it is probably not "muscle"
Options
Replies
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't think posting "you're not gaining muscle" is the best tack when a new dieter comes to post that they're not losing at the rate they think they should because (1) they could be, they're new to it after all and (2) inflammation/water.
Whether your muscles are gaining weight due to adding new tissue or more water, the bottom line to the newbie is the same-- ignore the scale for the first couple months and soldier on.
Telling them "it's not muscle" implies "it's your diet, change it". Also it suggests they can't improve their body or health through strength training while dieting. Also it ignores that it could well be muscle. Well, that and normal water weight fluctuations.
But it's not so black and white that people should always be posting "it's not muscle if you're in a deficit", and feel like they're spreading some universal truth that is helpful.
no, what I am saying is that if you are eating 1200 calories (or think you are) and doing 30 minutes a day of cardio, odds are you that said person is not gaining muscle.
I never said once in my OP that they were not improving their health, I said they are not adding new muscle.
Also, I said "probably" to indicate that what I am saying is not a universal truth, and then went on to list the conditions where one might build muscle in a deficit.
With all the misinformation in the forums, you would think that would people would want a real topic, with a good back and forth, that provides actually insight...
0 -
Is your point that it doesn't matter what we say here because people will double check anything we say? I wish that were the case.WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't think posting "you're not gaining muscle" is the best tack when a new dieter comes to post that they're not losing at the rate they think they should because (1) they could be, they're new to it after all and (2) inflammation/water.
Whether your muscles are gaining weight due to adding new tissue or more water, the bottom line to the newbie is the same-- ignore the scale for the first couple months and soldier on.
Telling them "it's not muscle" implies "it's your diet, change it". Also it suggests they can't improve their body or health through strength training while dieting. Also it ignores that it could well be muscle. Well, that and normal water weight fluctuations.
But it's not so black and white that people should always be posting "it's not muscle if you're in a deficit", and feel like they're spreading some universal truth that is helpful.
Well how about this, you know what is helpful? Let's say a new person comes along and reads this thread and says to themselves "Really? Is that true? That sucks. But who is this guy NDJ anyway? Let me do some research and see what I can find for myself". That right there will help someone go out and do some digging for themselves instead of just accepting what some guy online says. You think it's a good idea to say to yourself that because someone has 15,000 posts or has a great body we need to accept anything they say? I personally look up everything if it's information I haven't heard before. I will read and read and read. Sometimes for hours. Anyone that just accepts information blindly and gets discouraged by something a stranger says online really needs to look deep down inside themselves to see if they really want to learn and succeed.
Obviously, say what you want. That was just my two cents on why I sometimes bristle at the stock, knee-jerk responses about building muscle. There are very few absolutes but if you read here you'd be tempted to believe it's all absolute.
0 -
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".
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Is your point that it doesn't matter what we say here because people will double check anything we say? I wish that were the case.WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't think posting "you're not gaining muscle" is the best tack when a new dieter comes to post that they're not losing at the rate they think they should because (1) they could be, they're new to it after all and (2) inflammation/water.
Whether your muscles are gaining weight due to adding new tissue or more water, the bottom line to the newbie is the same-- ignore the scale for the first couple months and soldier on.
Telling them "it's not muscle" implies "it's your diet, change it". Also it suggests they can't improve their body or health through strength training while dieting. Also it ignores that it could well be muscle. Well, that and normal water weight fluctuations.
But it's not so black and white that people should always be posting "it's not muscle if you're in a deficit", and feel like they're spreading some universal truth that is helpful.
Well how about this, you know what is helpful? Let's say a new person comes along and reads this thread and says to themselves "Really? Is that true? That sucks. But who is this guy NDJ anyway? Let me do some research and see what I can find for myself". That right there will help someone go out and do some digging for themselves instead of just accepting what some guy online says. You think it's a good idea to say to yourself that because someone has 15,000 posts or has a great body we need to accept anything they say? I personally look up everything if it's information I haven't heard before. I will read and read and read. Sometimes for hours. Anyone that just accepts information blindly and gets discouraged by something a stranger says online really needs to look deep down inside themselves to see if they really want to learn and succeed.
Obviously, say what you want. That was just my two cents on why I sometimes bristle at the stock, knee-jerk responses about building muscle. There are very few absolutes but if you read here you'd be tempted to believe it's all absolute.
People shouldn't be so gullible.
0 -
Evidence-based reasoning requires a discipline/skill that most people never learn, and that many people are simply incapable of even you tried to teach them.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Is your point that it doesn't matter what we say here because people will double check anything we say? I wish that were the case.WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't think posting "you're not gaining muscle" is the best tack when a new dieter comes to post that they're not losing at the rate they think they should because (1) they could be, they're new to it after all and (2) inflammation/water.
Whether your muscles are gaining weight due to adding new tissue or more water, the bottom line to the newbie is the same-- ignore the scale for the first couple months and soldier on.
Telling them "it's not muscle" implies "it's your diet, change it". Also it suggests they can't improve their body or health through strength training while dieting. Also it ignores that it could well be muscle. Well, that and normal water weight fluctuations.
But it's not so black and white that people should always be posting "it's not muscle if you're in a deficit", and feel like they're spreading some universal truth that is helpful.
Well how about this, you know what is helpful? Let's say a new person comes along and reads this thread and says to themselves "Really? Is that true? That sucks. But who is this guy NDJ anyway? Let me do some research and see what I can find for myself". That right there will help someone go out and do some digging for themselves instead of just accepting what some guy online says. You think it's a good idea to say to yourself that because someone has 15,000 posts or has a great body we need to accept anything they say? I personally look up everything if it's information I haven't heard before. I will read and read and read. Sometimes for hours. Anyone that just accepts information blindly and gets discouraged by something a stranger says online really needs to look deep down inside themselves to see if they really want to learn and succeed.
Obviously, say what you want. That was just my two cents on why I sometimes bristle at the stock, knee-jerk responses about building muscle. There are very few absolutes but if you read here you'd be tempted to believe it's all absolute.
No, I'm not saying people will double check what we say because we know that isn't the case but people "should" fact check things. It could be applied to anything here. Someone posts asking about starvation mode and someone pops in saying not to skip breakfast or eat under so and so because starvation mode, if that person just accepts that answer now the have received misinformation and then pass it along. Someone asks about fat and someone says saturated fat is unhealthy, they accept that answer and again, they got the wrong information. They could easily read around and try and see if it's a fact or not. Now you may ask, why would you recommend they go check the internet for answers if they asked her on MFP? Well, a lot of the answers to many of the questions that are asked here can be easily answered with 10 or 15 minutes of searching around. Unfortunately, people can be generally lazy and they want people to just feed them the answers instead of spending a little time reading for themselves. That's a flaw.
0 -
Also, in order for someone to become better educated on a topic, it is almost essential that it be in the form of what could be interpreted as an argument or at least contrasting opinions...because in order to learn something new, one almost always has to unlearn something they previously believed to be true...since most adults have already formed at least a vague opinion on just about every topic.
That people would be discouraged by the process isn't necessarily the fault of those involved in the process...that is, arguing for or defending against their position. It's an essential part of the process. To sit on the sidelines and not participate because of how it may affect others helps no one.0 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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?
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »My point is if it can be muscle at any deficit/surplus level (which it appears it can be with newbies)...
No, that's not the case. There is very clearly a point at which a deficit is too large to support even newbie gains.
The statement "it can be muscle at any deficit" is incontrovertibly wrong.
0 -
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???0 -
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.
0 -
At the beginning of my journey I once posted my weight had increased even though I know I'm eating at a deficit and was given the "you're probably gaining muscle" I politely replied
"No I'm not doing any lifting in order to gain muscle, I'm sure it's probably water gain or body adjusting since I started walking." In the persons defense, before doing a lot of reading up on the newbie basics here on MFP I wouldn't of known this info. Besides there are a lot of ppl on here who think they know how the body works just because someone else told them how it works, without actually researching and reading up themselves. 0 -
when people at work say to me i have not lost because i have gained muscle. i cringe. i dont even bother answering now because i dont want an argument. try educating people that on a 1200 calorie a day diet muscle building is not going to be any walk in the park especially with no lifting0
-
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....0 -
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....
Hater.
Y so jealous?0 -
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....
I got ya, and I agree.
I think it just comes down to "sometimes" under the right circumstances, it could be muscles. Probably 1 out of 100 threads that we see this is the case but still.
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!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions