How long before new muscle starts to burn fat
|May 26, 2010 5:51pm||
I added weights to my work out about 4 months ago. Nothing big .. just 5 lbs due to my back fusion. I just raised the weights to 8lbs and am handling that fine. With the exception of muscle burn at the end of my work out which I figure is good. I’ve cheated a couple of days :( but have been pretty good over the past 4 months. I gain back a couples pounds the first few weeks after adding weights and figure I most likely will gain a few after going to 8lb weights. I see my body changing so I am happy with that but wondered how long before this new muscle I see will start burning off the last 10 lbs of fat I’m fighting. My activity is set at lightly active and I work out 3 to 4 times a week but my work out consist of a 20 minute cardio and then around 30 minutes weights. Is my activity level right? I just ordered the eating clean mag and am excited about using their grocery list and eating guide to clean eating so I am working on that part.
|May 26, 2010 6:00pm||
The thought that muscle burns fat is not what most people think especially when you are talking about a females muscle mass. The fact that you think that you will be gaining weight from going from 5lbs to 8lbs is incorrect. You will find it quite a bit easier to burn fat pounds than you will to add muscle pounds. The only true way to burn the extra fat and pounds is through diet and reduction of calories either through a calorie deficit or cardio. For a women 8-10 lbs of lean muscle would be considered very very good to put on in one years time. You can lose that same amount of fat in a very short period of time.
|May 26, 2010 6:11pm||
Then I am confused. I gained 2 lbs since I started daily burn 4 motnhs ago. I had lost 15 lbs prior to joining using metabolic diet program and suppliments. I guess I could say I am staying at the same weight after the initial 2 lbs I gain. I know fat weighs less than muscle so I thought I was actaully losing fat but replacing it with heavier muscle. Thats why the scale doesn’t move or stays the same. I am losing inches as my clothes don’t fit. My thoughts were I’m losing inches instead of lbs. correct? The other change I made was eating more because I was only eating around 800 cals a day and DB suggest I eat between 1200 & 1400. I was having a hard time making the 1200 but I forced myself to eat more. When I look at the DB scale on the bottom of my screen it says I will lose around 6 lbs per week from my food and work out logs But I’m not seeing it and I log everything! except water.
|May 26, 2010 7:17pm||
the body is a very tricky thing in how it works. Are you precise about tracking your calories by weighing your food and portion size? What kinds of foods are you eating during the day? I don’t know your current weight but based on the above post stating you work out 3-4 days per week an 800 daily caloric intake is way too low. The 1200-1400 range sounds about right not knowing your weight.
|May 27, 2010 12:03pm||
I agree, body recompositioning is harder for females and using 5-8 lbs weights will only take you so far. Do you know what your body fat % was before the “diet” program and what it is now? The scale is one data point. It could be water weight you gained or some fat coming back. It’s hard to say without taking measurements and/or getting your body fat checked.
|May 27, 2010 5:18pm||
Thanks for the advice. My fat percent was 37.5 and is now 35 and I see my body firming up. It’s those trouble areas like my thighs that still have fatty areas. I keep telling myself if I keep at it int h elong run it will pay off. Can’t wait to get my clean eating mags in. I’ll be a hot granny before you know it :>) or at least a healthy granny lol
|May 28, 2010 11:44am||
Good for you! Just don’t be afraid to pick up those heavier weights!
|May 29, 2010 6:32am||
I’m going to have to go slow on the heavier weights because of my broken back that was fused with metal rods and screws. I still live with chronic pain but beleive in pushing myself in areas that will not hurt me like legs and arms. I just went from 5 lbs to eight and have 10 lbs waiting on me lol. I’m thinking I need to step up my cardio as well. When I started the elipticle I could only do 10 min before I was out of breath. Now I can do 20 but am winded. I was running 3 mile 3 x week before I had my accident and didn’t walk for 3 months. It’s been a slow weight gain since then of almost 30 lbs but I’ve lost over 15 of that and am determined to lose the rest!
|May 29, 2010 12:05pm||
That is amazing, how you have continued on after such an accident. Just keep at it, but listen to your body. Rest and recovery are just as important.
|May 30, 2010 6:09am||
Question: How can your BMI be in the good range and your body fat be in the bad range? My BMI is 23 and my Body Fat is 34% way better than a month ago couple motnhs ago when it was 37% but still bad. Just trying to understand the whole % thing.
|May 30, 2010 9:49am||
Debbie, BMI is just a function of your weight and height. That’s it. It takes NOTHING else into account. Someone could be VERY fit and have a very bad BMI – bodybuilders, for example. And you could have a very good BMI but be unhealthy.
If you are going to focus on one number, your body fat percentage is better. However, most methods of calculating it are pretty inaccurate, so unless you are going to a lab to take a water immersion test to determine your BF %, take the number with a grain of salt. It’s an indicator, nothing more.
|May 30, 2010 11:51am||
Debbie, 35% of bodyfat is not necessarily bad for a woman.
|May 30, 2010 2:00pm||
Actually 35% is a bit high based on American Council on Exercise standards. While visceral fat is more dangerous from a health perspective, you can’t spot reduce. You can work towards overall fat reduction via a healthy diet and excercise. While most methods (even the water immersion test) have a margin of error, they are still usually accurate within a few percentage points. I would take it as one data point, along with weight and waist circumference. For women, ideally waist circumference (from a health perspective) should be less than 102 cm.
|May 30, 2010 5:16pm||
Thanks everyone. I’ve got the healthometer scale that measure bodyt fat and water from bare feet. I wasn’t sure how accurate it was though. Well it sounds like I need to look at the big picture and not just one number count. I can say I was a size 12 fitting tight to now a size 10 fitting with room to spare. Prior to my accident I was size 8. I can see a big difference but can also see I’m not finished. Thiniing about “trying” to run again to add more cardio if my back will hold up to it. Going to give it a try and see. Thanks again everyone.
|May 31, 2010 11:29am||
Running is actually a very hard exercise on the body. It is very jarring, so with your injury that might not be such a good idea. Have you ever thought about cycling?
|May 31, 2010 3:35pm||
|May 31, 2010 4:21pm||
Good points of clarification. I think with back injuries you need to be careful no matter what exercises you choose.
|May 31, 2010 4:51pm||
thanks everyone. My back keeps my attention enough that I don’t forget to be careful. When it’s bad I have to take time off of working out so I am limited but determined to work around my limitations.
|Jun 1, 2010 10:30am||
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned swimming as it’s an almost zero impact exercise. Also, while you need to be careful about what weight you use you probably would benefit from doing weight lifting exercises that focus on building your core. Your physical therapist should be able to help you find an appropriate weight and list of exercises.
Good luck and cheers for your efforts despite your injury.