"You can't build muscle on a deficit"
Replies
-
I don't care what people say to me about my intake. I know better and I wouldn't bring it up here to begin with.... 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.
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.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 :-
I found this one (https://cronometer.com). I find my default foods are lacking in D, K, and iron (always have been). So I'm trying to add more salmon, spinach, lentils and dark chocolate, for instance. But herring I hadn't tried yet (for D). Don't even know where I'd buy it here. But I'm gonna keep an eye out!0 -
I try to take discussing a differing position via PMs and they get pissed because they aren't getting their public attention.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.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.
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.
1200 is not the default number given by MFP. It is however the lowest number given.
When I began my journey at 156 lbs (which for my height put me in the top of the overweight range, closing in on obese) MFP gave me a net goal of 1360. I think I set it for losing 1 lb per week. As I lost weight, my net goal dropped. It stopped at 1200 when I got below 120 lbs. or so.
I think that most people are clueless about appropriate intake for maintaining body weights under 120. I think they also don't realize just how low short girls have to go to be slim.
Personally I no longer want to go much if any under 120, but there are some online calculators that say my ideal body weight should be between 105-110. If you have not dealt with small numbers like these, please don't comment on what might be appropriate intake for someone that size.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Not sure if you are referring to me but I responded to your PM, I'm waiting for your reply. If you are referring to me I will gladly continue the conversation in the PM as I have already started. Respond here or there if you want. As far as egotistical, I get nothing out of what a bunch of people would think of me online.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.
I wasn't referring to you. You responded with a question. I haven't had time to respond via PM. The article clearly supports my post in that it is "possible" to build muscle and loose fat with a deficit and that it is "only through extremely meticulous attention to diet and training. On top of being very tedious, body recomposition is very slow". The reason behind me asking to define deficit is that it can be done at a deficit and not just maintenance; however, that greatly depends on the amount of deficit! I agree that it can't be accomplished with a large deficit!0 -
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.
Lulz....
Public Attention, you know it's a message board, right? I wouldn't exactly call that public.0 -
If you have not dealt with small numbers like these, please don't comment on what might be appropriate intake for someone that size.
Really? So nobody with experience who is not the same size can comment? The OP is not even really in that category and was asking about building muscle, not about her food intake.0 -
1200 is not the default number given by MFP. It is however the lowest number given.
It is the default if your estimated caloric needs are anything below 2200 calories and you choose "I want to lose 2 pounds per week" which applies to a lot of women.0 -
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.0 -
1200 is not the default number given by MFP. It is however the lowest number given.
It is the default if your estimated caloric needs are anything below 2200 calories and you choose "I want to lose 2 pounds per week" which applies to a lot of women.
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-6681820 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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 recomp0 -
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
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.0 -
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
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.
:drinker:0 -
Didn't read anything but the first post.
I've read BCAA's let a guy on MFP do just that.
So I 'THINK' it is possible. - bring the intensity - difficult? - yes.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.0 -
Very true. For those lurkers.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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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 recomp0 -
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. LOL0 -
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.
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.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
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.)
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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?
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
for energy...well that was what I thought. Don't know what the other guy thought...0 -
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?
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
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.0 -
This content has been removed.
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