a bulk. Chances are you will never be fully satisfied how much muscle you have so you may as well get your body fat down to a manageable level and use that as a base. For overweight newbies being able to see abs is not optimal but cut until your belly is flat and then bulk for a year before cutting again is optimal IMO.

Thread: Building muscles vs losing fat dilemma

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Building muscles vs losing fat dilemma

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions