it is probably not "muscle"
Replies
-
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
Yep, I follow and I agree. I would add that variation exists between individuals as far as the point where gains taper off and how much of a "deficit" prevents muscle growth.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »And something akin to this (body fat releasing enough to make total available energy greater than TDEE) has to happen in order for newbie gains to occur. (Does anyone know the actual explanation for newbie gains?)
In my opinion, "noob gains" aren't real. They're an artifact of a sedentary society, and only represent a kind of making up for lost time because we're starting from an unexpectedly low level of muscular fitness. It's the body fighting to return to "normal".
Take a 21 year old male who's been slinging hay bales on mom's farm for the past 18 years, drop his lean, strong body into a gym, and you won't see much, if any, noob gains.
I think some of this discussion is getting lost in the cracks between local and global. The body can be at a deficit overall, and at a surplus locally. If someone is eating right at maintenance - and they hit the weights (or go running or whatever) - the muscles being hit will metabolize fat stores local to the muscle itself for additional fuel. It's not all adipose - some of this is intramuscular fat, which is precisely what it's there for (it can be a looooong way from the middle of a big muscle to the nearest large fat deposit!)
So the local muscles can be in a surplus, while the overall body is not.
(ETA: As a side note, burning intramuscular fat is incredibly inefficient in terms of oxygen usage - which is part of why lifting heavy comes with so much huffing and puffing even though the body's not really going anywhere.)
If you do the thought experiment and drop intake 1 calorie at a time, it should be clear that situations exist where the overall body is at a deficit but a specific muscular region can be at a surplus. It should also be clear that there comes a point where the overall deficit overwhelms the ability of any individual region to compensate, so there will be a deficit level at which even noob gains become impossible.
BUT...if you are eating back those exercise calories you won't be at maintenance anymore, you'll be at surplus!
Follow?
The body isn't one system - it's a bunch of linked systems working independently while taking cues off of each other.
ETA: This is why a properly executed PSFM works so well...it walks the line of maximum local fat metabolization to prevent (significant) toasting of lean body mass.
It's like a Rube Goldberg machine made out of trillions of intertwined Rube Goldberg machines.The body isn't one system - it's a bunch of linked systems working independently while taking cues off of each other.
This is why "deficit" needs to be taken in context, because if you take the body as "one system" then growth of anything in a deficit doesn't make sense.
You are right. At least one of the mechanisms is reduction in insulin resistance after weightloss/increase in lbm. Other parts of the mechanism include neuromuscular recruitment (the reverse of denervation), pAKT overshoot, mitochondrial recruitment, myosin receptor attenuation, satellite cell recruitment, etc.... Any of these can be longer term effect/vary in individuals during calorie deficit.
It's incorrect to think of "can't make muscle on a deficit" because, heck, we grow the most muscle during a period that does include deficits - unless people have been plugging in IV lines in their sleep. It is a question of levels of growth and balance of small systems. One can't grow large amounts of muscle in a deficit. But even limited hypertrophy will occur with the right stimulus during limited deficits. It's just also a question of other mechanisms also tearing things down.
One of the reasons muscle imbalances occur.
And I swore I wasn't going to get pulled into this thread.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »And I swore I wasn't going to get pulled into this thread.
I said the same. :drinker:
But hey....there's been some informative back and forth that should hopefully be illuminating for some folks.
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.
Except she's right in challenging the dogma. I'm not sure she's claimed muscle can be added at any deficit?
She's wrong if the idea of adding muscle is "bodybuilder hypertrophy for maximum gains, yo".
But an individual going from sedentary and to hill sprints will see muscle development specific to that. It's "cardio" to most people here. Except there is no single exercise activity that doesn't provide some stimulus for muscular development.
Or elderly with little/no increase in exercise regimen will see LBM gains with just substrate modification. Increase deitary protein availability in isocaloric diets has been shown to increase LBM.
It's a question of good advice being reduced to nonsense sound bite. The good advice is "a good program for muscle gain (optimized/etc) includes a calorie surplus and some sort of progressive strength training". The sound bite? Well, it's all over the boards.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
Except she's right in challenging the dogma. I'm not sure she's claimed muscle can be added at any deficit?
Yep, she did.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
Except she's right in challenging the dogma. I'm not sure she's claimed muscle can be added at any deficit?
Yep, she did.
Rereading it seems to be closer to what people actually do when they speak about being in a deficit.
And how that deficit premise might be questionable.
0 -
Yes. Thank you.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
Except she's right in challenging the dogma. I'm not sure she's claimed muscle can be added at any deficit?
