Strength training while eating a deficit - why?

sybrix

So I just started incorporating 3 days of strength training on top of walking for exercise. From what I read on the forums, it's impossible to gain muscle in a calorie deficit. I was always told working out makes you lose weight because you put on muscle, and muscle aids in burning fat. But that sounds like a paradox now. If you aren't gaining muscle what is the point of strength training while you're eating a deficit for weight loss?

I don't get it. Hoping someone can explain. Should I just be doing cardio then, am I wasting my time?

BTW, by strength training I mean doing body weight exercises like plank, squats, push ups, etc. I also use resistance bands for things like shoulder presses, rows, etc.

murphy612

I'm sure someone will post a long and very informative answer, but simple works best for me. You strength train in a deficit to maintain the lean muscle mass you have and reduce fat.

lilRicki

I'm sure someone will post a long and very informative answer, but simple works best for me. You strength train in a deficit to maintain the lean muscle mass you have and reduce fat.

This! You are building strength, just not mega muscles...and muscle mass does increase your metabolism. Keep lifting, it's good for you

Morninglory81

Strength training also increases bone density. It's just all around good for you!

DavPul

I'm sure someone will post a long and very informative answer, but simple works best for me. You strength train in a deficit to maintain the lean muscle mass you have and reduce fat.

TL;DR.

DopeItUp

I'm sure someone will post a long and very informative answer, but simple works best for me. You strength train in a deficit to maintain the lean muscle mass you have and reduce fat.

Don't really need a longer answer than that.

gmallan

I'm sure someone will post a long and very informative answer, but simple works best for me. You strength train in a deficit to maintain the lean muscle mass you have and reduce fat.

It's also possible to get stronger in a deficit through neuromuscluar adaption even if you aren't putting on muscle mass

tomcornhole

I'm sure someone will post a long and very informative answer, but simple works best for me. You strength train in a deficit to maintain the lean muscle mass you have and reduce fat.

It's also possible to get stronger in a deficit through neuromuscluar adaption even if you aren't putting on muscle mass

And once you get done cutting and have preserved all that muscle mass, increased bone density, increased neural adaptation and increased tendon strength, then you are all set to go into a slight surplus and build muscle like crazy.

sybrix

Thanks guys; makes sense now. I'll keep it up.

phjorg1

So I just started incorporating 3 days of strength training on top of walking for exercise. From what I read on the forums, it's impossible to gain muscle in a calorie deficit. I was always told working out makes you lose weight because you put on muscle, and muscle aids in burning fat. But that sounds like a paradox now. If you aren't gaining muscle what is the point of strength training while you're eating a deficit for weight loss?

I don't get it. Hoping someone can explain. Should I just be doing cardio then, am I wasting my time?

BTW, by strength training I mean doing body weight exercises like plank, squats, push ups, etc. I also use resistance bands for things like shoulder presses, rows, etc.

thats resistance training/cardio.

strength training is anything where you hit complete muscle failure in 5 reps or less.

sybrix

So I just started incorporating 3 days of strength training on top of walking for exercise. From what I read on the forums, it's impossible to gain muscle in a calorie deficit. I was always told working out makes you lose weight because you put on muscle, and muscle aids in burning fat. But that sounds like a paradox now. If you aren't gaining muscle what is the point of strength training while you're eating a deficit for weight loss?

I don't get it. Hoping someone can explain. Should I just be doing cardio then, am I wasting my time?

BTW, by strength training I mean doing body weight exercises like plank, squats, push ups, etc. I also use resistance bands for things like shoulder presses, rows, etc.

thats resistance training/cardio.

strength training is anything where you hit complete muscle failure in 5 reps or less.

There was a section of the book I bought (Women's Health Big Book of Exercises) that talked about how doing more reps with less weight is more conducive to weight loss and doing less reps with more weight was more conducive to building muscle. Both methods emphasized using an amount of weight/resistance that brought you to muscle failure at the end of the set but you just adjusted the weight you were using depending on which goal you wanted.

So for example, someone using 10 lbs for 12 reps vs 20 lbs for 5 reps... reaching muscle failure at the end of the set. Both are strength training correct? I always assumed they were strength training but with different objectives?

Just trying to understand the specifics, I'm new to the concept and want to make sure I'm getting the most out of it. I do anywhere between 8-12 reps with less resistance because I'm following the weight loss routine in the book.

RGv2

So I just started incorporating 3 days of strength training on top of walking for exercise. From what I read on the forums, it's impossible to gain muscle in a calorie deficit. I was always told working out makes you lose weight because you put on muscle, and muscle aids in burning fat. But that sounds like a paradox now. If you aren't gaining muscle what is the point of strength training while you're eating a deficit for weight loss?

I don't get it. Hoping someone can explain. Should I just be doing cardio then, am I wasting my time?

BTW, by strength training I mean doing body weight exercises like plank, squats, push ups, etc. I also use resistance bands for things like shoulder presses, rows, etc.

thats resistance training/cardio.

strength training is anything where you hit complete muscle failure in 5 reps or less.

There was a section of the book I bought (Women's Health Big Book of Exercises) that talked about how doing more reps with less weight is more conducive to weight loss and doing less reps with more weight was more conducive to building muscle.

How old is that book?

BrainyBurro

strength training is anything where you hit complete muscle failure in 5 reps or less.

huh?

muscle failure is muscle failure. there is nothing magical about reaching it in 5 reps.

tomcornhole

BrainyBurro

sorry, but strength training is strength training and it's not defined by reaching failure in 5 reps.

schwarzenegger didn't build his physique simply doing sets of 5 reps.

now maybe i'm using the term "strength training" as a general catch-all term and the poster i was responding to was making a semantic point, but... i consider the traditional advice of 3 sets of 8-12 reps to still be as valid now as it was 40-50 years ago. it may not be optimal for power lifters and it may not even be in vogue anymore, but it'll still build your physique and strength.

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/weight-training-intensity/

Mguilmot

Kai Greene trains sets of 20 reps.
He's one of the favorites for MrO 2013...

Failure = when you just can't do 1 more rep. Doesn't matter if it's after 6 reps or after 35 reps. Failure is failure :-)

tomcornhole

sorry, but strength training is strength training and it's not defined by reaching failure in 5 reps.

schwarzenegger didn't build his physique simply doing sets of 5 reps.

now maybe i'm using the term "strength training" as a general catch-all term and the poster i was responding to was making a semantic point, but... i consider the traditional advice of 3 sets of 8-12 reps to still be as valid now as it was 40-50 years ago. it may not be optimal for power lifters and it may not even be in vogue anymore, but it'll still build your physique and strength.

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/weight-training-intensity/

All true. BUt I think there may be some confusion about building strength vs. building muscle. I've seen guys that look like Mr. O that are out squatted by the scrawny 165 lbs powerlifter. Big does not mean strong and vice versa.

It's the semantics of the word and meaning of strength training. If you just want to get strong in the most efficient manner, fewer reps at heavier weights is much more efficient than more reps at lighter weights. BUT, if you progressively load either of them (i.e. add weight each time you lift), by definition you are getting stronger. But the guy that does 3x5 at 90% 1RM will get stronger faster than the guy that does 5x10 at 60% 1RM.

That being said, if building muscle is your goal, then you want to do 5x10 at 60-70% 1RM and target individual muscles vs. just doing compound lifts. But by the same premise as strength training noted above, doing 3x5 @ 90% 1RM will also build muscle, just not as efficiently as 5x10@ 60% 1RM. But, if you're in a cut, you may not be able to build muscle, so strength training at hypertrophy reps is very inefficient as it is not the best strength training and won't build any muscle.

Define your goal, pick the most efficient approach to reach it. Or do what you enjoy and hope for the best.

Tom

tonynguyen75

You can build muscle on a caloric deficit if you're new to lifting. The amount is not as much as if you were bulking, but it's still there. I've noticed it quite obviously.

It's not something that lasts though.

Besides that, it will help retaining LBM. It will burn calories because it's still exercise. I THINK it also helps with macro partitioning? Someone can call me out on that one... I can't remember where I might have heard that from.

lilRicki

sorry, but strength training is strength training and it's not defined by reaching failure in 5 reps.

schwarzenegger didn't build his physique simply doing sets of 5 reps.

now maybe i'm using the term "strength training" as a general catch-all term and the poster i was responding to was making a semantic point, but... i consider the traditional advice of 3 sets of 8-12 reps to still be as valid now as it was 40-50 years ago. it may not be optimal for power lifters and it may not even be in vogue anymore, but it'll still build your physique and strength.

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/weight-training-intensity/

All true. BUt I think there may be some confusion about building strength vs. building muscle. I've seen guys that look like Mr. O that are out squatted by the scrawny 165 lbs powerlifter. Big does not mean strong and vice versa.

It's the semantics of the word and meaning of strength training. If you just want to get strong in the most efficient manner, fewer reps at heavier weights is much more efficient than more reps at lighter weights. BUT, if you progressively load either of them (i.e. add weight each time you lift), by definition you are getting stronger. But the guy that does 3x5 at 90% 1RM will get stronger faster than the guy that does 5x10 at 60% 1RM.

That being said, if building muscle is your goal, then you want to do 5x10 at 60-70% 1RM and target individual muscles vs. just doing compound lifts. But by the same premise as strength training noted above, doing 3x5 @ 90% 1RM will also build muscle, just not as efficiently as 5x10@ 60% 1RM. But, if you're in a cut, you may not be able to build muscle, so strength training at hypertrophy reps is very inefficient as it is not the best strength training and won't build any muscle.

Define your goal, pick the most efficient approach to reach it. Or do what you enjoy and hope for the best.

Tom

Can you please explain this in layman's terms? without using acronyms, i have no idea what they mean :ohwell:

BrainyBurro

sorry, but strength training is strength training and it's not defined by reaching failure in 5 reps.

schwarzenegger didn't build his physique simply doing sets of 5 reps.

now maybe i'm using the term "strength training" as a general catch-all term and the poster i was responding to was making a semantic point, but... i consider the traditional advice of 3 sets of 8-12 reps to still be as valid now as it was 40-50 years ago. it may not be optimal for power lifters and it may not even be in vogue anymore, but it'll still build your physique and strength.

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/weight-training-intensity/

All true. BUt I think there may be some confusion about building strength vs. building muscle. I've seen guys that look like Mr. O that are out squatted by the scrawny 165 lbs powerlifter. Big does not mean strong and vice versa.

It's the semantics of the word and meaning of strength training. If you just want to get strong in the most efficient manner, fewer reps at heavier weights is much more efficient than more reps at lighter weights. BUT, if you progressively load either of them (i.e. add weight each time you lift), by definition you are getting stronger. But the guy that does 3x5 at 90% 1RM will get stronger faster than the guy that does 5x10 at 60% 1RM.

That being said, if building muscle is your goal, then you want to do 5x10 at 60-70% 1RM and target individual muscles vs. just doing compound lifts. But by the same premise as strength training noted above, doing 3x5 @ 90% 1RM will also build muscle, just not as efficiently as 5x10@ 60% 1RM. But, if you're in a cut, you may not be able to build muscle, so strength training at hypertrophy reps is very inefficient as it is not the best strength training and won't build any muscle.

Define your goal, pick the most efficient approach to reach it. Or do what you enjoy and hope for the best.

Tom

Can you please explain this in layman's terms? without using acronyms, i have no idea what they mean :ohwell:

1RM = 1 rep max. basically the most you can lift for any exercise for 1 rep
3x5 = 3 sets of 5 reps
60% 1RM = 60% of the weight of your 1RM for that exercise

deksgrl

There was a section of the book I bought (Women's Health Big Book of Exercises) that talked about how doing more reps with less weight is more conducive to weight loss and doing less reps with more weight was more conducive to building muscle. Both methods emphasized using an amount of weight/resistance that brought you to muscle failure at the end of the set but you just adjusted the weight you were using depending on which goal you wanted.

So for example, someone using 10 lbs for 12 reps vs 20 lbs for 5 reps... reaching muscle failure at the end of the set. Both are strength training correct? I always assumed they were strength training but with different objectives?

Just trying to understand the specifics, I'm new to the concept and want to make sure I'm getting the most out of it. I do anywhere between 8-12 reps with less resistance because I'm following the weight loss routine in the book.

Losing weight is about diet, not exercise. You might lose fat and many inches without losing much, if any weight.

You want to eat at a small calorie deficit while lifting to preserve lean body mass while reducing fat. You won't see any of those wonderful muscles until you burn off the fat. At that point you can decide whether you want to try to build more muscle or not.