Yet more muscle building questions

dblanke01

Ok everyone. I’m full of questions about building muscle.
1. From what I’ve read, the general consensus is recomp is not possible on a serious calorie deficit. So what happens to your muscles if you lift weights in a caloric deficit? I’m stressing and challenging them, and I’m sore. Is hypertrophy not possible?
2. I lift heavy weights. Why am I so sore after a HIIT body weight workout? Does that mean I’m also building muscle?

Thanks for the help. The more I read, the more confused I get.

Maxxitt

It's unlikely that you are building muscle but you probably are mostly re-building the muscles you've worked (which is what helps prevent a lot of muscle loss while in a deficit).

GoldenAgeAdmirer

1. In a serious calorific deficit your body will cannibalise itself, including your muscles, to meet energy requirements. Building muscle is simply not a priority when survival is threatened.
2. DOMS means you have challenged your muscles in a way they are not prepared for. It may or may not indicate you are building muscle. Other factors are more important for anabolism.

snickerscharlie

Your confusion may lie in the difference between strengthening already existing muscle and building new muscle. The previous is possible in a calorie deficit. The latter? Not so much.

ninerbuff

dblanke01 wrote: »

Ok everyone. I’m full of questions about building muscle.
1. From what I’ve read, the general consensus is recomp is not possible on a serious calorie deficit. So what happens to your muscles if you lift weights in a caloric deficit? I’m stressing and challenging them, and I’m sore. Is hypertrophy not possible?
2. I lift heavy weights. Why am I so sore after a HIIT body weight workout? Does that mean I’m also building muscle?

Thanks for the help. The more I read, the more confused I get.

Just think logically here for a minute. A competitive bodybuilder (even on gear) goes through a hard regimen diet to prepare for a show. I know because I've competed several times. Now IF that's one thing they would never have to worry about, they would never consider bulking up because if lifting weights and feeling sore was all it took to build muscle, then why go through all that 16 week diet prep? Also logically, to add muscle means to add weight and to do that you need a surplus, not a 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

dblanke01

Thanks for the response. So my question is still, aren’t I getting stronger as I increase my weights I’m lifting, and doesn’t that mean more muscle?

ninerbuff

dblanke01 wrote: »

Thanks for the response. So my question is still, aren’t I getting stronger as I increase my weights I’m lifting, and doesn’t that mean more muscle?

It's called neuromuscular adaptation. It's NOT uncommon for someone going down in weight to get stronger on a progressive overload lifting program.

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

Chieflrg

dblanke01 wrote: »

Thanks for the response. So my question is still, aren’t I getting stronger as I increase my weights I’m lifting, and doesn’t that mean more muscle?

It could be one or combination of many things such as.

1. You disrupted homeostasis and forced neuromuscular adaptation.
2. You built up of useful stress and/or disapated fatigue and was "peaking" you.
3. You are becoming more skilled at your lift(s). Efficiency.
4. You just didn't lift as much weight previously because of outside stressors(life stress-lack of sleep, bad week of work, health).

Also keep in mind that more muscle doesn't mean more strength, rather the capability to lift more weights with adequate training.

kimny72

dblanke01 wrote: »

Thanks for the response. So my question is still, aren’t I getting stronger as I increase my weights I’m lifting, and doesn’t that mean more muscle?

Just to super over simplify what the other (far more experienced) responses have said, no - getting stronger doesn't necessarily mean more muscle. Muscle strength and size are different things, they can happen together or one can happen without the other.

Building muscle requires extra energy, and when you're in a deficit it is unlikely your body will take much energy it already has a deficit of and use it to build muscle (except in specific situations). But you can get stronger, and you can preserve the muscle you have while losing weight, by training while in a deficit.

You would have a better chance of preserving your current muscle mass and perhaps building a little muscle if you were in a small rather than steep deficit. It would also help if you are young, male, and relatively new to resistance training.

dblanke01

“ It would also help if you are young, male, and relatively new to resistance training.[/quote]

Well dang. 😭😭😭

dblanke01

Thanks all. I was wondering what was happening to my body and now I have a new term to google (neuromuscular adaptation). Loving the learning on this process. I do have a goal weight of losing 3 more pounds in the hopes of decreasing BF% and then I’m going to decrease my deficit to focus on recomp.

heybales

Also be aware regarding the getting stronger while losing weight. I only mention this because I've seen it claimed way too many times.

"I've increased my squats (or deadlift) 40 lbs since I started lifting and dieting 5 months to lose 30 lbs - I know I had to have gained muscle!"

Problem there with those types of lifts - if you lost 30 lbs on body being lifted, and added 40lb to the bar - you are only lifting 10 lbs more overall.

And after 5 months of being new to lifting to only have increased 10 lbs - that's actually pretty pitiful, as the adaptations that have been mentioned would normally show better improvement than that.

Just to keep in the back of mind regarding those full body lifts and realistic view of what is going on.


Also since I didn't see it mentioned - this HIIT you are doing, if it's the current faddish used term - may not be allowing a good recovery from lifting the day after.
Recovery from a good workout takes 24-48 hrs - you go and attempt to nail the muscles again during that period in a deficit - you may be short cycling your recovery and basically wasting some of the workout if it doesn't occur.

GaryRuns

This depends on a lot of factors

• What constitutes a "serious calorie defecit"?
• While in a caloric defecit are you getting approximately 0.8-1.0 grams of protein per pound of body weight?
• How much body fat do you have?
• How experienced are you at strength training?

It's just not as simple as yes or no. Here's a good place to start if you want to know what the scientific literature on the topic states.

Spadesheart

GaryRuns wrote: »

This depends on a lot of factors

• What constitutes a "serious calorie defecit"?
• While in a caloric defecit are you getting approximately 0.8-1.0 grams of protein per pound of body weight?
• How much body fat do you have?
• How experienced are you at strength training?

It's just not as simple as yes or no. Here's a good place to start if you want to know what the scientific literature on the topic states.

This was a very helpful post when I was starting to lose weight while fitting in weight training a 3 months ago. I 100% have gained muscle in a "serious calorie deficit" and was very confused by it as well. My arms, legs, traps, shoulders and chest are noticeably more muscular, meaning larger. Based on common wisdom, this is not possible, but there is some research that explains why it may be.


A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615


Essentially, this study explains the rate at which body fat can release energy, which is aparently about 69 calories per kg per day. So say you are 100 kg, with 30 kg of body fat, your daily "possible" deficit would be 69*30= 2070, or about 4 pounds a week. This rate of loss is not actually possible as there are other nutritional needs we have, but it is possible to lose that much weight from just your fat per week without metabolising any muscle or anything else, so long as you are consuming enough to maintain your musculature.

So, in the short term, if you are fat enough, untrained enough, and are getting enough protein, you can build muscle in heavy deficits. This will however change as your body fat decreases and your lean mass increases. I've bought body fat callipers to try to gauge the point at which I will have to ease off my pace. Until then, it's working for the most part.

If you can handle it, you don't feel in danger such as being faint, you are getting acceptable nutrition and protein, it isn't impossible. There's clearly a need for commitment though. I do not suggest aiming for more than 2 pounds per week. Chances are unless you are extremely obese that that will put you under the healthy 1200-1500 range for men.

heybales

Spadesheart wrote: »

GaryRuns wrote: »

This depends on a lot of factors

• What constitutes a "serious calorie defecit"?
• While in a caloric defecit are you getting approximately 0.8-1.0 grams of protein per pound of body weight?
• How much body fat do you have?
• How experienced are you at strength training?

It's just not as simple as yes or no. Here's a good place to start if you want to know what the scientific literature on the topic states.

This was a very helpful post when I was starting to lose weight while fitting in weight training a 3 months ago. I 100% have gained muscle in a "serious calorie deficit" and was very confused by it as well. My arms, legs, traps, shoulders and chest are noticeably more muscular, meaning larger. Based on common wisdom, this is not possible, but there is some research that explains why it may be.


A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615


Essentially, this study explains the rate at which body fat can release energy, which is aparently about 69 calories per kg per day. So say you are 100 kg, with 30 kg of body fat, your daily "possible" deficit would be 69*30= 2070, or about 4 pounds a week. This rate of loss is not actually possible as there are other nutritional needs we have, but it is possible to lose that much weight from just your fat per week without metabolising any muscle or anything else, so long as you are consuming enough to maintain your musculature.

So, in the short term, if you are fat enough, untrained enough, and are getting enough protein, you can build muscle in heavy deficits. This will however change as your body fat decreases and your lean mass increases. I've bought body fat callipers to try to gauge the point at which I will have to ease off my pace. Until then, it's working for the most part.

If you can handle it, you don't feel in danger such as being faint, you are getting acceptable nutrition and protein, it isn't impossible. There's clearly a need for commitment though. I do not suggest aiming for more than 2 pounds per week. Chances are unless you are extremely obese that that will put you under the healthy 1200-1500 range for men.

Sadly that wasn't actually a research study - as in they had people and 2 groups and measured them, ect.

They took data from the MN starvation experiment and extrapolated to some conclusions they never tested or examined with another study.

Though there have been a couple studies on ultra-marathoners/bikers that were merely looking at ratio for carb:fat burning and overall quantities burned, totally unrelated to this study - and I noticed back when I was looking at them, they decently exceeded that rate.

On the other hand you can look at the results of other studies that were steep deficits that would not have been burning anywhere near close to that rate of fat - and they lost more than just fat.

Just saying - those author's little effort at figuring out a formula doesn't seem to hold to either side of the range, and is likely a line that is in reality way past a safe line if all you truly want is fat.
There was a video podcast with them by someone where this all came out.

Spadesheart

heybales wrote: »

Spadesheart wrote: »

GaryRuns wrote: »

This depends on a lot of factors

• What constitutes a "serious calorie defecit"?
• While in a caloric defecit are you getting approximately 0.8-1.0 grams of protein per pound of body weight?
• How much body fat do you have?
• How experienced are you at strength training?

It's just not as simple as yes or no. Here's a good place to start if you want to know what the scientific literature on the topic states.

This was a very helpful post when I was starting to lose weight while fitting in weight training a 3 months ago. I 100% have gained muscle in a "serious calorie deficit" and was very confused by it as well. My arms, legs, traps, shoulders and chest are noticeably more muscular, meaning larger. Based on common wisdom, this is not possible, but there is some research that explains why it may be.


A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615


Essentially, this study explains the rate at which body fat can release energy, which is aparently about 69 calories per kg per day. So say you are 100 kg, with 30 kg of body fat, your daily "possible" deficit would be 69*30= 2070, or about 4 pounds a week. This rate of loss is not actually possible as there are other nutritional needs we have, but it is possible to lose that much weight from just your fat per week without metabolising any muscle or anything else, so long as you are consuming enough to maintain your musculature.

So, in the short term, if you are fat enough, untrained enough, and are getting enough protein, you can build muscle in heavy deficits. This will however change as your body fat decreases and your lean mass increases. I've bought body fat callipers to try to gauge the point at which I will have to ease off my pace. Until then, it's working for the most part.

If you can handle it, you don't feel in danger such as being faint, you are getting acceptable nutrition and protein, it isn't impossible. There's clearly a need for commitment though. I do not suggest aiming for more than 2 pounds per week. Chances are unless you are extremely obese that that will put you under the healthy 1200-1500 range for men.

Sadly that wasn't actually a research study - as in they had people and 2 groups and measured them, ect.

They took data from the MN starvation experiment and extrapolated to some conclusions they never tested or examined with another study.

Though there have been a couple studies on ultra-marathoners/bikers that were merely looking at ratio for carb:fat burning and overall quantities burned, totally unrelated to this study - and I noticed back when I was looking at them, they decently exceeded that rate.

On the other hand you can look at the results of other studies that were steep deficits that would not have been burning anywhere near close to that rate of fat - and they lost more than just fat.

Just saying - those author's little effort at figuring out a formula doesn't seem to hold to either side of the range, and is likely a line that is in reality way past a safe line if all you truly want is fat.
There was a video podcast with them by someone where this all came out.

Interesting. Honestly I'm trying to find explanations for myself too. I've been building a house without bricks and need to know how high I can build the walls before reinforcing. I was really hoping this was accurate as it would scale down pretty dramatically with body fat, and made a ton of logical sense.

heybales

You could easily be one of the people in a study that is an outlier.

Studies are giving average results, trying to determine what's safe, max benefit, whatever they are going for.

You always got the fortunate odd-ball that can max things out without negative effects - then you got the poor slub that gets max negatives from a study testing minor changes.

Some of the things already mentioned about maxing out CNS adaptations fast and moving on to hypertrophy, while having plenty of bodyfat that body is comfortable doing max muscle building while in deficit - you may be receiving max benefit to all those and genetically could be a great example of potential improvements.

Then again, as you mention, you could have that genetic line where at some point body says whoa this is bad gotta adapt fast and you have to do as you mention. Someone else might be able to make minor changes all the way to goal weight.

That's why studies and the lines/limits they discover can be useful - some of these limits if you attempt to discover them on your own and cross them for too long (observation can take awhile) - you get some negatives that may be hard to get out of, taking more time to reach some goal than playing it safe would have taken.

Guys luck out with hormones on that ability though to usually see changes faster, and corrections usually not so bad to obtain.
Gotta be observant though, so keep that up.