Calorie deficits and weight training.

A

Ann38

New member
Apologizing in advance for asking a question that has been addressed elsewhere, but I'm short on time to go looking for it and it (hopefully) only requires a short answer.

True or false: Weight training during times of calorie deficits won't increase muscle mass but will help reduce body fat. (Some of the information I've been reading about weight training said that it is impossible to add muscle mass without maintaining a calorie surplus.)

I'm trying to lose fat and I really enjoy weight training. I'm just curious about the effect the weight training is having on my body if I'm not gaining muscle mass, i.e. is it possible to strengthen muscles without gaining muscle mass?

I don't have a problem increasing muscle mass, like I said I'm just curious about the process.

I know the info is here somewhere (again sorry :bigear: ) so a quick answer or link to the info would be greatly appreciated. :)
 
Short answer - it's highly unlikely that you'll gain muscle while in caloric deficit. But it does happen, especially if you're very heavy, or have very little muscle.

Weight training helps to make sure that you don't lose muscle mass while dieting, and you can still gain strength - there's a neurological component to strength in addition to pure muscle mass.

There are better explanations, but I don't have links to them on hand ;)
 
Thanks Jeanette. Here's another way I wonder about this: I've lost 18 pounds, which could mean a) I've lost 18 pounds of fat and neither gained nor lost muscle mass, b) I've lost some fat and some muscle, or c) I've lost more than 18 pounds of fat and gained some muscle.

Option B is unlikely, given my weight-training and protein consumption. I've read (here and elsewhere) that option C is impossible. Which leaves A, but makes me wonder how I've gotten stronger if I haven't increased muscle mass.

Anyone?
 
Jeanette401 said:
Short answer - it's highly unlikely that you'll gain muscle while in caloric deficit. But it does happen, especially if you're very heavy, or have very little muscle.

Weight training helps to make sure that you don't lose muscle mass while dieting, and you can still gain strength - there's a neurological component to strength in addition to pure muscle mass.

There are better explanations, but I don't have links to them on hand ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, ditto this.
 
Ann38 said:
Thanks Jeanette. Here's another way I wonder about this: I've lost 18 pounds, which could mean a) I've lost 18 pounds of fat and neither gained nor lost muscle mass, b) I've lost some fat and some muscle, or c) I've lost more than 18 pounds of fat and gained some muscle.

Option B is unlikely, given my weight-training and protein consumption. I've read (here and elsewhere) that option C is impossible. Which leaves A,
Click to expand...

Option B or C is likely.

We lose from all tissues when dieting... it's the nature of the beast. Sure, you probably minimized muscle loss assuming you've been lifting correctly and eating adequate protein. But it still happens.

If you've only been lifting a short time and/or are carrying a high portion of body fat, adding some lean body mass is certainly possible while dieting.

but makes me wonder how I've gotten stronger if I haven't increased muscle mass.
Click to expand...

Getting stronger is not only possible, but also probable without gaining muscle. Strength is not merely a product of muscle size.
 
No problem, Ann. You're welcome. If you're interested in understanding this a bit better, here's a post where I explained the phenomenon of getting stronger without getting bigger in more detail.

If you're not interested, that's cool too!
 
I'll check out the link for sure Steve. There's a lot I want to learn about this body recomposition stuff. I've only been lifting for six months and I do have a high percentage of body fat (although I've got some questions about that for sure) so you were spot-on with your response.

Supposedly my BF % is in the low 30s. I really want to bring that down but I'm not sure how since I don't have much excess fat left to lose - 10 lbs. maybe. Beyond getting my macros in the proper percentages, limiting calories, and working out...not sure where to go from here. I've only been at it for 6 months so maybe it just takes more time. (Or maybe every single BF calculator I've used is insanely wrong - I can hope, right? :lol ) I'm off to read your link now.
 
BF is in the low 30s but you only have 10 lbs to lose.

That doesn't sound right at all.
 
Well, I could lose 23 lbs and not be considered underweight by the BMI (5'4" 105 lbs.) but I don't like the way my body looks when I get much below 120 or so (loose skin, protruding rib bones in my chest.) But just because I look okay at a certain weight doesn't mean I don't have an unhealthy amount of excess fat, right?

I would love to do a water immersion test to get an accurate BF%.
 
Why don't you think that sounds correct Steve? Don't some people (especially women I'm guessing) have high body fat even if they are not technically overweight?

I was around 144-145 (I'm F, 5'6) which was not overweight, but my bodyfat percentage was 32% - which was confusing and disappointing bc I was running so much. I added back strength training and have since dropped to around 133-134 and my bf was at 21% last time I had it measured.
 
Okay I just did the math and it does make sense. If I wanted to go from 33% BF to 23% BF I'd need to lose 11 pounds of fat, putting me at 117. I can't get there without strict adherance to low-calorie (less than 1500/day) so I don't know how hard I'm going to push for it.

Like the poster above me said, it's dissappointing to eat healthy and work out so hard and still have 33% BF.
 
Ann38 said:
Okay I just did the math and it does make sense. If I wanted to go from 33% BF to 23% BF I'd need to lose 11 pounds of fat, putting me at 117.
Click to expand...

Well, not exactly, Ann.

If you're 128.5 lbs now and 33% bf, that means you're carrying 42.4 lbs of fat and 86.1 lbs of lean.

So if you were to drop to 23% bf, your weight would be around 112 lbs. You don't have a straight fat loss - there's other stuff you lose also.

The formula (Target Weight Formula) to give a rough idea is your LBM (86.1) divided by 1 - desired bf as a decimal (! - .23). Which works out to around 112 lbs.

Ann38 said:
I can't get there without strict adherance to low-calorie (less than 1500/day) so I don't know how hard I'm going to push for it.
Click to expand...

My suggestion, even though it's abhorrent to me personally because I'm lazy, is to get out there and start doing some HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training). Generally a good way to "burn" fat and preserve muscle.

Steve probably wrote about HITT on the forum here someplace, but I'll quote him from another forum to give you an idea what it's about and so I don't have to get original ...

Steve said:
I would never do HIIT everyday and especially not twice per day! HIIT is an anaerobic exercise like resistance training. If you are doing this everyday, which I advise not to, when are you supposed to resistance train? This sounds like a sure track to overtraining to me. I would recommend to use HIIT at most, 3 times per week. Even that is a lot, I usually use it myself or the clients I train twice per week. If you are not getting the results you are after, it is time to look at other variables of your regiment like nutrition. Or add some SS cardio to the mix.

To add to this sticky, HIIT has come to be very popular, especially on the web forums nowadays. It is nothing new and exciting though, it has been around for years. There is good reason for its rise in popularity though. High Intensity Interval Training is a very efficient and effective way to burn calories and aid an energy deficit diet. It is popular notion to believe that running at a constant speed hours on end is the only way to burn fat through exercise. This is a very ineffective way of training. There is a time and a place for steady state cardio, but if fat loss is your goal, then HIIT is the way to go.

Steady state cardio is aerobic exercise. You usually do it for 30+ minutes. Some go over 60 minutes which is insane to me! Using this form of exercise, you actually burn more calories than had you performed a session of HIIT. You also burn more fat calories doing steady state cardio over HIIT. "So why am I telling you to do SS cardio over HIIT?"

HIIT on the other hand, is an anaerobic exercise that stresses the body to a greater degree over the long run. One of the physiological functions/outcomes of interval training is an elevated Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consumption rate (EPOC). With this, though you burn more calories doing SS cardio over HIIT, HIIT elicits extra energy burn for up to 24 hours! This is huge when you are trying to lose fat. Remember, altering your body composition really comes down to energy (calorie) balance. Using HIIT will help you burn more energy once all is said and done.

HIIT is merely the alteration from high intensity to low intensity training. It can be done with any facet of exercise, have it be running around the track, on a bike, in a pool, on a treadmill, using an elliptical, etc. There are no set time limits you must stick to, just as long as you alter the intensities. My favorite is the track. I don't even clock myself. I sprint the straight aways and walk/light jog the curves. Treadmills are what most resort to but they can be a pain since each time you switch your intervals, you must wait for the speed of the machine to speed up or slow down. What matters is you find something that works for you.

It is best to do Interval Training on non-resistance training days. You are tapping into the same energy systems for HIIT as you would for weight training. So, as you can imagine, doing both can lead to overtraining. Also, a session of HIIT should be much shorter then a SS cardio session. You could effectively train using HIIT in a 15 minute session. My average session goes for 20 minutes.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Doc. I would rather do 20 minutes of HIIT than 60 minutes of steady cardio any day. I have a track close to home and could do this 3x a week fairly easily; I could even drag the kids along for 20 minutes.

But still, the notion that I need to get to 112 lbs. to reach 23% BF is insane to me. Even with HIIT that would require fairly strict calorie limitations. Sigh. Maybe if I was guarunteed that all of those fat pounds would come off of my stomach and triceps and not my boobs and butt, and that I wouldn't have loose skin or rib bones sticking out of my chest.

Maybe.
 
Ann38 said:
But still, the notion that I need to get to 112 lbs. to reach 23% BF is insane to me.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true, Ann.

See, actually we don't have much to go on about you.

For starts, how tall are you? What body type do you tend towards - ectomorph, mesomorph, endomorph ? What I'm getting at is your bone structure.

What about your parents? Your family? Do they tend to carry a lot of excess body fat also?

I don't think we have your age either.

All these considerations come into play. It certainly doesn't mean you can't get your bf% down into the high teens, only that it might take a different approach.
 
I'm 5'4" / 38 years old / medium frame / mom of 2. My family is thin/average, with the exception of 1 sibling who is obese. I carry the vast majority of my excess fat in my stomach. I am pesci/lacto vegetarian (I eat fish and dairy but not beef, fowl, or pork.) For the last 6 months I've been fairly good about limiting refined carbs and trying to eat more protein. I work out 5-7 hours a week, with about 2 hours of weight training and 4 hours of cardio.

Thanks for your input! :cheers2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top