Starvation Mode - Adaptive Thermogenesis and Weight Loss

Spartan_1_1_7

tagged for reference

joshdann

No rational reason? 2 lbs a week for me a while ago would have been 700 calories a day. I'd hardly think that would work because my body would not be loving that. Also, I hardly think watching my macros would have been sustainable like you said. Optimally, I'd want 96g of protein a day...That would leave me with about 35 calories of fat, a lot lower then I'd like to optimally absorb nutrients. And 0 carbs...gluck on that diet.

Also, no, you will not be continuously gaining muscles on a calorie deficit. There's no "muscle being added at the same time". You're losing weight. That means losing muscle and fat. To grow muscle, you need a calorie surplus. Even if you were morbidly obese the 'newbie gains' would be minimal. If you think you're losing over 2lbs a week and that's coming souly from fat and you're growing muscle, that makes no sense.

this is exactly what I'm talking about. None of the "truths" you just tried to convince me of are *actually* based in fact. It's just stuff you've recycled from other misinformed (and surely well-meaning) people. Wile it's true that not all people can sustain as high of a weight loss rate as others due to sheer physical limits, it's also very true that many people can. I can, and I am doing it. I'm also adding muscle, not losing it. I've been eating at a deficit 100% of the time for the past 5 weeks, and I've gained some noticeable size in several muscle groups. Nothing earth shattering, but proof positive that I am gaining muscle. I've also lowered my BF% more than the sheer # of pounds would support, therefore adding lean muscle mass.

It's not like I'm the only one who has ever done this, either. do some research... the worst part of what you just said was

There's no "muscle being added at the same time". You're losing weight. That means losing muscle and fat. To grow muscle, you need a calorie surplus.

That couldn't be more false.

55in13

I think it's also important to note that "TDEE", when calculated using a form on a website somewhere, is inherently inaccurate. Far too often people use it as their gospel. Some people have taken to justifying slower fat loss by misquoting the old wisdom of "1-2 lbs per week is the only healthy way". While it's true that 1-2 lbs per week will ensure that *most* people get the nutrients they need, a larger deficit is absolutely sustainable as long as you watch your macros, supplement properly, etc. Of course many people buy into the mass hysteria, and refuse to believe that's possible regardless of the science that fully supports it. Such is group psychology.

We are all running in different races and slow and steady will win some of them. Others, like myself, get too easily frustrated with slow loss when there is seemingly too much to lose and backslide. A year ago, if you told me I could take the weigh off quickly but I would have a slightly lower MR as a consequence, I would have done it anyway. Especially since it appears that it will eventually rebound.

I quoted this because I wholeheartedly agree. I'd add that many of the same studies that contribute to the findings in the original post have shown that a proper exercise regiment, when used in conjunction with the calorie deficit, will minimize the effect of adaptive thermogenesis. Sure, it will still affect most of us, but not to such an extent to make a quick recovery impossible. Many steps can be taken to combat these effects, and I'm trying my best to use all of them. Reaching my goal weight in the timeframe I've set out for myself means that I need to *average* 2 pounds of fat lost per week, with some muscle being added at the same time. Getting 3 or 4 pounds in one week has to happen often, or the weeks where I plateau will throw off my pace. I'm perfectly fine with doing the work required to recover whatever loss in metabolic rate I might experience.

Losing weight quickly is so often frowned upon... though there's no rational reason for that to be the case.

No rational reason? 2 lbs a week for me a while ago would have been 700 calories a day. I'd hardly think that would work because my body would not be loving that. Also, I hardly think watching my macros would have been sustainable like you said. Optimally, I'd want 96g of protein a day...That would leave me with about 35 calories of fat, a lot lower then I'd like to optimally absorb nutrients. And 0 carbs...gluck on that diet.

Also, no, you will not be continuously gaining muscles on a calorie deficit. There's no "muscle being added at the same time". You're losing weight. That means losing muscle and fat. To grow muscle, you need a calorie surplus. Even if you were morbidly obese the 'newbie gains' would be minimal. If you think you're losing over 2lbs a week and that's coming souly from fat and you're growing muscle, that makes no sense.

While I am not JoshDann, he was quoting and agreeing with what I said and then adding a bit. I think you are arguing semantics. Losing weight quickly was discussed as being relevant to people with a lot to lose. Most obese adults are going to have a sedentary TDEE of above 2200 just to drag the weight around, so losing 2 pounds a week is usually feasible for them with a diet above 1200 (not that 1200 is a magic number, but that's another debate). My point is that this should not be portrayed as an imminent train wreck but rather as a possible side effect to be wary of. Anyway, I think you are ignoring the context of his statement only because he did not explicitly state it at the point he made the statement.

Gotta agree about the muscle gains though. As much as I would like to believe I maintained or added muscle, I know I lost some even though I was exercising. Not a lot, but some. But now that I am at goal I can get it back. Again, a trade off that I would make again (though hopefully I will never have to).

joshdann

Gotta agree about the muscle gains though. As much as I would like to believe I maintained or added muscle, I know I lost some even though I was exercising. Not a lot, but some. But now that I am at goal I can get it back. Again, a trade off that I would make again (though hopefully I will never have to).

Facing that trade off, I would make the same choice every time. Fortunately, it's possible to have it both ways... it just takes even more hard work than we're all already doing. heavy lifting and consuming a lot of protein will usually help offset muscle loss when losing weight.

see also: all those threads about 30 day shred and insanity exercise plans, where people lose significant "inches" but not significant weight... where is the fat going? if they *are* losing it, where is the additional weight coming from? Sure, some water... but also some muscle.

see also: the group of guys that lose weight *only* by heavy lifting, without doing any cardio. They are certainly burning fat and gaining muscle.

I think the discrepancy here is that you cannot "net" nearly as much muscle gain because some protein is also used up to bridge the caloric gap. There are "protein sparing" methods that have been clinically proven to work (the most effective one is, obviously, eating more protein) and result in a much lower loss of muscle protein. You just have to hedge your bets and work out hard enough to gain more muscle than you lose. It's 100% possible. It's 100% proven

Quieau

I'd like to hear more about how to MITIGATE and RECOVER FROM the loss in metabolism, if any indeed occurs. What are the best strategies for maintaining as high a metabolism as possible in the long term, or restoring it as much as possible once you reach your goal weight? (That's addressed to ANYONE, btw!)

55in13

Gotta agree about the muscle gains though. As much as I would like to believe I maintained or added muscle, I know I lost some even though I was exercising. Not a lot, but some. But now that I am at goal I can get it back. Again, a trade off that I would make again (though hopefully I will never have to).

Facing that trade off, I would make the same choice every time. Fortunately, it's possible to have it both ways... it just takes even more hard work than we're all already doing. heavy lifting and consuming a lot of protein will usually help offset muscle loss when losing weight.

see also: all those threads about 30 day shred and insanity exercise plans, where people lose significant "inches" but not significant weight... where is the fat going? if they *are* losing it, where is the additional weight coming from? Sure, some water... but also some muscle.

see also: the group of guys that lose weight *only* by heavy lifting, without doing any cardio. They are certainly burning fat and gaining muscle.

I think the discrepancy here is that you cannot "net" nearly as much muscle gain because some protein is also used up to bridge the caloric gap. There are "protein sparing" methods that have been clinically proven to work (the most effective one is, obviously, eating more protein) and result in a much lower loss of muscle protein. You just have to hedge your bets and work out hard enough to gain more muscle than you lose. It's 100% possible. It's 100% proven

OK. I guess that is another decision I sort of made by default, but still justify in hindsight. My wife says my hindsight is 20/20. When she said that, I should have said... :bigsmile: Anyway, back on track, I am more of a runner than a gym rat. Not because I think cardio is better, just because I like running outside more than going to the gym and it is easier to fit in my schedule, so I actually do it. A lot of it. I have run over 300 miles since Memorial Day weekend. I have also been to the gym maybe 6 times during that same period. So cardio is a better fat burner for me because I like to run and I don't like going to the gym. Different strokes...

I am guilty as charged of taking the word of a lot of gym rats that you can't gain muscle while eating at a deficit. It does seem to be the consensus, but I really don't have a dog in that fight and have not done any real research. Because whether it is true or not, I still won't like the gym very much.

joshdann

I'd like to hear more about how to MITIGATE and RECOVER FROM the loss in metabolism, if any indeed occurs. What are the best strategies for maintaining as high a metabolism as possible in the long term, or restoring it as much as possible once you reach your goal weight? (That's addressed to ANYONE, btw!)

There are so many options it'll make your head spin. You have to first figure out what lifestyle you want during the process. If you want/need "cheat days" *and* are able to control yourself when "cheating", then there are plans that make use of these scheduled, controlled refeeding days (or sometimes just meals) to mitigate metabolic damage. If you would prefer to make steady but slow progress, you can opt for a smaller deficit. That won't damage your metabolism nearly as much, but it will take much longer. Of course there's good ol' exercise. Dedication to an exercise program has been shown to mitigate, and in some cases reverse the negative metabolic effects of dieting.

I highly recommend you go find as many articles on the subject as you can find (written by real experts, not MFP members). You seem perfectly intelligent, and I'm sure you will be able to make sense of it yourself. You will probably find stuff people like me have missed. Try starting with Lyle McDonald, I really like his style. Good luck!

edit: please prefer peer reviewed literature over "fitness authors". Many of the serious one like Mr McDonald try very hard to use real, actual, proven science... but it can sometimes be difficult to tell where they diverge away from fact and into the particular religion they are selling. Peer reviewed clinical study or it's just an educated guess. Or sometimes it's a completely uneducated guess

joshdann

OK. I guess that is another decision I sort of made by default, but still justify in hindsight. My wife says my hindsight is 20/20. When she said that, I should have said... :bigsmile: Anyway, back on track, I am more of a runner than a gym rat. Not because I think cardio is better, just because I like running outside more than going to the gym and it is easier to fit in my schedule, so I actually do it. A lot of it. I have run over 300 miles since Memorial Day weekend. I have also been to the gym maybe 6 times during that same period. So cardio is a better fat burner for me because I like to run and I don't like going to the gym. Different strokes...

I am guilty as charged of taking the word of a lot of gym rats that you can't gain muscle while eating at a deficit. It does seem to be the consensus, but I really don't have a dog in that fight and have not done any real research. Because whether it is true or not, I still won't like the gym very much.

I'm with you... I much prefer to get my exercise outdoors. I still do plenty of that for fun, but my goals require adding muscle and adding muscle requires heavy lifting. I don't necessarily like going to the gym, but let's say I'm getting used to it. My wife had to practically drag my there by the bumper of her car last night... but we went and I'm glad we did

CoderGal

Gotta agree about the muscle gains though. As much as I would like to believe I maintained or added muscle, I know I lost some even though I was exercising. Not a lot, but some. But now that I am at goal I can get it back. Again, a trade off that I would make again (though hopefully I will never have to).

Facing that trade off, I would make the same choice every time. Fortunately, it's possible to have it both ways... it just takes even more hard work than we're all already doing. heavy lifting and consuming a lot of protein will usually help offset muscle loss when losing weight.

see also: all those threads about 30 day shred and insanity exercise plans, where people lose significant "inches" but not significant weight... where is the fat going? if they *are* losing it, where is the additional weight coming from? Sure, some water... but also some muscle.

see also: the group of guys that lose weight *only* by heavy lifting, without doing any cardio. They are certainly burning fat and gaining muscle.

I think the discrepancy here is that you cannot "net" nearly as much muscle gain because some protein is also used up to bridge the caloric gap. There are "protein sparing" methods that have been clinically proven to work (the most effective one is, obviously, eating more protein) and result in a much lower loss of muscle protein. You just have to hedge your bets and work out hard enough to gain more muscle than you lose. It's 100% possible. It's 100% proven

30day shred people usually start on a significant calorie deficit...and lose significant water. And then gain it back easily when they stop the diet. So yes, the deficit and losing water from exercise, I'd say there's a fair bit of water coming off there.

Question I can't seem to get my head around. Why do you think the people who are heavy lifting are losing weight but putting on muscle? There's a big difference between retaining muscle on a deficit and growing it while losing weight. Where has it been proven?

joshdann

30day shred people usually start on a significant calorie deficit...and lose significant water. And then gain it back easily. So yes, I'd say there's a fair bit of water coming off there.

Question I can't seem to get my head around. Why do you think the people who are heavy lifting are losing weight but putting on muscle? There's a big difference between retaining muscle on a deficit and growing it while losing weight. Where has it been proven?

something to remember: stored fat is just stored energy. You body can use that energy in (almost) any way it sees fit, including building muscle.

The problem is that it only really relies on that stored energy when all other "normal" stores (i.e. glycogen from digested food, etc) are depleted, and your body will also turn to muscle protein for the same purpose (albeit at a much lower rate, and only in specific conditions). The trick is to figure out not only how to avoid the circumstances under which your body will consume skeletal muscle protein, but to mitigate it when it inevitably does happen. If we had a set of switches and dials on our bellies that let us fine tune this stuff, it would be easy. We can't *control* when it happens, per se. The best we can do it learn about how and why these things happen, and try our hardest to offset them.

edit: sorry, you asked where it has been proven. There are tons and tons of case studies on the matter. I'm an amateur version of that myself. My biceps, quads, and pecs are measurably larger (only by a little, but still) even though I've lost a decent amount of fat. I'm also stronger today than I was 6 weeks ago by a noticeable margin. I've already added a significant amount of weight to my workout sets... Yet, in that whole 6 weeks, I've never, ever eaten "at maintenance". It's always been at a deficit, and almost always at more than a 30% deficit, assuming you use the inaccurate online estimates. The closest I've come is one day deciding to throw caution to the wind and have a few (or 8) beers over the course of a day. I didn't log (we were on vacation) but I was also very active that day... either way I don't think that was the one day I gained muscle

Talk to the many other members here who have lost fat while gaining muscle. Lots of people have done it. Read up on the subject (science literature, not bodybuilding rags). It's not easy to do, but it's very doable.

cmriverside

This whole stellabellarmo tangent is off-topic.


Start a new thread.

I mean, please. This is advanced stuff and deserves its own topic and its own research. It's not what this thread is about.

CoderGal

30day shred people usually start on a significant calorie deficit...and lose significant water. And then gain it back easily. So yes, I'd say there's a fair bit of water coming off there.

Question I can't seem to get my head around. Why do you think the people who are heavy lifting are losing weight but putting on muscle? There's a big difference between retaining muscle on a deficit and growing it while losing weight. Where has it been proven?

something to remember: stored fat is just stored energy. You body can use that energy in (almost) any way it sees fit, including building muscle.

The problem is that it only really relies on that stored energy when all other "normal" stores (i.e. glycogen from digested food, etc) are depleted, and your body will also turn to muscle protein for the same purpose (albeit at a much lower rate, and only in specific conditions). The trick is to figure out not only how to avoid the circumstances under which your body will consume skeletal muscle protein, but to mitigate it when it inevitably does happen. If we had a set of switches and dials on our bellies that let us fine tune this stuff, it would be easy. We can't *control* when it happens, per se. The best we can do it learn about how and why these things happen, and try our hardest to offset them.

I'm glad to have a conversation such as this with someone who isn't getting defensive about it. It's rare, maybe we'll both learn something. Look up newbie gains. That's true, to a point. And then you stop seeing benefits. I'm not obese, I don't get these luxuries on a deficit. My point being you said you "gained some noticeable size in several muscle groups". It's really hard to measure that. Exercise makes you temporarily swell. And with regular exercise you're going to lose size on a deficit after that glycogen disappears. So how would one accurately measure their muscle groups? And how would one know they're on a deficit if some weeks they're 'stalled'. TDEE and guesstimating calories is just that...a guesstimate at best. Those stalls are likely water, but a surplus could potentially be happening since it's a hard thing to measure.

55in13

We are on a tangent, but this triggered a thought for me...

We talk about a deficit for the day/week because those are convenient time frames for us to summarize across. What does the body use? If you do 16:8 IF, if you break it down by 8 hour period instead of 24, you will have 2 at an extreme deficit and one at surplus. See where I am headed? If the body reacts to consumption in a small window then you could conceivably build muscle during that period.

joshdann

We are on a tangent, but this triggered a thought for me...

We talk about a deficit for the day/week because those are convenient time frames for us to summarize across. What does the body use? If you do 16:8 IF, if you break it down by 8 hour period instead of 24, you will have 2 at an extreme deficit and one at surplus. See where I am headed? If the body reacts to consumption in a small window then you could conceivably build muscle during that period.

It's funny you mention that. I've been mulling over a similar question lately. Some people use days, some use weeks, based on personal preference. Very few use smaller windows of measurement, even though many people talk about how long it takes to digest protein, post-workout shakes, etc. etc. I think you're on the right track, but personally I don't think that it's impossible to build muscle on a deficit regardless of the window size. I think that mentality stems from two distinct schools of thought: fat loss versus bodybuilding. Surely there is more than one way to skin every cat, but the two predominant groups are those. People who want to lose fat and people who want to gain muscle. There is a very, very small cross-section. For body builders, the bulking phase is necessary because they're trying to add a lot more muscle than the average person. They then have to cut to get rid of the negative bulking effects. Fat loss folks mainly want to burn fat, so they focus on that half of the deficit equation.

Personally I'm somewhere in the middle. I have no interest (at least I don't right now) in real bodybuilding. But, I also want to do more than just lose the fat I'm carrying around. I have been a big guy all my life. I do have muscle already, residual from years and years of sports, powerlifting (as a teen), and just being a big SOB. I have less now than I did in my 20s, to be sure. I want those "seeds" of muscle I still have to grow into an actual muscular physique. I'm not satisfied with a year-long "cut" phase that leaves me skinny and weak... that just won't do. Even if I'm going about it the wrong way (I don't think that's the case, but it definitely could be), I'm really trying. I'm doing as much research as possible, as much experimentation as I feel comfortable with, and I'm seeing the results I was looking for. They could be faster, but I'm happy. I'm well ahead of the pace I need to meet my long-term goal.

All that research over the past several months, leaning on the much more advanced and extensive research of people much smarter than me, has led me to the conclusions above. The actual "newbie gains" or whatever they may be have led me to believe that the conclusions are being proven out, however slowly. As for measuring muscle growth, I'm using very basic stuff like a cloth measuring tape and I only measure "at rest" so I know it's actual growth and not just "pump". Biceps have grown. Quads have grown. harder to measure the pecs so it's more subjective, but I feel like they have grown as well. I can feel more muscle there (I think). Less fat in those areas, yet somehow an increase in circumference of my arms and legs.

Question for CoderGal: Even if they are "newbie gains", do they not prove that the body *can* build muscle while eating at a deficit? Glycogen stores get depleted and replenished very, very often... it's not like I've been working off the same glycogen for the past 6 weeks

8bitAlina

Excellent, thanks for this!

CoderGal

We are on a tangent, but this triggered a thought for me...

We talk about a deficit for the day/week because those are convenient time frames for us to summarize across. What does the body use? If you do 16:8 IF, if you break it down by 8 hour period instead of 24, you will have 2 at an extreme deficit and one at surplus. See where I am headed? If the body reacts to consumption in a small window then you could conceivably build muscle during that period.

It's funny you mention that. I've been mulling over a similar question lately. Some people use days, some use weeks, based on personal preference. Very few use smaller windows of measurement, even though many people talk about how long it takes to digest protein, post-workout shakes, etc. etc. I think you're on the right track, but personally I don't think that it's impossible to build muscle on a deficit regardless of the window size. I think that mentality stems from two distinct schools of thought: fat loss versus bodybuilding. Surely there is more than one way to skin every cat, but the two predominant groups are those. People who want to lose fat and people who want to gain muscle. There is a very, very small cross-section. For body builders, the bulking phase is necessary because they're trying to add a lot more muscle than the average person. They then have to cut to get rid of the negative bulking effects. Fat loss folks mainly want to burn fat, so they focus on that half of the deficit equation.

Personally I'm somewhere in the middle. I have no interest (at least I don't right now) in real bodybuilding. But, I also want to do more than just lose the fat I'm carrying around. I have been a big guy all my life. I do have muscle already, residual from years and years of sports, powerlifting (as a teen), and just being a big SOB. I have less now than I did in my 20s, to be sure. I want those "seeds" of muscle I still have to grow into an actual muscular physique. I'm not satisfied with a year-long "cut" phase that leaves me skinny and weak... that just won't do. Even if I'm going about it the wrong way (I don't think that's the case, but it definitely could be), I'm really trying. I'm doing as much research as possible, as much experimentation as I feel comfortable with, and I'm seeing the results I was looking for. They could be faster, but I'm happy. I'm well ahead of the pace I need to meet my long-term goal.

All that research over the past several months, leaning on the much more advanced and extensive research of people much smarter than me, has led me to the conclusions above. The actual "newbie gains" or whatever they may be have led me to believe that the conclusions are being proven out, however slowly. As for measuring muscle growth, I'm using very basic stuff like a cloth measuring tape and I only measure "at rest" so I know it's actual growth and not just "pump". Biceps have grown. Quads have grown. harder to measure the pecs so it's more subjective, but I feel like they have grown as well. I can feel more muscle there (I think). Less fat in those areas, yet somehow an increase in circumference of my arms and legs.

Question for CoderGal: Even if they are "newbie gains", do they not prove that the body *can* build muscle while eating at a deficit? Glycogen stores get depleted and replenished very, very often... it's not like I've been working off the same glycogen for the past 6 weeks

I'm not saying it's impossible, I just don't like it stated as a general fact as if "it's 100% proven" (like you said) for the general population if they eat at a deficit, lift, and eat adequate protein. And I ask again, where has this been 100% proven? Or are you talking in only obese populations that initially started lifting over a short period of time? As someone who doesn't know you it came off as "if I get stronger and measurements change I have gained muscle". I don't know your education level on the topic and I am not an expert by any means. But I haven't seen facts that that's true. If you can point me to these facts I'd like to learn about it. Because everything I've read stated opposite. And like I said, lots of things can add mass (glycogen, fat, muscle). Particularly in 5 weeks, I thought I was gaining something when I started lifting because well, I started gaining inches. Facts I have seen still indicate that realistically I've lost muscle on a deficit. And then those gained inches and more dropped off to prove the point. And there are to many variables I think to claim that you yourself have gained, particularly since it's only been 5 weeks. I've lost inches but gained definition compared to when I was this weight before. I'm stronger etc. I obviously have a lower fat if my inches have changed over a long period of time compared to long before at the same weight. With that said, I have no previous lifting experience as obviously yourself does. And there's been studies showing that people who have lifted previously in the past can put on muscle easier then someone who hasn't. I just don't think people should listen to you'll gain muscle on a calorie deficit like it's a golden diamond. When I was heavy lifting and on a deficit eating .8g/lb of protein previously I guest and felt and looked like I put on muscle mass and was getting stronger, but inches indicate otherwise (as the weight went down so did the inches, tho compared to before when I was this weight and didn't lift, I'm slimmer, because of the bulk I did before this happened).

Anyway those are my thoughts. Feel free to clear any of that up for me.

joshdann

I think the confusion you're having is because you're not overweight. For you, it's much, much more difficult to gain any muscle while losing fat. I, on the other hand, have plenty of extra fat to go around (quite literally around my midsection, hehe). I have lots of stored energy on tap for when my body needs it. I simply do not need to supply it with extra calories, sicne I already *have* them in my fat stores. While I generally abhor anecdotal evidence touted as "proof", I have seen many people have success doing this. Here's one example of anecdotal evidence (watch the whole thing):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht8X4biRY2w

a thread from another forum with some similar anecdotal evidence:

http://tnation.t-nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_training_performance_bodybuilding_beginner/cannot_build_muscle_while_on_a_caloric_deficit

this is an article that uses so many "educated guess" tactics, I almost didn't share... but read it with a grain of salt:

http://jasonferruggia.com/gain-muscle-lose-fat-is-it-possibl/

Lastly, here's a site with some good info, a bit more scientific; the author does a better job of explaining it than I can:

http://scoobysworkshop.com/gain-muscle-lose-fat/

As for my "proven 100%" comment, perhaps that did come off wrong. It has been *absolutely* proven that it *is possible*. That doesn't mean 100% of people who, as you say, "eat at a deficit, lift, and eat adequate protein" will have this result. It's very, very hard work. It takes someone willing to do the research and experimentation to find that sweet spot for themselves and stick to it, if that person is going to see significant gains.

There is a lot more information out there, including some much more scientific stuff that focuses on how to minimize muscle loss when losing fat, but doesn't really talk about *adding* measurable muscle. That is the info I have been reading the most, since it fits my needs the most. My goal is a bit less ambitious: I simply want to mitigate the muscle loss that comes with fat loss, retain the muscle I already have (meager as it may be), and I'm *hoping* for a decent net gain in muscle mass. I think I'm seeing that decent net gain so far, but I'm more than willing to re-measure after a more acceptable timeframe.

ETA: I have done this before. When I was 20 years old, I lost 85 lbs of body weight in about 6 months, and gained a significant amount of strength along with a noticeable amount of muscle mass. My chest filled out, my arms gained several inches, and my legs gained even more. My max squat was already very high, over 450 (I'm 6'6", longer quads helps with big squat numbers) when I was a teen, but it went up but about 20%. I was 215lbs at the end of it, and in simply fantastic shape. Not a body builder, but the best shape I've ever been in... I'm shooting for that sort of build again now.

EvgeniZyntx

No rational reason? 2 lbs a week for me a while ago would have been 700 calories a day. I'd hardly think that would work because my body would not be loving that. Also, I hardly think watching my macros would have been sustainable like you said. Optimally, I'd want 96g of protein a day...That would leave me with about 35 calories of fat, a lot lower then I'd like to optimally absorb nutrients. And 0 carbs...gluck on that diet.

Also, no, you will not be continuously gaining muscles on a calorie deficit. There's no "muscle being added at the same time". You're losing weight. That means losing muscle and fat. To grow muscle, you need a calorie surplus. Even if you were morbidly obese the 'newbie gains' would be minimal. If you think you're losing over 2lbs a week and that's coming souly from fat and you're growing muscle, that makes no sense.

this is exactly what I'm talking about. None of the "truths" you just tried to convince me of are *actually* based in fact. It's just stuff you've recycled from other misinformed (and surely well-meaning) people. Wile it's true that not all people can sustain as high of a weight loss rate as others due to sheer physical limits, it's also very true that many people can. I can, and I am doing it. I'm also adding muscle, not losing it. I've been eating at a deficit 100% of the time for the past 5 weeks, and I've gained some noticeable size in several muscle groups. Nothing earth shattering, but proof positive that I am gaining muscle. I've also lowered my BF% more than the sheer # of pounds would support, therefore adding lean muscle mass.

It's not like I'm the only one who has ever done this, either. do some research... the worst part of what you just said was

There's no "muscle being added at the same time". You're losing weight. That means losing muscle and fat. To grow muscle, you need a calorie surplus.

That couldn't be more false.

I'll only touch on the gaining muscle while on a deficit part.

I'm sorry if this sound like a Salomonic response - you are both right, it's just a question of quantity and sustainability.
- during a calorie deficit it is possible to gain muscle BUT
- during a calorie deficit muscle gains cannot be significant or equal to the muscle gains during a bulk

In a deficit, muscle gains are limited to the "newbie" effect and also by substrate compartmentalisation processes - available protein is used first on biological necessity (like hormonal and signaling needs). Signaling for muscle building is down regulated during a loss - in particular testosterone values drop, especially during a long term cut.

So yes, muscle can be maintained and built but in a very limited fashion - and in the right conditions - sufficient energy stores, new gains, history of prior training, etc.

However, there is another effect that adds to the confusion - during a loss, as body fat drops or general glucose swelling first increases and then decreases, then muscular definition will increase and what appears as muscle growth might just be appearance. What one sees is often not muscle growth but other physiological events going on. I would suggest measurements and ideally a hydrostatic or other BF% test.

I would also suggest that we move this to another thread - it's bound to lead to an interesting conversation but not really relevant to AT.

Alliwan

Great post!



I love seeing research attached.

i love research to back it up.

I also LOVE minions

joshdann

I would also suggest that we move this to another thread - it's bound to lead to an interesting conversation but not really relevant to AT.

good idea, but when it happens please link it here so we can all find it easily. MFP forums aren't particularly well structured