Yep, she did.
Rereading it seems to be closer to what people actually do when they speak about being in a deficit.
And how that deficit premise might be questionable.
0 -
Yeah but it's not nearly as cool as quoting BSG. I mean if we're gonna quote Peter Pan, what's next, Mary Poppins? (I'd quote something cool too but we've had enough in this thread, and enough is as good as a feast.)jofjltncb6 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.
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 -
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….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….
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...0 -
First off, don't use that woman over 40 nonsense. Don't play that woe is me I'm a 40 year old woman card. No one is discrediting you for that but you obviously use that as a chip on your shoulder. I know plenty of women over 40 who are incredibly smart in the field.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?
I feel you are woefully informed because you have a thing for only jumping when people start throwing around the number 1200 and that's all. Also, you say you've read tons of books but do you have any personal experience with it? With lifting? Real lifting? You are also not even giving any reasoning to jump in and defend all those eating at a deficit and not even lifting when they are told their gains are not muscle. You're just saying, why not? Come on, that isn't even a real argument.
Wow! And to think that I called you out once on a thread in her defense re a comment about 40+ year old women - last time I will be doing that after the underwear pic dig.
0 -
First off, don't use that woman over 40 nonsense. Don't play that woe is me I'm a 40 year old woman card. No one is discrediting you for that but you obviously use that as a chip on your shoulder. I know plenty of women over 40 who are incredibly smart in the field.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?
I feel you are woefully informed because you have a thing for only jumping when people start throwing around the number 1200 and that's all. Also, you say you've read tons of books but do you have any personal experience with it? With lifting? Real lifting? You are also not even giving any reasoning to jump in and defend all those eating at a deficit and not even lifting when they are told their gains are not muscle. You're just saying, why not? Come on, that isn't even a real argument.
Wow! And to think that I called you out once on a thread in her defense re a comment about 40+ year old women - last time I will be doing that after the underwear pic dig.
I need to see these pics for reference plz0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
First off, don't use that woman over 40 nonsense. Don't play that woe is me I'm a 40 year old woman card. No one is discrediting you for that but you obviously use that as a chip on your shoulder. I know plenty of women over 40 who are incredibly smart in the field.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?
I feel you are woefully informed because you have a thing for only jumping when people start throwing around the number 1200 and that's all. Also, you say you've read tons of books but do you have any personal experience with it? With lifting? Real lifting? You are also not even giving any reasoning to jump in and defend all those eating at a deficit and not even lifting when they are told their gains are not muscle. You're just saying, why not? Come on, that isn't even a real argument.
Wow! And to think that I called you out once on a thread in her defense re a comment about 40+ year old women - last time I will be doing that after the underwear pic dig.
I need to see these pics for reference plz
What! You want me to put underwear on in the next lot of pics I PM you?0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
First off, don't use that woman over 40 nonsense. Don't play that woe is me I'm a 40 year old woman card. No one is discrediting you for that but you obviously use that as a chip on your shoulder. I know plenty of women over 40 who are incredibly smart in the field.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?
I feel you are woefully informed because you have a thing for only jumping when people start throwing around the number 1200 and that's all. Also, you say you've read tons of books but do you have any personal experience with it? With lifting? Real lifting? You are also not even giving any reasoning to jump in and defend all those eating at a deficit and not even lifting when they are told their gains are not muscle. You're just saying, why not? Come on, that isn't even a real argument.
Wow! And to think that I called you out once on a thread in her defense re a comment about 40+ year old women - last time I will be doing that after the underwear pic dig.
I need to see these pics for reference plz
What! You want me to put underwear on in the next lot of pics I PM you?
:P0 -
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.pdf0 -
Thank you for this thread.
If a friend tells you "it's probably just bacause you're gaining muscle," your friend is just trying to be nice. And you're trying to make excuses.
If you are truly gining weight from muscle, you already know it.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.0 -
How was that a dig at you? Do you agree with him that only women who post revealing pics can be credible? That was my point.
First off, don't use that woman over 40 nonsense. Don't play that woe is me I'm a 40 year old woman card. No one is discrediting you for that but you obviously use that as a chip on your shoulder. I know plenty of women over 40 who are incredibly smart in the field.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?
I feel you are woefully informed because you have a thing for only jumping when people start throwing around the number 1200 and that's all. Also, you say you've read tons of books but do you have any personal experience with it? With lifting? Real lifting? You are also not even giving any reasoning to jump in and defend all those eating at a deficit and not even lifting when they are told their gains are not muscle. You're just saying, why not? Come on, that isn't even a real argument.
Wow! And to think that I called you out once on a thread in her defense re a comment about 40+ year old women - last time I will be doing that after the underwear pic dig.
Sidesteel- Yes. That's all I'm saying. It's the constant barrage of "you can't x in a y". I think people can take it wrong and find it insulting. After about the fourth repetition, the implication seems more and more like, "You can't possibly be changing your body in a positive way therefore you must be doing something wrong."0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
How was that a dig at you? Do you agree with him that only women who post revealing pics can be credible? That was my point.
First off, don't use that woman over 40 nonsense. Don't play that woe is me I'm a 40 year old woman card. No one is discrediting you for that but you obviously use that as a chip on your shoulder. I know plenty of women over 40 who are incredibly smart in the field.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?
I feel you are woefully informed because you have a thing for only jumping when people start throwing around the number 1200 and that's all. Also, you say you've read tons of books but do you have any personal experience with it? With lifting? Real lifting? You are also not even giving any reasoning to jump in and defend all those eating at a deficit and not even lifting when they are told their gains are not muscle. You're just saying, why not? Come on, that isn't even a real argument.
Wow! And to think that I called you out once on a thread in her defense re a comment about 40+ year old women - last time I will be doing that after the underwear pic dig.
Sidesteel- Yes. That's all I'm saying. It's the constant barrage of "you can't x in a y". I think people can take it wrong and find it insulting. After about the fourth repetition, the implication seems more and more like, "You can't possibly be changing your body in a positive way therefore you must be doing something wrong."
Because your comment implied that the only reason he thought I was credible was due to the fact that I show skin in my pic. Also, I have no idea where you have come up with what you are saying he is saying (that you are also asking if I agree with him). Please point it out to me as I must have missed it.
And in response to your question (and if he did say it - which I have not seen as I mentioned above) - of course not, its a ridiculous question to ask me and follows no logical process to get from my comment to there.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You didn't mention her. No one did.
I wasn't implying the only reason he found you credible was due to your pics, sara. I'm surprised you'd even think that.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »You didn't mention her. No one did.
I wasn't implying the only reason he found you credible was due to your pics, sara. I'm surprised you'd even think that.
Well, I am not the only over 40 year old female with an 'underwear' pic in this thread...oh, wait...
Nor have I ever mentioned that he has never implied that I am not credible even though I am female and over 40 in a prior thread...oh, wait...
Lets see...in a prior thread, he made a clumsy statement about 40 year old females. I pulled him up, but when you tried to make more out of it I mentioned that he had never dismissed me nor disrespected me in any way.
Now, its been reduced to 40 year old females not with underwear pics...as the prior population you were accusing him of dismissing was called into question by me (so obviously I need to be excluded from that population).
I am surprised that you are surprised to be honest
0 -
As a relative newbie can I ask a question? I've been eating at a deficit and working out cardio and light weights since October, 6 weeks ago I got cleared to lift much heavier weights by my orthopedist. In the past 6 weeks I've lost 6.6 pounds (actually should be higher but I've got water weight from TOM right now), I've lost 2 inches on each my waist, hips and thighs. But have gained 1/2 inch on my biceps (1/2 on each side) though there's obviously less fat, and 1/2 inch in each calf. Could those be the newbie gains you all are talking about? How long do they last? I should note that my left shoulder had two reconstructive surgeries on it and while I did PT and stretching this is the first strength training with "heavy weights" in several years, (also I'm missing both sides of the biceps tendon and the superspinasious tendon on that side). My right shoulder had a large tear in the rotator cuff that was being treated with non surgical methods. Both injuries occurred at the same time.0
-
Well no since you've trained before. More than likely atrophied muscle regaining "fullness" from you heavier intensity lifting.Amanda4change wrote: »As a relative newbie can I ask a question? I've been eating at a deficit and working out cardio and light weights since October, 6 weeks ago I got cleared to lift much heavier weights by my orthopedist. In the past 6 weeks I've lost 6.6 pounds (actually should be higher but I've got water weight from TOM right now), I've lost 2 inches on each my waist, hips and thighs. But have gained 1/2 inch on my biceps (1/2 on each side) though there's obviously less fat, and 1/2 inch in each calf. Could those be the newbie gains you all are talking about? How long do they last? I should note that my left shoulder had two reconstructive surgeries on it and while I did PT and stretching this is the first strength training with "heavy weights" in several years, (also I'm missing both sides of the biceps tendon and the superspinasious tendon on that side). My right shoulder had a large tear in the rotator cuff that was being treated with non surgical methods. Both injuries occurred at the same time.
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 -
Well no since you've trained before. More than likely atrophied muscle regaining "fullness" from you heavier intensity lifting.Amanda4change wrote: »As a relative newbie can I ask a question? I've been eating at a deficit and working out cardio and light weights since October, 6 weeks ago I got cleared to lift much heavier weights by my orthopedist. In the past 6 weeks I've lost 6.6 pounds (actually should be higher but I've got water weight from TOM right now), I've lost 2 inches on each my waist, hips and thighs. But have gained 1/2 inch on my biceps (1/2 on each side) though there's obviously less fat, and 1/2 inch in each calf. Could those be the newbie gains you all are talking about? How long do they last? I should note that my left shoulder had two reconstructive surgeries on it and while I did PT and stretching this is the first strength training with "heavy weights" in several years, (also I'm missing both sides of the biceps tendon and the superspinasious tendon on that side). My right shoulder had a large tear in the rotator cuff that was being treated with non surgical methods. Both injuries occurred at the same time.
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
Cool. Does that mean it's going to be easier for me to get back where I was, than if I hadn't been there before? And by several years I mean about 10 years, since I've lifted heavy.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.
Intense dieting?
0 -
Did someone call?
Anecdotal...no muscle gains without excess calories here...0 -
@amanda4changeAmanda4change wrote: »
Well no since you've trained before. More than likely atrophied muscle regaining "fullness" from you heavier intensity lifting.Amanda4change wrote: »As a relative newbie can I ask a question? I've been eating at a deficit and working out cardio and light weights since October, 6 weeks ago I got cleared to lift much heavier weights by my orthopedist. In the past 6 weeks I've lost 6.6 pounds (actually should be higher but I've got water weight from TOM right now), I've lost 2 inches on each my waist, hips and thighs. But have gained 1/2 inch on my biceps (1/2 on each side) though there's obviously less fat, and 1/2 inch in each calf. Could those be the newbie gains you all are talking about? How long do they last? I should note that my left shoulder had two reconstructive surgeries on it and while I did PT and stretching this is the first strength training with "heavy weights" in several years, (also I'm missing both sides of the biceps tendon and the superspinasious tendon on that side). My right shoulder had a large tear in the rotator cuff that was being treated with non surgical methods. Both injuries occurred at the same time.
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
Cool. Does that mean it's going to be easier for me to get back where I was, than if I hadn't been there before? And by several years I mean about 10 years, since I've lifted heavy.
One of the commonly stated categories for gaining muscle mass in a deficit is indeed people returning after a break. It appears that once you have been bigger regaining that size is easier than if you have never been highly trained before.
It was the pattern I followed after a poor ten training years (life got in the way, injuries etc.).
Very rapid regain of strength (not size gains) - 50% strength increase in 9 months and then taper off of my strength progress as I approached about 90% previous bests.
Modest measured muscle growth over a period of months (very small deficit, lots of heavy lifting and a good diet).
Here's an article which discusses it (most of it went over my head as not had my morning cuppa yet!)
muscleforlife.com/muscle-memory/
Probably should add the caveat that I probably have (or had) a foot in the "genetically gifted for muscle growth" category too. In my teens and 20's I could add bulk ridiculously easily with no regard to diet and haphazard training.
That advantage is blunted by being in my 50's though. If I had trained as hard in my 20's as I am now I would be hooooge! 0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Does muscle mass return quicker for experienced lifters coming back from a break, or is the neural adaption simply quicker?
Also, some very specific scenarios aside - naive obese trainees, etc - can meaningful (i.e. >0.25lb per week) be gained in deficit?
Answers on the back of a postcard to...
I would say from my experience both CNS adaptions and mass returns quicker for experienced lifters who are under their previous peak. Does seem to be the consensus from what I've read as well.
But everyone does have very specific scenarios, hopefully one of the takeaways from this pretty positive thread is to get away from blanket statements for everyone. Both the "must be gaining muscle if you are in a weight plateau and doing prancersize" and the "impossible to gain muscle in a deficit" ends of the spectrum.
In my very specific scenario I certainly didn't make your particular benchmark for muscle gains - but an elderly cyclist in the cycling season doing hardly any heavy lower body work (no deads, squats or lunges due to injuries) and prioritising cycle training is far from optimal.
If only I could take off 30 years, restore my knees and back, prioritise hypertrophy and repeat the experiment I would assume my results would be very different.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