Strength Training and Bodyfat Levels

[Mark Rippetoe]

An increase in the lifts does not always indicate an increase in muscular hypertrophy. Often times one accompanies the other, but remember that correlation does not equal causation, and in terms of maximal strength training, looking at the numbers is not an absolute measure of aesthetic progress. The amount of muscle you add is likely to have little effect on your metabolic demands, as one pounds of muscle at rest burns approximately 6 calories. The normal rate of muscle growth in a trained individual, even novices, will likely not induce a huge increase in their resting metabolic rate. And no, of course cutting won't cause muscle loss if done correctly. Muscle loss can be nullified or minimized if the stress and demand on your muscles are kept. You lose what you don't use, this is even more true when in a caloric deficit. And unless you are really really fat or if your maintenance calories is simply huge, there is really no need for such a drastic deficit as 1000 cal.

There is so much bullshit in this post that I am moving this silly fucking thread to E&P.

I think our future policy will be to delete nutrition threads when they are submitted. You guys type this shit somewhere else.

[Corrie]

An increase in the lifts does not always indicate an increase in muscular hypertrophy. Often times one accompanies the other, but remember that correlation does not equal causation, and in terms of maximal strength training, looking at the numbers is not an absolute measure of aesthetic progress. The amount of muscle you add is likely to have little effect on your metabolic demands, as one pounds of muscle at rest burns approximately 6 calories. The normal rate of muscle growth in a trained individual, even novices, will likely not induce a huge increase in their resting metabolic rate. And no, of course cutting won't cause muscle loss if done correctly. Muscle loss can be nullified or minimized if the stress and demand on your muscles are kept. You lose what you don't use, this is even more true when in a caloric deficit. And unless you are really really fat or if your maintenance calories is simply huge, there is really no need for such a drastic deficit as 1000 cal.

I've always called bull on this statistic. Not the calorie value itself but the effect of more muscle on weight loss.

Who can create a higher metabolic demand on their body, someone who can squat 135 or someone who can squat 405? The added muscle might not mean much for your resting metabolism but none of us are resting now are we?

[mikeyfresh]

I've always called bull on this statistic. Not the calorie value itself but the effect of more muscle on weight loss.

Who can create a higher metabolic demand on their body, someone who can squat 135 or someone who can squat 405? The added muscle might not mean much for your resting metabolism but none of us are resting now are we?

We are resting much more than we are not. Weight loss is always determined more by diet than exercise in most circumstances, whether one knows it or not. As for Rippetoe calling my post bullshit, he's never been one to look at nutrition, so I don't take much offense. I don't think it's refutable that a 1000 cal deficit is much too drastic for most dieters, that having more muscle does not burn as much fat as most people think, and that to maintain muscle during a cut one has to maintain their level of training. Everything I've stated is also backed up by empirical data.

[Corrie]

We are resting much more than we are not. Weight loss is always determined more by diet than exercise in most circumstances, whether one knows it or now. As for Rippetoe calling my post bullshit, he's never been one to look at nutrition, so I don't take much offense. I don't think it's refutable that a 1000 cal deficit is much too drastic for most dieters, that having more muscles does not burn as much fat as most people think, and that to maintain muscle during a cut one has to maintain their level of training. Everything I've stated is also backed up by empirical data.

I agree with the general sentiment of your post I just think that having more LBM makes a cut a LOT easier. I've seen it in my personal life and it just makes sense logically. Do more work, use more energy, require more protein. All of these things increase your metabolism a lot more than 6 calories a day.

[mikeyfresh]

I agree with the general sentiment of your post I just think that having more LBM makes a cut a LOT easier. I've seen it in my personal life and it just makes sense logically. Do more work, use more energy, require more protein. All of these things increase your metabolism a lot more than 6 calories a day.

The problem with the lifting community today is the total lack of respect for the nutritional sciences. Anecdotes can only prove so much. When empirical data states otherwise, that's when you can either choose to believe chemistry/biology or anecdote based logic. It's so frustrating to see people who are well versed in lifting be so ignorant towards their nutrition. This thread alone proves it. And I know people here are going to say, "The science is bullshit", but not for nutrition, no.

"You're not eating clean enough if you have to count your calories"

That quote in itself sums up the collective attitude in this thread.

[cannibal.horse]

Mikey is right. I lol so hard when someone thinks that their 3 sessions of starting strength a week demand the calories of an elite athlete.

[veryhrm]

The problem with the lifting community today is the total lack of respect for the nutritional sciences. Anecdotes can only prove so much. When empirical data states otherwise, that's when you can either choose to believe chemistry/biology or anecdote based logic. It's so frustrating to see people who are well versed in lifting be so ignorant towards their nutrition. This thread alone proves it. And I know people here are going to say, "The science is bullshit", but not for nutrition, no.

"You're not eating clean enough if you have to count your calories"

That quote in itself sums up the collective attitude in this thread.

Oh yeah... nutrition science is settled.

[cannibal.horse]

I'd say you'd be better off following that than half the brotasticism you get on your average bodybuilding site.

It's not like any naturals are going to be walking round shredded at 100kg anyway.

[mikeyfresh]

Oh yeah... nutrition science is settled.

That is quite outdated, and is still unfortunately being used due to ignorance. The first thing they teach you in kinesiology courses is to not follow government guidelines. Of course, most people who do any form of research on nutritional science knows this. Go to Lyle McDonald's site or Alan Aragon, which has good information. You can't label nutritional science as unreliable just because the government or certain groups decide to be ignorant. This is quite fallacious reasoning.

[veryhrm]

Yes it's outdated, my point is that the stuff that has replaced it is not based on any firmer scientific footing than IT was.
"the science" is conflicting and all over the place. Ornish, China study, Zone, Paleo, Mediterranean diet, all have various levels of sciency theories behind them as do the diabetes association and heart association diets etc. etc.

I tend to like MDA's take on things, but the various effects don't combine in predictable ways and the final product (if it can be called that since it's more of a philosophy) hasn't been validated by serious long terms studies (that i know of).

Just like Starting Strength or westside or Bulgarian method it's cobbled together based on ideology, hunches, extrapolations and personal experimentation.