"You can't build muscle on a deficit"
Options
Replies
-
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.
Love this! Thank you for standing up for all smaller or older or shorter ladies!! I couldn't have said it better.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.
This! This! This!
It is VERY hard to keep to a low goal and get nutrients. But as these stats show, it is necessary for some of us. It is a continual frustration to me to know that for the rest of my life there will be very little room for error, and a treat will have to be budgeted carefully.
The thing is, even though the bodies of smaller gals (and it will just get worse as we age) NEED less, that doesn't mean our appetites WANT less. And sometimes adding more exercise is not possible. I already run 15-20 miles a week and lift three days. So can't add a lot more.
Sorry to continue derailment, but I am so glad to see small gals standing up for themselves on here. Finally!0 -
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 job
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.
We don't want newbies reading that it's even possible to build any sort of muscle while eating at a deficit, because newbies are one of the only groups that have been observed to build a small amount of muscle while eating at a deficit. Honestly why doesn't it matter so much? Get enough protein, get your calories inline, train hard and if you build muscle in spots that's great - if you don't, at least you retained more muscle than a non-lifter. No I can't start cutting and end up looking like Ronnie Coleman (for several reasons
) but whether I build slight amounts of muscle in spots (even as my total lean body mass decreases) or just slow my loss of muscle, what's important is that I am lifting.
Because they don't lose weight on the "1200 calorie" diet and 75% of the responders tell them they must be gaining muscle?
BTW I agree that most people's 2000+ calorie diets probably wouldn't meet very stringent micro nutrient requirements. However I'm all for explaining to newbies that they do not have to eat so little, just like another poster explained. They think they have to when they really don't. Not everyone checks but you can clearly see in a ticker when someone has 80+ lbs to lose. It seems cruel on a weight loss HELP forum to not quickly explain that they can eat more.
And it seems more and more frequent that people are having to explain how a public forum works. All these prefaces to posts with rules on how to respond, very freakin bizarre in my opinion! How about the perfect way to avoid the oh so unpleasant interaction with other adults, just use the search button as the topic has already been covered dozens of times before!
And now I'm whining just like the whiners I'm complaining about 0 -
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 job
Holy **** a category 8 meltdown! This is so much better than those end of the world movies I can't get enough of!!0 -
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 job
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.
We don't want newbies reading that it's even possible to build any sort of muscle while eating at a deficit, because newbies are one of the only groups that have been observed to build a small amount of muscle while eating at a deficit. Honestly why doesn't it matter so much? Get enough protein, get your calories inline, train hard and if you build muscle in spots that's great - if you don't, at least you retained more muscle than a non-lifter. No I can't start cutting and end up looking like Ronnie Coleman (for several reasons) but whether I build slight amounts of muscle in spots (even as my total lean body mass decreases) or just slow my loss of muscle, what's important is that I am lifting.
Because they don't lose weight on the "1200 calorie" diet and 75% of the responders tell them they must be gaining muscle?
BTW I agree that most people's 2000+ calorie diets probably wouldn't meet very stringent micro nutrient requirements. However I'm all for explaining to newbies that they do not have to eat so little, just like another poster explained. They think they have to when they really don't. Not everyone checks but you can clearly see in a ticker when someone has 80+ lbs to lose. It seems cruel on a weight loss HELP forum to not quickly explain that they can eat more.
And it seems more and more frequent that people are having to explain how a public forum works. All these prefaces to posts with rules on how to respond, very freakin bizarre in my opinion! How about the perfect way to avoid the oh so unpleasant interaction with other adults, just use the search button as the topic has already been covered dozens of times before!
And now I'm whining just like the whiners I'm complaining about
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but there's a difference between laughing at an older, smaller and more sedentary person for eating 1200 net calories versus educating an obese beginner than eating 1200 calories isn't necessary. This discussion started off with the former, not the latter. And in terms of the people saying that someone's 6 month plateau when they're supposedly eating at a moderate deficit is caused by muscle building, I agree that's BS - but not because it's impossible to build small amounts of muscle at a deficit (even if total lean body mass decreases), but more because the numbers don't add up. That is, a woman that should be losing at 2 lbs/week if she truly ate the calories she says she's eating is almost certainly not gaining 2 pounds of muscle every week for 6 months (okay, maybe if she's on gear). At a minimum, recomps are much slower in terms of fat loss and muscle gain.
At the end of the day, anytime people start talking in absolutes ("No one should eat 1200 net calories!", "It's impossible to gain any muscle whatsoever at a deficit of any kind", etc.) it's usually overstated and, at least some some degree, inaccurate.0 -
In. I gain pounds of pure muscle while cutting,
/s0 -
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but there's a difference between laughing at an older, smaller and more sedentary person for eating 1200 net calories versus educating an obese beginner than eating 1200 calories isn't necessary. This discussion started off with the former, not the latter.
Frankly, I had assumed some of those initial comments were made tongue in cheek, but given the way the thread has unfolded, hey, what do I know :drinker:0 -
It's possible0
-
Strength training/weight lifting serves a much greater purpose than just building muscle.
1) Strengthening bones. This is critical, especially as we age.
2) Creating cellular metabolic flexibility. Switching back and forth from aerobic to anaerobic respiration trains your cells to use different energy sources for fuel, which ultimately improves your body's ability to burn fat.
3) Slows/halts mitochondrial decay. Our telomeres shorten as we age with each cell division until they get too short, preventing further cellular division, and at this point, the cell becomes inactive or dies. We believe this is what contributes to a whole host of aging issues, including skin wrinkles, declining muscle mass, decreasing aerobic capacity, eroding bone and connective tissue, and possibly cancer and other ailments. Strength training has been shown to slow this shortening of telomeres, and in some cells, even halting the decay.
So lift. If you happen to build muscle, great. But there are so many more benefits that will show up in your physical health that you should do it regardless.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!"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 -
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 912 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions