Building muscle in a deficit, client observation.
Options
SideSteel
Posts: 11,068 Member
First of all this is anecdote, but I'm mainly posting this for discussion.
I've been closely monitoring clients both in terms of strength (not a measure of hypertrophy, and of course I get that), body composition, and circumference measurements. Because it's part of what I do.
I've got some interesting results but the one that is most notable is Tait.
Tait is a relatively lean male client who I would classify as intermediate.
When I started working with him in August he weighed in at 189lbs at 5'11. I would estimate his starting bodyfat percentage around 15% give or take, and this is just eyeballing.
Starting measurements:
Navel 36"
Waist 35"
Mid Thigh 35.75"
Current measurements
Navel 33.25"
Waist 31.75"
Mid Thigh 37.75"
Change in weight: -11 lbs.
Starting Squat 1rm: ~370-375
Current Squat 1rm: 405
Things to note:
Tait was NOT at all adapted to high work volumes OR high frequency. He was a once per week squatter doing low rep range heavy work because he used to train with equipped old school lifters. I moved him to 3/week squat frequency and a massive increase to training volume once I got him adapted to the increased frequency (aka it wasn't an "all at once" type of thing).
Now, it's important to note that he was on a small deficit. Very likely going through periods of maintenance and deficit phases since he travels for work and on the travel weeks he would tend to maintain more than lose and the weeks at home he would lose.
But his bodyweight averages trended downward for an 11lb loss, waist and navel measurements down considerable and he ADDED TWO INCHES to his thighs.
It's important to note (but I have a key point to make here) that circumference measurements don't differentiate between contractile tissue and glycogen. Is it possible that this is entirely glycogen? I have no idea, it could be. When you make big increases to work capacity and training volume you are creating a need for more "fuel" and that fuel comes in the form of glycogen. Glycogen capacity increases and muscle circumference goes up.
Whether it's actual contractile tissue or glycogen: So what?
He is leaner, his muscles are larger, his strength is up, his work capacity is up. All of these things are a massive win, and other than a few additional calories that extra contractile tissue could bring, I don't see a functional difference between the end result.
So did he gain actual muscle? I can't PROVE that he did, but I absolutely speculate that he did.
And he is not an overweight beginner or a lifter returning from a layoff.
I've been closely monitoring clients both in terms of strength (not a measure of hypertrophy, and of course I get that), body composition, and circumference measurements. Because it's part of what I do.
I've got some interesting results but the one that is most notable is Tait.
Tait is a relatively lean male client who I would classify as intermediate.
When I started working with him in August he weighed in at 189lbs at 5'11. I would estimate his starting bodyfat percentage around 15% give or take, and this is just eyeballing.
Starting measurements:
Navel 36"
Waist 35"
Mid Thigh 35.75"
Current measurements
Navel 33.25"
Waist 31.75"
Mid Thigh 37.75"
Change in weight: -11 lbs.
Starting Squat 1rm: ~370-375
Current Squat 1rm: 405
Things to note:
Tait was NOT at all adapted to high work volumes OR high frequency. He was a once per week squatter doing low rep range heavy work because he used to train with equipped old school lifters. I moved him to 3/week squat frequency and a massive increase to training volume once I got him adapted to the increased frequency (aka it wasn't an "all at once" type of thing).
Now, it's important to note that he was on a small deficit. Very likely going through periods of maintenance and deficit phases since he travels for work and on the travel weeks he would tend to maintain more than lose and the weeks at home he would lose.
But his bodyweight averages trended downward for an 11lb loss, waist and navel measurements down considerable and he ADDED TWO INCHES to his thighs.
It's important to note (but I have a key point to make here) that circumference measurements don't differentiate between contractile tissue and glycogen. Is it possible that this is entirely glycogen? I have no idea, it could be. When you make big increases to work capacity and training volume you are creating a need for more "fuel" and that fuel comes in the form of glycogen. Glycogen capacity increases and muscle circumference goes up.
Whether it's actual contractile tissue or glycogen: So what?
He is leaner, his muscles are larger, his strength is up, his work capacity is up. All of these things are a massive win, and other than a few additional calories that extra contractile tissue could bring, I don't see a functional difference between the end result.
So did he gain actual muscle? I can't PROVE that he did, but I absolutely speculate that he did.
And he is not an overweight beginner or a lifter returning from a layoff.
0
Replies
-
Newbie gains with great genetics for legs? I would think the higher volume workouts would affect this if his legs were accustomed to it. I don't think 2 inch gain in the leg circumference is unusual for anyone though (especially a male) when great leg workouts are instituted. Practically every male client I've had who's been overweight and did mild leg work at best, saw an increase in their quads basically because they're telling me their pants in the leg area are tight, while the waist area is getting more space.
I'd say it's a combination of both.
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 -
Those are interesting observations, but they really don't mean all that much.
You note some (but not all) of the confounding variables which may contribute to this potential outlier (water retention).
I work in a clinic where we measure people all the time. And sometimes the person holding the tape measure messes up royally. Not every time, but I've seen it done often enough that I don't trust it for a second.
Furthermore, you don't mention the age of this individual. A teenage boy may be able to build muscle, which is not representative of the rest of the population. Someone who is juicing may have the same results. There is a total lack of physiological data.
The gold standard for objectively measuring muscle mass (DEXA scan) is absent. All we have is a measurement which is (in my fairly extensive experience) prone to inaccuracies.0 -
Interesting. "Now, it's important to note that he was on a small deficit." - how small, and over what time period? Daily deficit every day, weekly, monthly with periods of surplus in between etc ?0
-
Correct, the results do not mean much in terms of proving anything and I'm fully aware of that. I tried to make that clear in my original post.
But from a practicality standpoint, if his muscle circumference is larger, he is leaner, stronger, with more work capacity, then whether or not it is glycogen capacity or actual tissue accretion, I don't know that it matters.
Human error is certainly a variable. I would not suspect 2 inches of it however.0 -
If there isn't any significant increase at all in the next couple of months while still in deficit, he's probably tapped out size potential until he goes into a surplus.
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 -
pollypocket1021 wrote: »Those are interesting observations, but they really don't mean all that much.
You note some (but not all) of the confounding variables which may contribute to this potential outlier (water retention).
I work in a clinic where we measure people all the time. And sometimes the person holding the tape measure messes up royally. Not every time, but I've seen it done often enough that I don't trust it for a second.
Furthermore, you don't mention the age of this individual. A teenage boy may be able to build muscle, which is not representative of the rest of the population. Someone who is juicing may have the same results. There is a total lack of physiological data.
The gold standard for objectively measuring muscle mass (DEXA scan) is absent. All we have is a measurement which is (in my fairly extensive experience) prone to inaccuracies.
He's 26 years old and is natty.
And you're right that this is more observational so perhaps I should've titled it as such but hopefully it was made clear in my original post.
0 -
Interesting. "Now, it's important to note that he was on a small deficit." - how small, and over what time period? Daily deficit every day, weekly, monthly with periods of surplus in between etc ?
Due to his travel at work it's quite possible that the actual intake resembled a cyclical diet. If there was any actual gain in muscle tissue it's possible that this occurred during his travel weeks where it's likely that adherence wasn't as high.
Having said that, I also think that when people are actually dieting and not in a controlled setting like an RCT where food is administered I would still expect periods of maintenance to arise0 -
If there isn't any significant increase at all in the next couple of months while still in deficit, he's probably tapped out size potential until he goes into a surplus.
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
Definitely agree. And I don't expect that number to go up any further especially because he is getting lean and nearing the end of the dieting phase.
It's also going to get harder for him to progressively increase volume.0 -
I modified the title to hopefully better express the intent of this post.0
-
Think it's frankly bizarre that some people think that muscle gain in a moderate deficit is limited to so called newbie gains.
"Novel training stimulus" should be familiar to anyone that doesn't have a closed mind as one of the categories where muscle growth can be expected.0 -
Speaking solely from evolutionary logic, your body would maximize survivability by reducing muscle gains to a minimum in a deficit. Building muscle tissue takes energy and the tissue uses up energy increasing your deficit further. Seeing how prolonged deficits lead to adaptive thermogenesis to reduce the deficit I don't see why your body would do the exact opposite in any situation apart from necessary repairs.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Speaking solely from evolutionary logic, your body would maximize survivability by reducing muscle gains to a minimum in a deficit. Building muscle tissue takes energy and the tissue uses up energy increasing your deficit further. Seeing how prolonged deficits lead to adaptive thermogenesis to reduce the deficit I don't see why your body would do the exact opposite in any situation apart from necessary repairs.
Response/adaptation to training stimulus.0 -
It's not being "closed" minded, it's being practical. I'm sure we'd all agree that someone who's trying to add a good amount of muscle will gain weight. It's almost inevitable. And weight gain for mass will undoubted require a surplus and not a deficit.Think it's frankly bizarre that some people think that muscle gain in a moderate deficit is limited to so called newbie gains.
"Novel training stimulus" should be familiar to anyone that doesn't have a closed mind as one of the categories where muscle growth can be expected.
Again if one could put on a substantial amount of muscle in a year on a deficit, then why would individuals who compete in such contests and use PED's bother bulking up?
I'm not indicating you're wrong. Just saying the results doing it that way will compare with the basic bulk and cut strategies.
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 -
Think you are confusing optimal conditions for adding maximum muscle and conditions were muscle growth is possible and indeed likely.
It's not being "closed" minded, it's being practical. I'm sure we'd all agree that someone who's trying to add a good amount of muscle will gain weight. It's almost inevitable. And weight gain for mass will undoubted require a surplus and not a deficit.Think it's frankly bizarre that some people think that muscle gain in a moderate deficit is limited to so called newbie gains.
"Novel training stimulus" should be familiar to anyone that doesn't have a closed mind as one of the categories where muscle growth can be expected.
Again if one could put on a substantial amount of muscle in a year on a deficit, then why would individuals who compete in such contests and use PED's bother bulking up?
I'm not indicating you're wrong. Just saying the results doing it that way will compare with the basic bulk and cut strategies.
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
Could the example in this post have added more size if he had more calories? Possibly - if the growth in size he achieved was below his potential in ideal conditions at this stage of his life and training.
By the way not every contestant actually does bulk/cut cycles and not every trainer advocates them for everyone.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Speaking solely from evolutionary logic, your body would maximize survivability by reducing muscle gains to a minimum in a deficit. Building muscle tissue takes energy and the tissue uses up energy increasing your deficit further. Seeing how prolonged deficits lead to adaptive thermogenesis to reduce the deficit I don't see why your body would do the exact opposite in any situation apart from necessary repairs.
But wouldn't weight lifting be the thing that causes muscle damage and thus facilitate repair?0 -
Interesting. "Now, it's important to note that he was on a small deficit." - how small, and over what time period? Daily deficit every day, weekly, monthly with periods of surplus in between etc ?
Due to his travel at work it's quite possible that the actual intake resembled a cyclical diet. If there was any actual gain in muscle tissue it's possible that this occurred during his travel weeks where it's likely that adherence wasn't as high.
Having said that, I also think that when people are actually dieting and not in a controlled setting like an RCT where food is administered I would still expect periods of maintenance to arise
Think you found it. That and adaptation to a higher training frequency. The increase in 1RM is due to this variable with out a doubt. Specificity. His form most likely became more efficient for his leverages.
He's either hovering around maintenance or even a slight surplus. Do you track his calories weekly or daily?
0 -
No, I'm not confused. I understand how hypertrophy works. If we're being downright literal about gaining muscle on a deficit is attainable, sure it is. The point I was making was about significance of the amount. Most people would probably be looking for something significant within a year. If the goal is 5lbs of muscle in a year, doing that on a deficit wouldn't likely happen.
Think you are confusing optimal conditions for adding maximum muscle and conditions were muscle growth is possible and indeed likely.
It's not being "closed" minded, it's being practical. I'm sure we'd all agree that someone who's trying to add a good amount of muscle will gain weight. It's almost inevitable. And weight gain for mass will undoubted require a surplus and not a deficit.Think it's frankly bizarre that some people think that muscle gain in a moderate deficit is limited to so called newbie gains.
"Novel training stimulus" should be familiar to anyone that doesn't have a closed mind as one of the categories where muscle growth can be expected.
Again if one could put on a substantial amount of muscle in a year on a deficit, then why would individuals who compete in such contests and use PED's bother bulking up?
I'm not indicating you're wrong. Just saying the results doing it that way will compare with the basic bulk and cut strategies.
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
One is more anabolic on a surplus so I would expect a better outcome in hypertrophy.Could the example in this post have added more size if he had more calories? Possibly - if the growth in size he achieved was below his potential in ideal conditions at this stage of his life and training.
