You Can Gain Muscle On A Calorie Deficit!!

trybefan

Just jumping in to say incredible work! Looking at those pics, "Anything is possible" comes to mind....amazing man!

joejccva71

And we go again...........

I suppose it depends. Some muscle groups aren't as affected by his weight than others.

Jeff how often do we have to go around and around the circle? Until one of us runs out of gas or until you realize the facts?

Which is it?

Oh yeah, "until I realize the facts". Great logic there. I recommened you post into a threat of the other guys' success and you declined. I'm not going to debat this guy's gains as he obviously had alot of fat stores. But muscle groups like the bicept / tricep aren't going to be worked like the back/legs on a heavy person

I truely fail to see your point here.

Biceps and Triceps get worked by doing almost every other lifting exercise you do. Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying.

Lifting of weights? yes. But as it pertains to supporting a heavy person? Not so much. And I use these muscle groups as they are demonstrated in the after pics of that guy that just posted.

Ok so if he's obese and his body is using his fat stores as calories to put on some muscle tissue, by him just doing normal lifting, the muscle will go to bodyparts worked (including bi's and tri's). This along with the fact that he still had a good amount of LBM even in his arms can produce what he has shown in those pics.

Jeff92se

And we go again...........

I suppose it depends. Some muscle groups aren't as affected by his weight than others.

Jeff how often do we have to go around and around the circle? Until one of us runs out of gas or until you realize the facts?

Which is it?

Oh yeah, "until I realize the facts". Great logic there. I recommened you post into a threat of the other guys' success and you declined. I'm not going to debat this guy's gains as he obviously had alot of fat stores. But muscle groups like the bicept / tricep aren't going to be worked like the back/legs on a heavy person

I truely fail to see your point here.

Biceps and Triceps get worked by doing almost every other lifting exercise you do. Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying.

Lifting of weights? yes. But as it pertains to supporting a heavy person? Not so much. And I use these muscle groups as they are demonstrated in the after pics of that guy that just posted.

Ok so if he's obese and his body is using his fat stores as calories to put on some muscle tissue, by him just doing normal lifting, the muscle will go to bodyparts worked (including bi's and tri's). This along with the fact that he still had a good amount of LBM even in his arms can produce what he has shown in those pics.

Now I have no idea what your point is. BTW, how do you know how much muscle mass he had before/after in an area such as his biceps? There's no really good before pic to compare it to. Not sure what "good amount" really means. Does that mean more or less? Same? You'd think after losing approx 250lbs, his arms would look signficatly smaller if he was on a deficit program.

joejccva71

And we go again...........

I suppose it depends. Some muscle groups aren't as affected by his weight than others.

Jeff how often do we have to go around and around the circle? Until one of us runs out of gas or until you realize the facts?

Which is it?

Oh yeah, "until I realize the facts". Great logic there. I recommened you post into a threat of the other guys' success and you declined. I'm not going to debat this guy's gains as he obviously had alot of fat stores. But muscle groups like the bicept / tricep aren't going to be worked like the back/legs on a heavy person

I truely fail to see your point here.

Biceps and Triceps get worked by doing almost every other lifting exercise you do. Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying.

Lifting of weights? yes. But as it pertains to supporting a heavy person? Not so much. And I use these muscle groups as they are demonstrated in the after pics of that guy that just posted.

Ok so if he's obese and his body is using his fat stores as calories to put on some muscle tissue, by him just doing normal lifting, the muscle will go to bodyparts worked (including bi's and tri's). This along with the fact that he still had a good amount of LBM even in his arms can produce what he has shown in those pics.

Now I have no idea what your point is. BTW, how do you know how much muscle mass he had before/after in an area such as his biceps? There's no really good before pic to compare it to. Not sure what "good amount" really means. Does that mean more or less? Same?

Jeff this is really pointless. And no I don't know how much muscle mass he had before/after, but that isn't the point. The point is whether or not a person can build muscle on a calorie deficit. (Which has been the point for god knows how long now)

And the answer is under certain circumstances someone can....(like i've said repeatedly). But if someone was lets say under 20% bodyfat and they continued to try to build muscle on a calorie deficit they won't be able to do it. In order to grow you need energy intake. You have to have something to build on.

Right now I'm doing Lyle Mcdonald's RFL program and currently I'm eating 900 calories a day for 14 days. Mostly protein intake by eating 1g of protein per lb of my LBM. I can guarantee you and I'd put money on it that I won't be building muscle on my calorie deficit. I'd be lucky to preserve the LBM I currently do have. I'll retain most of it but the only reason is I'm eating enough protein per day and I'm lifting.

Jeff92se

And we go again...........

I suppose it depends. Some muscle groups aren't as affected by his weight than others.

Jeff how often do we have to go around and around the circle? Until one of us runs out of gas or until you realize the facts?

Which is it?

Oh yeah, "until I realize the facts". Great logic there. I recommened you post into a threat of the other guys' success and you declined. I'm not going to debat this guy's gains as he obviously had alot of fat stores. But muscle groups like the bicept / tricep aren't going to be worked like the back/legs on a heavy person

I truely fail to see your point here.

Biceps and Triceps get worked by doing almost every other lifting exercise you do. Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying.

Lifting of weights? yes. But as it pertains to supporting a heavy person? Not so much. And I use these muscle groups as they are demonstrated in the after pics of that guy that just posted.

Ok so if he's obese and his body is using his fat stores as calories to put on some muscle tissue, by him just doing normal lifting, the muscle will go to bodyparts worked (including bi's and tri's). This along with the fact that he still had a good amount of LBM even in his arms can produce what he has shown in those pics.

Now I have no idea what your point is. BTW, how do you know how much muscle mass he had before/after in an area such as his biceps? There's no really good before pic to compare it to. Not sure what "good amount" really means. Does that mean more or less? Same?

Jeff this is really pointless. And no I don't know how much muscle mass he had before/after, but that isn't the point. The point is whether or not a person can build muscle on a calorie deficit. (Which has been the point for god knows how long now)

And the answer is under certain circumstances someone can....(like i've said repeatedly). But if someone was lets say under 20% bodyfat and they continued to try to build muscle on a calorie deficit they won't be able to do it. In order to grow you need energy intake. You have to have something to build on.

Right now I'm doing Lyle Mcdonald's RFL program and currently I'm eating 900 calories a day for 14 days. Mostly protein intake by eating 1g of protein per lb of my LBM. I can guarantee you and I'd put money on it that I won't be building muscle on my calorie deficit. I'd be lucky to preserve the LBM I currently do have. I'll retain most of it but the only reason is I'm eating enough protein per day and I'm lifting.

I don't think anyone here (the most recent guy or pike) has claimed they gained muscle mass while being under let's say 20% bodyfat. I don't know of anyone that's participated on any of these discussions recently has claimed they gained muscle mass while being under "20% bodyfat". I even stated this more than once.

But onto your specifics. You will be smaller after your cut cycle. But from the pics, he (they actually) seem to be the same size if not larger. After losing 250lbs from all over your body, you'd have to be noticably smaller in thar arm area(area chosen because it's in the pictures) Does his arms look noticably smaller to you? Then again, he's on a big fat surplus which jives with current thinking.

The thing is your statement is concentrated around an arbitrary bodyfat number of 20%. Which is fine for this discussion. But you can be over 20%(well over) and not really be overfat or obese. Let's say 30% for discussion. Thefore you can (according to your numbers) gain muscle on a deficit until you get around 20%. Not the most efficent way but it can happen(according to you). Being over 20% ecompassing a great many people here (including myself until recently).

I was measured at 19% at 180lbs. I was as high as 190lbs. Now I'm at 175lbs. I think I've at least retained my muscle size from 190lbs to 175lbs. Maybe a slight gain. Hard to really judge. Do I think I could gain muscle from 175lbs and at a deficit? Nope.

JNick77

The 150lb improvement is used as it's the only reasonably known measurement we are given. And seems to indicate an improvement that's BEYOND just improvements in technique. As he has lifted before and should reaonably know how to lift. And there wasn't any mention of any breakthoughs in technique in thread.

Saying it's "possible" isn't a strong position either. As much in this world is "possible" given extreme cases and the perfect storm of conditions. Which IMHO, is not the case here.

I think the point is that it's not just conscious technique, it's not like he repositioned his grip and can suddenly bench a car. It also about conditioning of the body to perform the movement better, ie the things that were listed. You may still disagree given the magnitude of the weight increase, but I felt it should be clarified (also needed to bump).

Right and it be the fact that he's actually gained muscle mass. I don't think it's one thing that achieved it. More like a combination of all. It's too big IMHO to have been just technque like someone was alluding to. It would be like me adding 135lbs to my bench a year ago. I'd have to be benching 315lbs right now. Improbable.

Somebody eluded to this on the original thread with some comments from Eric Cressey who undeniably knows his ****. When you're talking maximal strength effort lifting you're not just talking muscle mass strength. You're also incorporating neural strength in a manner that is not accomplished anywhere else on the Force Curve. I believe Charles Poliquin actually referred to this as, Neural Maximal Strength. There are a few factors (CNS, Form, Programming, diet quality) at play here and aside from some newbie muscle gain, muscle mass ain't coming out of nowhere (calorie deficit). But strength gains can be made from learning how to lift properly and by strengthening supporting muscle groups (i.e. triceps, traps, rear deltoids, lats, etc).

I have accurate records of my strength gains. I hurt my back last year and I couldn't do legs at all for months, I lost a lot of strength. I could tell by the level of effort it took to go up stairs. When I started deadlifting again my 1RM, albeit conservative, was 205lbs at a bodyweight of 220lbs. Two weeks ago I pulled 325 for a triple @ 207lbs. I've lost 13lbs and increased my Deadlift by over 125lbs. My 1RM prior to hurting my back was 290lbs. My legs are no bigger, still fitting in the same pants although my waist is smaller. Although I am more defined from head-to-toe I haven't gained any noticeable size and I have a couple shirts that are actually a little loose in certain spots.

Jeff92se

You're the 2nd person to use leg lifts and a number around 150lbs. This guy increased his BENCH 150lbs. And I think he was out of lifting for well over a year. Probably 5 years? 10?

Again, have you read anything in this thread that indicates he paid particular attention do his diet and training to maximize his lifts w/o trying to gain mucsle mass? I didn't. I also didn't try to assign all of that gain to muscle mass gains. But I didn't EXCLUDE any one reason either.

ArroganceInStep

Again, have you read anything in this thread that indicates he paid particular attention do his diet and training to maximize his lifts w/o trying to gain mucsle mass? I didn't. I also didn't try to assign all of that gain to muscle mass gains. But I didn't EXCLUDE any one reason either.

Eating at a caloric deficit while getting adequate protein (which he did do) == maximizing lifts w/o trying to gain muscle mass.

JNick77

jg627

If lifting weight helps you get in shape or makes you feel good, do it. That's how I look at it. Who cares if the muscle heads approve or not. It's not a contest. Let them roid rage all they want.

Jeff92se

Again, have you read anything in this thread that indicates he paid particular attention do his diet and training to maximize his lifts w/o trying to gain mucsle mass? I didn't. I also didn't try to assign all of that gain to muscle mass gains. But I didn't EXCLUDE any one reason either.

Eating at a caloric deficit while getting adequate protein (which he did do) == maximizing lifts w/o trying to gain muscle mass.

Really? I do that. My bench didn't go up 150lbs!

jg627

I kind of experienced the opposite in my case. I've always had big legs even when I was skinny, but I never had the upper body to match it. I was VERY self conscious about and would never wear shorts as a result. I feel a bit more top heavy now than I used to, like my center of gravity changed. I don't know if that was a result of lifting as I was losing weight or if I put on muscle while playing video games and eating boxes of boston creams as my weight climbed to nearly 340 lbs, so I am not going to weigh in on either side of this argument. I just don't care enough to. Some people say you can. Some people say you can't. Some people say you can't, but only under certain circumstances, such as being morbidly obese and being a noob.
However, when a morbidly obese noob does come around looking for advice about lifting he gets flamed off the forums by roid raging muscle heads who don't approve. That's where threads like this one always end up. Maybe we should reinstitute the ancient rite of holmgang and let Odin decide who's right.

ArroganceInStep

Really? I do that. My bench didn't go up 150lbs!

I'd argue that you also started at a very different level than he did. You've already stated that you powerlifted in the past. Of course you're not going to get the same gains. If you were a very new lifter and started at 280, I think you'd see much bigger results.

I was 315 when I started cutting, I started 5x5 conservatively with a bench at 135, I never checked my max because I was ashamed of how weak I had become, but if I were to guesstimate it was no more than 185. It's 4 months later and my max is about 250 (248 by exrx estimates but I won't be doing a proper measure until the 6 month mark). If I had never benched before in my life (or at least never seriously), I think my starting point would've been much lower and my improvement much greater (though obviously I wouldn't be at 250 already). Add another 8 months to the program and who knows. The problem with that story is you can just claim I gained muscle mass, which I can't prove or disprove as I didn't get properly measured when I started. You're fixating on the one argument to the exclusion of all else.

As I've said a bunch of times already, in both my case and his, I think he had a good amount of the muscle he has now when he was at his heaviest, but that muscle was 'weak'. While cutting weight he gained a very tiny amount of muscle (due to the reasons I've given already) but the overwhelming cause of his gains was from conditioning the muscle that was already there. You can agree with that or disagree, but I personally find it easier to believe that your body packs on weak muscle when you're at a calorie surplus (particularly when you get adequate protein) and that when cutting you gain next to nothing but your body conditions it to work to its true potential. I believe that's the case for me, for Pike, and even for Davenport. I started at a higher BF% than Pike, and Davenport started at a higher BF% than me, and I think starting with the higher BF% we would be able to build slightly more muscle mass than if we started with less. I don't think those amounts would be significant however.

My reasons for thinking this, beyond the studies/articles I've read, have to do with how difficult it is for me to run with a weighted pack. If I strap on a 40 lb pack and try to run, my times in everything would drop tremendously and something that was easy (like pushups) becomes the workout from hell. I was carrying that pack around 24/7 before I started cutting. It's hard work carrying around that much extra weight, and not just on your legs.

Jeff92se

Pike was also a lifter long ago I believe. You only took a few months off. When I started lifting again after a 10 year layoff, my bench did NOT go up 150lbs after lifting again for 2 years now.

As for the added weight, I'd agree that a heavy person would have strength in their core/legs to support their weight. AND in the chest, bis and tris IF they were doing such movements while heavy. I saw no indication they were doing such movements to help them build those areas while they were heavy. Not until they started their exercise programs at least. But those gains would be attributed to their workouts, not their heavy weight

ArroganceInStep

Pike was also a lifter long ago I believe. You only took a few months off. When I started lifting again after a 10 year layoff, my bench did NOT go up 150lbs after lifting again for 2 years now.

As for the added weight, I'd agree that a heavy person would have strength in their core/legs to support their weight. AND in the chest, bis and tris IF they were doing such movements while heavy. I saw no indication they were doing such movements to help them build those areas while they were heavy. Not until they started their exercise programs at least. But those gains would be attributed to their workouts, not their heavy weight

I lifted on and off, but this is my first serious foray back into lifting since college. I graduated 6 years ago. I am making an assumption here but since you haven't said as much I don't think you started anywhere near as heavy as Pike, myself, or Davenport did. You'd have less preexisting LBM, and even less marginal gains from being overweight (this is just speculation, I don't know the specifics of your case).

While I concede your point that more muscle would go to legs since walking is something most people have to do, I think you underestimate the strain on your whole body that weight has. While preference for muscle mass would go to the legs, your body wouldn't completely ignore your upper body when adding muscle mass. At 315 my arms were heavy; I still had to do things like get up out of bed, or pull myself up into my truck, or lift myself our of my computer chair to go to the fridge and grab some more food. I believe my body would add muscle mass throughout my body as my weight increased. The fact that I wasn't working out just meant that muscle was weak.

jg627

Standing overhead press would be a better benchmark to use than bench press.

Jeff92se

If you had to routinely help youself up using an underhand grip to pull yourself up, I'd could see that.

JNick77

Jeff92se

You posting that twice is an illustration of that yes. Just don't click on this thread if you don't like it.

JNick77

You posting that twice is an illustration of that yes. Just don't click on this thread if you don't like it.

Not trying to be a jerk but this conversation is just ridiculous already. Re-read the other part of this thread and NinerBuff's discussion about the Law of Thermodynamics. Scientific laws are called laws for a reason, laws not theories.

Jeff92se

You posting that twice is an illustration of that yes. Just don't click on this thread if you don't like it.

Not trying to be a jerk but this conversation is just ridiculous already. Re-read the other part of this thread and NinerBuff's discussion about the Law of Thermodynamics. Scientific laws are called laws for a reason, laws not theories.

It's law because someone called it that. Now you are guility of the very thing you are trying to berate others of.

jg627

Not that I'm trying to pick a side here, but everyone seems to have accepted that sedentary lifestyle and weight gain causes significant increase in lean mass as scientific law. My searches aren't finding any studies to support this, only the opposite. Just trying to keep it scientific and all. I already know the answer to this. I happen to have a friend from school who is pretty handy with magnetic resonance imaging. I just want to smugly add cryptic comments that don't really add any value to the discussion. Hey, at least I'm honest.

JNick77

You posting that twice is an illustration of that yes. Just don't click on this thread if you don't like it.

Not trying to be a jerk but this conversation is just ridiculous already. Re-read the other part of this thread and NinerBuff's discussion about the Law of Thermodynamics. Scientific laws are called laws for a reason, laws not theories.

It's law because someone called it that. Now you are guility of the very thing you are trying to berate others of.

A Scientific Law is a law because the scientific community called it a law. "A Law is a rule or body of rules and principles governing a phenomenon, p.e. THE LAW OF GRAVITY, in science, laws are absolute or unquestioned."

Basically the Law of Thermodynamics teaches us that you can't create something out of nothing. You cannot build muscle mass when the calories are not available to do so. That's like saying you can drive your car (non-smart car) without gas in the engine.

I never berated Niner for what he said, I supported him. Not sure what you're referring to.

ArroganceInStep

Not that I'm trying to pick a side here, but everyone seems to have accepted that sedentary lifestyle and weight gain causes significant increase in lean mass as scientific law. My searches aren't finding any studies to support this, only the opposite. Just trying to keep it scientific and all. I already know the answer to this. I happen to have a friend from school who is pretty handy with magnetic resonance imaging. I just want to smugly add cryptic comments that don't really add any value to the discussion. Hey, at least I'm honest.

I posted a study earlier in the thread (not going to go back and look it up but you can if you like)

10% to 50% of the mass gained was LBM, depending on protein intake.

jg627

Not that I'm trying to pick a side here, but everyone seems to have accepted that sedentary lifestyle and weight gain causes significant increase in lean mass as scientific law. My searches aren't finding any studies to support this, only the opposite. Just trying to keep it scientific and all. I already know the answer to this. I happen to have a friend from school who is pretty handy with magnetic resonance imaging. I just want to smugly add cryptic comments that don't really add any value to the discussion. Hey, at least I'm honest.

I posted a study earlier in the thread (not going to go back and look it up but you can if you like)

10% to 50% of the mass gained was LBM, depending on protein intake.

There is some protein in boston cream. Maybe I lucked out.

Jeff92se

You posting that twice is an illustration of that yes. Just don't click on this thread if you don't like it.

Not trying to be a jerk but this conversation is just ridiculous already. Re-read the other part of this thread and NinerBuff's discussion about the Law of Thermodynamics. Scientific laws are called laws for a reason, laws not theories.

It's law because someone called it that. Now you are guility of the very thing you are trying to berate others of.

A Scientific Law is a law because the scientific community called it a law. "A Law is a rule or body of rules and principles governing a phenomenon, p.e. THE LAW OF GRAVITY, in science, laws are absolute or unquestioned."

Basically the Law of Thermodynamics teaches us that you can't create something out of nothing. You cannot build muscle mass when the calories are not available to do so. That's like saying you can drive your car (non-smart car) without gas in the engine.

I never berated Niner for what he said, I supported him. Not sure what you're referring to.

You you stating that anyone on a calorie deficit doesn't have calories available for muscle mass gain? As in the only caloires available are the ones you injest?

2April

You posting that twice is an illustration of that yes. Just don't click on this thread if you don't like it.

Not trying to be a jerk but this conversation is just ridiculous already. Re-read the other part of this thread and NinerBuff's discussion about the Law of Thermodynamics. Scientific laws are called laws for a reason, laws not theories.

It's law because someone called it that. Now you are guility of the very thing you are trying to berate others of.

A Scientific Law is a law because the scientific community called it a law. "A Law is a rule or body of rules and principles governing a phenomenon, p.e. THE LAW OF GRAVITY, in science, laws are absolute or unquestioned."

Basically the Law of Thermodynamics teaches us that you can't create something out of nothing. You cannot build muscle mass when the calories are not available to do so. That's like saying you can drive your car (non-smart car) without gas in the engine.

I never berated Niner for what he said, I supported him. Not sure what you're referring to.

I have known women who were overweight and were put on a weight loss diet (calorie deficit) during their pregnancy. They lost a substantial amount of weight while the fetus continued to grow to a healthy weight. Energy is stored in our fat cells, this is why growth, including muscular growth, is possible even while a person is losing weight. This does not violate the law of thermodynamics.

jg627

You posting that twice is an illustration of that yes. Just don't click on this thread if you don't like it.

Not trying to be a jerk but this conversation is just ridiculous already. Re-read the other part of this thread and NinerBuff's discussion about the Law of Thermodynamics. Scientific laws are called laws for a reason, laws not theories.

It's law because someone called it that. Now you are guility of the very thing you are trying to berate others of.

A Scientific Law is a law because the scientific community called it a law. "A Law is a rule or body of rules and principles governing a phenomenon, p.e. THE LAW OF GRAVITY, in science, laws are absolute or unquestioned."

Basically the Law of Thermodynamics teaches us that you can't create something out of nothing. You cannot build muscle mass when the calories are not available to do so. That's like saying you can drive your car (non-smart car) without gas in the engine.

I never berated Niner for what he said, I supported him. Not sure what you're referring to.

I have known women who were overweight and were put on a weight loss diet (calorie deficit) during their pregnancy. They lost a substantial amount of weight while the fetus continued to grow to a healthy weight. Energy is stored in our fat cells, this is why growth, including muscular growth, is possible even while a person is losing weight. This does not violate the law of thermodynamics.

My wife is having trouble putting on weight even while the baby is measuring weeks ahead of where it should. She just can't eat the calories they want her to eat because of the pressure on her stomach. I keep telling her liquid calories. It must be my super DNA from working out lol. She still had more she wanted to lose, just like me, but she's not 'significantly' overweight, but yeah. I know what you're saying and have seen the same myself.

JNick77

I have known women who were overweight and were put on a weight loss diet (calorie deficit) during their pregnancy. They lost a substantial amount of weight while the fetus continued to grow to a healthy weight.

So the mother was on a calorie deficit and lost weight? What's your point? LOL. A portion of a pregnant mother's calories obviously go to the baby and the baby is going to grow. You didn't really prove anything there, nice try though.

Jeff92se

Fetus continued to grow