it is probably not "muscle"
Options
Replies
-
On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.
Can you explain the difference between a high quality vitamin A molecule and a low-quality vitamin A molecule?
Also, how many multiples of my body's needed amount of vitamin A do I require for optimum health?0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I am learning all about lifting weights, cardio and loosing weight. It seems to go slow but I am seeing some progress. I have someone training me and she told me that If I don't loose weight it is probably muscle. So, what you are saying is that it might not be? Like I said I am just learning and want to do this right.
Yes, it might not be true. It depends upon a lot of different variables, but I wouldn't let it get it you. Weight loss and body composition changes take a long time.
@lolbroscience didn't you have access to some studies on this???
Studies regarding the variables?
sorry, I should of clarified..
@lolbroscience studies on building muscle in a deficit in relation to newbie gains and more elite type athletes….
@ndj1979 This one? The athletes are motocross, football, gymnatics, skiing, dance, ice hockey, etc.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Truls_Raastad/publication/51113664_Effect_of_two_different_weight-loss_rates_on_body_composition_and_strength_and_power-related_performance_in_elite_athletes/links/0912f5093e5020d670000000.pdf
skimmed it, but have not had a chance to dive into it...
sounds interesting...
I found it extremely interesting. Thank you for asking for it, and thanks usmcmp for providing the link!
Some things I found noteworthy:
A paragraph said the women gained muscle. They did not break this down between the slow reduction or fast reduction groups as far as I could tell. They thought the women gaining muscle might be due to having larger fat stores. Interesting, because I've always heard about how much harder it is for women to build muscle than men! The male participants on the over hand actually showed the muscle gain/loss differentiation between groups
They said they didn't allow any meal plans below 1500 cals. Which says to me that some people did indeed eat 1500 cals, while working out 14+/-3 hours per week for their normal athlete jobs, as well as I think it was 2-3 hours per week of additional strength training. Nothing about eating back exercise calories so these deficits must have been huge!
So I'm guessing there's studies proving newbie gains. And also seasoned athletes gaining muscle. But have we really measured a bunch of Jane Schmoes who just started out Zumba or 30DS to know they've gained no muscle?
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I am learning all about lifting weights, cardio and loosing weight. It seems to go slow but I am seeing some progress. I have someone training me and she told me that If I don't loose weight it is probably muscle. So, what you are saying is that it might not be? Like I said I am just learning and want to do this right.
Yes, it might not be true. It depends upon a lot of different variables, but I wouldn't let it get it you. Weight loss and body composition changes take a long time.
@lolbroscience didn't you have access to some studies on this???
Studies regarding the variables?
sorry, I should of clarified..
@lolbroscience studies on building muscle in a deficit in relation to newbie gains and more elite type athletes….
@ndj1979 This one? The athletes are motocross, football, gymnatics, skiing, dance, ice hockey, etc.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Truls_Raastad/publication/51113664_Effect_of_two_different_weight-loss_rates_on_body_composition_and_strength_and_power-related_performance_in_elite_athletes/links/0912f5093e5020d670000000.pdf
skimmed it, but have not had a chance to dive into it...
sounds interesting...
I found it extremely interesting. Thank you for asking for it, and thanks usmcmp for providing the link!
Some things I found noteworthy:
A paragraph said the women gained muscle. They did not break this down between the slow reduction or fast reduction groups as far as I could tell. They thought the women gaining muscle might be due to having larger fat stores. Interesting, because I've always heard about how much harder it is for women to build muscle than men! The male participants on the over hand actually showed the muscle gain/loss differentiation between groups
They said they didn't allow any meal plans below 1500 cals. Which says to me that some people did indeed eat 1500 cals, while working out 14+/-3 hours per week for their normal athlete jobs, as well as I think it was 2-3 hours per week of additional strength training. Nothing about eating back exercise calories so these deficits must have been huge!
So I'm guessing there's studies proving newbie gains. And also seasoned athletes gaining muscle. But have we really measured a bunch of Jane Schmoes who just started out Zumba or 30DS to know they've gained no muscle?
Keep in mind the population of the athletes surveyed though... shooters, motocross etc (not typically utilizing strength training in their daily routines etc), so they're more apt for growth. Most of the LBM gains seem to have come from upper body areas (which for most of those types of athletes listed would more than likely be under-trained muscle groups I would assume).
As for the size of the deficits - It discusses the reduction in calories under the "Intervention - Diet" Section and "Results - Diet" section. FR = 30% +/-4% and SR = 19% +/- 2%.
Lastly, it is also important to note that since they are Olympic caliber athletes, they more than likely above average genetics. I also wonder if there were enhanced athletes since they are of that caliber as well (although it mentions that in the screening section... but who knows for certain).
