© build muscle, or burn fat w/ cardio?

[gaaggg]

I have a dilemma... I used to be some what heavy (180lb at 5'10") but am now pretty lean overall (150lb). However, I still couldn't shake handsful of fat gathered around my waist! My ultimate goal is to gain some distinct lean muscle all over (meaning including my stomach), but this fat is hindering it. So my question is, should I do aerobic exercies to get rid of the fat first and then lift for muscles, or should I just go ahead with the muscle building in hope of burning off the fat in the process? If I work on muscles and end up not getting rid of the fat, I would have to go back to aerobic exercises to burn it off somehow. But doing so would also eat away the hard earned muscle mass! What is the correct procedure for a person in my shoes to reach his goals? Thanks.

David

[PoorBoyTek]

I asked this very similar question about a month ago..here was my plan...btw, I am 5'10" 165 lbs

For right now I intend to cut to get rid of my love handles
Winter is coming soon, so for me thats an excellent time to bulk up to my goal of 185 lbs (whether I hit it or not, thats my goal).
Start cutting before spring so I can look halfway decent by spring break

[Merrida]

Out of curiosity, why is there a school of thought, any school of thought, that thinks this must be done in a certain order first?

[PoorBoyTek]

I think everyone has their preferences..thats just mine

[Merrida]

I agree, everyone has preferences. But I'm asking about the school of thought, not preferences.

I remember this from being a kid, (with a chronic dieter for a mom),...and there was always discussion about what to "do first," whether it was "lose the weight" OR "exercise," -- as if there was a magic formula for what order to go in, and to what degree.

I'm curious about WHY people think various schools of thought apply to this which-one-first type of philosophy (I'm not judging preferences).

[PoorBoyTek]

Growing up, I fell under the sterotypical "get fat then turn it to muscle" theory...at that time I thought it was easier to fatten up and then just slick down to mr muscle

[teenpumper]

both cardio and lifting. lifting burns calories and so does that mucle you gain from it

[gaaggg]

Well, I concluded that the order matters (for max efficiency) due to the following "facts" that I read:

1. When you do cardio, not only do you burn away fat, you also burn away muscle mass. Calories from muscles are easier to get at than from fat, so that's why this happens.

2. If you want to build muscle, you will need to eat a lot of nutritional stuff and consume a lot of calories/protein.

Based on the above, here are my reasonings why order matters:

1. cardio and muscle building at the same time:
Because you have to eat a lot when you build muscle, you'll have too much calorie in you to let the cardio or whatever tap the fat stored in you. So fat won't go away as well. Plus, since cardio eats away muscle, it'll eat away your hard work. So therefore doing woth together is counter productive.

2. muscle first, then cardio:
If you build muscle first, you'll be consuming a lot and so most of your muscle will be getting its calories from that. The fat storage will get used, and you'll lose fat, but there is a point in which it won't take fat from you anymore (when you're pretty thin but just need to get rid of a bit more fat). Plus, to effectively build muscle, you can't rely on it to just get calories from fat, it needs it from good food! So basically, I think you can't rely on just muscle building to get rid of your last ounce of fat. After you built your muscle, now do cardio. But then the cardio workotu will eat away your muscle, right? So your previous work will be wasted a bit.

3. cardio first, then muscle:
If you do cardio, with a low cal diet, you first get rid of that last ounce of fat. You can afford a low cal diet since you don't need it for muscle building yet. After the fat is gone, then eat up and build the muscle.


These are my reasonings for thinking than an order matters. Is there a flaw in my thinking? any experience in such things? Thanks

[Merrida]

Actually you did a good job. That's what I was looking for, what was the particular "school of thought" regarding why people subscribe to either particular method of "order" when it comes to this.

[cursor]

Please be aware that performing cardiovascular exercise doesn't necessarily cause you to lose muscle. When you exert yourself, the activity must be fueled. If you have adequate fuel (glycogen) stored in your muscles, then exercising (whether weightlifting or aerobics) is not catabolic/destructive. It's only when your glycogen stores are super-low (meaning that you don't have enough preferred fuel) that the body has to "catch up" by making more glycogen as fast as it can.

This can be done in two ways: 1) by breaking down fat, and 2) by breaking down lean tissue. Since robbing necessary elements from lean body mass (which includes your muscles, connective tissue, organs, and bones) to manufacture the needed glycogen is EASIER than when tapping into fat stores, that's what the body does (for the most part).

So ... lean body mass can be lost by EITHER aerobics OR lifting weights. What matters is that you don't exercise when your glycogen stores are rock bottom or empty. I always say, "Fuel the activity" (or be willing to pay the piper).

[CJNY]

My fitness log shows a reduction of about 20 lbs of fat while simultaneously gaining 12 lbs of muscle in the last three months. All of this while doing 5-6 hours of "muscle wasting" cardio every week.

Now you may counter that it was possible because I am a relative newbie to strength training, or you might say I could have gained more muscle without cardio - I'm not in a position to comment. The results still stand, however.

[gaaggg]

Thanks for your reply. I'm still somewhat confused though. So you said that either cardio or weight lifting will result in fuel finding (looking for glycogen), and if fuel is not found then the body breaks down tissue (mostly) and fat to generate fuel. That makes it easy if I want to just build muscle since all I need to do is to consume a lot of food and thus have a lot of gycogen in my body to fuel the muscle growth. But what if I want to get rid of the fat in my body at the same time? So following what you said, if I want my body to break down fat to generate fuel, it is inevitable that the body will break down muscle (and as you said, the stupid body breaks down mostly muscle!). So then it does mean that you have to try and get rid of your fat first before building muscle right? Or else the body will eat up your muscle first and then fat.

[CJNY]

The relative amount of fat versus carbohydrates (in the form of either glycogen or freely circulating blood sugar) burned during cardio depends on the level of exertion but, generally, some fat is burned along with some carbohydrate. When the available carbohydrate is exhausted, the body must use protein as a fuel source because some bodily functions can't run on fat (the brain, for example).

Your body can store only a limited amount of glycogen (although this amount can be increased through proper training). Eating carbohydrates beyond what is needed to perform your daily functions and top off your glycogen stores results in the excess carbos being stored as fat (duh!).

There is some evidence that weight gained is more likely to be muscle if you are lean to begin with so, yes, it might be better to concentrate on fat loss first. That is actually what I have been trying to do, although the muscle increase mentioned above has been a (more or less) welcome bonus.

[teenpumper]

cardio doesn't burn muscle. only if your in a real catabloic state

[cursor]

... and (teenpumper) you are in a "catabolic state" as soon as your body senses that you are low on glycogen and you're still attempting to make your body work hard (see my post above).

The solution comes in not performing aerobic exercise with the express intent of burning fat. (Since fat just can't be converted to glycogen fast enough, LBM breakdown occurs "to help out").

Read that again.

In order to expressly burn fat during intense exercise (forcing fat convertion to glycogen to fuel that activity), some LBM is sacrificed (because the fat, by itself, can't be converted fast enough to satisfy the demands that your placing upon your muscles). Many people, in an effort to maximize fat-loss while exercising, will intentionally eat nothing beforehand. (This promises a lower glycogen resource pool, meaning that you'll run out sooner and have to rely on an alternative source ... fat, but with some LBM loss). In my mind this is backwards.

Carbohydrates are the body's preferred source of fuel for higher-level activities, while fat is efficiently burned to fuel your body-maintenance metabolism while "at rest." By effectively developing your muscles (feeding that activity with carbohydrates), your body becomes substantially more metabolically active. That "not-so-resting metabolism" will melt your body fat. Your body is always active doing something ... even when you're sleeping.