Muscle, fat and weight loss

[ClichéGuevara]

Alright I'm not the brightest, but there's something I get stuck on whenever this is mentioned.

I can get my head around muscle being more dense than fat, so you can lose size but gain weight.
I can get my head around not being able to turn fat to muscle, but using the energy in fat to fuel training for muscle growth.

Where I struggle goes back to my school days. In my memory bank, some law or other which could be the first law of thermodynamics, says matter can't be created or destroyed, just changed (or you get fined or go to prison like any other law breaker) so if I eat less, train more and still gain weight, where has the additional mass come from?

 

[WychwoodTrev]

I would say if you are training more you are drinking more I know I do so some weight gain might be just you are hydrated or over hydrated

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I would say if you are training more you are drinking more I know I do so some weight gain might be just you are hydrated or over hydrated

It's possible, but I'd assume that would be very temporary?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Alright I'm not the brightest, but there's something I get stuck on whenever this is mentioned.

I can get my head around muscle being more dense than fat, so you can lose size but gain weight.
I can get my head around not being able to turn fat to muscle, but using the energy in fat to fuel training for muscle growth.

Where I struggle goes back to my school days. In my memory bank, some law or other which could be the first law of thermodynamics, says matter can't be created or destroyed, just changed (or you get fined or go to prison like any other law breaker) so if I eat less, train more and still gain weight, where has the additional mass come from?

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed just changed or stored. IIRC

In answer to your question - you fat stores. The body will in effect eat itself. For a short period of time this will produce additional muscle bulk. Over time you will loose bulk as the body runs out of fat stores.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed just changed or stored. IIRC

In answer to your question - you fat stores. The body will in effect eat itself. For a short period of time this will produce additional muscle bulk. Over time you will loose bulk as the body runs out of fat stores.

But the fat stores are already counted in the initial weight. Some mass would be lost in burning them for energy, so I still can't see where an increase in mass comes from.

Sorry if I'm being really thick.


EDIT, just to clarify, by mass I mean weight. Sorry if I've got my nomencalture mixed up.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

But the fat stores are already counted in the initial weight. Some mass would be lost in burning them for energy, so I still can't see where an increase in mass comes from.

Sorry if I'm being really thick.

Fat is burned to produce the energy required to exercise. Exercise builds muscles. Muscle density is greater than than of fat so the loss of weight from the burned fat will be negated by the increase weigh gained from muscle

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Fat is burned to produce the energy required to exercise. Exercise builds muscles. Muscle density is greater than than of fat so the loss of weight from the burned fat will be negated by the increase weigh gained from muscle

Yes, but if I'm eating less calories than I need in a day, my body should start to burn the fat.
Any muscle growth can still only come from my existing store (which is included in the initial weight) or my additional input, which is below what's needed.
This still leaves a defecit in weight and so still begs the question of where any increase in overall weight has come from, doesn't it?


Is it that the body just clings onto everything causing a reduction in normal bodily functions, so the apparent reduced calory input is possibly misleading?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Yes, but if I'm eating less calories than I need in a day, my body should start to burn the fat.
Any muscle growth can still only come from my existing store (which is included in the initial weight) or my additional input, which is below what's needed.
This still leaves a defecit in weight and so still begs the question of where any increase in overall weight has come from, doesn't it?


Is it that the body just clings onto everything causing a reduction in normal bodily functions, so the apparent reduced calory input is possibly misleading?

If you reduce your calorific input over a long period then yes your metabolism will slow down (I believe)

You make an assertion about "needed calorie input". That may be the flaw in the argument. It is however a very interesting train of though.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

If you reduce your calorific input over a long period then yes your metabolism will slow down (I believe)

You make an assertion about "needed calorie input". That may be the flaw in the argument. It is however a very interesting train of though.

Logically i'd say the calory input has to be the flaw, as the other sources of energy are weighed at the start. It's possible that the usual values for minimum BMR are over cooked, or more likely the figures used for calories in food is under estimated or undercounted (portion size etc).


The slower metabolism thing would only reduce the rate of weight loss rather than cause an increase though wouldn't it? Or is it a case that reduced calorie intake induces starvation mode so very little is passed through? That would still leave a big gap in the "ideal" minimum calorie estimate as I'm sure it's not a clear, fine line between right and wrong amounts.


It intrigues me though because reading various articles and listening to various people, a lot must be making the same misscalculations, if in deed that is what's happening.

 

[Judderz]

I'll answer/explain this one in an easy way

Alright I'm not the brightest, but there's something I get stuck on whenever this is mentioned.

I can get my head around muscle being more dense than fat, so you can lose size but gain weight.

Say you have one pint of water (volume) and a pint of (say) motor oil

By volume, the pint of motor oil would weigh more because it's thicker (more dense) than the water, but it's the same measurement (one pint)

So (for an example), a pint of muscle (volume) would weigh heavier than a pint of fat.

Does that make sense?

 

[tyred]

One flaw in that. Water is more dense than oil.

Fill some water into a bowl and pour some oil into and note that the oil floats on the water. Drop a steel nail into and it will sink as steel is more dense than the water.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I'll answer/explain this one in an easy way

Say you have one pint of water (volume) and a pint of (say) motor oil

By volume, the pint of motor oil would weigh more because it's thicker (more dense) than the water, but it's the same measurement (one pint)

So (for an example), a pint of muscle (volume) would weigh heavier than a pint of fat.

Does that make sense?

Oh yes, As I put, I've no issue with the question of density, it's more a question of where the additional weight comes from. If I'm eating less and training more, what physical process has occured that has generated whatever has caused the increase in weight?

 

[Judderz]

One flaw in that. Water is more dense than oil.

Fill some water into a bowl and pour some oil into and note that the oil floats on the water. Drop a steel nail into and it will sink as steel is more dense than the water.

There's that explanation out the window....

 

[ColinJ]

I'll answer/explain this one in an easy way

Say you have one pint of water (volume) and a pint of (say) motor oil

By volume, the pint of motor oil would weigh more because it's thicker (more dense) than the water, but it's the same measurement (one pint)

So (for an example), a pint of muscle (volume) would weigh heavier than a pint of fat.

Does that make sense?

He said he can get his head round it not that he can't!

What CG is saying is that if someone isn't taking in enough calories to maintain his/her weight, how on earth can their muscle mass increase more than the mass of fat lost? (And the answer is that it can't!)

[I did start typing that before CG's reply - honest!]

 

[Fiona N]

Well if you're maintaining a calorie deficit but putting weight on, it probably is water.

People don't seem to realise there's a whole system in the body separate from but allied with the blood circulation and that's the lymphatic system which shifts fluids (lymph) around. So when you have swolen ankles it 's not blood pooling it's lymph. That's an obvious example but anything which interferes with the lymphatic system can cause it to become less efficient at getting ride of excess fluid. Drinkers often find they lose weight very quickly when they first give up alcohol but it's not fat, just the lymph system shifting a backlog of fluid (ironic as most people do bang on about alcohol causing dehydration).

So may be the dieting and training is causing some 'bloating'. I do often find that when I've had a hard session in the gym or when I used to mountaineer and would get DOMS of the quads, my weight would be a bit high so I've always assumed that sore muscles are associated with either inflammation (likely) or fluid retention. Maybe that's your problem