Just a quick question. If you notice all of the runners in the world are skinny as hell because they burn muscle as well as fat.
I have very little muscle and a lot of fat. Would I lose weight faster just by killing myself with cardio and running every day, then worry about bulking?
Just a question that was on my mind. Let me have it.
[quote]FatAss2008 wrote:
Just a quick question. If you notice all of the runners in the world are skinny as hell because they burn muscle as well as fat.
I have very little muscle and a lot of fat. Would I lose weight faster just by killing myself with cardio and running every day, then worry about bulking?
Just a question that was on my mind. Let me have it.[/quote]
no, lifting increases metabolism and helps build muscle. One pound of muscle burns like 60calories a day iirc.
For optimum results, do both.
I’ve actually thought about this a lot. Here’s my measured opinion:
Keep lifting.
It’s not necessarily about dropping weight, but about dropping fat. You’re already familiar with that. Arguably the fastest way to do that is to have a high level of activity (burning a lot of energy) and constantly be in lipolysis (having that energy come from fat, preferably bodyfat).
No one really minds the high-protein/high-fat diet when cutting because it’s filling, it’s tasty, and because it’s more inefficient than glycogen as a fuel source, you can theoretically eat more and get the same results. And psychologically, no one feels like they’re dieting when they come home at night and dive into an 8oz steak for dinner.
Now lifting though… do you need it? I say yes and here’s why
It’s the last point that’s really important. When you stop, you need something to keep burning fuel as you reintroduce food. That something is muscle.
And if not, by the time you finish, you’ll look like Elie Weisel.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
no, lifting increases metabolism and helps build muscle. One pound of muscle burns like 60calories a day iirc.
[/quote]
I remember reading it’s a range between 10-50 kcal/day, depending on your normal metabolism. That makes sense, because if it was 60kcal/day/lb, and you added 50 lbs of muscle, you would then have to eat 3000k more.
Actually, that’s probably pretty true. But I like the range more, because your cutting diet won’t be 3000kcal higher than it would be otherwise.
Maybe it would be. Only one way to find out.
[quote]FatAss2008 wrote:
Just a quick question. If you notice all of the runners in the world are skinny as hell because they burn muscle as well as fat.
I have very little muscle and a lot of fat. Would I lose weight faster just by killing myself with cardio and running every day, then worry about bulking?
Just a question that was on my mind. Let me have it.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing elite runners with ever day people. If you want to run 15+ miles a day, you too could look like you were just liberated from a concentration camp. If you really are fat, simply lifting the weight will put on some muscle and lead to fat reduction, no need to worry about bulking.
As Zephead said, if you put on some muscle it will increase your BMR (basal metabolic rate). How much do you weigh, out of curiosity?
Wouldn’t you rather look good once the fat is gone?
You “don’t want to lift weights” until the first time you feel muscle underneath your fat. Then you suddenly begin obsessing over nutrition and workout routines.
Trust me
as mentioned above WEIGHT loss is easy to do, just do tons of cardio and starve yourself
but mostly FAT loss is a lot more complicated
It’s not something I’m considering doing because, as OTEP said, lifting keeps me going back to the gym. I was just curious about your guys’ thoughts on it.
Been training for a week now. Dropped 2lbs so far.
Started at
240lbs
26-28% body fat
5’10"
ive read some places that its more effective to start by lifting even if youre trying to cut weight because starting out on a cardio based program can do alot of damage to the knees if you dont have the muscle to back it up. i think thib wrote an article on this site about it actually.
Some long distance runners actually have rather high bf% compared to, say, sprinters or bodybuilders.
My personal experience with “losing weight” (as opposed to just losing fat) was that-
So I started doing a combo of lifting and cardio. Got very heavy, and quite fat.
Then I decided to do a couple of short spells on a ketogenic diet. I lost a lot of fat quite quickly and it wasn’t all that hard. It helped that I had a meaningful slab of muscle under the fat.
My training no longer includes long, slow cardio. I play Touch football once a week, I do a HIIT session once a week, I walk my dogs every day and usually do a 2 hour walk on the weekend. It’s all stuff I enjoy.
By manipulating my diet just a little I can put on muscle or lose fat at a slow but steady pace. I never, ever go hungry. And I don’t look or feel weak.
If your fat you wont be a marathon runner right away. Running endurance burns muscle
Lift and supplement with cardio. You will lose weight faster than just running
Whats your goal? Once you start lifting though and get into the lifestyle of eating and gaining muscle you wont want to stop. And eventually you’ll just want to get as big as possible.
So if you just want to be average skinny person, go ahead and run for hours a day and avoid those weights.
Here’s why:
This is me circa Dec 2006, at about where you are now (5’11", approx 245 pounds)
And after a year of just lifting (no cardio), here is what I was at in Jan 2008, good enough justifacation?
Okay, so I’m a beginner…who wants to look good nekkid. I’ve lost a lot of inches (no actually weight) since I’ve started lifting. It’s been about five months (I’m on the Rippeotoes program).
I weigh 172 pounds, and am 5’9".
However, I’m finding it harder to reach my lifting goals (failing more often than proceeding) – but it seems that a lot of stuff I’m reading (like in this thread) alludes that I have to get fat first to reach my goals (I still have about two inches to go on my waist while the rest of me is starting to look really good).
Please say it’s not true. I’ve worked too hard to get fat again. I’m eating a lot of protein, veggies, fruit, and have cut processed carbs (bagels, white breads, white rice, etc, etc) – basically followed John Berardi’s rules of eating effectively.
I’ll have a very hard time of letting myself get fat again.
So someone please tell me – is this true?
At some point, you will have to gain weight to get stronger. Do you have to get fat? No, although if you really want to get big and strong, you will most likely have to accept SOME fat gain. That being said, if your following Berardi’s rules, you probably just need to eat more. If you’re lifting heavy and eating 4000-5000 cals following those rules, you should put on a minimum amount of fat while growing.
Also, what are your lift numbers at? If you’ve been doing starting strength for 5 months, you may need to start varying your routine some to keep progressing. Are you taking de-load weeks every now and then?
4000-5000 calories – a day??? Wow, I’m only at about 2200(eating all these veggies has really lowered my calorie intake)
Yes, I’ve deloaded. I might progress up five lbs, then back down.
Squat 3x5 - 195
Bench 3x5 - 135 (I know, I know!)
Deadlift 1x5 - 210
[quote]waldo21212 wrote:
And after a year of just lifting (no cardio), here is what I was at in Jan 2008, good enough justifacation?[/quote]
awesome work mate… thats my goal by the end of the year. started in january at 24 stone. just got under 20stone yesterday! strength is still going up and i can actually see some of my muscles…
did you change your diet much as you got smaller and smaller?
Scott
Jim Cordova kinda sums it all up nicely …
[quote]waldo21212 wrote:
And after a year of just lifting (no cardio), here is what I was at in Jan 2008, good enough justifacation?[/quote]
Wow. That’s really impressive. Good job.