Debunking the Myth

shmoony

I am finally ready after 2 years of experimention to firmly say that the prevailing concept that a caloric surplus is necessary to build muscle is untrue. I know this is going to get a lot of backlash since it has been the belief for so long amongst the general public, but I am now living proof that muscle and strength gains can be acheived through an intense lifting regiment and a closely monitered intake even with a slight caloric deficit. Without getting into too much detail about mself, I can just tell you that I net under my TDEE every week, and every week I get bigger, stronger, and more defined. The key is simply lifting heavy weights to the point of misery, and eating a crap load of protein. Of course if you want to get bigger faster, eat more, but I am much happier making slow gains while maintaining a six pack than benching 285 lbs. with a beer gut.

ninerbuff

You'd be hard pressed to explain how one can add muscle without adding some weight. Granted that obese people can do it, but if one is just a little over weight, then how do you explain adding lean weight and without a surplus? Enhancement would help here, but I'm thinking you're not going that direction.

Gonna follow this.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Acg67

I am finally ready after 2 years of experimention to firmly say that the prevailing concept that a caloric surplus is necessary to build muscle is untrue. I know this is going to get a lot of backlash since it has been the belief for so long amongst the general public, but I am now living proof that muscle and strength gains can be acheived through an intense lifting regiment and a closely monitered intake even with a slight caloric deficit. Without getting into too much detail about mself, I can just tell you that I net under my TDEE every week, and every week I get bigger, stronger, and more defined. The key is simply lifting heavy weights to the point of misery, and eating a crap load of protein. Of course if you want to get bigger faster, eat more, but I am much happier making slow gains while maintaining a six pack than benching 285 lbs. with a beer gut.

Sounds like a well controlled experiment

EvgeniZyntx

*slow gains*


It's also what I do but you aren't debunking any myth.

Best gains are at calories above TDEE.
Plus there is no proof you actually tracked well.
Or would have done worse with a cut and bulk protocol.
There comes a point that slow gains work less.

It's a matter of lifestyle and goal preference.

stt43

Your TDEE may be lower than you think.
Losing fat and becoming more defined will make your muscles look bigger.
You can make n00b gains with your muscle without a real surplus, and you can make strength gains without a surplus.

timbrom

Or that your TDEE calculation is accurate

DopeItUp

Great thread, full of comprehensive scientific analysis and data. Oh wait.

AverageUkDude

**** you science, **** you!

ThriceBlessed

I'm not sure you tracked too well. It is possible to gain muscle while losing weight, but usually only for those who have a lot of extra fat to start with, because they can lose the fat, and gain some muscle, for example someone could lose 10 pounds of fat and gain 1 pound of muscle, and on the scale it will show that they lost 9 pounds. But if a person doesn't have the 10 pounds of extra fat to lose and they gain 1 pound of muscle, the scale is going to show a 1 pound gain.

Here is my story, better documented and tracked than what I can see of yours (you may have tracked everything, but you don't post that info for us).

6 months ago I was 51 pounds heavier than I am now. I also had a bodyfat percentage 53.8 percent. I now have a bodyfat percentage of 36.7. So 6 months ago I had a lean body mass of around 130 pounds and 152 pounds of fat (yuck!). Now I have 146 pounds of lean body mass, and around 85 pounds of fat. So I've lost 67 pounds of fat, and gained around 16 pounds of lean body mass for total weight loss of 51 pounds. I have been told by so many that is impossible to gain muscle while still losing weight, that you won't gain significant muscle if you are eating at the calorie deficit needed to lose pounds. Yet, over the past six months I have both lost pounds and gained muscle. So the self proclaimed "experts" who say you can't do that are full of it.

Now, while I fully agree that you can gain muscle while eating at a deficit, you have to have the extra bodyfat at the start. Your body will burn up that fat to supply some of the missing calories, also, you will lose fat, and gain muscle, but every time you gain a pound of muscle that means the scale can't go down a pound that week even if you lose a pound of fat that week. Its all math, and in the end the final number on the scale is going to be made of fat, muscle, skin, bone, water, blood, hair, etc. If you lose fat and gain and equal amount of anything else, the number on the scale won't change. Your bodyfat percentage might, your measurements might, but the scale won't.

Note the reason my ticker shows 53 pounds lost, instead of 51 pounds, is because my ticker starts from my highest weight, while the paragraph above is only dealing with weight loss/gain in the last 6 months.

usmcmp

N=1 is not proof

EvgeniZyntx

I'm not sure you tracked too well. It is possible to gain muscle while losing weight, but usually only for those who have a lot of extra fat to start with, because they can lose the fat, and gain some muscle, for example someone could lose 10 pounds of fat and gain 1 pound of muscle, and on the scale it will show that they lost 9 pounds. But if a person doesn't have the 10 pounds of extra fat to lose and they gain 1 pound of muscle, the scale is going to show a 1 pound gain.

Here is my story, better documented and tracked than what I can see of yours (you may have tracked everything, but you don't post that info for us).

6 months ago I was 51 pounds heavier than I am now. I also had a bodyfat percentage 53.8 percent. I now have a bodyfat percentage of 36.7. So 6 months ago I had a lean body mass of around 130 pounds and 152 pounds of fat (yuck!). Now I have 146 pounds of lean body mass, and around 85 pounds of fat. So I've lost 67 pounds of fat, and gained around 16 pounds of lean body mass for total weight loss of 51 pounds. I have been told by so many that is impossible to gain muscle while still losing weight, that you won't gain significant muscle if you are eating at the calorie deficit needed to lose pounds. Yet, over the past six months I have both lost pounds and gained muscle. So the self proclaimed "experts" who say you can't do that are full of it.

Now, while I fully agree that you can gain muscle while eating at a deficit, you have to have the extra bodyfat at the start. Your body will burn up that fat to supply some of the missing calories, also, you will lose fat, and gain muscle, but every time you gain a pound of muscle that means the scale can't go down a pound that week even if you lose a pound of fat that week. Its all math, and in the end the final number on the scale is going to be made of fat, muscle, skin, bone, water, blood, hair, etc. If you lose fat and gain and equal amount of anything else, the number on the scale won't change. Your bodyfat percentage might, your measurements might, but the scale won't.

Note the reason my ticker shows 53 pounds lost, instead of 51 pounds, is because my ticker starts from my highest weight, while the paragraph above is only dealing with weight loss/gain in the last 6 months.

BF% measurements are not accurate.

You are indeed very special if you can gain 16lbs of LBM as a woman in 6 months at a calorie deficit of that size.
Write a book. Mint a fortune.

JoRocka

are there pictures associated with this that aren't showing up for me?

control experiment?

or just study of one?

I don't think 'study of one' constitutes proof of anything.

W0rthless_Her0

but I am now living proof that muscle and strength gains can be acheived through an intense lifting regiment and a closely monitered intake even with a slight caloric deficit. Without getting into too much detail about mself, I can just tell you that I net under my TDEE every week, and every week I get bigger, stronger, and more defined.

Pics or it didnt happen

ThriceBlessed

BF% measurements are not accurate.

You are indeed very special if you can gain 16lbs of LBM as a woman in 6 months at a calorie deficit of that size.
Write a book. Mint a fortune.

LOL, I know bodyfat percentage measurements aren't perfect, but they can be pretty close.

My plan is 1 1/2 -2 hours of working out everyday, some of that is cardio, some strength, plus eating enough protein every day, and averaging around 1600-2000 calories each day.

Cranquistador

Great thread, full of comprehensive scientific analysis and data. Oh wait.

squats and deadlifts

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

In to read.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

Great thread, full of comprehensive scientific analysis and data. Oh wait.

squats and deadlifts

That's broscience

cwolfman13

There is a substantial difference between myth and science. To be annabolic requires a surplus of energy period...saying that you can build muscle on a calorie deficit is the same thing as saying you can get fat on a calorie deficit...you cannot be annabolic with a deficit of energy period...SCIENCE and ****.

More likely is that your TDEE estimate is off and lower than what you think it is...or you're not as accurate in logging as you think you are (even professionals have a substantial amount of estimation error when tracking calories)...or you're just shedding fat which in turn makes your muscles show and therefore look bigger. You're probably re-comping too...I haven't really gained any mass at all, but my muscles are a lot tighter and more "pumped" than they were before I started lifting...but I have not gained any substantial mass.

Also, you can make perfectly good strength gains on a deficit...strength gains don't necessarily require a surplus...at some point they do to break through plateaus...but you can go for quite awhile making good linear strength gains as a noob, even in a calorie deficit.

TLDR...you've debunked absolutely nothing....

sjohnny

I am finally ready after 2 years of experimention to firmly say that the prevailing concept that a caloric surplus is necessary to build muscle is untrue. I know this is going to get a lot of backlash since it has been the belief for so long amongst the general public, but I am now living proof that muscle and strength gains can be acheived through an intense lifting regiment and a closely monitered intake even with a slight caloric deficit. Without getting into too much detail about mself, I can just tell you that I net under my TDEE every week, and every week I get bigger, stronger, and more defined. The key is simply lifting heavy weights to the point of misery, and eating a crap load of protein. Of course if you want to get bigger faster, eat more, but I am much happier making slow gains while maintaining a six pack than benching 285 lbs. with a beer gut.

You may be pregnant.

JoRocka

Also, you can make perfectly good strength gains on a deficit...strength gains don't necessarily require a surplus...at some point they do to break through plateaus...but you can go for quite awhile making good linear strength gains as a noob, even in a calorie deficit.

TLDR...you've debunked absolutely nothing....

I feel like most people also do not grasp the fundamental difference between strength gains and muscle growth.

BigWin20

"TDEE" is just a rough estimate. BMR, RMR, TDEE, all of these calculations are estimates that should be "close" for the majority of people. Just because an online calculator tells you that your TDEE is 3000 cals doesn't mean it isn't really 2800. Just FYI. Also, if you are novice or relatively novice to weight training, you CAN actually build muscle and strength in a slight defecit due to the adaptation to new stresses. This phase doesn't last long though and doesn't prove the law of thermodynamics innacurate (notice that it is a "law"). It just means that we can't put an exact calorie figure on our metabolism down to the calorie. Also, just because it says what the calories are on the side of the box or in MFP doesn't mean that there isn't a margin of error to those figures also. You might think you are taking in 2800 cals and really taking in 3100. Or 2500.