How to lose body fat and gain/maintain muscle?

[phal]

Honestly, I'd stay away from any type of fat burner. I too almost fell into the trap when I was heavier, but I'm glad I didn't - all that's needed is a daily caloric deficit and consistancy to reach your goal. No need to spend money on something that might attribute 1 - 2% and possibly harm you.

[hankst]

Honestly, I'd stay away from any type of fat burner. I too almost fell into the trap when I was heavier, but I'm glad I didn't - all that's needed is a daily caloric deficit and consistancy to reach your goal. No need to spend money on something that might attribute 1 - 2% and possibly harm you.

This. And why invest hundreds of bucks into fat burner if you could achieve the same while saving money (= eat less)?

[samsont]

i must be a genetic freak as i have been gaining muscle and losing bf % for months and months now, when everyone says its impossible around here.... my lifts continually go up, and my trousers keep falling down. Actually lately i've been gaining WEIGHT and my bf% has gone down. lost 60 lbs and got to 230Ish and i started hitting the weights reallllly hard, now i am up to 245 and my shirts / pants are getting too big for me and my arms/lats/chest are noticeably growing..

[phal]

i must be a genetic freak as i have been gaining muscle and losing bf % for months and months now, when everyone says its impossible around here.... my lifts continually go up, and my trousers keep falling down. Actually lately i've been gaining WEIGHT and my bf% has gone down. lost 60 lbs and got to 230Ish and i started hitting the weights reallllly hard, now i am up to 245 and my shirts / pants are getting too big for me and my arms/lats/chest are noticeably growing..

No. Gaining muscle MASS and losing FAT is near impossible. Gaining muscle MASS and lowering BF is possible. IE: You gain muscle and decrease your overall BF% in the process, not actually losing fat, though appearance etc will improve, it just takes forever and is pretty hard nutritionally on a lot of people to keep up. Two different things, but both are awesome

Also, gaining strength does not mean your muscles are getting larger (necessarily) since strength is largely neural. Losing/lowering BF% while increasing/maintaining strength is ideal and will more likely than not make your existing muscles appear larger (simply because of less flab covering it)

For a lot of people their body comp will improve if they add muscle, regardless if some fat gain is also added. Vice versa for other extremes.

[hankst]

No. Gaining muscle MASS and losing FAT is near impossible. Gaining muscle MASS and lowering BF is possible. IE: You gain muscle and decrease your overall BF% in the process, not actually losing fat, though appearance etc will improve, it just takes forever and is pretty hard nutritionally on a lot of people to keep up. Two different things, but both are awesome

Also, gaining strength does not mean your muscles are getting larger (necessarily) since strength is largely neural. Losing/lowering BF% while increasing/maintaining strength is ideal and will more likely than not make your existing muscles appear larger (simply because of less flab covering it)

For a lot of people their body comp will improve if they add muscle, regardless if some fat gain is also added. Vice versa for other extremes.

This, plus he is one of the heavier fellows (no offense); imho it works to add muscle mass while losing fat if you have lots of bodyfat where the body can get energy from..

[Roke-Ster]

This is possible... but the only thing is you wont gain as much muscle mass as you would by eating excess calories...
The stupid thing is that people believe eating excess calories increases muscle mass, and to an extent its true, but not eating over your calorie deficit doesnt mean you wont get muscle, it just means it wont get as big as those with Bulking.
What you could try is running in the morning to rid fats, eating all your calories necessary, and lifting in the evening/afternoon/nighttime.

Its hard yes but it scientifically works.

[SocratesTX]

This is possible... but the only thing is you wont gain as much muscle mass as you would by eating excess calories...
The stupid thing is that people believe eating excess calories increases muscle mass, and to an extent its true, but not eating over your calorie deficit doesnt mean you wont get muscle, it just means it wont get as big as those with Bulking.
What you could try is running in the morning to rid fats, eating all your calories necessary, and lifting in the evening/afternoon/nighttime.

Its hard yes but it scientifically works.

No, scientifically you can NOT gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. Go back to grade school physiology please. You can alter your overall BF%, but in order to gain muscle you must eat in an excess of calories, to lose fat you must eat in a deficit. You can NOT do both at the same time.

[Poetique]

No, scientifically you can NOT gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. Go back to grade school physiology please. You can alter your overall BF%, but in order to gain muscle you must eat in an excess of calories, to lose fat you must eat in a deficit. You can NOT do both at the same time.

For every time this comment is made, the proclaiming person fails to provide any evidence of such a claim.

If I recall correctly you're one of the main people who touts the claim for that matter, despite numerous amounts of people who are living breathing examples of the opposite claim...

In fact, SCIENTIFICALLY, muscle is gained through the process of breaking down and repairing muscle fibers. Calories, surplus or otherwise, directly have nothing to do with the process. What is required for both processes is ENERGY. And what, scientifically, are calories? A measure of just that; energy.

So long as your body has enough ENERGY (which calories are a measurement of) to repair the muscles beyond the point of where they were prior to being broken down, you will GAIN MUSCLE, period. This is also the explanation behind the phenomenon of how larger people, which tend to carry more body fat, are the best candidates for simultaneous muscle gain and fat loss, because the body has more energy stored within itself ready accessed and available for aiding in recovery of their muscles. Fat isn't just fat, fat is excess stored ENERGY.

Another part of that process that people who believe it impossible to lose fat and gain muscle always seem to miss is that muscle fibers do not need to be fully repaired that soon after being broken down, and as I pointed out above, not all energy used for repairing the muscles needs to be comprised of calories taken in. The fat stored in people's body is a fully functional source of such energy, and although some people's bodies are more hesitant to use that stored body fat as a source of energy than others, it's still a usable source of energy whenever your body chooses to use it.

Now, many people eating a caloric deficit may notice that their muscles have a tendency to ache for longer than if they were eating a surplus... This is because the body naturally prefers using calories (energy) taken into the stomach as its source of energy for everything, as opposed to using the excess stored energy (fat) that it carries. Because of that the muscles do indeed tend to repair slower, but unless you're doing strenuous work constantly the body has little need for muscles to be repaired instantaneously anyway.

With that said, the situation in which it IS pretty close to impossible to gain muscle while eating on a deficit is when a person is both lifting weights and doing excessive amounts of cardio (and there's a difference between "excessive" while eating normally and "excessive" while eating on a deficit, ESPECIALLY if you're also lifting). A little bit too much cardio while eating on a deficit is the most likely culprit as far as preventing muscle gain, not eating the deficit itself.

What needs to be understood is that muscle growth and fat loss counteract each other. If you're losing fat faster you're going to gain muscle slower, and vice versa. By overdoing it on the cardio, your body requires a greater amount of energy to recover itself, and thusly you see stalled or "no" gains in mass, because your body instead used the energy to stabilize itself as opposed to repairing damaged muscle.

In addition to that, if you already have little body fat (surplus energy) available for the body to use, lift weights (damage muscle fibers), and then still do cardio (which requires more energy), then yes, you have pretty much effectively made it near impossible for you to gain muscle and lose weight.

The opposite of that is someone like me. I have alot of excess body fat readily available for my body (I'm also on a CKD keto diet, therefore my body already uses fat as a prime source of energy anyway), lift weights, and do little to no extra cardio in addition to the walking and working I have to do in my daily life. I'm both gaining mass and losing fat because my body has the surplus energy (keyword here is energy, not calories) required for me to do so, even though me myself am actually eating a caloric deficit and losing fat.

Now, am I losing fat as fast as someone dedicated to only losing fat? No.
Am I gaining muscle as fast as someone dedicated to only gaining muscle? No.

I'm somewhere in the middle (currently leaning towards muscle gain a bit perhaps), and both processes are still being done, only more slowly. Once I reach my lifting goal for my leg presses however, I'll kick up the fat loss a notch and focus more on maintaining muscle than gaining muscle.

Now, hopefully that at least partially clears up the confusion people have about the issue, although I'm sure naysayers will continue just that despite proof being inches from their face.

But if you're going to continue being a naysayer, just don't try to use science to back you, because scientifically, you're wrong.

[dbluegoat]

cant prove it but I believe its possible for some people

[SocratesTX]

For every time this comment is made, the proclaiming person fails to provide any evidence of such a claim.

If I recall correctly you're one of the main people who touts the claim for that matter, despite numerous amounts of people who are living breathing examples of the opposite claim...

In fact, SCIENTIFICALLY, muscle is gained through the process of breaking down and repairing muscle fibers. Calories, surplus or otherwise, directly have nothing to do with the process. What is required for both processes is ENERGY. And what, scientifically, are calories? A measure of just that; energy.

So long as your body has enough ENERGY (which calories are a measurement of) to repair the muscles beyond the point of where they were prior to being broken down, you will GAIN MUSCLE, period. This is also the explanation behind the phenomenon of how larger people, which tend to carry more body fat, are the best candidates for simultaneous muscle gain and fat loss, because the body has more energy stored within itself ready accessed and available for aiding in recovery of their muscles. Fat isn't just fat, fat is excess stored ENERGY.

Another part of that process that people who believe it impossible to lose fat and gain muscle always seem to miss is that muscle fibers do not need to be fully repaired that soon after being broken down, and as I pointed out above, not all energy used for repairing the muscles needs to be comprised of calories taken in. The fat stored in people's body is a fully functional source of such energy, and although some people's bodies are more hesitant to use that stored body fat as a source of energy than others, it's still a usable source of energy whenever your body chooses to use it.

Now, many people eating a caloric deficit may notice that their muscles have a tendency to ache for longer than if they were eating a surplus... This is because the body naturally prefers using calories (energy) taken into the stomach as its source of energy for everything, as opposed to using the excess stored energy (fat) that it carries. Because of that the muscles do indeed tend to repair slower, but unless you're doing strenuous work constantly the body has little need for muscles to be repaired instantaneously anyway.

With that said, the situation in which it IS pretty close to impossible to gain muscle while eating on a deficit is when a person is both lifting weights and doing excessive amounts of cardio (and there's a difference between "excessive" while eating normally and "excessive" while eating on a deficit, ESPECIALLY if you're also lifting). A little bit too much cardio while eating on a deficit is the most likely culprit as far as preventing muscle gain, not eating the deficit itself.

What needs to be understood is that muscle growth and fat loss counteract each other. If you're losing fat faster you're going to gain muscle slower, and vice versa. By overdoing it on the cardio, your body requires a greater amount of energy to recover itself, and thusly you see stalled or "no" gains in mass, because your body instead used the energy to stabilize itself as opposed to repairing damaged muscle.

In addition to that, if you already have little body fat (surplus energy) available for the body to use, lift weights (damage muscle fibers), and then still do cardio (which requires more energy), then yes, you have pretty much effectively made it near impossible for you to gain muscle and lose weight.

The opposite of that is someone like me. I have alot of excess body fat readily available for my body (I'm also on a CKD keto diet, therefore my body already uses fat as a prime source of energy anyway), lift weights, and do little to no extra cardio in addition to the walking and working I have to do in my daily life. I'm both gaining mass and losing fat because my body has the surplus energy (keyword here is energy, not calories) required for me to do so, even though me myself am actually eating a caloric deficit and losing fat.

Now, am I losing fat as fast as someone dedicated to only losing fat? No.
Am I gaining muscle as fast as someone dedicated to only gaining muscle? No.

I'm somewhere in the middle (currently leaning towards muscle gain a bit perhaps), and both processes are still being done, only more slowly. Once I reach my lifting goal for my leg presses however, I'll kick up the fat loss a notch and focus more on maintaining muscle than gaining muscle.

Now, hopefully that at least partially clears up the confusion people have about the issue, although I'm sure naysayers will continue just that despite proof being inches from their face.

But if you're going to continue being a naysayer, just don't try to use science to back you, because scientifically, you're wrong.

If you have a way to eat above maintenance and in a deficit at the same time, please explain it to us. We'd all like to know so everyone in the world can be ripped like you. As said before, you can lower overall bf% while bulking, no one denies that. However, it's an illusion. If you eat above maintenance you have to gain some fat, if its less than the muscle you gain, then great.

Why would bodybuilders ever bulk if they could just gain muscle while working down to their 6% bf for comps?

[manicwebb]

I think Poetique is saying that if you have excess body fat, that's the extra stored energy one can use instead of a calorie surplus to gain muscle while using a calorie decifit to lose fat.

Basically, you're more likely to do both if you're overweight. And I'd have to agree, because I've lost over 30lbs and dropped down a few pants sizes, but steadily (albeit slowly) got stronger and increased some muscle size at the same time. My body fat has dropped faster than my muscles have grown, but both are certainly happening at the same time.

[Poetique]

If you have a way to eat above maintenance and in a deficit at the same time, please explain it to us. We'd all like to know so everyone in the world can be ripped like you. As said before, you can lower overall bf% while bulking, no one denies that. However, it's an illusion. If you eat above maintenance you have to gain some fat, if its less than the muscle you gain, then great.

Why would bodybuilders ever bulk if they could just gain muscle while working down to their 6% bf for comps?

Read more thoroughly before attempting to make smart ass comments... or you can make a fool of yourself, but I wouldn't recommend it. Until something doesn't make sense to someone who can/does read, I'm done here. Naysay all you want, I'm not getting paid to teach stubborn ignorance...

[LPMNDCTE]

For every time this comment is made, the proclaiming person fails to provide any evidence of such a claim.

If I recall correctly you're one of the main people who touts the claim for that matter, despite numerous amounts of people who are living breathing examples of the opposite claim...

In fact, SCIENTIFICALLY, muscle is gained through the process of breaking down and repairing muscle fibers. Calories, surplus or otherwise, directly have nothing to do with the process. What is required for both processes is ENERGY. And what, scientifically, are calories? A measure of just that; energy.

So long as your body has enough ENERGY (which calories are a measurement of) to repair the muscles beyond the point of where they were prior to being broken down, you will GAIN MUSCLE, period. This is also the explanation behind the phenomenon of how larger people, which tend to carry more body fat, are the best candidates for simultaneous muscle gain and fat loss, because the body has more energy stored within itself ready accessed and available for aiding in recovery of their muscles. Fat isn't just fat, fat is excess stored ENERGY.

Another part of that process that people who believe it impossible to lose fat and gain muscle always seem to miss is that muscle fibers do not need to be fully repaired that soon after being broken down, and as I pointed out above, not all energy used for repairing the muscles needs to be comprised of calories taken in. The fat stored in people's body is a fully functional source of such energy, and although some people's bodies are more hesitant to use that stored body fat as a source of energy than others, it's still a usable source of energy whenever your body chooses to use it.

Now, many people eating a caloric deficit may notice that their muscles have a tendency to ache for longer than if they were eating a surplus... This is because the body naturally prefers using calories (energy) taken into the stomach as its source of energy for everything, as opposed to using the excess stored energy (fat) that it carries. Because of that the muscles do indeed tend to repair slower, but unless you're doing strenuous work constantly the body has little need for muscles to be repaired instantaneously anyway.

With that said, the situation in which it IS pretty close to impossible to gain muscle while eating on a deficit is when a person is both lifting weights and doing excessive amounts of cardio (and there's a difference between "excessive" while eating normally and "excessive" while eating on a deficit, ESPECIALLY if you're also lifting). A little bit too much cardio while eating on a deficit is the most likely culprit as far as preventing muscle gain, not eating the deficit itself.

What needs to be understood is that muscle growth and fat loss counteract each other. If you're losing fat faster you're going to gain muscle slower, and vice versa. By overdoing it on the cardio, your body requires a greater amount of energy to recover itself, and thusly you see stalled or "no" gains in mass, because your body instead used the energy to stabilize itself as opposed to repairing damaged muscle.

In addition to that, if you already have little body fat (surplus energy) available for the body to use, lift weights (damage muscle fibers), and then still do cardio (which requires more energy), then yes, you have pretty much effectively made it near impossible for you to gain muscle and lose weight.

The opposite of that is someone like me. I have alot of excess body fat readily available for my body (I'm also on a CKD keto diet, therefore my body already uses fat as a prime source of energy anyway), lift weights, and do little to no extra cardio in addition to the walking and working I have to do in my daily life. I'm both gaining mass and losing fat because my body has the surplus energy (keyword here is energy, not calories) required for me to do so, even though me myself am actually eating a caloric deficit and losing fat.

Now, am I losing fat as fast as someone dedicated to only losing fat? No.
Am I gaining muscle as fast as someone dedicated to only gaining muscle? No.

I'm somewhere in the middle (currently leaning towards muscle gain a bit perhaps), and both processes are still being done, only more slowly. Once I reach my lifting goal for my leg presses however, I'll kick up the fat loss a notch and focus more on maintaining muscle than gaining muscle.

Now, hopefully that at least partially clears up the confusion people have about the issue, although I'm sure naysayers will continue just that despite proof being inches from their face.

But if you're going to continue being a naysayer, just don't try to use science to back you, because scientifically, you're wrong.

I agree to this.....

a little muscle can be gained and fat can be lost at the same time. At 1st I doubted this because I wasn't open minded until I read into diets and a multitude of articles such as carb cycling & timed carb diets. They seem to work for professional bodybuilders. Of course bulking get you more muscle faster, but CKD seems to do an adequate job of preserving (a bulking a small amount of muscle)

[ScivationLead]

Check out my recent Bod Pod results in my sig. With long distance running, weight training, and keeping track of my calories I am losing BF and gaining some muscle.

[Dilate]

16 to 20 sets? Im no expert but isnt that crazy high? Also Ive read full body workouts 3 days a week with HIIT for about 20 to 40 mins on your non lifting days is best for burning fat. Someone tell me if Im wrong!

not at all high. some people like HIT some do volume. I incorporate both. on average i do 20-24 sets per muscle group from heavy to lighter and it works very well. I dont believe in low set workouts. Doesnt work for me atleast.