Debunking the Myth
Replies
-
wow this is amazing.
all this time, I figured the only way a carbon based life form can grow into a larger, more complex carbon based life form is by acquiring more carbon.
you have renewed my hope for a perpetual motion machine in our lifetime
I think we're getting enough total molecules to account for far more gains than can be demonstrated on either side of this argument. It's the utilization that is in question.
yes, because as anyone can tell you, matter and energy have nothing to do with each other.
What does that have to do with anything? Is this where we just respond with random arguments with no relevance to the previous statement?
i hit reply before i was done writing. i edited but you replied before I was done.
Changes in the gravitational pull as your body goes through recompostion can have an effect on how fat is distributed giving different BF% readings depending on moon phase also.
one might expect that, if one lacked a fundamental understanding of how the moon's gravity interacts with very large bodies of water to create tides.0 -
wow this is amazing.
all this time, I figured the only way a carbon based life form can grow into a larger, more complex carbon based life form is by acquiring more carbon.
you have renewed my hope for a perpetual motion machine in our lifetime
I think we're getting enough total molecules to account for far more gains than can be demonstrated on either side of this argument. It's the utilization that is in question.
yes, because as anyone can tell you, matter and energy have nothing to do with each other.
has it occured to you that if you change "utilization", the person in question will exhale more carbon dioxide? carbon goes in as part of a more complex molecule (fat, protein, or carb), carbon goes out as CO2. The energy released by the change powers critters. That's what a lot of us heterotrophs are up to here on planet earth.
LOL
*sigh*
Best of luck in your search for that forest. You might want to stop staring at those individual trees so intently and walk out into a nearby field.
TL;DR - you are missing the point. Alternatively, you're so smart that I can't understand what you're trying to say (or how it is relevant to the current topic).
I am actually at this point unsure of who is saying what.
All I'm doing is laying down the similarity between a human and an amoeba. Maybe you are so used to living in a world with unlimited food to notice, but life on this planet is basically a struggle to collect carbon and try to hold it all together in a pile.
If anything, you should be accusing me of missing the trees for the forest.0 -
wow this is amazing.
all this time, I figured the only way a carbon based life form can grow into a larger, more complex carbon based life form is by acquiring more carbon.
you have renewed my hope for a perpetual motion machine in our lifetime
I think we're getting enough total molecules to account for far more gains than can be demonstrated on either side of this argument. It's the utilization that is in question.
yes, because as anyone can tell you, matter and energy have nothing to do with each other.
has it occured to you that if you change "utilization", the person in question will exhale more carbon dioxide? carbon goes in as part of a more complex molecule (fat, protein, or carb), carbon goes out as CO2. The energy released by the change powers critters. That's what a lot of us heterotrophs are up to here on planet earth.
LOL
*sigh*
Best of luck in your search for that forest. You might want to stop staring at those individual trees so intently and walk out into a nearby field.
TL;DR - you are missing the point. Alternatively, you're so smart that I can't understand what you're trying to say (or how it is relevant to the current topic).
I am actually at this point unsure of who is saying what.
This is one of the most legit statements in this thread.0 -
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.
Sure a 140 lb of LBM for sedentary TDEE (you state net intake of 2200 calories above) is possible.
But really depends on what you are figuring for calorie burn on your exercise to come to NET figures.
If say you are calculating your calorie burn for weight lifting using a HRM, then you are getting inflated burn values.
That means your NET is actually higher than you think.
Depending on logging ability and weighing food rather than less accurate measuring - you might easily be eating more than you think, and than measuring vs weighing will inflate values even more when you eat more.
Also depends on how you handle that active work day in your calcs or logging.
Mifflin BMR around 1650 and sedentary as base is right at 2100 non-exercise TDEE. Now, that would be low for active workday included.0 -
ok, i admit it. i've lost track of who is talking to who. i'm outta here...
0 -
Does anybody have cliffs and can anyone tell me what OPs weight has done and in what time frame?0
-
I disagree. Hormonal issues merely change the 'calories out' sideInaccurate calorie logging and overestimation of calorie burns. I've been there myself. Unless (of course) there are hormonal issues at play.
.
CI vs CO isn't even biology, it's basics physics.
(I will accept water weight, however ).
Here is some 'evidence' of fat loss and strength gain together:
http://rippedbody.jp/english/results-english/
From my own experience, it certainly feels that with 'noob gains' (coming back from having lifting before, even recently with a 6 month gap - now hitting new 1RM highs), it's not that hard to do both, at least initially.
I am using the 'lean gains' approach that Andy Morgan of the above site follows.0 -
Does anybody have cliffs and can anyone tell me what OPs weight has done and in what time frame?
The OP posted this if it helps: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.
Not sure about exact time frame and weight changes/measurements. Just know this was an experiment done in a 2 year time frame? It's a really confusing thread. :laugh:
ETA: Oh, here's another post they made with a time frameFine. You guys are forcing me to get more specific. So here I go:
1) I am about as accurate a logger as there is. I track everything down to the gram. Unless its the occasional cheat meal, if it's not weighed and portioned, it doesn't go in my mouth.
2) My BF% has not decreased in over a year. I have been lean to the point of definition, vascularity and striations for over a year, my change in appearance is only due to muscle gain, not increased defintion due to fat loss.
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%
4) I'm not making newbie gains. I am 40 years old and have lifted weights off and on for 25 years.
5) My TDEE is only as accurate as what MFP and FItbit tell me. So I can't argue with the fact that my TDEE is less than what I'm being told. But if that's the case, how did I successfully lose weight based on the same calculator.
What I believe is happening is that by maintaining a slight deficit and lifting with super high intensity, I am forcing my body to use whatever it can to rebuild muscle. I fully understand the science behind hypertrophy and being in an anabolic state, so I can't tell you scientifically why this has been working for me, but the proof is in the pudding. I don't like putting pictures of myself online, so youre; just going to have to take my word for it.0 -
Does anybody have cliffs and can anyone tell me what OPs weight has done and in what time frame?
Op believes he is an advanced lifter with no noob gains left to have (cannot bench 285? as advanced lol)
"2 years of experimention "
"I can just tell you that I net under my TDEE every week, and every week I get bigger, stronger, and more defined"
"I have gained 6-7 lbs. of lean muscle in the last 8 months while maintaining BF% "
Conclusion:
OP disproved the law of conservation of energy
Champagne has been broken out world wide.0 -
Does anybody have cliffs and can anyone tell me what OPs weight has done and in what time frame?
Op believes he is an advanced lifter with no noob gains left to have (cannot bench 285? as advanced lol)
"2 years of experimention "
"I can just tell you that I net under my TDEE every week, and every week I get bigger, stronger, and more defined"
"I have gained 6-7 lbs. of lean muscle in the last 8 months while maintaining BF% "
Conclusion:
OP disproved the law of conservation of energy
Champagne has been broken out world wide.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
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.
0 -
I don't see what the fuss is about.
OP:
Your average caloric intake based on what is logged has been in the neighborhood of 2550 calories over the past year. Roughly consistent with your 2 month average as well.
If you've gained a small amount of weight and maintained the same bodyfat%, congrats on your bulk. You're eating just slightly above TDEE at that caloric load which is perfectly reasonable for an active ~150lb male.0 -
W0
-
I don't see what the fuss is about.
OP:
Your average caloric intake based on what is logged has been in the neighborhood of 2550 calories over the past year. Roughly consistent with your 2 month average as well.
If you've gained a small amount of weight and maintained the same bodyfat%, congrats on your bulk. You're eating just slightly above TDEE at that caloric load which is perfectly reasonable for an active ~150lb male.
I am not sure how gravitation pull, amoebas and moon phases got into it, but the "fuss" is from the claim that the OP has 'debunked the myth that you cannot gain muscle on a deficit' by adding about a lb a muscle a month for 7 months as an experienced lifter...while actually gaining weight and providing no explanation even for how the BF% was estimated.0 -
Quote: I don't think the body can metabolize 1/3 lb of fat/day. and if it did it would be for life sustaining functions and others such as hair, skin, nails, before it would go into building muscle mass.
The body will do what it needs to do as best it can to meet the demands placed on it. If you work hard enough to give your body the idea that it needs to build muscle, and then give it (or have on hand) enough resources to do so, it will do it. If it has a percieved demand, and resources available to do it, it will use whatever resources it has (including fat stores) that are available to meet the need. After all, what is the purpose of fat stores, anyway? Answer: to use when there is a calorie need but not enough calorie intake.
Cavemen had to work hard even when there wasn't plenty of food around, so their bodies stored fat when the calories exceeded the need so they could survive the times when calorie intake didn't meet the need.
If a body perceives a need for more muscle, has enough protein, and has enough calories, it will build muscle. Although the body doesn't turn fat into muscle, there is no reason it cannot use stored fat for energy to support the building of muscle, even when calorie intake isn't sufficient to support the need all by itself. Ergo, you CAN build muscle and lose fat at the same time, and you CAN do it at a calorie intake deficit.
Note that I did not say that you can do it at a total calorie deficit, only at a calorie intake deficit. If you have no stored fat and you eat at a deficit, your body will then not have the resources to meet its perceived need, and you won't get more muscle.0 -
The original poster said they lost 67 lbs of fat.
Where did the OP state that?
The OP didn't. That was from the thread hijacker.0 -
I disagree. Hormonal issues merely change the 'calories out' sideInaccurate calorie logging and overestimation of calorie burns. I've been there myself. Unless (of course) there are hormonal issues at play..
CI vs CO isn't even biology, it's basics physics.
(I will accept water weight, however ).
Here is some 'evidence' of fat loss and strength gain together:
http://rippedbody.jp/english/results-english/
From my own experience, it certainly feels that with 'noob gains' (coming back from having lifting before, even recently with a 6 month gap - now hitting new 1RM highs), it's not that hard to do both, at least initially.
I am using the 'lean gains' approach that Andy Morgan of the above site follows.
I wasn't talking to the OP. This is all getting way too confusing as there are 3 different conversations going on. LOL0 -
Although the body doesn't turn fat into muscle, there is no reason it cannot use stored fat for energy to support the building of muscle, even when calorie intake isn't sufficient to support the need all by itself.
It's not just about "energy", it's about metabolic pathways. Energy sources aren't fungible - If energy is in Place A and is needed in Place B but there is no mechanism to get it there, it may as well not be there. And unfortunately, nobody has been able to demonstrate a direct path from metabolization of fat stores to creation of muscle fibres.
While I'm fine with the notion that some people, under some pretty specific conditions, can add a little lean mass while under a caloric deficit, that doesn't change the basic reality that most people, most of the time, won't. It is a 99% safe assumption that a dieter is mistaken when they claim a number of pounds of muscle mass gained while on a deficit.0 -
congratulations OP ..you have proved nothing…0
-
I don't see what the fuss is about.
OP:
Your average caloric intake based on what is logged has been in the neighborhood of 2550 calories over the past year. Roughly consistent with your 2 month average as well.
If you've gained a small amount of weight and maintained the same bodyfat%, congrats on your bulk. You're eating just slightly above TDEE at that caloric load which is perfectly reasonable for an active ~150lb male.
I am not sure how gravitation pull, amoebas and moon phases got into it, but the "fuss" is from the claim that the OP has 'debunked the myth that you cannot gain muscle on a deficit' by adding about a lb a muscle a month for 7 months as an experienced lifter...while actually gaining weight and providing no explanation even for how the BF% was estimated.
I only brought up amoebas while trying to say, apparently unsuccessfully, that all that energy we talk about comes from actual stuff going in our bodies and actual stuff coming out of them. Something might go in as a solid and come out as a gas, which is I think why people have such crazy ideas about all this. Because only a very small portion of those gases are of the variety detectable by your nose. So it's kinda like magic.
I feel like it's easy to fool yourself about ENERGY. Is it even real? MAGIC. But if we express (theoretically anyway) weight change as accumulation or loss of the mettle that holds the energy, it's a bit more "real". To me, anyway. But hey, I'm a bit odd.0 -
Eating at or very near maintenance one can gain muscle and lose fat simultaneously, at least simultaneous in the sense of measureable time scales.
Its just hideously inefficient.
Fat loss rates of 1-2 lb per week are no biggie, even 3-4 lbs is achievable for short durations (especially right after bulks).
Muscle gain rates of 2 lb per month is pretty normal for males, unless you've already put on quite a bit of muscle mass.
Trying to do both simultaneous eating at/very near maintence will have gain/loss rates that are a fraction of that; the sum total of undulating your calories up and down (IE bulking and cutting) will lead to significantly more results. For the body recomposition optimization problem, eating at/near maintenance is a very suboptimal solution.0 -
So do you think this is happening with the OP at 7-9% body fat? Even at 15% body fat I'd doubt it.Note that I did not say that you can do it at a total calorie deficit, only at a calorie intake deficit. If you have no stored fat and you eat at a deficit, your body will then not have the resources to meet its perceived need, and you won't get more muscle.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I have no idea what is happening anymore. Don't tell me I'm still on that fecking island.0
-
congratulations OP ..you have proved nothing…
I think what I have proven is that TDEE estimates are incorrect. If we are not going to rethink the laws of energy conservation and the ability of an organism to create life out of the nothing, we have to assume that the TDEE calculators are often incorrect.
In answer t the few people who have suggested that I may not be tracking accurately, I am usually the person who suggests that very thing to the people who claim they can't lose weight. I am an obessively accurate tracker / logger who lost 35 pounds at one point by tracking everything down to the gram.
As far as my BF%, the only thing I can go on is bodyfat scales and the thing they have you hold at the gym. While I know that these are not entirely accurate, they are still good for tracking relative progress. My BF% has decreased from 5.6% to 5% on my scale at home in the last 6 months. I know this is lower than it should be, but based on my experience I would guess it at more like 8-9%. and I can at least gather from this that my BF% has decreased as I've gainied weight in muscle.
My strength stats I posted were not e-bragging. People were asking to get a sense of my profile and experience so I posted some numbers to give an idea of where I am at strengthwise. I would hardly call stating that I can bench 225 bragging. I fully understand the difference between strength and muscle volume. For me, my strength has increased proportionately (sp?) to my size and weight gain. I don't lift for strength exclusively (as is obvious by my numbers), and my workouts are typically a combination of strength and sculpting exercises.
So my question now becomes, if it is indeed true that my TDEE is actually lower than what I am being told by MFP (which I totally understand is a distinct possibilty), than how was I able to lose 35 pounds calculating a slight deficit basd on the same number?
I would like to officially apologize for titling ny original post "debunking the myth". I was simply trying to share my personal success at gaining muscle mass while decreasing bodyfat through what I perceived as a slight deficit over time, and get some feedback as to why this may have occurred.
And one last not to all you puffy guys who are threatened by this concept. I know it is a scary concept. I know you like your steaks and potatoes. I know you like moving heavy weights around the gym, and I know it's easier to just eat a whole crap load of food and lift heavy only to attemot to shred later. It's easier to call me crazy than carefully hone a diet that will consistently reveal all those muscles you spend so much time building. I would just think that when you see a guy who already looks like you want to look like, you would openly seek some knowledge of how he attained that instead of attacking him. You puffy, steak and potato eating, heavy lifting, gel coated guys know who you are. To the rest of you, thanks for all your input. (exept the nice lady who hijacked the thread a while ago)0 -
I think the take home message here, is that your TDEE calculations were incorrect.0
-
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.
OK, I got this after thinking long and hard about it. :bigsmile: And doing some Googling. :flowerforyou:
quotes...:grumble:0 -
congratulations OP ..you have proved nothing…
I think what I have proven is that TDEE estimates are incorrect. If we are not going to rethink the laws of energy conservation and the ability of an organism to create life out of the nothing, we have to assume that the TDEE calculators are often incorrect.
Great, you proved something that everyone already knew, which is that a TDEE estimate, is just that, an estimate, brilliant!0 -
So... I glanced at the diary.
It did not take me long to find RIBS logged BY THE PIECE. Seriously? That's not accurate logging, sorry. And on top of that, you are most inaccurate on that day with the one item that has high caloric density. Now if I keep looking, how much more of this sort of logging error will I find?
And further, I am also frequently telling people there is some inaccuracy in their logging. This in no way implies I am incapable of my own logging inaccuracies. Actually, the reason I often suspect it, is that I often experience it.
And yeah, sorry, TDEE ESTIMATES were always meant to be just that. It's a starting point. PROOF if deficit is lost weight, PROOF of surplus is gained weight. You figure out what your TDEE has been for the period covered by your data by comparing your intake to your changes in mass. This can get you an effective model for getting the job done, but it's not particularly accurate (nor does it need to be).0 -
I think what I have proven is that TDEE estimates are incorrect. If we are not going to rethink the laws of energy conservation and the ability of an organism to create life out of the nothing, we have to assume that the TDEE calculators are often incorrect.
this guy \/ right there under this.... nailed it.And yeah, sorry, TDEE ESTIMATES were always meant to be just that. It's a starting point. PROOF if deficit is lost weight, PROOF of surplus is gained weight. You figure out what your TDEE has been for the period covered by your data by comparing your intake to your changes in mass.
one of the biggest mistakes people make is not re-evaluating their TDEE as their body changes. But push come to shove- the reality is... it's a rough guide- there is no way to possible capture EVERY calorie burned or consumed.... we go by rough guides. And that's it.
It works. Ambling sometimes- and definitely none linear- but it works.0 -
Here is some 'evidence' of fat loss and strength gain together:
http://rippedbody.jp/english/results-english/
Fat loss and Strength gain is not uncommon at all.
Fat loss and Muscle gain is a totally different ball game.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions