Food Calorie Surplus to Gain Muscle Mass…Really?

ndj1979

I had a significant amount of fat that I was aiming at losing. I ate at a deficit, worked out 6 days a week/ 3 of those heavy resistance training, 3 boxing.
After 10 weeks, I lost 5% BF and gained muscle. I ate appropriately 6 times a day (carb protein combo).
I did not mean to gain muscle (and it was a gain, I had no shoulders, now I have significant shoulder muscles; biceps went up .5 inch each; thighs went up .5 inch each as well. Calves no longer fit in my knee high boots dammit)
So I know it wasn't getting rid of the fat to see the muscle.
I believe in some instances given the right genetics (I do build muscle very easily) you can do both simultaneously.
I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing but I eased up on my whey and casein consumption as i needed to focus on the fat first since I was building muscle faster it seemed than I was losing the fat. I was begining to look a little like a linebacker with ridiculously cut legs. We'll see what that does for the next 10 weeks.
Quite honestly, I don't believe I am turning fat into muscle. I think that my engine is burning while I tear and repear the muscles causing growth due to the high protein intake. But I'm not a scientist. Just my observations.
BTW- I am a 44 year old woman.

congratulations you just discovered the holy grail of exercise...lose body fat and gain muscle...please share how you accomplished this?

More than likely a combination of losing body fat to show muscles that you did not know that you had, and some water retention that made your "new" muscles appear bigger...

japar

Pretty good dialogue - really appreciate the thoughtful comments. My hypothesis is changing - not reversing, but changing...evolving. Thanks!

professorRAT

tagging

japar

OK, conventional wisdom here has clearly been that muscles do not "grow" without a calorie surplus to feed that growth (except in peculiar instances), despite our best efforts. So next question...

How do muscles react to heavy strength training in a calorie deficit environment?

laddyboy

I have really struggled to gain muscle unless I am eating at a surplus. 1 to 1 ratio of muscle n fat seems about normal. I'd love to build muscle and burn fat at the same time but that doesn't work for me. During my 1st round of P90X I lost fat and seemed to gain muscle but I was a newbie and it may have been newbie gains.

This is an good topic.

neandermagnon

OK, conventional wisdom here has clearly been that muscles do not "grow" without a calorie surplus to feed that growth (except in peculiar instances), despite our best efforts. So next question...

How do muscles react to heavy strength training in a calorie deficit environment?

muscles can get a LOT stronger without a calorie surplus, and even in a deficit, due to neuromuscular adaptation. This means the nervous system gets better/more efficient at getting all the muscle fibres to work together. Usually when you do something, you're not using the entire muscle, but training increases the efficiency of the muscle used, i.e. firing more fibres, making the muscles work together more efficiently... .also improvements in form result in being able to lift greater loads.... all of this can and does make you stronger, without any actual muscle growth taking place. So you can get much stronger, even eating at a deficit. But to grow actual new muscle tissue, you need a surplus (there are some exceptions to this, e.g. noob gains, muscle memory gains)

erickirb

OK, conventional wisdom here has clearly been that muscles do not "grow" without a calorie surplus to feed that growth (except in peculiar instances), despite our best efforts. So next question...

How do muscles react to heavy strength training in a calorie deficit environment?

Your body will retain as much of it as it can. again evolutionary. If you were sedentary and in a caloric deficit your body will shed a lot of lean muscle, which would lower BMR, which means you would need less calories to survive. So your body shedding muscle for survival makes sense. Now if you use, or need those muscles (work them) your body will more than likely hold on to what is being used (evolution, chasing food/fighting for food, strength etc would have been needed), and use up fat stores instead.

If your muscles are not sufficiently challenged, then why would your body hold on to the caloric hungry muscle, instead of the fat, which will prolong your life, while not using very many cals to maintain itself.

japar

Neandermagnon (and Eric), your point seems good here, but to your earlier allegory where you described the body's evolutionary response to deficits, I would infer that the body would also not allow the muscles to even remain the same size - seems that there could be forced reduction (atrophy) of muscle mass in spite of heavy strength training (and even as you point out here - strength gain). Thoughts?

erickirb

Neandermagnon (and Eric), your point seems good here, but to your earlier allegory where you described the body's evolutionary response to deficits, I would infer that the body would also not allow the muscles to even remain the same size - seems that there could be forced reduction (atrophy) of muscle mass in spite of heavy strength training (and even as you point out here - strength gain). Thoughts?

That is true, and depends on training routine, amount of protein and size of deficit. The more protein, and smaller the deficit the less lean muscle will be lost as a % of total loss.

But ask any body builder cutting for a competition, they lose a *kitten* ton of muscle in the process of cutting fat. The above will just reduce the amount lost.

Huffdogg

Neandermagnon (and Eric), your point seems good here, but to your earlier allegory where you described the body's evolutionary response to deficits, I would infer that the body would also not allow the muscles to even remain the same size - seems that there could be forced reduction (atrophy) of muscle mass in spite of heavy strength training (and even as you point out here - strength gain). Thoughts?

