Eating at a deficit and gaining muscle
Options
Replies
-
All I can offer is myself: I've been at right around 190lbs for around 4 months, eating at a deficit the whole time. According to my belt, my clothes, tape measure, and calipers, I have less body fat, am now smaller in the waist and can see where abs are, my upper arms are thicker and have more definition (As in I can see it now), my thighs are thicker and showing definition, and I am getting stronger (Unless someone has figured out how to give me fake weights at the gym)....and still eating at a deficit.
Yes, in Jan 2013 I weighed 220lbs, so I was carrying 30 more lbs...but I sat on my butt 90% of every day, and got winded trying to run a football field. I am now running a 30 minute 5k, after lifting weights for an hour, and when I get home I take my dog for a 1 mile walk as my cool down.
I was at 35% body fat, and now I am right about 20%.
My simple math show me as having been 220 = 143LBM+77fat
And now I am 190 = 152LBM+38fat
Now, is this a carefully monitored scientific study? Nope, just a guy eating, lifting, and running.0 -
IN!
Cause I got bored in the woman putting on too much muscle thread....0 -
IN!
Cause I got bored in the woman putting on too much muscle thread....
LOLOLOLOL0 -
All I can offer is myself: I've been at right around 190lbs for around 4 months, eating at a deficit the whole time. According to my belt, my clothes, tape measure, and calipers, I have less body fat, am now smaller in the waist and can see where abs are, my upper arms are thicker and have more definition (As in I can see it now), my thighs are thicker and showing definition, and I am getting stronger (Unless someone has figured out how to give me fake weights at the gym)....and still eating at a deficit.
Yes, in Jan 2013 I weighed 220lbs, so I was carrying 30 more lbs...but I sat on my butt 90% of every day, and got winded trying to run a football field. I am now running a 30 minute 5k, after lifting weights for an hour, and when I get home I take my dog for a 1 mile walk as my cool down.
I was at 35% body fat, and now I am right about 20%.
My simple math show me as having been 220 = 143LBM+77fat
And now I am 190 = 152LBM+38fat
Now, is this a carefully monitored scientific study? Nope, just a guy eating, lifting, and running.
great progress!
You more than likely experienced some newbie gains in the beginning, and that coupled with decrease body fat percentage showed the existing muscle that you already had, plus the newbie gains that you experienced....0 -
All I can offer is myself: I've been at right around 190lbs for around 4 months, eating at a deficit the whole time. According to my belt, my clothes, tape measure, and calipers, I have less body fat, am now smaller in the waist and can see where abs are, my upper arms are thicker and have more definition (As in I can see it now), my thighs are thicker and showing definition, and I am getting stronger (Unless someone has figured out how to give me fake weights at the gym)....and still eating at a deficit.
Yes, in Jan 2013 I weighed 220lbs, so I was carrying 30 more lbs...but I sat on my butt 90% of every day, and got winded trying to run a football field. I am now running a 30 minute 5k, after lifting weights for an hour, and when I get home I take my dog for a 1 mile walk as my cool down.
I was at 35% body fat, and now I am right about 20%.
My simple math show me as having been 220 = 143LBM+77fat
And now I am 190 = 152LBM+38fat
Now, is this a carefully monitored scientific study? Nope, just a guy eating, lifting, and running.
Just a couple of thoughts on this post -
1. You would likely fall in the exceptions listed above to start with.
2. Seeing more muscle doesn't mean you have added it, you have lost bodyfat and revealed the muscle below. This is often confused with adding muscle but not necessarily the same thing. Same with the strength thing- as mentioned above, added muscle is not required for increased strength.
3. How did you measure? Most methods have an error rate, some can be quite a bit off. Again not saying you didn't add mass, but the numbers are not necessarily hard and fast.
Either way great work, just bringing up the points in relation to this discussion since you brought it up, not knocking your work or results.0 -
My simple non-scientist layman's answer is that while at a deficit, your body does not even have the calories it needs to sustain it's current state. HOW can it then add anything? Muscle or otherwise?
ETA: that's not a study. that's just logic.
I don't need a study to tell me I'm female or that the sun is out right now either. Just sayin'.
I eat around 2400 cals per day, and I burn around 2900/day. So I need to burn about 500 fat cals (55 grams of fat) every day...I wonder what happens if my body burns 65grams of fat, and diverts some of the 150g of protein I eat each day to adding muscle.
Now, if I was running under 10% body fat, I might have a problem finding those extra cals to burn. But I am not. I got a big old spare tank of fuel just waiting to be tapped. And that is why the body builds up that fat...to be used when needed, as needed.0 -
All I can offer is myself: I've been at right around 190lbs for around 4 months, eating at a deficit the whole time. According to my belt, my clothes, tape measure, and calipers, I have less body fat, am now smaller in the waist and can see where abs are, my upper arms are thicker and have more definition (As in I can see it now), my thighs are thicker and showing definition, and I am getting stronger (Unless someone has figured out how to give me fake weights at the gym)....and still eating at a deficit.
Yes, in Jan 2013 I weighed 220lbs, so I was carrying 30 more lbs...but I sat on my butt 90% of every day, and got winded trying to run a football field. I am now running a 30 minute 5k, after lifting weights for an hour, and when I get home I take my dog for a 1 mile walk as my cool down.
I was at 35% body fat, and now I am right about 20%.
My simple math show me as having been 220 = 143LBM+77fat
And now I am 190 = 152LBM+38fat
Now, is this a carefully monitored scientific study? Nope, just a guy eating, lifting, and running.
This is awesome!! Thanks for sharing! It makes sense to me that one could put on muscle while on a deficit because I'm thinking that the body starts using stored fat for energy and perhaps even building.0 -
All I can offer is myself: I've been at right around 190lbs for around 4 months, eating at a deficit the whole time. According to my belt, my clothes, tape measure, and calipers, I have less body fat, am now smaller in the waist and can see where abs are, my upper arms are thicker and have more definition (As in I can see it now), my thighs are thicker and showing definition, and I am getting stronger (Unless someone has figured out how to give me fake weights at the gym)....and still eating at a deficit.
Yes, in Jan 2013 I weighed 220lbs, so I was carrying 30 more lbs...but I sat on my butt 90% of every day, and got winded trying to run a football field. I am now running a 30 minute 5k, after lifting weights for an hour, and when I get home I take my dog for a 1 mile walk as my cool down.
I was at 35% body fat, and now I am right about 20%.
My simple math show me as having been 220 = 143LBM+77fat
And now I am 190 = 152LBM+38fat
Now, is this a carefully monitored scientific study? Nope, just a guy eating, lifting, and running.
This is awesome!! Thanks for sharing! It makes sense to me that one could put on muscle while on a deficit because I'm thinking that the body starts using stored fat for energy and perhaps even building.
The body does use fat stores for energy, that is the entire point of them from an evolutionary/survival standpoint. It doesn't make sense that in a time of restriction our bodies would divert some of that energy to building more muscle which requires more energy when we are experiencing a decrease/restriction in calories.0 -
There are actually threads upon threads upon threads debating this.
Great, 14 pages of opinions. Looking for some science to back all the opinions. Something that has been lab tested and published by the scientific community that emphatically states it is not possible to gain muscle at a deficit, excusing the normal caveat of newbies and the obese. I actually believe many of the opinions on the topic from the MFP posters may in fact be spot-on accurate but I would like to read the study that proves this out.... Thx. I will continue to leaf through the posts to try and find a relevant study... And if I do find one, I will post for all to read...
Do you have any scientifically backed studies that say differently? No? Then GTFO. You're only trying to argue and cause trouble yet you can't offer the one thing you demand from everyone else. Feel free to come back when you have something to contribute
Glad you said it, now I don't have to.0 -
All I can offer is myself: I've been at right around 190lbs for around 4 months, eating at a deficit the whole time. According to my belt, my clothes, tape measure, and calipers, I have less body fat, am now smaller in the waist and can see where abs are, my upper arms are thicker and have more definition (As in I can see it now), my thighs are thicker and showing definition, and I am getting stronger (Unless someone has figured out how to give me fake weights at the gym)....and still eating at a deficit.
Yes, in Jan 2013 I weighed 220lbs, so I was carrying 30 more lbs...but I sat on my butt 90% of every day, and got winded trying to run a football field. I am now running a 30 minute 5k, after lifting weights for an hour, and when I get home I take my dog for a 1 mile walk as my cool down.
I was at 35% body fat, and now I am right about 20%.
My simple math show me as having been 220 = 143LBM+77fat
And now I am 190 = 152LBM+38fat
Now, is this a carefully monitored scientific study? Nope, just a guy eating, lifting, and running.
Just a couple of thoughts on this post -
1. You would likely fall in the exceptions listed above to start with.
2. Seeing more muscle doesn't mean you have added it, you have lost bodyfat and revealed the muscle below. This is often confused with adding muscle but not necessarily the same thing. Same with the strength thing- as mentioned above, added muscle is not required for increased strength.
3. How did you measure? Most methods have an error rate, some can be quite a bit off. Again not saying you didn't add mass, but the numbers are not necessarily hard and fast.
Either way great work, just bringing up the points in relation to this discussion since you brought it up, not knocking your work or results.
Just to make a couple of extra points. Lean Body Mass does not mean muscle mass. It means everything except fat mass. You've added to your bone density, to your blood volume, glycogen stores, possible water weight, and lastly to muscle. Of those 9 pounds in lean mass, having 4 pounds of that be muscle would be great progress. But 4 pounds of muscle would add very little to the overall mass of the muscles in your body.0 -
All I can offer is myself: I've been at right around 190lbs for around 4 months, eating at a deficit the whole time. According to my belt, my clothes, tape measure, and calipers, I have less body fat, am now smaller in the waist and can see where abs are, my upper arms are thicker and have more definition (As in I can see it now), my thighs are thicker and showing definition, and I am getting stronger (Unless someone has figured out how to give me fake weights at the gym)....and still eating at a deficit.
Yes, in Jan 2013 I weighed 220lbs, so I was carrying 30 more lbs...but I sat on my butt 90% of every day, and got winded trying to run a football field. I am now running a 30 minute 5k, after lifting weights for an hour, and when I get home I take my dog for a 1 mile walk as my cool down.
I was at 35% body fat, and now I am right about 20%.
My simple math show me as having been 220 = 143LBM+77fat
And now I am 190 = 152LBM+38fat
Now, is this a carefully monitored scientific study? Nope, just a guy eating, lifting, and running.
This is awesome!! Thanks for sharing! It makes sense to me that one could put on muscle while on a deficit because I'm thinking that the body starts using stored fat for energy and perhaps even building.
sorry, but that is not what happens. when you are in an energy deficit your body is going to partition that limited energy for essential functions - brain function, lung function, digestive system etc; it is not going to take the limited energy that you have and put it to building something new, aka muscle...this would only happen when one has a surplus of energy.0 -
That's crap .. during my "deficit phase" I lost 49 lbs of body fat and gained 10 lbs of muscle.
I am in maintenance now .. but it is totally possible to gain muscle. I did lots of resistance training and protein, it does work.0 -
you can not build something out of nothing. If you want to build new muscle you have to have a surplus of calories to draw energy from and create said muscle. If you are in a calorie deficit where is the surplus energy to build new muscle?
What if you were sometimes in a surplus and sometimes in a deficit, but it averaged out to a small deficit over time? Assuming diet was good, could you build new muscle?0 -
All I can offer is myself: I've been at right around 190lbs for around 4 months, eating at a deficit the whole time. According to my belt, my clothes, tape measure, and calipers, I have less body fat, am now smaller in the waist and can see where abs are, my upper arms are thicker and have more definition (As in I can see it now), my thighs are thicker and showing definition, and I am getting stronger (Unless someone has figured out how to give me fake weights at the gym)....and still eating at a deficit.
Yes, in Jan 2013 I weighed 220lbs, so I was carrying 30 more lbs...but I sat on my butt 90% of every day, and got winded trying to run a football field. I am now running a 30 minute 5k, after lifting weights for an hour, and when I get home I take my dog for a 1 mile walk as my cool down.
I was at 35% body fat, and now I am right about 20%.
My simple math show me as having been 220 = 143LBM+77fat
And now I am 190 = 152LBM+38fat
Now, is this a carefully monitored scientific study? Nope, just a guy eating, lifting, and running.
Just a couple of thoughts on this post -
1. You would likely fall in the exceptions listed above to start with.
2. Seeing more muscle doesn't mean you have added it, you have lost bodyfat and revealed the muscle below. This is often confused with adding muscle but not necessarily the same thing. Same with the strength thing- as mentioned above, added muscle is not required for increased strength.
3. How did you measure? Most methods have an error rate, some can be quite a bit off. Again not saying you didn't add mass, but the numbers are not necessarily hard and fast.
Either way great work, just bringing up the points in relation to this discussion since you brought it up, not knocking your work or results.
So, please explain to me how now that I am 190lbs, my arms are 1" bigger than when I had all the fat at 220?
My thighs are now 1/2" bigger at 190 then they were when I was 220.
My chest is 3/4" bigger at 190 than when I was 220.
What filled that area, since you seem to think it could not be muscle?
There was the part where they were getting smaller and smaller...and now it is getting bigger. And yeah, measure, say that can't be right, so do it again...still says it is bigger. Next month, same thing. After 2 months in a row, I just started accepting that wow, my weight is staying in the same 5lb fluctuation, but the tape says some parts are getting bigger, while the big roll of fat in the middle is going away.
I have a belt that I am now poking holes in to get it to fit my waist. At 220 I was looking at needing to replace it with a bigger belt.
I can now pull my pants off without undoing the snap or zipper....and really need to go shopping.
The calipers used in the same 5 locations for the last 8 months say I have less fat to pinch.
When everything is in agreement that I have less fat, but weigh the same, when the spot that screams "FAT" is getting smaller, but other parts are not...something has to be happening.0 -
All I can offer is myself: I've been at right around 190lbs for around 4 months, eating at a deficit the whole time. According to my belt, my clothes, tape measure, and calipers, I have less body fat, am now smaller in the waist and can see where abs are, my upper arms are thicker and have more definition (As in I can see it now), my thighs are thicker and showing definition, and I am getting stronger (Unless someone has figured out how to give me fake weights at the gym)....and still eating at a deficit.
Yes, in Jan 2013 I weighed 220lbs, so I was carrying 30 more lbs...but I sat on my butt 90% of every day, and got winded trying to run a football field. I am now running a 30 minute 5k, after lifting weights for an hour, and when I get home I take my dog for a 1 mile walk as my cool down.
I was at 35% body fat, and now I am right about 20%.
My simple math show me as having been 220 = 143LBM+77fat
And now I am 190 = 152LBM+38fat
Now, is this a carefully monitored scientific study? Nope, just a guy eating, lifting, and running.
Just a couple of thoughts on this post -
1. You would likely fall in the exceptions listed above to start with.
2. Seeing more muscle doesn't mean you have added it, you have lost bodyfat and revealed the muscle below. This is often confused with adding muscle but not necessarily the same thing. Same with the strength thing- as mentioned above, added muscle is not required for increased strength.
3. How did you measure? Most methods have an error rate, some can be quite a bit off. Again not saying you didn't add mass, but the numbers are not necessarily hard and fast.
Either way great work, just bringing up the points in relation to this discussion since you brought it up, not knocking your work or results.
So, please explain to me how now that I am 190lbs, my arms are 1" bigger than when I had all the fat at 220?
My thighs are now 1/2" bigger at 190 then they were when I was 220.
My chest is 3/4" bigger at 190 than when I was 220.
What filled that area, since you seem to think it could not be muscle?
There was the part where they were getting smaller and smaller...and now it is getting bigger. And yeah, measure, say that can't be right, so do it again...still says it is bigger. Next month, same thing. After 2 months in a row, I just started accepting that wow, my weight is staying in the same 5lb fluctuation, but the tape says some parts are getting bigger, while the big roll of fat in the middle is going away.
I have a belt that I am now poking holes in to get it to fit my waist. At 220 I was looking at needing to replace it with a bigger belt.
I can now pull my pants off without undoing the snap or zipper....and really need to go shopping.
The calipers used in the same 5 locations for the last 8 months say I have less fat to pinch.
When everything is in agreement that I have less fat, but weigh the same, when the spot that screams "FAT" is getting smaller, but other parts are not...something has to be happening.
Apparently you missed when I specifically said "You would likely fall in the exceptions listed above to start with." and "Again not saying you didn't add mass, but the numbers are not necessarily hard and fast. "0 -
There's your problem. The above statement is false.If muscles only get stronger by being broken down and re-built by the body
eh?? This is what every trainer I have ever talked to told me?? eat protein so you muscles can rebuild after tear them during a workout. this is how you get stronger..
I find it funny.. OP asks for scientific studies regarding question posed.. people who demand the same from others to prove something stated have no such studies to show.
In just becaue0 -
There's your problem. The above statement is false.If muscles only get stronger by being broken down and re-built by the body
eh?? This is what every trainer I have ever talked to told me?? eat protein so you muscles can rebuild after tear them during a workout. this is how you get stronger..
I find it funny.. OP asks for scientific studies regarding question posed.. people who demand the same from others to prove something stated have no such studies to show.
In just becaue
You don't need studies to prove out basic math and what we know about basic human physiology. Perhaps studies are also needed to prove to the OP that indeed, the world is not flat...I mean, being that it's just an opinion and all...
Srsly...has anyone ever taken a basic anatomy and physiology class? Sheesh...this is like 5th grade math we're talking about here. As usual...the derp floweth strongly on MFP.
Also, yes...your muscle will rebuild themselves after they've broken down...doesn't mean they are increasing in mass...0 -
That's crap .. during my "deficit phase" I lost 49 lbs of body fat and gained 10 lbs of muscle.
I am in maintenance now .. but it is totally possible to gain muscle. I did lots of resistance training and protein, it does work.
I suggest you market that plan as you have found the "holy grail" of lifting and will make millions...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 944 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions