Debunking the Myth

leadiax3

yes. you can add muscle mass which does add weight and you do not have to eat in surplus to increase a bit of muscle..unless you are a serious bodybuilder, which I have no plans to become.:bigsmile:

JoRocka

yes. you can add muscle mass which does add weight and you do not have to eat in surplus to increase a bit of muscle..unless you are a serious bodybuilder, which I have no plans to become.:bigsmile:

8 pages later.

the answer is still. No. you cannot.

1.) you can gain strength- and you can LOSE fat which can give you the appearance of added muscle- but it's not muscle growth.
2.) not everyone who wants to put on muscle is a serious body builder. (check out the women bulking threads for that and you'll see this)


Muscle growth happens with a surplus.

pcastagner

I assume this has gone past page one and been over analysed, because people often claim to break the first law of thermodynamics and therefore solved world hunger, removed the need for gm foods, solved energy crisis, limitations on space travel, time travel...
Rather than they can't log an accurate diary?


Edit- Sorry, not done.

There's a guy, who doesn't bother with measuring spoons, or logging dinner on a Wednesday, claiming that he has created energy.
That within his body, in an area of FL, he made the entire universe heavier.
And you're talking about noob gains and macros?

I'm seriously tempted to punch a kitten.

lol

technically though, he is suggesting he made the universe more massive, not heavier

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.

then you must be a mutant. because if Homo erectus's bodies built muscle while in a surplus they would have died in the first food shortage, therefore Homo sapiens bodies don't work like that, because we inherited the genes that enabled people to survive the pleistocene, not die in food shortages because their body's building muscle during food shortages. From an evolutionary point of view, it's an epic fail. But evolution is a dynamic process, and you could be a mutant. There's not currently any natural selection against this trait, so you'll be fine until the zombie apocalypse, then you and everyone who inherits this mutation will be the first to die when the food runs out (which will be about the time the corpses of those that died because they couldn't run away from the zombies get to the point where they're no longer edible, or they've all be eaten by the other survivors).

btw I'd rather be able to bench 285lb and have a beer gut, than to have a six pack. But that's just me and my priorities. In fact I'd happily sign a pact (hopefully not with the devil though because I'm kind of good like that) to never ever have a six pack ever in return for having a 285lb bench press.

Oh and there's always the "you're eating more than you think you are" factor, which statistically speaking is a lot more likely than you being a mutant.

I am stunned at the amount of people that routinely suggest the whole "not logging, properly, eating more than you think theory". It's like the great MFP fallback advice. Not because it doesn't happen often, but because the fact that it happens often makes the simple minded think it's always the case. While I think it is often the case with overweight people trying to lose and being inexperienced in weighing / measuring portions, and who are unaware of things that go in there mouth, there are many of us out there that are truly fully aware of every little calorie that enters their body, and have been doing this long enough to hone their actual TDEE; people who are in good shape already, and are here to offer advice and learn from different perspectives. I am one of those people. I think people should read their audience a little better before administering cliche advice or opinions. I do like the mutant scenerio though. Vey creative. And as far as the beer gut 285 thing. I don't believe you. That's just denial because you dont' want to sacrifice.

neandermagnon

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.

then you must be a mutant. because if Homo erectus's bodies built muscle while in a calorie deficit by drawing energy from their fat stores (we'll ignore the creating muscle out of nothing bit as that breaks the laws of physics) they would have died in the first food shortage, therefore Homo sapiens bodies don't work like that, because we inherited the genes that enabled people to survive the pleistocene, not die in food shortages because their body's building muscle during food shortages. From an evolutionary point of view, it's an epic fail. But evolution is a dynamic process, and you could be a mutant. There's not currently any natural selection against this trait, so you'll be fine until the zombie apocalypse, then you and everyone who inherits this mutation will be the first to die when the food runs out (which will be about the time the corpses of those that died because they couldn't run away from the zombies get to the point where they're no longer edible, or they've all be eaten by the other survivors).

btw I'd rather be able to bench 285lb and have a beer gut, than to have a six pack. But that's just me and my priorities. In fact I'd happily sign a pact (hopefully not with the devil though because I'm kind of good like that) to never ever have a six pack ever in return for having a 285lb bench press.

Oh and there's always the "you're eating more than you think you are" factor, which statistically speaking is a lot more likely than you being a mutant.

Edit button went away so I couldn't correct the embarrassing typo :blushing:

Fullsterkur_woman

And as far as the beer gut 285 thing. I don't believe you. That's just denial because you dont' want to sacrifice.

Are you off your damn meds?! Not everybody has the same priorities as you. I am a woman, and I want to be a very strong woman. I don't care if people don't think I'm the hottest thing ever to cross their field of vision. That ship sailed ages and ages ago. But one thing I can control and sacrifice for is getting more capable. Do you honestly think we don't have to sacrifice? Like it isn't a sacrifice to have difficulty finding clothes to fit because women's clothing isn't cut for your body type? It's not a sacrifice to be constantly bombarded from all sides with the message that your goal is unacceptable to most of society and you constantly have to work to change the script in your head so that you keep working towards your goals? It isn't a sacrifice to spend more money on your food because you have to buy two meals to get enough protein? I could go on but I think I've made my point.

One thing we can all say for sure, the OP clearly hasn't lost any ego mass during his whole body recomposition project!

BeachIron

Late to the party but in . . .

Before the MFP police shut it down

When the OP finally loses it

I iz entertained

neandermagnon

I am stunned at the amount of people that routinely suggest the whole "not logging, properly, eating more than you think theory". It's like the great MFP fallback advice. Not because it doesn't happen often, but because the fact that it happens often makes the simple minded think it's always the case.

Given a choice between the physically impossible (building muscle out of nothing), the biologically extremely improbable (your body using fat stores to build muscle while eating at a deficit) and the common error (inaccurate logging), logic tells me it's most likely to be inaccurate logging.

BTW if you think it's the second one and that all human bodies work like this, I suggest you go find a professor of human physiology at a leading university and submit your research proposal to them, so you can go about proving it. Ya know, if you really think you're onto something here, that's what you should do. Never mind using peer reviewed journal articles to prove your point, be the researcher who did the research and wrote the article....

While I think it is often the case with overweight people trying to lose and being inexperienced in weighing / measuring portions, and who are unaware of things that go in there mouth, there are many of us out there that are truly fully aware of every little calorie that enters their body, and have been doing this long enough to hone their actual TDEE; people who are in good shape already, and are here to offer advice and learn from different perspectives. I am one of those people. I think people should read their audience a little better before administering cliche advice or opinions. I do like the mutant scenerio though. Vey creative.

It's not creative, it's simple logic. If you're claiming that your body is burning fat and building muscle while you're in an energy deficit, then you must be a mutant. And it's a mutation that would not have remained in the gene pool after a food shortage, hence that trait not being fixed in human populations. What other option is there? Besides inaccurate logging?

If you're claiming your body's building muscle out of nothing, then you're claiming it's breaking the laws of physics, which has a zero probability, unless you're a god and then maybe I should call you Thor. I'm sure Thor's body could build muscle out of nothing. But then he's a mythical being and mythical beings can basically do what they want.

And as far as the beer gut 285 thing. I don't believe you. That's just denial because you dont' want to sacrifice.

Don't want to sacrifice what? I don't want to sacrifice strength for aesthetics. Simple as. Priorities. being strong > looking pretty, at least for me. I could turn it around and say that you're in denial because you don't want to sacrifice looking pretty. I could say the same for all bodybuilders, except that I understand that different people have different priorities. Some people want six pack abs and don't care for being strong. Others want to be strong and don't care for six pack abs. I can't believe you really think that everyone in the world will put aesthetics at a higher priority than being strong....?

Huffdogg

You mean after all the other stuff he claims, the fact that he values aesthetics > all is what actually surprises you?

neandermagnon

You mean after all the other stuff he claims, the fact that he values aesthetics > all is what actually surprises you?

lol good point......... unfortunately the "my body's breaking the laws of physics" claims don't surprise me any more....

shmoony

I have had very little input during this exchange from others who also maintain a very low BF% and good muscle development. I know you're out there. What do you eat? All I'm getting is people who are obviously satisfied with a little gel coating....not that there's anything wrong with that. But I was looking for some similar stories to compare with mine. Somehow I got into this dicussiion with female powerlifters. Not exactly comparing apples to apples here.

ndj1979

I have had very little input during this exchange from others who also maintain a very low BF% and good muscle development. I know you're out there. What do you eat? All I'm getting is people who are obviously satisfied with a little gel coating....not that there's anything wrong with that. But I was looking for some similar stories to compare with mine. Somehow I got into this dicussiion with female powerlifters. Not exactly comparing apples to apples here.

you mean the rest us that defy physics and the law of mathematics? I guess they are out there in the multiverse somewhere…keep looking...

jofjltncb6

I have had very little input during this exchange from others who also maintain a very low BF% and good muscle development. I know you're out there. What do you eat? All I'm getting is people who are obviously satisfied with a little gel coating....not that there's anything wrong with that. But I was looking for some similar stories to compare with mine. Somehow I got into this dicussiion with female powerlifters. Not exactly comparing apples to apples here.

That there weren't any credible accounts rushing to your defense is consistent with the generally held position that you didn't actually do what you thought you did.

SezxyStef

yes. you can add muscle mass which does add weight and you do not have to eat in surplus to increase a bit of muscle..unless you are a serious bodybuilder, which I have no plans to become.:bigsmile:

8 pages later.

the answer is still. No. you cannot.

1.) you can gain strength- and you can LOSE fat which can give you the appearance of added muscle- but it's not muscle growth.
2.) not everyone who wants to put on muscle is a serious body builder. (check out the women bulking threads for that and you'll see this)


Muscle growth happens with a surplus.

This xbazillions

Strenght<>muscle gain
definiton<>muscle gain
bf loss <> muscle gain
bf increase <> muscle gain

AcrylicDreams

I'm so confused. What's TDEE?

Total Daily Energy Expenditure

Literally what your body burns each day doing everything.

Obviously if you eat less than that, you burn away fat reserves, or muscle if eating too little. Eat more, you add them, or muscle if doing lifting.

Since that usually varies, you usually estimate what the week looks like, and get a daily average.

Thanks. So the person who posted this thread ate over his TDEE and that's why he added muscle? So if I don't want to add muscle then I just don't do that?

jofjltncb6

I'm so confused. What's TDEE?

Total Daily Energy Expenditure

Literally what your body burns each day doing everything.

Obviously if you eat less than that, you burn away fat reserves, or muscle if eating too little. Eat more, you add them, or muscle if doing lifting.

Since that usually varies, you usually estimate what the week looks like, and get a daily average.

Thanks. So the person who posted this thread ate over his TDEE and that's why he added muscle? So if I don't want to add muscle then I just don't do that?

You're worried about accidentally gaining muscle?

AcrylicDreams

I'm so confused. What's TDEE?

Total Daily Energy Expenditure

Literally what your body burns each day doing everything.

Obviously if you eat less than that, you burn away fat reserves, or muscle if eating too little. Eat more, you add them, or muscle if doing lifting.

Since that usually varies, you usually estimate what the week looks like, and get a daily average.

Thanks. So the person who posted this thread ate over his TDEE and that's why he added muscle? So if I don't want to add muscle then I just don't do that?

You're worried about accidentally gaining muscle?

Well the person who posted this thread said he was eating at a deficit and he gained 6 or 7 pounds of muscle. I don't want to gain 6 or 7 pounds, even if it is muscle.

hilts1969

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 can gain muscle while losing weight bro science states otherwise, gaining a lot of muscle is a different story though

shmoony

I have had very little input during this exchange from others who also maintain a very low BF% and good muscle development. I know you're out there. What do you eat? All I'm getting is people who are obviously satisfied with a little gel coating....not that there's anything wrong with that. But I was looking for some similar stories to compare with mine. Somehow I got into this dicussiion with female powerlifters. Not exactly comparing apples to apples here.

That there weren't any credible accounts rushing to your defense is consistent with the generally held position that you didn't actually do what you thought you did.

This is not a debate whether I did what I thought I did. That is invontravertable. The debate is over why I did what I thought I did. Keep up.

Mr_Knight

This is not a debate whether I did what I thought I did.

You're right.

Because what you originally claimed to have done, you incontrovertibly did not do.