When you couple a caloric deficit with high intensity strength training, you signal your body that despite the fact that it is running into problems with energy supply, it still can't afford to let loose of any existing muscle, because those muscles are being tested to their limits on a regular basis (and as far as your body knows, if it lets you get weaker, you might become even less capable of obtaining adequate food supplies).

mustgetmuscles1

Neandermagnon (and Eric), your point seems good here, but to your earlier allegory where you described the body's evolutionary response to deficits, I would infer that the body would also not allow the muscles to even remain the same size - seems that there could be forced reduction (atrophy) of muscle mass in spite of heavy strength training (and even as you point out here - strength gain). Thoughts?

That is true, and depends on training routine, amount of protein and size of deficit. The more protein, and smaller the deficit the less lean muscle will be lost as a % of total loss.

But ask any body builder cutting for a competition, they lose a *kitten* ton of muscle in the process of cutting fat. The above will just reduce the amount lost.

^Yep. Most people are trying to just maintain the muscle they have while cutting body fat. Most have already stated how incredibly hard it is to grow it in the first place. Thats why it so funny when people claim they can grow all sorts of new muscle while dieting.

Muscle has a metabolic cost just sitting there doing nothing. In a deficit the body looks for all sorts of ways to adapt to meet its energy needs and become more efficient. Extra muscle that is not being used is one of the first targets.

Small deficit, heavy resistance training and a good amount of protein are all muscle sparing steps while cutting body fat.

I notice a difference in strength, recovery times, energy levels between cutting and bulking cycles. When you go through this it gets very easy to understand why the thought of growing new mass seems very unlikely when normal functions and energy slows down.

DopeItUp

I keep reading that in order to gain muscle mass, one needs to have a caloric surplus that includes appropriate quantities of protein (and of course muscle mass building exercises). My question focuses on the food piece of this equation – I want to know if body fat calories count toward the surplus.

My hypothesis: Given appropriate exercise and protein levels, a person can build muscle mass while eating at a calorie deficit that will result in loss of body fat (and perhaps even weight loss). My contention is that the body fat contributes to the body’s calorie needs as well as food, and until there is insufficient body fat a person should expect to be able to gain muscle mass AND lose body fat and even body weight simultaneously. What think ye?

I am looking forward to the debate as to why this may not be true and learning a few things along the way...

It happens all the time on "The Biggest Loser". I think the difference is that those people are overweight/obese. A thin person with virtually no muscle mass will probably have to eat a calorie surplus.

Did you just use a reality TV show as evidence for...anything?

Yeah, probaby a bad idea. But they were at a calorie deficit, and they have muscles at the end of the show. Well, most of them, anyway. I think someone earlier made much more sense though when they said that they likely had all that muscle to begin with carrying their 300 or 400 pound bodies, and losing the fat just made them visible. Now bulk? They wouldn't fit into most definitions of bulky because they look lean, not huge like a bodybuilder.

Yes, exactly. Honestly, if anything, they all probably lost a significant amount of muscle. Extreme diets and extreme amounts of cardio will result in lots of lean body mass lost. So regardless of how muscular they looked at the end, they had probably still lost a significant amount over the course of the show. A slower rate of loss and less cardio would have yielded better body composition results over the long term (especially since the vast majority of them gain it back anyway).

neandermagnon

Neandermagnon (and Eric), your point seems good here, but to your earlier allegory where you described the body's evolutionary response to deficits, I would infer that the body would also not allow the muscles to even remain the same size - seems that there could be forced reduction (atrophy) of muscle mass in spite of heavy strength training (and even as you point out here - strength gain). Thoughts?

in a food shortage, you usually would get loss of muscle, as the body will burn unused muscle in preference to fat. However, if you're talking in evolutionary terms, muscle that you use on a regular basis *is* important to survival, as exercise = food acquisition. So while your body will jettison unused muscle in a food shortage (which results in loss of lean mass and slowing of the metabolism, both of which are well known side effects of dieting, especially if the deficit is quite big), regularly used muscle is maintained provided that the food shortage isn't that severe or prolonged. This is why lifting heavy weights and keeping the calorie deficit small results in fat loss without significant loss of lean mass while eating at a deficit. There will be a small amount of lean mass loss even with the most careful deficit, but a small deficit + strength training will minimise it. Too big a deficit, or eating at a deficit too long, will result in loss of lean mass even if the muscle is being used regularly, along with a loss in strength.

Given that this is what happens in the real world, i.e. sensible deficit + heavy lifting = conservation of lean mass and loss of fat, then it's reasonable to say that our bodies evolved this way because the muscles that humans used regularly in the palaeolithic era were important for food acquisition, and therefore conserving it while eating at a calorie deficit has an important survival advantage. The two factors are balanced against each other, i.e. surviving as long as possible versus conserving enough muscle to still be able to acquire food.

