Building muscle

Options
Need2Exerc1se
Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I see on here all the time "you can't build muscle on a deficit", and that sounds logical and correct. But something I've wondered about is what happens if you progressively lift while eating maintenance calories? Will you build muscle? I'm sure it's wouldn't be as fast as if you were eating a surplus, but it seems logical that you could.

Replies

  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    Yes, you can do that. It's called recomping. If you check in the Maintaining Weight section there are a few threads about it.
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    Yes, it's called a "recomp" You can build muscle a maintenance, but it's painfully slow.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Options
    Okay, thanks for the replies. I am not to maintenance quite yet, or rather I'm trying not to be, It's just something I've been curious about for a while.
  • Mrsallen6_11
    Mrsallen6_11 Posts: 416 Member
    Options
    Yeah. Recomp.

    http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/the-basics-of-body-recomposition-how-to-lose-fat-gain-muscle-at-the-same-time/
  • MityMax96
    MityMax96 Posts: 5,778 Member
    Options
    VERY SLOWWWWWWWWW Process.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,695 Member
    Options
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    I see on here all the time "you can't build muscle on a deficit", and that sounds logical and correct. But something I've wondered about is what happens if you progressively lift while eating maintenance calories? Will you build muscle? I'm sure it's wouldn't be as fast as if you were eating a surplus, but it seems logical that you could.
    Yes, it's called recomp.


    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
    9285851.png

  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    I question the claim of it being slow or painfully slow.

    A lot of what I read suggests that women bulk for 9+ months after getting somewhat lean (not super lean but to a healthy BF) with the goal of adding 1-2 pounds a month. So after 9 months you've added 13.5 pounds (averaged 1.5 lbs./month) and then you're advised to aim for a half pound of weight loss per week. If half of the weight is fat, that weight loss takes around 3 months. That's a year from start of bulk to end of cut and doesn't consider the time it takes to get down to the "somewhat lean" spot.

    If you look at the recomp threads there are always women who post their one year recomp photos and their results are great. It seems like 6 of one half dozen of another to me. I don't think that the recomp is necessarily better but I also don't buy that it is worse.
  • Upstate_Dunadan
    Upstate_Dunadan Posts: 435 Member
    Options
    You'll have some people on here who say it's impossible, but I don't buy it. It is hard (not much room to screw around with what you eat) and as others have said a very slow process.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    As stated, it's a recomp. Been doing it for a year or so. Not as slow as people made it out to be in my opinion, but def slower than bulk/cut cycles.
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,220 Member
    Options
    jemhh wrote: »
    I question the claim of it being slow or painfully slow.

    A lot of what I read suggests that women bulk for 9+ months after getting somewhat lean (not super lean but to a healthy BF) with the goal of adding 1-2 pounds a month. So after 9 months you've added 13.5 pounds (averaged 1.5 lbs./month) and then you're advised to aim for a half pound of weight loss per week. If half of the weight is fat, that weight loss takes around 3 months. That's a year from start of bulk to end of cut and doesn't consider the time it takes to get down to the "somewhat lean" spot.

    If you look at the recomp threads there are always women who post their one year recomp photos and their results are great. It seems like 6 of one half dozen of another to me. I don't think that the recomp is necessarily better but I also don't buy that it is worse.

    It has to do with which you can handle mentally and which you can adhere to.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Options
    So, if you eat at a surplus and gain muscle faster than you would at maintenance, but then you have to eat a deficit to lose the fat, does all that take longer than if you stayed at maintenance while doing the recomp?
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,220 Member
    Options
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    So, if you eat at a surplus and gain muscle faster than you would at maintenance, but then you have to eat a deficit to lose the fat, does all that take longer than if you stayed at maintenance while doing the recomp?

    It would really depend on how much you personally gain doing a recomp versus a bulk and how effectively you lose fat. For someone who has a very tough time adhering to diet, a recomp is probably better. For someone who is a "hard gainer" a bulk is probably better (hard gainers find it tough to eat enough, so gains on a recomp may be very small).
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Options
    usmcmp wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    So, if you eat at a surplus and gain muscle faster than you would at maintenance, but then you have to eat a deficit to lose the fat, does all that take longer than if you stayed at maintenance while doing the recomp?

    It would really depend on how much you personally gain doing a recomp versus a bulk and how effectively you lose fat. For someone who has a very tough time adhering to diet, a recomp is probably better. For someone who is a "hard gainer" a bulk is probably better (hard gainers find it tough to eat enough, so gains on a recomp may be very small).

    Oh, I am most definitely not a hard gainer. :#

Categories