Gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time: Various issues and two key requirements

In my previous post (), I mentioned that the idea of gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time seems impossible to most people because of three widely held misconceptions: (a) to gain muscle you need a calorie surplus; (b) to lose fat you need a calorie deficit; and (c) you cannot achieve a calorie surplus and deficit at the same time.

The scenario used to illustrate what I see as a non-traumatic move from obese or seriously overweight to lean is one in which weight loss and fat loss go hand in hand until a relatively lean level is reached, beyond which weight is maintained constant (as illustrated in the schematic graph below). If you are departing from an obese or seriously overweight level, it may be advisable to lose weight until you reach a body fat level of around 21-24 percent for women or 14-17 percent for men. Once you reach that level, it may be best to stop losing weight, and instead slowly gain muscle and lose fat, in equal amounts. I will discuss the rationale for this in more detail in my next post; this post will focus on addressing the misconceptions above.

Before I address the misconceptions, let me first clarify that, when I say “gaining muscle” I do not mean only increasing the amount of protein stored in muscle tissue. Muscle tissue is mostly water, by far. An important component of muscle tissue is muscle glycogen, which increases dramatically with strength training, and also tends to increase the amount of water stored in muscle. So, when you gain muscle, you gain a significant amount of water.

Now let us take a look at the misconceptions. The first misconception, that to gain muscle you need a calorie surplus, was dispelled in a previous post featuring a study by Ballor and colleagues (). In that study, obese subjects combined strength training with a mild calorie deficit, and gained muscle. They also lost fat, but ended up a bit heavier than at the beginning of the intervention. Another study along the same lines was linked by Clint (thanks) in the comments section under the last post ().

The second misconception, that to lose fat you need a calorie deficit; is related to the third, that you cannot achieve a calorie surplus and deficit at the same time. In part these misconceptions are about semantics, as most people understand “calorie deficit” to mean “constant calorie deficit”. One can easily vary calorie intake every other day, generating various calorie deficits and surpluses over a week, but with no overall calorie deficit or surplus for the entire week. This is why I say that one can achieve a calorie surplus and deficit “at the same time”. But let us make a point very clear, most of the evidence that I have seen so far suggests that you do not need a calorie deficit to lose fat, but you do need a calorie deficit to lose structural weight (i.e., non-water weight). With a few exceptions, not many people will want to lose structural weight by shedding anything other than body fat. One exception would be professional athletes who are already very lean and yet are very big for the weight class in which they compete, being unable to "make weight" through dehydration.

Perhaps the most surprising to some people is that, based on my own experience and that of several HCE () users, you don’t even need to vary your calorie intake that much to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. You can achieve that by eating enough to maintain your body weight. In fact, you can even slowly increase your calorie intake over time, as muscle growth progresses beyond the body fat lost. And here I mean increasing your calorie intake very slowly, proportionally to the amount of muscle you gain; which also means that the incremental increase in calorie intake will vary from person to person. If you are already relatively lean, at around 21-24 percent of body fat for women and 14-17 percent for men, gaining muscle and losing fat in equal amounts will lead to a visible change in body composition over time () ().

Two key requirements seem to be common denominators for most people. You must eat protein regularly; not because muscle tissue is mostly protein, but because protein seems to act as a hormone, signaling to muscle tissue that it should repair itself. (Many hormones are proteins, actually peptides, and also bind to receptor proteins.) And you also must conduct strength training to the point that you are regularly hitting the supercompensation window (). This takes a lot of individual customization (). You can achieve that with body weight exercises, although free weights and machines seem to be generally more effective. Keep in mind that individual customization will allow you to reach your "sweet spots", but that still results will vary across individuals, in some cases dramatically.

If you regularly hit the supercompensation window, you will be progressively spending slightly more energy in each exercise session, chiefly in the form of muscle glycogen, as you progress with your strength training program. You will also be creating a hormonal mix that will increase the body’s reliance on fat as a source of energy during recovery. As a compensatory adaptation (), your body will gradually increase the size of its glycogen stores, raising insulin sensitivity and making it progressively more difficult for glucose to become body fat.

Since you will be progressively spending slightly more energy over time due to regularly hitting the supercompensation window, that is another reason why you will need to increase your calorie intake. Again, very slowly, proportionally to your muscle gain. If you do not do that, you will provide a strong stimulus for autophagy () to occur, which I think is healthy and would even recommend from time to time. In fact, one of the most powerful stimuli to autophagy is doing strength training and fasting afterwards. If you do that only occasionally (e.g., once every few months), you will probably not experience muscle loss or gain, but you may experience health improvements as a result of autophagy.

