Building muscle in a deficit, client observation.

lemurcat12

tomatoey wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

I think the idea that it's "impossible" to gain muscle at maintenance or deficit must come from bodybuilding's popular bulk/cut regime - which may be *optimal* for massive muscle growth but probably isn't required to see growth of a few inches. What did people do before before this trend? I'm also curious to know what happens to army recruits, for example.

for the record, I don't see anyone saying it is impossible; what they have been saying is that it occurs under certain circumstances - new lifters, recomping, etc…

I think the discussion is intresesting and thanks @SideSteel for posting this for reasonable discussion…

It's a common trope on the board, though, you can't deny that. The posters who've noted that actually a good amount of beginners are overweight newbies aren't wrong, either. I think results like Sidesteel's client's might be less common, but more people probably are building muscle than MFP dogma allows. Lots of people lift not too long after starting to lose (the good word having gotten out).

Maybe? I am someone who has off and on tried to follow a progressive lifting program without really knowing what I was doing for the first half of my weight loss, at least, but still doing more than most of the people I see being told they probably gained muscle. I am quite certain I lost muscle and didn't gain it during my weight loss as a whole (while greatly increasing my strength and improving my BF%, of course), in part because my deficit was perhaps overly severe and consistent. I suspect people can gain muscle in a deficit (or have no opinion on it, since it doesn't matter to me -- the strength gains were mostly what I've been after, plus eventually some recomp). But I see people told on here over and over that they've surely gained muscle and that's why they are not losing when they believe they are eating like 1200, and that's pretty much never the answer (and significantly is not with SideSteel's client, who lost weight). Similarly, people get told that when they aren't lifting or doing significant bodyweight programs, but have started some light cardio or the like.

I don't think that makes SideSteel's post uninteresting, at all, but I do think those who would warn women away from lifting when dieting because they will end up gaining muscle and "getting bulky" or not losing and, similarly, those who say don't worry about a failure to lose because you are gaining muscle (a common thing for women to tell each other, IME) ought not be encouraged either.

But as I've always said, the problem with "oh, you aren't losing because you gained muscle and it weighs more" isn't that muscle doesn't weigh more (because everyone knows what is meant is it's more dense" but the idea that you'd gain 1 lb or more of muscle a week, when a woman eating 1200). That's still crazy, even if you might gain some.

I didn't personally care whether I gained muscle or not when I was trying to lose -- I suppose it might be something to be concerned about when trying to decide between a bulk, recomp, or deficit when reasonably lean.

tomatoey

lemurcat12 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

I think the idea that it's "impossible" to gain muscle at maintenance or deficit must come from bodybuilding's popular bulk/cut regime - which may be *optimal* for massive muscle growth but probably isn't required to see growth of a few inches. What did people do before before this trend? I'm also curious to know what happens to army recruits, for example.

for the record, I don't see anyone saying it is impossible; what they have been saying is that it occurs under certain circumstances - new lifters, recomping, etc…

I think the discussion is intresesting and thanks @SideSteel for posting this for reasonable discussion…

It's a common trope on the board, though, you can't deny that. The posters who've noted that actually a good amount of beginners are overweight newbies aren't wrong, either. I think results like Sidesteel's client's might be less common, but more people probably are building muscle than MFP dogma allows. Lots of people lift not too long after starting to lose (the good word having gotten out).

Maybe? I am someone who has off and on tried to follow a progressive lifting program without really knowing what I was doing for the first half of my weight loss, at least, but still doing more than most of the people I see being told they probably gained muscle. I am quite certain I lost muscle and didn't gain it during my weight loss as a whole (while greatly increasing my strength and improving my BF%, of course), in part because my deficit was perhaps overly severe and consistent. I suspect people can gain muscle in a deficit (or have no opinion on it, since it doesn't matter to me -- the strength gains were mostly what I've been after, plus eventually some recomp). But I see people told on here over and over that they've surely gained muscle and that's why they are not losing when they believe they are eating like 1200, and that's pretty much never the answer (and significantly is not with SideSteel's client, who lost weight). Similarly, people get told that when they aren't lifting or doing significant bodyweight programs, but have started some light cardio or the like.

I don't think that makes SideSteel's post uninteresting, at all, but I do think those who would warn women away from lifting when dieting because they will end up gaining muscle and "getting bulky" or not losing and, similarly, those who say don't worry about a failure to lose because you are gaining muscle (a common thing for women to tell each other, IME) ought not be encouraged either.

But as I've always said, the problem with "oh, you aren't losing because you gained muscle and it weighs more" isn't that muscle doesn't weigh more (because everyone knows what is meant is it's more dense" but the idea that you'd gain 1 lb or more of muscle a week, when a woman eating 1200). That's still crazy, even if you might gain some.

I didn't personally care whether I gained muscle or not when I was trying to lose -- I suppose it might be something to be concerned about when trying to decide between a bulk, recomp, or deficit when reasonably lean.

Yeah, I mean, it's highly doubtful that changes in muscle mass would be perceptible on a scale, certainly in the short term. It's highly likely that what they're seeing week to week is a temporary pump. So that probability should be made clear.

I see what you're saying about some women potentially being put off by the idea that they're becoming "bulky" or gaining muscle very quickly (although I remember being really proud of my little bicep "bulges", ha), and about some people perhaps being laissez faire about diet, falsely believing they're making progress. I think it's just best to ask questions and treat every post on a case by case basis.

singingflutelady

I have a question. I started lifting heavy again in October after 10 months of doing nothing for health reasons. My illness (severe Crohn's) made me lose all of my muscles super fast ( i lost 20 lbs in 2 weeks)because of malabsorption, becoming very underweight and 4 months of Prednisone. I have regained the 20 lbs thanks to meds and almost being in remission. I eat at a slight deficit or maintenance depending on the day (I don't track, I'm not actively trying to lose as I am bmi 20.5). My weight is very stable (+/- 1 lbs). I am doing SL 5x5 3 times a week. I have way more muscle definition now than I did when I was super underweight (but obviously not as much as I had after lifting for 1.5 years). I am regaining my strength pretty fast but of course not lifting as much as pre illness yet. I know I am past the "newbie gains" (I'm in my 10th week of lifting) phase but do/did I fall in the returnee newbie gains category? Is it easier to regain muscle lost than it is to gain it in the first place?

SideSteel

singingflutelady wrote: »

I have a question. I started lifting heavy again in October after 10 months of doing nothing for health reasons. My illness (severe Crohn's) made me lose all of my muscles super fast ( i lost 20 lbs in 2 weeks)because of malabsorption, becoming very underweight and 4 months of Prednisone. I have regained the 20 lbs thanks to meds and almost being in remission. I eat at a slight deficit or maintenance depending on the day (I don't track, I'm not actively trying to lose as I am bmi 20.5). My weight is very stable (+/- 1 lbs). I am doing SL 5x5 3 times a week. I have way more muscle definition now than I did when I was super underweight (but obviously not as much as I had after lifting for 1.5 years). I am regaining my strength pretty fast but of course not lifting as much as pre illness yet. I know I am past the "newbie gains" (I'm in my 10th week of lifting) phase but do/did I fall in the returnee newbie gains category? Is it easier to regain muscle lost than it is to gain it in the first place?

Probably and yes.

singingflutelady

Thanks

cafeaulait7

It's easy to regain muscle lost after losing it due to illness. I forget where I read that, but I had it happen. I went from 85 lbs (malabsorption too) to 130 in a matter of several months, and the rate of muscle coming back on was phenomenal. I was backpacking/hiking in Europe with a heavy pack, so I think that probably counted as resistance training.

SideSteel

cafeaulait7 wrote: »

It's easy to regain muscle lost after losing it due to illness. I forget where I read that, but I had it happen. I went from 85 lbs (malabsorption too) to 130 in a matter of several months, and the rate of muscle coming back on was phenomenal. I was backpacking/hiking in Europe with a heavy pack, so I think that probably counted as resistance training.

This reminds me of a friends episode

singingflutelady

I have noticed that cafeaulait but wasn't sure as I know how hard it was to gain muscle. I was wondering if my eyes were deceiving me.