Edit - Had to go back and rewrite some of my sentences because I wrote it in a derpy state of mind...0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I am learning all about lifting weights, cardio and loosing weight. It seems to go slow but I am seeing some progress. I have someone training me and she told me that If I don't loose weight it is probably muscle. So, what you are saying is that it might not be? Like I said I am just learning and want to do this right.
Yes, it might not be true. It depends upon a lot of different variables, but I wouldn't let it get it you. Weight loss and body composition changes take a long time.
@lolbroscience didn't you have access to some studies on this???
Studies regarding the variables?
sorry, I should of clarified..
@lolbroscience studies on building muscle in a deficit in relation to newbie gains and more elite type athletes….
@ndj1979 This one? The athletes are motocross, football, gymnatics, skiing, dance, ice hockey, etc.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Truls_Raastad/publication/51113664_Effect_of_two_different_weight-loss_rates_on_body_composition_and_strength_and_power-related_performance_in_elite_athletes/links/0912f5093e5020d670000000.pdf
skimmed it, but have not had a chance to dive into it...
sounds interesting...
I found it extremely interesting. Thank you for asking for it, and thanks usmcmp for providing the link!
Some things I found noteworthy:
A paragraph said the women gained muscle. They did not break this down between the slow reduction or fast reduction groups as far as I could tell. They thought the women gaining muscle might be due to having larger fat stores. Interesting, because I've always heard about how much harder it is for women to build muscle than men! The male participants on the over hand actually showed the muscle gain/loss differentiation between groups
They said they didn't allow any meal plans below 1500 cals. Which says to me that some people did indeed eat 1500 cals, while working out 14+/-3 hours per week for their normal athlete jobs, as well as I think it was 2-3 hours per week of additional strength training. Nothing about eating back exercise calories so these deficits must have been huge!
So I'm guessing there's studies proving newbie gains. And also seasoned athletes gaining muscle. But have we really measured a bunch of Jane Schmoes who just started out Zumba or 30DS to know they've gained no muscle?
Keep in mind the population of the athletes surveyed though... shooters, motocross etc (not typically utilizing strength training in their daily routines etc), so they're more apt for growth. Most of the LBM gains seem to have come from upper body areas (which for most of those types of athletes listed would more than likely be under-trained muscle groups I would assume).
As for the size of the deficits - It discusses the reduction in calories under the "Intervention - Diet" Section and "Results - Diet" section. FR = 30% +/-4% and SR = 19% +/- 2%.
Lastly, it is also important to note that since they are Olympic caliber athletes, they more than likely above average genetics. I also wonder if there were enhanced athletes since they are of that caliber as well (although it mentions that in the screening section... but who knows for certain).
Edit - Had to go back and rewrite some of my sentences because I wrote it in a derpy state of mind...
Well here's the full listing of athletes. I think football here means soccer since at least a portion of the experiment was conducted out of Norway?
"football, volleyball, cross-country skiing, judo, jujitsu, tae kwon do, waterskiing, motocross, cycling, track and field, kickboxing, gymnastics, alpine skiing, ski jumping, freestyle sports dancing, skating, biathlon, and ice hockey"
Granted, I don't know which, if any of these would utilize strength training for their daily routines. What type of athletes do you think would?0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I am learning all about lifting weights, cardio and loosing weight. It seems to go slow but I am seeing some progress. I have someone training me and she told me that If I don't loose weight it is probably muscle. So, what you are saying is that it might not be? Like I said I am just learning and want to do this right.
Yes, it might not be true. It depends upon a lot of different variables, but I wouldn't let it get it you. Weight loss and body composition changes take a long time.
@lolbroscience didn't you have access to some studies on this???
Studies regarding the variables?
sorry, I should of clarified..
@lolbroscience studies on building muscle in a deficit in relation to newbie gains and more elite type athletes….
@ndj1979 This one? The athletes are motocross, football, gymnatics, skiing, dance, ice hockey, etc.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Truls_Raastad/publication/51113664_Effect_of_two_different_weight-loss_rates_on_body_composition_and_strength_and_power-related_performance_in_elite_athletes/links/0912f5093e5020d670000000.pdf
skimmed it, but have not had a chance to dive into it...
sounds interesting...
I found it extremely interesting. Thank you for asking for it, and thanks usmcmp for providing the link!
Some things I found noteworthy:
A paragraph said the women gained muscle. They did not break this down between the slow reduction or fast reduction groups as far as I could tell. They thought the women gaining muscle might be due to having larger fat stores. Interesting, because I've always heard about how much harder it is for women to build muscle than men! The male participants on the over hand actually showed the muscle gain/loss differentiation between groups
They said they didn't allow any meal plans below 1500 cals. Which says to me that some people did indeed eat 1500 cals, while working out 14+/-3 hours per week for their normal athlete jobs, as well as I think it was 2-3 hours per week of additional strength training. Nothing about eating back exercise calories so these deficits must have been huge!