The human body is very adaptable, so there are many variations of the general strategy above. In my next post, I will talk a bit more about a variation that seems to work well for many people. It involves a combination of strength training and calorie intake variation that may well be the most natural from an evolutionary perspective.

Gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time: If I can do it, anyone can

The idea of gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time seems impossible because of three widely held misconceptions: (a) to gain muscle you need a calorie surplus; (b) to lose fat you need a calorie deficit; and (c) you cannot achieve a calorie surplus and deficit at the same time.

Not too long ago, unfortunately I was in the right position to do some self-experiments in order to try to gain muscle and concurrently lose fat, without steroids, keeping my weight essentially constant (within a range of a few lbs). This was because I was obese, and then reached a point in the fat loss stage where I could stop losing weight while attempting to lose fat. This is indeed difficult and slow, as muscle gain itself is slow, and it apparently becomes slower as one tries to restrict fat gain. Compounding that is the fact that self-experimentation invariably leads to some mistakes.

The photos below show how I looked toward the end of my transformation from obese to relatively lean (right), and then about 1.5 years after that (left). During this time I gained muscle and lost fat, in equal amounts. How do I know that? It is because my weight is the same in both photos, even though on the left my body fat percentage is approximately 5 points lower. I estimate it to be slightly over 12 percent (on the left). This translates into a difference of about 7.5 lbs, of “fat turning into muscle”, so to speak.

A previous post on my transformation from obese to relatively lean has more measurement details (). Interestingly, I am very close to being overweight, technically speaking, in both photos above! That is, in both photos I have a body mass index that is close to 25. In fact, after putting on even a small amount of muscle, like I did, it is very easy for someone to reach a body mass index of 25. See the table below, from the body mass index article on Wikipedia ().

As someone gains more muscle and remains lean, approaching his or her maximum natural muscular potential, that person will approach the limit between the overweight and obese areas on the figure above. This will happen even though the person may be fairly lean, say with a body fat percentage in the single digits for men and around 14-18 percent for women. This applies primarily to the 5’7’’ – 5’11’’ range; things get somewhat distorted toward the extremes.

Contrast this with true obesity, as in the photo below. This photo was taken when I was obese, at the beach. If I recall it properly, it was taken on the Atlantic City seashore, or a beach nearby. I was holding a bottle of regular soda, which is emblematic of the situation in which many people find themselves in today’s urban societies. It reminds me of a passage in Gary Taubes’s book “Good Calories, Bad Calories” (), where someone who had recently discovered the deliciousness of water sweetened with sugar wondered why anyone “of means” would drink plain water ever again.

Now, you may rightfully say that a body composition change of about 7.5 lbs in 1.5 years is pitiful. Indeed, there are some people, typically young men, who will achieve this in a few months without steroids. But they are relatively rare; Scooby has a good summary of muscle gain expectations (). As for me, I am almost 50 years old, an age where muscle gain is not supposed to happen at all. I tend to gain fat very easily, but not muscle. And I was obese not too long ago. My results should be at the very low end of the scale of accomplishment for most people doing the right things.

By the way, the idea that muscle gain cannot happen after 40 years of age or so is another misconception; even though aging seems to promote muscle loss and fat gain, in part due to natural hormonal changes. There is evidence that many men may experience of low point (i.e., a trough) in their growth hormone and testosterone levels in their mid-40s, possibly due to a combination of modern diet and lifestyle factors. Still, many men in their 50s and 60s have higher levels ().

And what are the right things to do if one wants to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time? In my next post I will discuss the misconceptions mentioned at the beginning of this post, and a simple approach for concurrently gaining muscle and losing fat. The discussion will be based on my own experience and that of several HCE () users. The approach relies heavily on individual customization; so it will probably be easier to understand than to implement. Strength training is part of this simple strategy.

One puzzling aspect of strength training, from an evolutionary perspective, is that people tend to be able to do a lot more of it than is optimal for them. And, when they do even a bit more than they should, muscle gain stalls or even regresses. The minimalists frequently have the best results.

The “pork paradox”? National pork consumption and obesity

In my previous post () I discussed some country data linking pork consumption and health, analyzed with WarpPLS (). One of the datasets used, the most complete, contained data from Nationmaster.com () for the following countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States. That previous post also addressed a study by Bridges (), based on country-level data, suggesting that pork consumption may cause liver disease.

In this post we continue that analysis, but with a much more complex model containing the following country variables: wealth (PPP-adjusted GNP/person), pork consumption (lbs/person/year), alcohol consumption (liters/person/year), obesity (% of population), and life expectancy (years). The model and results, generated by WarpPLS, are shown on the figure below. (See notes at the end of this post.) These results are only for direct effects.

WarpPLS also calculates total effects, which are the effects of each variable on any other variable to which it is linked directly and/or indirectly. Two variables may be linked indirectly, through various paths, even if they are not linked directly (i.e., have an arrow directly connecting them). Another set of outputs generated by the software are effect sizes, which are calculated as Cohen’s f-squared coefficients. The figure below shows the total effects table. The values underlined in red are for total effects that are both statistically significant and also above the effect size threshold recommended by Cohen to be considered relevant (f-squared > 0.02).

As I predicted in my previous post, wealth is positively associated with pork consumption. So is alcohol consumption, and more strongly than wealth; which is consistent with a study by Jeanneret and colleagues showing a strong association between alcohol consumption and protein rich diets (). The inclusion of wealth in the model, compared with the model without wealth in the previous post, renders the direct and total effects of alcohol and pork consumption on life expectancy statistically indistinguishable from zero. (This often happens when a confounder is added to a model.)

Pork consumption is negatively associated with obesity, which is interesting. So is alcohol consumption, but much less strongly than pork consumption. This does not mean that if you eat 20 doughnuts every day, together with 1 lb of pork, you are not going to become obese. What this does suggest is that maybe countries where pork is consumed more heavily are somewhat more resistant to obesity. Here it should be noted that pork is very popular in Asian countries, which are becoming increasingly wealthy, but without the widespread obesity that we see in the USA.

But it is not the inclusion of Asian countries in the dataset that paints such a positive picture for pork consumption vis-à-vis obesity, and even weakens the association between wealth and obesity so much as to make it statistically non-significant. Denmark is a wealthy country that has very low levels of obesity. And it happens to have the highest level of pork consumption in the whole dataset: 142.6 lbs/person/year. So we are not talking about an “Asian paradox” here.

More like a “pork paradox”.

Finally, as far as life expectancy is concerned, the key factors seem to be wealth and obesity. Wealth has a major positive effect on life expectancy, while obesity has a much weaker negative effect. Well, access to sanitation, medical services, and other amenities of civilization, still trumps obesity in terms of prolonging life; however miserable life may turn out to be. The competing effects of these two variables (i.e., wealth and obesity) were taken into consideration, or controlled for, in the calculation of total effects and effect sizes.

The fact that pork consumption is negatively associated with obesity goes somewhat against the idea that pork is inherently unhealthy; even though pork certainly can cause disease if not properly prepared and/or cooked, which is true for many other plant and animal foods. The possible connection with liver problems, alluded to in the previous post, is particularly suspicious in light of these results. Liver diseases often impair that organ’s ability to make glycogen based on carbohydrates and protein; that is, liver diseases frequently lead to liver insulin resistance. And obesity frequently follows from liver insulin resistance.

Given that pork consumption appears to be negatively associated with obesity, it would be surprising if it was causing widespread liver disease, unless its relationship with liver disease was found to be nonlinear. (Alcohol consumption seems to be nonlinearly associated with liver disease.) Still, most studies that suggest the existence of a causal link between pork consumption and liver disease, like Bridges’s (), hint at a linear and dose-dependent relationship.

Notes

- Country-level data is inherently problematic, particularly when simple models are used (e.g., a model with only two variables). There are just too many possible confounders that may lead to the appearance of causal associations.

- More complex models ameliorate the above situation somewhat, but bump into another problem associated with country-level data – small sample sizes. We used data from 18 countries in this analysis, which is more than in the Bridges study. Still, the effective sample size here (N=18) is awfully small.

- There were some missing values in this dataset, which were handled by WarpPLS employing the most widely used approach in these cases – i.e., by replacing the missing values with the mean of each column. The percentages of missing values per variable (i.e., column) were: alcohol consumption: 27.78%; life expectancy: 5.56%; and obesity: 33.33%.