"You can't build muscle on a deficit"

Options
1…6791112

Replies

  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    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?
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    Options
    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.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    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.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    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 :

    1200caloriesmenu.png

    1200calories.png

    I'm sure it can be bettered !
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    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.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    Options
    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<3
  • anastasiadietitian
    anastasiadietitian Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the nutritionist plug! :)
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    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.
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    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.
    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?

    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.
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the nutritionist plug! :)

    I don't think that was exactly a positive, but as they say.....any publicity is good publicity, right?
  • mojomarie
    mojomarie Posts: 43 Member
    Options
    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! :)
  • mojomarie
    mojomarie Posts: 43 Member
    Options
    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!
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    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"....
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    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.
    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?
  • albayin
    albayin Posts: 2,524 Member
    Options
    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.
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    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.
    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?

    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.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    Options
    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.
    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?

    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.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    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.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    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 :-

    1200fat.png

Categories