"You can't build muscle on a deficit"
Replies
-
Do your reading on chronic constipation and fiber intake and you'll find quite a few studies that find a higher fiber consumption exacerbates the problem. And that actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it - if there's something else causing the problem, just adding more volume is only going to make things worse.
yes, highER than recommended. You said it yourself right there. This in no way discounts the minimum recommendations.
No, I'm referring to studies comparing reduced and high fiber diets (or in one, a "no fiber" diet, a reduced fiber diet and a high fiber diet) and finding that the high fiber diet exacerbates the problem in some patients. Hitting your recommended fiber is great for most (myself included) but it's not a one-size-fits-all recommendation. Telling some people to eat lots of fiber can actually make things worse for them.0 -
This thread has a bunch of fancy words with no personal experience..
SO I can offer you mine...
I did p90x two years ago and was eating 900 cals a day, I was ripped an shredded at an obvious deficet, I was
at most toned and DID gain muscle..
I gained TONS of strength in a defiecit, the mass was minimal but DID happen
I was cranking a 100 pushups in a 5 min time span in multiple sets of course..
So you gained strength which we all know is possible, and you had some minor noob gains, which yes, is possible.0 -
Telling some people to eat lots of fiber can actually make things worse for them.
And telling them to eat none (which is what you're saying) can be very dangerous. Even people with Crohn's are recommended to get SOME dietary fiber. I am not discounting your point that more isn't always better. But I think it's dangerous for people to read this and take away that they don't need some fiber for health. Just like you need some carbs.0 -
Hold on, reading my post to see where I said I will laugh at people with health conditions, oh wait.......I did. No need to play the victim. Part of the problem is a general conversation will start and at some point someone with a medical condition comes marching in stating people are wrong because they suffer from something and they are different. Always wanting to shout to the world that they have a disorder. Remember, not everyone has that.
You're doing a great job of complaining about what people think about a 1200 calorie diet. A little sensitive are we? If you like limiting yourself to 1200 then go ahead, knock yourself out. If people like me laugh at people like you for insisting on eating so little by choice is going to bother you then I don't know what to tell you.Okkkk thanks, I think I understand now. I will continue to lift and do squats etc..
I agree that people on this site can be WAY too judgmental about the 1200/cal diet when that is not the point of the thread and they have no idea about other factors. (People also don't understand that 4'9 women can and should eat a lot less. Lot's of knee-jerk reactions when one size does not fit all!) I also agree that explaining the reason why LC may not be great to newbies or 16 year olds with 10 lbs to lose can be helpful... I just wish people could be kinder/a little slower to react
I feel the same way about people who say "you can't gain muscle on a deficit" without really reading the facts. This has been super helpful!
Aye
Its like they just see 1200 calorie and red lights flash behind their eyes and they go poo flinging ape sh*$ lol hheh Your post has had some rather fortunate pleasant responses 
Ty RG for finding my reply so important that you took the time to go search for a REALLY cool GIF and type in the html to post it! Thanks!
Nice so you generally like laughing at people with health conditions or just generally just hop in and make sarcastic remarks and laugh at people with out actually reading what you are replying to?
Trust me, I read the posts, whole whole post and will reply as I deem necessary for the situation. What I don't do is get all sensitive about the words people write and cry "whoa is me".
Because everyone wants a label that's why!0 -
Telling some people to eat lots of fiber can actually make things worse for them.
And telling them to eat none (which is what you're saying) can be very dangerous. Even people with Crohn's are recommended to get SOME dietary fiber. I am not discounting your point that more isn't always better. But I think it's dangerous for people to read this and take away that they don't need some fiber for health. Just like you need some carbs.
What? I said 0 fiber should be the goal? I could have worded it more accurately, but I was referring to setting a high fiber target (which I assumed you were talking about) - not abstaining from fiber altogether. Most people even without trying are going to get some fiber, particularly if they eat a lot of vegetables, and I'd agree many people benefit from purposefully tracking their fiber intake. As I said, if it's helpful to set a higher target, go for it, but even then it's a tiny percentage of your calories and the notion you can't hit even 30-40g+ of fiber on 1200 net calories is stretching it. My point was more that you can hit any reasonable fiber macro on 1200 net calories, not that you should for some reason be following a no fiber diet.
And let's not even get started on how many carbs you need - I don't think this thread needs further derailment. :laugh:0 -
Telling some people to eat lots of fiber can actually make things worse for them.
And telling them to eat none (which is what you're saying) can be very dangerous. Even people with Crohn's are recommended to get SOME dietary fiber. I am not discounting your point that more isn't always better. But I think it's dangerous for people to read this and take away that they don't need some fiber for health. Just like you need some carbs.
What? I said 0 fiber should be the goal? I could have worded it more accurately, but I was referring to setting a high fiber target (which I assumed you were talking about) - not abstaining from fiber altogether. Most people even without trying are going to get some fiber, particularly if they eat a lot of vegetables, and I'd agree many people benefit from purposefully tracking their fiber intake. As I said, if it's helpful to set a higher target, go for it, but even then it's a tiny percentage of your calories and the notion you can't hit even 30-40g+ of fiber on 1200 net calories is stretching it. My point was more that you can hit any reasonable fiber macro on 1200 net calories, not that you should for some reason be following a no fiber diet.
And let's not even get started on how many carbs you need - I don't think this thread needs further derailment. :laugh:
Awesome. Then we're totally on the same page, since I never said what the minimum was for any given individual. I shall carry on with my day assured that you weren't implying people shouldn't eat fiber when you said "fiber is not beneficial for everyone " since you and I both agree that some fiber is beneficial.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Building new muscle is NOT the same thing as building strength. You can gain strength eating at a deficit. A woman is not going to build any new muscle eating 1200 calories a day (aside from possibly some small newbie gains). Women build muscle at less than half the rate that men do. Unless your TDEE is 1,000 calories a day so that 1200 IS a surplus, which is so unlikely that it is ridiculous. So unless you are some special snowflake, then no.0
-
If a 1200 target has them losing weight at their desired rate (and assuming it's a reasonable rate), what's the problem?
Because, malnutrition if you do this over the long term.
If people eating 1200 are guaranteeing me that they're getting all their vitamins and minerals and fiber and sufficient protein and fat to make their bodies work, then I'm fine(ish) with it. But look at the dietary guidelines. Without a lot of supplements, it. is. TOUGH to get adequate nutrition on only 1200 calories. Sure, it's enough calories to get out of bed. But vitamins and minerals, fiber, protein? THAT"S the real reason I urge people to eat as much as possible while still losing weight at a sensible rate. There's protein and fat you need to just make your body work. Not energy to move around. Just fat molecules to make your organs and nerves function properly.
Personally. Totally just MHO.
But I certainly don't, myself, make fun of them.
I'm a 5'1", 122 lb, 43 year old female who works out 3-4 time a week. My TDEE is about 1600 calories a day. While I do not strive for 1200 calories (more like 1360), I think there is no 'one size fits all' minimum number of calories one needs. a 20% deficit from TDEE (which most people consider reasonable) for me would be 1280 calories!
By the time I hit my goal weight, my TDEE will be about 1575--and I will happily eat that amount--but small people just don't need as much. It doesn't mean we can't be nutritionally sounds--but I think it does mean we don't have as much room for non nutritionally dense foods if we want to hit the macros, fiber, vitamins and not over eat.0 -
small people just don't need as much. It doesn't mean we can't be nutritionally sounds--but I think it does mean we don't have as much room for non nutritionally dense foods if we want to hit the macros, fiber, vitamins and not over eat.
You illustrate my point perfectly. My point that to hit your macros and vitamins goal at 1360 you have to focus on nutritionally dense food without overeating.0 -
If a 1200 target has them losing weight at their desired rate (and assuming it's a reasonable rate), what's the problem?
Because, malnutrition if you do this over the long term.
If people eating 1200 are guaranteeing me that they're getting all their vitamins and minerals and fiber and sufficient protein and fat to make their bodies work, then I'm fine(ish) with it. But look at the dietary guidelines. Without a lot of supplements, it. is. TOUGH to get adequate nutrition on only 1200 calories. Sure, it's enough calories to get out of bed. But vitamins and minerals, fiber, protein? THAT"S the real reason I urge people to eat as much as possible while still losing weight at a sensible rate. There's protein and fat you need to just make your body work. Not energy to move around. Just fat molecules to make your organs and nerves function properly.
Personally. Totally just MHO.
But I certainly don't, myself, make fun of them.
I'm a 5'1", 122 lb, 43 year old female who works out 3-4 time a week. My TDEE is about 1600 calories a day. While I do not strive for 1200 calories (more like 1360), I think there is no 'one size fits all' minimum number of calories one needs. a 20% deficit from TDEE (which most people consider reasonable) for me would be 1280 calories!
By the time I hit my goal weight, my TDEE will be about 1575--and I will happily eat that amount--but small people just don't need as much. It doesn't mean we can't be nutritionally sounds--but I think it does mean we don't have as much room for non nutritionally dense foods if we want to hit the macros, fiber, vitamins and not over eat.
A lot of good points here. I would just add that perhaps 20% cut is too aggressive since you are probably within say.... 15 pounds of your goal weight?0 -
I don't think that this is 100% true .. as I am pretty sure that I gained muscle while in a deficit.
However ... I am gaining weight now in a surplus and I have noticed the muscle is coming on at a much faster rate.
So .. take it as you will.0 -
I don't think that this is 100% true .. as I am pretty sure that I gained muscle while in a deficit.
However ... I am gaining weight now in a surplus and I have noticed the muscle is coming on at a much faster rate.
So .. take it as you will.
Again, it appears you are a MAN. Women do not put on muscle the same way.0 -
You actually can gain muscle on a deficit as long as you are eating plenty of protein and training hard. It won't be a LOT of muscle, but it is possible.
Editing to add that it has to be a small deficit - too aggressive of a deficit, and yeah, no gains.0 -
I don't really understand the whole "laughing at other people for eating so little" bit. If someone wants to lose the weight more quickly, that's their choice. That's equivalent to me laughing at someone who's morbidly obese for choosing to lose weight more slowly (e.g., 1 lb/week), even though they could safely lose weight at a much faster pace. Why care so much about how much other people are eating and how fast/slow they're looking to lose weight? And keep in mind we're talking 1200 target calories but calorie counting is reputably imprecise and many people tend to overestimate their caloric intake - meaning that their 1200 calories could be 1500 calories or it could be 1200 or it could be 1650 (you get my point). The target you set really isn't that important, as it's just an estimate anyways and should generally be adjusted over time anyways based on your progress. If a 1200 target has them losing weight at their desired rate (and assuming it's a reasonable rate), what's the problem?
Because they are telling themselves that they have to eat so little, when they probably don't. Then they come here and argue with people that they NEED to eat 1,200 or they will gain.
I started out losing the bulk of my weight at 1600 calories a day. MFP would have had me eat 1320 at 180 to lose 1 lb a week. I begged to differ and ended up losing 1-2 lbs a week eating 1600-1800 a day for about 3 months.
I started lifting weights in March and felt like I wasn't eating enough at 1600, so I upped to 1800, then 2200 and now 2500. I am eating 2500 and have lost weight the past 2 weeks. I am 5'4" 154, 31. I workout MWF for an hour, strength training, with a minimal cardio warmup. I don't spend "hours" in the gym, I am not 20 something, I am not tall, I am not giant. I just did it smart. Eating 1200 calories for 6 months and being sedentary is just going to leave people sallow, flabby and malnourished.
Sure, you can so that, but if I can help someone not be miserable I will try. Telling people not to eat so little isn't judgmental. Wouldn't you like to have your cake and eat all the cake, too?0 -
I don't think that this is 100% true .. as I am pretty sure that I gained muscle while in a deficit.
However ... I am gaining weight now in a surplus and I have noticed the muscle is coming on at a much faster rate.
So .. take it as you will.
Again, it appears you are a MAN. Women do not put on muscle the same way.
Im pretty sure I am not a man and i put on substantial amount of muscle as well as strength while maintaining a deficit and taking in 1200-1400 calories a day while working out a minimum of 45m a day ( for a year now ) the entire notion is completely over generalized and unfounded.
0 -
I don't think that this is 100% true .. as I am pretty sure that I gained muscle while in a deficit.
However ... I am gaining weight now in a surplus and I have noticed the muscle is coming on at a much faster rate.
So .. take it as you will.
Again, it appears you are a MAN. Women do not put on muscle the same way.
Im pretty sure I am not a man and i put on substantial amount of muscle as well as strength while maintaining a deficit and taking in 1200-1400 calories a day while working out a minimum of 45m a day ( for a year now ) the entire notion is completely over generalized and unfounded.
You see more muscle because you reduced fat.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I don't really understand the whole "laughing at other people for eating so little" bit. If someone wants to lose the weight more quickly, that's their choice. That's equivalent to me laughing at someone who's morbidly obese for choosing to lose weight more slowly (e.g., 1 lb/week), even though they could safely lose weight at a much faster pace. Why care so much about how much other people are eating and how fast/slow they're looking to lose weight? And keep in mind we're talking 1200 target calories but calorie counting is reputably imprecise and many people tend to overestimate their caloric intake - meaning that their 1200 calories could be 1500 calories or it could be 1200 or it could be 1650 (you get my point). The target you set really isn't that important, as it's just an estimate anyways and should generally be adjusted over time anyways based on your progress. If a 1200 target has them losing weight at their desired rate (and assuming it's a reasonable rate), what's the problem?
Because they are telling themselves that they have to eat so little, when they probably don't. Then they come here and argue with people that they NEED to eat 1,200 or they will gain.
I started out losing the bulk of my weight at 1600 calories a day. MFP would have had me eat 1320 at 180 to lose 1 lb a week. I begged to differ and ended up losing 1-2 lbs a week eating 1600-1800 a day for about 3 months.
I started lifting weights in March and felt like I wasn't eating enough at 1600, so I upped to 1800, then 2200 and now 2500. I am eating 2500 and have lost weight the past 2 weeks. I am 5'4" 154, 31. I workout MWF for an hour, strength training, with a minimal cardio warmup. I don't spend "hours" in the gym, I am not 20 something, I am not tall, I am not giant. I just did it smart. Eating 1200 calories for 6 months and being sedentary is just going to leave people sallow, flabby and malnourished.
Sure, you can so that, but if I can help someone not be miserable I will try. Telling people not to eat so little isn't judgmental. Wouldn't you like to have your cake and eat all the cake, too?
My money says you're bulking at 2500+ calories unless you have a truly active job or you just overestimate your calories, but perhaps your metabolism is on the high-end of the scale. If bulking is your goal, great, but it has nothing to do with someone less active and wanting to lose weight. And it's worth noting that eating more will lead to slower losses - and sometimes that's what you want - but there is no "eat more to lose more fat" which is what I have to assume you mean by having your cake and eating it too. Personally, I just worry less about what other people do and if they are older, small and not as active, 1200 net calories may be perfectly reasonable. Is it what I would do in their shoes or what I recommend? Maybe not, but there's a difference between disagreeing about what's optimal versus laughing at someone for eating 1200 net calories.0 -
I don't think that this is 100% true .. as I am pretty sure that I gained muscle while in a deficit.
However ... I am gaining weight now in a surplus and I have noticed the muscle is coming on at a much faster rate.
So .. take it as you will.
Again, it appears you are a MAN. Women do not put on muscle the same way.
Im pretty sure I am not a man and i put on substantial amount of muscle as well as strength while maintaining a deficit and taking in 1200-1400 calories a day while working out a minimum of 45m a day ( for a year now ) the entire notion is completely over generalized and unfounded.
You see more muscle because you reduced fat.
which has nothing to do with gaining muscle0 -
I don't think that this is 100% true .. as I am pretty sure that I gained muscle while in a deficit.
However ... I am gaining weight now in a surplus and I have noticed the muscle is coming on at a much faster rate.
So .. take it as you will.
Again, it appears you are a MAN. Women do not put on muscle the same way.
Im pretty sure I am not a man and i put on substantial amount of muscle as well as strength while maintaining a deficit and taking in 1200-1400 calories a day while working out a minimum of 45m a day ( for a year now ) the entire notion is completely over generalized and unfounded.
You see more muscle because you reduced fat.
which has nothing to do with gaining muscle
Exactly.0 -
You don't need more fiber or vitamins if you exercise, so 1200 or '1200 net', no difference. It's not hard to meet your dietary needs on 1200, which is the whole basis of 1200. It meets our basic needs.If a 1200 target has them losing weight at their desired rate (and assuming it's a reasonable rate), what's the problem?
Because, malnutrition if you do this over the long term.
If people eating 1200 are guaranteeing me that they're getting all their vitamins and minerals and fiber and sufficient protein and fat to make their bodies work, then I'm fine(ish) with it. But look at the dietary guidelines. Without a lot of supplements, it. is. TOUGH to get adequate nutrition on only 1200 calories. Sure, it's enough calories to get out of bed. But vitamins and minerals, fiber, protein? THAT"S the real reason I urge people to eat as much as possible while still losing weight at a sensible rate. There's protein and fat you need to just make your body work. Not energy to move around. Just fat molecules to make your organs and nerves function properly.
Personally. Totally just MHO.
But I certainly don't, myself, make fun of them.
Besides, why do you have to be ok with someone else's macros or vitamin intake? I understand if they ask "how do you like my macros" or "do you think I'm not eating enough for adequate nutrition" but someone even mentions 1200 and the pile-on starts about how it's unhealthy. It's not. Which is why it's used as a floor here.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You don't need more fiber or vitamins if you exercise, so 1200 or '1200 net', no difference. It's not hard to meet your dietary needs on 1200, which is the whole basis of 1200. It meets our basic needs.If a 1200 target has them losing weight at their desired rate (and assuming it's a reasonable rate), what's the problem?
Because, malnutrition if you do this over the long term.
If people eating 1200 are guaranteeing me that they're getting all their vitamins and minerals and fiber and sufficient protein and fat to make their bodies work, then I'm fine(ish) with it. But look at the dietary guidelines. Without a lot of supplements, it. is. TOUGH to get adequate nutrition on only 1200 calories. Sure, it's enough calories to get out of bed. But vitamins and minerals, fiber, protein? THAT"S the real reason I urge people to eat as much as possible while still losing weight at a sensible rate. There's protein and fat you need to just make your body work. Not energy to move around. Just fat molecules to make your organs and nerves function properly.
Personally. Totally just MHO.
But I certainly don't, myself, make fun of them.
Besides, why do you have to be ok with someone else's macros or vitamin intake? I understand if they ask "how do you like my macros" or "do you think I'm not eating enough for adequate nutrition" but someone even mentions 1200 and the pile-on starts about how it's unhealthy. It's not. Which is why it's used as a floor here.
Because the topic is about "building muscle on a deficit", and the reality is there will be little to no building of muscle on 1200 calories a day. Most 1200 calorie plans also won't hit the necessary protein to build muscle, in addition to it possibly not being enough calories for nutrition or in general.0 -
I eat on a deficit but i definitely notice an increase in muscle when I lift weights0
-
You don't need more fiber or vitamins if you exercise, so 1200 or '1200 net', no difference. It's not hard to meet your dietary needs on 1200, which is the whole basis of 1200. It meets our basic needs.
My point is if you eat more than 1200 total, it becomes easier and easier to consume all of your micronutrient needs thru food. And as I said, it's just my opinion. I've attempted to get all my vitamins and minerals thru food at 1200 (total) without supplements. It's tough. If you're only doing it for 6 months on a diet and you're overweight and have lots of vitamins stored in your fat stores... ok, you probably won't run into problems.
But if you're talking long-term (which I was), it is "tough" (as in you have to think and plan) to get all your nutrition thru food at 1200 (total). Just like that 5'1" woman who has to basically only eat 1200 (net) because she is so tiny. She said she has to focus on "nutrient dense" food. Doing so can be tough for people.
I'm sorry if i sounded like someone saying you CAN"T get all your needed micros and macros over the long term, without supplements, on 1200 (total). You CAN, it's just "tough." As I said.
I
you all.
[edited to add the (total) and (net) tags]0 -
I eat on a deficit but i definitely notice an increase in muscle when I lift weights
What does this mean???
It will take weeks to months for noticeable muscle gains. Are you saying after 2-3 months you definitely "notice" an increase in muscle?
If so, how?0 -
Clarify for me, are you agreeing or do you believe what? my muscles were always there and only can see them because i lost fat? Im confused what you agree with?I don't think that this is 100% true .. as I am pretty sure that I gained muscle while in a deficit.
However ... I am gaining weight now in a surplus and I have noticed the muscle is coming on at a much faster rate.
So .. take it as you will.
Again, it appears you are a MAN. Women do not put on muscle the same way.
Im pretty sure I am not a man and i put on substantial amount of muscle as well as strength while maintaining a deficit and taking in 1200-1400 calories a day while working out a minimum of 45m a day ( for a year now ) the entire notion is completely over generalized and unfounded.
You see more muscle because you reduced fat.
which has nothing to do with gaining muscle
Exactly.0 -
If you really believe 1200 isn't enough for nutrition in general I strongly urge you to do some further reading (outside of bodybuilding forums), talk to someone in the field (outside of personal trainers) and/or try to sue MFP for its dangerous recommendation to virtually everyone registered who is not huge.Most 1200 calorie plans also won't hit the necessary protein to build muscle, in addition to it possibly not being enough calories for nutrition or in general.0 -
Clarify for me, are you agreeing or do you believe what? my muscles were always there and only can see them because i lost fat? Im confused what you agree with?
My position is, it is very unlikely that anyone is building muscle on so few calories. You will build strength, yes. But without a "before and after" dexa scan, you won't convince me that you "built" any new muscle. They only appear bigger.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions