You can't gain muscle while losing weight! (A research project)

[GershonSurge]

Many times I've heard people say "You can't gain muscle weight while losing weight!" Or at least they said it was difficult. I did some Googling, and heard other people say you can. I've also heard people say, "Don't worry about the few pounds you put on. It might just be muscle weight.

Eventually, someone says the burden of proof is the person who makes a claim as you can't prove a negative. The thing is, the scientific method is based on proving the previous paradigm is flawed. In the case of resistance training and any other sport, whole training programs are based upon flawed paradigms. This includes training programs that have been shown to be successful. The winning coach is the one who can uncover the flaws and secretly use the new paradigm with his team. 

I'll lead you through the process I used to "disprove" this statement. I say "disprove" because during February, I did a prospective study, which is based on real time data collection. I'll go one step at a time so the post isn't too long (too late).

Feb 2018

A scatter gram is most often the best way to present data instead of a time series line graph. I put weight on the x-axis and lean weight on the y-axis. I started the month at the point with the gray label on the right and ended at the red data point on the  on the left. 

As it turns out, I did not disprove the statement "You cannot gain lean mass while losing weight." All it may mean is I don't have the right data or perhaps my analysis is incorrect. I'll present the next step in the next post.

Comments on the structure of the experiment?

[Baltoscott]

@GershonSurge — first I will point out that your lean body mass/weigh (LBM) is not all muscle, but is instead everything (muscle, bone, blood, what you ate over the past two or three meals ....) except fat.  So how much actual muscle you gain or lose would be some portion of the other stuff.  It is difficult to sort out how much, but just saying ... 

My personal experience reflects your first statement — I did NOT gain muscle (LBM) as I lost weight last year.  It also seems to reflect your experience last month.

I did, however, lose fat at a greater rate than I lost LBM, so as I lost weight my fat percentage went down.  Of the 45 lbs I lost last year, about 3/4s was fat loss and 1/4 was everything else.  This happened in spite of the fact that I was lifting weights and it reflects what every weight-training resource I’ve read or listened to says I should expect.  

Now that I’m gaining, I am increasing LBM at about the same rate as I gain fat — a pound of LBM for each pound of fat (mathematically this increases my fat percentage because fat is currently a smaller portion of my total body weight than everything else is). This 1:1 increase is also about what I should expect according to weight-training resources.  As you know I’ve been trying to bulk up to 170 lbs, so that when I cut back down to 160 lbs my fat percentage at that weight will be lower.  If it happens as expected, 1/2 of the 10 lbs increase I get by going up to 170 lbs will be muscle.  And then about 3/4 of the decrease I get going back down to 160 lbs will be fat.  In theory ...

[GershonSurge]

@Baltoscott,

I'm glad you joined the topic. You gave some great information in your post.

" first I will point out that your lean body mass/weigh (LBM) is not all muscle, but is instead everything (muscle, bone, blood, what you ate over the past two or three meals ....) except fat.  So how much actual muscle you gain or lose would be some portion of the other stuff.  It is difficult to sort out how much, but just saying ... "

I do understand that there is no good way to measure muscle mass. I have two suggestions:

1. The change in lean mass must be so profound nobody would question there was an increase in muscle mass.

2. My progress on my progressive lifting plan must be so profound nobody would question that I gained muscle mass. -- I realize this is subject to error because of increased efficiency, etc.

Perhaps you can give another measurement of muscle weight growth you'd accept. Measurements won't change much six weeks, but I can try it.

This happened in spite of the fact that I was lifting weights and it reflects what every weight-training resource I’ve read or listened to says I should expect.

I'm glad you brought this up as it agrees with everything I've read except for a few blog posts that suggested losing weight slower than gaining lean mass. I don't think they actually did it. 

I have another way to see if I gain lean mass. I recall that ultimately you want to lose weight to the 150's or even 147. The results must be so profound that you make a U-turn and head right to the lower weight. I'm specifically not saying the results will occur. I'm saying I'm attempting to get these results. Failing would teach me something, too.

I'll give a little more information in the next post after you have a chance to respond. 

[Baltoscott]

---

@GershonSurgewrote:

@Baltoscott,

...

I do understand that there is no good way to measure muscle mass. I have two suggestions:

1. The change in lean mass must be so profound nobody would question there was an increase in muscle mass.

2. My progress on my progressive lifting plan must be so profound nobody would question that I gained muscle mass. -- I realize this is subject to error because of increased efficiency, etc.

Perhaps you can give another measurement of muscle weight growth you'd accept. Measurements won't change much six weeks, but I can try it.

---

@GershonSurge — link your fitbit account to TrendWeight (link in my signature, it is free) and record your weight and bodyfat percentage daily on fitbit.  It will sync to TrendWeight daily and provide a moving average of your weight, LBM, BF and BF %.  If your TrendWeight goes down over your six week experiment while you LBM goes up I think you can fairly claim your muscle went up as well (the moving average should flatten the daily variation attributable hydration level and your bone mass should be a constant over a six week time frame).

Even if your progress on weight you can lift goes up it does not mean your muscle mass goes up because a significant part of lifting more weight comes down to developing the neurological system.  

[Ennay]

If you dig in on most legit weight training sites you can find a lot of discussion on this topic.  The studies have show that the phrase really only applies to bodybuilders/weightlifters who have been training with heavy progressive overload for quite sometime.  Almost all fairly new lifters can gain muscle and lose weight.  (Not all, but most)

The problem comes is the target audience and the people who write the surface articles are talking to a totally different class of athlete than your genpop weightlifter.  For the genpop, yes, you CAN probably gain muscle and lose weight at the same time.  For awhile.  But not forever and not once your body has really adjusted and come closer to its natural limits. 

It's like any other athletic endeavor.  When you first start anything the gains are phenomenal.  My first marathon was a (horribly trained, granted) 5:29.  My second was a somewhat better trained 4:02. The difference between the two was essentially following a reasonable training plan and being consistent. Fueling barely mattered.  Speed work didn't matter.  Pretty much any training plan would do at that point. After that the real work started.  After that everything mattered. And I was nowhere close to riding the edge.

For most people who are somewhat out of shape to gain muscle mass initially isn't terribly difficult and the newbie gains will hardly be touched by reasonable calorie deficit and yes you CAN gain muscle and lose weight.  Now if you are a competitor and you have reached that vein popping bodyfat and you want to gain more muscle you can't do it without adding enough calories to also gain fat.  It's a different body you live in.

MTA: and FTR I gained muscle while losing weight AND doing "excessive" in bodybuilding world cardio.   But only for awhile.  

[Baltoscott]

@Ennay - you are referring to “noobe” muscle gains and many lifters say they have exerpienced it, as well as many in the genpop on the fitbit forums. You may be right about it as a temporary state, but I always thought I was doing something wrong because it never happened to me.  My strength certainly improved when I started lifting weights last year after a 2+ year hiatus, even while I was losing 1-2 pounds/week.  In that sense my muscle increased, but my lean body mass did not.  (As the fat came off last year the muscle definition underneath became more pronounced, but I don’t think there was any actual growth).  

Still, others have said they had different experience.  Googling “noobe gains while cutting” brought up this thread on bodybuilding.com forums where one of the posters says is dexscan results showed LBM gain while he lost weight, so I don’t completely discount it.  But I think noobe gains while in a calorie deficit are mostly neurological rather than the result of an actual increase in LBM while total body weight goes down.  

I am hoping @GershonSurge ‘s experience is different and a counterbalance to my own.  Especially if it motivates more people to workout.

[GershonSurge]

@Baltoscott,

I had a different experience after I got lazy for about six months and put on some weight. When I restarted, all I did was start jogging again and counting calories. I was running a pretty high deficit.

From May 14, 2016 to May 31, 2016, I went from 191.3 lb. 27.2% fat, 139.8 lean mass to 184 lb., 21.5% fat. 144 lb. lean. 

This is what got me excited last night as my memory told me this was when I started lifting. My records show I didn't start until later. I can't explain this unique experience.

Added: I thought of a hypothesis that would say losing weight and gaining lean mass at the same time is likely for people with high body fat. I'll make another post with a link I'd like to separate.

[GershonSurge]

Realistic Expectations

I thought it was possible to get Popeye arms without a Jackie Gleason stomach. Guess this dates me. 😛

This site that gives a body image for each BMI tells me I'm wrong. Be sure to look at the inputs below the picture. The theoretical image for me has a smaller stomach. Perhaps my body fat is higher than the scale says.

@Baltoscott,

I think neurological gains are quite important. In motorcycling, they say a person has to repeat a maneuver 6,000 times to be top-notch at it. I read this on a police motorcycle forum. If this is true, it would take 750 workouts if a person did 8 reps per workout to complete neurological improvement. I can see my muscles growing, so there must be a combination of improvements the body makes. 

This is the stage of research where I change my opinion almost every day. Maybe it's best to maintain my way of eating and my workout routine and let my body choose what to do. 

[Ennay]

@Baltoscott- no I am talking about studies they did with dexa scans.  Its not just neurological.  But whether you can or not is largely genetic. 

@GershonSurgeI think that last part about just keep working out and eating well and let the body do its thing is probably your best bet.  Every body is an experiment of 1

[GershonSurge]

Maximizing Positive Neurological Adaptation to Stimulate Muscle Growth

I call one of the exercises I do the chainsaw. The motion is like starting a chainsaw held low. I hold a five pound weight and simulate the pulling motion. Instead of stopping at my waist, I rotate my arm and extend it up in the air behind me without twisting my trunk. 

My pattern for progressive training is to start with eight reps; do eight reps for six days and then increase to nine reps. I continue this way until I complete 12 reps six times. Then I progress to the next weight if I'm comfortable with the effort. My motto on the front of my training binder is "No pain, more gain."

A couple days ago, I started my lawnmower for the first time this year. It didn't want to start. In the past, I'd pull about ten times and take a short break. I decided to keep pulling and looked at my watch. At first I started with keeping my body still, and then I discovered a forward and backward rocking motion. Ten minutes later, the lawnmower started. I checked my heart rate and it was about 85. I thought every gym should have a lawnmower that didn't start. 🙂

Each morning, I do the same routine of 56 exercises. They are designed to work as many muscles as possible from my toes to my neck. I use some body exercises and then single dumbbells. A curl with the left and then the right arm would count as two exercises. I group them from the heaviest weight to the lightest so if I was at the gym, I'd only need to take one dumbbell at a time from the rack. 

I can see muscle growth, so I know it's working and without any pains which can lead to injury.

I don't dislike neurological adaptation; in fact, I strive for it by not varying my routine.  It must be true that the mind stimulates muscle growth by releasing whatever the muscles need to grow. 

While I was making this post, I curled 25 pounds three times with my right arm. I wanted to ask @Baltoscott how many times he could do it as we are almost identical physically. I skipped my routine today to make this post. During the next hour, my entire body started to feel pumped as if I'd done the routine. 

My assumption is neurological adaptation happens. May as well use it to maximize performance. 

Thoughts?

[Baltoscott]

Keep at it @GershonSurge. 

While I losing weight last year I had a fair amount of variation in daily weigh-ins for total weight, fat mass and LBM mass, but the variation seemed by far to be greatest for LBM.  The attached graphs are from my TrendWeight records.  The jagged light colored lines on each graph show actual the daily weights, the solid colored line in each graph is a weighted running average for each metric.  As you can see, the greatest variation occurs on the LBM graph.  Mostly because hydration varies so much from day to day and that is a large component of LBM.  

It is interesting to me that the trend line for my LBM went up for about a month in the beginning.  Evidence perhaps supporting your theory that LBM uptrend is more likely during the early phase of weight loss.  (Like you, I think my strength training started a bit after that time period.  I was mostly bike riding or walking/jogging at that point).  Maybe if I had stopped trying to lose weight mid-February for about a month, maintained for a month, and then started losing again for a month -- and so on -- I could have continued to gain LBM while losing overall weight. 

@Ennay -- over what time frame did the dexascan studies you mentioned run?  A lot of those kinds of studies seem to be fairly short, 4-6 weeks or so, because it is hard to keep subjects in the trial. The time frame might be similar to my LBM uptrend.

2017 Jan. - July. Weight Trend2017 Jan. - July. Fat Trend2017 Jan. - July. LBM Trend

[GershonSurge]

How do I add the my trendweight link to my signature as a clickable link?

[Baltoscott]

@GershonSurge -- check out this thread in Fitbit Community Basics for creating your community signature.

[GershonSurge]

Well, I'm coming to a resolution before going on to other things.

I've made charts like this for all the people I could find who posted their Trendweight link. Except for one two week or so exception, everyone's pattern was the same. Some large percent (say 95%) of the people can't gain lean mass while losing weight. 

I didn't test it, but I think an inactive person could draw a line from their current weight and percent fat to their optimum weight and 20% for inactive people/18% for medium activity and 15% for high activity and find they would follow along that as they lose weight. (I'll be changing the chart to show percent fat instead of lean weight, as it is a more useful number.

I was unable to disprove the statement "You can't gain muscle while losing weight!" for a high enough majority to make it worth trying. 

What to do now? I'm going to try to freeze my weight at 165 and lose my stomach. 🙂

s

[Esya]

@GershonSurge

How many data points did you use? A R^2 of 0.57 is really poor and means there is no correlation between the two. This could improve by using more data points.

[Corney]

@GershonSurge  I believe you can lose fat while gaining lean mass.  When most people say they want to lose weight what they really mean is they want to lose fat.  If done properly, the fat they lose is replaced by gaining muscle mass which negates any weight loss, thus decreasing their % body fat.

[GershonSurge]

---

---

---

@Esyawrote:

How many data points did you use? A R^2 of 0.57 is really poor and means there is no correlation between the two. This could improve by using more data points.

---

Great observation!
I only used 28 points. Usually, a graph is not considered statistically significant unless the R^2 is .80 or above. An R^2 of .57 means only 57 percent of the lean mass fluctuation is due to weight. I'd need to do a Student T-test to determine where the next point would land with the desired confidence level. Eventually, I may do a formal Student T-test, but since I've already determined it's difficult to gain muscle mass while losing weight, it's not worth the effort quite yet. If I were doing a formal research paper, I would do it now. 

[GershonSurge]

@Corney, I "published" this as a preliminary observational research report. The purpose of this type of report is to observe and discover correlations. I discovered weight has correlation, but not enough causation for most people to lose weight and gain lean mass at the same time for people with a body fat around 18%. 

In the world of scientific research, words have important meanings. Without understanding the vocabulary, a person can't understand scientific research. It's important to understand an observational report cannot disprove a double-blind random study followed by intervention and results in the real world. Yet, I've seen many people say that newer observational research disproved the earlier gold standard research. This has deadly consequences in the diet world, but I'm not going there.

@Corneywrote:

I believe you can lose fat while gaining lean mass.  When most people say they want to lose weight what they really mean is they want to lose fat.  If done properly, the fat they lose is replaced by gaining muscle mass which negates any weight loss, thus decreasing their % body fat.

I "published" this as a preliminary observational research report. The purpose of this type of report is to observe and discover correlations. I discovered weight has correlation, but not enough causation for most people to lose weight and gain lean mass at the same time for people with a body fat around 18%. 

In the world of scientific research, words have important meanings. Without understanding the vocabulary, a person can't understand scientific research. It's important to understand an observational report cannot disprove a double-blind random study followed by intervention and results in the real world. Yet, I've seen many people say that newer observational research disproved the earlier gold standard research. This has deadly consequences in the diet world, but I'm not going there.

Despite your 35 years of physical therapist experience, I'd have to ask you to produce research that has different results than mine. It may be possible and would be a valuable addition. Remember, if Copernicus had listened to the experts, he wouldn't have discovered the earth is flat. 

@Esyamade the type of input that is important. She saw there aren't enough data points. No problem. I could keep logging data hoping for different results, but given the R^2, 

Despite your 35 years of physical therapist experience, I'd have to ask you to produce research that has different results than mine. It may be possible and would be a valuable addition. Remember, if Copernicus had listened to the experts, he wouldn't have discovered the earth is flat. 

I wouldn't expect much. Instead, I'm going to make an intervention I'll describe in another post.

[GershonSurge]

@Esyawas correct in her assessment of too few points. I added the five points from March and an outlier changed the R-squared to .05. I've seen research reports for popular drugs with this sort of R-squared. 

Anyway, I changed the trend line to a sixth order polynomial equation to draw a line as an example. Imagine if the chart was laying on a table like a map instead of being vertical on a computer. In sociological studies, they call the pattern a channel. People have conditioned responses that drive their behavior to the channel. I decided to introduce a channel obstacle that I accidentally started a few days ago.

If I maintain my weight as close as possible to 165, the channel can only change its direction to flow north or south. I got one large deviation to the south and one to the northwest. As it turns out, turning south is my preferred direction. Can anybody see why? After all, that means an increasing body fat. 

[WavyDavey]

In terms of weight lifting, one thing I haven't seen addressed is the type of lifting.

Person A, who is doing low-rep heavy work may be gaining strength far quicker than muscle, even in the face of weight/fat loss. This person may be adding muscle, as well as breaking it down due to not having a caloric surplus. I call this "recycling"-- breaking down last week's muscle to build this week's muscle. Not efficient, and not easy to measure.

Someone doing more hypertrophy/bodybuilding type work, in higher rep ranges with less intensity and more volume, will be adding muscle mass much quicker than person A, thought their absolute strength levels may be not be on the upward trend.

This leads to my suggestion that, in trying to prove it's possible to lose weight and gain muscle, weight training that favors higher-rep work may yield better results.  It doesn't seem to me if it were possible, that the results would be significant. But this experiment may bear that out...