"You can't build muscle on a deficit"
Replies
-
Energy. As you know the building blocks for growth has to come from your diet - which (for the lurkers, rather than you) is why there is a world of difference between a small deficit / good diet and a big deficit / deficient diet.Just to clarify, you guys thought 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?0 -
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-668182
Have you looked at how eating back goes wrong for those prescribed 1200 too ?0 -
This thread is STILL going? LOL Wow! I'm just here for the comments.......
(Insert pic of MJ eating popcorn because I'm too lazy too)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.
^^^THIS^^^ I have gone on starvation diets before-- 750 calories or less. (Don't worry--I'm older and wiser now). I wasn't able to exercise while on them because starvation makes makes one exhausted (in addition to making your hair fall out, skin bad and disturbing your sleep). I lost a lot of weight (just like concentration camp victims) but when I was done, I was flabby, weak and STILL had a fair amount of fat on my body (which, THEORETICALLY I wasn't supposed to have at that body weight). What I had done was lose more muscle than fat and it made the weight gain afterward more or less inevitable because I simply couldn't bear to continue to starve myself and muscle burns far more calories than does body fat. If you take two individuals of the same height--one with a lot of lean body mass and the other with much less lean body mass and more fat (and women are already disadvantaged in that department compared to men) the one with more lean body mass will always burn more calories 24-7. It's not weight that matters but body composition is everything. You will be much more pleased with the way you look if you retain as much LBM as you can, while shedding the most fat that you can (and on a calorie-deficit, unfortunately, some loss of muscle is inevitable). That is why you want to keep your deficits small and work on keeping as much LBM as you can during the process of trimming off the fat.
0 -
Do you mean how someone here can't increase their deficit to the amount they really want by being more active when they're smaller and sedentary? If so, I agree. Well, they can increase their activity level setting and achieve a higher deficit but not if they call it 'exercise', not following the 'eat back' rules.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-668182
Have you looked at how eating back goes wrong for those prescribed 1200 too ?0 -
But for those of us with no interest in growth?
Energy. As you know the building blocks for growth has to come from your diet - which (for the lurkers, rather than you) is why there is a world of difference between a small deficit / good diet and a big deficit / deficient diet.Just to clarify, you guys thought 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 think the pros of higher deficits are often glossed over here and the cons overstated.
http://evidencemag.com/fat-loss-deficit/
http://www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/members/What-is-the-ideal-calorie-deficit.cfm
I think a lot of us run a 'medium deficit' (and have over 33 lbs. of body fat to draw from, even at goal weight) but our intake level is still usually ridiculed here, because it is sub-1500.0 -
Do you mean how someone here can't increase their deficit to the amount they really want by being more active when they're smaller and sedentary? If so, I agree. Well, they can increase their activity level setting and achieve a higher deficit but not if they call it 'exercise', not following the 'eat back' rules.
I was meaning the mathematical issue that arises with eating back and the 1200 floor.
If the answer to the deficit calc was say 1050 and this was set to 1200 by the minimum if you exercise 200 cals you get 200 more of food ie 1400 rather than the correct 1250 to fit your goals. The minimum is applied rather crudely if it's a nutrition floor.0 -
Most people on here will hate my response, but I think most are just arguing semantics. Obviously you are going to lose weight if you are eating at a deficit, but that does not mean you can't gain or enhance your muscles, especially if they are in bad shape. If you are eating a high protein diet and doing strength training, your muscles are going to improve. Are you going to gain weight due to building muscles at a deficit? No. However, if you are able to lift more and more and workout longer and longer during your strength training sessions, obviously your muscles are improving. If they weren't you would not be lifting more or be increasing your workout time and intensity. If your weight is staying the same for a while, but your inches are still dropping, obviously there are changes happening in your body. Logic says you have probably improved your muscles and lost fat. Otherwise the scale would continue dropping along with the inches.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Most people on here will hate my response, but I think most are just arguing semantics. Obviously you are going to lose weight if you are eating at a deficit, but that does not mean you can't gain or enhance your muscles, especially if they are in bad shape. If you are eating a high protein diet and doing strength training, your muscles are going to improve. Are you going to gain weight due to building muscles at a deficit? No. However, if you are able to lift more and more and workout longer and longer during your strength training sessions, obviously your muscles are improving. If they weren't you would not be lifting more or be increasing your workout time and intensity. If your weight is staying the same for a while, but your inches are still dropping, obviously there are changes happening in your body. Logic says you have probably improved your muscles and lost fat. Otherwise the scale would continue dropping along with the inches.
I dont hate your statement because I just don't enough to make a decision.
however, I have been told on this site that I am not gaining muscle (as woman) or losing fat (as i am not eating at deficit) because my weight remains the same...despite all the changes in my appearance and very subtle and slow change in size...Apparently people here know a lot better than me about how our bodies work...0 -
Right. I think we're saying the same thing.Do you mean how someone here can't increase their deficit to the amount they really want by being more active when they're smaller and sedentary? If so, I agree. Well, they can increase their activity level setting and achieve a higher deficit but not if they call it 'exercise', not following the 'eat back' rules.
I was meaning the mathematical issue that arises with eating back and the 1200 floor.
If the answer to the deficit calc was say 1050 and this was set to 1200 by the minimum if you exercise 200 cals you get 200 more of food ie 1400 rather than the correct 1250 to fit your goals. The minimum is applied rather crudely if it's a nutrition floor.0 -
getting stronger =/= muscle gains. you can get stronger without building muscle, especially if you are just starting out. you may also see some muscle gains in the first couple weeks of lifting (people call these "noob gains")
strength training is still very important while eating at a calorie deficit as it helps reduce muscle loss throughout the weight loss process.
"toning up" is essentially losing body fat around muscles which exposes the muscle tissue
yes it is in your head. lifting actually makes your muscles swell up a bit
+10 -
however, I have been told on this site that I am not gaining muscle (as woman) or losing fat (as i am not eating at deficit) because my weight remains the same...despite all the changes in my appearance and very subtle and slow change in size...Apparently people here know a lot better than me about how our bodies work...
What you're doing is recomp. That's what I've been doing too-- it's a very long process but it does work. I don't think I've seen anyone saying that that isn't possible-- although it's possible I've just missed it. I'm the same weight in all of these pictures.
0 -
however, I have been told on this site that I am not gaining muscle (as woman) or losing fat (as i am not eating at deficit) because my weight remains the same...despite all the changes in my appearance and very subtle and slow change in size...Apparently people here know a lot better than me about how our bodies work...
What you're doing is recomp. That's what I've been doing too-- it's a very long process but it does work. I don't think I've seen anyone saying that that isn't possible-- although it's possible I've just missed it. I'm the same weight in all of these pictures.
you look awesome...and that's some serious progress...mine wasn't so obvious maybe I need to give it more time.
Yes I have been told that I wasn't gaining muscle nor eating at deficit based on the only evidence of "I am not losing weight on the scale"...so you figure...
Actually Lyle McDonald says for average Jane or Joe, in order to lose fat, you need to lose weight. What he says actually depressed me because I am an average Jane and can only spend this much time and energy on my every day workout and diet...so you see, I am not losing weight hence I am not losing fat...0 -
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.
Me thinks you're reaching, especially since we can't seem to find anyone from the "1200 calorie diets are always 100% dangerous " crowd in this thread - small percentage of MFP readers though we may be.
Say, at what stage, if any, would you say it's dangerous to eat a 1200 calorie diet, since we notice that a number of people after opening their diaries are barely hitting 1000 calories total per day? 900? 600?0 -
however, I have been told on this site that I am not gaining muscle (as woman) or losing fat (as i am not eating at deficit) because my weight remains the same...despite all the changes in my appearance and very subtle and slow change in size...Apparently people here know a lot better than me about how our bodies work...
What you're doing is recomp. That's what I've been doing too-- it's a very long process but it does work. I don't think I've seen anyone saying that that isn't possible-- although it's possible I've just missed it. I'm the same weight in all of these pictures.
you look awesome...and that's some serious progress...mine wasn't so obvious maybe I need to give it more time.
Yes I have been told that I wasn't gaining muscle nor eating at deficit based on the only evidence of "I am not losing weight on the scale"...so you figure...
Actually Lyle McDonald says for average Jane or Joe, in order to lose fat, you need to lose weight. What he says actually depressed me because I am an average Jane and can only spend this much time and energy on my every day workout and diet...so you see, I am not losing weight hence I am not losing fat...
In these articles it seems like he's saying it just isn't optimal and that you're not going to be building muscle at the same rate at which you're losing fat:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/general-philosophies-of-muscle-mass-gain.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
And I'd agree with that. Also I took advantage of newbie gains. I think I'll probably find it increasingly difficult to put on more muscle without adding more calories.
Remember too that weight fluctuations will make it very difficult to nail down exact weight, especially for women. So I'm saying I'm the same weight-- what I mean is that I'm within the same maintenance range.0 -
I assume the person who spent pages demanding a 1200 calorie menu that covered nutritional bases did so because she believed it was impossible, and therefore 'dangerous for all'. Though later she seemed happy to have found one, as if she was going to use it, which I didn't understand. (And not that anyone needs to hit every recommendation for every vitamin on every day, especially without enriched foods, so it was a silly exercise to begin with.)
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.
Me thinks you're reaching, especially since we can't seem to find anyone from the "1200 calorie diets are always 100% dangerous " crowd in this thread - small percentage of MFP readers though we may be.
Say, at what stage, if any, would you say it's dangerous to eat a 1200 calorie diet, since we notice that a number of people after opening their diaries are barely hitting 1000 calories total per day? 900? 600?
A lot of people claim 1200 is always too low. Find a thread about 1200 and go to town. The four or so 1200-scoffers in here might be back-pedaling now but the forum is full of them.
I don't understand what 600-1000 has to do with 1200. Are you saying 1200 should be scoffed at because people lie? People at all levels lie. And track half-a$$ed. Those are totally different issues. No one's advocating 1000 and under.0 -
IMHO and based upon my personal experience you can build muscle on a deficit... I'ts very difficult, you have to be meticulous with your macros, and you can't expect any large gains. I wonder if anyone has heard of re-composition while running a deficit? The main thing you achieve is minor muscle gains (which were shown by utilizing a tape measure), % body fat loss (shown by use of an OMRON HBF-306), and weight loss (use of a beam scale). I have to emphasize IT IS VERY DIFFICULT, but it is possible! I grew weary of all of the people that told me I couldn't do it ("it's impossible") when I was doing it. But in reality, those negative people provided me inspiration to prove them wrong!
^^ Exactly. You can build muscle, its tough, takes a lot of work, its just that the exact amount that is muscle vs just re-wired strength is up for debate. I find it amusing as well since the claim "You cant build any muscle at all while on a deficit!" does not have any good scientific backing to it, and there are loads of examples where the "rule" seems to be broken, yes not proven its broken, but certainly not proven its sustained...if you are truely scientific with the data, the real answer is "we don't know". I also find it interesting that the people who usually say its impossible are usually lean, hard gainers, or highly trained. These categories will have a hard time gaining more muscle in the first place, so they may be talking more from a personal experience bias.
But, whatever you believe the answer is, I think its completely a moot point when these questions are asked here. Whether the answer really is "you can but its tough" or "only beginners and morbidly obese" or "you are just rewiring your neural firing patterns, its impossible to gain any muscle fiber" you still gain a lot of benefit from starting exercise and lifting before you are done losing weight, you can easily still gain some strength, you just cannot expect large strength gains is all. Not only does it really not matter what increased strength during lifting on a deficit comes from, but you still have a large positive benefit no matter what its technically "from", you are still training improvements in technique, experience, probably aerobic and anaerobic capacity and strength that you would not have if you didn't exercise, and it would take time to get there if you decided "I'll start when I'm at my ideal weight".
Not only do you have the training benefits, but you will have the health benefits of exercise, burning some extra calories, prevent your body from resorbing as much muscle as it would otherwise, mood/mental stimulus improvement, gain some strength and probably gaining a small bit of muscle if your deficit isn't too big. If there was a way to bottle the improvements of exercise on mental state and cognition and depression seen in studies, it would be more valuable than any medication you could take for such improvement out there! You aren't going to be a hulk or even necessarily notice any physical muscle size change that couldn't be attributed to fat reduction and increased definition, but again who cares? Unless you are an experienced lifter and going through years of training, you aren't going to be "a hulk" anyways, you do not get big bulky muscles like a body builder just from a couple months work, that takes many years and intense training. So again would you rather start now and be able to actually benefit from all the above and gain faster once you get to your ideal weight, or waste the current time just based on some internet "experts" claim you won't technically gain muscle?0 -
IMHO and based upon my personal experience you can build muscle on a deficit... I'ts very difficult, you have to be meticulous with your macros, and you can't expect any large gains. I wonder if anyone has heard of re-composition while running a deficit? The main thing you achieve is minor muscle gains (which were shown by utilizing a tape measure), % body fat loss (shown by use of an OMRON HBF-306), and weight loss (use of a beam scale). I have to emphasize IT IS VERY DIFFICULT, but it is possible! I grew weary of all of the people that told me I couldn't do it ("it's impossible") when I was doing it. But in reality, those negative people provided me inspiration to prove them wrong!
^^ Exactly. You can build muscle, its tough, takes a lot of work, its just that the exact amount that is muscle vs just re-wired strength is up for debate. I find it amusing as well since the claim "You cant build any muscle at all while on a deficit!" does not have any good scientific backing to it, and there are loads of examples where the "rule" seems to be broken, yes not proven its broken, but certainly not proven its sustained...if you are truely scientific with the data, the real answer is "we don't know". I also find it interesting that the people who usually say its impossible are usually lean, hard gainers, or highly trained. These categories will have a hard time gaining more muscle in the first place, so they may be talking more from a personal experience bias.
But, whatever you believe the answer is, I think its completely a moot point when these questions are asked here. Whether the answer really is "you can but its tough" or "only beginners and morbidly obese" or "you are just rewiring your neural firing patterns, its impossible to gain any muscle fiber" you still gain a lot of benefit from starting exercise and lifting before you are done losing weight, you can easily still gain some strength, you just cannot expect large strength gains is all. Not only does it really not matter what increased strength during lifting on a deficit comes from, but you still have a large positive benefit no matter what its technically "from", you are still training improvements in technique, experience, probably aerobic and anaerobic capacity and strength that you would not have if you didn't exercise, and it would take time to get there if you decided "I'll start when I'm at my ideal weight".
Not only do you have the training benefits, but you will have the health benefits of exercise, burning some extra calories, prevent your body from resorbing as much muscle as it would otherwise, mood/mental stimulus improvement, gain some strength and probably gaining a small bit of muscle if your deficit isn't too big. If there was a way to bottle the improvements of exercise on mental state and cognition and depression seen in studies, it would be more valuable than any medication you could take for such improvement out there! You aren't going to be a hulk or even necessarily notice any physical muscle size change that couldn't be attributed to fat reduction and increased definition, but again who cares? Unless you are an experienced lifter and going through years of training, you aren't going to be "a hulk" anyways, you do not get big bulky muscles like a body builder just from a couple months work, that takes many years and intense training. So again would you rather start now and be able to actually benefit from all the above and gain faster once you get to your ideal weight, or waste the current time just based on some internet "experts" claim you won't technically gain muscle?
I find all kinds of people saying it, not just those "lean and hard trained ones". It's internet. Often people read something that is quite sound logically then they think it must be true and start spreading it like it's true.
I dont' know anything about fitness, or weight loss so often these "sound and almost true" statements repeated by so many posters confuse me but I don't know where to start to question.0 -
I assume the person who spent pages demanding a 1200 calorie menu that covered nutritional bases did so because she believed it was impossible, and therefore 'dangerous for all'. Though later she seemed happy to have found one, as if she was going to use it, which I didn't understand. (And not that anyone needs to hit every recommendation for every vitamin on every day, especially without enriched foods, so it was a silly exercise to begin with.)
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.
Me thinks you're reaching, especially since we can't seem to find anyone from the "1200 calorie diets are always 100% dangerous " crowd in this thread - small percentage of MFP readers though we may be.
Say, at what stage, if any, would you say it's dangerous to eat a 1200 calorie diet, since we notice that a number of people after opening their diaries are barely hitting 1000 calories total per day? 900? 600?
A lot of people claim 1200 is always too low. Find a thread about 1200 and go to town. The four or so 1200-scoffers in here might be back-pedaling now but the forum is full of them.
I don't understand what 600-1000 has to do with 1200. Are you saying 1200 should be scoffed at because people lie? People at all levels lie. And track half-a$$ed. Those are totally different issues. No one's advocating 1000 and under.
Actually to avoid projecting again, the easiest way to know if she thinks 1200 calorie diets are dangerous is to just ask her. Yeah, the four of us on this post may all be back peddling liars but there's also the likelihood that you're filling in the blanks based on your own preconceptions.
Yep, I figured it was quite likely that once again the specifics of when the 1200 calorie issue comes up flew clean over your head. Try to view those threads in a slightly different light from now on. One very common trend as I mentioned is that if you actually took the time to look in the original poster's diary like those offering their help did, you would find 700, 800 etc calorie days from which it becomes clear that the person thinks losing weight means eating as little as humanly possible.
I thought I might ask you where your dangerous floor was since you seemed so irritated by the idea that people would dare mention this - when/if they do. I figure at that point maybe at least we would get your rubber stamp if we decide to tell people their intake is dangerous? Or perhaps I would learn that you and the 1200 calorie = dangerous crew actually have the same idea but with only a possibly insignificant difference of a few hundred calories?0 -
You are probably right that its heard and then repeated over and over, it seems to be discouraging to most people, and at the same time not really worth distinction, so I like to add to this the fact its actually mis-information because we do not KNOW for sure.
I find all kinds of people saying it, not just those "lean and hard trained ones". It's internet. Often people read something that is quite sound logically then they think it must be true and start spreading it like it's true.
I dont' know anything about fitness, or weight loss so often these "sound and almost true" statements repeated by so many posters confuse me but I don't know where to start to question.
You sound like you might be one of the type of people I wrote that for. I hope you can see my points as to why this question is not really important in the long run to almost anyone who asks it really. You will benefit from the training AND gain strength on a deficit, why nit pick and go "well, you didnt technically gain muscle" and have newbies conclude "so its not worth it". Especially since they are in two categories that the same people commonly state are excluded from their "rule": newbies and overweight to obese. So actually the advice should be "yes, you can, but not much" if they apply their own rules...its very odd to me they don't say this and play by their own rule, until challenged on it.
Really, you don't know EVER for sure in your training when exactly you built any more muscle or just re-wired firing patterns or recruited more muscles firing in unison for that strength gain, the important thing is you trained, and strength increased.
You can find studies where people built muscle on a deficit and those where they didn't, and the statement is even most definitely wrong in certain circumstances, which is why many now qualify the statement with more and more exceptions: "past strength returned", "newbies", "untrained", obese, "genetic advantage" even "overweight" are used as exceptions, and well, again, this includes probably almost all asking the question. If you think about it...if these exceptions were true, the real rule is yes, you can build some muscle, not much on a deficit, except under certain circumstances. I hope people think about that one before re-stating your "rules".
If I actually thought you could not build any muscle except under the caveats above, I sure wouldn't go and make a claim that this is the fact. I may say "probably", but since there is study data showing both are valid and many anecdotal stories showing probable muscle increase, I'd really not be 100% sure anymore.
Take a look at my profile for my little experiment where I increased strength in all body areas over 5 weeks while losing 10.4lbs. Now I did fit in: overweight, past strength returned in some areas (not all), and I kept my protein over 1g/estimated lean body mass/day. I have no proof that that increased strength is actually just muscle, or how much is muscle, but, again, taking the unlikely case its not one single bit of muscle laid down, does it make a bit of difference if you were to experience such an increase as to add 40-50lbs on many lifts, (lowest +30lbs, one +150lbs)? I'm going to guess not, exercise on
Ever see those natural bodybuilding competitions where a large number of people all lose massive quantities of weight and gain strength tracking each day for a prize? Sure maybe some cheat and sneak some supplements in, but even MOST of them...unlikely
Also, to be clear you mis-interpreted my statement, and that misinterpreted statement means something different. I said those that are lean, "hard gainers", and highly trained tend to be the ones vehemently promoting this idea that you cant gain muscle on a deficit, not "lean hard training ones". They all inherently are in different categories: very lean people tend to have a harder time gaining muscle mass, this is pretty established, "hard gainers" are those who really have problems gaining muscle strength, even when going on a surplus and their opposite would be people many refer to as "genetically advantaged" to gain muscle, and highly trained and fit people are in the third category since once you increase your fitness level and muscle mass to a certain point for you, it becomes more and more difficult to increase your muscle mass even more. Each one of these categories of people would probably find it more unlikely and maybe impossible personally to gain strength while on a deficit and are adding additional factors to the equation.0 -
I assume the person who spent pages demanding a 1200 calorie menu that covered nutritional bases did so because she believed it was impossible, and therefore 'dangerous for all'. Though later she seemed happy to have found one, as if she was going to use it, which I didn't understand. (And not that anyone needs to hit every recommendation for every vitamin on every day, especially without enriched foods, so it was a silly exercise to begin with.)
A lot of people claim 1200 is always too low. Find a thread about 1200 and go to town. The four or so 1200-scoffers in here might be back-pedaling now but the forum is full of them.
I don't understand what 600-1000 has to do with 1200. Are you saying 1200 should be scoffed at because people lie? People at all levels lie. And track half-a$$ed. Those are totally different issues. No one's advocating 1000 and under.
I know this poster won't see this, but if you read the posts, I said if you weren't careful about what you were eating, it was HARD to get all of your minimums as a woman of child-bearing years on only 1200 calories, and that if you ate at a vitamin/mineral deficiency for the long term, you could suffer signs of malnutrition. That can happen at 900 calories, 1200 calories or 1500+ calories. Even the one posted by the helpful MFPer (yarwell) technically went over the 1200 threshold. WalkingAlong and others said it was "easy" to get all your required vitamins and minerals and fats at 1200 calories of foods without vitamins and supplements. And I challenged the posters to prove it. The people who said it was easy never did post anything. WalkingAlong linked to an article that proved my point. That link suggested a lovely 1200 calorie plan, but that you also had to take a Vitamin D supplement. And that plan was for POST menopausal women, so it's deficient in adequate iron for a woman of childbearing years.
I'm not telling anyone that their specific diet is bad or wrong. But I know people get sensitive when they feel someone on the internet is challenging them and they take it personally.
And for those of you interested, look at my diary for tomorrow (July 13, 2014) and Monday (July 14, 2014). Tomorrow I'm following the helpful MFPer's diet plan (I've never eaten herring until today!) and then Monday I'm following Walkingalong's suggested plan (which is still deficient, but I'm eating it anyways -- but of course will take my multivitamin like I usually do).0 -
You are probably right that its heard and then repeated over and over, it seems to be discouraging to most people, and at the same time not really worth distinction, so I like to add to this the fact its actually mis-information because we do not KNOW for sure.
I find all kinds of people saying it, not just those "lean and hard trained ones". It's internet. Often people read something that is quite sound logically then they think it must be true and start spreading it like it's true.
I dont' know anything about fitness, or weight loss so often these "sound and almost true" statements repeated by so many posters confuse me but I don't know where to start to question.
You sound like you might be one of the type of people I wrote that for. I hope you can see my points as to why this question is not really important in the long run to almost anyone who asks it really. You will benefit from the training AND gain strength on a deficit, why nit pick and go "well, you didnt technically gain muscle" and have newbies conclude "so its not worth it". Especially since they are in two categories that the same people commonly state are excluded from their "rule": newbies and overweight to obese. So actually the advice should be "yes, you can, but not much" if they apply their own rules...its very odd to me they don't say this and play by their own rule, until challenged on it.
Really, you don't know EVER for sure in your training when exactly you built any more muscle or just re-wired firing patterns or recruited more muscles firing in unison for that strength gain, the important thing is you trained, and strength increased.
You can find studies where people built muscle on a deficit and those where they didn't, and the statement is even most definitely wrong in certain circumstances, which is why many now qualify the statement with more and more exceptions: "past strength returned", "newbies", "untrained", obese, "genetic advantage" even "overweight" are used as exceptions, and well, again, this includes probably almost all asking the question. If you think about it...if these exceptions were true, the real rule is yes, you can build some muscle, not much on a deficit, except under certain circumstances. I hope people think about that one before re-stating your "rules".
If I actually thought you could not build any muscle except under the caveats above, I sure wouldn't go and make a claim that this is the fact. I may say "probably", but since there is study data showing both are valid and many anecdotal stories showing probable muscle increase, I'd really not be 100% sure anymore.
Take a look at my profile for my little experiment where I increased strength in all body areas over 5 weeks while losing 10.4lbs. Now I did fit in: overweight, past strength returned in some areas (not all), and I kept my protein over 1g/estimated lean body mass/day. I have no proof that that increased strength is actually just muscle, or how much is muscle, but, again, taking the unlikely case its not one single bit of muscle laid down, does it make a bit of difference if you were to experience such an increase as to add 40-50lbs on many lifts, (lowest +30lbs, one +150lbs)? I'm going to guess not, exercise on
Ever see those natural bodybuilding competitions where a large number of people all lose massive quantities of weight and gain strength tracking each day for a prize? Sure maybe some cheat and sneak some supplements in, but even MOST of them...unlikely
Also, to be clear you mis-interpreted my statement, and that misinterpreted statement means something different. I said those that are lean, "hard gainers", and highly trained tend to be the ones vehemently promoting this idea that you cant gain muscle on a deficit, not "lean hard training ones". They all inherently are in different categories: very lean people tend to have a harder time gaining muscle mass, this is pretty established, "hard gainers" are those who really have problems gaining muscle strength, even when going on a surplus and their opposite would be people many refer to as "genetically advantaged" to gain muscle, and highly trained and fit people are in the third category since once you increase your fitness level and muscle mass to a certain point for you, it becomes more and more difficult to increase your muscle mass even more. Each one of these categories of people would probably find it more unlikely and maybe impossible personally to gain strength while on a deficit and are adding additional factors to the equation.
I didn't find it "not worth it" even I don't know what I have gained and lost. I am just tired of hearing people telling me "you are not losing weight hence you are eating too much" and "you are not gaining muscle". thank you for the clarification. I guess it's a personal journey and I just keep going with or without knowing what exactly I have put on my body. LOL 0 -
I didn't find it "not worth it" even I don't know what I have gained and lost. I am just tired of hearing people telling me "you are not losing weight hence you are eating too much" and "you are not gaining muscle". thank you for the clarification. I guess it's a personal journey and I just keep going with or without knowing what exactly I have put on my body. LOL
Glad you think its worth it, it really is no matter if you lose weight or not, exercise is just as beneficial or more beneficial than the reduction of weight out of obesity. And it really sounds like you were in a recomp type situation by your previous post. Yes you can't 100% know what you gained or lost unless you took a body survey with an MRI and measured, but are you progressing in strength in what you are doing? And are your measurements changing? That's what you can focus on. How long have you been at it too? If you are making progress you are certainly gaining muscle and losing fat...at a slow recomp type rate.
If thats you in the pic it looks like your bodyfat is kind of low anyways already, you are probably going to be just about into that "lean" group I was talking about and you are also a woman so muscle gain is not a high rate even not in a deficit for you... I shouldn't even talk much about your situation even if you wanted me to without seeing your info though (profile isn't viewable), but one thing is if you are starting on low bodyfat and only have 20 to lose, its going to be very slow and very hard to gain muscle on a deficit and...dont hit me but probably if you are not seeing any changes in measurements your estimated burn rates may be too high, or you are forgetting to record a snack or a spoonful here or there like I do all the time You can still gain some muscle, but your weight would be going down if there was a deficit, muscle weight gain would never be fast enough to cover purposeful weight loss rates at a deficit. The very good news is that means even though you probably aren't in a deficit, any lifting is helping with muscle increase more and taking the place of fat slowly in a good ol recomp. If you want to stir the pot just say you are turning your fat into muscle 
0 -
I didn't find it "not worth it" even I don't know what I have gained and lost. I am just tired of hearing people telling me "you are not losing weight hence you are eating too much" and "you are not gaining muscle". thank you for the clarification. I guess it's a personal journey and I just keep going with or without knowing what exactly I have put on my body. LOL
Glad you think its worth it, it really is no matter if you lose weight or not, exercise is just as beneficial or more beneficial than the reduction of weight out of obesity. And it really sounds like you were in a recomp type situation by your previous post. Yes you can't 100% know what you gained or lost unless you took a body survey with an MRI and measured, but are you progressing in strength in what you are doing? And are your measurements changing? That's what you can focus on. How long have you been at it too? If you are making progress you are certainly gaining muscle and losing fat...at a slow recomp type rate.
If thats you in the pic it looks like your bodyfat is kind of low anyways already, you are probably going to be just about into that "lean" group I was talking about and you are also a woman so muscle gain is not a high rate even not in a deficit for you... I shouldn't even talk much about your situation even if you wanted me to without seeing your info though (profile isn't viewable), but one thing is if you are starting on low bodyfat and only have 20 to lose, its going to be very slow and very hard to gain muscle on a deficit and...dont hit me but probably if you are not seeing any changes in measurements your estimated burn rates may be too high, or you are forgetting to record a snack or a spoonful here or there like I do all the time You can still gain some muscle, but your weight would be going down if there was a deficit, muscle weight gain would never be fast enough to cover purposeful weight loss rates at a deficit. The very good news is that means even though you probably aren't in a deficit, any lifting is helping with muscle increase more and taking the place of fat slowly in a good ol recomp. If you want to stir the pot just say you are turning your fat into muscle
yes, I am lousy when it comes to logging...and I know that's the problem with my weight loss. the thing is with current training routine, what I eat is barely enough to keep me going without wanting to punch people or bite my pillow when sleeping. Eating less is not impossible but when I tried, I was very weak and couldn't follow my routine and my performance suffered big time.
I really enjoy what I am doing, weight or running or kickboxing but I don't know how to eat less while doing what I enjoy...
Edit: updated my profile goal...I became to realize that I might not be able to lose 20 pounds of fat without sacrificing my muscles...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