Why can't this extra fat be used to build my muscles?

I understand the theory (ok, some of it) about needing a calorie surplus to build muscle and a calorie deficit to lose fat.  It makes sense that the two would be contrasting goals.  At least sort of....

But just out of curiousity...I have all this extra fat floating around (about 50-60 pounds).  Why can't my body use that for it's muscle building energy?  

I have stored energy that could keep the lights on in a small town!  There ought to be a way to hook me up as an emergency generator. 

asking your body to build muscles with your fat is like asking a builder to build a house using gasoline.

it's far more complex than just "calories"...

think of protein as wood, carbs as gasoline, and fat as oil.

you can build a house with wood, and you can also burn it to get energised. though burning wood is abit slower than burning oil or gasoline.

you can burn oil, and get energized... that's about it (it's not it, but for the sake of this metaphore let's say it is.. if you want to research for abit google about ketones), though it burns slower than gasoline.

gasoline you burn, but you can't keep - or else it'll evaporate. so you burn what you got and turn what's left into oil and store it.

damn I'm so creative.. (:
 - ben

liswobble, I haven't done bodypump, but it looks like a decent intro to weight training (teaches most-valuable lifts like squat, presses & rows, with relatively light weight so you can focus on good form and get tendons, ligaments and joints "used to it" too).  While this guy has his own agenda to sell, he does try to summarize the actual research done on it:

    http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/ bodypump.htm

Over time, you'll probably value your own freeweight sessions more -- you're allowed to play music on your own too :-)

Funny how we store fat for later use but we don't create muscle just in case we need it later.

Actually, we do!  If you believe in evolution, we didn't evolve in a world where food was abundant at all times (and for much of the world, that still isn't true).  We were more "designed" to survive sporadic "feast or famine" conditions long enough to attract a mate, reproduce, and raise kids until they could do the same.  Anything beyond that is evolutionary luxury.

In a major calorie surplus ("feast"), people gain fat and lean mass -- the body stores excess energy any way it can, and that includes growing muscle.  Because fat is highest in energy per pound, fat is just the most efficient way to store energy.  In this famous study, healthy adult female volunteers were merely overfed (no exercise too) for 3 weeks, and experienced signifcant gains in both fat and lean mass.  The researchers attributed this to increases in blood levels of anabolic hormones (mainly insulin, IGF-1, and testosterone) triggered merely by "eating too much".  In general, "fat people" have more muscle (as well as more of the obvious-to-the-eye fat) than lighter people of the same age, gender, height, and frame.

On the flip side, in a major calorie deficit ("famine"), the infamous "starvation mode" response kicks in, slowing metabolism overall and as happy to burn muscle for energy as to burn fat.

The trick to "living the way nature intended" is to stuff yourself for a few days, starve yourself for a few weeks, over and over, and plan to die before you reach 40 ;-)

It makes sense that fat people have more muscle.  They need it to carry around the fat.  

Yes, it does in a way make sense that the body would make muscle in preparation for famine b/c they'll need protein too at such a time.  But, in that study are we talking about healthy-weight active individuals metabolically conditioned to burn fat or overweight/underexercised individuals whose bodies are conditioned to make fat?  It seems to me that people who are already fat or get fat easily are more predispositioned to make more fat and their results may not be the same as the study.       

I linked to the PubMed abstract, but you can read the full study for free too:

    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/49/4/608

As it explains, increase in lean mass simply due to overfeeding was well established before this particular study, in both men and women, and with a wide variety of subjects.  The major contribution of this study was to provide insight into why lean mass increased (namely, they measured and observed significant increases in blood levels of certain anabolic hormones).

That's part of the reason for why, in my original reply in this thread, I said that (just) eating a calorie surplus is one of the most effective (legal) ways known to encourage anabolic states.  This is well-known in bodybuilding circles too -- "to get huge, eat huge" -- but when you "eat huge", you gain plenty of fat along with the muscle too.

What isn't so widely known is that you can gain some muscle just by "pigging out".  That's hardly a sane approach, since you'll gain more fat than muscle, but it's helpful to know how the body actually works.  It's not a matter of trying to protect some favored "head theory", it's a matter of looking to see what actually happens.  Successful "head theories" have to account for reality ;-)

Wow!  This is some great info and just what I was needing now, as I have wondered about the weightloss vs. muscle gain for some time now!!  Thank you all!!  I love CalorieCount -- Everyone is SO friendly and helpful -- a great community!

Tim, You mentioned about staggering the calorie deficit with the surplus over a week.  This is what you said: 

"For example, for someone trying to lose fat without losing muscle, it's positively helpful to eat at (even a bit above) maintenance level a day or two per week.  That encourages spending more time in anabolic states, despite the overall (over a week)..."

My question is about when to stage the suplus calorie intake and when to do the deficit.  I exercise 3 mornings per week, Mon, Wed and Fri.  I usually eat about the same amount of calories every weekday except for having alittle more muesli for breakfast on my workout days.  On my workout days I end up with a calorie deficit from the exercise, while on the non-workout days I break even (hopefully) or have a surplus (if I sat on the couch all day).  Would it be more advantageous to take in more calories on my workout days (which would be AFTER my morning workouts), or do so on the day BEFORE my workouts (when my body is reapairing from exercise)??  I hope this is clear!  If not, let me know and I'll try again.   

Oh, I forgot to talk about the "weightloss vs. muscle gain" dilemma I am having right now.  In May after a physical exam, my Dr. said I was 30lbs overweight and I should weigh 150 so my BMI is in a healthy range.  But I do weight training which I believe might be hindering me from loosing the weight so far (trying of a lb a week but only 7lbs less after 4 months.   I want to be healthy but really wonder if there is a higher weight standard for people who exercise on a regular basis, because they have more muscle mass than sedentary people.  My Dr. says it doesn't make that much difference, but I think she's wrong!  I am wondering if there's any formula for figuring what I should weigh, taking into account my being an exercise freak??

*bump*

I'm curious , too :-)

About your question how to figure out what you should weigh -- it should be based on body fat percentage.  Healthy body fat for a woman is roundabouts 23 % of your body weight.  Female Athletes might have less but generally not less than 15 % of body weight.  Average is about 32 % but that is a little on the unhealthy side.  So there you go, no matter what you weigh you can figure it out.  The problem is measuring your fat and lean body mass.  To determine this you can have a professional use skin calipers on you, but that is reportedly not very accurate.  Or there are special scales you can buy (not the most accurate either), or water immersion tests which are much more accurate...however you may have trouble finding a place that does them. 

Just going off a chart for what you should weigh is wrong, and disheartening for those who want to be healthier as opposed to just weighing less.

As to your other question -- I'm going to guess....eat when you feel like it?  Do you ever have a day where you are really hungry all the time on your normal foods...then go ahead and eat, you're probably hitting a growth spurt.  Usually for me this happens a few days into a particularly rigorous exercise week.  It feels so good to give yourself a good feed on those days...but I would suggest, don't necessarily up your portions much, up your frequency.  Add in another meal, like one that is mostly protein about an hour before bed.  Maybe eat a heartier breakfast if you like breakfast.  Add a piece of fruit as dessert onto your lunch. 

muscle and fat are TWO DIFFERENT types of cells so one cannot replace the other, sorry!

muscle and fat are totally different i agree....and i also think it is impossible drop body fat and gain muscle at the same time ...u can maintain muscle and drop fat......but anyway im an endomorph ive made great strength gains and muscles gains just scared of cuttin my cals and doin more cardio for fear off strength an mass loss...so im at a crossroads cos strength is important im my job but i wanna look ripped...so i wanna have my cake an eat it lol

Original Post by tgpish:

In a major calorie surplus ("feast"), people gain fat and lean mass -- the body stores excess energy any way it can, and that includes growing muscle. 

From what I've read, lean mass makes up something like 30-40% of the weight gained in such a period.

The bottom line is that muscle is metabolically expensive. Human bodies don't "want" to build muscle if they don't absolutely need it. Looking good naked does not qualify as a reason, and your body will maddeningly resist it unless it no longer has a choice, just as eagerly as it will store fat for the famine that's never coming.

mmmmm.... brains....

Original Post by antiferret:

 Looking good naked does not qualify as a reason,

 Says who?  Sounds like reason enough for me! ;)