So I'm guessing there's studies proving newbie gains. And also seasoned athletes gaining muscle. But have we really measured a bunch of Jane Schmoes who just started out Zumba or 30DS to know they've gained no muscle?
Keep in mind the population of the athletes surveyed though... shooters, motocross etc (not typically utilizing strength training in their daily routines etc), so they're more apt for growth. Most of the LBM gains seem to have come from upper body areas (which for most of those types of athletes listed would more than likely be under-trained muscle groups I would assume).
As for the size of the deficits - It discusses the reduction in calories under the "Intervention - Diet" Section and "Results - Diet" section. FR = 30% +/-4% and SR = 19% +/- 2%.
Lastly, it is also important to note that since they are Olympic caliber athletes, they more than likely above average genetics. I also wonder if there were enhanced athletes since they are of that caliber as well (although it mentions that in the screening section... but who knows for certain).
Edit - Had to go back and rewrite some of my sentences because I wrote it in a derpy state of mind...
Well here's the full listing of athletes. I think football here means soccer since at least a portion of the experiment was conducted out of Norway?
"football, volleyball, cross-country skiing, judo, jujitsu, tae kwon do, waterskiing, motocross, cycling, track and field, kickboxing, gymnastics, alpine skiing, ski jumping, freestyle sports dancing, skating, biathlon, and ice hockey"
Granted, I don't know which, if any of these would utilize strength training for their daily routines. What type of athletes do you think would?
I would imagine that football, martial arts, cycling, track and field, hockey and gymnastics do to a degree, with some more heavily incorporated into their training than others.
However, I would say that a handful of them don't - especially upper body movements where the greatest amount of lbm gains supposedly came from. These could be the more underdeveloped/weakened areas and possibly more apt for growth. Sports like motocross, water skiing, cross-country skiing, ski jumping may not train upper body as extensively, but perhaps some lower body training. Usually, more emphasis would be placed on specificity towards event type training and honing in skills.
All just speculation though...0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I am learning all about lifting weights, cardio and loosing weight. It seems to go slow but I am seeing some progress. I have someone training me and she told me that If I don't loose weight it is probably muscle. So, what you are saying is that it might not be? Like I said I am just learning and want to do this right.
Yes, it might not be true. It depends upon a lot of different variables, but I wouldn't let it get it you. Weight loss and body composition changes take a long time.
@lolbroscience didn't you have access to some studies on this???
Studies regarding the variables?
sorry, I should of clarified..
@lolbroscience studies on building muscle in a deficit in relation to newbie gains and more elite type athletes….
@ndj1979 This one? The athletes are motocross, football, gymnatics, skiing, dance, ice hockey, etc.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Truls_Raastad/publication/51113664_Effect_of_two_different_weight-loss_rates_on_body_composition_and_strength_and_power-related_performance_in_elite_athletes/links/0912f5093e5020d670000000.pdf
skimmed it, but have not had a chance to dive into it...
sounds interesting...
I found it extremely interesting. Thank you for asking for it, and thanks usmcmp for providing the link!
Some things I found noteworthy:
A paragraph said the women gained muscle. They did not break this down between the slow reduction or fast reduction groups as far as I could tell. They thought the women gaining muscle might be due to having larger fat stores. Interesting, because I've always heard about how much harder it is for women to build muscle than men! The male participants on the over hand actually showed the muscle gain/loss differentiation between groups
They said they didn't allow any meal plans below 1500 cals. Which says to me that some people did indeed eat 1500 cals, while working out 14+/-3 hours per week for their normal athlete jobs, as well as I think it was 2-3 hours per week of additional strength training. Nothing about eating back exercise calories so these deficits must have been huge!
So I'm guessing there's studies proving newbie gains. And also seasoned athletes gaining muscle. But have we really measured a bunch of Jane Schmoes who just started out Zumba or 30DS to know they've gained no muscle?
Keep in mind the population of the athletes surveyed though... shooters, motocross etc (not typically utilizing strength training in their daily routines etc), so they're more apt for growth. Most of the LBM gains seem to have come from upper body areas (which for most of those types of athletes listed would more than likely be under-trained muscle groups I would assume).
As for the size of the deficits - It discusses the reduction in calories under the "Intervention - Diet" Section and "Results - Diet" section. FR = 30% +/-4% and SR = 19% +/- 2%.
Lastly, it is also important to note that since they are Olympic caliber athletes, they more than likely above average genetics. I also wonder if there were enhanced athletes since they are of that caliber as well (although it mentions that in the screening section... but who knows for certain).
Edit - Had to go back and rewrite some of my sentences because I wrote it in a derpy state of mind...
Well here's the full listing of athletes. I think football here means soccer since at least a portion of the experiment was conducted out of Norway?
"football, volleyball, cross-country skiing, judo, jujitsu, tae kwon do, waterskiing, motocross, cycling, track and field, kickboxing, gymnastics, alpine skiing, ski jumping, freestyle sports dancing, skating, biathlon, and ice hockey"
Granted, I don't know which, if any of these would utilize strength training for their daily routines. What type of athletes do you think would?
I would imagine that football, martial arts, cycling, track and field, hockey and gymnastics do to a degree, with some more heavily incorporated into their training than others.
However, I would say that a handful of them don't - especially upper body movements where the greatest amount of lbm gains supposedly came from. These could be the more underdeveloped/weakened areas and possibly more apt for growth. Sports like motocross, water skiing, cross-country skiing, ski jumping may not train upper body as extensively, but perhaps some lower body training. Usually, more emphasis would be placed on specificity towards event type training and honing in skills.
All just speculation though...
interesting speculation, and it makes sense...to me anyway. ..0 -
Then there are the people that claim to be well educated in diet and nutrition that talk about fat turning into muscle.0
-
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.
Can you explain the difference between a high quality vitamin A molecule and a low-quality vitamin A molecule?
Also, how many multiples of my body's needed amount of vitamin A do I require for optimum health?
You can determine the quality of a molecule based on how expensive it is.
And as for optimum health, the more vitamins the better. Always. With no exceptions. Contrary to popular belief, you *do* get extra credit for extra nutrition.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I am learning all about lifting weights, cardio and loosing weight. It seems to go slow but I am seeing some progress. I have someone training me and she told me that If I don't loose weight it is probably muscle. So, what you are saying is that it might not be? Like I said I am just learning and want to do this right.
Yes, it might not be true. It depends upon a lot of different variables, but I wouldn't let it get it you. Weight loss and body composition changes take a long time.
@lolbroscience didn't you have access to some studies on this???
Studies regarding the variables?
sorry, I should of clarified..
@lolbroscience studies on building muscle in a deficit in relation to newbie gains and more elite type athletes….
I'm only aware of 1-2 actual studies. One was done on a variety of different athletes at an Olympic level. However, some of the athletes were from sports that don't really have any sort of resistance training built into their training (For example, shooters were lumped into the populations of the study). So, they could possibly fall under the category of "newbie" gains or hypertrophy in underdeveloped areas.
I recall one Helms study in particular where he cited one or two athletes was able to gain while in a caloric deficit, but it was a very small amount (about 1kg) over a lengthier period of time (6+ months).
Also, Brad Schoenfeld addressed it on Facebook that it is POSSIBLE for individuals to have hypertrophy while in a deficit (even at an experienced level), but there are many factors that will determine to what degree. Genetics, sex, training age, nutrition, programming etc, all need to be in line for it to occur, and even then I believe he only mentioned site specific hypertrophy in areas that were more underdeveloped.
Suffice to say... possible, but not nearly as optimal as while in a caloric surplus.
Applying all of that to individuals on here... most of the people on here are making claims of it happening on a noticeable level, while doing at home workouts... it's highly doubtful.
Never say never though...
Agreed.
I will add though that I'm equally frustrated when numerous replies of "you can't build muscle in a deficit" show up, because that's also misleading and not true.
And it's especially incorrect given that, at least in my observations, the majority of the time the OP is overweight or obese and relatively new to resistance training.
It's not like the context is a lean athlete getting leaner.
Yes exactly, I'm also talking about the majority of these threads I see, where the new lifters being talked about are pelted with "you aren't making any new muscle", but they are in one or more of the "newbie", "overweight", "obese" or "retraining" categories, so the fact that they probably are gaining *some* muscle is not really up for debate by the very set of "rules" the deniers are trying to apply. Review your rules please and think about it, before trying to apply a rule to those which are under an exclusion from your own rule, under the guidelines of application of that rule as its stated... and that's even IF the "rule" is true.
Then, more annoyingly, usually the exclusion of "highly trained" is added to the exclusion list...which goes against the principles set for this "rule" in the first place...if "highly trained" is an exclusion category, then the principles of "you need high body fat to utilize, or, re-training of muscles once larger to gain muscle under these deficit circumstances" are blown out of the water, negating the "rule". Annoyingly inconsistent and unscientific approach by people claiming "science" and then there are the studies brought up showing it does happen that are not read...
As usual, the answer is somewhere in between the new muscle deniers and the newbie "I gained 5lbs muscle claims: all the newbie lifters and obese and retraining lifters are almost guaranteed to be making *some* new muscle if they are under a progressive resistance training program, even at a reasonable deficit, but its also probably not anywhere near as much as they think, and its a slow process to build up muscle tissue base. Of course its not optimal, of course you aren't going to be Arnold training like this...but they are probably building some muscle.0 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I am learning all about lifting weights, cardio and loosing weight. It seems to go slow but I am seeing some progress. I have someone training me and she told me that If I don't loose weight it is probably muscle. So, what you are saying is that it might not be? Like I said I am just learning and want to do this right.
Yes, it might not be true. It depends upon a lot of different variables, but I wouldn't let it get it you. Weight loss and body composition changes take a long time.
@lolbroscience didn't you have access to some studies on this???
Studies regarding the variables?
sorry, I should of clarified..
@lolbroscience studies on building muscle in a deficit in relation to newbie gains and more elite type athletes….
I'm only aware of 1-2 actual studies. One was done on a variety of different athletes at an Olympic level. However, some of the athletes were from sports that don't really have any sort of resistance training built into their training (For example, shooters were lumped into the populations of the study). So, they could possibly fall under the category of "newbie" gains or hypertrophy in underdeveloped areas.
I recall one Helms study in particular where he cited one or two athletes was able to gain while in a caloric deficit, but it was a very small amount (about 1kg) over a lengthier period of time (6+ months).
Also, Brad Schoenfeld addressed it on Facebook that it is POSSIBLE for individuals to have hypertrophy while in a deficit (even at an experienced level), but there are many factors that will determine to what degree. Genetics, sex, training age, nutrition, programming etc, all need to be in line for it to occur, and even then I believe he only mentioned site specific hypertrophy in areas that were more underdeveloped.
Suffice to say... possible, but not nearly as optimal as while in a caloric surplus.
Applying all of that to individuals on here... most of the people on here are making claims of it happening on a noticeable level, while doing at home workouts... it's highly doubtful.
Never say never though...
Agreed.
I will add though that I'm equally frustrated when numerous replies of "you can't build muscle in a deficit" show up, because that's also misleading and not true.
And it's especially incorrect given that, at least in my observations, the majority of the time the OP is overweight or obese and relatively new to resistance training.
It's not like the context is a lean athlete getting leaner.
Yes exactly, I'm also talking about the majority of these threads I see, where the new lifters being talked about are pelted with "you aren't making any new muscle", but they are in one or more of the "newbie", "overweight", "obese" or "retraining" categories, so the fact that they probably are gaining *some* muscle is not really up for debate by the very set of "rules" the deniers are trying to apply. Review your rules please and think about it, before trying to apply a rule to those which are under an exclusion from your own rule, under the guidelines of application of that rule as its stated... and that's even IF the "rule" is true.
Then, more annoyingly, usually the exclusion of "highly trained" is added to the exclusion list...which goes against the principles set for this "rule" in the first place...if "highly trained" is an exclusion category, then the principles of "you need high body fat to utilize, or, re-training of muscles once larger to gain muscle under these deficit circumstances" are blown out of the water, negating the "rule". Annoyingly inconsistent and unscientific approach by people claiming "science" and then there are the studies brought up showing it does happen that are not read...
As usual, the answer is somewhere in between the new muscle deniers and the newbie "I gained 5lbs muscle claims: all the newbie lifters and obese and retraining lifters are almost guaranteed to be making *some* new muscle if they are under a progressive resistance training program, even at a reasonable deficit, but its also probably not anywhere near as much as they think, and its a slow process to build up muscle tissue base. Of course its not optimal, of course you aren't going to be Arnold training like this...but they are probably building some muscle.
you are assuming that all newbies are doing some kind of progressive lifting program, which they are all not doing. And, I specifically put in my OP hat people eating 1200 calories, doing primarily cardio, and complain about "not losing" and then response is "well, it is probably muscle" is what I was referring to, and I also qualified it with the conditions where said gain could happen.
Also, if someone is eating 1200 calories AND doing a progressive lifting program I highly doubt that they are putting on any appreciable mass.
Did you go back and read the study that USMC posted?
It sounds like you are just arguing to argue...0 -
On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.
Yup, I've done it before too, several times. I never tracked very closely until the last time where I ate very "dirty" (included beer, bacon, chocolate and coffee every day on purpose, ate fast food), and I lost 10+lbs over a month and a half, gained 150lbs strength for leg press, mostly over 30lbs lifting strength in the other tracked lifts over a month. It was hard, I tracked closely and exercised frequently. I was in two of the magic "categories" though: I was in the "overweight" and for many of the lifts in the "retraining" categories.
Now, I did not have my body composition tested no. But I find it extremely unlikely I did not gain any muscle whatsoever when my lifts were increased by the large amounts they were. And I definitely usually had to be at a surplus for such gains in the past. I do think "retraining" is a huge part of it and it would have been extremely slow if my past lifts were not well above the current lifts.
0 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I am learning all about lifting weights, cardio and loosing weight. It seems to go slow but I am seeing some progress. I have someone training me and she told me that If I don't loose weight it is probably muscle. So, what you are saying is that it might not be? Like I said I am just learning and want to do this right.
Yes, it might not be true. It depends upon a lot of different variables, but I wouldn't let it get it you. Weight loss and body composition changes take a long time.
@lolbroscience didn't you have access to some studies on this???
Studies regarding the variables?
sorry, I should of clarified..
@lolbroscience studies on building muscle in a deficit in relation to newbie gains and more elite type athletes….
I'm only aware of 1-2 actual studies. One was done on a variety of different athletes at an Olympic level. However, some of the athletes were from sports that don't really have any sort of resistance training built into their training (For example, shooters were lumped into the populations of the study). So, they could possibly fall under the category of "newbie" gains or hypertrophy in underdeveloped areas.
I recall one Helms study in particular where he cited one or two athletes was able to gain while in a caloric deficit, but it was a very small amount (about 1kg) over a lengthier period of time (6+ months).
Also, Brad Schoenfeld addressed it on Facebook that it is POSSIBLE for individuals to have hypertrophy while in a deficit (even at an experienced level), but there are many factors that will determine to what degree. Genetics, sex, training age, nutrition, programming etc, all need to be in line for it to occur, and even then I believe he only mentioned site specific hypertrophy in areas that were more underdeveloped.
Suffice to say... possible, but not nearly as optimal as while in a caloric surplus.
Applying all of that to individuals on here... most of the people on here are making claims of it happening on a noticeable level, while doing at home workouts... it's highly doubtful.
Never say never though...
Agreed.
I will add though that I'm equally frustrated when numerous replies of "you can't build muscle in a deficit" show up, because that's also misleading and not true.
And it's especially incorrect given that, at least in my observations, the majority of the time the OP is overweight or obese and relatively new to resistance training.
It's not like the context is a lean athlete getting leaner.
Yes exactly, I'm also talking about the majority of these threads I see, where the new lifters being talked about are pelted with "you aren't making any new muscle", but they are in one or more of the "newbie", "overweight", "obese" or "retraining" categories, so the fact that they probably are gaining *some* muscle is not really up for debate by the very set of "rules" the deniers are trying to apply. Review your rules please and think about it, before trying to apply a rule to those which are under an exclusion from your own rule, under the guidelines of application of that rule as its stated... and that's even IF the "rule" is true.
Then, more annoyingly, usually the exclusion of "highly trained" is added to the exclusion list...which goes against the principles set for this "rule" in the first place...if "highly trained" is an exclusion category, then the principles of "you need high body fat to utilize, or, re-training of muscles once larger to gain muscle under these deficit circumstances" are blown out of the water, negating the "rule". Annoyingly inconsistent and unscientific approach by people claiming "science" and then there are the studies brought up showing it does happen that are not read...
As usual, the answer is somewhere in between the new muscle deniers and the newbie "I gained 5lbs muscle claims: all the newbie lifters and obese and retraining lifters are almost guaranteed to be making *some* new muscle if they are under a progressive resistance training program, even at a reasonable deficit, but its also probably not anywhere near as much as they think, and its a slow process to build up muscle tissue base. Of course its not optimal, of course you aren't going to be Arnold training like this...but they are probably building some muscle.
you are assuming that all newbies are doing some kind of progressive lifting program, which they are all not doing. And, I specifically put in my OP hat people eating 1200 calories, doing primarily cardio, and complain about "not losing" and then response is "well, it is probably muscle" is what I was referring to, and I also qualified it with the conditions where said gain could happen.
Also, if someone is eating 1200 calories AND doing a progressive lifting program I highly doubt that they are putting on any appreciable mass.
Did you go back and read the study that USMC posted?
It sounds like you are just arguing to argue...
Yeah I saw that, and I addressed that. If you read above, both SideSteel and I are talking in general about most of the posts bombing new lifters with "you arent making any new muscle". You posted a general attitude type post, and the attitude annoys some people, because it gets applied to people who do not deserve the denial discouragement all the time. That's all.
I'm speaking up against the repeated statement of "you did not gain any new muscle" commonly applied to the typical newbie lifter, who is usually obese or overweight, which is complete bunk, and goes against the very "rules" that many are trying to apply. Yes it can be true for a specific circumstance or a theoretical "if 1200 calories, if primarily cardio and not losing", I am not talking about that. However even 1200 cals is no rule either, neither is primarily cardio = no new muscle, but they are significant bumps in the road probably almost nobody would be able to go over and still roll forwards.
You were trying to create a scenario where this rule could be essentially right, but I moved away from it to talk about the popular on MFP chorus of "you arent building any new muscle" that is misapplied to other situations. The former annoys you, the latter annoys me, the truth is in between.
0 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.
Yup, I've done it before too, several times. I never tracked very closely until the last time where I ate very "dirty" (included beer, bacon, chocolate and coffee every day on purpose, ate fast food), and I lost 10+lbs over a month and a half, gained 150lbs strength for leg press, mostly over 30lbs lifting strength in the other tracked lifts over a month. It was hard, I tracked closely and exercised frequently. I was in two of the magic "categories" though: I was in the "overweight" and for many of the lifts in the "retraining" categories.
