Eating at a deficit and gaining muscle

ndj1979

If muscles only get stronger by being broken down and re-built by the body

There's your problem. The above statement is false.

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

Do you also want a study that the sun will set tonight?

ndj1979

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.

1. newbie gains
2. fat loss that makes muscle show...

I am not sure if I am not reading your post correctly, but you seem to be conflating fat loss with muscle gain. The reason that your waist is smaller is because you lost fat and weight....

PikaKnight

If muscles only get stronger by being broken down and re-built by the body

There's your problem. The above statement is false.

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

Thanks to Sara and Sidesteel of the ETP group for having these available in their group (and to the others that contributed the links in there)

(Please note some of the links are studies, but still contain great info and explanations)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16985258

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/weight-training-for-fat-loss-part-1.html

http://body-improvements.com/2013/09/04/can-you-build-muscle-and-lose-fat-at-the-same-time/

http://body-improvements.com/2012/08/22/qa-how-can-i-go-about-building-some-muscle/

http://muscleevo.net/calorie-deficit/#.UM2R9mt5lP4

http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full (argh. This one isn't there anymore. If anyone knows the corrected link, can you please replace? Thanks!)



Edited to replace one of the links. Put the wrong one

No_Finish_Line

comon sense will tell you that you can't build something out of nothing.

when your brain sends a signal to your bicep to perform a curl, not ever single muscle fiber recieves the message and contracts.

most strength gains come from estabilishing a better neurological pathway which means that you use more of your existing muscle fibers and hence lift more (gain strength).

so you end up being stronger with the same amount of muscle mass (or less).

people assume more muslce is the only way to get stronger, not true.

scraver2003

This is TOTALLY fascinating. I had NO idea that stronger muscles did not come from muscle gain. I assumed stronger muscles meant I had bigger muscles. The articles posted are really very interesting - thank you!

No_Finish_Line

Increased strength has more to do with improved neuromuscular adaptation. When you are untrained, your brain isn't a good judge at predicting the weight of objects and the amount of muscle fibers to recruit. At first, your brain recruits an insufficient number which is explains weakness. As you gain more lifting experience, your brain becomes better at predicting weight and thus recruiting a sufficient number of fibers.

this, although i'm not sure your description of the brain underestimating the weight really being whats going on there lol

but its a good way to put it that kinda makes sense

No_Finish_Line

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.

how did you deterimine how much fat you lost and how much muscle you gained?

Blue801

Knock yourself out... :drinker:

Title: Muscle growth learns new tricks from an old dog
Author(s): Gustavo A Nader Source: Nature Medicine. 13.9 (Sept. 2007): p1016. Document Type: Report DOI: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.utc.edu/10.1038/nm0907-1016 Copyright : COPYRIGHT 2007 Nature Publishing Group
http://www.nature.com.proxy.lib.utc.edu/nm/index.html
Full Text:
Author(s): Gustavo A Nader [1]

The first lesson you learn in economy is: you can't spend more than what you have. Well, you actually can, but, from a biological perspective, this could mean waste and even death. One example of biological economy is the regulation of an organism's growth. Organ size is tightly coupled to nutrient availability--growth is slowed if the nutrient supply is limited. This equation seems intuitively simple: no energy, no growth. But how did nature develop such a logical control mechanism? The answer is straightforward: put together a fuel sensor and link it to effectors of cell growth and, voilá , you've got an efficient metabolic machine.

Take skeletal muscle. Much of the body's metabolic activity is determined by muscle metabolism. Disruptions in muscle's metabolic homeostasis can lead to metabolic dysfunction, as in diabetes and obesity. Moreover, spending energy on building more muscle (hypertrophy) is critical for maintenance of health and quality of life. For example, during starvation or in disease states in which metabolism is disturbed, protein degradation exceeds protein synthesis, resulting in muscle atrophy, which could have devastating consequences such as long-term disability or death. So, understanding how metabolism and growth are coupled in muscle is of fundamental importance for maintenance of health and for disease management.

The signals that control cellular growth and metabolic homeostasis are relatively well understood (Fig. 1). The phosphoinositide-3 kinase (PI3K)-AKT kinase-Ras homolog enriched in brain (Rheb)-mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)-ribosomal protein S6 kinase (S6K) signaling network integrates nutritional, endocrine and mechanical signals that lead to cellular growth. In skeletal muscle, this network has been thoroughly studied [1, 2]. There is clear evidence that signaling through AKT and mTOR is required for muscle hypertrophy and that this might occur in part via signaling through S6K1 and S6K2 (refs. 3, 4). Whereas the general function of the S6Ks in the translational control of mRNAs with 5' oligopyrimidine motifs is well characterized, the specific role of each S6K isoform in growth control has yet to be defined.

Fuel sensing, in turn, is safeguarded by the cell's 'fuel gauge'--the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) [5]. If it senses that the cell's energy status is low, AMPK switches off energy-spending processes, such as protein synthesis, by interfering with anabolic signaling mediated by the PI3K-AKT-Rheb-mTOR-S6K network [6, 7, 8]. However, this is not the only means to integrate fuel-sensing and growth control, as it seems that nature has evolved another mechanism to deal with this problem.

In a series of elegant experiments reported in Cell Metabolism , Aguilar and coworkers [9] used a mouse model in which both S6Ks were genetically ablated (S6K1/S6K2-/- ) to define a new role for S6K1. With this model, the authors found that S6K1 not only regulates muscle size, but also signals to AMPK to integrate fuel sensing with cell-growth control. S6K ablation caused a decrease in myotube size (and muscle size [10]) and led to an 'energy stress' state defined by an increase in the AMP/ATP ratio and an increase in AMPK activity. As was to be expected from the known functions of this kinase, the increase in AMPK activity triggered an increase in mitochondrial mass, glycogen sparing and whole-body insulin sensitivity, as well as a decrease in lipid content. These data suggest that, in skeletal muscle, S6K1 signals to the AMPK-dependent metabolic machinery by modulating AMP levels and provides a novel mechanism of metabolic and anabolic integration.

To establish the in vivo relevance of these observations, the authors transduced muscles from S6K1/S6K2-/- mice with an inactive form of AMPK (kdAMPK) used to inhibit endogenous AMPK. Consistent with data from previous experiments [6, 7, 8], inhibition of AMPK activity partially rescued the reduced muscle fiber area previously linked to S6K1 deficiency, showing that the inhibitory effects of AMPK on muscle mass occur downstream of S6K1. Intriguingly, whereas kdAMPK completely restored myotube size, it only partially restored muscle fiber area in vivo . This observation leaves open the question of how much AMPK can control muscle size in vivo and also suggests that although signaling upstream of S6K1 may be sufficient to maintain muscle size up to a certain threshold, S6K1 activity may be required to achieve a full hypertrophic potential.

Despite the promise of these findings, there are several new gaps in the understanding of how S6K1 regulates muscle cell size. How does S6K1 modulate AMP levels? Which S6K1 effectors control cell size? Is S6K1 dispensable for muscle hypertrophy, given that muscle size could be rescued by AMPK inhibition in the absence of S6Ks? Could S6K1 determine muscle size through its known involvement in modulating protein synthesis rates?

Although some of these questions require further research, another study by the same group has begun to provide some answers. Using myotubes from S6K1/S6K2-/- mice, Mieulet et al . [4] analyzed two putative targets of S6K1, in addition to several markers of protein degradation. S6K1 ablation completely blocked ribosomal S6 protein phosphorylation and had a major impact on the phosphorylation of eukaryotic initiation factor 4B (eIF 4B). As protein synthesis rates were not affected in S6K1/S6K2-/- myotubes, even though ribosomal protein S6 and eIF 4B phosphorylation were impaired, the authors concluded that these two molecules are not effectors of S6K1 during myotube hypertrophy, and that S6K1 has ways independent of general protein synthesis to regulate muscle size. Additionally, although the authors did not measure protein degradation rates directly, the absence of S6K1 did not affect autophagy-mediated protein degradation or expression of the E3 ubiquitin ligases muscle-specific ring finger protein-1 and atrogin-1. Therefore, these data indicate that ribosomal S6 protein and eIF4B do not mediate the muscle hypertrophic effects of S6K1 and that the loss of muscle size in the absence of S6K1 is not a consequence of increased protein degradation rates, or at least not through these catabolic systems.

Although much remains to be understood about the effects of S6K1 on skeletal-muscle hypertrophy, the data from these studies provide strong evidence that S6K1 modulates muscle growth together with AMPK, acting as an integrator of fuel availability and spending. Exquisitely regulated, the fine balance between muscle-energy sensing and spending likely has additional control switches that have yet to be discovered, which will certainly have an impact in our understanding of the regulatory circuitry of the cell.

