Debunking the Myth

waldo56

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.

ninerbuff

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.

So do you think this is happening with the OP at 7-9% body fat? Even at 15% body fat I'd doubt it.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

pyrowill

I have no idea what is happening anymore. Don't tell me I'm still on that fecking island.

shmoony

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)

QuietBloom

I think the take home message here, is that your TDEE calculations were incorrect.

QuietBloom

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:

ndj1979

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!

pcastagner

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).

JoRocka

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.

Huffdogg

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.

eric_sg61

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.

WendyTerry420

strength gains and muscle gains have nothing to do with one another...

This point often gets lost around here...

WendyTerry420

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).

Logging food by the number of pieces helps provide proof that an estimate isn't an absolute. Mind blown indeed. :ohwell:

JoRocka

This point often gets lost around here...

Page one I wrote this

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

PAGE ONE.

Not so much lost- just people chose to ignore it.

jwdieter

So, like, male 40yrs old, exercises every day, 148 lbs gets a M-SJ TDEE estimate in the 2500s. OP averages 2500s. Underestimate intake by 5% and OP would gain about 1 lb/month according to that model. And he gained ~1 lb/month.

This subject is only confusing to the OP because he's looking at his net calories and comparing to TDEE. Double-counting his exercise. So he thinks he's at least 300 under his TDEE estimate and gaining weight (through rigorous exercise and protein intake.. rah rah). But that's simply not the case.

shmoony

So, like, male 40yrs old, exercises every day, 148 lbs gets a M-SJ TDEE estimate in the 2500s. OP averages 2500s. Underestimate intake by 5% and OP would gain about 1 lb/month according to that model. And he gained ~1 lb/month.

This subject is only confusing to the OP because he's looking at his net calories and comparing to TDEE. Double-counting his exercise. So he thinks he's at least 300 under his TDEE estimate and gaining weight (through rigorous exercise and protein intake.. rah rah). But that's simply not the case.

A) I don't double count my exercise
I don't underestimate my intake
C) If you look carefully at my diary, you'll see that my calories are calculated very carefully.

Bottom line guys is that I am the choir when it comes to this stuff. I have logged in for 500 of the last 501 days. I'm that guy. I don't snack unconsciously, I don't add that extra dollup of sour cream and forget to log it, I don't lick the peanut butter knife after making my sons PB&J, I don't use measuring cups, I don't go out to eat, I am about as OCD about weighing, measuring, and calculating as there is. I have the results to prove it. I would say over the last two years I am no more than 1-2% off on my logging, and that might be in the opposite direction becasue I typically err on the side of overestimation of quantities when impossible to be exact. So with that taken out of the equation, the only argument becomes what is my actual TDEE. To reiterate what I said before, if I dropped from 160 to 147 lbs with a given TDEE by creating a slight deficit, then how would I then go back to 155 while lowering my BF% by changing only my workout intesity and percentage of protein intake if the argument is that my TDEE is off? Was is wrong then or is it wrong now. If it has changed, it would certainly increase with the increased LBM correct?

jwdieter

A) I don't double count my exercise

So why are you comparing your net intake (~2200) with your TDEE, when your gross intake (~2500) is the relevant number?

shmoony

What are you talking about? The net intake is the only relevant number when it comes to weight loss / gain. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I consume around 2400-2700 calories / day depending on my activity level, but my net is usualy in the 2200-2300 range. Why would the gross intake be the relevant number?

WendyTerry420

This point often gets lost around here...

Page one I wrote this

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

PAGE ONE.

Not so much lost- just people chose to ignore it.

Agreed.

jwdieter

What are you talking about? The net intake is the only relevant number when it comes to weight loss / gain. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I consume around 2400-2700 calories / day depending on my activity level, but my net is usualy in the 2200-2300 range. Why would the gross intake be the relevant number?

TDEE includes exercise in the "energy out" column. Net intake subtracts exercise from the "energy in" column. If you compare the two, you're double counting exercise.