So even though you can't gain muscle on a calorie

Rae6503

deficit, your muscles will still "tone-up" right? Like get reshaped? Butts getting rounder and higher for example. Right? Is "tone-up" the right term for this?

And yeah, I know you can increase strength even if you are not gaining muscle mass.

AZTrailRunner

,

UponThisRock

You will RETAIN more muscle than you would have if you were doing just cardio. A larger portion of what you lose will be fat, rather than lean mass. Thus, you will appear more cut/defined/tone than you would have had you not done weightlifting.

Rae6503

You will RETAIN more muscle than you would have if you were doing just cardio. A larger portion of what you lose will be fat, rather than lean mass. Thus, you will appear more cut/defined/tone than you would have had you not done weightlifting.

This I know. But I could swear my butt got rounder when I was on a deficit (which I'm not anymore). Maybe you are right, maybe I just lost fat from the areas that made it look flatter.

UponThisRock

You will RETAIN more muscle than you would have if you were doing just cardio. A larger portion of what you lose will be fat, rather than lean mass. Thus, you will appear more cut/defined/tone than you would have had you not done weightlifting.

This I know. But I could swear my butt got rounder when I was on a deficit (which I'm not anymore). Maybe you are right, maybe I just lost fat from the areas that made it look flatter.

I'm going to need detailed pics for purposes of comparison...j/k

Were you new to lifting. Beginners can often gain some muscle while in a calorie deficit for a while

thedreamhazer

bump

coyoteo

This has never made sense to me. I started lifting and now I have enough muscle in my arm that I can flex it and it moves...and it didn't before.....so yea, I don't get this "can't build on a deficit thing".

AZTrailRunner

This has never made sense to me. I started lifting and now I have enough muscle in my arm that I can flex it and it moves...and it didn't before.....so yea, I don't get this "can't build on a deficit thing".

That doesn't qualify as scientific evidence though.

thecrossfitter

Were you new to strength training when this happened? (I don't think you were, but not positive). I've heard that newbies get a bit of a grace period (note: I can't cite this) when it comes to building muscle in the beginning. I think I may believe this, because I started lifting in August; my photos (Aug, Sept, Nov) show me gaining almost 5lbs. It is only in the past week that I've actually started losing weight.

I'm happy to hear people's thoughts! Yes, I realize my anecdote is not scientific evidence

As a note - my coach at my gym actually just commented how I've gotten "that crossfit butt" haha - aka, rounder, since I've started lol

thecrossfitter

Thought 2: Losing fat makes your muscles more visible, thus creating a 'toned' look and making them more defined.

coyoteo

This has never made sense to me. I started lifting and now I have enough muscle in my arm that I can flex it and it moves...and it didn't before.....so yea, I don't get this "can't build on a deficit thing".

That doesn't qualify as scientific evidence though.

I didn't say it was scientific evidence. I said it didn't make sense to me. AND THEN I saw the above post about newbies to lifting gaining muscle initially and then it DID make sense.

agthorn

This has never made sense to me. I started lifting and now I have enough muscle in my arm that I can flex it and it moves...and it didn't before.....so yea, I don't get this "can't build on a deficit thing".

That doesn't qualify as scientific evidence though.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/47/1/19.long
(especially Table 4)

tigersword

Weight training burns a lot of fat, if you lose the fat over the muscle, the muscle looks bigger. Which is why you suddenly can see it. As for "seeing it move," it always moves, it just depends on the amount of fat covering it whether you can see it or not.

Rae6503

But anyway, back to my question.... Your muscle does NOT reshape?

Dave198lbs

But anyway, back to my question.... Your muscle does NOT reshape?

it can...especially immediately after you "pump" it up with some heavy lifting

the more you do and the longer you do some of that pump stays

AZTrailRunner

This has never made sense to me. I started lifting and now I have enough muscle in my arm that I can flex it and it moves...and it didn't before.....so yea, I don't get this "can't build on a deficit thing".

That doesn't qualify as scientific evidence though.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/47/1/19.long
(especially Table 4)

Thank you for the link. It doesn't account for the "seeing my muscle move" comment though. Losing enough fat on the arm to see the bicep flex doesn't equate to muscle gain.

Huffdogg

Taking a BCAA supplement before working out is also not a bad idea if you're in a deficit, as it will help prevent your body from catabolizing muscle.

agthorn

This has never made sense to me. I started lifting and now I have enough muscle in my arm that I can flex it and it moves...and it didn't before.....so yea, I don't get this "can't build on a deficit thing".

That doesn't qualify as scientific evidence though.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/47/1/19.long
(especially Table 4)

Thank you for the link. It doesn't account for the "seeing my muscle move" comment though. Losing enough fat on the arm to see the bicep flex doesn't equate to muscle gain.

I have no idea about the "seeing the muscle move" comment I just find it interesting that there is some scientific evidence that supports gaining muscle while in a deficit.

AZTrailRunner

This has never made sense to me. I started lifting and now I have enough muscle in my arm that I can flex it and it moves...and it didn't before.....so yea, I don't get this "can't build on a deficit thing".

That doesn't qualify as scientific evidence though.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/47/1/19.long
(especially Table 4)

Thank you for the link. It doesn't account for the "seeing my muscle move" comment though. Losing enough fat on the arm to see the bicep flex doesn't equate to muscle gain.

I have no idea about the "seeing the muscle move" comment I just find it interesting that there is some scientific evidence that supports gaining muscle while in a deficit.

It follows the earlier comments that there are a select few exceptions. One being of obese people, and those new to lifting. For the rest of us, it does not equate.

solpwr

In the bodybuilding and fitness community and even in some academic books skeletal muscle hypertrophy is described as being in one of two types: Sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar. According to this theory, during sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the volume of sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell increases with no accompanying increase in muscular strength, whereas during myofibrillar hypertrophy, actin and myosin contractile proteins increase in number and add to muscular strength as well as a small increase in the size of the muscle. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is characteristic of the muscles of certain bodybuilders while myofibrillar hypertrophy is characteristic of Olympic weightlifters. These two forms of adaptations rarely occur completely independently of one another, one can experience a large increase in fluid with a slight increase in proteins, a large increase in proteins with a small increase in fluid, or a relatively balanced combination of the two. In contrast to this theory it should be noted that when viewed in microscope, muscles are filled entirely by myofibrils, whether or not the muscles from bodybuilders or powerlifters are used. Also, very little actual evidence actually supports that the non-myofibrillar part of the sarcoplasm ever expands. Antagonists to this theory suggest that the cause of this popular notion is twofold: First, it is derived from fractioning of muscle used when measuring protein synthesis. This is a technique in which muscle proteins are separated biochemically into myofibrillar, sarcoplasmic, membrane and mitochondrial fractions for protein synthesis. This validity of this separation is poorly validated and also, the results of this fractionation and the usual following stable isotope protein synthesis measurement does not tell anything about the relative abundance of these protein fractions (as changes in protein synthesis are by definition relative (i.e. a change of 50% in a substance that constitutes 1% of the muscle is still insignificant in a physiological context). Secondly, the sarcoplasmic/myofibrillar proponents use their theory to explain why bodybuilders have less relative strength than strength athletes. But this theory is not necessary to explain these differences. The physiological changes associated with training with very high volume and degrees of muscle fatigue produce difference neuromuscular adaptations that are different from those experienced by strength training with very high mechanical loads and less muscle fatigue.

LorinaLynn

Totally not scientific, but there's shapes and muscles in my body now that I know weren't there before, either when I had extra fluff, or when I was stick thin. Like the muscle in on the front of my calf. I've always had thin calves. My husband has incredible, muscular calves. I noticed a year ago on him, he had a muscle that bulged along the shin bone when he flexed his ankle. Having never seen that before on me, I was fascinated. I tried flexing my own leg, and there was nothing along the shin but bone. A year later, there's a definite muscle there. In fact, my calves are overall much less "little birdie legs" than they've ever been, and my knee high boots are tighter now. (Not that I'm complaining... they look fab!)

So my thinking is that even though my overall muscle mass has decreased while I lost weight, there's still improvements to the tone and shape and dimensions of the individual muscles. Where I did have an estimated 110# of soft, weak lean body mass, I now have an estimated 105# firm and shapelier lean body mass.

Then again, maybe I'm just talking out of my (firmer, rounder, higher) buttocks.

Dave198lbs

Then again, maybe I'm just talking out of my (firmer, rounder, higher) buttocks.

perfect! laughing out loud! love it

MisterDubs303

The deficit/muscle building concept is a bit flexible depending on the amount of body fat on a person. The greater the fat stores, the greater the possibility of retaining or building muscle mass, even on a minor deficit - or so I've read. I would also say I've experienced it, but I'd have to crunch some data to prove it. (I've still got 50 lbs. to lose, but have increased my strength through weight training, even on a pretty aggressive deficit).

BrettPGH

I gotta admit I wonder about this. Sadly I don't have measurements or reliable info to provide, but I definitely look more muscular. My arms are bigger, what were a solid pair of man boobs has become the start of some serious pecs, I've got muscles in my back that I've never seen in my life.. honestly it's all a little weird. But I guess it's just shedding body mass has made them noticeable.

Also I sure as spit ain't complainin'!

Rae6503

Really, what I am wondering is if a "reshaping" could explain why so many people think they are gaining muscle on a deficit. Certain areas of the muscle get bigger, while others get small even those the mass of the muscle remains the same....

solpwr

It explains part of it. I'm telling you Rachel, don't drink the Kool Aid that categorically rules out all ability to gain muscle mass in calorie deficit condition.

It doesn't happen for conditioned athletes, people who have been resistance training regularly. But there are at least two exceptions to it.

Exception 1) Noobs start lifting. They've done little or no lifting before. Muscles react to the new trauma. The muscles build back incrementally. We're talking Micro increments. But a growth increment is a growth increment.

Exception 2) I've experienced this. People who have formerly lifted to a greater or lesser degree, begin lifting again after a layoff. The layoff may be 6 months. It may be 6 years. Their muscles have atrophied somewhat, incrementally. So they begin lifting again. Even in cases where they are eating in a deficit, if the deficit is moderate, they will see some incremental gain in muscle mass. We are talking degrees here. A moderate deficit. Small gains. Muscle memory means 2 things. One is motor memory. Two is fibers. If the muscle mass in my quads goes up by 10 grams per quad, is that a gain? By definition it is, but often people mean "significant gain" when they refer to gain. To me, gain is gain.

A lot of the MFP "lifting experts" are young guys (20's & 30's) who have their experience, the experience of their peers, and their research to draw upon. That's great. I wouldn't discount their knowledge and experience, like I think some of them have discounted mine. I believe I come from a background that gives me a little broader perspective. I'm no expert. But I know what I've personally experienced. In my teens I started lifting. I got big fast and easy. Early 20's I was training with the power lifters, I trained with 3 plates on bench (315), and 5 plates squat. I was arm wrestling in the bars competitively. I never snapped a bone, but seen it happen many times. Early 30's I was following the bodybuilding scene, I was living in Pasadena, CA, and working in Santa Monica. Went to all the Bodybuilding shows for a couple years. Worked hard on physique. Juice was all the rage in the gym. Life happens, fitness up and down, obesity on and off, etc. At 50 I'm 30 years removed from those hardcore strength days, but I can definitely relate to the MFP "lifting experts", I've been exactly in their shoes in my past. If not even to a greater degree.

To remove the fat layers, I got on my bike. All the best bodybuilders had a big cardio routine. That's what separated many of the best guys. Most just didn't/don't hear about their cardio work. But I digress. In 20 years you will see my perspective. You will live it.

Right now, I've been training less, can't get on my bike, just skiing, cardio at the gym, and lifting at the gym. I've been eating more, bumped up my calories multiple times. My weight seems to be about the same. My belt is fitting one notch bigger over 2 months. My lifting has been going up. I went from a 45+35 on seated military up to 2 45's plus a dime. Feeling stronger. Gain in muscle mass? Likely. Grams of gain. Really it doesn't matter what you call it.

What matters is doing the work.

djkshdfd

bump

karinaes

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/416542-i-hope-this-helps

Jeff92se

solpwr. Exactly how I feel and what I've experienced. Although I haven't done the extreme workouts you have.

servilia

This has never made sense to me. I started lifting and now I have enough muscle in my arm that I can flex it and it moves...and it didn't before.....so yea, I don't get this "can't build on a deficit thing".

Doesn't mean your muscles grew. You've lost some weight and I assume some fat from your arms which would have hidden the muscle and its movement.

Jeff92se

It's hard to tell if your muscles "grew" if your BF% has been going down at the same time. I can only go by the BF% measurements and the way my clothes fit, (ie.. shirts).