Getting muscular without adding calories

jjplato

This study, published in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2011, studied two groups of subjects on hypocaloric diets: one on a slow-reduction (SR) diet and the other on a fast-reduction (FR) diet. Both groups performed heavy-lifting strength training during the study. They found that the slow-reduction group gained both lean body mass and performed better on strength and power tests.

"The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 5–6%
BW loss at slow and fast rates on changes in body com-
position and strength- and power-related performance in
elite athletes. We hypothesized that the faster weight loss
would result in more detrimental effects on both LBM
and performance. Surprisingly, LBM increased by 2.1% ±
0.4% in SR, accompanied with improved performance in
CMJ and all the 1RM parameters, whereas there was no
significant change in LBM or improvements in strength-
and power-related performance, except 1RM squat, in
FR. Total LBM increased more in SR than in FR, with
weekly gains in LBM of 0.3% ± 0.0% and 0.0% ± 0.1%
(p = .02) for SR and FR, respectively. Consequently, the
slower weight-loss intervention had more positive effects
on LBM and performance than the faster weight-loss
intervention
...
athletes who want
to gain LBM and increase strength- and power-related
performance during a weight-loss period combined with
strength training should aim for a weekly weight loss of
0.7% of BW, whereas athletes who only want to keep
LBM might increase their weekly weight-loss rate to
1.0–1.4% of BW"

http://bit.ly/1oll53w (link is a pdf)

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

Really there is no very solid proof *either way* that you can continue to do this or not, so I find the people talking as experts on this kind of annoying, especially when it discourages someone. However it is shown you CAN do this at first for certain as shown in several studies. The thing is it, will definitely be slower than if you are on a caloric surplus, and there is a point at which the caloric deficit will "overpower" the body's rebuilding response most probably, which will also certainly be different for different people etc. But I don't see that as a reason to stop, but carry on and fine tune.

Also, no, its not 100% certain that any muscle built is not due more of what Mireygal's last post was talking about: your body builds while you have small short term surpluses, stops during the higher deficit times, "micro" surplusses and deficits. In fact this is the principle I have in my mind when I try to use while losing weight and gaining strength at the same time since it makes sense, and I would in theory maximize any growth time. I will typically eat less calories during the day, then when I exercise in the evening I eat some before, then eat part of my saved cals and most burned cals afterwards, but not going over my deficit. Overall the day is in deficit, but after stimulation I have a surplus. Is there any guarantee or good study showing this works? Not that I know of, but when I do this, in the past and also as I have been even this past month, all my lifts are going up, and my weight is going down. Is it muscle?

Well I really have no proof, so technically maybe not, and there wont be any way to prove it without significant expense and time consumption. But, two things I think tend to indicate it is muscle and not neurological retraining: I have lifted off and on for many years, while some lifts are not approaching what I was able to in the past, some of my lifts are increasing past what I've done before and I'm not even increasing volume, my training frequency is actually kind of low. Now maybe its possible I am just retraining my brain to fire more efficiently, maybe I have a huge genetic potential muscle mass, maybe its all "mind over matter", or maybe someone is secretly injecting me with roids overnight... Do I really care what reason some person will assign it because it violates their made up rule? No. What matters is I'm getting stronger and losing weight. That's really all you need to know right? So keep on working at it while you are losing weight and don't let the silly debate of online "experts" get you discouraged. If you hit a wall, reduce the deficit, change frequency/volume, change exercises, etc and see if it keeps going, you constantly have to make adjustments anyways during all training for long periods.

Just don't get too frustrated, you are not going to look like Sly on roids, especially while doing a disadvantaged building program (under deficit) thats for certain. But you also wont ever look like him without doing roids too so...again, keep your eye on your progress and adjust and modify.

littlebutlean

The human body is truly a piece of art. It is so complicated and advanced that we still don't know most of how it works to a point of absolution. The greatest single biological ability the human body has that has contributed to us being a flourishing race is adaptability. The human body will adapt to anything it comes up against and hypertrophy is included in this. To dumb it down, it seems to have a "priority" list of functions with the top priority of course being survival and then trickling down from there.

It is of my opinion that if you consistently cause hypertrophy by progressive muscle overload eating around maintenance that there are sufficient calories to grow but only slightly and slowly. When I speak of adaptability, if you are lifting heavy weight to the point where you're causing overload, the body knows this. Do this consistently and it wants to adapt. It does this by rebuilding the muscle and additional fibers to try and be able to carry the weight in the future. If you eat too little, this seems to be low on the priority list. If you eat lots, well there's lots of calories to go around and now it's relatively quite happy to rebuild muscle fibers. You will reach a point where the body just gives up and you'll plateau.

You don't need a huge caloric surplus to grow. You do need to train hard, get in your sufficient protein (which isn't even that much) and eat around maintenance and the body will adapt slowly but surely.

That's just my opinion I'm certainly no expert. :drinker:

Edmond_Dantes

I think the last three posters nailed it.

/thread

Sarah4fitness

So I was involved in a recent discussion where everyone said you can't get muscular unless you add calories, so I thought I'd throw it out to the community to get your thoughts. Here are some questions.

1. If I am overweight, untrained and really have no muscularity and I currently eat 4000 calories a day, if I cut my calories to 3000 a day and weight train hard, it is impossible for me to gain muscle?

2 If I am a 180 pound man, and keep around my normal calories or even slightly under my calories and I train hard, it is impossible for me to gain any new muscle?

I'm really curious about this topic and looking forward to the responses from those of you who are knowledgeable on this topic. When I pointed out that I had lost weight and built muscle, I was told the muscle I had just showed more as I lost weight. The thing is, I didn't really have any muscle. And if that's true, how did I go from a 36" waist to a 32" while adding more than an inch to my arms? How did my pants get loose, while my shirts got tighter in the chest and arms?

Looking forward to your comments.

How are you a CPT and not know the answer to this???

littlebutlean

So I was involved in a recent discussion where everyone said you can't get muscular unless you add calories, so I thought I'd throw it out to the community to get your thoughts. Here are some questions.

1. If I am overweight, untrained and really have no muscularity and I currently eat 4000 calories a day, if I cut my calories to 3000 a day and weight train hard, it is impossible for me to gain muscle?

2 If I am a 180 pound man, and keep around my normal calories or even slightly under my calories and I train hard, it is impossible for me to gain any new muscle?

I'm really curious about this topic and looking forward to the responses from those of you who are knowledgeable on this topic. When I pointed out that I had lost weight and built muscle, I was told the muscle I had just showed more as I lost weight. The thing is, I didn't really have any muscle. And if that's true, how did I go from a 36" waist to a 32" while adding more than an inch to my arms? How did my pants get loose, while my shirts got tighter in the chest and arms?

Looking forward to your comments.

How are you a CPT and not know the answer to this???

Well that's an embarrassing question .. :huh:

_Terrapin_

So if I'm understanding everyone right, unless I take in more calories, really no matter how hard I work out, No matter what stress I put on my muscles, I can never expect to gain any more muscle than I already have? Wow, that is truly disheartening. I am eating the same as always and feel like i've put on a lot of muscle. Even friends who haven't seen me in a while ask if I'm on steroids. Funny thing is, I eat very few calories compared to most people with my body size and workout regime. By the way, I've posted my work out routine on another post. Since you are all so helpful on these 2, maybe you want to give your opinion on my routine too? I'd appreciate any comments.

Just think about it logically a second. If one intends to gain muscle, then there is NO DOUBT mass will be added to the frame. Adding lean mass to the frame WILL RESULT in weight gain. Weight gain happens in calorie surplus, not calorie deficit.

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

so it's not possible to gain weight from muscle growth alone? I always hear about people stripping down on a diet then adding muscle and gaining substantial weight while still being lean and ripped. I want to point to Stallone back in the day, but everyone will say roids.

Gaining lean muscle is an energy surplus. Doesn't have to be a big surplus. One can add muscle and still stay lean, but it doesn't negate the fact that a surplus is still happening. As for Stallone, it's roids.

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

Stallone #1 to #3 roids; look up Dykstra and Backman circa '86 Mets then look 5 years later. Great examples of steroid use in MLB roughly same time of Rocky; anabolic steroids mainstreamed around this time. Most people gaining during a cut it is from roids. You can retrain or have newbie gains also, but they are not significant.

mccindy72

The thing is, when you stress your muscles with heavy loads, you actually injure them by tearing them and then when rested, they heal back bigger than they were like if you break a bone and it grows more bone over to help protect. Isn't that correct? So if we are talking about the body healing itself and how it goes about doing that, one would think you could indeed build muscle at or around the same calories by constantly working that muscle - tear, heal, tear heal.

You are correct in your thinking.
Do tumors stop growing when someone is eating at a deficit? That would be awesome, but sadly it is not the case. Sarcomas grow even while a patient is wasting away. This is just an example that one's body can create or enlarge certain structures (muscle) while reducing others (fat).

While this is true, it's not the same principle. Tumors continue to grow because they create their own blood supply and steal nourishment from the surrounding tissue. Sometimes they create the blood supply at such a fast rate they are unable to nourish themselves fast enough, causing necrosis even while they grow at an astronomical rate, so that dead cells are found even in the growing tumor tissue.

Edmond_Dantes

The thing is, when you stress your muscles with heavy loads, you actually injure them by tearing them and then when rested, they heal back bigger than they were like if you break a bone and it grows more bone over to help protect. Isn't that correct? So if we are talking about the body healing itself and how it goes about doing that, one would think you could indeed build muscle at or around the same calories by constantly working that muscle - tear, heal, tear heal.

You are correct in your thinking.
Do tumors stop growing when someone is eating at a deficit? That would be awesome, but sadly it is not the case. Sarcomas grow even while a patient is wasting away. This is just an example that one's body can create or enlarge certain structures (muscle) while reducing others (fat).

While this is true, it's not the same principle. Tumors continue to grow because they create their own blood supply and steal nourishment from the surrounding tissue. Sometimes they create the blood supply at such a fast rate they are unable to nourish themselves fast enough, causing necrosis even while they grow at an astronomical rate, so that dead cells are found even in the growing tumor tissue.

I know this is kind of off-topic but anyway:
The gist of what you say is correct, but tumors get their nutrients, like muscle, from the blood (hence the use of anti-angiogenic chemotherapies and embolization therapies to treat certain cancers). So if they are able to grow in a calorie deficit, by using building blocks from the blood, then it is incorrect to say that nothing can grow when a body is burning fat for some of its energy.

I mean, doesn't it seem logical that the body won't just shut down because you had one less snickers bar than the amount of calories you used that day?

No_Finish_Line

So if I'm understanding everyone right, unless I take in more calories, really no matter how hard I work out, No matter what stress I put on my muscles, I can never expect to gain any more muscle than I already have? Wow, that is truly disheartening. I am eating the same as always and feel like i've put on a lot of muscle. Even friends who haven't seen me in a while ask if I'm on steroids. Funny thing is, I eat very few calories compared to most people with my body size and workout regime. By the way, I've posted my work out routine on another post. Since you are all so helpful on these 2, maybe you want to give your opinion on my routine too? I'd appreciate any comments.

Just think about it logically a second. If one intends to gain muscle, then there is NO DOUBT mass will be added to the frame. Adding lean mass to the frame WILL RESULT in weight gain. Weight gain happens in calorie surplus, not calorie deficit.

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

so it's not possible to gain weight from muscle growth alone? I always hear about people stripping down on a diet then adding muscle and gaining substantial weight while still being lean and ripped. I want to point to Stallone back in the day, but everyone will say roids.

Gaining lean muscle is an energy surplus. Doesn't have to be a big surplus. One can add muscle and still stay lean, but it doesn't negate the fact that a surplus is still happening. As for Stallone, it's roids.

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

thought he was a fan of HGH

No_Finish_Line

Again, I think it's a matter of the fact that we don't live in a vaccuum. Life is never absolute.

If you are eating close to maintenance, even at a mild deficit... the reality is that some days you may be way more active than others... those days, you may have a greater deficit and be a fat burning machine (even if you eat back most of your exercise cals)... will you be in a position to build muscle? No.

But other days you may have a lazy day where you sit on the couch all day and barely burn anything. Those days, you're likely eating at a surplus.

On average, over the week, you may be at an overall deficit - but some days you're over, some under.

I don't know how fast the body turns around the building of muscle, burning of fat. A daily fluctuation probably doesn't yield much in terms of fast results. But the principle is there, and I think it is what 'body recomp' is all about.

The thing we see here, more often though, is a large volume of people who want to lose AS MUCH WEIGHT AS POSSIBLE... and so they eat at a crazy deficit, and probably lose a good deal of lean body mass while they're at it. (The body needs money, and starts selling any assets it can for that lil bit of cash).


Anyhoo... I'm rambling. I'll stop now.

i'm thinking thats exactly what happens with body recomp. still not gaining muscle while eating at a defecit tho, technically.

Magisoft

Hi there, in a similar boat. Maintaining weight well, but want to build more muscle - need to figure it out. Happy to support you, add me if you like, best of luck!

Magisoft

Great results, impressive muscle tone.

jmangini

The thing is, when you stress your muscles with heavy loads, you actually injure them by tearing them and then when rested, they heal back bigger than they were like if you break a bone and it grows more bone over to help protect. Isn't that correct? So if we are talking about the body healing itself and how it goes about doing that, one would think you could indeed build muscle at or around the same calories by constantly working that muscle - tear, heal, tear heal.

Then why do competitors bulk if this is true? Why go through hard dieting to dial in for a competition, if adding muscle this way worked?

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

Because professionals need to add incredible bulk and slabs of muscle. Obviously you need to eat far more to add weight and size to your frame. When they cut, they lose a lot of weight quickly and get to a body fat percentage that is not maintainable. Obviously you would lose muscle with such extreme dieting and in such a short period of time for an extended period of time. And let's not forget therebis fat on muscle, so when you lose fat, obviously you would look and be smaller. But I know for fact ii lost weight while adding muscle where there used to be flab. If you take an untrained overweight person with no muscle and train him hard with weights and lean him out at a slow rate, I still find it hard to believe he can't gain muscle. The premise most people are giving is that when someone loses weight you see muscle that was already there and that just seems ridiculous to me. It takes hard work to build muscle. Fat untrained people don't have all kinds of muscle just sitting there waiting to be seen.

jmangini

I think the painful truth is that genetics determine how much muscle one can build naturally, and from what I can see, the muscle one adds over the course of 1 to 2 years will be the majority of what he ever adds naturally. Progress from there will be much more difficult and slow. Science has disagreed on many things over the years. Scientists used to say bees shouldn't be able to fly and man could never travel at the speed of sound. A long term well trained person would have to eat more to pack on new muscle gains, but I don't believe an untrained person would have to do so. You couldn't possible add such stress and stimulus to untrained muscles and get zero results (or lose muscle) even while losing weight.

LolBroScience

This study, published in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2011, studied two groups of subjects on hypocaloric diets: one on a slow-reduction (SR) diet and the other on a fast-reduction (FR) diet. Both groups performed heavy-lifting strength training during the study. They found that the slow-reduction group gained both lean body mass and performed better on strength and power tests.

"The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 5–6%
BW loss at slow and fast rates on changes in body com-
position and strength- and power-related performance in
elite athletes. We hypothesized that the faster weight loss
would result in more detrimental effects on both LBM
and performance. Surprisingly, LBM increased by 2.1% ±
0.4% in SR, accompanied with improved performance in
CMJ and all the 1RM parameters, whereas there was no
significant change in LBM or improvements in strength-
and power-related performance, except 1RM squat, in
FR. Total LBM increased more in SR than in FR, with
weekly gains in LBM of 0.3% ± 0.0% and 0.0% ± 0.1%
(p = .02) for SR and FR, respectively. Consequently, the
slower weight-loss intervention had more positive effects
on LBM and performance than the faster weight-loss
intervention
...
athletes who want
to gain LBM and increase strength- and power-related
performance during a weight-loss period combined with
strength training should aim for a weekly weight loss of
0.7% of BW, whereas athletes who only want to keep
LBM might increase their weekly weight-loss rate to
1.0–1.4% of BW"

http://bit.ly/1oll53w (link is a pdf)

It was an interesting study. However, I'd be curious to know if any of the elite level athletes were enhanced or not. IMHO most are.

usmcmp

This study, published in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2011, studied two groups of subjects on hypocaloric diets: one on a slow-reduction (SR) diet and the other on a fast-reduction (FR) diet. Both groups performed heavy-lifting strength training during the study. They found that the slow-reduction group gained both lean body mass and performed better on strength and power tests.

"The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 5–6%
BW loss at slow and fast rates on changes in body com-
position and strength- and power-related performance in
elite athletes. We hypothesized that the faster weight loss
would result in more detrimental effects on both LBM
and performance. Surprisingly, LBM increased by 2.1% ±
0.4% in SR, accompanied with improved performance in
CMJ and all the 1RM parameters, whereas there was no
significant change in LBM or improvements in strength-
and power-related performance, except 1RM squat, in
FR. Total LBM increased more in SR than in FR, with
weekly gains in LBM of 0.3% ± 0.0% and 0.0% ± 0.1%
(p = .02) for SR and FR, respectively. Consequently, the
slower weight-loss intervention had more positive effects
on LBM and performance than the faster weight-loss
intervention
...
athletes who want
to gain LBM and increase strength- and power-related
performance during a weight-loss period combined with
strength training should aim for a weekly weight loss of
0.7% of BW, whereas athletes who only want to keep
LBM might increase their weekly weight-loss rate to
1.0–1.4% of BW"

http://bit.ly/1oll53w (link is a pdf)

In that study they selected athletes who were involved in: volleyball, cross country, rifle shooting, ice hockey, motocross, waterskiing, freestyle dancing, and ski jumping. While I fully recognize each of those as a sport I think that they all would experience gains in lean mass due to being new to strength training. I'm sure that they each have some muscle due to being athletic, but I also know that they would benefit from a strength program.

No_Finish_Line

The thing is, when you stress your muscles with heavy loads, you actually injure them by tearing them and then when rested, they heal back bigger than they were like if you break a bone and it grows more bone over to help protect. Isn't that correct? So if we are talking about the body healing itself and how it goes about doing that, one would think you could indeed build muscle at or around the same calories by constantly working that muscle - tear, heal, tear heal.

Then why do competitors bulk if this is true? Why go through hard dieting to dial in for a competition, if adding muscle this way worked?

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

Because professionals need to add incredible bulk and slabs of muscle. Obviously you need to eat far more to add weight and size to your frame. When they cut, they lose a lot of weight quickly and get to a body fat percentage that is not maintainable. Obviously you would lose muscle with such extreme dieting and in such a short period of time for an extended period of time. And let's not forget therebis fat on muscle, so when you lose fat, obviously you would look and be smaller. But I know for fact ii lost weight while adding muscle where there used to be flab. If you take an untrained overweight person with no muscle and train him hard with weights and lean him out at a slow rate, I still find it hard to believe he can't gain muscle. The premise most people are giving is that when someone loses weight you see muscle that was already there and that just seems ridiculous to me. It takes hard work to build muscle. Fat untrained people don't have all kinds of muscle just sitting there waiting to be seen

I completely disagree with that. if you've been over weight your entire life you've built muscle in order to move around that extra weight. you see it all the time on the extream weight loss tv shows.

there was a 19 yearold base ball phenom who certainly didn't workout a day in his life, he picked up the trainer and threw him around like a rag doll when they first met.

No_Finish_Line

I think the painful truth is that genetics determine how much muscle one can build naturally, and from what I can see, the muscle one adds over the course of 1 to 2 years will be the majority of what he ever adds naturally. Progress from there will be much more difficult and slow. Science has disagreed on many things over the years. Scientists used to say bees shouldn't be able to fly and man could never travel at the speed of sound. A long term well trained person would have to eat more to pack on new muscle gains, but I don't believe an untrained person would have to do so. You couldn't possible add such stress and stimulus to untrained muscles and get zero results (or lose muscle) even while losing weight.

that i'm on board with.

but the group you describe is commonly accepted to be able to build mass on a defecit, as i assume was disscussed earlier in the thread.

No_Finish_Line

This study, published in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2011, studied two groups of subjects on hypocaloric diets: one on a slow-reduction (SR) diet and the other on a fast-reduction (FR) diet. Both groups performed heavy-lifting strength training during the study. They found that the slow-reduction group gained both lean body mass and performed better on strength and power tests.

"The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 5–6%
BW loss at slow and fast rates on changes in body com-
position and strength- and power-related performance in
elite athletes. We hypothesized that the faster weight loss
would result in more detrimental effects on both LBM
and performance. Surprisingly, LBM increased by 2.1% ±
0.4% in SR, accompanied with improved performance in
CMJ and all the 1RM parameters, whereas there was no
significant change in LBM or improvements in strength-
and power-related performance, except 1RM squat, in
FR. Total LBM increased more in SR than in FR, with
weekly gains in LBM of 0.3% ± 0.0% and 0.0% ± 0.1%
(p = .02) for SR and FR, respectively. Consequently, the
slower weight-loss intervention had more positive effects
on LBM and performance than the faster weight-loss
intervention
...
athletes who want
to gain LBM and increase strength- and power-related
performance during a weight-loss period combined with
strength training should aim for a weekly weight loss of
0.7% of BW, whereas athletes who only want to keep
LBM might increase their weekly weight-loss rate to
1.0–1.4% of BW"

http://bit.ly/1oll53w (link is a pdf)

It was an interesting study. However, I'd be curious to know if any of the elite level athletes were enhanced or not. IMHO most are.

if elite athelete means pro athelete then i completely agree