"You can't build muscle on a deficit"

urban_ninja

I see. Recomping is essentially eating at maintenance -- at least that's how it's typically defined.

All that being said, I believe you CAN gain muscle in a deficit, depending on a number of variables.

I was under the impression that recomping is the breakdown of fat to fuel the muscle gains, hence the term recomposition - reorganizing/rearranging.

However, I didn't want to squabble over semantics. I just want to show folks there are cases of obtaining some muscle gains without eating a surplus.

SideSteel

I wouldn't be sensitive to people 'advising others that 1200 might not be fine' if that's what they did. But they tell them flat-out that 1200 is dangerous and is not right for virtually anyone. Which is totally untrue. I know people are trying to help but giving out misinformation isn't helpful.

There are lots of egotistical *kitten* hats that like to spout off in the forums. I try to take discussing a differing position via PMs and they get pissed because they aren't getting their public attention.

Consider though, that debating in private prevents other people from potentially gaining new information about the topic. Just because you are having a discussion with 1 person does not mean there aren't 500 other people reading along.

Do as you please obviously, but I know in my own case I've learned a great deal on the internet because some people take the time to hash it out with someone.

Very true. For those lurkers.

I remember seeing an interview with Alan Aragon where he recalled one day being asked why he spent so much time arguing and debating online and his response was along those lines.

And he's one of the people I'm referring to with my previous statement. He still hashes it out with people on facebook and I learn a ton.

SideSteel

I see. Recomping is essentially eating at maintenance -- at least that's how it's typically defined.

All that being said, I believe you CAN gain muscle in a deficit, depending on a number of variables.

I was under the impression that recomping is the breakdown of fat to fuel the muscle gains, hence the term recomposition - reorganizing/rearranging.

However, I didn't want to squabble over semantics. I just want to show folks there are cases of obtaining some muscle gains without eating a surplus.

You're right about the bold -- I didn't intend to detract from the content, my bad on that one.

eric_sg61

TLDR
<--- Example of recomp. I started on a 1lb weekly deficit and recently shifted to 0.5lb weekly deficit. It can be done, but takes a lot of work and heavy lifting.

This would be a cut, not a recomp, would it not?

I didn't have this much muscle before, therefore, I'd classify it as a recomp

This is a common thought. People who cut have muscle that looks bigger when the fat strips away. I looked bigger at 175-180 than I did at over 200lbs. People thought I was "bulking" when I was at that lower bodyweight. Even with recomping the conditions have to be damn near perfect, even people on drugs and top level prep coaches get it wrong sometimes. I am not trying to say you didn't recomp, just that the bolded is a very common reaction when people lose bodyfat while keeping the muscle they had underneath it.

albayin

I see. Recomping is essentially eating at maintenance -- at least that's how it's typically defined.

All that being said, I believe you CAN gain muscle in a deficit, depending on a number of variables.

I was under the impression that recomping is the breakdown of fat to fuel the muscle gains, hence the term recomposition - reorganizing/rearranging.

However, I didn't want to squabble over semantics. I just want to show folks there are cases of obtaining some muscle gains without eating a surplus.

This is what I thought too because my weight didn't change but my appearance did...but I was told so many times here that it was wrong. LOL

sijomial

TLDR
<--- Example of recomp. I started on a 1lb weekly deficit and recently shifted to 0.5lb weekly deficit. It can be done, but takes a lot of work and heavy lifting.

This would be a cut, not a recomp, would it not?

I didn't have this much muscle before, therefore, I'd classify it as a recomp

This is a common thought. People who cut have muscle that looks bigger when the fat strips away. I looked bigger at 175-180 than I did at over 200lbs. People thought I was "bulking" when I was at that lower bodyweight. Even with recomping the conditions have to be damn near perfect, even people on drugs and top level prep coaches get it wrong sometimes. I am not trying to say you didn't recomp, just that the bolded is a very common reaction when people lose bodyfat while keeping the muscle they had underneath it.

Very true, definition can fool the eye. That's why a good old fashioned tape measure helps. When your arm and leg measurements have gone up and your waist has gone down you know for sure there's something happening. Measuring doesn't catch everything though - my chest measurement stayed the same as the fat went from my chest and my lats got bigger.

Ref your "prep coaches" comment - need to remember we are talking in terms of the whole population and not body builders alone who would be just about the hardest group to gain in deficit or recomp. It's amazing how much ideas have changed over the years, when I started training bulk and cut cycles were just about unheard of for ordinary people just using their local gyms for strength or sports - really calorie balance wasn't even considered. Now it seems that what was once the "normal" way to progress is now regarded as unusual.

People in the 70's / 80's also didn't wander around the gym gobbling mysterious supplements and slurping protein shakes either! (Sorry - pet peeve of mine.)

albayin

I see. Recomping is essentially eating at maintenance -- at least that's how it's typically defined.

All that being said, I believe you CAN gain muscle in a deficit, depending on a number of variables.

I was under the impression that recomping is the breakdown of fat to fuel the muscle gains, hence the term recomposition - reorganizing/rearranging.

However, I didn't want to squabble over semantics. I just want to show folks there are cases of obtaining some muscle gains without eating a surplus.

This is what I thought too because my weight didn't change but my appearance did...but I was told so many times here that it was wrong. LOL

Just to clarify, you guys though it meant to tap into fat strong and break it down to provide the necessary components for muscle protein synthesis or was it you thought you tap into fat stores for energy?

for energy...well that was what I thought. Don't know what the other guy thought...

Galatea_Stone

I see. Recomping is essentially eating at maintenance -- at least that's how it's typically defined.

All that being said, I believe you CAN gain muscle in a deficit, depending on a number of variables.

I was under the impression that recomping is the breakdown of fat to fuel the muscle gains, hence the term recomposition - reorganizing/rearranging.

However, I didn't want to squabble over semantics. I just want to show folks there are cases of obtaining some muscle gains without eating a surplus.

This is what I thought too because my weight didn't change but my appearance did...but I was told so many times here that it was wrong. LOL

Just to clarify, you guys though it meant to tap into fat strong and break it down to provide the necessary components for muscle protein synthesis or was it you thought you tap into fat stores for energy?

The misunderstanding regarding this topic could so easily be dealt with if people would just read a little more before repeating mantras that are technically incorrect. Yes muscle can be built in a deficit. It's just not a lot and not always visible depending on the amount of intramuscular fat the person has and how much of that fat is lost while muscle is gained. Nobody is saying it is an efficient way to build muscle, but there's a huge difference between inefficient and impossible.

sijomial

Just to clarify, you guys thought it meant to tap into fat strong and break it down to provide the necessary components for muscle protein synthesis or was it you thought you tap into fat stores for energy?

Energy. As you know the building blocks for growth has to come from your diet - which (for the lurkers, rather than you) is why there is a world of difference between a small deficit / good diet and a big deficit / deficient diet.

yarwell

for those who like number crunching... this blog helps explain why 1200 is so often "prescribed" http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/MireyGal76/view/in-5-weeks-you-ll-lose-10lbs-why-s-it-not-working-668182

Have you looked at how eating back goes wrong for those prescribed 1200 too ?

DJ7203

This thread is STILL going? LOL Wow! I'm just here for the comments.......
(Insert pic of MJ eating popcorn because I'm too lazy too)

SanteMulberry

I've wondered this too. Because I lift weights and squat, but I'm also in a deficit because I want to lose weight until I reach my goal weight. So does that mean I'm wasting my time lifting and squatting and shouldn't do it until I reach my goal weight..?

Not at all. You can gain muscle strength and endurance even if you're not adding actual mass to your muscles. And lifting or resistance training while losing weight will help you maintain the lean body mass you do have, so when you get to your goal weight, you'll probably be much happier with your overall body composition. People who eat at a larger calorie deficit and don't do resistance training along the way are more likely to lose more lean body mass as they lose weight, resulting in a higher body fat percentage.

^^^THIS^^^ I have gone on starvation diets before-- 750 calories or less. (Don't worry--I'm older and wiser now). I wasn't able to exercise while on them because starvation makes makes one exhausted (in addition to making your hair fall out, skin bad and disturbing your sleep). I lost a lot of weight (just like concentration camp victims) but when I was done, I was flabby, weak and STILL had a fair amount of fat on my body (which, THEORETICALLY I wasn't supposed to have at that body weight). What I had done was lose more muscle than fat and it made the weight gain afterward more or less inevitable because I simply couldn't bear to continue to starve myself and muscle burns far more calories than does body fat. If you take two individuals of the same height--one with a lot of lean body mass and the other with much less lean body mass and more fat (and women are already disadvantaged in that department compared to men) the one with more lean body mass will always burn more calories 24-7. It's not weight that matters but body composition is everything. You will be much more pleased with the way you look if you retain as much LBM as you can, while shedding the most fat that you can (and on a calorie-deficit, unfortunately, some loss of muscle is inevitable). That is why you want to keep your deficits small and work on keeping as much LBM as you can during the process of trimming off the fat.

WalkingAlong

for those who like number crunching... this blog helps explain why 1200 is so often "prescribed" http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/MireyGal76/view/in-5-weeks-you-ll-lose-10lbs-why-s-it-not-working-668182

Have you looked at how eating back goes wrong for those prescribed 1200 too ?

Do you mean how someone here can't increase their deficit to the amount they really want by being more active when they're smaller and sedentary? If so, I agree. Well, they can increase their activity level setting and achieve a higher deficit but not if they call it 'exercise', not following the 'eat back' rules.

WalkingAlong

Just to clarify, you guys thought it meant to tap into fat strong and break it down to provide the necessary components for muscle protein synthesis or was it you thought you tap into fat stores for energy?

Energy. As you know the building blocks for growth has to come from your diet - which (for the lurkers, rather than you) is why there is a world of difference between a small deficit / good diet and a big deficit / deficient diet.

But for those of us with no interest in growth?

I think the pros of higher deficits are often glossed over here and the cons overstated.
http://evidencemag.com/fat-loss-deficit/
http://www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/members/What-is-the-ideal-calorie-deficit.cfm

I think a lot of us run a 'medium deficit' (and have over 33 lbs. of body fat to draw from, even at goal weight) but our intake level is still usually ridiculed here, because it is sub-1500.

yarwell

Do you mean how someone here can't increase their deficit to the amount they really want by being more active when they're smaller and sedentary? If so, I agree. Well, they can increase their activity level setting and achieve a higher deficit but not if they call it 'exercise', not following the 'eat back' rules.

I was meaning the mathematical issue that arises with eating back and the 1200 floor.

If the answer to the deficit calc was say 1050 and this was set to 1200 by the minimum if you exercise 200 cals you get 200 more of food ie 1400 rather than the correct 1250 to fit your goals. The minimum is applied rather crudely if it's a nutrition floor.

Sherbear1109

Most people on here will hate my response, but I think most are just arguing semantics. Obviously you are going to lose weight if you are eating at a deficit, but that does not mean you can't gain or enhance your muscles, especially if they are in bad shape. If you are eating a high protein diet and doing strength training, your muscles are going to improve. Are you going to gain weight due to building muscles at a deficit? No. However, if you are able to lift more and more and workout longer and longer during your strength training sessions, obviously your muscles are improving. If they weren't you would not be lifting more or be increasing your workout time and intensity. If your weight is staying the same for a while, but your inches are still dropping, obviously there are changes happening in your body. Logic says you have probably improved your muscles and lost fat. Otherwise the scale would continue dropping along with the inches.

albayin

Most people on here will hate my response, but I think most are just arguing semantics. Obviously you are going to lose weight if you are eating at a deficit, but that does not mean you can't gain or enhance your muscles, especially if they are in bad shape. If you are eating a high protein diet and doing strength training, your muscles are going to improve. Are you going to gain weight due to building muscles at a deficit? No. However, if you are able to lift more and more and workout longer and longer during your strength training sessions, obviously your muscles are improving. If they weren't you would not be lifting more or be increasing your workout time and intensity. If your weight is staying the same for a while, but your inches are still dropping, obviously there are changes happening in your body. Logic says you have probably improved your muscles and lost fat. Otherwise the scale would continue dropping along with the inches.

I dont hate your statement because I just don't enough to make a decision.

however, I have been told on this site that I am not gaining muscle (as woman) or losing fat (as i am not eating at deficit) because my weight remains the same...despite all the changes in my appearance and very subtle and slow change in size...Apparently people here know a lot better than me about how our bodies work...