Caption(s):

Figure 1: Simplified model of the role of S6K1 in the integration of anabolic and metabolic processes. [see PDF for image]

The PI3K-AKT-Rheb-mTOR-S6K1 signaling network receives input from various stimuli such as nutrients, growth factors and exercise, which can modulate it at various levels. In general, activation of PI3K indirectly regulates AKT, whose activity prevents tuberous-sclerosis complex-2 (TSC2)-mediated inhibition of Rheb. When bound to GTP, Rheb increases mTOR activity toward S6K1 and other translational-control factors (not shown). S6K1 controls muscle size, as its absence results in a marked reduction in muscle mass. Genetic deletion of S6K1 also leads to increased AMP levels, causing an 'energy stress' state that is sensed by AMPK, which induces an increase in mitochondrial mass and oxidative metabolism. An increase in AMPK can also lead to the activation of TSC2, thereby inhibiting signals that can affect the regulation of muscle size.

Credit: Katie Ris-Vicari

References

1. Glass, D.J. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 37, 1974-1984 (2005).

2. Nader, G.A. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 37, 1985-1996 (2005).

3. Bodine, S.C. et al . Nat. Cell Biol. 3, 1014-1019 (2001).

4. Mieulet, V. et al . Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 293, C712-C722 (2007).

5. Kahn, B.B., Alquier, T., Carling, D. & Hardie, D.G. Cell Metab. 1, 15-25 (2005).

6. Bolster, D.R., Crozier, S.J., Kimball, S.R. & Jefferson, L.S. J. Biol. Chem. 277, 23977-23980 (2002).

7. Chan, A.Y., Soltys, C.L., Young, M.E., Proud, C.G. & Dyck, J.R. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 32771-32779 (2004).

8. Inoki, K., Zhu, T. & Guan, K.L. Cell 115, 577-590 (2003).

9. Aguilar, V. et al . Cell Metab. 5, 476-487 (2007).

10. Ohanna, M. et al . Nat. Cell Biol. 7, 286-294 (2005).

Author Affiliation(s):

[1] Gustavo A. Nader is at the Research Center for Genetic Medicine, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC 20010, USA.

Email: gnader@cnmcresearch.org

DOI: 10.1038/nm0907-1016

Gustavo A Nader

Source Citation (MLA 7th Edition)
Nader, Gustavo A. "Muscle growth learns new tricks from an old dog." Nature Medicine 13.9 (2007): 1016+. Health Reference Center Academic. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Document URL
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A192447696&v=2.1&u=tel_a_utc&it=r&p=HRCA&sw=w&asid=01059881c29c508de1637426d1e79da3

Gale Document Number: GALE|A192447696

:flowerforyou: 'cause science is our friend and often presents more questions than answers

JoRocka

1. newbie gains
2. fat loss that makes muscle show...

I am not sure if I am not reading your post correctly, but you seem to be conflating fat loss with muscle gain. The reason that your waist is smaller is because you lost fat and weight....

this.

also science is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY behind on studies for what people have proven for years to be true. Hard and fast science didn't keep up with what is tried and true in the church of the iron. It's worked for years- this isn't a single study of n = 1.

Bulking = eating at a surplus to gain.
If you are new- you can see gains without it- but expect it to last 6-8 months MAYBE.
If you are a vetran who hasn't lifted in a while- expect to see some gains.

But outside of that- you need to bulk to see appreciable gains.

Kevalicious99

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.

how did you deterimine how much fat you lost and how much muscle you gained?

All my stats are in my profile. I did physically lose about 40 lbs in the last 7 or so months and it was mostly fat that I lost. I was pretty overweight before and I am pretty skinny now. I used a $6000 BIA scale on 4 different occasions and monitored my progress throughout (measurements etc) .. much much more precise than the $80 consumer models. I am considering doing a Dexa scan to confirm my results.

No_Finish_Line

someone posted a bunch of links about body recomposition.

i'm sure you can gain muscle and lose fat over a certain peroid of time, but i got to think whats really happening there is that your sometimes at a moderate surplus, sometimes at a moderate defecit

Blue801

If you are new- you can see gains without it- but expect it to last 6-8 months MAYBE.

Hot dawg! This is exciting news to me. I am excited... especially by your back.:flowerforyou:

No_Finish_Line

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.

how did you deterimine how much fat you lost and how much muscle you gained?

All my stats are in my profile. I did physically lose about 40 lbs in the last 7 or so months and it was mostly fat that I lost. I was pretty overweight before and I am pretty skinny now. I used a $6000 BIA scale on 4 different occasions and monitored my progress throughout (measurements etc) .. much much more precise than the $80 consumer models. I am considering doing a Dexa scan to confirm my results.

you are saying you used some sort of body fat analzing scale and could use that do calculate what percentage was lean mass?

did you fall into one of the catagories already mentioned? did you consistently eat at a defecit everday?

JoRocka

If you are new- you can see gains without it- but expect it to last 6-8 months MAYBE.

Hot dawg! This is exciting news to me. I am excited... especially by your back.:flowerforyou:

Yeah- if you just started- lift LOTS- I'd almost even recommend just eating maintenance- you're in the best place to get gains- I wish I would have known- would have saved me some frigging trouble trying to bulk when I'm in my 30's.

And thank you- I have some affection for back- it makes me happy- women with sculpted strong backs are a weakness- so sexy.

Confuzzled4ever

If muscles only get stronger by being broken down and re-built by the body

There's your problem. The above statement is false.

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...

LOL

:flowerforyou:

Acg67

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.

how did you deterimine how much fat you lost and how much muscle you gained?

All my stats are in my profile. I did physically lose about 40 lbs in the last 7 or so months and it was mostly fat that I lost. I was pretty overweight before and I am pretty skinny now. I used a $6000 BIA scale on 4 different occasions and monitored my progress throughout (measurements etc) .. much much more precise than the $80 consumer models. I am considering doing a Dexa scan to confirm my results.

How would you use DEXA to confirm your results, if you don't have a starting DEXA? And BIA scales are notoriously inaccurate

bcattoes

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.

how did you deterimine how much fat you lost and how much muscle you gained?

All my stats are in my profile. I did physically lose about 40 lbs in the last 7 or so months and it was mostly fat that I lost. I was pretty overweight before and I am pretty skinny now. I used a $6000 BIA scale on 4 different occasions and monitored my progress throughout (measurements etc) .. much much more precise than the $80 consumer models. I am considering doing a Dexa scan to confirm my results.

How would you use DEXA to confirm your results, if you don't have a starting DEXA? And BIA scales are notoriously inaccurate

Would it necessarily matter that BIA scales are notoriously inaccurate? Since technology improves so quickly, how would notoriety from past performance have relevance for newer models?

Morgaath

1. newbie gains
2. fat loss that makes muscle show...

I am not sure if I am not reading your post correctly, but you seem to be conflating fat loss with muscle gain. The reason that your waist is smaller is because you lost fat and weight....

Question was asked "Can you gain muscle while eating at a deficit"
I say I did.
People keep saying "Newbie gains...newbie gains...newbie gains"
Newbie gains of...what? Say it with me now... Muscle.
At the same time I lost fat.

In the 15 months that I have been working on changing my life I have watched as for 11 months measurements got smaller and smaller, and then some of them started to get bigger while others, mainly my waist, continued to get smaller. Some of my measurements are now bigger than when I was fatter, and heavier.

For the first 9 months I was doing lots of cardio, and my lifting consisted of doing 15-20 rep sets on machines at weights that didn't leave me hurting the next day.
6 months ago I moved over to free weights, and started doing 5x5 Strong Lifts, and cutting back on the cardio. I also changed from eating 1300 to 1700 to 2000 to 2100...but with workout cals, I average 2400 now. According to Bodymedia, and 6 different TDEE cacluators I average burning 2900 cals a day now. Yesterday I burned 2362...Day before that 3439.
Two months after that is when I started noticing my arms, chest and thighs stopped getting smaller, while my waist was still shrinking.
Now I am at 4 months of seeing the tape tell me my arms are bigger than the month before, same for thighs and chest.
I looked at my numbers from Jan 2013...and those three things are higher numbers now then they were back in Jan 2013. If you put the numbers on a graph it would be a V. They went down for a long time, and now they are going up.

Now, gains are easy, because there is lots of untapped potential... Do I think I'll still be able to add muscle at a deficit after 2 years of doing this? No. I won't still have all this extra fat, nor will I have muscles that have been lying around basically unused for decades.
Does it mean I am not doing it now? Well, you all seem to think I am, as you keep saying I have newbie gains... of muscle.

If my measurements were still going down...well, then it would be just fat loss, no question. But when I started seeing my arms getting bigger...can any of you give me an answer as to what other than muscle it could be....6 months after I started lifting?
I told more than enough people on here "Water weight...new workout...muscles repairing themselves"...And if I am carrying 1.5" of water weight in my arms, why am I seeing more definition then I was before I started lifting heavier? So what else could it be?
And why has my weight basically stalled, while my waist is getting smaller, my arms, legs and chest bigger?

Fullsterkur_woman

I gained three pounds of muscle and lost three pounds of fat between August and February, confirmed by DEXA scans. I had returned to lifting already about 6-8 months prior, so I don't think it was n00b gains, although it is possible that I wasn't yet lifting heavy enough to get me out of the n00b category by the end of August.

I was also likely not in a deficit that entire time. Most likely, there were a lot of mini-bulk and cut cycles during that 6 month period. Nevertheless, it does show that it is possible to lose fat and build muscle at the same time. At maintenance. Not at a deficit. And not a huge amount. And not quickly. And not without a crap ton of effort!