it is probably not "muscle"
Replies
-
I agree there. But if they're doing all kinds of new exercise-- balls to the wall, like people seem to start out-- I think that's different. And if they're doing tons of cardio, that can have a resistance effect and/or inflammatory effect, too, in the untrained.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Well, it seems like there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because someone might be at 1200 calories and under-eating, and then it must be relevant.ceoverturf wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I see it all the time-- Someone is doing everything 'right'... following MFP's calorie rec, exercising, and not losing weight.
I've seen many people CLAIM the above...but often a review of their diary will prove otherwise.
Still..none of the above is the reason for this thread.
It's the people who don't know better than come in after it's usually claimed or shown an OP is eating a minimal number of calories and doing nothing but cardio and not losing and telling them they're probably just "gaining muscle".
And there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because people are probably overeating due to poor logging, so then it's relevant.
My point is if it can be muscle at any deficit/surplus level (which it appears it can be with newbies), then why state "it can't be muscle" for either case above, with calorie level as justification? Or cardio level, for that matter. Or BMI.
We just don't know. Even viewing diaries we just don't know what's going on. Self-reporting is unreliable.
because at 1200 calories a day and no progressive lifting program it is not muscle.
but what if they are new or a returning athlete on 1200 calories? Isn't there a chance that it's muscle?
with zero lifting and just cardio???
Well of course not. That wasn't part of the question. But a 1200 calorie plan with progressive strength training....could there be gains? I think that is all that WalkingAlong is stating.
I would think at 1200 calories a day and even with heavy lifting it would be hard to build any new muscle...gender would also come in to play, as a male doing this MIGHT be able to add some muscle...
but I don't have a definitive on that...
most of the comments in the thread seem to go like..
OP - I am eating 1200 and doing 30 minutes a day of cardio and not losing
poster - it is probably muscle just keep doing what you are doing!!
me - 1200 calories and cardio does not equal muscle gains....
As for if you can gain muscle at 1200, my point is we don't know what deficit level anyone's at, even if they state it, even if you read their diary.
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.
All of this has happened before...
You win for BSG quote!
It was a quote from Peter Pan a good half century before it was plagiarized by BSG!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6drL3RbIA8k 0 -
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.0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I agree there. But if they're doing all kinds of new exercise-- balls to the wall, like people seem to start out-- I think that's different. And if they're doing tons of cardio, that can have a resistance effect and/or inflammatory effect, too, in the untrained.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Well, it seems like there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because someone might be at 1200 calories and under-eating, and then it must be relevant.ceoverturf wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I see it all the time-- Someone is doing everything 'right'... following MFP's calorie rec, exercising, and not losing weight.
I've seen many people CLAIM the above...but often a review of their diary will prove otherwise.
Still..none of the above is the reason for this thread.
It's the people who don't know better than come in after it's usually claimed or shown an OP is eating a minimal number of calories and doing nothing but cardio and not losing and telling them they're probably just "gaining muscle".
And there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because people are probably overeating due to poor logging, so then it's relevant.
My point is if it can be muscle at any deficit/surplus level (which it appears it can be with newbies), then why state "it can't be muscle" for either case above, with calorie level as justification? Or cardio level, for that matter. Or BMI.
We just don't know. Even viewing diaries we just don't know what's going on. Self-reporting is unreliable.
because at 1200 calories a day and no progressive lifting program it is not muscle.
but what if they are new or a returning athlete on 1200 calories? Isn't there a chance that it's muscle?
with zero lifting and just cardio???
Well of course not. That wasn't part of the question. But a 1200 calorie plan with progressive strength training....could there be gains? I think that is all that WalkingAlong is stating.
I would think at 1200 calories a day and even with heavy lifting it would be hard to build any new muscle...gender would also come in to play, as a male doing this MIGHT be able to add some muscle...
but I don't have a definitive on that...
most of the comments in the thread seem to go like..
OP - I am eating 1200 and doing 30 minutes a day of cardio and not losing
poster - it is probably muscle just keep doing what you are doing!!
me - 1200 calories and cardio does not equal muscle gains....
As for if you can gain muscle at 1200, my point is we don't know what deficit level anyone's at, even if they state it, even if you read their diary.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of people out there eating 1200 calories per day are not training at a high enough intensity that would even promote gains.0 -
Why? They're dieting at the highest intensity. I think people often start out very motivated and doing more than they should, not less. Which is why they're impatient for the scale to react. They're busting their butts.LolBroScience wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I agree there. But if they're doing all kinds of new exercise-- balls to the wall, like people seem to start out-- I think that's different. And if they're doing tons of cardio, that can have a resistance effect and/or inflammatory effect, too, in the untrained.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Well, it seems like there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because someone might be at 1200 calories and under-eating, and then it must be relevant.ceoverturf wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I see it all the time-- Someone is doing everything 'right'... following MFP's calorie rec, exercising, and not losing weight.
I've seen many people CLAIM the above...but often a review of their diary will prove otherwise.
Still..none of the above is the reason for this thread.
It's the people who don't know better than come in after it's usually claimed or shown an OP is eating a minimal number of calories and doing nothing but cardio and not losing and telling them they're probably just "gaining muscle".
And there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because people are probably overeating due to poor logging, so then it's relevant.
My point is if it can be muscle at any deficit/surplus level (which it appears it can be with newbies), then why state "it can't be muscle" for either case above, with calorie level as justification? Or cardio level, for that matter. Or BMI.
We just don't know. Even viewing diaries we just don't know what's going on. Self-reporting is unreliable.
because at 1200 calories a day and no progressive lifting program it is not muscle.
but what if they are new or a returning athlete on 1200 calories? Isn't there a chance that it's muscle?
with zero lifting and just cardio???
Well of course not. That wasn't part of the question. But a 1200 calorie plan with progressive strength training....could there be gains? I think that is all that WalkingAlong is stating.
I would think at 1200 calories a day and even with heavy lifting it would be hard to build any new muscle...gender would also come in to play, as a male doing this MIGHT be able to add some muscle...
but I don't have a definitive on that...
most of the comments in the thread seem to go like..
OP - I am eating 1200 and doing 30 minutes a day of cardio and not losing
poster - it is probably muscle just keep doing what you are doing!!
me - 1200 calories and cardio does not equal muscle gains....
As for if you can gain muscle at 1200, my point is we don't know what deficit level anyone's at, even if they state it, even if you read their diary.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of people out there eating 1200 calories per day are not training at a high enough intensity that would even promote gains.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Why? They're dieting at the highest intensity. I think people often start out very motivated and doing more than they should, not less. Which is why they're impatient for the scale to react. They're busting their butts.LolBroScience wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I agree there. But if they're doing all kinds of new exercise-- balls to the wall, like people seem to start out-- I think that's different. And if they're doing tons of cardio, that can have a resistance effect and/or inflammatory effect, too, in the untrained.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Well, it seems like there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because someone might be at 1200 calories and under-eating, and then it must be relevant.ceoverturf wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I see it all the time-- Someone is doing everything 'right'... following MFP's calorie rec, exercising, and not losing weight.
I've seen many people CLAIM the above...but often a review of their diary will prove otherwise.
Still..none of the above is the reason for this thread.
It's the people who don't know better than come in after it's usually claimed or shown an OP is eating a minimal number of calories and doing nothing but cardio and not losing and telling them they're probably just "gaining muscle".
And there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because people are probably overeating due to poor logging, so then it's relevant.
My point is if it can be muscle at any deficit/surplus level (which it appears it can be with newbies), then why state "it can't be muscle" for either case above, with calorie level as justification? Or cardio level, for that matter. Or BMI.
We just don't know. Even viewing diaries we just don't know what's going on. Self-reporting is unreliable.
because at 1200 calories a day and no progressive lifting program it is not muscle.
but what if they are new or a returning athlete on 1200 calories? Isn't there a chance that it's muscle?
with zero lifting and just cardio???
Well of course not. That wasn't part of the question. But a 1200 calorie plan with progressive strength training....could there be gains? I think that is all that WalkingAlong is stating.
I would think at 1200 calories a day and even with heavy lifting it would be hard to build any new muscle...gender would also come in to play, as a male doing this MIGHT be able to add some muscle...
but I don't have a definitive on that...
most of the comments in the thread seem to go like..
OP - I am eating 1200 and doing 30 minutes a day of cardio and not losing
poster - it is probably muscle just keep doing what you are doing!!
me - 1200 calories and cardio does not equal muscle gains....
As for if you can gain muscle at 1200, my point is we don't know what deficit level anyone's at, even if they state it, even if you read their diary.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of people out there eating 1200 calories per day are not training at a high enough intensity that would even promote gains.
Creating a large caloric burn is not the same as training efficiently under a progressive program.
I'm fairly certain that MOST people would not be able to perform at a high enough intensity on such little calories is my point.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Why? They're dieting at the highest intensity. I think people often start out very motivated and doing more than they should, not less. Which is why they're impatient for the scale to react. They're busting their butts.LolBroScience wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I agree there. But if they're doing all kinds of new exercise-- balls to the wall, like people seem to start out-- I think that's different. And if they're doing tons of cardio, that can have a resistance effect and/or inflammatory effect, too, in the untrained.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Well, it seems like there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because someone might be at 1200 calories and under-eating, and then it must be relevant.ceoverturf wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I see it all the time-- Someone is doing everything 'right'... following MFP's calorie rec, exercising, and not losing weight.
I've seen many people CLAIM the above...but often a review of their diary will prove otherwise.
Still..none of the above is the reason for this thread.
It's the people who don't know better than come in after it's usually claimed or shown an OP is eating a minimal number of calories and doing nothing but cardio and not losing and telling them they're probably just "gaining muscle".
And there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because people are probably overeating due to poor logging, so then it's relevant.
My point is if it can be muscle at any deficit/surplus level (which it appears it can be with newbies), then why state "it can't be muscle" for either case above, with calorie level as justification? Or cardio level, for that matter. Or BMI.
We just don't know. Even viewing diaries we just don't know what's going on. Self-reporting is unreliable.
because at 1200 calories a day and no progressive lifting program it is not muscle.
but what if they are new or a returning athlete on 1200 calories? Isn't there a chance that it's muscle?
with zero lifting and just cardio???
Well of course not. That wasn't part of the question. But a 1200 calorie plan with progressive strength training....could there be gains? I think that is all that WalkingAlong is stating.
I would think at 1200 calories a day and even with heavy lifting it would be hard to build any new muscle...gender would also come in to play, as a male doing this MIGHT be able to add some muscle...
but I don't have a definitive on that...
most of the comments in the thread seem to go like..
OP - I am eating 1200 and doing 30 minutes a day of cardio and not losing
poster - it is probably muscle just keep doing what you are doing!!
me - 1200 calories and cardio does not equal muscle gains....
As for if you can gain muscle at 1200, my point is we don't know what deficit level anyone's at, even if they state it, even if you read their diary.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of people out there eating 1200 calories per day are not training at a high enough intensity that would even promote gains.
Because lifting is different than walking or even moderate running. Intense lifting depletes the metabolic batteries in a way that doesn't allow for recharging while on a large caloric deficit. Unless the individual is small enough that 1200 cals only constitutes a small deficit, it will be impossible to maintain the intensity for more than a small number of sessions, and it takes a lot more than that to build muscle.
This comes back to your earlier incorrect statement - it is NOT TRUE that you can build muscle at "any" level of caloric deficit. That holds even for noobs.0 -
I think this is just one of those things that people say to be encouraging, a way of saying "the effort is worth it; keep going."0
-
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.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
2snakeswoman wrote: »I think this is just one of those things that people say to be encouraging, a way of saying "the effort is worth it; keep going."
Maybe - but what's the point of being encouraging if they're not doing things that are going to help them achieve their goals? The thing I like about this site is that it's more about science, facts, and "tough love" than just meaningless internet-pats on the back. BS tends to get called out.0 -
Thank you for this thread because it addressed what I always wondered, are some people really gaining that much muscle? I have not begun a systematic weight training routine. As I lose weight how can I know how much is fat and how much muscle? What would a weight training regime designed to preserve muscle look like?0
-
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???0 -
Thank you for this thread because it addressed what I always wondered, are some people really gaining that much muscle? I have not begun a systematic weight training routine. As I lose weight how can I know how much is fat and how much muscle? What would a weight training regime designed to preserve muscle look like?
typically it is recommended to take beginning measurements - arms/chest/thighs/shoulders/chest/waist - and then retake them every four weeks or so, so that you can track your progress.
-
A good beginner program would be strong lifts or starting strength.0 -
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?0 -
Here are honest answers. No, I'm not defending anyone. I'm offering an alternative viewpoint based on the info I've gotten from books. Such as muscle hypertrophy occurs in environments outside of progressive lifting regimens and caloric surplus.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Why? They're dieting at the highest intensity. I think people often start out very motivated and doing more than they should, not less. Which is why they're impatient for the scale to react. They're busting their butts.LolBroScience wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I agree there. But if they're doing all kinds of new exercise-- balls to the wall, like people seem to start out-- I think that's different. And if they're doing tons of cardio, that can have a resistance effect and/or inflammatory effect, too, in the untrained.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Well, it seems like there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because someone might be at 1200 calories and under-eating, and then it must be relevant.ceoverturf wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I see it all the time-- Someone is doing everything 'right'... following MFP's calorie rec, exercising, and not losing weight.
I've seen many people CLAIM the above...but often a review of their diary will prove otherwise.
Still..none of the above is the reason for this thread.
It's the people who don't know better than come in after it's usually claimed or shown an OP is eating a minimal number of calories and doing nothing but cardio and not losing and telling them they're probably just "gaining muscle".
And there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because people are probably overeating due to poor logging, so then it's relevant.
My point is if it can be muscle at any deficit/surplus level (which it appears it can be with newbies), then why state "it can't be muscle" for either case above, with calorie level as justification? Or cardio level, for that matter. Or BMI.
We just don't know. Even viewing diaries we just don't know what's going on. Self-reporting is unreliable.
because at 1200 calories a day and no progressive lifting program it is not muscle.
but what if they are new or a returning athlete on 1200 calories? Isn't there a chance that it's muscle?
with zero lifting and just cardio???
Well of course not. That wasn't part of the question. But a 1200 calorie plan with progressive strength training....could there be gains? I think that is all that WalkingAlong is stating.
I would think at 1200 calories a day and even with heavy lifting it would be hard to build any new muscle...gender would also come in to play, as a male doing this MIGHT be able to add some muscle...
but I don't have a definitive on that...
most of the comments in the thread seem to go like..
OP - I am eating 1200 and doing 30 minutes a day of cardio and not losing
poster - it is probably muscle just keep doing what you are doing!!
me - 1200 calories and cardio does not equal muscle gains....
As for if you can gain muscle at 1200, my point is we don't know what deficit level anyone's at, even if they state it, even if you read their diary.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of people out there eating 1200 calories per day are not training at a high enough intensity that would even promote gains.
Are you giving your opinion simply to defend those people or because you feel that proper tension over load in a progressive manner isn't a key to muscle hypertrophy?
There is a difference between busting their butts and actually training in an effective way to promote hypertrophy. Are you well versed in the science of lifting? Is your presence in this conversation right now a result of 1200 calories being mentioned?
Those are honest questions.
I would venture to guess I've read more books on the topic than all but maybe a few here. No, I'm not supplying a resume. I know you think since I'm a female over forty who doesn't post an underwear pic, I must be woefully uninformed. I'm ok with that. I put zero stock in post counts or photos as indicators of knowledge. I know you feel differently.
I'm here in the thread because in another recent thread njd posted something to the effect of "it's not muscle, you can't gain muscle in a deficit" (and other regulars did as well), which to me seems like a knee-jerk response anytime anyone suggests a newbie might be suffering scale slowdown due to their body's response to their workouts. So I posted a link to an article saying it could be.
That's the only reason I came in. Are you content with my presence now?
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.
All of this has happened before...
You win for BSG quote!
It was a quote from Peter Pan a good half century before it was plagiarized by BSG!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6drL3RbIA8k
Is true.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I'm offering an alternative viewpoint based on the info I've gotten from books. Such as muscle hypertrophy occurs in environments outside of progressive lifting regimens and caloric surplus.
That is a long, long way from the claim that muscles can be added at any level of caloric deficit! And it's a claim you've made a couple of times now, so I'd be curious to know which of those books is the source of that claim. Because it is clearly wrong, and I've never seen a book that makes such a claim.
0 -
[quote
-
A good beginner program would be strong lifts or starting strength.[/quote]
thank you. What is "starting strength"?
0 -
[quote
-
A good beginner program would be strong lifts or starting strength.
thank you. What is "starting strength"?
[/quote]
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=starting+strength0 -
We don't know anyone's deficit level. We don't know what deficit levels it occurs at, and as has been mentioned the body doesn't work on daily math like MFP anyway. So I don't understand the whole argument, whenever it comes up, as it relates to newbies.WalkingAlong wrote: »I'm offering an alternative viewpoint based on the info I've gotten from books. Such as muscle hypertrophy occurs in environments outside of progressive lifting regimens and caloric surplus.
That is a long, long way from the claim that muscles can be added at any level of caloric deficit! And it's a claim you've made a couple of times now, so I'd be curious to know which of those books is the source of that claim. Because it is clearly wrong, and I've never seen a book that makes such a claim.
If it's clearly wrong, maybe you could show me a source that says exactly what deficit level hypertrophy does and doesn't occur at? I don't think you'll find that because it's variable.
0 -
MORE than likely, if you're not losing, it's either your deficit isn't as high as you think it is, water and glycogen storage haven't leveled out yet, MAYBE there might be initial muscle gain if you're a newbie or returning athlete.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.
Muscle isn't easy to gain as many make it out to be though. Lots of people who aren't that knowledgeable in how it works use "you are gaining muscle" statement inadvertently because that's all they may have heard.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
We don't know anyone's deficit level. We don't know what deficit levels it occurs at, and as has been mentioned the body doesn't work on daily math like MFP anyway. So I don't understand the whole argument, whenever it comes up, as it relates to newbies.WalkingAlong wrote: »I'm offering an alternative viewpoint based on the info I've gotten from books. Such as muscle hypertrophy occurs in environments outside of progressive lifting regimens and caloric surplus.
That is a long, long way from the claim that muscles can be added at any level of caloric deficit! And it's a claim you've made a couple of times now, so I'd be curious to know which of those books is the source of that claim. Because it is clearly wrong, and I've never seen a book that makes such a claim.
If it's clearly wrong, maybe you could show me a source that says exactly what deficit level hypertrophy does and doesn't occur at? I don't think you'll find that because it's variable.
You're not being consistent. If we both agree there is a "variable" level at which a deficit will not allow anyone to add muscle mass, then we both agree that it is NOT TRUE that all deficit levels support addition of muscle mass.
Yet that is the exact claim you have been making.
Furthermore, it's not hard to find the relatively narrow range in which the deficit becomes too large to support the addition of muscle mass, because it is the same limit used for determining caloric intake under a PSMF diet regime. From there, we can analyze the macro distribution of any given persons intake (the key is protein intake) and determine with considerable certainty whether or not the conditions for muscle growth are present.
We also have a large data set covering multiple decades of well-studied individuals in a highly controlled environment who are (a) very fit (b) working extremely hard (c) underfed. We know from observation how big a deficit they can sustain before they start burning muscle. This is useful because it also tells us where the limit is for muscle addition, because it is just the other side of the boundary where muscle mass is no longer being lost.
It's really not that complicated...it is not necessary to calculate this stuff down to the last calorie to understand what is/isn't possible...
0 -
I have to say I've really enjoyed this discussion! I came in expecting the normal shenanigans and gifs ... and found, instead mostly a thoughtful discussion. I've even learned a few things about the finer details of building muscle vs increasing strength, etc. Happy day for me!0
-
There are 2 different types of hypertrophy: sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar. Which one are you referring to?WalkingAlong wrote: »
Here are honest answers. No, I'm not defending anyone. I'm offering an alternative viewpoint based on the info I've gotten from books. Such as muscle hypertrophy occurs in environments outside of progressive lifting regimens and caloric surplus.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Why? They're dieting at the highest intensity. I think people often start out very motivated and doing more than they should, not less. Which is why they're impatient for the scale to react. They're busting their butts.LolBroScience wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I agree there. But if they're doing all kinds of new exercise-- balls to the wall, like people seem to start out-- I think that's different. And if they're doing tons of cardio, that can have a resistance effect and/or inflammatory effect, too, in the untrained.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Well, it seems like there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because someone might be at 1200 calories and under-eating, and then it must be relevant.ceoverturf wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I see it all the time-- Someone is doing everything 'right'... following MFP's calorie rec, exercising, and not losing weight.
I've seen many people CLAIM the above...but often a review of their diary will prove otherwise.
Still..none of the above is the reason for this thread.
It's the people who don't know better than come in after it's usually claimed or shown an OP is eating a minimal number of calories and doing nothing but cardio and not losing and telling them they're probably just "gaining muscle".
And there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because people are probably overeating due to poor logging, so then it's relevant.
My point is if it can be muscle at any deficit/surplus level (which it appears it can be with newbies), then why state "it can't be muscle" for either case above, with calorie level as justification? Or cardio level, for that matter. Or BMI.
We just don't know. Even viewing diaries we just don't know what's going on. Self-reporting is unreliable.
because at 1200 calories a day and no progressive lifting program it is not muscle.
but what if they are new or a returning athlete on 1200 calories? Isn't there a chance that it's muscle?
with zero lifting and just cardio???
Well of course not. That wasn't part of the question. But a 1200 calorie plan with progressive strength training....could there be gains? I think that is all that WalkingAlong is stating.
I would think at 1200 calories a day and even with heavy lifting it would be hard to build any new muscle...gender would also come in to play, as a male doing this MIGHT be able to add some muscle...
but I don't have a definitive on that...
most of the comments in the thread seem to go like..
OP - I am eating 1200 and doing 30 minutes a day of cardio and not losing
poster - it is probably muscle just keep doing what you are doing!!
me - 1200 calories and cardio does not equal muscle gains....
As for if you can gain muscle at 1200, my point is we don't know what deficit level anyone's at, even if they state it, even if you read their diary.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of people out there eating 1200 calories per day are not training at a high enough intensity that would even promote gains.
Are you giving your opinion simply to defend those people or because you feel that proper tension over load in a progressive manner isn't a key to muscle hypertrophy?
There is a difference between busting their butts and actually training in an effective way to promote hypertrophy. Are you well versed in the science of lifting? Is your presence in this conversation right now a result of 1200 calories being mentioned?
Those are honest questions.
I would venture to guess I've read more books on the topic than all but maybe a few here. No, I'm not supplying a resume. I know you think since I'm a female over forty who doesn't post an underwear pic, I must be woefully uninformed. I'm ok with that. I put zero stock in post counts or photos as indicators of knowledge. I know you feel differently.
I'm here in the thread because in another recent thread njd posted something to the effect of "it's not muscle, you can't gain muscle in a deficit" (and other regulars did as well), which to me seems like a knee-jerk response anytime anyone suggests a newbie might be suffering scale slowdown due to their body's response to their workouts. So I posted a link to an article saying it could be.
That's the only reason I came in. Are you content with my presence now?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Here are honest answers. No, I'm not defending anyone. I'm offering an alternative viewpoint based on the info I've gotten from books. Such as muscle hypertrophy occurs in environments outside of progressive lifting regimens and caloric surplus.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Why? They're dieting at the highest intensity. I think people often start out very motivated and doing more than they should, not less. Which is why they're impatient for the scale to react. They're busting their butts.LolBroScience wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I agree there. But if they're doing all kinds of new exercise-- balls to the wall, like people seem to start out-- I think that's different. And if they're doing tons of cardio, that can have a resistance effect and/or inflammatory effect, too, in the untrained.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Well, it seems like there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because someone might be at 1200 calories and under-eating, and then it must be relevant.ceoverturf wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I see it all the time-- Someone is doing everything 'right'... following MFP's calorie rec, exercising, and not losing weight.
I've seen many people CLAIM the above...but often a review of their diary will prove otherwise.
Still..none of the above is the reason for this thread.
It's the people who don't know better than come in after it's usually claimed or shown an OP is eating a minimal number of calories and doing nothing but cardio and not losing and telling them they're probably just "gaining muscle".
And there are people who think "it's not muscle" is a good thing to interject because people are probably overeating due to poor logging, so then it's relevant.
My point is if it can be muscle at any deficit/surplus level (which it appears it can be with newbies), then why state "it can't be muscle" for either case above, with calorie level as justification? Or cardio level, for that matter. Or BMI.
We just don't know. Even viewing diaries we just don't know what's going on. Self-reporting is unreliable.
because at 1200 calories a day and no progressive lifting program it is not muscle.
but what if they are new or a returning athlete on 1200 calories? Isn't there a chance that it's muscle?
with zero lifting and just cardio???
Well of course not. That wasn't part of the question. But a 1200 calorie plan with progressive strength training....could there be gains? I think that is all that WalkingAlong is stating.
I would think at 1200 calories a day and even with heavy lifting it would be hard to build any new muscle...gender would also come in to play, as a male doing this MIGHT be able to add some muscle...
but I don't have a definitive on that...
most of the comments in the thread seem to go like..
OP - I am eating 1200 and doing 30 minutes a day of cardio and not losing
poster - it is probably muscle just keep doing what you are doing!!
me - 1200 calories and cardio does not equal muscle gains....
As for if you can gain muscle at 1200, my point is we don't know what deficit level anyone's at, even if they state it, even if you read their diary.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of people out there eating 1200 calories per day are not training at a high enough intensity that would even promote gains.
Are you giving your opinion simply to defend those people or because you feel that proper tension over load in a progressive manner isn't a key to muscle hypertrophy?
There is a difference between busting their butts and actually training in an effective way to promote hypertrophy. Are you well versed in the science of lifting? Is your presence in this conversation right now a result of 1200 calories being mentioned?
Those are honest questions.
I would venture to guess I've read more books on the topic than all but maybe a few here. No, I'm not supplying a resume. I know you think since I'm a female over forty who doesn't post an underwear pic, I must be woefully uninformed. I'm ok with that. I put zero stock in post counts or photos as indicators of knowledge. I know you feel differently.
I'm here in the thread because in another recent thread njd posted something to the effect of "it's not muscle, you can't gain muscle in a deficit" (and other regulars did as well), which to me seems like a knee-jerk response anytime anyone suggests a newbie might be suffering scale slowdown due to their body's response to their workouts. So I posted a link to an article saying it could be.
That's the only reason I came in. Are you content with my presence now?
Who, exactly, are you referring to when you say that (bolded part)? I'm confused, because I've seen a lot of posts of the people you seem to be referring to, and never something that says or implies they feel this way.
Signed another female near 40 who doesn't post undie pics.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You're just saying, why not?
A thought experiment for @WalkingAlong...
I assume we both agree that a person eating literally nothing at all - zero calorie diet, complete fast - CANNOT put on muscle mass. Yes...?
Ok.
Now we take that person and add 200g of carbohydrates to their diet. Do you believe it is now possible for that individual to add muscle mass, under the right conditions/genetics/etc?
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »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?
new muscle fibre,
No such thing, larger fibers perhaps but not new.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions