"You can't build muscle on a deficit"
Replies
-
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.
Anyone exercising should be eating more than 1200. MFP's recommendation is 1200 NET calories.0 -
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.
I have a questions about this - I didn't know about losing muscle when I first lost most of my weight (20 out of 30 pounds) and I didn't lift weights while dieting (or really exercise at all). Does that mean I likely lost muscle? If I start lifting weights, can I get my original muscle mass back or am I stuck where I am until I stop eating a deficit?
Also... how can your muscles get stronger and build endurance if they can't grow (build mass)? What's changing that can make you stronger without more muscles cells?0 -
Well cant help with being closed minded .. Thats something you need to tackle on your own. Its not my problem but you really shouldn't push your " opinions" off as fact. I dont believe you read your information any further than a forum post or some blog. Definitely not from a medical stand point.
On the other hand. Bloody hell If everyone can get that buff sitting around for 20 years playing video games HELL what are we losing weight for?0 -
I eat on a deficit but i definitely notice an increase in muscle when I lift weights
Have you not read anything in this thread? You did not GAIN muscle unless it was newbie gains. Which even then, it is not a great amount. You most likely gained strength, and lost fat around the muscles making them more noticeable.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Youll build muscle as long as you have more protein than your body breaks down for energy, and to replenish your muscles, eating at a deficit when you have a reserve of fat will allow you to gain, albeit more slowly you wont 'bulk up' but you also wont be skinny at the end, this is from my short experience of low netting.0
-
That's not the issue. What if I don't 'exercise' because I have an active job, so there is no 'eating back' for me, but I still get to 1200 for my recommendation. Can I get adequate vitamins, fiber, fat, protein, minerals and carbs on 1200? Is it different if instead of my active job I have a desk job and go for a 30-minute jog? Would the jogger need an extra multivitamin? Or have a higher fiber recommendation?
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.
Anyone exercising should be eating more than 1200. MFP's recommendation is 1200 NET calories.
You're confusing caloric needs and dietary needs. 1200 is sufficient for dietary needs, for anyone.0 -
i tried to read through this thread.. because i find the subject pretty interesting too.. but got lost in all the arguing.
this was the response that i thought seemed to most directly answer the OPs original question.. and would like to get more feedback on this..Think of it this way - body fat percentage is what's more important than your "goal weight." If you lose a significant amount of muscle mass by the time you reach your goal weight, you'll still have a relatively high body fat percentage. On the other hand, if you get enough protein and lift (factors known to help you retain LBM), you'll have more muscle mass by the time you reach your goal weight and thus have a lower body fat percentage. How you look and feel at your goal weight can vary dramatically depending on your BF %.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.
Wait...it's VERY DANGEROUS not to eat indigestible plant matter? Really?! What sort of suffering will I undergo? How soon will I die? </sarcasm>
OK, seriously, I'm not saying people don't need a little bit of fiber from veggies and fruit, to feed their gut bacteria and whatnot. But "very dangerous" not to eat the recommended (but unsubstantiated) 38g/day for men, 25g/day for women? Sounds more than a bit exaggerated.0 -
um i had NOOOOO muscle before i started my weight loss the 2 started hand and hand lol I went from 20 YEAR lifestyle of eating and gaming and sitting on my tushy and build nice pecs with my um mouse?
But in conversations like this its really evident no matter what evidence you lay before people there is no changing their idea's . Because its what you BELIEVE doesnt make you correct. Its like the world is flat debate all over again0 -
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.
I have a questions about this - I didn't know about losing muscle when I first lost most of my weight (20 out of 30 pounds) and I didn't lift weights while dieting (or really exercise at all). Does that mean I likely lost muscle? If I start lifting weights, can I get my original muscle mass back or am I stuck where I am until I stop eating a deficit?
Also... how can your muscles get stronger and build endurance if they can't grow (build mass)? What's changing that can make you stronger without more muscles cells?
A) Yes, when a person eats in a deficit, they lose water, fat, and muscle. Dependent upon your starting point, diet, and the size of your deficit would be the difference in muscle loss. If your deficit wasn't huge you probably didn't lose a bunch.
Since you're undertrained you'll gain some back right away, from there it would depend if you'd need a small bulk/cut to gain it back (I doubt you lost that much though)
C) The strength gains come from (excuse my spelling) neuroadaptation. Your body becomes more efficient a calling the fibers to lift the weight, thus the gain in strength. But, at the same time if you're in a deficit, this work is also working to maintain that muscle mass so you lose mostly fat and water.0 -
That's not the issue. What if I don't 'exercise' because I have an active job, so there is no 'eating back' for me, but I still get to 1200 for my recommendation. Can I get adequate vitamins, fiber, fat, protein, minerals and carbs on 1200? Is it different if instead of my active job I have a desk job and go for a 30-minute jog? Would the jogger need an extra multivitamin? Or have a higher fiber recommendation?
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.
Anyone exercising should be eating more than 1200. MFP's recommendation is 1200 NET calories.
You're confusing caloric needs and dietary needs. 1200 is sufficient for dietary needs, for anyone.
It is adequate for some people, but not most people, and certainly not enough to build muscle on.0 -
um i had NOOOOO muscle before i started my weight loss the 2 started hand and hand lol I went from 20 YEAR lifestyle of eating and gaming and sitting on my tushy and build nice pecs with my um mouse?
But in conversations like this its really evident no matter what evidence you lay before people there is no changing their idea's . Because its what you BELIEVE doesnt make you correct. Its like the world is flat debate all over again
Everyone has muscle, even overweight people or people who never exercise them.0 -
and thus the world was flat again lol0
-
1200 is sufficient for dietary needs, for anyone.
I would be interested in a long-term dietary maintenance plan that meets nutritional recommendation for an adult female in her fertile years that meets or exceeds RDA of vitamins, minerals, fiber, unsaturated fats, and protein without supplements or fortified foods.
Edit to add: not being snarky. I totally want someone to give this to me.
Re-edit to add: and if it could NOT include liver, that would make it even better, but I'd eat liver if I had to.0 -
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.
I have a questions about this - I didn't know about losing muscle when I first lost most of my weight (20 out of 30 pounds) and I didn't lift weights while dieting (or really exercise at all). Does that mean I likely lost muscle? If I start lifting weights, can I get my original muscle mass back or am I stuck where I am until I stop eating a deficit?
Also... how can your muscles get stronger and build endurance if they can't grow (build mass)? What's changing that can make you stronger without more muscles cells?
A) Yes, when a person eats in a deficit, they lose water, fat, and muscle. Dependent upon your starting point, diet, and the size of your deficit would be the difference in muscle loss. If your deficit wasn't huge you probably didn't lose a bunch. Since you're undertrained you'll gain some back right away, from there it would depend if you'd need a small bulk/cut to gain it back (I doubt you lost that much though)
C) The strength gains come from (excuse my spelling) neuroadaptation. Your body becomes more efficient a calling the fibers to lift the weight, thus the gain in strength. But, at the same time if you're in a deficit, this work is also working to maintain that muscle mass so you lose mostly fat and water.
Good to know - thanks!0 -
I think you prefer to attack the people, personally. Most of your posts seem to be on the order of "you're an imbecile", "you never have anything valuable to add", "you can insult at me and I'm ok with it, therefore I can insult you."2000 calories-- You're male, at maintenance (I assume), 16 years younger than me and well, you actually spend less time at exercise than I do. But you're probably more active overall, unless you too have a desk job.
Actually, 2000 seems kind of low for a young male in maintenance. Are you tiny? Can we make fun of you for being tiny? Because that's what it seems like when the men make fun of the women here for eating less, except they actually imply worse-- that we're stupid. Rolling eye gifs and outright ridicule. And then more men come in with "QFT" and "he's so right". It's bizarre.
2000 is actually a small deficit for me. I'm 34 in 2 months. I am tiny 5'7 155 lbs, feel free to make fun of me for being tiny if you'd like. Doesn't make me sad or mad. Like I've said many times before, I never play the victim. Some people enjoy that but to me that's a lovers game.. I prefer to analyze the problem l, attack it and destroy it.
You're probably on ignore if someone is ignoring you, by the way.0 -
um i had NOOOOO muscle before i started my weight loss the 2 started hand and hand lol I went from 20 YEAR lifestyle of eating and gaming and sitting on my tushy and build nice pecs with my um mouse?
But in conversations like this its really evident no matter what evidence you lay before people there is no changing their idea's . Because its what you BELIEVE doesnt make you correct. Its like the world is flat debate all over again
You haven't laid any evidence out though? I haven't seen any anyway.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
That's not the issue. What if I don't 'exercise' because I have an active job, so there is no 'eating back' for me, but I still get to 1200 for my recommendation. Can I get adequate vitamins, fiber, fat, protein, minerals and carbs on 1200? Is it different if instead of my active job I have a desk job and go for a 30-minute jog? Would the jogger need an extra multivitamin? Or have a higher fiber recommendation?
You're confusing caloric needs and dietary needs. 1200 is sufficient for dietary needs, for anyone.
If you have an active job you're activity level should have jacked up the MFP target surely ? Though I can see that smaller / lighter people with large loss rate ambitions may still end up on the 1200 bottom stop.
Getting full RDIs of everything using food on 1200 is possible but not simple, supplements of course fix that. 1200 is indeed enough calories for a lot of protein (200g = 800 cals) and the essential fats.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
MrM your persistence to reply to any of my posts and constant need for getting my attention to reply to you seems down right inappropriate and a bit stalkerish to be honest. Its almost bordering behavioral attitudes that end up with restraining orders. You would think the fact that I've had you on ignore because of your narcissistic obnoxious attitudes would be enough. But to keep calling out to me is just down right CREEPY (I counted just 7 on a quick scan through) The fact that i dont reply causes you to become more frequent in this is even more concerning. I really just suggest you knock it off. Is this something I am going to need to be concerned with? Because frankly I am not comfortable with it in any way shape or form. I didnt come to this post to give you your personal need for attention. Im here to reply to an OP asking a question in which i gave an honest answer. My job isnt to come here and debate with you and stroke your precious ego. Thats your SO's job0
-
I think it would be harder to make a 1200 calorie menu that is mostly 'whole foods' that doesn't meet the US RDA. What do you consider reasonable macros? CDC and most sources put me at a target of 46g protein. Fat should be around 30% of your calories (also per CDC), so self-adjusting. Vitamins/mineral/fiber are pretty easily obtained by vegetables, which have low calories.1200 is sufficient for dietary needs, for anyone.
I would be interested in a long-term dietary maintenance plan that meets nutritional recommendation for an adult female in her fertile years that meets or exceeds RDA of vitamins, minerals, fiber, unsaturated fats, and protein without supplements or fortified foods.
Edit to add: not being snarky. I totally want someone to give this to me.
Re-edit to add: and if it could NOT include liver, that would make it even better, but I'd eat liver if I had to.
'Maintenance' assumes a caloric value, though. We're not talking about maintenance calories, just dietary needs (nutritional needs).
If you have other ideas of what are recommended levels/macros, I think that's fine, though I don't think it's fine to tell others that their use of the generally accepted recommendations is unhealthy.0 -
bump to finish reading later0
-
I think it would be harder to make a 1200 calorie menu that is mostly 'whole foods' that doesn't meet the US RDA. What do you consider reasonable macros? CDC and most sources put me at a target of 46g protein. Fat should be around 30% of your calories (also per CDC), so self-adjusting. Vitamins/mineral/fiber are pretty easily obtained by vegetables, which have low calories.
I'm ready for the plan, lay it on me! Make the menu! I'm 100% serious.
Edit to add: CDC or W.H.O. macro guidelines are fine. Use whatever macro you have to, as long as it's got the recommendations for iron, unsaturated fats, minerals, vitamins, etc, and doesn't go over 1200 calories.0 -
You're ok with CDC recs then? Or do you expect me to intuit your macro preferences?I think it would be harder to make a 1200 calorie menu that is mostly 'whole foods' that doesn't meet the US RDA. What do you consider reasonable macros? CDC and most sources put me at a target of 46g protein. Fat should be around 30% of your calories (also per CDC), so self-adjusting. Vitamins/mineral/fiber are pretty easily obtained by vegetables, which have low calories.
I'm ready for the plan, lay it on me! Make the menu! I'm 100% serious.
0 -
-
You're ok with CDC recs then? Or do you expect me to intuit your macro preferences?
any macro mix is fine. Just get all my vitamins and minerals and fiber and iron without fortified foods or supplements.0 -
0 -
It amazes me how people can become so defensive when asked to show simple evidence of their claims.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Hitchens Razor
A classic debate gets flipped into stalking, bullying, hating, etc. Staahp it!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions