it is probably not "muscle"
Replies
-
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.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.
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."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
0 -
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.
As blanket statements, sure.
But when someone comes on the forums and their diary shows a massive calorie deficit while consuming 13g of protein a day....
It's safe to definitively say that person is not gaining muscle mass.
0 -
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.
As blanket statements, sure.
But when someone comes on the forums and their diary shows a massive calorie deficit while consuming 13g of protein a day....
It's safe to definitively say that person is not gaining muscle mass.
Totally agree. Unless Zumba is factored in....
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….
@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.pdf
skimmed it, but have not had a chance to dive into it...
sounds interesting...0 -
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »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.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.
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."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
0 -
On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »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.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.
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."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
It sure is for the bold. I wonder who you think it is though?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »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.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.
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."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
Actually, I posted something that was not totally in line with the people you seem to have an issue with and was not called out - I am female, and over 40. But wait...must be the underwear pic that makes me credible.
You do not need to wade through 13,000 post - how about just this one. I may have missed it, but you were the one who brought the whole thing up and decided to throw in the underwear comment. You posted 'so you agree with him' - he never said that and you were asked to point to where - which would be where in this thread.
Its very easy to make accusations and use the whole "I am not wading through..." to try to get out of supporting your accusation.0 -
On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.
How did you get your muscle mass tested?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »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.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.
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."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
It sure is for the bold. I wonder who you think it is though?
Taking a wild guess, but I doubt she thinks it is her...0 -
On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.
if you don't believe in CICO approach then how did you lose body fat?
and your are conflating 1200 calories of nutrients with 1200 calories of energy.
1200 calories of donuts = 1200 calories of vegetables
However
1200 calories of donuts do not have the same nutritional content as 1200 calories of vegetables...
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »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.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.
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."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
It sure is for the bold. I wonder who you think it is though?
Taking a wild guess, but I doubt she thinks it is her...
Which I find hilarious.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »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.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.
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."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
It sure is for the bold. I wonder who you think it is though?
Taking a wild guess, but I doubt she thinks it is her...
Which I find hilarious.
agreed...
even more hilarious is when she said that all the mods were men and that MFP was a male driven site and was somehow biased against woman...
whoops...! LOL0 -
This content has been removed.
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'm not getting further sucked into the mire with this guy so don't hold your breath. I'm not wading through 13,000 posts to find the many where he ridicules people without profile pics as being non-credible, or the women over forty. I don't have a case to prove. It's clear who's full of personal insults here.yopeeps025 wrote: »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.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.
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."
When did I say that? You asked @Sarauk2sf if she agreed with me thinking that above, when did I say that? Point out the post where I said only women who post revealing pics can be credible.
Now you also say you're surprised she thought you implied that about her but look at the things you've written. It's your own words.
@WalkingAlong awaiting your response.
LOL silence is always a funny answer to questions.
This is why the dogma just goes on and on. It's not worth the drama of speaking up. You'd think someone who challenges it is lynching puppies or something, the reaction it gets from the diehard dogma spouters. Though the two men in the thread who basically agreed with me were somehow not called out about their credentials for having that opinion. Hm.
It'll be nice when there can be an adult conversation without devolving into personal insults. I'm sure it's moving in that direction. I like the changes here lately.
It sure is for the bold. I wonder who you think it is though?
Taking a wild guess, but I doubt she thinks it is her...
Which I find hilarious.
agreed...
even more hilarious is when she said that all the mods were men and that MFP was a male driven site and was somehow biased against woman...
whoops...! LOL
Yeah I guess it's safe to say she got caught in a lie pretty quickly this time and saw that there was no way out of it so she decided to go with the whole "I don't have to prove anything" angle instead of admitting she made something up.
I don't know if silence is funnier than her reply. I don't think it is. Her reply> silence
0 -
I'm probably the only one who notices that the women on this site who lift or do serious strength training are way more likely to have "skin" pics while the women who don't are likely to not have them or even complain that such things exist.
I'm sure it's just a meaningless coincidence anyway.0 -
On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.
Can you explain the difference between a high quality vitamin A molecule and a low-quality vitamin A molecule?
Also, how many multiples of my body's needed amount of vitamin A do I require for optimum health?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….
@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.pdf
skimmed it, but have not had a chance to dive into it...
sounds interesting...
I found it extremely interesting. Thank you for asking for it, and thanks usmcmp for providing the link!
Some things I found noteworthy:
A paragraph said the women gained muscle. They did not break this down between the slow reduction or fast reduction groups as far as I could tell. They thought the women gaining muscle might be due to having larger fat stores. Interesting, because I've always heard about how much harder it is for women to build muscle than men! The male participants on the over hand actually showed the muscle gain/loss differentiation between groups
They said they didn't allow any meal plans below 1500 cals. Which says to me that some people did indeed eat 1500 cals, while working out 14+/-3 hours per week for their normal athlete jobs, as well as I think it was 2-3 hours per week of additional strength training. Nothing about eating back exercise calories so these deficits must have been huge!
So I'm guessing there's studies proving newbie gains. And also seasoned athletes gaining muscle. But have we really measured a bunch of Jane Schmoes who just started out Zumba or 30DS to know they've gained no muscle?
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….
@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.pdf
skimmed it, but have not had a chance to dive into it...
sounds interesting...
I found it extremely interesting. Thank you for asking for it, and thanks usmcmp for providing the link!
Some things I found noteworthy:
A paragraph said the women gained muscle. They did not break this down between the slow reduction or fast reduction groups as far as I could tell. They thought the women gaining muscle might be due to having larger fat stores. Interesting, because I've always heard about how much harder it is for women to build muscle than men! The male participants on the over hand actually showed the muscle gain/loss differentiation between groups
They said they didn't allow any meal plans below 1500 cals. Which says to me that some people did indeed eat 1500 cals, while working out 14+/-3 hours per week for their normal athlete jobs, as well as I think it was 2-3 hours per week of additional strength training. Nothing about eating back exercise calories so these deficits must have been huge!
So I'm guessing there's studies proving newbie gains. And also seasoned athletes gaining muscle. But have we really measured a bunch of Jane Schmoes who just started out Zumba or 30DS to know they've gained no muscle?
Keep in mind the population of the athletes surveyed though... shooters, motocross etc (not typically utilizing strength training in their daily routines etc), so they're more apt for growth. Most of the LBM gains seem to have come from upper body areas (which for most of those types of athletes listed would more than likely be under-trained muscle groups I would assume).
As for the size of the deficits - It discusses the reduction in calories under the "Intervention - Diet" Section and "Results - Diet" section. FR = 30% +/-4% and SR = 19% +/- 2%.
Lastly, it is also important to note that since they are Olympic caliber athletes, they more than likely above average genetics. I also wonder if there were enhanced athletes since they are of that caliber as well (although it mentions that in the screening section... but who knows for certain).
Edit - Had to go back and rewrite some of my sentences because I wrote it in a derpy state of mind...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….
@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.pdf
skimmed it, but have not had a chance to dive into it...
sounds interesting...
I found it extremely interesting. Thank you for asking for it, and thanks usmcmp for providing the link!
Some things I found noteworthy:
A paragraph said the women gained muscle. They did not break this down between the slow reduction or fast reduction groups as far as I could tell. They thought the women gaining muscle might be due to having larger fat stores. Interesting, because I've always heard about how much harder it is for women to build muscle than men! The male participants on the over hand actually showed the muscle gain/loss differentiation between groups
They said they didn't allow any meal plans below 1500 cals. Which says to me that some people did indeed eat 1500 cals, while working out 14+/-3 hours per week for their normal athlete jobs, as well as I think it was 2-3 hours per week of additional strength training. Nothing about eating back exercise calories so these deficits must have been huge!
So I'm guessing there's studies proving newbie gains. And also seasoned athletes gaining muscle. But have we really measured a bunch of Jane Schmoes who just started out Zumba or 30DS to know they've gained no muscle?
Keep in mind the population of the athletes surveyed though... shooters, motocross etc (not typically utilizing strength training in their daily routines etc), so they're more apt for growth. Most of the LBM gains seem to have come from upper body areas (which for most of those types of athletes listed would more than likely be under-trained muscle groups I would assume).
As for the size of the deficits - It discusses the reduction in calories under the "Intervention - Diet" Section and "Results - Diet" section. FR = 30% +/-4% and SR = 19% +/- 2%.
Lastly, it is also important to note that since they are Olympic caliber athletes, they more than likely above average genetics. I also wonder if there were enhanced athletes since they are of that caliber as well (although it mentions that in the screening section... but who knows for certain).
Edit - Had to go back and rewrite some of my sentences because I wrote it in a derpy state of mind...
Well here's the full listing of athletes. I think football here means soccer since at least a portion of the experiment was conducted out of Norway?
"football, volleyball, cross-country skiing, judo, jujitsu, tae kwon do, waterskiing, motocross, cycling, track and field, kickboxing, gymnastics, alpine skiing, ski jumping, freestyle sports dancing, skating, biathlon, and ice hockey"
Granted, I don't know which, if any of these would utilize strength training for their daily routines. What type of athletes do you think would?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….
@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.pdf
skimmed it, but have not had a chance to dive into it...
sounds interesting...
I found it extremely interesting. Thank you for asking for it, and thanks usmcmp for providing the link!
Some things I found noteworthy:
A paragraph said the women gained muscle. They did not break this down between the slow reduction or fast reduction groups as far as I could tell. They thought the women gaining muscle might be due to having larger fat stores. Interesting, because I've always heard about how much harder it is for women to build muscle than men! The male participants on the over hand actually showed the muscle gain/loss differentiation between groups
They said they didn't allow any meal plans below 1500 cals. Which says to me that some people did indeed eat 1500 cals, while working out 14+/-3 hours per week for their normal athlete jobs, as well as I think it was 2-3 hours per week of additional strength training. Nothing about eating back exercise calories so these deficits must have been huge!
So I'm guessing there's studies proving newbie gains. And also seasoned athletes gaining muscle. But have we really measured a bunch of Jane Schmoes who just started out Zumba or 30DS to know they've gained no muscle?
Keep in mind the population of the athletes surveyed though... shooters, motocross etc (not typically utilizing strength training in their daily routines etc), so they're more apt for growth. Most of the LBM gains seem to have come from upper body areas (which for most of those types of athletes listed would more than likely be under-trained muscle groups I would assume).
As for the size of the deficits - It discusses the reduction in calories under the "Intervention - Diet" Section and "Results - Diet" section. FR = 30% +/-4% and SR = 19% +/- 2%.
Lastly, it is also important to note that since they are Olympic caliber athletes, they more than likely above average genetics. I also wonder if there were enhanced athletes since they are of that caliber as well (although it mentions that in the screening section... but who knows for certain).
Edit - Had to go back and rewrite some of my sentences because I wrote it in a derpy state of mind...
Well here's the full listing of athletes. I think football here means soccer since at least a portion of the experiment was conducted out of Norway?
"football, volleyball, cross-country skiing, judo, jujitsu, tae kwon do, waterskiing, motocross, cycling, track and field, kickboxing, gymnastics, alpine skiing, ski jumping, freestyle sports dancing, skating, biathlon, and ice hockey"
Granted, I don't know which, if any of these would utilize strength training for their daily routines. What type of athletes do you think would?
I would imagine that football, martial arts, cycling, track and field, hockey and gymnastics do to a degree, with some more heavily incorporated into their training than others.
However, I would say that a handful of them don't - especially upper body movements where the greatest amount of lbm gains supposedly came from. These could be the more underdeveloped/weakened areas and possibly more apt for growth. Sports like motocross, water skiing, cross-country skiing, ski jumping may not train upper body as extensively, but perhaps some lower body training. Usually, more emphasis would be placed on specificity towards event type training and honing in skills.
All just speculation though...0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »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….
@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.pdf
skimmed it, but have not had a chance to dive into it...
sounds interesting...
I found it extremely interesting. Thank you for asking for it, and thanks usmcmp for providing the link!
Some things I found noteworthy:
A paragraph said the women gained muscle. They did not break this down between the slow reduction or fast reduction groups as far as I could tell. They thought the women gaining muscle might be due to having larger fat stores. Interesting, because I've always heard about how much harder it is for women to build muscle than men! The male participants on the over hand actually showed the muscle gain/loss differentiation between groups
They said they didn't allow any meal plans below 1500 cals. Which says to me that some people did indeed eat 1500 cals, while working out 14+/-3 hours per week for their normal athlete jobs, as well as I think it was 2-3 hours per week of additional strength training. Nothing about eating back exercise calories so these deficits must have been huge!
So I'm guessing there's studies proving newbie gains. And also seasoned athletes gaining muscle. But have we really measured a bunch of Jane Schmoes who just started out Zumba or 30DS to know they've gained no muscle?
Keep in mind the population of the athletes surveyed though... shooters, motocross etc (not typically utilizing strength training in their daily routines etc), so they're more apt for growth. Most of the LBM gains seem to have come from upper body areas (which for most of those types of athletes listed would more than likely be under-trained muscle groups I would assume).
As for the size of the deficits - It discusses the reduction in calories under the "Intervention - Diet" Section and "Results - Diet" section. FR = 30% +/-4% and SR = 19% +/- 2%.
Lastly, it is also important to note that since they are Olympic caliber athletes, they more than likely above average genetics. I also wonder if there were enhanced athletes since they are of that caliber as well (although it mentions that in the screening section... but who knows for certain).
Edit - Had to go back and rewrite some of my sentences because I wrote it in a derpy state of mind...
Well here's the full listing of athletes. I think football here means soccer since at least a portion of the experiment was conducted out of Norway?
"football, volleyball, cross-country skiing, judo, jujitsu, tae kwon do, waterskiing, motocross, cycling, track and field, kickboxing, gymnastics, alpine skiing, ski jumping, freestyle sports dancing, skating, biathlon, and ice hockey"
Granted, I don't know which, if any of these would utilize strength training for their daily routines. What type of athletes do you think would?
I would imagine that football, martial arts, cycling, track and field, hockey and gymnastics do to a degree, with some more heavily incorporated into their training than others.
However, I would say that a handful of them don't - especially upper body movements where the greatest amount of lbm gains supposedly came from. These could be the more underdeveloped/weakened areas and possibly more apt for growth. Sports like motocross, water skiing, cross-country skiing, ski jumping may not train upper body as extensively, but perhaps some lower body training. Usually, more emphasis would be placed on specificity towards event type training and honing in skills.
All just speculation though...
interesting speculation, and it makes sense...to me anyway. ..0 -
Then there are the people that claim to be well educated in diet and nutrition that talk about fat turning into muscle.0
-
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.
Can you explain the difference between a high quality vitamin A molecule and a low-quality vitamin A molecule?
Also, how many multiples of my body's needed amount of vitamin A do I require for optimum health?
You can determine the quality of a molecule based on how expensive it is.
And as for optimum health, the more vitamins the better. Always. With no exceptions. Contrary to popular belief, you *do* get extra credit for extra nutrition.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.
Yes exactly, I'm also talking about the majority of these threads I see, where the new lifters being talked about are pelted with "you aren't making any new muscle", but they are in one or more of the "newbie", "overweight", "obese" or "retraining" categories, so the fact that they probably are gaining *some* muscle is not really up for debate by the very set of "rules" the deniers are trying to apply. Review your rules please and think about it, before trying to apply a rule to those which are under an exclusion from your own rule, under the guidelines of application of that rule as its stated... and that's even IF the "rule" is true.
Then, more annoyingly, usually the exclusion of "highly trained" is added to the exclusion list...which goes against the principles set for this "rule" in the first place...if "highly trained" is an exclusion category, then the principles of "you need high body fat to utilize, or, re-training of muscles once larger to gain muscle under these deficit circumstances" are blown out of the water, negating the "rule". Annoyingly inconsistent and unscientific approach by people claiming "science" and then there are the studies brought up showing it does happen that are not read...
As usual, the answer is somewhere in between the new muscle deniers and the newbie "I gained 5lbs muscle claims: all the newbie lifters and obese and retraining lifters are almost guaranteed to be making *some* new muscle if they are under a progressive resistance training program, even at a reasonable deficit, but its also probably not anywhere near as much as they think, and its a slow process to build up muscle tissue base. Of course its not optimal, of course you aren't going to be Arnold training like this...but they are probably building some muscle.0 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »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.
Yes exactly, I'm also talking about the majority of these threads I see, where the new lifters being talked about are pelted with "you aren't making any new muscle", but they are in one or more of the "newbie", "overweight", "obese" or "retraining" categories, so the fact that they probably are gaining *some* muscle is not really up for debate by the very set of "rules" the deniers are trying to apply. Review your rules please and think about it, before trying to apply a rule to those which are under an exclusion from your own rule, under the guidelines of application of that rule as its stated... and that's even IF the "rule" is true.
Then, more annoyingly, usually the exclusion of "highly trained" is added to the exclusion list...which goes against the principles set for this "rule" in the first place...if "highly trained" is an exclusion category, then the principles of "you need high body fat to utilize, or, re-training of muscles once larger to gain muscle under these deficit circumstances" are blown out of the water, negating the "rule". Annoyingly inconsistent and unscientific approach by people claiming "science" and then there are the studies brought up showing it does happen that are not read...
As usual, the answer is somewhere in between the new muscle deniers and the newbie "I gained 5lbs muscle claims: all the newbie lifters and obese and retraining lifters are almost guaranteed to be making *some* new muscle if they are under a progressive resistance training program, even at a reasonable deficit, but its also probably not anywhere near as much as they think, and its a slow process to build up muscle tissue base. Of course its not optimal, of course you aren't going to be Arnold training like this...but they are probably building some muscle.
you are assuming that all newbies are doing some kind of progressive lifting program, which they are all not doing. And, I specifically put in my OP hat people eating 1200 calories, doing primarily cardio, and complain about "not losing" and then response is "well, it is probably muscle" is what I was referring to, and I also qualified it with the conditions where said gain could happen.
Also, if someone is eating 1200 calories AND doing a progressive lifting program I highly doubt that they are putting on any appreciable mass.
Did you go back and read the study that USMC posted?
It sounds like you are just arguing to argue...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