it is probably not "muscle"
Options
Replies
-
Yes. Sarcasm....
0 -
So when people get stronger while lifting in a deficit, what is that strength attributed to? Additional muscles?
Just asking...fmi.
I believe the term is "neurological adaptation" where your muscles become more efficient and can lift heavier things without adding new muscle.
It is the same concept as productivity at a company. When you develop a new system to do more work with the same people, you are doing more work with the same amount of staff. Same with muscle. You are lifting more (strength) with same muscle.0 -
Nope, it takes long than one day for your body to build muscleSo, in your opinion, while eating at a calorie deficit, regardless of the nutrient percentages, a non-beginner cannot gain muscle....
I'll be working with a powerlifting trainer later this week, perhaps I should not eat a deficit that day.
its not my opinion ..its backed up by studies as well and lyle mcdonald breaks it down pretty well here:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html/
dont understand your point in the bolded part…
or is there one?
I think they're wanting to isolate the specific workout day and not eat at a deficit on that day in hopes of [continuing to] build muscle. Some people have expressed thoughts that you can build muscle in one day, cut the next...
Of course this is just my speculation
Yes. That was what I meant. Thanks, JaneiR36!
I am quite curious what my body is doing. If being in any calorie deficit truly makes muscle gain impossible, how will lifting heavy affect me? Today my PB of bench pressing was 145 (after 3x3 of 135), my deadlift was 225, and my 4x4 machine squats were at 340. I was hoping to keep pushing those weights up even as I strive to lose about 50 pounds of body fat.
An important thing to remember is that strength gains does not automatically mean more muscle and that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. A big factor in resistance training is central nervous system adaptation. You body becomes more efficient as a result of you forcing it to be. It becomes more efficient. Another big positive is that is increases bone density which is great for as we get older it benefits us with osteoporosis. Added strength is a great thing so it's great to continue strength training.
I remember you from that other thread...you have great advice. You're right..I"m the same muscle wise as I was 7 months ago but my strength has increased alot to the point I can benhc 205 lbs for my PR at 194.2 lbs0 -
BlackScorpio91 wrote: »Going to lay this one out there, because lately it seems like I am seeing this one a lot and it makes my head hurt.
It usually goes a little something like this…
OP comes into thread and says they are not losing and are on a 1200 calorie diet and are doing 30 minutes a day of "exercise", which does not involve a lifting program where one progressively lifts heavier weights.
Posters come into the thread and say "oh, you are just gaining muscle"
Sigh, I am sorry but a 1200 calories diet and doing a 30 minute a day cardio based program that MAY have some resistance training built into it, you are not gaining muscle.
Can you build muscle in a calorie deficit? Yes, you can but it is usually limited to two populations…
1. The obese beginner that starts out and is doing weight training where they lift progressively heavier things.
2. High performance athletes.
For the 90% of the rest of us we are not going to build muscle in a deficit.
Building muscle is hard work, and the fact that some think that it will just magically appear on a 1200 to 1400 calorie diet drives me crazy.
1200 calorie diet trying to build muscle??? LOLOLOLOLOL damn hippies.... Anyway I agree with you completely. The only thing you're gonna do with your muscles while weightlifting and on a deficit is just maintain it so your body doesn't cannibalize both the muscle and fat while you lose weight.
-1 -
myfelinepal wrote: »BlackScorpio91 wrote: »Going to lay this one out there, because lately it seems like I am seeing this one a lot and it makes my head hurt.
It usually goes a little something like this…
OP comes into thread and says they are not losing and are on a 1200 calorie diet and are doing 30 minutes a day of "exercise", which does not involve a lifting program where one progressively lifts heavier weights.
Posters come into the thread and say "oh, you are just gaining muscle"
Sigh, I am sorry but a 1200 calories diet and doing a 30 minute a day cardio based program that MAY have some resistance training built into it, you are not gaining muscle.
Can you build muscle in a calorie deficit? Yes, you can but it is usually limited to two populations…
1. The obese beginner that starts out and is doing weight training where they lift progressively heavier things.
2. High performance athletes.
For the 90% of the rest of us we are not going to build muscle in a deficit.
Building muscle is hard work, and the fact that some think that it will just magically appear on a 1200 to 1400 calorie diet drives me crazy.
1200 calorie diet trying to build muscle??? LOLOLOLOLOL damn hippies.... Anyway I agree with you completely. The only thing you're gonna do with your muscles while weightlifting and on a deficit is just maintain it so your body doesn't cannibalize both the muscle and fat while you lose weight.
LOL0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »Those are all different cases, so different responses, and yeah in the new person's case its tough with bad responses telling them its all muscle. But to tell them they cannot build any muscle gets the next response: well why am I even working out then and getting sore?? Plus, with the made up rules, they are in the newbie category after all, so newbie gainzz!! Right?
I'd say try to get them to focus on maintaining to gaining strength and fine-tuning their caloric intake and stop thinking about how much is actually muscle, its near impossible to tell anyways. Ask them to go pick up 5 1lb steaks and think about whether they really put that much muscle on somewhere for the 5lbs they gained in 2 weeks, and why aren't there more people bigger than Arnold if people can gain muscle that fast, after all in just 1 year you could gain 125lbs of muscle this way right?!?!? ...I think that usually people start to get the concept this way.
I just get tired of people pretending they know you cannot gain any muscle while on a deficit, "cause its rulez and science", when there are no such rules, and the jury is out on the science since there are studies showing both results, and case studies actually make it likely probable in certain cases.
Show me this please, because after a very slow year of recomp, I must be doing it wrong.
Depending on the individual circumstances, you possibly can gain muscle on a deficit. Many variables come into play such as gender, leanness, training 'life', the amount of deficit, genetics, the length of the deficit, your programming etc etc.
The newer someone is to lifting and the more overweight they are (as well as the higher their test is), the more likely they are to be able to gain muscle on a deficit. That does not mean that trained and relatively lean athletes cannot gain muscle on a deficit - its just very very hard and very slow.
Remember, we are not in a constant state of deficit or surplus - it changes based on our eating.
Good video here explaining it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5bFy_WHYLI
0 -
-
Nope, it takes long than one day for your body to build muscleSo, in your opinion, while eating at a calorie deficit, regardless of the nutrient percentages, a non-beginner cannot gain muscle....
I'll be working with a powerlifting trainer later this week, perhaps I should not eat a deficit that day.
its not my opinion ..its backed up by studies as well and lyle mcdonald breaks it down pretty well here:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html/
dont understand your point in the bolded part…
or is there one?
I think they're wanting to isolate the specific workout day and not eat at a deficit on that day in hopes of [continuing to] build muscle. Some people have expressed thoughts that you can build muscle in one day, cut the next...
Of course this is just my speculation
Yes. That was what I meant. Thanks, JaneiR36!
I am quite curious what my body is doing. If being in any calorie deficit truly makes muscle gain impossible, how will lifting heavy affect me? Today my PB of bench pressing was 145 (after 3x3 of 135), my deadlift was 225, and my 4x4 machine squats were at 340. I was hoping to keep pushing those weights up even as I strive to lose about 50 pounds of body fat.
You can gain strength on a deficit. You also get better just due to more practice. It gets harder as you become more experienced though as your learning curve is less and you have less neuromuscular adaptations going on.
In your situation though, you may be gaining some small amount of muscle as you have a decent amount of weight to lose.
However, at the end of the day, it's kind of moot - do what you can to maintain your LBM (e.g. get enough protein, have a reasonable deficit, have a sensible routine you follow consistently) - if you gain some muscle, that's gravy.
Edited for grammar as I sounded like yoda in part of the above response0 -
What I mean is, say someone has an actual TDEE of 3000 calories. They are also following a progressive weightlifting program. Then say this person eats 2500 calories per day, and their body fat releases another 1000 calories worth of lipids into their bloodstream during the course of a day, instead of the 500 that you would normally expect.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I would like you to expand your theory on that please.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »I would guess that when one has a significant amount of body fat, this can supply a large amount of calories to the body even when "eating" is at a deficit, thus supplying enough energy for muscle building to take place under the right circumstances. This is all speculation, of course. But in these cases I think that the use of "caloric deficit" may require more context than it is typically given.
Tell me if this is what you mean:
(A)An obese individual would require a specific amount of calories to maintain basic life function plus sufficient energy to ward off muscle tissue catabolism, (B)the number of calories that person would need to maintain an obese weight can be very high, (C)they knock off sufficient calories to be in a nice deficit but at the same time the difference between A and C would provide enough extra nutrition to provide a positive nitrogen balance as well as glycogen, GH1, insulin etc to promote hypertrophy?
Not in that amount of detail, but yeah pretty much. Like I said it's pure speculation. What I was thinking was 1: what controls how much fat (energy) is released from fat cells when it is needed? And B: is this mechanism lock-stepped with actual energy needs, or can it be overridden/out of tune? (I'm fairly certain it can be out of tune, because IIRC nicotine causes fat cells to do this.)
So if more fat is being released from the cells than is needed for basic functions, where would the excess go? Would it free up dietary protein (and energy, etc) to be used for muscle building?
Also, I would think "deficit" and "surplus" are not a single system-wide thing because some cells might see the situation differently than others. (Isn't that pretty much what happens when newbie gains occur?)
When you say more fat is realeasd by fat cells than is needed for basic function, basic function as in oxidization for energy? I have never read into nicotine and how it affects it but we sort of know that your body will oxidize a certain amount of fat per day and past that we lbm starts to suffer. I'm not sure if the example you gave about freeing up protein will allow it to use it more for energy in building muscle works that way because I think the variable of how large of a deficit can our body handle in oder to max out the amount of fat it can oxidize compared to how much protein it would take to provide sufficient amino acids along with the necessary glycogen, would not allow us to get calories into the range it would need to be for that without increasing the calories above lowest point for max fat oxidization.
That might have been hard to read because it made no sense. It makes sense in my head. But just like you said, I'm also speculating.
Are they in a "surplus" or a "deficit?" Depends on which cells you ask. Assuming this can actually happen. But honestly I don't see any specific reason why it would be impossible. (Again, what exactly allows legit newbie gains to happen, and what specifically limits it to newbies?)0 -
scottacular wrote: »This common sense thread is getting saved to my bookmarks so I can retreat to it when I'm overwhelmed by all the bro-science and BS (same thing I guess) on here.
Don't bother.
It will inevitably be derailed and defiled.
All of this has happened before...0 -
Going to lay this one out there, because lately it seems like I am seeing this one a lot and it makes my head hurt.
It usually goes a little something like this…
OP comes into thread and says they are not losing and are on a 1200 calorie diet and are doing 30 minutes a day of "exercise", which does not involve a lifting program where one progressively lifts heavier weights.
Posters come into the thread and say "oh, you are just gaining muscle"
Sigh, I am sorry but a 1200 calories diet and doing a 30 minute a day cardio based program that MAY have some resistance training built into it, you are not gaining muscle.
Can you build muscle in a calorie deficit? Yes, you can but it is usually limited to two populations…
1. The obese beginner that starts out and is doing weight training where they lift progressively heavier things.
2. High performance athletes.
For the 90% of the rest of us we are not going to build muscle in a deficit.
Building muscle is hard work, and the fact that some think that it will just magically appear on a 1200 to 1400 calorie diet drives me crazy.
Yes, it bugs me too.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »scottacular wrote: »This common sense thread is getting saved to my bookmarks so I can retreat to it when I'm overwhelmed by all the bro-science and BS (same thing I guess) on here.
Don't bother.
It will inevitably be derailed and defiled.
All of this has happened before...
Awesome BSG quote -1 -
A muscle is normally "relaxed" and then contracts as a result of a nerve impulse received from a neuron connected to it. When a muscle "fires" that event only lasts a few milliseconds and then it starts returning to its "relaxed" state. So it's not like the nerve tells it to contract and it just stays contracted till further notice.So when people get stronger while lifting in a deficit, what is that strength attributed to? Additional muscles?
Just asking...fmi.
Neurons also have a certain amount of recovery time they need between sending impulses, so they can't just stay "on" all the time either. They can only send so many pulses per second. One of the adaptations that happens is that the neurons become capable of firing more frequently, thus producing stronger contractions from the same exact amount of muscle.
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »scottacular wrote: »This common sense thread is getting saved to my bookmarks so I can retreat to it when I'm overwhelmed by all the bro-science and BS (same thing I guess) on here.
Don't bother.
It will inevitably be derailed and defiled.
All of this has happened before...
Awesome BSG quote
(Nice catch.)-1 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
What I mean is, say someone has an actual TDEE of 3000 calories. They are also following a progressive weightlifting program. Then say this person eats 2500 calories per day, and their body fat releases another 1000 calories worth of lipids into their bloodstream during the course of a day, instead of the 500 that you would normally expect.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I would like you to expand your theory on that please.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »I would guess that when one has a significant amount of body fat, this can supply a large amount of calories to the body even when "eating" is at a deficit, thus supplying enough energy for muscle building to take place under the right circumstances. This is all speculation, of course. But in these cases I think that the use of "caloric deficit" may require more context than it is typically given.
Tell me if this is what you mean:
(A)An obese individual would require a specific amount of calories to maintain basic life function plus sufficient energy to ward off muscle tissue catabolism, (B)the number of calories that person would need to maintain an obese weight can be very high, (C)they knock off sufficient calories to be in a nice deficit but at the same time the difference between A and C would provide enough extra nutrition to provide a positive nitrogen balance as well as glycogen, GH1, insulin etc to promote hypertrophy?
Not in that amount of detail, but yeah pretty much. Like I said it's pure speculation. What I was thinking was 1: what controls how much fat (energy) is released from fat cells when it is needed? And B: is this mechanism lock-stepped with actual energy needs, or can it be overridden/out of tune? (I'm fairly certain it can be out of tune, because IIRC nicotine causes fat cells to do this.)
So if more fat is being released from the cells than is needed for basic functions, where would the excess go? Would it free up dietary protein (and energy, etc) to be used for muscle building?
Also, I would think "deficit" and "surplus" are not a single system-wide thing because some cells might see the situation differently than others. (Isn't that pretty much what happens when newbie gains occur?)
When you say more fat is realeasd by fat cells than is needed for basic function, basic function as in oxidization for energy? I have never read into nicotine and how it affects it but we sort of know that your body will oxidize a certain amount of fat per day and past that we lbm starts to suffer. I'm not sure if the example you gave about freeing up protein will allow it to use it more for energy in building muscle works that way because I think the variable of how large of a deficit can our body handle in oder to max out the amount of fat it can oxidize compared to how much protein it would take to provide sufficient amino acids along with the necessary glycogen, would not allow us to get calories into the range it would need to be for that without increasing the calories above lowest point for max fat oxidization.
That might have been hard to read because it made no sense. It makes sense in my head. But just like you said, I'm also speculating.
Are they in a "surplus" or a "deficit?" Depends on which cells you ask. Assuming this can actually happen. But honestly I don't see any specific reason why it would be impossible. (Again, what exactly allows legit newbie gains to happen, and what specifically limits it to newbies?)
Okay. Well, I have no way to respond to that because I just don't know.
I think he is getting at having preferential substrate utilization.0 -
But why would the body do that considering the effort it takes to begin with, without a benefit, ok wait, the benefit could be to make it easier to lift the increased weight. Survival mechanism initiated. Maybe it's the progressive weight program, anyway I digress. There could be a thing that I refer to as regional muscle gain where muscle is increased at the expense of a muscle or group of muscles that are not being worked at any given point in time. Personally I normally add progressive weights at maintenance or slightly above adding intensity and duration which either puts me into a deficit or at a new maintenance level which should translate into new muscle fibre, and generally does for me. Expecting muscle gains in a deficit, if that is your goal, would be masochistic. People as well really don't count calories properly and generally consume 200-400 calories more than they think they are and that's with trying to be accurate, so I would expect some gains that people are talking about in a deficit to be attributed to inaccuracies in calorie counting.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
What I mean is, say someone has an actual TDEE of 3000 calories. They are also following a progressive weightlifting program. Then say this person eats 2500 calories per day, and their body fat releases another 1000 calories worth of lipids into their bloodstream during the course of a day, instead of the 500 that you would normally expect.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I would like you to expand your theory on that please.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »I would guess that when one has a significant amount of body fat, this can supply a large amount of calories to the body even when "eating" is at a deficit, thus supplying enough energy for muscle building to take place under the right circumstances. This is all speculation, of course. But in these cases I think that the use of "caloric deficit" may require more context than it is typically given.
Tell me if this is what you mean:
(A)An obese individual would require a specific amount of calories to maintain basic life function plus sufficient energy to ward off muscle tissue catabolism, (B)the number of calories that person would need to maintain an obese weight can be very high, (C)they knock off sufficient calories to be in a nice deficit but at the same time the difference between A and C would provide enough extra nutrition to provide a positive nitrogen balance as well as glycogen, GH1, insulin etc to promote hypertrophy?
Not in that amount of detail, but yeah pretty much. Like I said it's pure speculation. What I was thinking was 1: what controls how much fat (energy) is released from fat cells when it is needed? And B: is this mechanism lock-stepped with actual energy needs, or can it be overridden/out of tune? (I'm fairly certain it can be out of tune, because IIRC nicotine causes fat cells to do this.)
So if more fat is being released from the cells than is needed for basic functions, where would the excess go? Would it free up dietary protein (and energy, etc) to be used for muscle building?
Also, I would think "deficit" and "surplus" are not a single system-wide thing because some cells might see the situation differently than others. (Isn't that pretty much what happens when newbie gains occur?)
When you say more fat is realeasd by fat cells than is needed for basic function, basic function as in oxidization for energy? I have never read into nicotine and how it affects it but we sort of know that your body will oxidize a certain amount of fat per day and past that we lbm starts to suffer. I'm not sure if the example you gave about freeing up protein will allow it to use it more for energy in building muscle works that way because I think the variable of how large of a deficit can our body handle in oder to max out the amount of fat it can oxidize compared to how much protein it would take to provide sufficient amino acids along with the necessary glycogen, would not allow us to get calories into the range it would need to be for that without increasing the calories above lowest point for max fat oxidization.
That might have been hard to read because it made no sense. It makes sense in my head. But just like you said, I'm also speculating.
Are they in a "surplus" or a "deficit?" Depends on which cells you ask. Assuming this can actually happen. But honestly I don't see any specific reason why it would be impossible. (Again, what exactly allows legit newbie gains to happen, and what specifically limits it to newbies?)
Okay. Well, I have no way to respond to that because I just don't know.
0 -
I think MFP should do our own study. Now Who's funding it?!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