Weight loss, muscle gain, and "how can I lose my gut in a week?"

[Kythe]

Burning a few calories on a winter morning.

After being on the site a couple of days (a long time, I know), I've noticed several posts along the lines of "I need to fit into my skinny jeans in five days. How can I do it?" We used to see questions like these on the Runners World forums, and it occurs to me the basics of weight loss, body fat, muscle gain, etc. could use an overview.

Weight gain or loss - the basics

There's a lot of misinformation out there on this topic. Some of that is because people want to sell books, and some because people don't understand the research.

Fortunately, the laws of physics apply, so we have something to fall back on (thermodynamics). Because the human body is actually pretty efficient at deriving nutrients from food, the process, overall, is pretty straightforward: weight gain or loss comes down to calorie surplus or deficit. What's more, the details are small enough that the process can be generalized to:

• 1 lb of weight gain equals 3500 calories extra, or about 500 calories extra per day for 1 lb of gain per week

• 1 lb of weight loss equals 3500 calories deficit, or about 500 calories less than you burn per day for 1 lb of loss per week

"But wait!" I hear people saying. "What about low carb diets? What about paleo? What about glycemic index and insulin? what about starvation mode? What about people who claim to lose 7 pounds in 7 days?"

The laws of thermodynamics are what they are.

Weight loss is a slow process. It takes time and dedication to make it happen--and all studies indicate that regardless of the diet, long-term, the end result is identical to what one would expect solely from counting calories.

It is true that when you first start cutting calories, the loss in glycogen (sugars) from muscle and other tissues releases some excess water. The initial loss in water weight can appear drastic, but after a couple of days, weight loss settles into a slow and somewhat steady rate.

Calculating how many calories you take in, and especially how many you burn, can be a tricky matter. The single biggest changing factor with regard to how many calories you burn is something called "non-exercise activity thermogenesis" or "NEAT". Put simply, it's a combination of how much movement and activity you engage in during the day that isn't explicitly geared towards "exercise" or "working out". And it can make a huge difference: swings of more than 1000 calories per day have been reported in the same person.

Changes both in NEAT and in overall energy levels for exercise can make a big difference, and account for most of the problems people run into (aside from lack of accuracy in keeping track of how many calories they consume) when cutting calories.

Other, more minor factors that can impact the calorie balance equation include the form the calories come in (you burn slightly more energy digesting protein than carbs or fats) and the type of exercise you engage in (some types of exercise increase calorie burning even after the exercise is finished).

Also, some types of food (e.g. protein) will help you feel more full, reducing the amount of calories you eat.

Spot reduction

Frequently, you'll hear someone ask "how can I make my stomach less fat?" --or the same question for other body parts.

There is only one way to "spot reduce" body fat: surgery.

Body fat is a package deal. The distribution of fat a person enjoys is genetically determined. But it's gained or lost throughout the body.

Muscle development is different - an individual muscle can atrophy or increase in size.

A note on "starvation mode"

People suffering from anorexia nervosa prove every day that if your goal is solely to lose weight, starving yourself works. It's a very unhealthy (in fact, life-threatening) way to do it, but the law remains the same.

Your body can do a few things to cut its rate of calorie burn, including dialing back reproductive and immune system activities. But the changes aren't very significant. As I noted above, lethargy due to lack of energy makes a much bigger difference if you cut calories excessively. And even that will only take you so far -- your body needs to burn a minimum number of calories per day just to breathe and keep your heart pumping. If it doesn't have enough energy to do that, you have bigger problems than lack of weight loss.

Losing weight while keeping muscle

When your body doesn't get enough calories from food to cover its needs, it will start to consume its own tissues to make up the difference. For people with large amounts of body fat, most of the difference is made up by body fat. However, for leaner people, the picture is a little more complex.

Unless it receives a stimulus (through resistance exercise) that tells it muscle is needed, weight loss can result in both body fat and muscle loss. That's why it's important, for someone who wants to lose body fat but keep muscle, to engage in resistance exercise (weight lifting) at the same time--and that's true for both men and women. Added to the mix is the necessity of adequate protein to maintain the muscle.

It is possible, however, to lose weight so quickly that your body takes nutrition from muscle regardless. Studies put the amount of "equivalent calories" body fat can provide at around 30.5 calories per pound of body weight, per day.

In other words, for a woman at 140 lbs and 25% body fat (about 35 lbs of body fat), a diet of around 1060 calories per day less than she burns could come entirely from body fat. If the same woman weighed 125 lbs with the same amount of muscle (a body fat level of a very lean 16%, or 20 lbs of fat), attempting a diet of the same calorie deficit would result in loss of muscle and other tissue, regardless of the exercise.

The bottom line for weight loss

• Weight is lost by eating fewer calories than you burn, with 3500 calories = 1 lbs. BUT...


• Eating too few calories can cause lethargy and lack of energy, resulting in fewer calories burned and partially defeating the purpose. Also...


• Cutting calories while weightlifting can let you hold on to muscle and cut body fat alone, EXCEPT...


• If you cut calories too sharply, your body can't make up the energy difference by burning body fat alone, and will make it up by burning other tissues, including muscle

Pretty simple, right? Except that's not all.

Essential fat levels

No human being can survive with no body fat whatsoever. There is a minimum amount of body fat needed, below which all sorts of nasty side effects can kick in. Some of these effects are worse for women.

Typical essential body fat levels are 3-5% for men, and 10-13% for women.

Below these levels, supressed immune functioning and hormonal imbalances (with associated effects like amenorrhea and osteoporosis) can kick in. Individuals vary, however: even approaching these levels can cause problems for some people.

For extensive muscle definition to show (the "cut" look), 5-7% levels for men and 13-17% for women are typical. Bodybuilders and figure competitors temporarily go to lower levels for competition.

Gaining muscle

Most people serious about pursuing muscle gain for aesthetic or competition purposes (as opposed to simply getting stronger) will go through dietary "bulking" and "cutting" phases. Put simply, the "bulking" phase consists of weight gain through surplus calories while weightlifting. This phase is characterized by the gain of both muscle and body fat (since the process of gaining muscle isn't 100% efficient). After a while, the athlete will switch to a "cutting" phase, during which calories are restricted while maintaining his or her weightlifting routine. The "cutting" phase is designed to remove the excess body fat put on during the "bulking" phase.

Trying to both "bulk" and "cut" at the same time is generally not very efficient, and frequently doesn't work at all. The one exception tends to be people who are obese to begin with.

Summing up

I haven't gotten into issues that affect diabetics, protein levels, workout routines, etc. They're kind of beyond what I want to cover here.

The bottom line is this: there are healthier and less healthy ways to lose weight. Crash diets are not a healthy way to go about it, nor are they usually sustainable. If you want to fit into a pair of jeans in a week, that's great. Unfortunately, you probably should have started several months ago.

More reading:
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-energy-balance-equation/

https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/calories/

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/

https://alanaragon.com/

https://www.emma-leigh.com/

[NotJustAnotherGuy]

"Trying to both "bulk" and "cut" at the same time is generally not very efficient, and frequently doesn't work at all."
---------Learn to clean bulk. Getting bigger, while getting leaner is not difficult. I've never had to fatten up to get muscle, and I'm not any sort of gene freak. Anyone can manage it and most athletes outside of BBing, PLing and WLing, do. It is also the epitome of efficiency since you're tackling two problems at the same time, you're getting more results in less time. It also makes you look better now, and that's efficient.. whereas being fat and then skinny and then fat, and then skinny again, rarely has you at your best shape.

[Kythe]

What you're describing is known as "culking" - a term Alan Aragon coined a few years ago. It's possible for some people, but compared with bulking and cutting cycles, it is not very efficient.

See: forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=136516011

[Kythe]

Lyle McDonald put it pretty well...

"Eric: I think if you look at culking at Alan has it set up, it’s simply a very very very mild version of some of the more extreme EOD/IF stuff. A bit of a surplus on weights days a bit of a deficit (or maintenance) on non-weights days with some cardio. As well, if you look at the time frames involved…. it takes forever to achieve what I think can be done much faster with more direct/focused approaches. So fine in 2 years you end up 10 lbs muscle heavier and 10 lbs fat loss lighter. Which you could do in maybe 30 weeks if you dieted and gained in alternating fashion. And which certainly isn’t what people are hoping for when they ask about ‘gaining muscle while losing fat’ (usually they want to shift 10-20 lbs fat into 10-20 lbs muscle in a 10-20 week period or some absurdist nonsense)."

Keep in mind, we have people on here asking how to get results in the minimum amount of time.

[NotJustAnotherGuy]

Okay.. let's use your term even though they mean the exact same thing and mine's more widely used.. Alan Aragon is a man, not a research paper. Plenty of people who have published research papers and critiques, have provided misleading, inaccurate or blatantly false claims. A fact that even Aragon makes note of on every conversation he has on research that suggests meal frequency is a factor in weight loss.

The fact remains, there is no evidence that a gross surplus of calories increases muscle gains faster than a minor surplus. In fact, we don't know the optimal ceiling for gains, even though it is widely theorized to be around 500 calories of surplus. But the evidence we do have, suggest culking is better since we know factually, that you inevitably burn more muscle the larger rate at which you cut. So if you cut at a slow rate, your results will be more efficient (culking). And if you cut at a fast rate (cutting cycles), your results will be weakened.

[NotJustAnotherGuy]

But if you culk, you recompose your body and take on the task of gaining muscle, while losing or maintaining fat. Therego the most efficient result, since you don't have a whole 3 month cycle that diminishes your gains AND there is no proof that you'll get less gains than a bulk (which typically consists of 1000 calories, far over shooting what most people believe to be the amount your body can utilize into muscle growth in a day). So we know factually we lose less muscle culking, and we're uncertain of any muscle gain advantage over 500 calories.. mathematically that would make culking the most efficient.

And also with culking you have the best body you can have, at all times. That's efficient. Assuming you're going to work out your whole life, dirty bulking and cutting endlessly.. how often are you going to have your best body? That's not efficient.

[NotJustAnotherGuy]

Just to go back on why 500 calories surplus is widely theorized to be the bodies limit-- it's because that would mean 1lb of muscle in a week-- which is really amazing results, likely the best possible. That would suggest we could get 52lbs of muscle gains in a year, which equals even more weight gain when you consider how much more water your body would retain at that size. Versus 1000 calorie surplus, if we could use all of it would suggest a 104lb muscle gain in a year, which is not even remotely possible even with steroids.

Which is why bulking, is just getting fat. And cutting is a cycle that damages our strength/LBM, to reverse the damage of our bulking.

Bulking is not efficient. It's just easier.

[Kythe]

I actually don't think we're that far apart on this.

For the non-steroid-using crowd, most men will gain, at most, 1-2 lbs of muscle per month if training and diet are at their best (with the emphasis on the low end, especially for people who have been working out for a while). For most women, it's 1/2 to 1 lbs of muscle per month.

So, it's absolutely true that gorging is something you don't really want to do, even while bulking. Some people do, and it's a waste--putting on lots of extra fat without seeing any extra muscle gain.

On the other hand, if you restrict overall body weight gain to 1-2 lbs per month or less, while you will put on less body fat, you may also see less muscle gain than you could. Typically, muscle gain rate maxes out at about 1 lb/month.

I didn't really want to get into the details of bulking and cutting in my article, though I may write more on it. Lyle McDonald also has a good writeup:

www.bodyrecomposition.com/.../

[Kythe]

A couple of other things: as I noted in the writeup, you do want to be careful in how fast you cut, even with training being in order. The leaner you get (less bodyfat you have), the slower the cut has to be to avoid taking your body's energy needs out of muscle.

Anyway, I apologize: it seems to me, overall, that what you're discussing here is less "culking" (recomposition) than simply a slow bulk. Nothing wrong with that, but as always, results will depend on your goals, age, how long you've been working out, and natural ability. Body builders and other fitness athletes are looking at maximum muscle/leanness in the minimum amount of time. As such, they're willing to put up with less than optimal results in the meantime (excess body fat).

[Kythe]

Just to clarify the above:

At 500 calories/day surplus, you're talking 4 lbs of body weight gain per month. This is widely considered a good target for maximizing muscle gain. With 1-2 lbs of muscle gain/month, you will put on some excess body fat. I agree with you that pushing for faster body weight gain beyond that will do nothing for muscle gain (again, assuming pharmeceutical enhancements aren't in the picture), and is a waste.

Going with a slower body weight gain may give you a higher muscle-to-fat gain ratio, but it will likely also result in slower muscle gain overall.

[Kythe]

One more thing: SITE OWNERS, would really appreciate an "edit" feature on posts here :) I've made several bonehead mistakes I'd love to go back and correct, and unfortunately, that's not possible.

[NotJustAnotherGuy]

You're making this too confusing. I suspect diction is distorting your perception of what each term means (which is actually really common-- many people hate the term clean/dirty bulk cause it's often confused for eating healthy foods while bulking). But the reality is, slow bulk, clean bulk, and culking all have the same meaning (in fact culking is just a fusing of the words "clean bulking"). It's getting enough calories for muscle gains, while restricted enough for fat maintenance or loss. This means you're reducing your body fat %, while putting on lean body mass. It is the most efficient means.

Bulking and cutting is what people like Lee Priest do. And although it is a method you can be successful with, it is certainly not the most efficient for aesthetics or health. And certainly not the most applicable for this audience (or most any other non-BB audience since we don't have to be a competition weight particularly as in BB where that leanness is unhealthy and injury prone)

[NotJustAnotherGuy]

You're the one who said "Keep in mind, we have people on here asking how to get results in the minimum amount of time." and I don't think cycle of this--

inspirationalphysiques.files.wordpress.com/.../lee_priest_off_season01.jpg

--is keeping any of that in mind."

With that having been said, I applaud that you got so much right in a lengthy article on a topic that is extremely vast in variables and also immensely under researched. It is certainly a difficult feat to accomplish, and hardly one I think most health&fitness oriented GaGers are capable of. But I definitely believe there is strong reason to believe that bulking and cutting cycles are inefficient in comparison to doing both at the same time.

[Kythe]

No problem, I think it's a good discussion.

As for "culking" -- AI confused what you were originally talking about. "Culking" is using a surplus of calories on lifting days, and a deficit on off days, to try to gain muscle, lose fat, and basically maintain your current body weight.

A slow or lean bulk will minimize fat gain while gaining muscle, and I absolutely agree that it's not necessary (or efficient) to go nuts with weight gain while bulking. It just gives you extra body fat that you then need to take off.

However, no matter how you do it, gaining muscle is an imperfect process. Someone starting at 10% body fat would need more than 90% of gains to go to lean mass to avoid gaining body fat percentage, for example. At best, that's going to be a slow gain. Someone looking to gain max muscle and leanness in the minimum time might not find that optimal.

The bottom line, of course: do what works for you and your goals.

[Kythe]

And to be clear: I do not recommend Lee's approach for most people :)

[Kythe]

OK, after reviewing this, I agree with @NotJustAnotherGuy on the preference for "clean bulking". I think we were talking past each other, and it doesn't help that I'm a bit rusty on bulking/cutting details.

There are a range of bulking methodologies. The GFH ("get freaking huge") approach which he mentions, in which a bodybuilder will basically gorge him or herself, is NOT a great way to go, and I agree, it's inefficient. But that's the subject for another take.

Thanks for his patience, and for the compliment on my writeup.

[smokahontas]

The Salmon Diet!

[BertMacklinFBI]

bahahaa :D

[front2back]

So far, the "eat healthy but don't starve yourself" and "get in da weight room" tatic has helped me a lot with FAT loss (not weight, muscle building increases weight). I stopped (not completely, I'm not perfect) eating unhealthy foods while maintaining a good caloric intake of around 3000 give or take calories a day. Lifting often for strength helps make my muscles active, and muscles LOVE calories. So by lifting weights and eating healthy I've actually started to (gradually) burn fat and get stronger just by lifting weights. I'm not trying to "bulk" because that focuses on muscle mass. If you focus on lifting for strength, the muscle mass will come in time.

[NateInAk]

So would volleyball practice everyday (which includes at least ten laps around the gym at high speed, at least thirty sit-ups, twenty squats, and light exercise on a bowflex- and actually playin volleyball) be a good level of exercise generally? I also play basketball a lot of nights. I know I don't eat very healthily, but does that at least sound like an ok level of exercise?

[ninadx3]

If you don't mind me asking, what do you eat? Because those practices sound pretty good, but diet is a big factor on results.

[NateInAk]

A typical weekday? Couple of eggs and toast or just a bowl of cereal. Top ramen for lunch (easiest thing to fix in half an hour) and maybe a casserole or pasta or homemade pizza (grilled or fried chicken if I'm lucky) with some kinda side for dinner.
On a weekend it's usually a big breakfast like biscuits and gravy and eggs and bacon, then just whatever I can find for lunch, and the same thing as weekdays for dinner.

[Kythe]

Regular, intense exercise of just about any sort is good for you. Studies have repeatedly shown that it makes all the difference in mortality rates, for example -- obese people who get regular intense exercise have all-cause mortality rates on par with thin, active people. And thin, sedentary people have all-cause mortality rates almost as bad as obese sedentary people.

Explosive exercise, such as volleyball and basketball, are good all-around forms of exercise. In some ways, they're similar to High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT), which not only burns calories during exercise and helps stimulate muscle development, but leads to enhanced calorie burning after exercise, as well.

The bottom line, of course, is doing something you enjoy.