"You don't build muscles in a deficite"
Replies
-
If you're in a deficit (and therefore losing weight), you're most likely not building muscle. That said, weight loss, coupled with resistance training, leads to reduced body fat %. The lower the body fat %, the more "ripped" you'll look, which can often be interpreted as gaining muscle.
There are exceptions tho....0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Where does the saying come from? Often from the people who can't build muscle in deficit - the very lean and already highly trained. So the logic becomes if I can't then no-one can!
The so called exceptions who can build some muscle in a deficit actually encompass large swathes of the population:
Overweight, under-trained, new to strength training, returning to strength training after a break, genetically gifted, young males in particular, a novel training stimulus.
When you are out and about amongst the general population as opposed to gym members you realise the lean and highly trained are really the exceptions. Sad but true.
Obviously being in a deficit hampers growth (or speed of growth) and excessive deficit is going to stop growth (unless there are exceptional circumstances like recovery from recent muscle loss - been there).
My personal tipping point as an older guy with decades of training but below my former strength peak seemed to be a deficit about half a pound a week. I lost mass at 1lb/week but saw and measured growth at 1lb/month loss.
So like 80-90% of the population would be an "exception". Guess that really doesn't qualify them as "exceptions" anymore.
no not 80-90% of the population.
why because 80-90% of the population doesn't do a progressive load lifting program.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Where does the saying come from? Often from the people who can't build muscle in deficit - the very lean and already highly trained. So the logic becomes if I can't then no-one can!
The so called exceptions who can build some muscle in a deficit actually encompass large swathes of the population:
Overweight, under-trained, new to strength training, returning to strength training after a break, genetically gifted, young males in particular, a novel training stimulus.
When you are out and about amongst the general population as opposed to gym members you realise the lean and highly trained are really the exceptions. Sad but true.
Obviously being in a deficit hampers growth (or speed of growth) and excessive deficit is going to stop growth (unless there are exceptional circumstances like recovery from recent muscle loss - been there).
My personal tipping point as an older guy with decades of training but below my former strength peak seemed to be a deficit about half a pound a week. I lost mass at 1lb/week but saw and measured growth at 1lb/month loss.
So like 80-90% of the population would be an "exception". Guess that really doesn't qualify them as "exceptions" anymore.
I'd think it's even more than that. Of course, the next issue is the segment of the population on who "can" (or more precisely "could") versus the segment of the population who "will" put in the effort to do so. I think that's where many of the forums on this topic break down. Yes, you can, but no you're not getting jacked while doing some 30 day shred. Hell, you're probably not going to get jacked in a deficit (or even in a recomp at all unless you're doing it for several years, unless you're a young male. It's not happening fast at my age).0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Where does the saying come from? Often from the people who can't build muscle in deficit - the very lean and already highly trained. So the logic becomes if I can't then no-one can!
The so called exceptions who can build some muscle in a deficit actually encompass large swathes of the population:
Overweight, under-trained, new to strength training, returning to strength training after a break, genetically gifted, young males in particular, a novel training stimulus.
When you are out and about amongst the general population as opposed to gym members you realise the lean and highly trained are really the exceptions. Sad but true.
Obviously being in a deficit hampers growth (or speed of growth) and excessive deficit is going to stop growth (unless there are exceptional circumstances like recovery from recent muscle loss - been there).
My personal tipping point as an older guy with decades of training but below my former strength peak seemed to be a deficit about half a pound a week. I lost mass at 1lb/week but saw and measured growth at 1lb/month loss.
So like 80-90% of the population would be an "exception". Guess that really doesn't qualify them as "exceptions" anymore.
no not 80-90% of the population.
why because 80-90% of the population doesn't do a progressive load lifting program.
That they don't lift or don't understand the importance or benefits of strength/resistance training is another issue altogether. Having the potential and actually doing it are two separate things.
I just wish that people making comments such as "you can't build muscle in a deficit" or the alternative (and equally wrong) "you need a calorie surplus to build muscle" would actually be far less black and white in making their absolute comments and try to put some thought into the context of the person and their individual circumstances.
I started training in an era when people went to the gym to get in shape and build muscle/strength and bulk/cut cycles were the preserve of elite body builders only. IMHO there's now far too much emphasis on calorie balance and not enough on the actual training which is where the stimulus for growth comes from.
1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Where does the saying come from? Often from the people who can't build muscle in deficit - the very lean and already highly trained. So the logic becomes if I can't then no-one can!
The so called exceptions who can build some muscle in a deficit actually encompass large swathes of the population:
Overweight, under-trained, new to strength training, returning to strength training after a break, genetically gifted, young males in particular, a novel training stimulus.
When you are out and about amongst the general population as opposed to gym members you realise the lean and highly trained are really the exceptions. Sad but true.
Obviously being in a deficit hampers growth (or speed of growth) and excessive deficit is going to stop growth (unless there are exceptional circumstances like recovery from recent muscle loss - been there).
My personal tipping point as an older guy with decades of training but below my former strength peak seemed to be a deficit about half a pound a week. I lost mass at 1lb/week but saw and measured growth at 1lb/month loss.
So like 80-90% of the population would be an "exception". Guess that really doesn't qualify them as "exceptions" anymore.
no not 80-90% of the population.
why because 80-90% of the population doesn't do a progressive load lifting program.
That they don't lift or don't understand the importance or benefits of strength/resistance training is another issue altogether. Having the potential and actually doing it are two separate things.
I just wish that people making comments such as "you can't build muscle in a deficit" or the alternative (and equally wrong) "you need a calorie surplus to build muscle" would actually be far less black and white in making their absolute comments and try to put some thought into the context of the person and their individual circumstances.
I started training in an era when people went to the gym to get in shape and build muscle/strength and bulk/cut cycles were the preserve of elite body builders only. IMHO there's now far too much emphasis on calorie balance and not enough on the actual training which is where the stimulus for growth comes from.
That is very true and the more I thought about it....that statement is true (no longer the exception) because most people in North America are under trained and overweight...
I never really think more about it as building muscle is not a priority for me...if it happens it happens (recomp style) but I will correct people who are on the forums saying "oh that 5lbs is probably muscle you built" when the person really is not doing the training to build muscle.1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Where does the saying come from? Often from the people who can't build muscle in deficit - the very lean and already highly trained. So the logic becomes if I can't then no-one can!
The so called exceptions who can build some muscle in a deficit actually encompass large swathes of the population:
Overweight, under-trained, new to strength training, returning to strength training after a break, genetically gifted, young males in particular, a novel training stimulus.
When you are out and about amongst the general population as opposed to gym members you realise the lean and highly trained are really the exceptions. Sad but true.
Obviously being in a deficit hampers growth (or speed of growth) and excessive deficit is going to stop growth (unless there are exceptional circumstances like recovery from recent muscle loss - been there).
My personal tipping point as an older guy with decades of training but below my former strength peak seemed to be a deficit about half a pound a week. I lost mass at 1lb/week but saw and measured growth at 1lb/month loss.
So like 80-90% of the population would be an "exception". Guess that really doesn't qualify them as "exceptions" anymore.
I'd think it's even more than that. Of course, the next issue is the segment of the population on who "can" (or more precisely "could") versus the segment of the population who "will" put in the effort to do so. I think that's where many of the forums on this topic break down. Yes, you can, but no you're not getting jacked while doing some 30 day shred. Hell, you're probably not going to get jacked in a deficit (or even in a recomp at all unless you're doing it for several years, unless you're a young male. It's not happening fast at my age).
I'm a young guy but I didn't get close to jacked on multiple months of deficit and later maintenance/recomp. Once the initial improvements from never having touched a weight in my life before stopped, it pretty much stagnated around the same strength level and look with maybe an improvement of adding 5 pounds on my lifts in the whole time. But when I started a surplus, hoo boy did my lifts go up quickly. It's not even comparable IMO. Yes you can build muscle in a deficit, but really it ain't all that much.0 -
I just wish that people making comments such as "you can't build muscle in a deficit" or the alternative (and equally wrong) "you need a calorie surplus to build muscle" would actually be far less black and white in making their absolute comments and try to put some thought into the context of the person and their individual circumstances.
I get what you are saying but people saying the first statement in this forum are saying it to those people who are eating "900 calories a day" and doing couch to 5k and gaining 2 lbs of muscle the first week of doing the program.
And the "you need a calorie surplus to build muscle" is used generally because isn't it, coupled with a good lifting program, the MOST EFFICIENT way to gain muscle?0 -
I just wish that people making comments such as "you can't build muscle in a deficit" or the alternative (and equally wrong) "you need a calorie surplus to build muscle" would actually be far less black and white in making their absolute comments and try to put some thought into the context of the person and their individual circumstances.
I get what you are saying but people saying the first statement in this forum are saying it to those people who are eating "900 calories a day" and doing couch to 5k and gaining 2 lbs of muscle the first week of doing the program.
And the "you need a calorie surplus to build muscle" is used generally because isn't it, coupled with a good lifting program, the MOST EFFICIENT way to gain muscle?
Actually the statement is not only made in your sensible context (normally by the people with some idea what they are talking about!) but also as an absolute statement made to everyone by the uninformed.
I've seen 18 year old chubby males, new to lifting, and being in a very moderate deficit told it's impossible for example which is plainly silly.
I've seen you need a calorie surplus given to someone who has just hit goal weight with no stated body composition or training goals (beyond the infamous "getting toned" !) being told to bulk.
Context is everything.
BTW - careful about using "efficient". Doing two things at once is more efficient but having a surplus may well be expected to be build muscle quicker.
0 -
I just wish that people making comments such as "you can't build muscle in a deficit" or the alternative (and equally wrong) "you need a calorie surplus to build muscle" would actually be far less black and white in making their absolute comments and try to put some thought into the context of the person and their individual circumstances.
I get what you are saying but people saying the first statement in this forum are saying it to those people who are eating "900 calories a day" and doing couch to 5k and gaining 2 lbs of muscle the first week of doing the program.
And the "you need a calorie surplus to build muscle" is used generally because isn't it, coupled with a good lifting program, the MOST EFFICIENT way to gain muscle?
Actually the statement is not only made in your sensible context (normally by the people with some idea what they are talking about!) but also as an absolute statement made to everyone by the uninformed.
I've seen 18 year old chubby males, new to lifting, and being in a very moderate deficit told it's impossible for example which is plainly silly.
I've seen you need a calorie surplus given to someone who has just hit goal weight with no stated body composition or training goals (beyond the infamous "getting toned" !) being told to bulk.
Context is everything.
BTW - careful about using "efficient". Doing two things at once is more efficient but having a surplus may well be expected to be build muscle quicker.
I totally agree, context is everything.
I think we have such an enormous learning curve on the boards, from those who are seasoned and have considerable knowledge to those truly who have no knowledge about any of this. I am guilty of forgetting that there are so many who truly have NO prior knowledge or experience to anything that pertains to calories, deficit, cut, bulk, recomp, training, etc etc.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Where does the saying come from? Often from the people who can't build muscle in deficit - the very lean and already highly trained. So the logic becomes if I can't then no-one can!
The so called exceptions who can build some muscle in a deficit actually encompass large swathes of the population:
Overweight, under-trained, new to strength training, returning to strength training after a break, genetically gifted, young males in particular, a novel training stimulus.
When you are out and about amongst the general population as opposed to gym members you realise the lean and highly trained are really the exceptions. Sad but true.
Obviously being in a deficit hampers growth (or speed of growth) and excessive deficit is going to stop growth (unless there are exceptional circumstances like recovery from recent muscle loss - been there).
My personal tipping point as an older guy with decades of training but below my former strength peak seemed to be a deficit about half a pound a week. I lost mass at 1lb/week but saw and measured growth at 1lb/month loss.
So like 80-90% of the population would be an "exception". Guess that really doesn't qualify them as "exceptions" anymore.
I'd think it's even more than that. Of course, the next issue is the segment of the population on who "can" (or more precisely "could") versus the segment of the population who "will" put in the effort to do so. I think that's where many of the forums on this topic break down. Yes, you can, but no you're not getting jacked while doing some 30 day shred. Hell, you're probably not going to get jacked in a deficit (or even in a recomp at all unless you're doing it for several years, unless you're a young male. It's not happening fast at my age).
I'm a young guy but I didn't get close to jacked on multiple months of deficit and later maintenance/recomp. Once the initial improvements from never having touched a weight in my life before stopped, it pretty much stagnated around the same strength level and look with maybe an improvement of adding 5 pounds on my lifts in the whole time. But when I started a surplus, hoo boy did my lifts go up quickly. It's not even comparable IMO. Yes you can build muscle in a deficit, but really it ain't all that much.
Your strength stagnated after lifting for a while and my reference was to less than several years not months. No one is saying the rates of muscle growth are the same. The responses are to absolutist comments that one "can't" or its "impossible" to gain muscle in a deficit.
My response is also focused on newbies and the young. Let the overweight new lifters get those newbie gains while they diet down, and I'd like to encourage them to do so. I get the irritation with the people who throw a little weight around and think they suddenly gained 10 pounds in muscle when all they did was add water weight or failed to accurately count their intake. That's a scale issue though more than a muscle growth issue, and the responses of "you" didn't gain muscle in a deficit (because no deficit was achieved) are, more often than not, accurate.
No way in hell am I gaining any more muscle in a deficit. Not after training for a number of years and pushing my mid-40s. Unless, of course, I decide to start breaking the law, which isn't happening.0 -
I just personally think that something like a pound of muscle in half a year or however much can be expected is not really worth the argument here.3
-
Also, you can't underestimate the impact of good genetics in the equation. I've seen people gain 10 lbs of muscle in 2 months while in a deficit, but for the most part you have to have a good supportive diet, plenty of rest, already have a sufficient level of body fat (be fat or obese) and a good amount of intensity in your strength training program. It doesn't hurt if you're male, young, a newbie to lifting or haven't lifted in a long while. All of these factors play a role and if you have a good combination of all of these, you could see an explosion of muscle growth that will taper off.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »I just personally think that something like a pound of muscle in half a year or however much can be expected is not really worth the argument here.
But your results are individual and unique to you. Same as the athletes in the study who gained around 2% LBM in a few weeks had results unique to them. Good chance that they have superior genetic gifts and trained well of course.
I could put on muscle at a remarkable rate in my golden years of 16 - 23 while losing weight, couldn't do that now. That doesn't mean every young male can do the same - maybe I was genetically gifted too?
Probably I couldn't even match the results I got a few years ago (roughly 3.5lbs gained in 6 months) as I'm closer to my training peak and leaner.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I just personally think that something like a pound of muscle in half a year or however much can be expected is not really worth the argument here.
But your results are individual and unique to you. Same as the athletes in the study who gained around 2% LBM in a few weeks had results unique to them. Good chance that they have superior genetic gifts and trained well of course.
I could put on muscle at a remarkable rate in my golden years of 16 - 23 while losing weight, couldn't do that now. That doesn't mean every young male can do the same - maybe I was genetically gifted too?
Probably I couldn't even match the results I got a few years ago (roughly 3.5lbs gained in 6 months) as I'm closer to my training peak and leaner.
It's a lot of perception bias from the optical illusion caused by getting leaner and most if not all lbm measurement methods not being all that good in many cases is my guess.
Strength can easily be measured but we kinda suck at accurate lbm tracking when even dexa is supposedly not much better than any other method if what was said in the video from this thread is to be believed https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10377221/alan-thrall-video-on-the-accuracy-of-body-fat-testing#latest
If some study shows almost everyone having results equalling to "superior genetic outlier", something doesn't look right.0 -
A lot of it depends on how new you are to weight training. Your body will react differently overtime, and depending on how close you are to your genetic limits. I took a few years off do to a medical condition. I personally have lost fat and have gained muscle in the last three months eating at a deficit. I realize as time goes on, that will change. To say it's not possible, well, is true depending on the individual and where they are in their fitness journey. Most people who ask are just starting out in their journey.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I just personally think that something like a pound of muscle in half a year or however much can be expected is not really worth the argument here.
But your results are individual and unique to you. Same as the athletes in the study who gained around 2% LBM in a few weeks had results unique to them. Good chance that they have superior genetic gifts and trained well of course.
I could put on muscle at a remarkable rate in my golden years of 16 - 23 while losing weight, couldn't do that now. That doesn't mean every young male can do the same - maybe I was genetically gifted too?
Probably I couldn't even match the results I got a few years ago (roughly 3.5lbs gained in 6 months) as I'm closer to my training peak and leaner.
It's a lot of perception bias from the optical illusion caused by getting leaner and most if not all lbm measurement methods not being all that good in many cases is my guess.
Strength can easily be measured but we kinda suck at accurate lbm tracking when even dexa is supposedly not much better than any other method if what was said in the video from this thread is to be believed https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10377221/alan-thrall-video-on-the-accuracy-of-body-fat-testing#latest
If some study shows almost everyone having results equalling to "superior genetic outlier", something doesn't look right.
I'm genuinely confused why you are so wedded to the idea that your crappy results mean everyone will get the same results to the extent you start guessing or assuming my numbers must wrong without even asking where I got them from? I have picked up a bit of experience from 40 years of training, not some kiddy that mistakes muscle definition improvements for increased size.
Perhaps when you have been training longer you will see that if you take a group of people and they train identically their results will be still be wildly different.
I used to coach a youth rugby team and saw every result from astonishing (he later switched to body building as he clearly had a gift for it) to no discernible difference over the course of a season (he later switched to soccer as his lack of size held him back) despite working equally hard.
1 -
This is a good discussion so far.
Going beyond building muscle in a deficit, I think that some of the people who preach that calorie surpluses are more efficient than recomp for gaining muscle ignore the fact that the decision to do that or not to do that can't be made in a vacuum. Other factors come into play, including the psychological stress of adding fat (this is hard for many people, especially those who have lost a lot of weight previously), skin issues (if you lose fat last in your stomach and have permanently stretched skin do you want to add more fat to that area again?), how long it takes some folks to lean out (going beyond CICO into hormones and the ability/inability to comfortably sustain a deficit, etc.), and so forth. I know that, for me, the efficiency of gaining muscle in a bulk does not outweigh the other factors that going into the decision of whether or not to do it.0 -
When I started boxing in my early 20s, the diet they put us on was ridiculous - porridge (oatmeal), brown rice, fish x 2, chicken x 1. Portion size always small. Basically a cutting diet and EVERY day.
I'm only speaking anecdotally of course, but when I started boxing I was "skinny fat" and when I gave up I was of a muscular appearance and all the important "inches" (well except the most important one!) like biceps/chest etc had increased so it wasn't a matter of perception.
Not that I'm adding anything since this has all been covered, and better ... just saying I've done it.0 -
It's not all about newbie gains though, unless I'm misinterpreting how long someone is a newbie. I've lost seventeen pounds of fat and gained almost five pounds of muscle over the last year, and some of that muscle came after I'd already been lifting for six months.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions