"You can't build muscle on a deficit"

deksgrl

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.

WalkingAlong

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.

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.

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.

deksgrl

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.

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.

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.

erialcelyob

I eat on a deficit but i definitely notice an increase in muscle when I lift weights

WBB55

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]

RGv2

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?

Grumpsandwich

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.

WalkingAlong

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.

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.

deksgrl

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.

deksgrl

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.

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.

Anyone exercising should be eating more than 1200. MFP's recommendation is 1200 NET calories.

VeryKatie

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?

Grumpsandwich

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?

Laurenloveswaffles

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.

unnamed101

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.

WalkingAlong

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.

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.

Anyone exercising should be eating more than 1200. MFP's recommendation is 1200 NET calories.

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.

twikoff

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 %.

castlerobber

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.

Grumpsandwich

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