# No muscle loss while cutting?



## phzend (Jun 15, 2008)

This is probably one of those dumb questions that can't really be answered because we are so different but I'll ask anyway.

What is the best method for cutting:

1) slow and steady 1lb per week (hopefully no muscle loss)

2) faster, 2lb a week but lose more muscle but get there faster then hope to regain the lost LBM

I would think 1) , slow and steady to avoid muscle loss.


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

can I pick?:

3) never get too fat to have a massive period where you need to cut

out of your choice 1 after a few weeks of number 2 (3 weeks or so) but some many variables RE water/lean mass etc etc


----------



## phzend (Jun 15, 2008)

Lost Soul said:


> can I pick?:
> 
> 3) never get too fat to have a massive period where you need to cut


I couldn't agree more, once I get down to 10% I am NEVER going above that again.


----------



## Scrumpy (Jun 23, 2008)

this is exactly what i've been doing for the last 8 weeks, i drink oto much so gained a bit of a belly!

I've lost muscle but not too much and lost the fat too 

But now i'm back down, i will avoid going back up


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

If you think

Adding 2lbs per week is never going to be all muscle

so 1 year bulking = 100lb

If you are natural 20lb max and an utter max will be muscle, more likely 10 even 5.

So lets drop the gain down to 1.5

That gives us 75lb or thereabouts

that leave you 65lb to lose

say 10-15lb is water

50lb to lose of crap? thats 6 months to 1 year where you are not anabolic

Unless you are a bodybuilder who competes, dont bulk is the bottom line unless you want to spend lots of time trying to lose the shat

and of course I have not factored in possible catabolism whilst dieting

1/2lb weight gain (if you can do it that finely) is about where i want to be weekly


----------



## phzend (Jun 15, 2008)

Lost Soul said:


> If you think
> 
> Adding 2lbs per week is never going to be all muscle
> 
> ...


Agree totally, I did realise this several months ago, wish I had woken up to this sooner. Thanks for your input.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

on most diets even dropping 1lb per week there will be some muscle loss to a degree the key is that you keep it to the minimum


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

Thats a big shout paul


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Lost Soul said:


> If you think
> 
> Adding 2lbs per week is never going to be all muscle
> 
> ...


I am a big fan of lean bulking.

That means women keeping their body fat between 16-20% and men 10-14%.

When you are around these body fat percentages, when you eat, the insulin response is more likely to drive the nutrient into muscle rather than fat.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> on most diets even dropping 1lb per week there will be some muscle loss to a degree the key is that you keep it to the minimum


I think it is somewhere between 10-15% of the population that can actually put on muscle when dieting, similarly 5% of the population can do starvation diets without losing any lean tissue.

I think it is usually best to assume that you are not one of those people.

I forget which comp prep coach it was, but he didn't like his BBers to lose more than 1 lb a MONTH.

It does become a bit different when you have more muscle/less fat.

If you have a LOT of fat, you the body will preserve lean tissue and lose fat.

I would think that is anything over 20% for men and 35% for women.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Lost Soul said:


> Thats a big shout paul


Why is it ?? explain why you think this is a big shout


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> Why is it ?? explain why you think this is a big shout


If they are assisted or a new trainer for example


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

LS it would be helpfull if you put your full question in your reply instead of making a glancing statement....

my opinion still stands that most will lose muscle at some point in a diet even with steroids involved as many other catabolic factors are involved like overtraining over doing cardio stress etc...


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

Ok

Example one

Someone returning to training is losing bodyfat, they do cardio will gain muscle whilst cutting, not lose muscle even when hypocaloric.

That is an example that bucks the trend


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

is this an example that you have seen? i do agree with it has i saw it this year with a good friend returning to competition after 10yrs but this scenario is rare at best so not is the norm......

as i stated many lose muscle through other factors away from diet when they are dieting.....these in some ways cannot be controlled as easily as diet can be.


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

Yes,

seen many walk into a gym 12 stone and high bodyfat and end up 12 months later 12 and a half stone and low body fat

Seen it to with trainers who have come back after a long break


----------



## cwoody123 (Feb 13, 2007)

There is a study which confirms VLCD plus resistance training will only decrease fat mass in non trained induvidals where as Cardio + VLCD decreased both fat & muscle mass.

