Debunking the Myth

Sarauk2sf

3) I never said that I haven't gained weight. I have gained 6-7 lbs. of lean muscle in the last 8 months while maintaining BF%

If you didn't lose weight, you are not eating below TDEE.

If you gained weight - which is what you appear to saying - you are actually eating above TDEE.

If you gained weight while maintaining the same body fat %age, you gained some fat.

Serious question - are you sure you know what these terms mean?

I am 155 pounds with a BF% somewhere between 7-9%. I work construction, have a 3 year old and an infant, don't sit down for about 14 straight hours every day and workout hard 4 times a week. I average a net intake of around 2200 calories. You guys tell me whether it should be possible to gain muscle mass with these specs based on your conventional wisdom. I bench 225, squat 285, curl 45's, and OHP 185. I have clear definition and well developed musculature. I am far from a noob. I cant explain why it is that this works for me, all I am saying is it does.

And to answer your serious question; I am about as knowledgable as you'll find in this forum. If there's one thing you can't question, it's my grasp of the concepts and terms discussed and professed herein. I am also willing to challenge them occasionally.

I squat 275lb and am a little lighter...and female...so? Not sure what strength has to do with the discussion.

How are you assessing BF%?

jwdieter

3) I never said that I haven't gained weight. I have gained 6-7 lbs. of lean muscle in the last 8 months while maintaining BF%

If you didn't lose weight, you are not eating below TDEE.

If you gained weight - which is what you appear to saying - you are actually eating above TDEE.

If you gained weight while maintaining the same body fat %age, you gained some fat.

Serious question - are you sure you know what these terms mean?

I am 155 pounds with a BF% somewhere between 7-9%. I work construction, have a 3 year old and an infant, don't sit down for about 14 straight hours every day and workout hard 4 times a week. I average a net intake of around 2200 calories. You guys tell me whether it should be possible to gain muscle mass with these specs based on your conventional wisdom. I bench 225, squat 285, curl 45's, and OHP 185. I have clear definition and well developed musculature. I am far from a noob. I cant explain why it is that this works for me, all I am saying is it does.

And to answer your serious question; I am about as knowledgable as you'll find in this forum. If there's one thing you can't question, it's my grasp of the concepts and terms discussed and professed herein. I am also willing to challenge them occasionally.

Net intake of 2200 at 155 lbs and gaining 1 lb/month? Seems spot on.

BrainyBurro

3) I never said that I haven't gained weight. I have gained 6-7 lbs. of lean muscle in the last 8 months while maintaining BF%

If you didn't lose weight, you are not eating below TDEE.

If you gained weight - which is what you appear to saying - you are actually eating above TDEE.

If you gained weight while maintaining the same body fat %age, you gained some fat.

Serious question - are you sure you know what these terms mean?

I am 155 pounds with a BF% somewhere between 7-9%. I work construction, have a 3 year old and an infant, don't sit down for about 14 straight hours every day and workout hard 4 times a week. I average a net intake of around 2200 calories. You guys tell me whether it should be possible to gain muscle mass with these specs based on your conventional wisdom. I bench 225, squat 285, curl 45's, and OHP 185. I have clear definition and well developed musculature. I am far from a noob. I cant explain why it is that this works for me, all I am saying is it does.

And to answer your serious question; I am about as knowledgable as you'll find in this forum. If there's one thing you can't question, it's my grasp of the concepts and terms discussed and professed herein. I am also willing to challenge them occasionally.

i'm an astronaut and a famous rock star and a professional baseball player and a military general and also a CEO of a fortune 500 company. you'll just have to take my word for all of that... but it's ok, this is the internet. nobody exaggerates on the internet. that would be against the law.

Mr_Knight

Really? How come there are so many under eating, busting their *kitten* off and yet not losing an ounce?

You are mistaken - there aren't.

Feel free to link to one demonstrated instance.

jofjltncb6

There are so many myths in the diet world, like fat makes you fat and calorie in = calorie out. We can talk about it, but it seems the first thing people do when getting on a diet is buying ear plugs. Sooner or later they will figure out...

That is actually a fact, not a myth.

Really? How come there are so many under eating, busting their *kitten* off and yet not losing an ounce? How come with my years of eating as a 6 year old I am not underweight? Because it is not as simple as that!

I don't have visibility into each of those cases, but if I had to guess, I'd go with bad data. The inability of people to accurately log (or even *try to* accurately log) is staggering.

Mr_Knight

And to answer your serious question; I am about as knowledgable as you'll find in this forum. If there's one thing you can't question, it's my grasp of the concepts and terms discussed and professed herein. I am also willing to challenge them occasionally.

You just claimed to be gaining both fat and muscle while on a caloric deficit.

Sorry, I do not see evidence that you know what you're talking about.

Mr_Knight

Also, the OP gained weight. Also....he apparently gained 1lb a month of muscle.

Don't forget the fat gain - if weight goes up while BF% stays constant, that means fat gain, as well.

sijomial

I posted the study below by E Helms in a thread earlier today - science and all that....

My own experience is that I did gain LBM whilst losing fat and weight over a period of 7 months. Averaged out at 1lb of fat lost a month and 0.5lb of LBM gained for a net loss of weight.
I fail to understand why people think new cells cannot be made when at a slight deficit when it is demonstrable that the opposite is true.
If someone has science that shows LBM gain is "impossible" at a calorie deficit please post for everyone's education.

There's a lot of name calling but little science from either side so far in this debate.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24092765/?i=2&from=sport,+training

A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes.
AuthorsHelms ER, et al. Show all
Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR.
JournalInt J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2013 Oct 2. [Epub ahead of print]

AffiliationAbstract
Caloric restriction occurs when athletes attempt to reduce body fat or make weight. There is evidence that protein needs increase when athletes restrict calories or have low body fat.

PURPOSE: The aims of this review were to evaluate the effects of dietary protein on body composition in energy-restricted resistance-trained athletes and to provide protein recommendations for these athletes.

METHODS: Database searches were performed from earliest record to July 2013 using the terms protein, and intake, or diet, and weight, or train, or restrict, or energy, or strength, and athlete. Studies (N = 6) needed to use adult (≥ 18 yrs), energy-restricted, resistance-trained (> 6 months) humans of lower body fat (males ≤ 23% and females ≤ 35%) performing resistance training. Protein intake, fat free mass (FFM) and body fat had to be reported.

RESULTS: Body fat percentage decreased (0.5% to 6.6%) in all study groups(N = 13) and FFM decreased (0.3 to 2.7kg) in nine of 13. Four groups gained or did not lose FFM. They had the highest body fat, smallest magnitudes of energy restriction or underwent novel resistance training stimuli. Two groups lost non-significant amounts of FFM. The same conditions that existed in the groups that did not lose FFM existed in the first group. These conditions were not present in the second group, but this group consumed the highest protein intake in this review (2.5-2.6g/kg).

The OP was lean and per him, has lifted for years.

He may have got some 'newb gains' from changing up his routine, but according to him, he is very lean. How does the above show that what he is saying is backed by science? Also, the OP gained weight. Also....he apparently gained 1lb a month of muscle.

I read the first post and made an assumption - which was later blown out of the water by the OP's follow up post!

Didn't see the "guess what I gained muscle while gaining weight" bombshell coming......."

As Monty Python said.... "no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition" and also "this isn't an argument, it's a contradiction".

shmoony

3) I never said that I haven't gained weight. I have gained 6-7 lbs. of lean muscle in the last 8 months while maintaining BF%

If you didn't lose weight, you are not eating below TDEE.

If you gained weight - which is what you appear to saying - you are actually eating above TDEE.

If you gained weight while maintaining the same body fat %age, you gained some fat.

Serious question - are you sure you know what these terms mean?

I am 155 pounds with a BF% somewhere between 7-9%. I work construction, have a 3 year old and an infant, don't sit down for about 14 straight hours every day and workout hard 4 times a week. I average a net intake of around 2200 calories. You guys tell me whether it should be possible to gain muscle mass with these specs based on your conventional wisdom. I bench 225, squat 285, curl 45's, and OHP 185. I have clear definition and well developed musculature. I am far from a noob. I cant explain why it is that this works for me, all I am saying is it does.

And to answer your serious question; I am about as knowledgable as you'll find in this forum. If there's one thing you can't question, it's my grasp of the concepts and terms discussed and professed herein. I am also willing to challenge them occasionally.

Net intake of 2200 at 155 lbs and gaining 1 lb/month? Seems spot on.

Please point me to a calculator that shows a male with 140 LBM and a highly active lifetstyle has a TDEE of 2100 calories.

firstsip

There are so many myths in the diet world, like fat makes you fat and calorie in = calorie out. We can talk about it, but it seems the first thing people do when getting on a diet is buying ear plugs. Sooner or later they will figure out...

That is actually a fact, not a myth.

Really? How come there are so many under eating, busting their *kitten* off and yet not losing an ounce? How come with my years of eating as a 6 year old I am not underweight? Because it is not as simple as that!

Man, science is hard, amirite?!

jwdieter

Net intake of 2200 at 155 lbs and gaining 1 lb/month? Seems spot on.

Please point me to a calculator that shows a male with 140 LBM and a highly active lifetstyle has a TDEE of 2100 calories.

So basically this is a NEAT vs TDEE confusion topic.

dmeyerman

I feel like most people also do not grasp the fundamental difference between strength gains and muscle growth.

Well said!

QuietBloom

I don't think 'study of one' constitutes proof of anything.

Well that's not true, either. It only takes seeing one black swan to prove that not all swans are white.

That said, the OP is clearly making inaccurate claims.

A scientific study of N=1 is interesting, but proves nothing. Because SCIENCE.

I disagree. A legit test of n=1 can be used to test the position that something *never* happens. However, this was not legit. I'm not even sure OP fully understood the terms he was using.

If I were going to design a study looking at calorie allotment and body composition over a period of time, an n=1 would be interesting, and certainly I could tailor a plan for that individual. But I could never expect it to apply to the population as a whole. So yes, significant to the individual. And a starting point for further research.

Editing for spelling. *sigh*

jwdieter

I don't think 'study of one' constitutes proof of anything.

Well that's not true, either. It only takes seeing one black swan to prove that not all swans are white.

That said, the OP is clearly making inaccurate claims.

A scientific study of N=1 is interesting, but proves nothing. Because SCIENCE.

I disagree. A legit test of n=1 can be used to test the position that something *never* happens. However, this was not legit. I'm not even sure OP fully understood the terms he was using.

If I were going to design a study looking at calorie allotment and body composition over a period of time, an n=1 would be interesting, and certainly I could tailor a plan for that individual. But I could never expect it to apply to the population as a whole. So yes, significant to the individual. And a starting point for further research.

Editing for spelling. *sigh*

"Never" only needs one counter. Doesn't have to apply to society in general.

SideSteel

I should know better, but....



In.

ajaxe432

but I am now living proof that muscle and strength gains can be acheived through an intense lifting regiment and a closely monitered intake even with a slight caloric deficit. Without getting into too much detail about mself, I can just tell you that I net under my TDEE every week, and every week I get bigger, stronger, and more defined.

Pics or it didnt happen

even pics would not show anything. Only lab analysis would be legit proof....unfortuanetly this fellow MFP member is probably trolling..

mattbell007

People are ignoring the elephant in the room. The numbers could be reasonably accurate as is, if you count the elephant.

So far, I haven't seen anybody discuss this: body fat lost is not body fat that evaporated or magically disappeared. The body doesn't excrete fat, except perhaps through the pores of the skin, but nobody's skin is that oily. What happened to the fat was that the body burned it for energy. The original poster said they lost 67 lbs of fat. That's in the ballpark of 230,000 calories of fat. In six months (180 days), that's about 1,300 calories a day. That's not chump change.

Available calories = calories eaten + body fat burned (if any). For example, if a person eats 2000 calories and burns 1300 calories of body fat, they have a net intake of 3300 calories for metabolic processes of any kind. That's plenty of calories to build muscle unless you are riding in the Tour de France.

If a person's TDEE is 2500 calories, and they eat 2000 calories a day, that is a real calorie deficit, but if you add in that they also burned 1300 calories of body fat, then they have 800 calories over their TDEE for building muscle or growing hair, or whatever.

The people for whom this is a mystery are not burning enough glucose in their heads.

ndj1979

There are so many myths in the diet world, like fat makes you fat and calorie in = calorie out. We can talk about it, but it seems the first thing people do when getting on a diet is buying ear plugs. Sooner or later they will figure out...

You've been here since July and lost zero pounds. Sounds like you have incredible advice.

To your information I lost well over 15 kilos (33 lbs) already! I have recently reset my ticker + it doesn't show what I have lost but how much I still have to go! Next to that I don't weigh myself so much anymore, I measure and recently lost another 3 cm waist! Next....

how did you lose weight if you did not do calories in vs calories out..? Liposuction?

ajaxe432

There are so many myths in the diet world, like fat makes you fat and calorie in = calorie out. We can talk about it, but it seems the first thing people do when getting on a diet is buying ear plugs. Sooner or later they will figure out...

You've been here since July and lost zero pounds. Sounds like you have incredible advice.

Yikes.....

ndj1979

People are ignoring the elephant in the room. The numbers could be reasonably accurate as is, if you count the elephant.

So far, I haven't seen anybody discuss this: body fat lost is not body fat that evaporated or magically disappeared. The body doesn't excrete fat, except perhaps through the pores of the skin, but nobody's skin is that oily. What happened to the fat was that the body burned it for energy. The original poster said they lost 67 lbs of fat. That's in the ballpark of 230,000 calories of fat. In six months (180 days), that's about 1,300 calories a day. That's not chump change.

Available calories = calories eaten + body fat burned (if any). For example, if a person eats 2000 calories and burns 1300 calories of body fat, they have a net intake of 3300 calories for metabolic processes of any kind. That's plenty of calories to build muscle unless you are riding in the Tour de France.

If a person's TDEE is 2500 calories, and they eat 2000 calories a day, that is a real calorie deficit, but if you add in that they also burned 1300 calories of body fat, then they have 800 calories over their TDEE for building muscle or growing hair, or whatever.

The people for whom this is a mystery are not burning enough glucose in their heads.

doesn't this assume that you are burning 100% fat...?