I'd love to see a contestant at 4% year around. And a trainer who's prepping a contestant to be conditioned and defined at 4% must have some program I've never heard of if he doesn't have to have their client cut to get to that percentage.By the way not every contestant actually does bulk/cut cycles and not every trainer advocates them for everyone.
If we're talking about the average joe training at the gym, then yeah if adding on a little size while staying relatively lean in the process was the goal, then why bother doing a bulk/cut, but I'm assuming you're speaking of trainers who coach people at the competitive level.
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 -
He tracks calories daily, but his bodyweight has gone down 11 pounds.
It is possible that there have been occasional weeks at a small surplus but overall he has been in a net deficit
0 -
And when I say occasional weeks at a surplus I do not mean that we have increased his calorie target.0
-
It's interesting for sure. There are constantly new studies coming out testing the affects of high frequency training and the "pump". It's still a mystery I think. Also everyone's body adapts in different ways. I don't know... I'm rambling. Fun thread0
-
No, I'm not confused. I understand how hypertrophy works. If we're being downright literal about gaining muscle on a deficit is attainable, sure it is. The point I was making was about significance of the amount. Most people would probably be looking for something significant within a year. If the gain is 5lbs of muscle in a year, doing that on a deficit wouldn't likely happen.
Think you are confusing optimal conditions for adding maximum muscle and conditions were muscle growth is possible and indeed likely.
It's not being "closed" minded, it's being practical. I'm sure we'd all agree that someone who's trying to add a good amount of muscle will gain weight. It's almost inevitable. And weight gain for mass will undoubted require a surplus and not a deficit.Think it's frankly bizarre that some people think that muscle gain in a moderate deficit is limited to so called newbie gains.
"Novel training stimulus" should be familiar to anyone that doesn't have a closed mind as one of the categories where muscle growth can be expected.
Again if one could put on a substantial amount of muscle in a year on a deficit, then why would individuals who compete in such contests and use PED's bother bulking up?
I'm not indicating you're wrong. Just saying the results doing it that way will compare with the basic bulk and cut strategies.
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
One is more anabolic on a surplus so I would expect a better outcome in hypertrophy.Could the example in this post have added more size if he had more calories? Possibly - if the growth in size he achieved was below his potential in ideal conditions at this stage of his life and training.
I'd love to see a contestant at 4% year around. And a trainer who's prepping a contestant to be conditioned and defined at 4% must have some program I've never heard of if he doesn't have to have their client cut to get to that percentage.By the way not every contestant actually does bulk/cut cycles and not every trainer advocates them for everyone.
If we're talking about the average joe training at the gym, then yeah if adding on a little size while staying relatively lean in the process was the goal, then why bother doing a bulk/cut, but I'm assuming you're speaking of trainers who coach people at the competitive level.
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
Just for reference this client of mine is fairly similar to me in development. Nowhere near elite, but well past beginner stage.
It's likely to me that the majority of the changes are differences in glycogen capacity. The total change to training stimulus has been quite large.
But with that being said, training volume is the primary factor in muscle hypertrophy. If you take someone that is used to doing low volumes of training, and you increase volume a great deal and (note that I also increased frequency so protein synthesis upregulates more often), it would not surprise me if hypertrophy occurs in this situation, even in a small deficit.
0 -
0
-
I don't disagree. I do believe that it's not continual once threshold is met though. Unless we're speaking of someone who's pretty overweight/obese, adding muscle on a deficit for someone who can muster volume training after a couple of months, is unlikely. I've not read any research that supports being able to stay anabolic (for hypertrophy) while in consistent deficit for a good period of time (of course we're talking natty's here).
No, I'm not confused. I understand how hypertrophy works. If we're being downright literal about gaining muscle on a deficit is attainable, sure it is. The point I was making was about significance of the amount. Most people would probably be looking for something significant within a year. If the gain is 5lbs of muscle in a year, doing that on a deficit wouldn't likely happen.
Think you are confusing optimal conditions for adding maximum muscle and conditions were muscle growth is possible and indeed likely.
It's not being "closed" minded, it's being practical. I'm sure we'd all agree that someone who's trying to add a good amount of muscle will gain weight. It's almost inevitable. And weight gain for mass will undoubted require a surplus and not a deficit.Think it's frankly bizarre that some people think that muscle gain in a moderate deficit is limited to so called newbie gains.
"Novel training stimulus" should be familiar to anyone that doesn't have a closed mind as one of the categories where muscle growth can be expected.
Again if one could put on a substantial amount of muscle in a year on a deficit, then why would individuals who compete in such contests and use PED's bother bulking up?
I'm not indicating you're wrong. Just saying the results doing it that way will compare with the basic bulk and cut strategies.
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
One is more anabolic on a surplus so I would expect a better outcome in hypertrophy.Could the example in this post have added more size if he had more calories? Possibly - if the growth in size he achieved was below his potential in ideal conditions at this stage of his life and training.
I'd love to see a contestant at 4% year around. And a trainer who's prepping a contestant to be conditioned and defined at 4% must have some program I've never heard of if he doesn't have to have their client cut to get to that percentage.By the way not every contestant actually does bulk/cut cycles and not every trainer advocates them for everyone.
If we're talking about the average joe training at the gym, then yeah if adding on a little size while staying relatively lean in the process was the goal, then why bother doing a bulk/cut, but I'm assuming you're speaking of trainers who coach people at the competitive level.
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
Just for reference this client of mine is fairly similar to me in development. Nowhere near elite, but well past beginner stage.
It's likely to me that the majority of the changes are differences in glycogen capacity. The total change to training stimulus has been quite large.
But with that being said, training volume is the primary factor in muscle hypertrophy. If you take someone that is used to doing low volumes of training, and you increase volume a great deal and (note that I also increased frequency so protein synthesis upregulates more often), it would not surprise me if hypertrophy occurs in this situation, even in a small deficit.
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 -
How long between when these measurements were taken?
Just curious because when I started my surplus my thigh measurement went up .5 inches and hips a whole inch, literally in the first two weeks. Obviously not a muscle gain in that case.0 -
Initial measurement was taken mid August. Half an inch in the first month which I think is mostly or all glycogen. It leveled off for a while and stay pretty consistent in the past six weeks it shot up over an inch and this is also when his squat went up significantly, partially due to changes in technique.
The human error aspect of this is important and I'm glad someone pointed it out. I'm going to have him remeasure the mid thigh just to check. It would not surprise me if the reading he got was abnormally high, I have him check monthly however because of his work schedule is training days are not identical throughout the week.
It's quite possible that the day he measured was The day after a higher volume squat session so just for the sake of observation I'm going to check this out to see.
His squat session today was a "recovery" day so remeasuring tomorrow would at least give an interesting data point to see what is going on.0 -
I'm glad you posted this as your rep & opinion is well respected around here. The fact that your client lost 11 lbs and gained 2" on his legs is awesome, and I'm sure he doesn't care (as 99% of clients) what specific little mechanism caused it. The practicality of the situation is that it happened, you put him on the right program to do so, and it worked. Whether those "gains" were muscle tissue, glycogen stores, or just fluid is immaterial. The results matter more, so I feel it's silly for some to try and nit pick this apart.0
-
I think the whole "can't gain muscle with a calorie deficit" is greatly oversimplified. I think this is one of those (common) issues when a finding in the elite is overgeneralized to the average exerciser. In my experience, there is nothing unusual or uncommon in the results you have observed. No more complicated than that.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
He tracks calories daily, but his bodyweight has gone down 11 pounds.
It is possible that there have been occasional weeks at a small surplus but overall he has been in a net deficit
So we can say that over a fairly long period of time during which he lost weight he also gained muscle. Personally I think anabolic processes are likely to happen when there's a surplus of amino acids available eg after a meal and I have never been convinced that a calorie deficit over 24 hours or any other period of time would have a strong influence. Isn't that the basis of "Leangains" to have an anabolic window gaining muscle and a catabolic period losing fat.
PSMFs spare protein with high calorie deficit, and some studies have had people on those and gaining muscle. There was also a study of fat policemen losing weight and gaining muscle.0 -
I think the whole "can't gain muscle with a calorie deficit" is greatly oversimplified. I think this is one of those (common) issues when a finding in the elite is overgeneralized to the average exerciser. In my experience, there is nothing unusual or uncommon in the results you have observed. No more complicated than that.
For what it's worth even totally disregarding this particular client I've posted about, I'm in 100% agreement with you.
I actually had an almost identical discussion today in the gym about this.
It's all too common that in the fitness industry examples of what happens at the elite level, get applied to everyone and that's where things can get rather dogmatic and potentially false.
0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ud7CnPJcK6U
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions