it is probably not "muscle"
Options
Replies
-
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?
I will leave the details of that question to someone with more research on the topic as i wouldn't want to mislead you.
My understanding is that you may gain WATER weight as your muscles will have a "pump" of water and glycogen, but you would not be gaining muscle weight.
As far as your initial comment is concerned, since you are overweight you likely already have a good amount of muscle mass. Your goal should be (if it were me) to RETAIN as much muscle mass as you can while on a deficit and to cut FAT. This will allow you to have the "fit" and "tight" look most women want.
To do this you need to consume adequate protein and strength train consistently to oppose muscle catabolism.
Once you get down to a low enough body fat% you will see muscle. From there you can decide if you want to intentionally put on more or not. You might find that you're happy with where you are.
Here's a good example below of people around the same body fat % with different amounts of muscle mass.
I guess this also depends on your goal. I.e. if you are focusing on aesthetics or if your main goal is to be strong and powerlift.
I dont know your specific goals so it's hard for me to suggest anything further. If you're lifting for strength vs. aesthetics you should adjust your calories accordingly.
0 -
bumping because I am seeing a lot of "it is probably muscle" posts...
0 -
Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. I usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.0
-
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. I usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.
You might want to try not to sound like that then.0 -
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. I usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.
You might want to try not to sound like that then.
Doh! Typo LOL. I'll stand by the statement though anyways.0 -
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. I usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.
Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....0 -
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.
Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....
He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that's it is probably not muscle.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.
Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....
He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that's it is probably not muscle.
I don't think people are obnoxious in telling people it isn't muscle, I think people just get upset by learning it isn't muscle because the truth is less comforting than the falsehood.0 -
I don't think the OP was obnoxious at all, but I have definitely seen places that this was said in a very obnoxious way. If it has to do with not losing it is probably not muscle, but I am really enjoying seeing my muscle resurface from my layer of fat. New old, I don't care in the least, just welcome back pretty muscle groups!0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.
Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....
He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that's it is probably not muscle.
What specifically was obnoxious about my post?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.
Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....
He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that's it is probably not muscle.
What specifically was obnoxious about my post?
I don't know that s/he thought you were obnoxious. I think it's the general "some people" are obnoxious thing.0 -
I know it's Friday, but could we avoid derailing this into a mean people thread? I'm sure there are plenty of other threads for that today.0
-
Can we not drag this into the tired old "someone says they gained muscle in a deficit so they MUST be wrong" thing? Please!
There are so many variables that it would be nice if we could have sensible discussions without trying to disprove everyone.
Brad Schoenfeld
There is no question that even advanced lifters can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. However, you CANNOT maximize hypertrophy while losing fat. Important distinction.
I don't disagree..
I just highly doubt that most people asking about this are in the "advanced lifter" category.
The quote says "even advanced lifters," not "only advanced lifters." It implies that the author has already asserted/accepted the idea that those who are not advanced lifters can gain muscle in deficit (as in "newbie gains"), and now is taking the argument further to say that even those who are advanced lifters, and outside the "newbie gains" category, can gain muscle in deficit. Just not as fast as they could if they were in a calorie surplus.
So no matter what category of lifter the people asking are in, the quote (which you say you don't disagree with) is saying that gaining some muscle while losing fat is not the theoretical impossibility that many people say it is.
You just need to have a deficit small enough that you're not outpacing the ability of your body to generate energy from fat to make up for the deficit, and the deficit has to be measured against all the energy needs of your body, including the energy equivalent of the protein you need to build however much muscle you're building.
I'm not suggesting it's easy, or that it actually is a description of what's going on for most people who complain that they're doing everything right and not losing weight. I think for most people, the weight of the muscle that they could build in any given period of time is so small that any average daily fat loss it could outweigh is likewise so small that it would probably fall within their measuring error for input calories. That is, unless they're saying "I'm lifting heavy and consuming my TDEE less 100 calories, but I'm not losing any weight," (or "I'm gaining weight") I doubt the reason they're not losing weight is that they're building muscle as fast or faster than they're losing fat.
ETA: sorry, I missed that this was a necro-thread.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.
Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....
He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that it is probably not muscle.
What specifically was obnoxious about my post?
I don't believe @CalorieCountChocula was referring to your OP, but to other threads in which people have been obnoxious while saying that it's probably not muscle.0 -
says who0
-
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