Women who put on muscle fast
Replies
-
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.
Show me one example of a woman who increased the size of a body part while in a calorie deficit as a result of the muscle growing.0 -
I think it's likely your understanding of 'bulky' and hers may be different. In her context, I took the word 'bulky' to mean highly-defined, perhaps large in proportion to the rest of her body, and inelegant - not a lithe, svelte look, but visibly muscular, which many women believe is unfeminine and unappealing. I know 'bulk' has a particular connotation in weightlifting, but it's not the only way to use that word.
If only there were some book written, where we could collect definitions of words so that when we use them we could make sure we're using them correctly. You could have them in alphabetical order, and give the meanings of words right next to the word itself.
If such a book existed, and the word "bulky" was in it, it could, for instance, say "of relatively large size" and not "smaller yet more defined."
If only such a book existed.
How many times a day do you use words in a sense not precisely aligned with their primary dictionary definition, but rather, in colloquial fashion? Context matters, and language evolves - just ask the Oxford English Dictionary team who spend all year, every year updating and editing the content of their publication. Do you 'follow' someone on Twitter or indulge in weightlifting 'geekery'? If we followed your apparent standards for the 'correct' use of language and ignored context, neither of those things would be possible, according to their precise dictionary definitions, until fairly recent years.
Even those OED guys who spend all year updating their entry for the word "bulky" have not found it reasonable to include an entry that says "small but defined."
If you are losing size and your muscles are becoming more visible, you are, literally and unarguably, not becoming bulkier.
Read the title of the thread. It's about "putting on muscle." People are using bulky to mean "bigger muscles." There is no semantic argument here.
People who complain that they're getting too bulky literally think their muscles are getting bigger. They are not. Period, end of story, zero room for argument.
Oxford English dictionary: 'Bulky' adjective (bulkier, bulkiest)
taking up much space; large and unwieldy
All of which are judgements requiring perception.
The person you demanded proof from perceived that her upper body had become 'bulky' (perhaps not the correct use of the word, but I understood her meaning from context.). Her perception may well be accurate, it's likely she could see more of the muscular definition she already had, or that was developing with use, because she was losing body fat/weight. Many women who have this issue are in the same boat. They 'see' their muscles getting 'bigger' because they are more visible, both individually and in relation to their smaller bodies as they lose weight... Tjose muscles start to look "large and unwieldy" to them and possibly even 'bulky'. In some cases, they actually do gain measurably bigger musculature (the impressive lady who weightlifts professionally, for example), but you're right, in many cases it is merely a change of perception - you know, that inconvenient thing you think has no place in this discussion. I'm so sorry we don't all use perfectly-accurate terminology for you and rely on mere feminine perception of our own bodies to judge what's happening to them. It must make your life so difficult.
Right, that's me off for the weekend - I'm taking my arm muscles to the gym. They may not get any measurably bigger, but they'll sure look it!0 -
I got really into weights and Les Mills BodyPump.. Was doing it a fair few times a week with heavy weights (no other women in the class were lifting what I was lifting & I wasn't taking anything apart from the odd protein shake here and there)
The long and short of it is I became 'bulky' my upper body, shoulders, back and arms was just horrible when I had clothes on
No, you didn't.
Show us the pics and measurements to prove it, because if that happened while you weren't gaining weight then you are a marvel of biology.
Why does she need to 'prove' anything? Her perception was that she started to look bulky doing those activities, and she changed her habits to avoid that. Her idea of bulky and yours may not be the same, but that doesn't mean that her perception of her own body is invalid or necessarily inaccurate.
Body image is an intensely personal thing, and what we perceive may not match others' perceptions of us, because their view is measured by a different fundamental scale to ours, produced by their own experiences. We all know someone who obsesses about some part of their appearance that we don't even notice. Just because their 'hooked' nose/'bulky' calves/'sticky-out' ears/ 'frizzy' hair doesn't bother our aesthetic sense, or measure up to our personal frame of reference for those things, does not mean that it isn't a real problem/issue and a source of self-consciousness to the person who owns the nose/ears/hair/calves/shoulders in question.
