I’m about 6’1" and 180lbs and I consider myself slim and lanky. Recently, I decided I could stand to gain a little weight and put on some muscle so I’ve been going to the gym regularly. Tonight I was thinking that I’m fortunate being slim because the weightlifting shows results pretty quickly (the muscles aren’t being concealed by a whole lot of fat so any growth or definition is noticeable).
This caused me to wonder which is harder for an overweight/underweight person to do, burn fat or add muscle mass. By “harder” I mean the amount of physical effort involved outside of monetary cost.
To clarify, I’m talking about people who are actively trying to excercise to burn fat/add muscle. I realize you can lose body fat by simply not eating (with no physical activity) but lets just ignore that scenario for the purposes of my question.
Mods if this should be moved to IMHO please do so. I didn’t know if this had a factual answer (i was hoping/guessing it did).
Burning fat and building muscle take place at different rates depending on the type of exercise done. Progressive increase in weight and resting periods between sets encourages muscle growth somewhat more, increases in repititions, and short times between sets encourages energy consumption, and may have a greater effect on increasing basal metabolic rates. (Or, it may not, depends on who you read.)
Fat people generally have a bit more muscle in some parts of their body, like legs, simply from the work of moving around. But, over all, they have to increase muscle mass at the same time as reducing fat. Yes, it’s harder.
Let me simplify the query. What would take more exercise for the average person to do, lose 5 pounds of fat (fat mind you, not weight) or add 5 pounds of muscle?
It takes longer to gain muscle than it does to lose fat in that you can lose 5lbs of fat in a week (not at healthy weight loss speeds but you can), but gaining 5lbs of muscle can take a fair while - gaining a pound of muscle a month is pretty good going.
Overall calories of exercise though, no idea. My bet would be on muscle given the time difference but I cant prove it.
You’re asking for a simple answer to a complex question. Given that you can lose fat with no exercise but you can’t add muscle with no exercise, the simplified answer is it takes less expenditure of energy to lose fat. But you’re completely ignoring diet and that simply can’t be done as it is a huge part of the equation. If you go into severe calorie deficit, you won’t add muscle no matter how hard you exercise. In fact, in severe calorie deficit, hard training will accelerate muscle loss. But given the limited scope of your original question and in the spirit, I believe, of how it was asked, Otara has it right. Especially once you’ve gotten past the initial quick gains you get when first starting a training program. Adding a pound of lean body mass for someone who is already fit and has been training hard is no easy task, and the bigger you get, the harder it gets to get bigger. It is just likie dieting in reverse. As you get smaller, the less energy you use just sitting around and so the harder it gets to get smaller.
The big problem with questions like these is that, other variables aside, there’s no such thing as an average person. We all have enough minor variations from each other that compound into big differences. As a result, some people will have an easier time losing fat, and some people will have an easier time building muscle.
It’s also worth noting that you can’t ever build muscle without also packing on some fat, and that you can’t ever lose fat without shedding some muscle as well. You can optimize the processes for your goals, but perfection is out of reach.