In my view to minimize muscle loss on any diet...drop the cardio


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Lost Soul said:


> Yes,
> 
> seen many walk into a gym 12 stone and high bodyfat and end up 12 months later 12 and a half stone and low body fat
> 
> Seen it to with trainers who have come back after a long break


that is fine so are you saying that in that year there was no muscle loss at all?


----------



## phzend (Jun 15, 2008)

I'm not doing much cardio, so far I have lost 19lb and done just 2 cardio sessions with a HR of 100bpm. My last cut was a perfect muscle eating one, I was running 8 - 10km on my treadmill every day while on 1800 cals, it was rather silly looking back on it. I'm now eating about 2k a day without burning the 400 - 500 with cardio.

So far I can't detect any muscle loss but I know that could change.


----------



## phzend (Jun 15, 2008)

Just out of interest, does being an ex gear user make any difference to fat loss and muscle maintenance? I haven't used for well over 10 years but when I did I had more than my fair share. In my mid twenties I was 17st with a half decent set of abs, strength has almost halved on the big lifts... all I'm left with from my gear days is stretch marks and memories but it was fun while it lasted 

I guess I don't need to do the Parrillo fascia stretching, mine will be stretched to the max!


----------



## Blofeld (May 25, 2008)

So, with weight loss/cutting, will losing slight amounts of muscle affect your strength? If for example you have been bulking up and you decide you need to lose 1/2 stone, after losing the weight (over however much time it takes) would the weights you are lifting drop down? Or because you are still training, and still lifting constant weights, would you still be just as strong?


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

cwoody123 said:


> There is a study which confirms VLCD plus resistance training will only decrease fat mass in non trained induvidals where as Cardio + VLCD decreased both fat & muscle mass.
> 
> In my view to minimize muscle loss on any diet...drop the cardio


I think I debunked that though as the subjects chosen were not exactly what you would call 'good candidates'

I shall dig the post out if required



Pscarb said:


> that is fine so are you saying that in that year there was no muscle loss at all?


The body is always going catabolic to anabolic but the net gains at the end of the week were in a positive figure whilst losing fat, so yes


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

yes agreed but my point is about muscle loss and you cannot say this individual did not lose muscle for fact mate....but then he did a 12month diet where as we or at least i am talking about a average length of a diet which is not 12 months...

i have seen only one person in my time not lose muscle whilst dieting on low calories you have given one example sorry mate but i don't buy it there are more factors in place that will and do contribute to muscle loss whilst dieting no muscle loss at all is very rare and to prove other wise you would have to provide more compelling evidence than your opinion....even the GURU's of prep and diet like Chad and Layne except you will see some muscle loss whilst dieting


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

Paul are you arguing all dieting is catabolic but if anabolism outweighs that you get a muscle gain

or

People cant gain muscle when hypocaloric through:

diet alone

diet and cardio

cardio alone


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

what i am saying is that in general dieting is catabolic to a degree, yes their are exceptions to the rule and yes longer diets will be less catabolic but i still believe that most diets are catabolic at some point to some degree to think that at no point whilst following a low calorie diet and busting your ass on cardio you will preserve all muscle is foolish mate really.

so if the individual decided to follow a low calorie diet and does 45min am and pm of cardio along with weights you are saying he or she will not lose any muscle what so ever? sorry mate i just do not buy that mate...


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

> so if the individual decided to follow a low calorie diet and does 45min am and pm of cardio along with weights you are saying he or she will not lose any muscle what so ever? sorry mate i just do not buy that mate...


For the utterly deconditioned with a lowered work load then they would not lose muscle, actually gain it.

Beyond these folk

I think we are half agreeing here and IMO it may even be a case of splitting the week and even the day into anabolic and catabolic pahses. So concepts such as AM cardio being catabolic but that then has to be outweighed by periods of anabolism (strategies such as carbs cycling)

I remember reading something on the subject and will endevour to find it later (as funnily enough I have some spare time!!)


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Lost Soul said:


> For the utterly deconditioned with a lowered work load then they would not lose muscle, actually gain it.


i will agree with you here as there work load will not warrant muscle loss...



Lost Soul said:


> Beyond these folk
> 
> I think we are half agreeing here and IMO it may even be a case of splitting the week and even the day into anabolic and catabolic pahses. So concepts such as AM cardio being catabolic but that then has to be outweighed by periods of anabolism (strategies such as carbs cycling)


yes but you are assuming that everyone has carb cycling down 100% and eat the amount of carbs they need to lose weight but maintain muscle and this is just not the case in the most part....by this i mean they drop the carbs far to low for far to long whilst still hitting cardio and training....

even cardio pm after a workout will be catabolic as the muscle needs nutrients to feed the muscle the longer you leave this the more chance you have of going catabolic....


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2008)

Having never got into contest shape i can not coment on the lower % of body fat however until you get to about 8% or so i saw no muscle loss in fact i gained a little. There are other variables besides just being in a calorie negative for instance did you start the diet with a cycle after a few months off gear then when you compare the lean mass that you had off cycle at the higher body fat % should be lower than at the leaner body weight while on cycle. Of course if your on heafty doses all the time then going from a bulker to a cutter probably will lead to some muscle loss. Also i found by doing a diet over a much longer period 16-24 weeks with more refeeds than would be allowed in a diet that was only 12 weeks in lenght helped a lot.

At the end of the day i have never got under 5% in contest shape so my knowlage and opinion is not overly helpfull:tongue:


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> i will agree with you here as there work load will not warrant muscle loss...
> 
> yes but you are assuming that everyone has carb cycling down 100% and eat the amount of carbs they need to lose weight but maintain muscle and this is just not the case in the most part....by this i mean they drop the carbs far to low for far to long whilst still hitting cardio and training....
> 
> even cardio pm after a workout will be catabolic as the muscle needs nutrients to feed the muscle the longer you leave this the more chance you have of going catabolic....


From the article i was on about (abcbodybuilding)

*Exercise Intensity and Muscle Catabolism*

All body builders have a sworn mortal enemy-cortisol. This hormone acts to breakdown muscle tissue, and creates a catabolic environment, contrary to growth.

The question is: what is the effect of exercise intensity on cortisol?

Davies (1973) examined the effect of duration and intensity on plasma cortisol levels. It was found that as duration and intensity increased, cortisol increased. However, they found what appeared to be a threshold for cortisol secretion at 60 % V02 max intensity. Therefore at lower intensities cortisol is primarily controlled by metabolic need. In this context Sotsky et al. (1989) investigated the effect of hypoglycemia on moderate intensity exercise, below 60 V02 max over 50 minutes of cycling in participants with normal blood glucose levels of 87 mg / dl, and in participants with low blood glucose levels of 59 mg / dl. No significant difference in cortisol levels were found in the normal glucose condition, while a 400 % increase (!) was found in the low glucose condition. Therefore it appears that under normal dieting conditions that cortisol secretion may not significantly rise during an hour of low intensity exercise, suggesting that it is an effective tool for fat metabolism, without high catabolic effects.

In summary, cortisol increases proportionally with exercise intensity, with a threshold at 60% vo2 max; meaning that below 60% VO2 max, cortisol will be kept at bay. Thus, displaying an advantage to very low intensity exercise. However, this is not the case under a hypoglycemic condition. During such a condition, cortisol will increase dramatically no matter what intensity you train at, displaying the importance of proper nutrition.

*Exercise Intensity and Performance*

To briefly summarize this, exercise intensity appears to be the number one factor for maintaining performance. For instance, if you were to lower your volume for 4 weeks, but maintain your intensity (i.e. lift just as heavy) then you would actually improve in various adaptations. However, if you were to lower your intensity (i.e. drop from 300 to 250 pounds in the squat lift) adaptations-muscular, strength, enzymatic, etc.-would quickly be lost.

Incidentally, evidence suggests that glycogen stores (the stored form of glucose) is directly related to being able to maintain exercise intensity. Thus, if you are glycogen depleted, intensity, and therefore, adaptations, will drop.

In this context, high intensity cardio sessions, which have been shown to deplete your body of precious glycogen stores, would seam inadvisable for performance in the weight room, demonstrating another problem with high intensity workouts.

*High Intensity Exercise Followed by Low intensity Exercise*

During high intensity exercise, lypolysis (the breakdown of triglycerides into its glycerol and fatty acid components) is potently stimulated, because catecholamines (fat metabolizing hormones) are highest during this intensity. However, alpha receptors (receptors stimulated by catecholamines) inhibit these fatty acids from being transported by its protein carrier albumen to the musculature that it may be oxidized. What Wilson J. and Wilson G. (2005) found, was that when intensity is lowered sympathetic tone lowers proportionally, and a high rise in plasma fatty acids is seen (Romijn et al., 1993.) For this reason, we suggest that a combination of high intensity and low intensity training protocols may be a highly effective technique for fat metabolism.

In addition to this, results show that fat oxidation is increased proportionally to concentrations of fatty acids. For instance, they have done studies where they have fed participants fat closely to an event, and this increased fat oxidation during exercise. Thus, this rapid rise in FFA's should enhance fat oxidation.

To give an example, performing a 10 minute high intensity cardio session, followed by a 30 minute low to moderate intensity cardio session, could prove highly efficacious for fat metabolism.

*Practical Applications*

Evidence suggests that as exercise intensity decreases, there is an increased reliance on the peripheral adipose depot, with a concomitant sparing of carbohydrates, particularly intramuscular glucose polymers. It appears that fat oxidation becomes optimal within the range of 60% VO2 max. However, training below this range (>50% VO2 max) may be beneficial, if optimal muscle sparring is a priority, as catabolic hormones are minimized during low intensity cardio; so long as you are in a euglycemic state (e.g. your blood glucose levels are stable).

An analysis of scientific literature demonstrates that the maintenance of adaptations are intensity specific. The reader is therefore, cautioned to avoid over reliance of high intensity, glycogen depleting protocols.

High intensity training may prove beneficial if used properly. For example, its potent stimulation of whole body lipolysis during exercise leads to a rapid influx of plasma free fatty acids after intensity is lowered. In this context, it is postulated that performing a notably short, high intensity session, followed by a long duration, low to moderate intensity workout, may optimize lipid oxidation.

Amidst hypertrophic growth cycles, in which there is a caloric surplus, short, high intensity workouts may elicit a supplementary anabolic stimulus. This is attributed to preferential recruitment of type II fibers, which have the greatest capacity for growth, as well as an increase in anabolic hormones.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Lost Soul said:


> From the article i was on about (abcbodybuilding)
> 
> *Exercise Intensity and Muscle Catabolism*
> 
> ...


If i understand this correctly you must keep your intensity at below 60% to keep cortisol at bay? if i am reading this correctly then wouldn't that rule out pretty much every bodybuilder out there who trains with high intensity and in the same rule lay claim to the fact that low intensity cardio is better for fat burning and muscle sparing over HIIT cardio that is practiced at a much higher intensity??


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> If i understand this correctly you must keep your intensity at below 60% to keep cortisol at bay?


Of Vo2 which will yield various HR levels..thats what they are suggesting



> if i am reading this correctly then wouldn't that rule out pretty much every bodybuilder out there


Possibly, not universally and of course not everybody is a bodybuilder (as the original poster wasnt) and nehce why we are debating 



> who trains with high intensity and in the same rule lay claim to the fact that low intensity cardio is better for fat burning and muscle sparing over HIIT cardio that is practiced at a much higher intensity?


The point being made here is that no catabolism was found when hard training was done followed by easy cardio


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

yes but i think we debated on another thread that LIC was better than HIIT cardio whilst dieting because of the potential muscle loss which you disagreed with me over this article says that LIC is better as HIIT will burn muscle.....

no everyone is not a bodybuilder because a bodybuilder is someone who competes but not everyone just goes to the gym to talk about Easterners i think you will find even the general gym goer will train with high intensity than what is suggested here yes there may be the odd one or two but i am talking about the many not the few and this article says that if you train with intensity for long periods then cortisol is not kept at bay so this would suggest muscle loss would it not??


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

Paul

HIIT will not be catabolic if cortisol is not present. So decent levels of carbs in the diet, keep it away from lengthy periods of training and you dont induce cortisol.

Low calories, lengthy training and hypoglycemia would make HIIT catabolic


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

this is my point when dieting you don't use sufficient carbs as many use carb cycleing my point is cardio as you are aware of not training but this can be grouped together...

it may say in studies do x and y then get z with HIIT training and Cardio but most do not do x and y....

the majority and this is a high percentage whilst cutting use very little carbs and train for more than 45min along with cardio so my point still stands that most will lose some muscle when dieting......i believe this for both LIC and HIIT but it is more of a an issue with HIIT


----------