People need to learn to love their bodies, regardless of whether or not they are working to make improvements. No amount of diet or exercise will make you happy if you can't find happiness with who you are *right now.*
I don't believe that there is a person in this thread that would argue with that statement. What is being discussed is objective reality. I said earlier that it is very easy for people to misperceive what is happening with their own bodies, I have experienced it myself. Everyone believes that lifting weights makes people bigger but that only happens if that person is eating at a calorie surplus. For the vast majority of people on MFP, i.e. those who are dieting, lifting weights will simply preserve the LBM that they have as they lose weight. Even for the few who are completely untrained or who are genetically gifted and do gain some limited muscle mass while eating at a deficit, they will actually get smaller, as was illustrated by the fat/muscle comparison that CoderGal posted earlier.
I know this is a hard concept for people to learn. I've seen it again and again with others starting the process and quite far along in it, and I experienced it myself. No one is attacking anyone in this thread or challenging their "happiness." This is a genuine attempt to explain what is going on.
True, I just think the "bulk" they are claiming is an illusion in their mind. But, like jonnythan said, they got smaller, not bigger. Yes, it is impossible to get bulky in a deficit, which is why I'm pretty sure the reason they think they look bulky is due to their self-perception. They aren't just making these claims to troll or to pretend or anything. I believe they truly believe it themselves.0 -
I think it's likely your understanding of 'bulky' and hers may be different. In her context, I took the word 'bulky' to mean highly-defined, perhaps large in proportion to the rest of her body, and inelegant - not a lithe, svelte look, but visibly muscular, which many women believe is unfeminine and unappealing. I know 'bulk' has a particular connotation in weightlifting, but it's not the only way to use that word.
If only there were some book written, where we could collect definitions of words so that when we use them we could make sure we're using them correctly. You could have them in alphabetical order, and give the meanings of words right next to the word itself.
If such a book existed, and the word "bulky" was in it, it could, for instance, say "of relatively large size" and not "smaller yet more defined."
If only such a book existed.
How many times a day do you use words in a sense not precisely aligned with their primary dictionary definition, but rather, in colloquial fashion? Context matters, and language evolves - just ask the Oxford English Dictionary team who spend all year, every year updating and editing the content of their publication. Do you 'follow' someone on Twitter or indulge in weightlifting 'geekery'? If we followed your apparent standards for the 'correct' use of language and ignored context, neither of those things would be possible, according to their precise dictionary definitions, until fairly recent years.
Even those OED guys who spend all year updating their entry for the word "bulky" have not found it reasonable to include an entry that says "small but defined."
If you are losing size and your muscles are becoming more visible, you are, literally and unarguably, not becoming bulkier.
Read the title of the thread. It's about "putting on muscle." People are using bulky to mean "bigger muscles." There is no semantic argument here.
People who complain that they're getting too bulky literally think their muscles are getting bigger. They are not. Period, end of story, zero room for argument.
Oxford English dictionary: 'Bulky' adjective (bulkier, bulkiest)
taking up much space; large and unwieldy
All of which are judgements requiring perception.
The person you demanded proof from perceived that her upper body had become 'bulky' (perhaps not the correct use of the word, but I understood her meaning from context.). Her perception may well be accurate, it's likely she could see more of the muscular definition she already had, or that was developing with use, because she was losing body fat/weight. Many women who have this issue are in the same boat. They 'see' their muscles getting 'bigger' because they are more visible, both individually and in relation to their smaller bodies as they lose weight... In some cases, they actually do gain measurably bigger musculature (the impressive lady who weightlifts professionally, for example), but you're right, in many cases it is merely a change of perception - you know, that inconvenient thing you think has no place in this discussion. I'm so sorry we don't all use perfectly-accurate terminology for you and rely on mere feminine perception of our own bodies to judge what's happening to them. It must make your life so difficult.
If her perception was that she started to "take up too much space" while she was in fact losing volume, then her perception was objectively wrong.
This entire thread is about women who think their muscles are getting larger in a calorie deficit and it's making them physically larger.
It's not.0 -
True, I just think the "bulk" they are claiming is an illusion in their mind. But, like jonnythan said, they got smaller, not bigger. Yes, it is impossible to get bulky in a deficit, which is why I'm pretty sure the reason they think they look bulky is due to their self-perception. They aren't just making these claims to troll or to pretend or anything. I believe they truly believe it themselves.
Exactly. They truly believe they are developing big muscles and their thighs or arms are literally getting bigger. This is not the case. That's what we're all trying to explain, and everyone wants to argue with.0 -
Merely trying to add another perspective to the discussion, and responding a specific part of a specific post, not the whole thread. If you don't want to acknowledge that a woman may feel herself to be too 'bulky' despite the scientific difficulties in that matching up to your view of that term, please, continue on in blissful ignorance.
Again, this thread is specifically not about how anyone feels at the moment.
The entire thread is about change over time. It's not about being bulky or having muscle, it's about getting bulky or gaining muscle.
You can have muscle or not have muscle. You can be bulky or not be bulky. That's not what this is about. This is about whether you can BECOME bulkier or GAIN muscle while losing weight.
The answer is "you cannot."
Am I reading that right. You are saying you can't gain muscle while losing weight?
Not to any significant degree, no. Certainly you can't gain enough muscle in a caloric deficit to make a body part larger.
Beg to differ and this video pretty much sums it up in how you can lose fat and gain muscle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y
Oh god, Scooby.
No matter what Scooby says, and I am not watching his video, you cannot make any body parts larger while in a calorie deficit. It just doesn't happen.
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.
Sir, with respect, then do it, and come back here and show the results. You are speaking to a group of people who have been through the process of bulking and cutting repeatedly, and for many of us AFTER trying the types of gimmicks discussed there. Real trainers of real bodybuilders will play little tricks such as carb cycling to get off the last few pounds during a cut, but they don't play these games on a large scale during the bulking phase. The video even goes into 6 meals a day and meal timing which the science, real science, points to being complete rubbish.
Yes, you can add a little muscle in a calorie deficit if you are untrained, have laid off training for a while and are coming back, and/or are using steroids. With the exception of that latter one, it also isn't a lot of muscle. You get a little bump, but for serious muscle gains you have to eat and eat. This is why the basics are pushed so hard. Sure you can find a guy on youtube focusing a lot of attention on the details, and telling people what they want to hear. You can get very popular and make plenty of money telling people what they want to hear. The entire diet and fitness industry, which is aimed at the general public, does just that.0 -
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.
Show me one example of a woman who increased the size of a body part while in a calorie deficit as a result of the muscle growing.
Show me the empirical evidence that you can't lose fat and gain muscle at the same time.
Because this study would imply that you can:
http://muscleevo.net/calorie-deficit/#.UiCvDz9IVgg
Bulking/cutting is not the only way to put on muscle.0 -
I think it's likely your understanding of 'bulky' and hers may be different. In her context, I took the word 'bulky' to mean highly-defined, perhaps large in proportion to the rest of her body, and inelegant - not a lithe, svelte look, but visibly muscular, which many women believe is unfeminine and unappealing. I know 'bulk' has a particular connotation in weightlifting, but it's not the only way to use that word.
If only there were some book written, where we could collect definitions of words so that when we use them we could make sure we're using them correctly. You could have them in alphabetical order, and give the meanings of words right next to the word itself.
If such a book existed, and the word "bulky" was in it, it could, for instance, say "of relatively large size" and not "smaller yet more defined."
If only such a book existed.
How many times a day do you use words in a sense not precisely aligned with their primary dictionary definition, but rather, in colloquial fashion? Context matters, and language evolves - just ask the Oxford English Dictionary team who spend all year, every year updating and editing the content of their publication. Do you 'follow' someone on Twitter or indulge in weightlifting 'geekery'? If we followed your apparent standards for the 'correct' use of language and ignored context, neither of those things would be possible, according to their precise dictionary definitions, until fairly recent years.
Even those OED guys who spend all year updating their entry for the word "bulky" have not found it reasonable to include an entry that says "small but defined."
If you are losing size and your muscles are becoming more visible, you are, literally and unarguably, not becoming bulkier.
Read the title of the thread. It's about "putting on muscle." People are using bulky to mean "bigger muscles." There is no semantic argument here.
People who complain that they're getting too bulky literally think their muscles are getting bigger. They are not. Period, end of story, zero room for argument.
Oxford English dictionary: 'Bulky' adjective (bulkier, bulkiest)
taking up much space; large and unwieldy
All of which are judgements requiring perception.
The person you demanded proof from perceived that her upper body had become 'bulky' (perhaps not the correct use of the word, but I understood her meaning from context.). Her perception may well be accurate, it's likely she could see more of the muscular definition she already had, or that was developing with use, because she was losing body fat/weight. Many women who have this issue are in the same boat. They 'see' their muscles getting 'bigger' because they are more visible, both individually and in relation to their smaller bodies as they lose weight... In some cases, they actually do gain measurably bigger musculature (the impressive lady who weightlifts professionally, for example), but you're right, in many cases it is merely a change of perception - you know, that inconvenient thing you think has no place in this discussion. I'm so sorry we don't all use perfectly-accurate terminology for you and rely on mere feminine perception of our own bodies to judge what's happening to them. It must make your life so difficult.
If her perception was that she started to "take up too much space" while she was in fact losing volume, then her perception was objectively wrong.
This entire thread is about women who think their muscles are getting larger in a calorie deficit and it's making them physically larger.
It's not.
"there's no 'too' in the OED definition. A person who has previously had no muscular definition to speak of might very well start to feel that their muscles "take up much space" once they become visible on a body that is shrinking in overall size. I'm not really sure why you think "objectively wrong" matters so much in a person's self-evaluation/perception (subjective), either.
I also don't recall the OP mentioning a deficit, but I may be wrong - it's been a while since the start of this thread!
That really is my last word on the subject - I came in to empathise, and got caught up in the debate. I've lots of better things to do. Arrivederci!0 -
I get terribly fed up with being told women don't bulk up, or women don't look like body builders without steroids. I put on muscle very easily, and although I don't end up looking like a body builder when I do heavy weights, I certainly get rather manish in the arms and legs. When I rowed a lot I had very big arm and thigh muscles, and was certainly not on steroids. I didn't even eat much protein by most people's standards (being vegetarian).
So are there any other women on here like me, who actually do get big muscles doing weights, and don't really want them?
You likely run higher levels of testosterone naturally (yes, women produce small amounts of testosterone--responsible for the sex drive in women). No woman produces a lot of testosterone, but there is a range. You can use an herb like Chasteberry (also called Vitex) which blocks some of the testosterone production by increasing progesterone production (the OTHER female hormone that we don't seem to produce enough of, for various reasons). Because many, many women are somewhat "estrogen dominant" (and estrogenic compounds that we take in from food and the environment are part of the problem)--stepping up progesterone production is good for balance and combating the over-production of androgenic hormones. Acne and hirsuitism are both symptoms of the over-production of androgenic hormones, as is "bulking up". Good luck!0 -
True, I just think the "bulk" they are claiming is an illusion in their mind. But, like jonnythan said, they got smaller, not bigger. Yes, it is impossible to get bulky in a deficit, which is why I'm pretty sure the reason they think they look bulky is due to their self-perception. They aren't just making these claims to troll or to pretend or anything. I believe they truly believe it themselves.
Exactly. They truly believe they are developing big muscles and their thighs or arms are literally getting bigger. This is not the case. That's what we're all trying to explain, and everyone wants to argue with.
Initial exercise swole at few weeks = larger volume. Their perception isn't wrong, it's focusing on the wrong thing...
Long term weight loss + exercise will help out if you can get past the perception thing.0 -
summary: Most people can gain muscle and lose fat on a deficit by eat 40% protein, don't eat all your protein blob at the same time or your 'nuclear reactor' well go off so eat 5-6 globs of protein spaced out per day lol (um, many people IF here and show vast improvements in body composition and the whole 'many meals a day' and 'you can only absorb little amounts of proteins at one time' theories proven wrong many moons ago...). He also goes on to say you need to eat unprocessed foods, 'good' fats are only from whole foods it seems (olives, not olive oil for example). Body builders are great at gaining muscle...and many eat tons of processed foods. And you cannot gain muscle eating cheeseburgers LOLOLOL and you need to do cardio for 40 minutes a day.....Don't forget to carb cycle...Merely trying to add another perspective to the discussion, and responding a specific part of a specific post, not the whole thread. If you don't want to acknowledge that a woman may feel herself to be too 'bulky' despite the scientific difficulties in that matching up to your view of that term, please, continue on in blissful ignorance.
Again, this thread is specifically not about how anyone feels at the moment.
The entire thread is about change over time. It's not about being bulky or having muscle, it's about getting bulky or gaining muscle.
You can have muscle or not have muscle. You can be bulky or not be bulky. That's not what this is about. This is about whether you can BECOME bulkier or GAIN muscle while losing weight.
The answer is "you cannot."
Am I reading that right. You are saying you can't gain muscle while losing weight?
Not to any significant degree, no. Certainly you can't gain enough muscle in a caloric deficit to make a body part larger.
Beg to differ and this video pretty much sums it up in how you can lose fat and gain muscle.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y
This guy is batty.0 -
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.
Show me one example of a woman who increased the size of a body part while in a calorie deficit as a result of the muscle growing.
That will take some time to find one as I really don't go looking for women who have gained muscle while cutting however I will give you a quote from a thread on the subject and link to it and this is on a decent bodybuilder forum.Tony Barnes
20% bf - lose fat + gain muscle = easy
15% bf - lose fat + gain muscle = achievable
10% bf - lose fat + gain muscle = tricky
5% bf - lose fat + gain muscle = voodoo
At the end of the day a calorie deficit doesn't mean you are running off less cals, you're just using stored lard to carry things through. So long as food choices are good, and resistance training there, then gains can still occur.
http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/Can-you-really-not-build-muscle-while-loosing-fat-m4817916.aspx
I think what you are getting at is because it's a female and she won't have much testosterone in her to grow how a newbie male would. So I see your point in saying she can't and won't be able to. Not unless she's roided up anyway.
I'll see if I can find some pics of a natty female/newbie who's gained while lost.0 -
Why do people keep insisting that this is an issue of differing viewpoints on the word "bulky?" You can't just decide on your own what words mean.
Why not? Bulkiness is purely perception. There isn't a special scale for it.
Bingo. Perception, which ties into body image, and how one feels about how one looks.
For what it's worth people invent new meanings for words all the time - see my post above about the OED.
Perceived body image is a completely separate issue. They may believe they are "bulky," but a tape measure would show the truth.0 -
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.
Show me one example of a woman who increased the size of a body part while in a calorie deficit as a result of the muscle growing.
That will take some time to find one as I really don't go looking for women who have gained muscle while cutting however I will give you a quote from a thread on the subject and link to it and this is on a decent bodybuilder forum.Tony Barnes
20% bf - lose fat + gain muscle = easy
15% bf - lose fat + gain muscle = achievable
10% bf - lose fat + gain muscle = tricky
5% bf - lose fat + gain muscle = voodoo
At the end of the day a calorie deficit doesn't mean you are running off less cals, you're just using stored lard to carry things through. So long as food choices are good, and resistance training there, then gains can still occur.
http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/Can-you-really-not-build-muscle-while-loosing-fat-m4817916.aspx
I think what you are getting at is because it's a female and she won't have much testosterone in her to grow how a newbie male would. So I see your point in saying she can't and won't be able to. Not unless she's roided up anyway.
I'll see if I can find some pics of a natty female/newbie who's gained while lost.
No, what I'm getting that is that even newbie gains in muscle mass aren't enough to make your arms literally bigger.
It's not about gaining some small amount of muscle mass. It's about breaking out the tape measure and showing me someone whose arms got larger.0 -
Go read the OP again. It's literally a woman who thinks her muscles get bigger while she's losing weight, and that it makes her "bulkier" and "manish."
This is literally impossible.
OMFG
bulky is not mannish.
I hate seeing this. This is a trend that makes me angry.
jonnthan- anger isn't toward you really- but well- media and misuse of words. I hate it- angry. makes me angry.
Agreed. Why do women think that being strong is unattractive? There are a few VERY strong women in my Crossfit box, and as far as I know all of them have boyfriends.
This is more about mistaking "skinny" for "feminine" than anything else.0 -
so unless you're a certain inch size you can't look bulky? and becasue you're a woman if you drop body fat, your defined muscles can't look masculine? what does it matter if someone gained inches and bulked up? if you look bulky you look bulky. a person doesn't need to gain to look bulky if it's already there. there are plenty of women with broad shoulders, large quads, large calves, big arms, naturally and sometimes working them just makes them bigger which some women don't like.
Women can "bulk" quite quickly and easily from over-eating and being sedentary. In that case, the bulk is from fat. I've lost 26% of my original bulk from eating at a caloric deficit.
bulk = size0 -
summary: eat 40% protein, don't eat all your protein blob at the same time or your 'nuclear reactor' well go off so eat 5-6 globs of protein spaced out per day lol (um, many people IF here and show vast improvements in body composition and the whole 'many meals a day' and 'you can only absorb little amounts of proteins at one time' theories proven wrong many moons ago...). He also goes on to say you need to eat unprocessed foods, 'good' fats are only from whole foods it seems,Merely trying to add another perspective to the discussion, and responding a specific part of a specific post, not the whole thread. If you don't want to acknowledge that a woman may feel herself to be too 'bulky' despite the scientific difficulties in that matching up to your view of that term, please, continue on in blissful ignorance.
Again, this thread is specifically not about how anyone feels at the moment.
The entire thread is about change over time. It's not about being bulky or having muscle, it's about getting bulky or gaining muscle.
You can have muscle or not have muscle. You can be bulky or not be bulky. That's not what this is about. This is about whether you can BECOME bulkier or GAIN muscle while losing weight.
The answer is "you cannot."
Am I reading that right. You are saying you can't gain muscle while losing weight?
Not to any significant degree, no. Certainly you can't gain enough muscle in a caloric deficit to make a body part larger.
Beg to differ and this video pretty much sums it up in how you can lose fat and gain muscle.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y
This guy is batty.
Yes the advice will vary from person to person but the principles are the same regarding protein intake. But take leangains as an example the creator not only lost weight but he also gained muscle while in calorie deficit and many others have done the same following it so that alone proves it can be done but as I said in my previous post womens genetics are a lot different so I can see where the other dude is coming from when he says SHE has not gained muscle while cutting.0 -
You're calling someone else misinformed while using a YouTube video for evidence? Not exactly a credible source. Especially Scooby, who freely admits he has no knowledge of biology or physiology.Merely trying to add another perspective to the discussion, and responding a specific part of a specific post, not the whole thread. If you don't want to acknowledge that a woman may feel herself to be too 'bulky' despite the scientific difficulties in that matching up to your view of that term, please, continue on in blissful ignorance.
Again, this thread is specifically not about how anyone feels at the moment.
The entire thread is about change over time. It's not about being bulky or having muscle, it's about getting bulky or gaining muscle.
You can have muscle or not have muscle. You can be bulky or not be bulky. That's not what this is about. This is about whether you can BECOME bulkier or GAIN muscle while losing weight.
The answer is "you cannot."
Am I reading that right. You are saying you can't gain muscle while losing weight?
Not to any significant degree, no. Certainly you can't gain enough muscle in a caloric deficit to make a body part larger.
Beg to differ and this video pretty much sums it up in how you can lose fat and gain muscle.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y
Oh god, Scooby.
No matter what Scooby says, and I am not watching his video, you cannot make any body parts larger while in a calorie deficit. It just doesn't happen.
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.0 -
and for those who missed it, my doing cardio every day self (same pic, one over processed so you can actually see my shape):
and my 'bulky' lifting self at the same weight:
:drinker:0 -
16 pages of arguing over semantics. Awesome.
Semantics? Or biology?0 -
A person who has previously had no muscular definition to speak of might very well start to feel that their muscles "take up much space" once they become visible on a body that is shrinking in overall size. I'm not really sure why you think "objectively wrong" matters so much in a person's self-evaluation/perception (subjective), either.
This is the exact point he's trying to make.
He's trying to point out that most of it is perception and that those aren't "packing on mass", in such a short time.0 -
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.
Show me one example of a woman who increased the size of a body part while in a calorie deficit as a result of the muscle growing.
That will take some time to find one as I really don't go looking for women who have gained muscle while cutting however I will give you a quote from a thread on the subject and link to it and this is on a decent bodybuilder forum.Tony Barnes
20% bf - lose fat + gain muscle = easy
15% bf - lose fat + gain muscle = achievable
10% bf - lose fat + gain muscle = tricky
5% bf - lose fat + gain muscle = voodoo
At the end of the day a calorie deficit doesn't mean you are running off less cals, you're just using stored lard to carry things through. So long as food choices are good, and resistance training there, then gains can still occur.
http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/Can-you-really-not-build-muscle-while-loosing-fat-m4817916.aspx
I think what you are getting at is because it's a female and she won't have much testosterone in her to grow how a newbie male would. So I see your point in saying she can't and won't be able to. Not unless she's roided up anyway.
I'll see if I can find some pics of a natty female/newbie who's gained while lost.
No, what I'm getting that is that even newbie gains in muscle mass aren't enough to make your arms literally bigger.
It's not about gaining some small amount of muscle mass. It's about breaking out the tape measure and showing me someone whose arms got larger.
I seen the pics of said women. One pic shows arm slightly raised while the other pic show the arm is slightly lowered, I see no change in muscle size in those pics tbh.
I'm 110% sure though it can be done though.0 -
I'm 110% sure though it can be done though.
Then show us some examples of people whose body parts got larger while on a calorie deficit. You've spent three pages linking to Scooby videos and talking about general stuff, while the entire time I've been asking for examples to prove it can be done. If you're so sure, and it's so common, then just show us a few.0 -
You're calling someone else misinformed while using a YouTube video for evidence? Not exactly a credible source. Especially Scooby, who freely admits he has no knowledge of biology or physiology.Merely trying to add another perspective to the discussion, and responding a specific part of a specific post, not the whole thread. If you don't want to acknowledge that a woman may feel herself to be too 'bulky' despite the scientific difficulties in that matching up to your view of that term, please, continue on in blissful ignorance.
Again, this thread is specifically not about how anyone feels at the moment.
The entire thread is about change over time. It's not about being bulky or having muscle, it's about getting bulky or gaining muscle.
You can have muscle or not have muscle. You can be bulky or not be bulky. That's not what this is about. This is about whether you can BECOME bulkier or GAIN muscle while losing weight.
The answer is "you cannot."
Am I reading that right. You are saying you can't gain muscle while losing weight?
Not to any significant degree, no. Certainly you can't gain enough muscle in a caloric deficit to make a body part larger.
Beg to differ and this video pretty much sums it up in how you can lose fat and gain muscle.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y
Oh god, Scooby.
No matter what Scooby says, and I am not watching his video, you cannot make any body parts larger while in a calorie deficit. It just doesn't happen.
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.
See my other link http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/Can-you-really-not-build-muscle-while-loosing-fat-m4817916.aspx
People who have posted have knowledge of biology and physiology :-)
Scooby is just one example of many people who say you can lose weight and GAIN muscle :-)0 -
16 pages of arguing over semantics. Awesome.
Semantics? Or biology?
The ones arguing semantics are the ones claiming that women are gaining muscle and getting bulky in a deficit.
No matter how many times the rest of us push the biology, they keep arguing semantics. It's a losing battle with people who will not read carefully enough to learn. This thread is pretty much focused on the lurkers who know enough to not post, and instead read.0 -
I didn't see anyone state that it is not possible for a person to gain muscle on a calorie deficit. The person above just said 'not to any significant degree'. As for making a body part larger...I had a rant about this the other day....but if your an obese male that was previously muscular before, then I have no idea. I doubt it...to drop 1lb of fat from an area you'd have to put on several lbs of muscle to be the same volume, and more to be larger. So yes, to me, it seems unlikely. I just was pointing out that...please don't listen to that video it's full of lies and a terrible reference lol.
summary: Most people can gain muscle and lose fat on a deficit by eat 40% protein, don't eat all your protein blob at the same time or your 'nuclear reactor' well go off so eat 5-6 globs of protein spaced out per day lol (um, many people IF here and show vast improvements in body composition and the whole 'many meals a day' and 'you can only absorb little amounts of proteins at one time' theories proven wrong many moons ago...). He also goes on to say you need to eat unprocessed foods, 'good' fats are only from whole foods it seems (olives, not olive oil for example). Body builders are great at gaining muscle...and many eat tons of processed foods. And you cannot gain muscle eating cheeseburgers LOLOLOL and you need to do cardio for 40 minutes a day.....Don't forget to carb cycle...Merely trying to add another perspective to the discussion, and responding a specific part of a specific post, not the whole thread. If you don't want to acknowledge that a woman may feel herself to be too 'bulky' despite the scientific difficulties in that matching up to your view of that term, please, continue on in blissful ignorance.
Again, this thread is specifically not about how anyone feels at the moment.
The entire thread is about change over time. It's not about being bulky or having muscle, it's about getting bulky or gaining muscle.
You can have muscle or not have muscle. You can be bulky or not be bulky. That's not what this is about. This is about whether you can BECOME bulkier or GAIN muscle while losing weight.
The answer is "you cannot."
Am I reading that right. You are saying you can't gain muscle while losing weight?
Not to any significant degree, no. Certainly you can't gain enough muscle in a caloric deficit to make a body part larger.
Beg to differ and this video pretty much sums it up in how you can lose fat and gain muscle.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y
This guy is batty.
Yes the advice will vary from person to person but the principles are the same regarding protein intake. But take leangains as an example the creator not only lost weight but he also gained muscle while in calorie deficit and many others have done the same following it so that alone proves it can be done but as I said in my previous post womens genetics are a lot different so I can see where the other dude is coming from when he says SHE has not gained muscle while cutting.
Edited to add: leangains guy went through many bulk and cut phases as you can see by reading many of his blog posts. But of all blog posts, that's probably a one I'd listen to. Unfortunately using him when he's gone through many bulk and cuts fails to prove your point.0 -
You're calling someone else misinformed while using a YouTube video for evidence? Not exactly a credible source. Especially Scooby, who freely admits he has no knowledge of biology or physiology.Merely trying to add another perspective to the discussion, and responding a specific part of a specific post, not the whole thread. If you don't want to acknowledge that a woman may feel herself to be too 'bulky' despite the scientific difficulties in that matching up to your view of that term, please, continue on in blissful ignorance.
Again, this thread is specifically not about how anyone feels at the moment.
The entire thread is about change over time. It's not about being bulky or having muscle, it's about getting bulky or gaining muscle.
You can have muscle or not have muscle. You can be bulky or not be bulky. That's not what this is about. This is about whether you can BECOME bulkier or GAIN muscle while losing weight.
The answer is "you cannot."
Am I reading that right. You are saying you can't gain muscle while losing weight?
Not to any significant degree, no. Certainly you can't gain enough muscle in a caloric deficit to make a body part larger.
Beg to differ and this video pretty much sums it up in how you can lose fat and gain muscle.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y
Oh god, Scooby.
No matter what Scooby says, and I am not watching his video, you cannot make any body parts larger while in a calorie deficit. It just doesn't happen.
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.
See my other link http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/Can-you-really-not-build-muscle-while-loosing-fat-m4817916.aspx
People who have posted have knowledge of biology and physiology :-)
Scooby is just one example of many people who say you can lose weight and GAIN muscle :-)
Just because people online say something doesn't make it true. You're swallowing stuff just because someone with an air of authority said it's so (and you want to believe it). Give it a break.0 -
You're calling someone else misinformed while using a YouTube video for evidence? Not exactly a credible source. Especially Scooby, who freely admits he has no knowledge of biology or physiology.Merely trying to add another perspective to the discussion, and responding a specific part of a specific post, not the whole thread. If you don't want to acknowledge that a woman may feel herself to be too 'bulky' despite the scientific difficulties in that matching up to your view of that term, please, continue on in blissful ignorance.
Again, this thread is specifically not about how anyone feels at the moment.
The entire thread is about change over time. It's not about being bulky or having muscle, it's about getting bulky or gaining muscle.
You can have muscle or not have muscle. You can be bulky or not be bulky. That's not what this is about. This is about whether you can BECOME bulkier or GAIN muscle while losing weight.
The answer is "you cannot."
Am I reading that right. You are saying you can't gain muscle while losing weight?
Not to any significant degree, no. Certainly you can't gain enough muscle in a caloric deficit to make a body part larger.
Beg to differ and this video pretty much sums it up in how you can lose fat and gain muscle.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y
Oh god, Scooby.
No matter what Scooby says, and I am not watching his video, you cannot make any body parts larger while in a calorie deficit. It just doesn't happen.
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.
See my other link http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/Can-you-really-not-build-muscle-while-loosing-fat-m4817916.aspx
People who have posted have knowledge of biology and physiology :-)
Scooby is just one example of many people who say you can lose weight and GAIN muscle :-)
Please read what has been posted here because you clearly haven't.
Gaining muscle in a deficit is possible but =/= getting bigger or "bulky."
It's all be explained in here repeatedly.
And no. I'm not reading anything on muscletalk.0 -
I was looking through my photobucket and found a "before" "bulking" picture.
It was right around the time I started boxing (Feb 22, 2012)
Fast forward a year and a half and check the after.
I LOOK stronger, I FEEL stronger, and I AM stronger, but when you compare size, I am definitely NOT bulkier. I am the SAME SIZE if not SMALLER overall.
I weigh less
But I look a lot stronger.
If you don't like the cut look, then don't go as low in the body fat department as I have.0 -
I'm 110% sure though it can be done though.
Then show us some examples of people whose body parts got larger while on a calorie deficit. You've spent three pages linking to Scooby videos and talking about general stuff, while the entire time I've been asking for examples to prove it can be done. If you're so sure, and it's so common, then just show us a few.
I will see what I can find but might take awhile.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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