Burning Fat, while building lean muscle...

[Fitch]

Is this possible... if yes, how can I do this?

 

[[S]alvatore]

It is only possible if:

-You have just started working out, this may be known as the "honeymoon" period
-You are using AAS
-Or you have extremely fu<king good genetics

 

[TheLazy]

-You have just started working out, this may be known as the "honeymoon" period

even during that time, your diet has to be quite balanced, not too much over and not too much under.

 

[TheLazy]

as long as you aren't under-eating (like much more than 500 calories below your maintainence) there will hardly be any loss of muscle... from experience though... any less than that + no lifting = bye bye muscle.

 

[Warboss Alex]

It is only possible if:

-You have just started working out, this may be known as the "honeymoon" period
-You are using AAS
-Or you have extremely fu<king good genetics

c'mon mate, what's this you're saying?

it's perfectly possible for the vast majority of trainers regardless of experience. I have done it and continue to do it as do many people I know - maybe we've all got top-of-the-line genes? I doubt it..

you have to be fairly precise about your diet and consistent, meticulous, work hard with your cardio, cutoffs, thermos but it's definitely possible and doable.

steroids will make the job easier I agree.

(note: the results will not be as fast as on a traditional 'bulk' or 'cut' cycle, but they will be there believe you me. also, don't expect to go from 8% to 4% and gain 20lbs, let's keep things realistic here.. your body has to be somewhere it's comfortable at, not at the extreme ends of leanness and/or muscularity if you're to achieve this, however if you WERE that advanced you wouldn't be asking this question )

 

[mrRuckus]

Let's say you're eating a hamburger. That's 35% total fat.

Then you drink a glass of milk. That's 2% total fat.

35+2=37

Then you eat a chocolate bar. That's 8% total fat.

37+8=45

Since when can you add percentages?

THAT'S FUKING RIDICULOUS!

Glad you agree!

 

[Skilla_Staz]

But if you are OVERWEIGHT...and need to lose weight, I'd personally do high reps with lower weights. It'll get rid of the weight faster...because if you're dealing with heavier weights..you're probably gaining more mass..which is not what you're necessarily looking for. I do agree with you that high reps with lower weights may lead to less muscle mass...but if you're overweight...your main concern is to lose weight...

This is why endurance exercises for overweight folks is against my beliefs...

1lb of muscle burns more calories than 1lb of fat.

Intense weightlifting, meaning lower reps and higher weight, is proven to burn more calories POST workout than a higher rep lower weight workout. They burn close to the same amount of calories during the fact.

Weight is a number. Obesity is an image. Muscle is smaller in volume than fat due to the difference in density. If you weigh 200lbs and have 20% bodyfat, you're going to look pretty chunky. Lets say after a year or so, your down to 195lbs and 12% bodyfat. You've only lost 5lbs. What a failure, right? Wrong. You will look a lot slimmer, look a lot more fit, and be much more muscular, yet the difference will only be about 5lbs.

 

[Nocturnal]

1lb of muscle burns more calories than 1lb of fat.

Exactly. Once you bulk, you will have a much easier time getting the fat off because throughout the day your muscle will be burning off so much extra energy. There are a bunch of studies about women using weight lifting to lose fat.. in many cases they gained muscle and still lost weight, just from consistently exercising with weights.

 

[[S]alvatore]

To whoever said higher reps with lower weight for weight loss is correct, but only for overweight people, not bodybuilders.

 

[Skilla_Staz]

To whoever said higher reps with lower weight for weight loss is correct, but only for overweight people, not bodybuilders.

And why is this so? Weight is only a number. Running backs in the NFL are often times about 6'0 and about 230lbs. By the BMI rating, this is over weight, but if you look at these guys, they're pretty solid and lean. I wouldn't call them overweight. People need to stop worrying about the numbers, and start worrying about the image.

 

[Skilla_Staz]

Exactly. If higher reps meant fat loss, then pumping out 100 reps would turn you into an 8-pack toting shredded mess.

 

[[S]alvatore]

What i'm getting at, is I think most overweight people will benefit most from resistance training with higher reps, as it will burn more calories. I don't believe in that bullsh!t high reps for cutting, low reps for bulking.

 

[Skilla_Staz]

Thank you. Somebody else is finally using my sprinters/endurance runners comparison.

Like I mentioned before, the more intense your lifting session, the more calories you will burn. Also, heavy weightlifting keeps your metabolism and your calories burned at a higher level for a couple hours after the workout has finished. The high reps lower weight workouts do not.

 

[Warboss Alex]

Guys, weight training is to gain strength. Cardio is used to burn fat (directly or indirectly). For optimum results at both muscle gain and fat loss stick to each component as it was intended.

Multi-exercise high-rep workouts can be considered cardio sessions yes but they're hardly as efficient as orthodox cardio. What's more after a while they become catabolic.

(I do agree that an intense workout - intense meaning that the load is high - will keep your metabolism elevated for some hours afterwards though)