Now, I did not have my body composition tested no. But I find it extremely unlikely I did not gain any muscle whatsoever when my lifts were increased by the large amounts they were. And I definitely usually had to be at a surplus for such gains in the past. I do think "retraining" is a huge part of it and it would have been extremely slow if my past lifts were not well above the current lifts.
According to the article, it seemed everyone's strength markers increased even though they were all at a deficit and most of the FR group *lost* muscle. I think it would be extremely useful information if some of the "normal" people who say they gained muscle had some supporting reliable measurements to go with it.0 -
This whole thread has been completely unclear to me. I'm going to have to talk with a trainer I know. I've been in a deficit for months and been losing weight. I've also been doing cardio and weight lifting. I know I've gained muscle because I can actually flex and my brother can't squash my arm down. That and I am hella stronger.
So if I can't build muscle while in deficit... How have I built muscle? I know you need energy to help build but couldn't my body just use stored fat to do so?0 -
This whole thread has been completely unclear to me. I'm going to have to talk with a trainer I know. I've been in a deficit for months and been losing weight. I've also been doing cardio and weight lifting. I know I've gained muscle because I can actually flex and my brother can't squash my arm down. That and I am hella stronger.
So if I can't build muscle while in deficit... How have I built muscle? I know you need energy to help build but couldn't my body just use stored fat to do so?
I'll try and clear this up.
BUILDING brand new muscle fiber (aka hypertrophy) requires extra calories (energy) in most cases. Generally people deliberately eat more to help the process.
BUT, that doesn't mean that strength training while in a deficit inhibits you from gaining strength (muscle mass =/= strength). Have you ever seen a power lifter vs. a bodybuilder?
Also, strength training in a deficit also doesn't inhibit your body from repairing atrophied muscle mass. You might also see a pump where your muscles swell with water and glycogen.
The above combined with fat loss also gives the illusion of "LOOK AT HOW MY MUSCLES HAVE GROWN!" when in reality, you have lost the pudge on top and repaired the muscle mass you already have.
It takes excess calories and a LOT of time (especially for women who have lower levels of testosterone) to actually put on *new* muscle mass.0 -
haysavam, just think of it this way: its really not important, and know it alls want to try to be an "authority" on here, ignore them. What's important is that you gain strength, and keep all your muscle while losing weight. Whether you build some new muscle as you lose weight? Doesn't really matter, even though people will jump at the opportunity on here to say "you aren't building any".0
-
rainbobow....good post..
0 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I am learning all about lifting weights, cardio and loosing weight. It seems to go slow but I am seeing some progress. I have someone training me and she told me that If I don't loose weight it is probably muscle. So, what you are saying is that it might not be? Like I said I am just learning and want to do this right.
Yes, it might not be true. It depends upon a lot of different variables, but I wouldn't let it get it you. Weight loss and body composition changes take a long time.
@lolbroscience didn't you have access to some studies on this???
Studies regarding the variables?
sorry, I should of clarified..
@lolbroscience studies on building muscle in a deficit in relation to newbie gains and more elite type athletes….
I'm only aware of 1-2 actual studies. One was done on a variety of different athletes at an Olympic level. However, some of the athletes were from sports that don't really have any sort of resistance training built into their training (For example, shooters were lumped into the populations of the study). So, they could possibly fall under the category of "newbie" gains or hypertrophy in underdeveloped areas.
I recall one Helms study in particular where he cited one or two athletes was able to gain while in a caloric deficit, but it was a very small amount (about 1kg) over a lengthier period of time (6+ months).
Also, Brad Schoenfeld addressed it on Facebook that it is POSSIBLE for individuals to have hypertrophy while in a deficit (even at an experienced level), but there are many factors that will determine to what degree. Genetics, sex, training age, nutrition, programming etc, all need to be in line for it to occur, and even then I believe he only mentioned site specific hypertrophy in areas that were more underdeveloped.
Suffice to say... possible, but not nearly as optimal as while in a caloric surplus.
Applying all of that to individuals on here... most of the people on here are making claims of it happening on a noticeable level, while doing at home workouts... it's highly doubtful.
Never say never though...
Agreed.
I will add though that I'm equally frustrated when numerous replies of "you can't build muscle in a deficit" show up, because that's also misleading and not true.
And it's especially incorrect given that, at least in my observations, the majority of the time the OP is overweight or obese and relatively new to resistance training.
It's not like the context is a lean athlete getting leaner.
Yes exactly, I'm also talking about the majority of these threads I see, where the new lifters being talked about are pelted with "you aren't making any new muscle", but they are in one or more of the "newbie", "overweight", "obese" or "retraining" categories, so the fact that they probably are gaining *some* muscle is not really up for debate by the very set of "rules" the deniers are trying to apply. Review your rules please and think about it, before trying to apply a rule to those which are under an exclusion from your own rule, under the guidelines of application of that rule as its stated... and that's even IF the "rule" is true.
Then, more annoyingly, usually the exclusion of "highly trained" is added to the exclusion list...which goes against the principles set for this "rule" in the first place...if "highly trained" is an exclusion category, then the principles of "you need high body fat to utilize, or, re-training of muscles once larger to gain muscle under these deficit circumstances" are blown out of the water, negating the "rule". Annoyingly inconsistent and unscientific approach by people claiming "science" and then there are the studies brought up showing it does happen that are not read...
As usual, the answer is somewhere in between the new muscle deniers and the newbie "I gained 5lbs muscle claims: all the newbie lifters and obese and retraining lifters are almost guaranteed to be making *some* new muscle if they are under a progressive resistance training program, even at a reasonable deficit, but its also probably not anywhere near as much as they think, and its a slow process to build up muscle tissue base. Of course its not optimal, of course you aren't going to be Arnold training like this...but they are probably building some muscle.
you are assuming that all newbies are doing some kind of progressive lifting program, which they are all not doing. And, I specifically put in my OP hat people eating 1200 calories, doing primarily cardio, and complain about "not losing" and then response is "well, it is probably muscle" is what I was referring to, and I also qualified it with the conditions where said gain could happen.
Also, if someone is eating 1200 calories AND doing a progressive lifting program I highly doubt that they are putting on any appreciable mass.
Did you go back and read the study that USMC posted?
It sounds like you are just arguing to argue...
Yeah I saw that, and I addressed that. If you read above, both SideSteel and I are talking in general about most of the posts bombing new lifters with "you arent making any new muscle". You posted a general attitude type post, and the attitude annoys some people, because it gets applied to people who do not deserve the denial discouragement all the time. That's all.
I'm speaking up against the repeated statement of "you did not gain any new muscle" commonly applied to the typical newbie lifter, who is usually obese or overweight, which is complete bunk, and goes against the very "rules" that many are trying to apply. Yes it can be true for a specific circumstance or a theoretical "if 1200 calories, if primarily cardio and not losing", I am not talking about that. However even 1200 cals is no rule either, neither is primarily cardio = no new muscle, but they are significant bumps in the road probably almost nobody would be able to go over and still roll forwards.
You were trying to create a scenario where this rule could be essentially right, but I moved away from it to talk about the popular on MFP chorus of "you arent building any new muscle" that is misapplied to other situations. The former annoys you, the latter annoys me, the truth is in between.
I was not trying to make a rule. I agree that there are different scenarios and that there is no general rule.
I just find it frustrating when someone says I am eating 1200 and doing cardio and not losing and the response is "oh, it is probably muscle.."
I think I agree with the rest of what you are saying....0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »This whole thread has been completely unclear to me. I'm going to have to talk with a trainer I know. I've been in a deficit for months and been losing weight. I've also been doing cardio and weight lifting. I know I've gained muscle because I can actually flex and my brother can't squash my arm down. That and I am hella stronger.
So if I can't build muscle while in deficit... How have I built muscle? I know you need energy to help build but couldn't my body just use stored fat to do so?
I'll try and clear this up.
BUILDING brand new muscle fiber (aka hypertrophy) requires extra calories (energy) in most cases. Generally people deliberately eat more to help the process.
BUT, that doesn't mean that strength training while in a deficit inhibits you from gaining strength (muscle mass =/= strength). Have you ever seen a power lifter vs. a bodybuilder?
Also, strength training in a deficit also doesn't inhibit your body from repairing atrophied muscle mass. You might also see a pump where your muscles swell with water and glycogen.
The above combined with fat loss also gives the illusion of "LOOK AT HOW MY MUSCLES HAVE GROWN!" when in reality, you have lost the pudge on top and repaired the muscle mass you already have.
It takes excess calories and a LOT of time (especially for women who have lower levels of testosterone) to actually put on *new* muscle mass.
@rainbowbow Thank you. This is something I will have to continue to research. I was contemplating increasing my calories for a few weeks because I wanted to get stronger, but saw no weight loss and since I'm overweight I went back to doing 1200. I will wait until I am at a weight to maintain to do that.
So basically, from what I understand, strength doesn't mean big muscles. And I can gain strength but not big muscles on a deficit. So my muscles become repaired- but would they get more dense (not necessarily bigger just more dense) And if so, wouldn't that add weight? Assuming that increasing density increases weight?0 -
haysavam, just think of it this way: its really not important, and know it alls want to try to be an "authority" on here, ignore them. What's important is that you gain strength, and keep all your muscle while losing weight. Whether you build some new muscle as you lose weight? Doesn't really matter, even though people will jump at the opportunity on here to say "you aren't building any".
Yes, I definitely do not want to lose muscle. But, I'm just trying to get a better understanding. Knowledge is power (*)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions