"You can't build muscle on a deficit"
Replies
-
" It seems cruel on a weight loss HELP forum to not quickly explain that they can eat more. "
I don't understand why people think anyone here thinks their only option is 1200. People know they can pick a slower deficit and lose slower, don't you think?
The 1200-haters aren't saying, "You know you can lose slower and eat more, right?" They're saying, "1200 is not enough to sustain life! EAT MORE or risk metabolic damage and gaining it all back!"0 -
" It seems cruel on a weight loss HELP forum to not quickly explain that they can eat more. "
I don't understand why people think anyone here thinks their only option is 1200. People know they can pick a slower deficit and lose slower, don't you think?
The 1200-haters aren't saying, "You know you can lose slower and eat more, right?" They're saying, "1200 is not enough to sustain life! EAT MORE or risk metabolic damage and gaining it all back!"
ALL of them?! Unless by definition, a "1200 calorie hater" is one who says the above. In which case you win
And since I personally did not know I could eat more and lose weight, and have interacted with people who didn't know they had the option to do so on a weight loss program, no, I do not believe your first paragraph is a given.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
People on here can be ever so helpful until you venture into the 1200 calorie conversation. Everyone has a different opinion and all of them are sure they are 100% correct and everyone else is wrong
Although 1200 isnt good for MOST people and more calories are needed for that. I would talk to your doctor about your dietary needs and goals ( or perhaps a referral to a nutritionist thats working with your doctor to tailor a diet guide to your needs) Its certainly NOT impossible. I was on 1200 calories for 3/4 of my journey ( BUT i have polycystic ovarian syndrome, hashimotos hypothyroid and a pituitary condition called hyperprolactinemia which all effect the metabolism and cause weight gain so needed a lower caloric intake which was prescribed to me by my endocrinologist working with the hospital nutritionist.. btw was the best thing i ever could of done was seeing an ACTUAL nutritionist )
I can't agree with this enough. I'm building muscle while still at 1200 calories a day. I'm losing weight, building muscle, and feeling a whole lot better than I did before. I'm working with my Dr, a nutritionist and a dietician to ensure that I get everything that I need on a regular basis. My muscle mass has increased, my body fat percentage has decreased. I don't pass out at the gym, I don't struggle with staying under calories, and as of right now, the specialists do not have me eating back my workout calories. Most days, I only net about 600-800 and I still have more energy and stamina than I did six months ago. ONLY a Dr can tell you what is best for you. We can be supportive, but we sure as hell can't give you all of the answers for YOUR body.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
No matter what I post as evidence, you're going to shoot holes in it. But here's one link, anyway.I was told it's easy to make a menu of 1200 total calories without supplements. I said it's hard to do. I'm still waiting for proof.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Womens_Health_Watch/2009/July/Getting-your-vitamins-and-minerals-through-diet
I was SO excited. I thought for sure this link was gonna show me how I could fall out of bed and easily land in a 1200 calorie diet that met my needs for vitamins, minerals, fats, protein, etc as a woman of child bearing years. So I went to the link. Unfortunately, it said
"It can be particularly challenging to get the nutrients you need if you're dieting"
"161,808 postmenopausal women"
"[Doctor] di Bonaventura devised at our request to meet the daily vitamin and mineral needs of a healthy postmenopausal woman consuming 1,500 calories":
I'm still waiting on the 1200 calorie diet that meets my needs. If you have one, please message me. Because I'd really, truly, no snark included, be interested in it.0 -
Read the article again. And then post your own evidence that it's not possible. Or PM me, since you're now on ignore. Because, surprise, you shot holes in the evidence I provided-- shocker. :laugh:0
-
Read the article again. And then post your own evidence that it's not possible. Or PM me, since you're now on ignore. Because, surprise, you shot holes in the evidence I provided-- shocker. :laugh:
Message sent!
The article was about a 1500 calorie diet for POST menopausal women
Edit to add: I didn't say it was impossible. I said it was "hard," which is what the article linked to also said.0 -
There's actually four categories of people commonly recognised (outside of MFP forums anyway...) as having the best chance of gaining muscle mass in a deficit.
You personally don't find a recomp painfully slow and that's good. Others might for the obvious reasons of not getting instant gratification, demand for precision and accuracy and nd consistency.
I don't find recomp at all painful, I eat, I train and I enjoy life. It is slow though but it's still a valid choice for many. Depends on your goals, capabilities and priorities.
You have misrepresented what Lyle McDonald says - nowhere does he say morbidly obese ( the phrase "overfat" should ring some bells?).What MrM is trying to do though is have you give evidence of why you are a special "snowflake". He wants to know why you defy science when all the experts say it is impossible to build muscle on a deficit/cut. He doesn't want newer people on the forum that may read this thread to get the wrong idea from you and think you can build muscle while eating at a deficit.
I will list a few names of the experts. Alan Aragon, Lyle Mcdonald, Mark Rippetoe, Lou Schuler, Alwyn Cosgrove, Jim Wendler .............. I could keep going on and on. There is evidence that Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon referece that newbies to weight lifting and morbidly obese people can build some muscle when they first start weight training but nothing truly significant.
Funny how people in calorie deficit can still grow hair, nails etc. and continue the process of cell breakdown and renewal for everything apart from muscle cells. Hmmm, makes you wonder.
You know, I used to say the same thing but then I started reading stuff by the experts. I may not remember exact verbage but I do remember the jist of what I read and you are nitpicking the verbage. Bottom line is there is very minimal to be gained. Lyle does go about explaining how you can lose weight and gain muscle at the same time with body recomp, but it is a very slow. I have read some say it is "painful" process because it is so slow. Many have said you would probably be better off just losing what weight you need to lose first and then work on an actual bulk.
What I object to is when people use absolute terms like "impossible". Difficult, atypical yes - but not impossible. There isn't some magical switch that gets thrown when people have a calorie surplus or deficit.
For example if you took a group of fully trained and lean people in their 30's and compared the outcomes with a group of 18 year old chubby males you would see dramatic differences in their ability to gain muscle bulk.
Yes, I do believe in noob gains especially in the new lifter and obese. Short lived ones as the readings state. Will there ever be a case where someone might put on some sort of measurable mass and not fall into the outliner category while eating at a deficit, could be, I'd like to see it. What I do object to is those people who don't bother to study the actual science behind how we train, why we train the way we do and what nutrition has to do with it. The ones who claim they put on "significant" muscle eating 1200 calories without ever being able to have an actual conversation on it based on the science itself behind it. The answer in returns always seems to be "I don't need to prove anything to you" or "I know what I've done". You know what, that answer will always be challenged by me. Especially for the person lurking in the background reading this so they can know that individual lacks the substance behind their statement.
I'm always up for a debate. Now if someone wants to wiggle out of it by saying I'm stalking them that's fine. But deep down inside they know they weren't ready to come play in the sandbox.
1/ Beginners
2/ Returning after a layoff (much easier/faster to regain previous size than it is to hit new peaks)
3/ Drug users
4/ Genetically gifted
The last one cuts across another MFP mantra ("we are all the same") but in fact there are huge variations in people's genetic gifts. I've always been able to gain strength and muscle mass quicker than my peer group, unfortunately I also lose muscle mass & strength quickly in a training break and have a great capacity for adding fat quickly in a surplus.
Do agree with you about the harm of large calorie deficits, to me the three pillars of maintaining at worst (and for some increasing at best) muscle mass are small calorie deficit, good diet (including but not exclusively adequate protein) and a good weight training routine. Throw away any of those three elements and your chances of success are the same as a one-legged man winning an *kitten* kicking competition.0 -
That is exactly why I am saying. Not metabolic damage." It seems cruel on a weight loss HELP forum to not quickly explain that they can eat more. "
I don't understand why people think anyone here thinks their only option is 1200. People know they can pick a slower deficit and lose slower, don't you think?
The 1200-haters aren't saying, "You know you can lose slower and eat more, right?" They're saying, "1200 is not enough to sustain life! EAT MORE or risk metabolic damage and gaining it all back!"
Sometimes people tend to simply read what they will into others comments. In the strangest cases, random people who are not even the OP will yell at you for asking a poster seeking help to open their diary, "she's on a logging site, of course she knows how to log perfectly! Are you saying she's lazy, fat, and stupid?" Wait, wut? Or, "why do you choose to nitpick on her cupcake being only 100 calories?" Wait, that was one sentence/suggestion in like eight. Turns out the OP in that case wasn't making the damn thing herself and assuming calories for a lot of things cooked by the same relative.
While one poster may not need help sticking to a 1200 calorie diet, many people struggle needlessly with this. And usually are inviting comments due to NOT being successful with their weight loss. For many, an overly restrictive diet can result in binge days where they're not getting results, anyway. One set of people will suggest eating more on a regular basis. IMO it would be at least more helpful if posters would add the 1200 calorie diet view, and like many posters do, reference their own open diary if possible so the OP can browse it and consider using that approach to solve their problem0 -
Read the article again. And then post your own evidence that it's not possible. Or PM me, since you're now on ignore. Because, surprise, you shot holes in the evidence I provided-- shocker. :laugh:
I don't get it. Was she just supposed to switch off her brain, and not notice that if anything, [portions of] the link proved her point?0 -
Read the article again. And then post your own evidence that it's not possible. Or PM me, since you're now on ignore. Because, surprise, you shot holes in the evidence I provided-- shocker. :laugh:
I read it again this morning. And this food plan in this link STILL suggests taking a supplement because the foods listed don't have all of the recommended vitamins.
My challenge remains unmet!
And to meet your challenge to link to a diet that DOESNT meet minimums, well the one linked here is close, but is still low in a few things a woman of childbearing age needs, for instance vitamin D and iron (and copper and vitamin E). If you followed this diet long term, eventually a young woman probably would show signs of low iron. (And the milk listed is probably fortified, as well as the flour in the pita might be enriched, it doesn't specify in the breakdown.)
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Womens_Health_Watch/2009/July/Getting-
your-vitamins-and-minerals-through-diet
And of course I realize one can simply take a multivitamin (I do, and I recommend anyone on a diet do so as well). I just think that even this link shows that, as I said, it can be tough to get all of your vitamins and minerals on a diet of only 1200 total calories without careful planning and taking supplements (which is what I said). I have faith it can be done. I just haven't seen one.0 -
I don't understand why people think anyone here thinks their only option is 1200. People know they can pick a slower deficit and lose slower, don't you think?
you would hope so, but the lure of the 2 lb/week loss and the prevalence of sedentary activity levels seems to land a lot on the 1200 bottom stop (which is wrongly implemented on MFP when it comes to eating back calories).
Perhaps like the volume control on my phone there should be a challenge if you dial in more than 0.5 lb/week, or some intelligence that looks at the starting weight or BMI or something and offers a default (like the Atkins web site) or suggested setting.0 -
any macro mix is fine. Just get all my vitamins and minerals and fiber and iron without fortified foods or supplements.
when I spent a morning trying this, it ended up looking like :
I'm sure it can be bettered !0 -
I've never seen any other diet or source or site that says that people with X lbs. or less to lose can't aim for 2 lbs/week. That always seems to be a universal max goal, just as it is here.
In Fitbit's food plan, you can aim for 2 lbs/week and there is no floor value. They assume if you want more to eat, you'll move more. You can get a calorie rec. for the day in the 700s. It expects the user to know or learn what is a realistic minimum for themselves and adjust their expectations accordingly. Or move more to eat more.0 -
I'm sure it can be bettered !
I love you! This is awesome. I'll have to learn how to cook herring. I really appreciate this. I've never gotten this close. The best I've done is on about 1380. Does it have a Omega-3 and Omega-6 listing (since it has herring, it's probably fine -- i just wondered if the program you have has that on another tab.)<3<3 0 -
Thanks for the nutritionist plug!
0 -
I've never seen any other diet or source or site that says that people with X lbs. or less to lose can't aim for 2 lbs/week. That always seems to be a universal max goal, just as it is here.
In Fitbit's food plan, you can aim for 2 lbs/week and there is no floor value. They assume if you want more to eat, you'll move more. You can get a calorie rec. for the day in the 700s. It expects the user to know or learn what is a realistic minimum for themselves and adjust their expectations accordingly. Or move more to eat more.
Right. We know everything about weight loss. That's why many of us have been fat for years or decades and are somehow just now working together to figure it out.0 -
So you're being told by a nutritionist and a dietitian to net between 6 and 800 calories and you weigh in the 1 30's is what your saying? And you see nothing wrong with that?People on here can be ever so helpful until you venture into the 1200 calorie conversation. Everyone has a different opinion and all of them are sure they are 100% correct and everyone else is wrong Although 1200 isnt good for MOST people and more calories are needed for that. I would talk to your doctor about your dietary needs and goals ( or perhaps a referral to a nutritionist thats working with your doctor to tailor a diet guide to your needs) Its certainly NOT impossible. I was on 1200 calories for 3/4 of my journey ( BUT i have polycystic ovarian syndrome, hashimotos hypothyroid and a pituitary condition called hyperprolactinemia which all effect the metabolism and cause weight gain so needed a lower caloric intake which was prescribed to me by my endocrinologist working with the hospital nutritionist.. btw was the best thing i ever could of done was seeing an ACTUAL nutritionist )
I can't agree with this enough. I'm building muscle while still at 1200 calories a day. I'm losing weight, building muscle, and feeling a whole lot better than I did before. I'm working with my Dr, a nutritionist and a dietician to ensure that I get everything that I need on a regular basis. My muscle mass has increased, my body fat percentage has decreased. I don't pass out at the gym, I don't struggle with staying under calories, and as of right now, the specialists do not have me eating back my workout calories. Most days, I only net about 600-800 and I still have more energy and stamina than I did six months ago. ONLY a Dr can tell you what is best for you. We can be supportive, but we sure as hell can't give you all of the answers for YOUR body.
This secret must be copyrighted so it can be sold for millions. Athletes (and probably the general public) abound will be all over being able to gain mass in a massive cut.0 -
Thanks for the nutritionist plug!
I don't think that was exactly a positive, but as they say.....any publicity is good publicity, right?0 -
Lots of good advice on this topic! Again, one size (or caloric deficit) does not fit all. I have a SUPER slow metabolism and in my own situation, if I'm not working out with cardio AND strength training, I stay at my same weight. It's just my age and genetics (ooooh, lucky me;))
Your body loves strength training. It's AWESOME for your bones and they WILL thank you as you get older. I also believe that strength training puts me in a "happy place" mentally. I feel it's worth the extra effort and time.
Best to you! 0 -
Wait!! One more thing!!! For those of you who scoff at an 800-1200 calorie diet, it was actually suggested for me by my doctor and nutritionist (again, for my body personally and as a last ditch effort to prevent diabetes) Yeah, it sucked like a Dyson but it worked and I'm still alive (and weigh a lot less) they had me on high, lean protein, lots of veggies, limited whole grain and LOTS of supplements. I'm still alive and eternally grateful to be a half marathon runner, now!
The ***** factor was mighty high those months and I had LOTS of apologizing to do after the weight loss but I'm down 109 pounds and getting back on track for the last 35. AT 1200!
Again, to each.... yadda, yadda, yadda:) BEST TO ALL!0 -
Lots of good advice on this topic! Again, one size (or caloric deficit) does not fit all. I have a SUPER slow metabolism and in my own situation, if I'm not working out with cardio AND strength training, I stay at my same weight. It's just my age and genetics (ooooh, lucky me;))
Your body loves strength training. It's AWESOME for your bones and they WILL thank you as you get older. I also believe that strength training puts me in a "happy place" mentally. I feel it's worth the extra effort and time.
Best to you!
If medically proven, you'd be one of those "medical outliers" we're talking about who isn't "scoffed at"....0 -
This content has been removed.
-
If you don't know what intake level is right for yourself or are just learning it, why do you feel like you know what's right for others, better than they do?I've never seen any other diet or source or site that says that people with X lbs. or less to lose can't aim for 2 lbs/week. That always seems to be a universal max goal, just as it is here.
In Fitbit's food plan, you can aim for 2 lbs/week and there is no floor value. They assume if you want more to eat, you'll move more. You can get a calorie rec. for the day in the 700s. It expects the user to know or learn what is a realistic minimum for themselves and adjust their expectations accordingly. Or move more to eat more.
Right. We know everything about weight loss. That's why many of us have been fat for years or decades and are somehow just now working together to figure it out.0 -
I have given up on wondering about this because nobody knows the absolute truth (if there's any).
As long as I get leaner, and show more definition, I am happy. more muscle or less muscle, don't care...because I don't know.0 -
If you don't know what intake level is right for yourself or are just learning it, why do you feel like you know what's right for others, better than they do?I've never seen any other diet or source or site that says that people with X lbs. or less to lose can't aim for 2 lbs/week. That always seems to be a universal max goal, just as it is here.
In Fitbit's food plan, you can aim for 2 lbs/week and there is no floor value. They assume if you want more to eat, you'll move more. You can get a calorie rec. for the day in the 700s. It expects the user to know or learn what is a realistic minimum for themselves and adjust their expectations accordingly. Or move more to eat more.
Right. We know everything about weight loss. That's why many of us have been fat for years or decades and are somehow just now working together to figure it out.
Not better than they do. An adult posting for the specific purpose of requesting some form of help can review multiple potential solutions (without reading more into the suggestion than was stated) and come to a logical decision for themselves. The choice to select that solution does not occur if it's never presented because we assume everyone asking questions already has all the answers.0 -
If you don't know what intake level is right for yourself or are just learning it, why do you feel like you know what's right for others, better than they do?I've never seen any other diet or source or site that says that people with X lbs. or less to lose can't aim for 2 lbs/week. That always seems to be a universal max goal, just as it is here.
In Fitbit's food plan, you can aim for 2 lbs/week and there is no floor value. They assume if you want more to eat, you'll move more. You can get a calorie rec. for the day in the 700s. It expects the user to know or learn what is a realistic minimum for themselves and adjust their expectations accordingly. Or move more to eat more.
Right. We know everything about weight loss. That's why many of us have been fat for years or decades and are somehow just now working together to figure it out.
There are general rules of thumb, and calculators used by medical professionals that give good estimates. Does *everyone* fall into these general average ranges? No. There will be some people outside those ranges. But MOST people DO fit into those ranges. SOME people can do fine at a lower level, while SOME people can do fine at a higher level. The reason why here on this forum there are so many people advising that 1200 is likely too low is that we know how MFP setup gives 1200 by default based on the input of the user. This input is generally chosen because everyone wants to lose 2 pounds per week regardless of whether this is realistic for them, giving too steep a deficit. Also because people do not understand that MFP numbers do not include exercise, so they really need to eat more unless they are really sedentary. 1200 NET is a confusing point for some people.
1200 might be perfectly fine for you. But just because there are many people on the forum advising others that 1200 might not be fine doesn't mean that it is bad and wrong for you. So don't be so sensitive about it. People are truly trying to be helpful and guide people into finding what is healthy.0 -
I've never seen any other diet or source or site that says that people with X lbs. or less to lose can't aim for 2 lbs/week.
I've seen things pointing out that 1,000 cals/day of deficit requires fuelling from over 33 lbs of fat deposits, which may not be available in some dieters.0 -
Does it have a Omega-3 and Omega-6 listing (since it has herring, it's probably fine -- i just wondered if the program you have has that on another tab.)
It's fitday.com which is both a free web tool and a paid download program. Shuws PUFA and MUFA but doesn't split n-3 and n-6 etc I did it in November but managed to locate 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