Misconceptions

[Steve]

A good friend of mine is one of the authors of an upcoming fitness book which is going to be huge in the fitness industry. He asked in his forum, for us to give him some common misconceptions that are floating around as they pertain to weight training. He wanted to make sure the authors were not forgetting anything. Thought it couldn't hurt to post them here as they apply to anyone and everyone who is lifting weights. I will post more as the list grows, if it grows. And they are in no specific order:

-Women have to be careful or they'll get 'bulky'
-Women should do high reps/light weight
-Crap about people having some type of muscle fibre that means they should lift high rep/light weight
-High reps for 'cutting'
-Bodypart splits = best way for a natural beginner/intermediate trainee to make gains
-Insane amounts of volume and/or too many exercises per session
-Machines are better, "most physiotherapists recommend machines"
-Fasted cardio
-Spot reducing
-'Toning'
-Muscle can turn into fat if you stop lifting (or vice versa)
-Full squats are bad for your knees and/or is not a natural movement, etc.
-Sort of spinning off what absolute said, but that there's a difference in how men and women should train ("you shouldn't lift like a man, sweetie!")
-Training the shite out of your abs will give everyone a "washboard stomach"
-cardio is the only way to burn fat
-3 sets of 10 reps is the magical approach
-women shouldn't go heavy on squats and DLs
-cardio an hour a day (more cardio rather than menu determines abs and cuts)
-building muscle while dieting (most think they are doing this with crazy volume and high reps)
-the smith machine is the best way to do squats
-Managing fatigue isn't as important as managing volume and intensity.
-only use protein powder if you want to get huuuuuuuge
-You can build muscle and lose fat at the same time.
-If you're not at the gym for at least an hour, you're not doing enough
-Soreness is the best measure of a good workout
-Your muscles need at least a week of recovery (see: bbing splits)
-If you work a muscle more than 1x/week you're OVERTRAINING
-Cardio is where its at
-Fasted cardio is where its at
-You grow while you lift
-cardio makes your legs more muscular so there is no need to train legs
-Plyos are great for fat loss
-You should feel the burn when lifting
-You should lift even more while dieting.
-You should drop all heavy movements/compound movements when dieting and concentrate on isolation movements


Probably some repeats, and I am sure there will be more. Just a friendly reminder.

Oh, I should also say, if you have any, post them up. I haven't added to this list yet.

 

[Lula3]

That's really useful info thanks a lot!!!

I have a small question however- I'm a bit confused: "You can build muscle and lose fat at the same time" - what do you mean exactly?

Just wondering because I've lost quite a bit of fat (and I mean fat - around my face for example - a part that I don't weight train lol) but obviously put on muscle, all in the last few months. What are the dynmics behind this? Where can I find decent sources of info (journals etc - I can access most of them from university)?

 

[Steve]

That's really useful info thanks a lot!!!

I have a small question however- I'm a bit confused: "You can build muscle and lose fat at the same time" - what do you mean exactly?

Just wondering because I've lost quite a bit of fat (and I mean fat - around my face for example - a part that I don't weight train lol) but obviously put on muscle, all in the last few months. What are the dynmics behind this? Where can I find decent sources of info (journals etc - I can access most of them from university)?

There are many studies that show noobs increasing muscle mass while simultaneously losing fat.

However, more advanced people (read: anyone who has lifted weights for any appreciable length of time), it's generally not easy, if not impossible.

It's the basic laws of thermodynamics.

Losing fat requires an energy deficit. Gaining muscle requires an energy surplus.

Plus, how do you know you increased muscle mass?

 

[TomO]

There are many studies that show noobs increasing muscle mass while simultaneously losing fat.

However, more advanced people (read: anyone who has lifted weights for any appreciable length of time), it's generally not easy, if not impossible.

It's the basic laws of thermodynamics.

Losing fat requires an energy deficit. Gaining muscle requires an energy surplus.

Plus, how do you know you increased muscle mass?

And to add to what Steve wrote, a lot of people confuse increased strength with more muscle mass. For example I have increased my strength quite a bit over the past 6 months, but my muscles have not grown a centimeter.

 

[Lula3]

There are many studies that show noobs increasing muscle mass while simultaneously losing fat.

However, more advanced people (read: anyone who has lifted weights for any appreciable length of time), it's generally not easy, if not impossible.

It's the basic laws of thermodynamics.

Losing fat requires an energy deficit. Gaining muscle requires an energy surplus.

Plus, how do you know you increased muscle mass?

It's the basic laws of thermodynamics - ahahahahaha that made me giggle so much thank you! Due to the fact that we deal with thermodynamics all the time at university... it's some kind of inner joke for us, that statement.

I know I have more muscle now because I had nothing in my arms, no abs etc. to the point where my friends would laugh at me if I tensed my arms as nothing happened... I couldn't even do one pushup and now I can do enough. I basically see them and feel them now, e.g. calf muscles, and my body looks completely different than when I was at this weight a few years back. While my arm is smaller in most places due to fat loss, my bicep is bigger than before (yes I measured everywhere lol). It's a nice feeling to get some kind of shape. Also, they calculated it at the gym as they measured my body fat recently and 6 months ago, so worked out my lean mass according to my weight and body fat % each time, and it went up.

This is not something I've studied yet (will do next year), however all I know is that the more we know about the body, the less we know . I was wondering what happens for an underactive indivudual carrying too much fat, who starts creating a slight deficit in their diet (so that they stop putting weight on and maintain, or to cause steady weight loss), who start eating excess protein per kg (aka more than required for daily turnover), and start working out for the first time. The body suddenly receives a big shock as it has never done any real activity that would require build-up of muscle, and it happens overnight. Wouldn't the body be able to use up some of the excess protein to an extent to repair/build muscle, and supplementing the deficit in calories with its own fat? Is it that what happens to us "noobs"? What would then happen to someone who is an experienced exerciser, who still lifts, but undereats? Surely their muscle will still have to be repaired in some way - do they not grown at all then?

BTW isn't Body For Life based on beginers losing fat and gaining muscle at the same time? I'm ot sure.

And to add to what Steve wrote, a lot of people confuse increased strength with more muscle mass. For example I have increased my strength quite a bit over the past 6 months, but my muscles have not grown a centimeter.

I'm pretty sure I have in some places at least as I said above. Things like abs, they're harder and more defined if I have a feel (you cannot see them as my body fa% is too high) - can't tell if they're bigger?!

Anyway sorry lots of questions - if you don't want to explain in great lengths, point me in the right directions by telling me what to read

 

[Steve]

Lula, many people mistaken the exposure of their muscles when they lose fat as "increased muscle mass." Actually, almost everyone does. We all have a baseline muscle mass and for someone carrying some fat, we don't see that.

All of a sudden, diet that fat away, expose your muscles, and PRESTO!, people think they built muscle.

Not so much. It's been there all along.

I'm not doubting you increased your LBM. I've seen it done enough to know that it happens. Especially in the noob trainer. It's just not something one should expect while consistently being in a caloric deficit.

You brought up the idea of increasing the protein intake for repairing muscle. No, this wouldn't solve the issue. Simply maintaining muscle is a very expensive process, energetically speaking. Not protein-speaking. Adding new muscle mass is an even more energy intensive process.

Being in a caloric deficit doesn't fair well if putting on muscle is the goal..... follow me.

You could eat 100% protein but still be in a big caloric deficit. Well how to your propose we make something out of nothing?

Again, I've seen it done, but science doesn't exactly clear the fog. It's even more pronounced in obese patients/clients. Mind you, the body isn't so simple. It has mechanisms in place that control both metabolic output and where nutrients go (fat, muscle, etc).

 

[Lula3]

Yes very true. I did 2 courses on metabolism this year (we did all sorts of things, including creatine, which was quite funny as all the guys were scibbling notes really fast all of a sudden), and it was the biggest head wreck I've ever done - I think we still need to learn so much more e.g. something that we need to explore is the role of fat as an endocrine organ, and its impact on the amount of fat a person carries. I think it's very hard to get an accurate general picture, due to the extent of each single metabolic pathway and regulation between them - most of my lecturers can only specialise in one aspect of metabolism to be able to do research it thoroughly for a lifetime, and we don't really know that much anyway, so I get annoyed when I see some people who make grand claims this or that is wrong using very precise data, and this is right because of x study - I just think we should see advancements as "closer to what probably happens for most people" rather than "this is absolutely right", keep on refining what we do know, and to be honest, gauge by experience what works and what doesn't. Do you see what I mean? I guess that's what you mean by not "clearing the fog" - the more we know, the less we know in a way.

Now I'm not seeing much progress to be honest - guess I passed the initial "noob training". All that is happening is that my muscles seem to be getting "harder" not bigger. Do I make sense? I don't know if I'm using the "right" words to describe what I mean. I get the basic concept from what you're saying and how energetically costly muscles are, however as we agreed, it happens somehow, and I'd like to begin to understand why.

You could eat 100% protein but still be in a big caloric deficit. Well how to your propose we make something out of nothing?

Excess energy storage for the overweight and unfit individual? Viceral fat in gross excess maybe? This must happen to the "noob" to some extend, right? There must be some equilibrium between energy input, decrease of excessive storage fat, and muscle repair/build up?

 

[Steve]

Yes very true. I did 2 courses on metabolism this year (we did all sorts of things, including creatine, which was quite funny as all the guys were scibbling notes really fast all of a sudden), and it was the biggest head wreck I've ever done - I think we still need to learn so much more e.g. something that we need to explore is the role of fat as an endocrine organ, and its impact on the amount of fat a person carries. I think it's very hard to get an accurate general picture, due to the extent of each single metabolic pathway and regulation between them - most of my lecturers can only specialise in one aspect of metabolism to be able to do research it thoroughly for a lifetime, and we don't really know that much anyway, so I get annoyed when I see some people who make grand claims this or that is wrong using very precise data, and this is right because of x study - I just think we should see advancements as "closer to what probably happens for most people" rather than "this is absolutely right", keep on refining what we do know, and to be honest, gauge by experience what works and what doesn't. Do you see what I mean? I guess that's what you mean by not "clearing the fog" - the more we know, the less we know in a way.

We know very little about the human body in the grand scheme of things. Sure, we've made huge advancements in our knowledge.... but there is still so much in the dark.

You mentioned the endocrine system and metabolism.

In your studies, have they taugh you about the importance of Leptin?

Amazingly, I know a few grad students who've had courses in endocrinology and they came out of it knowing nothing of Leptin. Blew my mind.

And you pinpointed the problem... there as so many pathways at play simultaneously in the body. We can single out some of them in order to understand their roles. However, singling sheds very little light since the body works synergistically as a systemic whole. And grasping this "whole" picture is not possible right now.

I get the basic concept from what you're saying and how energetically costly muscles are, however as we agreed, it happens somehow, and I'd like to begin to understand why.

Haha, you won't understand anytime soon as long as the head experts in the field don't understand it fully.

I wouldn't waste too much time trying to figure it out. I have some commentary somewhere from some experts that I will share with you on the subject, once I find it. Remind me to later when I get home.

But again, it's really a bunch of theory tossing.

Excess energy storage for the overweight and unfit individual? Viceral fat in gross excess maybe? This must happen to the "noob" to some extend, right? There must be some equilibrium between energy input, decrease of excessive storage fat, and muscle repair/build up?

Using excess energy as fat: Read this post I made in another thread:

Let's keep this simple.

Why doesn't our body utilize our existing fat stores as energy, to aid in hypertrophy (muscle building)?

You have to remember this very simple fact. Having an abundance of food at arm's length is a rather new dilemna, in the grand scheme of things. I mean, go back a thousand years and you were not able to eat, how we eat today. And 1000 years isn't that long even. Go back 10,000 years and wow, things were much, much different.

We did not have a continuous foods supply. Excess food was not an issue and humans had to develop the ability to survive periods with low to no energy.

Because of this, our bodies want to store excess energy as fat. It is calorically dense and easily stored. On the flip-side, muscle is energetically costly. This means adding new muscle is not a *cheap* process in terms of energy (calorie) utilization.

Add to this, ultimately, aside from the base level of muscle that each of us has, additional muscle is worthless in our *body's mind.*

When the early man found a huge stash of food, he would gorge until he was full and then some. It doesn't take science to tell us that this will result in a gain of fat. He did this so that when the winter came and everything died or ran for the equator, he had enough energy to maintain life during this period.

Mind you, this went on for more years than you can fathom from your short time here on lovely Earth. Adaptation is an amazing thing. It takes a VERY long time to happen. Extremely slow process.

We adapted for survival during a time when food (energy) was scarce.

Back when, if the body decided to use a ton of energy to make muscle instead of fat, you would have stored less gross energy in a tissue that is harder to extract energy from, and ultimately it would have died during food-scarce periods.

To add to this, this is why we have many systems in place physiologically that ensure we don't under-eat. Stop eating for a few days. See how hungry you become. See how your cravings shoot through the roof. The endocrine system, primarily, is amazingly responsive to under-consumption of food.

Flip this. With over-consumption (something that is commonplace this day in age) not so much. Our bodies are relatively weak at detecting over-consumption due to the times long ago.

So, in a nutshell: Our bodies like storing fat for survival even though we don't need it today. Our bodies don't like storing muscle.

Hence, you will never find a human that is able to convert fat to muscle. At least not in the 21st century. Things might be different in the 31st.

 

[corndogggy]

1. exercising first thing in the morning on an empty stomach burns alot of fat and this is optimal.

2. the fat burning zone is where you need to stay to burn the most fat.

3. you should stretch like mad while cold before a workout or run or whatever.

4. for athletic competitions, you can squeeze in ALOT of progress in the week before the event so you should train like mad during this time.

 

[Steve]

I look at all these posts and think, THANK GOD I JUST WANT TO LOSE WEIGHT! Its terribly confusing stuff to build muscle apparently!

Nah, building muscle isn't confusing at all. Eat enough, rest, eat some more, train, eat, rest, and repeat.

That's about it.

Most overcomplicate things quite a bit. However, you should make things complicated until it's required to sustain progress.

BTW - is doing all walking on treadmills and swimming good enough? Do we all need to weight train? My legs get very muscular with walking and swimming alone. Am I missing out on some benefit that weight training offers?

It really depends on what you'd consider "good enough."

Ideally though, you'd weight train as well as the other various modes of exercise. Weight training does not always = muscle building. There are a lot more health benefits that are associated with weight training.

Add to this that most people will never get to where they think they want to be in terms of physique without adding resistance training into the mix.

 

[inform team]

It's crazy how many therories there are out there nowadays on training, apparently according to the new studies the stuff I was doing last month wasnt doing anything for me etc.
I personally am not interested in bulk, more of a lean guy as I surf everyday and like to stay light and limber, however when I was in the army 12years ago, I found that I put on a good amount of bulk while dropping weight, not by bodybuilding standards but I built up a good base there.
Since then I have just thought about my body like a machine, keep it fueled on good food, keep it strong and flexable through yoga, and stay active.
I only train at the gym for 45mins 2-3days a week, usually do complete failure training while there and that seems to be working just fine.
So my thought i thus, find a system that works for you and stick with it till it doesnt.
just my 2 cents

 

[Beatlesboy]

I have a question about the "can't gain muscle while losing weight" myth.

I have lost over 30 pounds by hitting the gym with cardio and weight training. I train upper and lower body twice a week. I recently noticed on my legs that I now lift a lot more weight from when I first started. For example, on the leg extention machine my starting max was below 100, maybe 70 or 80. Recently, I put it on 100 to see where I was and lifted it up with ease. I couldn't believe my eyes and it took no effort to all of a sudden lift 100 where my max use to be well below that.

So what exactly is happening if I'm not gaining muscle? I'm not being difficult, just confused.

Thanks

 

[Steve]

I have a question about the "can't gain muscle while losing weight" myth.

I have lost over 30 pounds by hitting the gym with cardio and weight training. I train upper and lower body twice a week. I recently noticed on my legs that I now lift a lot more weight from when I first started. For example, on the leg extention machine my starting max was below 100, maybe 70 or 80. Recently, I put it on 100 to see where I was and lifted it up with ease. I couldn't believe my eyes and it took no effort to all of a sudden lift 100 where my max use to be well below that.

So what exactly is happening if I'm not gaining muscle? I'm not being difficult, just confused.

Thanks

Excellent question.

First let me say that gaining muscle and losing fat simultaneously isn't impossible. It simply isn't likely. People who are more likely to see it happen are complete novices, people carrying a lot of extra body fat, and genetically elite individuals.

And even then, their concurrent body recomposition isn't going to happen forever.

That said, many people get stronger without adding any appreciable muscle, especially when they are either new to the weight room or coming back off a long break.

Your body gets stronger by 1) neurological adaptation and 2) hypertrophy (muscle growth)

In the early stages, it's believed that novices get stronger due primarily to neurological adaptations. So what's the nervous system have to do with muscles?

The muscle itself is composed of multiple fibers that are connected to a motor neuron originating in the brain. A motor neuron and all the fibers it connects to is called a motor unit (MU).

The nervous system sends electrical impulses to the muscle via this motor unit system, stimulating contraction.

After continuous and sufficient training, the adaptations associated with the central nervous system include:

- increased frequency of electrical impulses (rate coding)

- increased fiber recruitment

- increased synchronicity of the fibers, meaning more of the powerful fibers are brought into play sooner in the lift

All of these adaptations lead to increased force potential translating into increased strength.

So you see, it's not only possible, but very likely that you'll get stronger without any significant increases in muscle mass.

 

[Beatlesboy]

Interesting. I still don't think I understand, but that's my fault. Will there be a limit to how strong I can get until I lose all the weight I need?

 

[Steve]

Interesting. I still don't think I understand, but that's my fault. Will there be a limit to how strong I can get until I lose all the weight I need?

Well what in particular don't you understand?

If I could simplify what I said above, it would be something like this:

Getting stronger doesn't always mean growing bigger muscles. There's a lot more that goes into getting stronger. Our brains can basically make our bodies work better through adaptation to training.

There's theoretically a limit to how strong you can get always, but I don't know anyone who's ever really reached that point personally.

And while dieting, you shouldn't expect huge strength or muscle mass gains.

 

[Beatlesboy]

You do explain it well, I just don't know.

So the same mucle mass I had is just getting strong and no new muscle is growing?

As far as the limit goes, would you say I can get as strong without putting on muscle as I could if I wasn't losing weight?

Basically, I'll be losing weight for at least another 18 months via cardio and weight lifting. Been doing that for 6 months. Just wondering if I shouldn't expect much from all the weight lifting now or focus more on that until after I lose all the weight.

 

[Steve]

So the same mucle mass I had is just getting strong and no new muscle is growing?

Oh I don't know your exact circumstance. I'm just saying it's a possiblity. If you are new to resistance training, there's a good chance it's a combination of the both... increased neural efficiency and muscle growth.

As far as the limit goes, would you say I can get as strong without putting on muscle as I could if I wasn't losing weight?

The strength potential of an individual at a given muscular bodyweight is finite. Sure, you can definitely get stronger while eating at maintenance or even at a deficit as I mentioned above via neural efficiency. However, you'll hit a a wall at some point, and a bulk will become necessary.

So basically I'm saying you'd get stronger if you weren't dieting. But remember it's all contextual to your most desired goals. If your primary goal is fat loss at the moment.... I wouldn't worry too much about increasing your maximal strength.

Basically, I'll be losing weight for at least another 18 months via cardio and weight lifting. Been doing that for 6 months. Just wondering if I shouldn't expect much from all the weight lifting now or focus more on that until after I lose all the weight.

There's more to weight lifting than increasing strength. For instance, I'd say the biggest benefit from it while dieting is the maintenance of the muscle that you currently have. In order to lose fat, you must be in a caloric deficit. The caloric deficit leads to the loss of fat. But at the same time, it also leads to a loss in muscle. It's the nature of the beast. The leaner you get, the more this will be the case. Said muscle loss can be minimized and even halted primarily by adequate protein consumption AND resistance training.

That said, I'd say it's a pretty good idea (excellent in fact) to maintain what you're doing, assuming it's proper.

 

[Daymon74]

And to add to what Steve wrote, a lot of people confuse increased strength with more muscle mass. For example I have increased my strength quite a bit over the past 6 months, but my muscles have not grown a centimeter.

How is that possible?

 

[Steve]

How is that possible?

Quite easily by way of neurological adaptations. In laymans, your body learns to work more efficiently and effectively translating into more strength.

 

[Daymon74]

Quite easily by way of neurological adaptations. In laymans, your body learns to work more efficiently and effectively translating into more strength.

But, doesn't that strength have to come from somewhere? The body doesn't "learn" in the same way the mind learns. Like storing information. It learns by compensating, so I would think any increase in either endurance or strength you have to have some form of compensation. (added muscle, increased cardiovascular efficiency).

I'm no expert by an stretch, but it just makes sense to me. Is it possible while the muscles my not get bigger, they do get more dense?