Search Results: building muscle

Common knowledge tells us that when we eat more calories than we need, we gain weight; and if we eat less calories than we need, we lose weight. But I wonder what happens if less emphasis is put on the weight or number on the scale and more emphasis is put on the body composition and fat distribution.

Let's take a 250-pound, 6'2'' man. He is the archetypical fat guy, eating too many high-calorie, low-nutrient food products. But one day, he decides, out of the blue, that he just does not want to eat junk food anymore. He wants something new for a change and tries to shop for some cheap, healthy food products at his local supermarkets. He makes sure that his diet is balanced and enough to build muscle through intense resistence-training. Riding a real bicycle can be a form of aerobic, cardiovascular exercise as well as a form of resistence-training (especially if you are trying to ride upslope). To train his upper body strength cheaply, he does bodyweight exercises and educates himself on proper form to avoid injury. His goal is not to lose weight, but to change his body composition, so that he has more muscle than fat, while remaining at the same weight. So, he continues to eat at a calorie surplus, but this time, with good food to supply the growth of muscles. He hopes to remain a big guy, but with more muscles than fat.

Which method do you think works best? Do you think people should eat at a calorie deficit to lose weight, or do you think people should eat at the weight-maintenance level or at a calorie surplus with the intention of changing the body composition especially in regards to building more muscle through weight-lifting, bodyweight exercises, and resistance-training in aerobic exercises?