Quantcast

I need to lose fat but not sacrifice muscle

Del

Monkey
Feb 20, 2004
366
0
Alexandria, VA
I finally quit smoking on June 8th and I didn't worry about gaining weight because I was already a pretty slim guy (6'4", 185lbs fully dressed). But I stepped on a scale the other night and found myself at 199.5lbs fully dressed. I guess my diet and metabolism changed enough to allow me to gain 15 lbs of fat? I worked out steadily for a month after quitting to keep me motivated but I hardly feel like I could have added that much in muscle.

So now I want to go back down to the 185lb range but I'm worried about losing muscle in the process. I am 29 years old and if I'm not careful the weight will probably keep coming. I can eat like a damned horse.

What should I do in order to lose the 15lbs but maintain muscle?

I do not know enough about the science of food in order to follow a plan that says I need 30% protein, 15% carb etc... I know meat has protein and breads have carbs but my knowledge stops there.

Currently my meals consist of:

Breakfast - Usually a bagel sandwhich in the morning consisting of a bagel with 2 strips turkey bacon and egg whites.

Lunch - a ziplock bag with some carrots, one string cheese, an apple, a roast beef sandwhich on a bun with horseradish and a tomato, and a granola bar.

Dinner - Typically a meat (chicken or beef), vegetables, and rice or pasta.

I also tend to drink one to three beers on an average night. I think I may need to cut out the beer :(

Some days I don't drink any pure water at all. Often I get my water in the form of coffee or beer. I have been working on changing that by forcing myself to drink water.
 

JapaneseZero

Monkey
Jun 27, 2006
602
0
Virginia
yo,
I quit dipping and experianced the same thing. basically your body was relying on the constant stimulant in nicotine. now that you dont have that anymore your body has slowed down a bit. kind of like a sugar rush, you go strong for about 20 mins and then bonk. your body will adjust after a few months, just be patient and eat healthy and you should be good. i went from 185 to 210 and im back to just under 190 now... took about 8 months.
 

TBFKAHG

Monkey
Aug 11, 2005
165
0
I worked out steadily for a month after quitting to keep me motivated but I hardly feel like I could have added that much in muscle.

What should I do in order to lose the 15lbs but maintain muscle?
Answer is simple, keep working out. Nothing boosts your metabolism more than lifting weights (and by weights I mean free weights, nautilus machines and such are one of the greatest scams of all time). I could give you tons of advice on actual workouts and such but that would get very long winded. Being so thin even on a fat-loss lifting program you'll still pack on some muscle which is a bonus. Don't underestimate how much some extra muscle will improve your riding. Stronger legs mean you can pedal harder and a stronger upper body makes it really easy to work the bike in the technical sections.
 

Del

Monkey
Feb 20, 2004
366
0
Alexandria, VA
Answer is simple, keep working out. Nothing boosts your metabolism more than lifting weights (and by weights I mean free weights, nautilus machines and such are one of the greatest scams of all time). I could give you tons of advice on actual workouts and such but that would get very long winded. Being so thin even on a fat-loss lifting program you'll still pack on some muscle which is a bonus. Don't underestimate how much some extra muscle will improve your riding. Stronger legs mean you can pedal harder and a stronger upper body makes it really easy to work the bike in the technical sections.
Doesn't muscle weigh more than fat? If it does, wouldn't I be in danger of gaining even more weight by working out heavily?
 

TBFKAHG

Monkey
Aug 11, 2005
165
0
Doesn't muscle weigh more than fat? If it does, wouldn't I be in danger of gaining even more weight by working out heavily?
Yes, it does but why should that really be a concern? Why do people get so hung up on this number called weight? If your are leaner and stronger why would that be a bad thing?
Say you lose 15 pounds of fat and pack on 5 pounds of muscle. You're net loss is still 10 pounds but you will be much stronger which in my mind is a much better tradeoff than just losing 15 lbs of fat alone. And you won't have to starve youself in the process (starving yourself would actualy work against you).

Besides, 6'4" and 185, that's damn near skelital so a few pounds of muscle could definitely do you some good :)
 

JapaneseZero

Monkey
Jun 27, 2006
602
0
Virginia
if you do high aerobic workouts, i.e. biking longer distances, your muscle will stay lean. as apposted to anarobic workouts which builds bulk.
 

TBFKAHG

Monkey
Aug 11, 2005
165
0
if you do high aerobic workouts, i.e. biking longer distances, your muscle will stay lean. as apposted to anarobic workouts which builds bulk.
yes and no. but you also won't get any of the benefits that come with muscle gain such as a higher resting metabolic rate to name but one.
Increased aerobic won't do crap for your muscles and could still cause an actual loss of muscle depending on what you are doing and your diet (i.e. if you try to cut back on calories and crank up the aerobic activity you will likely lose muscle). But yes, in general biking more could help in losing the weight without losing the muscle.
But my question remains, at 6'5 and a target pre-weight gain weight of 185, why would you be opposed to putting on some muscle mass?

And the whole concept of aerobic keeps you lean while anaerobic build boke is totally bunk. My riding is primarily anaerobic and I'm never going to bulk up from riding.

This is an oversimplification but lifting heavy weights at low volumes and consuming enough calories to provide the necessary fuel is what gives you bulk. And genetics plays a large role in how much you can really bulk up. With someone who is naturally that tall and thin chances are very high that no matter how much they lift they'll never be the next Mr Olypia.
And don't even get me started on how Isolation exercices are worthless outside of the world of body building or physical therapy for an injury. And yes, like most gym rats I spent plenty of time doing countless sets of tricep and bicep specific exercises but never again.
 

Del

Monkey
Feb 20, 2004
366
0
Alexandria, VA
But my question remains, at 6'5 and a target pre-weight gain weight of 185, why would you be opposed to putting on some muscle mass?
I have nothing against muscle mass. I just want to try to go back down to the range I was. If I gain more muscle but lose weight then that would be awesome.

It seems retarded but I am concerned mainly with how my bike will handle with me gaining weight. Maybe I am being over paranoid but this is the first time in my life I have ever experienced a sudden weight gain and I guess I'm a little spooked.

I spent most of my late-teens and 20's hovering between 175-185. And now at age 29 I suddenly put on 15 pounds in four months - it's got me worried.
 

Ciaran

Fear my banana
Apr 5, 2004
9,839
15
So Cal
I have nothing against muscle mass. I just want to try to go back down to the range I was. If I gain more muscle but lose weight then that would be awesome.

It seems retarded but I am concerned mainly with how my bike will handle with me gaining weight. Maybe I am being over paranoid but this is the first time in my life I have ever experienced a sudden weight gain and I guess I'm a little spooked.

I spent most of my late-teens and 20's hovering between 175-185. And now at age 29 I suddenly put on 15 pounds in four months - it's got me worried.
You can't think of it in terms of a number. That's going to negatively affect you every time. Remember, it's about health and fitness, not how much your body weighs.

I concur on the free weights. Very good for you.
 

TBFKAHG

Monkey
Aug 11, 2005
165
0
Exactly. I'm not saying don't lift weights, but if you want to burn fat and increase your basal metabolic rate, you're going to do it by training aerobically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobic_exercise
And I'm not saying you can't do it by training aerobically but that is not the fastest way to do it. There are plenty of studies that prove that weight training boosts your metabolism more than aerobics.
You work out for an hour of really hard aerobics and you might burn 800 calories. Within an hour of being done your metabolic rate is back down to normal so your overall calorie burn stays at 800.

When you lift weights (assuming you are actually lifting enough to make it worth your while) you get an afterburn effect and your metabolic rate stays boosted for several hours, and in the case of really intene workouts, up to 2 days, after the workout is complete. So your overall calorie burn will be much higher.
Combine that with the fact that bigger muscles require/burn more calories and your base metabolic rate is much higher through lifting than aerobics aone.

Now combine the 2 and you have the best of both worlds.
There are some studies that show that you can hinder muscle growth by combing aerobics/cardio training with lifting and if you stagger the workouts this is true. But recent studies indicate that if you do your aerobic and weight training at the same time you will actually get the full (or at least close to full) benefits of each.


One common mantra that is not gauranteed to result in weight loss (especially if you don't want to lose muscle) is "exercise more, eat less". Depending on the amount of exercise and your calorie intake, you might actually need to eat more.

A couple of years ago I had slacked off on both the riding and working out and my eating habits weren't exactly the best during that period. Coupled with an injury my eight went above 200 for the first time ever. I started eating right, picked the right kind of lifting program during the week, and hit the trails ont he weekened. Within 3 months I was at 175 and about the most fit I had ever been in my life.
 

Del

Monkey
Feb 20, 2004
366
0
Alexandria, VA
But recent studies indicate that if you do your aerobic and weight training at the same time you will actually get the full (or at least close to full) benefits of each.
Can you give an example of what kind of of routine this would be? I would think of the classic lifting 3 times per week and aerobic 2 or 3 times per week and alternating between the two. Am I incorrect?
 

TBFKAHG

Monkey
Aug 11, 2005
165
0
Can you give an example of what kind of of routine this would be? I would think of the classic lifting 3 times per week and aerobic 2 or 3 times per week and alternating between the two. Am I incorrect?
Alternating between them will definitely help with losing weight withough losing muscle and at your size you'll probably still build some muscle too. If you wanted to maximize muscle growth while combining the 2 you would actuallly want to do your aerobic and weight lifting during the same session. I.e go for a ride then follow that up immediately (or later in the same day) with your workout but that's not practical for most people.

I'll PM you a bit more info on some routines that would get you on the right track.
 

reflux

Turbo Monkey
Mar 18, 2002
4,617
2
G14 Classified
About me: I run 6 miles after work, and then drive home to use the gym (to lift) down the street. There is about 45 min to an hour from when I stop running to when I start lifting. Is this still okay?
 

TBFKAHG

Monkey
Aug 11, 2005
165
0
About me: I run 6 miles after work, and then drive home to use the gym (to lift) down the street. There is about 45 min to an hour from when I stop running to when I start lifting. Is this still okay?
I would think so. I swim before my workouts myself then ride on the off days (week day rides are short and I'm not worried about being the next mr olympia so i don't think i have ot worry about the riding interfering with my strength building).

I don't think it would be an issue even if there were a few hours between the 2. Now if you worked out hard, waited a couple of hours and then ran it could be a different story because then you are using energy that your body could be using to repair your muscles.

I'm no expert and no doctor. Most of my knowledge comes from books and magazines and a friend turned me on to a book lately that really changed my outlook on lifting.
It does a great job at debunking a lot of myths and changed the way I work out (for the better I think).
 

Ciaran

Fear my banana
Apr 5, 2004
9,839
15
So Cal
I'm no expert and no doctor. Most of my knowledge comes from books and magazines and a friend turned me on to a book lately that really changed my outlook on lifting.
It does a great job at debunking a lot of myths and changed the way I work out (for the better I think).
What book, if you don't mind me asking?
 

TBFKAHG

Monkey
Aug 11, 2005
165
0
Exactly. I'm not saying don't lift weights, but if you want to burn fat and increase your basal metabolic rate, you're going to do it by training aerobically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobic_exercise
Here's some stuff from an article by Alwyn Cosgrove about aerobics:
<start cut and paste job>
Let’s think of all the reasons steady state aerobic training is supposed to burn fat.
  1. It burns calories. Good. I’ll buy that. How does it burn calories? Because the muscles are hard at work and demand extra oxygen to help them continue working. Hmmm. There are a ton of activities such as weight training, sprinting, sleeping, talking watching TV that ALSO burn calories by requiring work from the muscles. So no extra points for aerobic training.
  2. The fat burning zone. Nope. Sorry – it doesn’t exist. The fat burning zone is a concept that the body burns a greater amount of fat at lower intensity aerobic exercise than it does at higher intensities. This is a misinterpretation. It’s true that the body burns a greater percentage of fat at lower intensities than at higher intensities, but taking this to its logical conclusion – the body will burn a greater amount of fat as a percentage lying on the couch than doing anything else right? And we know how good lying on the couch works for fat loss. It’s the “as a percentage” line. At lower intensities the body may burn 50% of the calories from fat, while at higher intensities it may only burn 35% of calories from fat. BUT at higher intensities you burn way more total calories, and more fat calories overall than you do at lower intensities. Think about a real world example – are sprinters (running 10-20s) fatter than marathon runners (2-2.5 hours of running). No. Actually sprinters carry less body fat than distance runners due to their muscle mass.
  3. Aerobics makes your body an “efficient fat burning machine”. True but this isn’t a desirable response. The ONLY tissue that burns fat in the body is muscle. Yes – aerobic training does demand work from the muscles, but not as much as other activities. Aerobic training doesn’t require the muscle tissue to stay around either. Aerobic training makes muscles more efficient at using fat (don’t get excited – if your car became more efficient at burning gas – you’d be using less of it).
    So if muscle is the only tissue that burns fat, and aerobic training makes it smaller and more efficient at burning fat, then essentially you are creating a smaller, more efficient fat burning machine. That’s not effective.
  4. Aerobic training raises your metabolism. I’ll cover this in more detail later but the short answer is no it doesn’t. Metabolism is largely a function of how much muscle you carry. As aerobics does nothing to even maintain muscle, never mind build muscle, it will do nothing to contribute to raising your metabolism at rest. Sure, you’ll burn calories while you’re doing it, but will you burn any more at rest as a result of doing aerobics? No. And as you’ll find out later, you may actually burn less.
<end cut and paste job>