One of the most recurring questions on this forum is newbies asking whether you can lose fat and gain muscle at the same time. That is, whether it is possible to 'recomp'. The answer is no and yes, depending on who's asking (or answering).
The term 'recomp' is a bit of a conundrum. Anyone who begins to exercise will change their body composition to some degree at some point. You will gain some lean mass in the least when you start resistance training. Often that is not enough to achieve a desired result. Fat has to be lost, too. So how do you go about it?
Whether you decide to build muscle or lose fat, the main thing to remember is that it is a LOT easier to lose/gain fat than to build muscle. Fat is relatively passive stuff. Either it goes to storage or is pulled out of storage. Muscle, on the other hand, is metabolically active, and costly to synthesise. You need to invest in it considerably, both training and energy wise.
When people 'recomp' a few scenarios are likely to occur:
You lose [a lot of] fat and gain [some] muscle.
You gain [a lot of] muscle and [some] fat.
What is not likely to happen is that you simultaneously gain a lot of muscle AND lose a lot of fat. But it is the essence of what is often meant by 'recomp': Can I lose 20lbs of fat and gain 20lbs of muscle please?
So what's the deal with 'recomp'?
Rank beginners with no prior training background commonly see 'noob magic' happen for the first six months or so. Muscle needs a stimulus to grow. Any stimulus is massive relative to nothing, and will exert a larger effect. Newbies also gain strength quick, and will progress to heavier weights more rapidly - a bigger stimulus gained a lot faster - than seasoned lifters. Hence they have more 'room to grow', and may gain more muscle than fat, should they gain much fat at all. Female newbies can expect to gain ~10-12lbs muscle in their first year of proper training and eating. This is as good as it will ever get.
While this is commonly referred to as 'recomp', strictly speaking it's not. But it's good enough to guide you through the early stages of your training career.
But
why can't you gain muscle at the same rate as you lose fat, or 'at the same time'? To better understand what's going on, a quick recap on building muscle is needed.
First off:
you can't build something out of nothing. You need a stimulus to grow. Then you need building material. Most importantly, you need energy to build with that material. The stimulus is achieved through resistance training where you place an unfamiliar mechanical tension on the muscle (aka tension overload). This causes damage that leads, acutely, to elevated protein synthesis in the muscle.
Protein synthesis can stay elevated for up to 48 hours (although it tends to decrease with training age). That's when it tends to overlap the next training session that, again, leads to elevated protein synthesis. Constant training leads to constant elevated protein synthesis leads to constant muscle gains. Right? Not quite.
While chronically elevated protein synthesis is fine and dandy, it isn't enough. If you want to grow, you need both protein to go in the muscle, and you need energy to put it in there. Muscle is metabolically active tissue and building it is a costly process. It takes in the realm of ~2,400 calories (including protein calories) to synthesise one pound of muscle tissue.
But why would that calorie surplus have to come from your diet when you have ample calories stored in your fat cells? Why can't you shuttle calories from body fat into muscle?
Under most circumstances, fat will only be released for energy when there's not enough energy available for the body to sustain itself. And when there's not enough energy available to sustain bodily functions, the body will downregulate or shut down any unnecessary, energy costly activities such as protein synthesis.
The body is a big internal feedback loop. It senses overall energy availability and adjusts accordingly. Low energy levels in cells lead to upregulation of enzymes that decrease overall protein synthesis and increase tissue breakdown for energy. The body also up- or downregulates a host of hormones that work synergistically to generate an overall 'anabolic' or 'catabolic' drive. Some of these are affected acutely, others take days and weeks to fully exert their effect.
That doesn't mean you won't elevate protein synthesis and 'build muscle' on a diet with your constant training sessions. You will. It's only this leads to recycling the body's existing protein stores, because you have no calories (= building material and energy to build) available for actual growth.
Much like bodyfat gains/losses are the net outcome of storing fat versus burning stored fat, 'building muscle' is the net outcome between synthesising new muscle tissue versus breaking down previously synthesised new tissue. When you feed, there's more protein synthesis than breakdown. When you fast, there's more protein breakdown than synthesis. The net balance between feeding and fasting (or 'bulking' and 'cutting') is what determines the net outcome.
Strength training on a diet allows you, briefly, to regain some of the muscle that you lose during dieting. The net outcome is muscle retention (or minimal muscle loss).
When you constantly hip-hop between acute calorie surpluses and deficits, you're not giving yourself enough time to grow. This compromises the body's ability to build muscle. You risk shooting yourself in the foot given the low rate at which an average woman can expect to gain muscle even under the best of circumstances.
Overweight/obese sedentary newbies with poor insulin sensitivity are one subset of noobs that can expect to lose fat and gain muscle literally 'at the same time'. What insulin does, among a host of other things, is enhance nutrient uptake in cells. The very short course of it is that exercise increases insulin sensitivity in the muscle long before it increases insulin sensitivity in fat cells. Fat cells become insulin resistant because they are full and start to resist the effects of insulin so the nutrients go to muscle instead. This effect tends to be short-term. As the person loses fat and becomes fitter, fat cells regain their sensitivity and the effect disappears.
Another subset are people who return to training/dieting after a long layoff, and/or who have been engaged in contact sports. They benefit from 'muscle memory' and they tend to have [retained] more muscle than someone who is completely new to training.
When you constantly eat above maintenance and train, you have optimised an overall anabolic environment. You keep on accumulating the body's protein stores with minimal protein breakdown. The net outcome is more muscle with [some] fat gains.
How much fat you will gain depends on how much over maintenance you eat. Due to the magnified training effect in newbies, you can initially expect a larger return for a smaller level of investment. But you do need to invest in it. You need a calorie surplus for building material and for energy to go into building muscle. You can't make something out of nothing.
...
Noob gains can lead to optical illusions. Adding muscle to a non-muscular frame may seem like the person has gained 'tons' of muscle (as commonly professed on the forum) in a few months. The only person you compare yourself to, of course, is the previous version of yourself. Again, anything relative to nothing tends to look like 'a lot'.
Constant training leads to muscle 'pump' (increased blood volume/water in the muscle), too. That can be deceiving. Muscle is like a sponge that fills with water (and glycogen) that makes it look bigger and prettier. This may look like you 'lost fat and gained muscle' at the same time, because you suddenly look bigger/defined. Any small fat gains are very hard to detect among your existing fat layers.
'Building muscle' here refers to increasing the protein content of the muscle. Not the smoke and mirrors bit. In absolute terms, you are not going to gain massive amounts of muscle in a few months, or even years. Next time you feel you should make outlandish claims, go buy 20lbs of chicken breast for reference. And remember that chicken breast is 70% water on average
Bookmarks