Fullsterkur_woman

in a food shortage, you usually would get loss of muscle, as the body will burn unused muscle in preference to fat. However, if you're talking in evolutionary terms, muscle that you use on a regular basis *is* important to survival, as exercise = food acquisition. So while your body will jettison unused muscle in a food shortage (which results in loss of lean mass and slowing of the metabolism, both of which are well known side effects of dieting, especially if the deficit is quite big), regularly used muscle is maintained provided that the food shortage isn't that severe or prolonged. This is why lifting heavy weights and keeping the calorie deficit small results in fat loss without significant loss of lean mass while eating at a deficit. There will be a small amount of lean mass loss even with the most careful deficit, but a small deficit + strength training will minimise it. Too big a deficit, or eating at a deficit too long, will result in loss of lean mass even if the muscle is being used regularly, along with a loss in strength.

Given that this is what happens in the real world, i.e. sensible deficit + heavy lifting = conservation of lean mass and loss of fat, then it's reasonable to say that our bodies evolved this way because the muscles that humans used regularly in the palaeolithic era were important for food acquisition, and therefore conserving it while eating at a calorie deficit has an important survival advantage. The two factors are balanced against each other, i.e. surviving as long as possible versus conserving enough muscle to still be able to acquire food.

Thanks for so succinctly summing up the philosophy I have been following for the last hundred-odd days! I have sussed out that 300-400 calorie deficit is about my sweet spot. More than that, my performance suffers and compliance nosedives. I want to have as much of that calorie-hogging muscle as possible left when I'm ready to transition to maintenance!

GymTennis

I wish this was true, but in my case it's not.. I have to be in a surplus to build muscle.. That's why i'm here, using MFP to count calories.. Because i wish to stay in a minimal surplus to build muscle but stay as lean as possible at the same time..

japar

OK, so a new twist to the question (you think you’re so smart)...

A person is male has 22% body fat, is relatively fit and strong. Eats well and maintains a zero deficit/surplus calorie diet. Works hard in the gym within a proven muscle building weight lifting program.

If a person cannot build muscle and burn fat without a surplus calorie diet – he will stay the same weight and maintain the same muscle/fat ratio in spite of any workouts. He may get stronger (somehow), but there will be no corresponding muscle mass increase.

If a person does nothing in the gym, using this same diet, because he is at a zero deficit/surplus intake, his body will not need to store fat and would therefore maintain the same muscle/fat composition.

Tear it up…

jonnythan

OK, so a new twist to the question (you think you’re so smart)...

A person is male has 22% body fat, is relatively fit and strong. Eats well and maintains a zero deficit/surplus calorie diet. Works hard in the gym within a proven muscle building weight lifting program.

If a person cannot build muscle and burn fat without a surplus calorie diet – he will stay the same weight and maintain the same muscle/fat ratio in spite of any workouts. He may get stronger (somehow), but there will be no corresponding muscle mass increase.

If a person does nothing in the gym, using this same diet, because he is at a zero deficit/surplus intake, his body will not need to store fat and would therefore maintain the same muscle/fat composition.

Tear it up…

1) You can get stronger with zero change (or even negative change) in muscle mass.
2) You can lose fat and gain muscle mass at the same time. It is a slow process, though.

jacksonpt

OK, so a new twist to the question (you think you’re so smart)...

A person is male has 22% body fat, is relatively fit and strong. Eats well and maintains a zero deficit/surplus calorie diet. Works hard in the gym within a proven muscle building weight lifting program.

If a person cannot build muscle and burn fat without a surplus calorie diet – he will stay the same weight and maintain the same muscle/fat ratio in spite of any workouts. He may get stronger (somehow), but there will be no corresponding muscle mass increase.

If a person does nothing in the gym, using this same diet, because he is at a zero deficit/surplus intake, his body will not need to store fat and would therefore maintain the same muscle/fat composition.

Tear it up…

1) You can get stronger with zero change (or even negative change) in muscle mass.
2) You can lose fat and gain muscle mass at the same time. It is a slow process, though.

Agreed. What often comes out as "you'll build zero muscle unless your in a surplus" is actually "you'll build very small amounts of muscle over very long periods of time if you aren't in a surplus." And the further from a surplus you get, the smaller the gains and the longer the timeframe.

mmapags

OK, so a new twist to the question (you think you’re so smart)...

A person is male has 22% body fat, is relatively fit and strong. Eats well and maintains a zero deficit/surplus calorie diet. Works hard in the gym within a proven muscle building weight lifting program.

If a person cannot build muscle and burn fat without a surplus calorie diet – he will stay the same weight and maintain the same muscle/fat ratio in spite of any workouts. He may get stronger (somehow), but there will be no corresponding muscle mass increase.

If a person does nothing in the gym, using this same diet, because he is at a zero deficit/surplus intake, his body will not need to store fat and would therefore maintain the same muscle/fat composition.

Tear it up…

1) You can get stronger with zero change (or even negative change) in muscle mass.
2) You can lose fat and gain muscle mass at the same time. It is a slow process, though.

^^^ This. You get stronger via neuromuscular adaptation.

gabbygirl78

I'm so confused :huh: I have a LOT of weight to lose but i want to build muscle too...:sad: