Gaining strength vs losing fat

[sho'nuff]

Mr. Lee is only good for one thing.

Mr. Lee's sauce.

at wahoo's.

 

[jhcam8]

Why try to do both at once? Pick whichever is most important and concentrate on that - you may find that your belly fat will fade as you lift more.

If you want to lose weight, follow this procedure - it's never been known to fail:
reduce your caloric intake below your caloric output until your target is achieved.

 

[KayJay85]

Thanks everyone

 

[cretaceous_cretin]

It is not about "gaining weight" vs. "losing weight", but losing the fat and gaining muscle mass. Your scale weight may not change much, if any during the process.

You might consider a DEXA scan to determine what your body mass composition is (accuracy is stated to be about 25), and then do another six or months later (can't do it sooner due to the low energy radiation from the scan) to determine what changes have occurred.

Following a program of 5-6 meals per day, limit fat and carb intake, with higher protein intake, and follow a cardio and weight lifting regime, and you will lose the fat and gain muscle mass.

Note: Yes, I was in the obese category (still need to lose more), but I have seen this program work for all different ages and different starting physical conditions at the studio where I workout. It can do amazing things.

Originally Posted by stylenooob

It's difficult to add muscle mass while losing fat. It's easier 1) the fatter you are, 2) the weaker you are, 3) the younger you are, 4) and the better your recovery (more sleep/less stress). You can also get a little stronger without gaining mass, but that will top out.

At 6'2", 180, you are a lean dude, so if you have excess fat you must have very little muscle development. Like the previous poster said, if you are new to strength training you can make some gains for a while w/o gaining weight. How long that burst lasts depends on the four factors above. But after that initial burst of gains you will have to make a choice between gaining strength and losing weight.

 

[Lagrangian]

Originally Posted by cretaceous_cretin

Following a program of 5-6 meals per day

Oh please, not this again.

 

[mm84321]

Originally Posted by TrH

Oh please, not this again.

+1

 

[Kajak]

So... not dogpiling with the one health and body meme?

 

[mm84321]

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985

"...The premise underlying the present study was that increasing meal frequency would lead to better short-term appetite regulation and increased dietary compliance; furthermore, it was hypothesised that these predicted beneficial effects of increased meal frequency could have resulted from more favourable gut peptide profiles, potentially leading to greater weight loss. Under the conditions described in the present study, all three hypotheses were rejected." "...We had postulated that increasing meal frequency would enhance the compliance to the energy restricted diet thus leading to greater weight loss, an effect possibly mediated by increased fullness. The present results do not support this hypothesis." "...According to the present results, increasing meal frequency did not change the daily profiles of peptide YY or ghrelin, nor did it favourably impact appetite parameters."

From Leangains:

Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal. Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency. A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal. B) Six meals: 450 kcal per meal. C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal. What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between. However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.

 

[cretaceous_cretin]

Highlighting the positive impact of increasing feeding frequency on metabolism and weight management. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15806828 Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women http://www.ajcn.org/content/81/1/16....urcetype=HWCIT There is more than 1 study, some showing different conclusions, and it is not just about the TEF, but preventing elevation of insulin levels. Go back to school like a good ****** and ask your teacher what you're supposed to say now. And while you're there don't forget to feed the troll.

 

[mm84321]

Originally Posted by cretaceous_cretin

Highlighting the positive impact of increasing feeding frequency on metabolism and weight management. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15806828 Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women http://www.ajcn.org/content/81/1/16....urcetype=HWCIT There is more than 1 study, some showing different conclusions, and it is not just about the TEF, but preventing elevation of insulin levels. Go back to school like a good ****** and ask your teacher what you're supposed to say now. And while you're there don't forget to feed the troll.
Cretin, The debate on meal frequency and its effect on metabolism have bounced back and forth since at least the 1960s (when some key papers were published in Lancet and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition). Although the most recent study (the one that I linked) claims increased meal frequency "does not promote greater weight loss", it would be unfair to say that since this study is the most recent, it is the most accurate. Admittedly, more research is needed to draw definite conclusions. I suppose I am a bit biased on the subject, as I have tried both methods of eating and have found greater success with a one or two "big meal" approach in conjunction with intermittent fasting (which will dramatically lower your insulin levels, along with a low carbohydrate diet) as opposed to 5 or 6 smaller meals. Additionally, the idea that 5 or 6 meals a day is the best dieting approach seems to be suspiciously like a recommendation, based without any solid scientific evidence, pushed by the food industry to sell more pre-packaged meals and protein bars to the average dieter. Who really has time to prepare six meals a day? Moreover, to me, the ideas behind increased meal frequency promoting a greater effect on weight loss just doesn't make a great deal of sense. If you find that this approach indeed does produce favorable results, and you feel good implementing such a diet, go for it. If you've adopted an eating plan that you feel comfortable with and have success adhering to, I suppose the scientific evidence doesn't really matter; stick to what work's best for you.

 

[Rikkar501]

Originally Posted by mm84321

If you find that this approach indeed does produce favorable results, and you feel good implementing such a diet, go for it. If you've adopted an eating plan that you feel comfortable with and have success adhering to, I suppose the scientific evidence doesn't really matter; stick to what work's best for you.

+1 It's been said that the best diet for you is the one you can stick to.

 

[cretaceous_cretin]

Originally Posted by mm84321

Cretin, The debate on meal frequency and its effect on metabolism have bounced back and forth since at least the 1960s (when some key papers were published in Lancet and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition). Although the most recent study (the one that I linked) claims increased meal frequency "does not promote greater weight loss", it would be unfair to say that since this study is the most recent, it is the most accurate. Admittedly, more research is needed to draw definite conclusions.


I agree with your conclusion that more research does need done. And the debate will continue - likely as not another study will be done in the next couple of years and who knows what the outcome will be. I have found that for me 5-6 meals/day works well, but I also make certain of controlling sugar intake (controlling insulin response).

With your program, is it high protein/low fat/low carb (which mine is)? I have found that on this program I have been able to lose an average of 10-12 lbs/month, and have put on about 10 lbs of muscle mass over the last year (estimated from DEXA scan results).

 

[mm84321]

Originally Posted by cretaceous_cretin

With your program, is it high protein/low fat/low carb (which mine is)? I have found that on this program I have been able to lose an average of 10-12 lbs/month, and have put on about 10 lbs of muscle mass over the last year (estimated from DEXA scan results).
Firstly, I don't consider it a "program"; it is just the way I am most comfortable eating. I prefer to eat one or two meals and feel well sated so my mind is not preoccupied with food all day (this is another reason I dislike eating many small meals during the day: it always seemed like I devoted a disproportionate amount of my time obsessing over what I was going to eat next). Currently, I am a rather fit individual, however, when I was a a bit overweight last year after putting on a few pounds at school, this is the eating pattern I adopted. I started with a high protein and low fat/carb approach, but found it to be extremely boring and unsustainable in the long term. I eat moderately high levels of fat and protein each day, and keep carbs to a minimum (mostly green vegetables, and some fruit every now and then). This way of eating has helped me lose the weight, and successfully keep it off while gaining a good degree of muscle mass. And as I said, it is something I am confident I can sustain for the rest of my life, so I have no fear of ever putting the weight back on. As far as intermittent fasting, I suppose it isn't for everyone. However, I have practiced fasting for the past year (including an extended fast in December) for various reasons, and have found that it is not only a great catalyst for weight loss, but I've found mental clarity is exponentially increased during periods of fasting. I find this method allows for much greater productivity, consistent energy levels, and I am just overall a happier person when not thinking or worrying about what I have to eat. But again, I stress, whatever works best for you.