Multi-Sport RacingTriathalons and Adventure Racing have been sweeping the nation at a phenomenal rate. Multi-Sport Racing is one of the few sports where just completing a race is often considered a victory. Learn all about this sport, post photos, meet potential teammates or brag about your performance in a race.
With the season I have planned, three sprints, a thirty six hour race, and two 15 hour races withing a couple of months; I'm wondering about weight. I've spent the last few months trying to add weight (muscle) to my frame. I am definitely stronger; I just haven't gained any weight. The weird thing is that my body fat% has INCREASED.
All that said, soon I'm going to have to quickly haul my booty around by foot, bicycle, kayak, and canoe. My season starts a week from Saturday; I know that I can't feasibly make a difference in my body fat% by then.
My question 1: Is it really possible to gain muscle while losing body fat? My limited knowledge tells me that in order to gain weight (muscle,) one must take in more calories than expended; but, to lose weight (fat,) one must consume fewer calories than expended?
My question 2: Should I anticipate losing weight during competition season, and not worry about the extra pounds?
I know that I have very little to lose; maybe a couple of pounds. I'm not trying to go crazy. I just know the less I have to carry around; the less energy I expend. We are constantly trying to shave ounces off bikes, shoes, kayaks-why not make sure our bodies are as prepared as possible. I just really don't want to compromise the muscle mass.
__________________
Live cheap. Play hard. I love to climb hills.
Originally posted by sarah: My question 1: Is it really possible to gain muscle while losing body fat? My limited knowledge tells me that in order to gain weight (muscle,) one must take in more calories than expended; but, to lose weight (fat,) one must consume fewer calories than expended?
The answer to that question is really more complex than it may seem. This is the way I understand it from my readings and studies.
-Most everyone knows that someone new to exercise and weight training can experience a 'newbie effect' where the change for their body is such a shock, they gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. Most experts peg this period to be between 3 and 6 months long for most people.
-Beyond that period, it becomes a kcal in versus kcal out scenario. Your body takes kcals to repair the muscle damaged during exercise, and to add additional muscle to adapt to the additional strains being placed on it.
-Conventional wisdom is that it is almost impossible to micromanage this kcal equation to such an extent that you can provide just enough kcals to repair and grow the muscle but not add fat. You would need to calculate exactly for all intake (not to impossible) and output (impossible) because even a 100 kcal swing one way or the other can lead to a change in body composition. We all know just how little 100 kcals are.
-Add to that the complexity of changing metabolisms due to hormonal and environmental fluctutations and you can see why common wisdom has it that you can 'bulk' (add muscle and fat) or 'cut' (shed fat and muscle, trying to minimize loss of the latter).
-Finally, throw in the fact that as you gain muscle, your metabolic needs for maintenance kcals changes (although it can be calculated) and you have one final wrench in the works.
The last point is why common wisdom states that you should add the muscle first and then cut. This is especially true if you are a 'hardgainer' and have difficulty adding lean muscle mass (LBM). The add'l muscle you gain will help increase the amount of kcals you need to maintain, and when time comes to cut, it will be easier to do so with the increased LBM.
OK, enough for the theory (frankly, that was for Tony anyway) : You are training for an endurance sport, right? As with all endurance sports, you'd need to balance strength with mass. In general, and you see this with many adventure racers, triathletes, cyclists, climbers, marathoners and others involved in similar sports, every extra pound you haul around, whether lean muscle mass or fat or bone, require more kcals. You've stated as much in your post. However "I know that I have very little to lose; maybe a couple of pounds. I'm not trying to go crazy....I just really don't want to compromise the muscle mass." <---sadly, these are probably conflicting goals. I face the exact same thing during my cycling season. I worked all season to put on LBM, especially in my arms, but I also wanted to put a lot of fast miles on my bike. Something had to give - either I could keep on the mass or I could go faster and longer on the bike. Last year I wasn't willing to lose the muscle mass and I held back on the biking. This year, the reverse has been true. There's a GREAT article on becoming a great bike climber in September's 'Bicycling' magazine - it talks about the cruel fact that every pound you lug around makes you slower up a hill. If you really want to increase your times beyond training and weight savings on equipment, you'll probably need to lose some body mass. There's a reason why the top athletes in thesports I mentioned look the way they do. It's your decision to make.
Two more quick examples:
- one friend of mine was a football player - semi pro all his adult life; about 6', 240 lbs. He recently got into trialthlons and was terrible at his first few until he decided to resculpt his body to about 190 lbs, almost all of it muscle mass. He now does Ironman tris. Oh yeah, he's 50 years old and started this 3 years ago. You can find a similar example in former Tampa Bay Buc John Cannon, who stripped off a whole lot of lean muscle and is now one of the top 2 Clydesdales - over 200 lbs -triathletes in the world.
- Marty Nothstein, Olympic Gold medalist in Sprint track bicycling was very large for any cyclist at 6'3" and 245 lbs. Just saw him at our local velodrome and he is trying to be a road racer now; he weighs 165 lbs. for the longer distances.
Sorry for the long reply Sarah, but this is something I struggle with myself. Sorry that I can't take a stab at your second question - have never done adventure racing.
Maybe you should ask your trainer these questions. Or is he not qualified enough? [img]tongue.gif[/img] j/k
JP might make me eat crow on some of this stuff since I don't have any real race experience, but I'll give it a go.
Quote:
I am definitely stronger; I just haven't gained any weight. The weird thing is that my body fat% has INCREASED.
How are you measuring bf%? I've heard of tanita's showing ~4-5% difference on the same day. But I'm not sure if that's the method you're using. If you're eating enough (are you?, because if you aren't, you could very well be catabolizing muscle on those bike rides) and getting stronger, you probably didn't lose any lean mass.
Question #1: Yes. Possible, but tough. You'd have to have a REALLY clean diet, be religious about making it into the gym, have a really clean diet, intense cardio (HIIT-High Intensity Interval Training)(I'm sure you get your share of cardio), and have a really clean diet. Don't forget the diet.
Question #2: Again, it's all about the diet. Be sure that you have a post-workout shake to stop the catabolism after your exercise. 2:1 ratio of high GI carbs to protein.
I'm not sure how to answer your last paragraph, but if I were in your shoes I'd maximize the muscle mass. You're not carrying around much weight to begin with, so I wouldn't worry about a few pounds of muscle.
__________________
More jobs? How about less people?
My trainer is tired of hearing me worry about it. The scales may very well be off. I want the muscle mass; I just don't necessarily want the fat mass. I didn't understand how the same scales showed my body fat % differently.
My diet has not been as clean as it should this past week. I'm working on that; I just love food so much. It doesn't help that I love to feed people, too. But I got back on the wagon today. I'm sure that'll help some. I'm working hard on not creating a caloric deficit, since my ultimate goal is to gain muscle mass. Losing a little fat would be nice, but, really, a couple of pounds isn't going to hurt me. Thanks for the advice.
Kaiser, I'm happy I'm not the only person facing this. I've pulled back on my riding and running, and it's been killing me. I love to ride, but I've opted to spend time in the weight room instead.
I'm woman enough to admit that I'm somewhat vain. I like the way my abs are shaping up, and my ass is slowly coming along. My trainer has definitely been worth the money.
You're right every pound counts. In the end, I have chosen to participate in a sport where weight counts.
Hey, we're all somewhat vain. Anybody who says they're into working out only for the health and not the appearance benefits is probably a liar.
It kills me that I haven't been in a weight room in 4 weeks. But I assuage my guilt by saying that I have been focusing on my legs (upper legs have gotten HUGE due to the cycling) and the mass there will help me regain what I've lost up top when I start up again next week. Then again....the other night my female workout friends did say I looked great when they saw me after about a month - I believe 'slim' was the word they used and they said it was better than the more muscled look before. What DO you women want anyway?
PS: We'll be the judge of your abs and ass when you let JP take those pics of you!
What is the line in endurance sports? When does a fit person's body weight come into play?
For example Bouldering requires me to be strong enough (have enough muscle) to lift my body weight off the ground starting at 45 degree overhangs, at times. However, every pound of weight; muscle or fat, has to be carried up the rock. If I was 5 feet tall and weighed 300 pounds, I'd lose weight; but, at 5'5 and 122-125 it's a different question altogether. How much muscle is too much? Where's the homeostatic region for endurance sports?
I weigh what some 5'7 male cyclists and runners weigh. Even great mtbiker badass chic, Alison Dunlap (age 31) is 5'6 and 124. Of course, for a woman's body fat percentage to drop below 12% is dangerous; while a man can dip much much lower. Long winded question, but an interesting one.
Lemme throw this in here to add to the complexity.
Actually, you can get stronger without gaining (much) weight. It's neural adaptation. When you make your CNS (Central Nervous System) more efficient/stronger you can gain strength without the addition of extra mass. That's one of the reasons why there are some really strong skinny guys, and some bigger guys that you would think could lift more.
If anyone has a link to any good articles reguarding CNS adaptation, please throw it in here. I know a little about this, but not as much as I want to.
__________________
More jobs? How about less people?
I just did a google for "neural adaptation", and this was the 2nd link it posted. Haven't read through much of it, so if there's bad info in it, just blame JP. He's fun to blame.
__________________
More jobs? How about less people?
I knew that's why I was seeing such insane gains in my first couple of months of strength training... I've lifted weights a total of 36 times in my life. I just never correlated the skinny guy squatting a crazy weight and the endurance athlete with toothpick legs climbing the insane hill. It makes more sense to me now.
So, the question, now, is this: how do I continue "neural adaptation" without gaining muscle mass? How far can I take that concept?
If I focus on hill climbing and interval training and consume a 0% growth caloric intake (I know that's almost impossible,) will my body become stronger without gaining mass? Can I continue to lift heavy weights?
"What is the line in endurance sports? When does a fit person's body weight come into play? " I think that varies significantly by person and by sport.
I'm not sure about the theoretical part, but I have read similar articles regarding what Ryan had said.
I'm a little more familiar with aerobic adaptation (I like learning about Vo2 max ). I know that in order to keep pushing your anaerobic threshhold higher, you can do a number of things, one being to keep just skirting in and out of your anaerobic threshold, and another being doing it with abandon (i.e. your usual intervals and rest). I don't know if the analogy will work to muscles and neural adaptation, but that came to mind since it is definitely a component of endurance sports.
Originally posted by sarah: If I focus on hill climbing and interval training and consume a 0% growth caloric intake (I know that's almost impossible,) will my body become stronger without gaining mass? Can I continue to lift heavy weights?
I don't think you'll get a single answer to that, even from the best personal trainers. I would bet that one trainer would give you one answer and a prescribed program, and another would give you completely the opposite answer and a different program. Go to Ian King, get one answer, go to Alessi, get another, go to JP, get a third. And all could be right for you, just one more effective than the other, or all could be wrong.
There' a reason why Chris Carmichael, Lance Armstrong's coach gives him a totally different work regimen than other top cyclist (although, with his success, many are trying to imitate what CC has done). It's because he found something that worked with LA and stuck with it to get the most out of him.
So, can, when, and does a high aerobic threshold compensate for less strength. Example: Before losing mass, Armstrong climbed at a slower cadence and harder gear (requiring more strength.) However, after losing the mass, he opts to us a easier gear and higher cadence. Or, would the harder gear/lower cadence require the same aerobic capacity as the higer cadence/easier gear?
__________________
Live cheap. Play hard. I love to climb hills.
Originally posted by sarah: So, can, when, and does a high aerobic threshold compensate for less strength. Example: Before losing mass, Armstrong climbed at a slower cadence and harder gear (requiring more strength.) However, after losing the mass, he opts to us a easier gear and higher cadence. Or, would the harder gear/lower cadence require the same aerobic capacity as the higer cadence/easier gear?
God, I've just come back from being out all day, my wife and kids are still not home, and I get one here to read this question, which makes my head spin! I must be crazy (or pathetic). Esp. since I have a 6:45AM 50 mile ride tomorrow.
Anyway, let's look at the issue of his cadence first. LA inadventently lost the mass (due to cancer) and had a bigger engine (and a very high VO2 max anway) with less body to push around. So to begin with, he was exceptionally talented. You have to remember he was the top junior triathlete in the US in his early teens.
What CC did was find that LA could maximize this incredible God-given talent by spinning faster. He can keep his legs moving faster precisely because he has a better VO2max. And he isn't necessarily working less 'stronger' as shown in the mountains when his legs are working faster and he pulls away from guys like they are standing still. Chances are that he is in the same gear as them there, just able to turn the crank around a heck of a lot faster. He does spin a higher cadence than most on the flats because he does not fatigue at that pace. But check his USPS teammates who are with him and you will see they are in a slower cadence.
OK, what I'm trying to say is that I think the before and after cancer analogy are not connected with the VO2 max and higher cadence. I.E., had he found the higher cadence when he weighed 175 lbs, he would have been equally effective (as well as he could with the 175 lbs anyway) b/c of his exceptional aerobic capacity. He just never tried it seriously. And neither did anyone else in the pro ranks.
So you're original question remains: "So, can, when, and does a high aerobic threshold compensate for less strength?"
You ask the exact same questions I've been asking for years. You'll find no easy answers because you'll need to find (or be) your own Chris Carmichael to your Sarah, adventure racer (that is what you do, right?)
Damn, I know we'd get along now b/c not only do you like biking and climbing, but you struggle with the same questions as I did before giving up b/c I couldn't find any easy answers.
Okay, what you just said makes a heck of a lot of sense. However, I have more questions.
According to this month's Bicycling: a cyclist peddling 250 watts on a 3.1 mile, 7% gradient climb, will reach the top 30 seconds faster for every five pound weight loss.
Assuming that Bicycling know's what it's talking about, (they do not have a good reputation)dropping five pounds-three from my body/two from the bike- would give me more "speed" up the hill. I would reach the top of the hill in approximately 15 minutes.
Let's take this formula a little farther-
Let's say I'm in the TDF. I've lost mass, and now I weigh 118. In addition to losing approximately 5 pounds off my body, my 20 pound road bike just became a ten pound bike. Total loss of 15 pounds.
Instead of the 7% gradient and 5 km climb, though, I'm on the L'Alpe d'Huez - 211 km (131 miles) with a 10% average gradient.
Okay-L'Alpe d'Huez is 131 miles or 42.25 times our mini hill. We've shaved 15 pounds off our bike (1.5 minute on mini hill/ 2 hours and 6 minutes on L'Alp) adjusting for the extra 3% gradient. We would finish the climb in around 8.6 hours.
Would we choose to cut that time by spinning a easier gear since it is such a long climb, or would we choose to muscle through in a harder gear? Just a little brain candy
__________________
Live cheap. Play hard. I love to climb hills.
I guess I'm in a mood to do math tonight, but is this possible:
Quote:
If I focus on hill climbing and interval training and consume a 0% growth caloric intake (I know that's almost impossible,) will my body become stronger without gaining mass? Can I continue to lift heavy weights?
__________________
Live cheap. Play hard. I love to climb hills.
This is when I find out that I need to do more research. If someone see's that I need to put my foot in my mouth, please, speak up. Where's the JP/Hartman duo when you need them?
IMO, yes you will be able to gain strength without extra mass on a maintenance diet. Just make sure that you aren't shorting yourself any cals.
And yeah, you can/should still lift heavy weights. Maybe try some olympic lifts (cleans, snatches, ect.). They're great for neural adaptation, while not gaining mass. And they're fun to boot!
In the end, I think it's going to come down to you changing things up to find out what works best for you. Maybe this year you stay like you are, but next year add some mass (lets not forget that mass does/can effect strength, don't block it out completely) to see how you're results change.
Now I'm gonna go read some CNS articles.
__________________
More jobs? How about less people?
Originally posted by sarah: Okay-L'Alpe d'Huez is 131 miles or 42.25 times our mini hill. We've shaved 15 pounds off our bike (1.5 minute on mini hill/ 2 hours and 6 minutes on L'Alp) adjusting for the extra 3% gradient. We would finish the climb in around 8.6 hours.
Would we choose to cut that time by spinning a easier gear since it is such a long climb, or would we choose to muscle through in a harder gear? Just a little brain candy
Back to it tonight Sarah: First part would be true if it were a linear equation single steady grade. It's not so I would guess the result wouldn't necessarily be accurate.
Second: good question. Are 'we' riding together, because if you and I are, last one to the top buys drinks! I also wonder how it works for long extended grades (we have none here in flatland IL) on a road bike. I would guess for shorter grades, like those found on a mtb trail, you would muscle through because you would need to go anaerobic for only a short period of time before getting a break to recover and convert more lactate back into energy via the Krebs cycle. You can't do that on a long extended climb. Supposedly....
...because I have heard that the guys that win the 24 hour challenges (like the Xterra) go anaerobic close to the whole time. I am not sure how that is possible given the definition of anaerobic. But when a few of these guys decided to try triathlons and Ironmen, apparently they did extremely well because they were used to pushing their bodies so hard for so long.
Back to the muscling versus spinning issue: today, on the muddy mtb trail, my newbie brother-in-law was spinning a high cadence, even going up hills, and going nowhere fast. I kept telling him to muscle it up and get up out of the saddle but he kept saying he didn't have the strength. God, when I sat behind him, it was friggin' painful to climb that slow!
I see you also get Bicycling...you can see where I got my references about LA and climbing then. Check out Mike Magnuson's bike in the article on touring wine country...that's one of the three I'm looking to test ride.
What DO you women want anyway?
Linear Mode
