You Can Gain Muscle On A Calorie Deficit!!

ArroganceInStep

10lbs / 250lbs = 0.04% increase. MASSIVE! :drinker:

10 lbs of muscle gain means a total of 84 lbs of fat lost in a year.

That means if you only gained 10 lbs in the one arm, that you had a 800 calorie deficit per day for the entire year. Your other arm increases that to a 900 calorie deficit. Add in chest, legs, and back, and that adds up pretty darn quick.

I think 10 lbs in a year is a tremendously high amount while cutting, but I'm more likely to believe that someone gained 10lbs overall when coming from an extremely heavy weight AND being a new lifter than 10lbs in just one arm.

JNick77

So why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from its "father"? The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake.

LOL, you're trolling right? LMAO

No...if you have an answer i'd like to hear it.

Why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from it's father? "The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake." Say what? LOL, try that again in Engrish.

Ripken818836701

10lbs / 250lbs = 0.04% increase. MASSIVE! :drinker:

10 lbs of muscle gain means a total of 84 lbs of fat lost in a year.

That means if you only gained 10 lbs in the one arm, that you had a 800 calorie deficit per day for the entire year. Your other arm increases that to a 900 calorie deficit. Add in chest, legs, and back, and that adds up pretty darn quick.

I think 10 lbs in a year is a tremendously high amount while cutting, but I'm more likely to believe that someone gained 10lbs overall when coming from an extremely heavy weight AND being a new lifter than 10lbs in just one arm.

From what I read on other message boards that you will gain 1 inch in both your arms for every 10lbs of lean muscle you gain. (not 10lbs for each arm) I never could wrap my mind around this statement because people have different genetics and different genetic potential etc. But since I have never heard or read anything to dispute this, its the best I got.
But I do view that statement as a ""cookie cutter"" statement

Jeff92se

10lbs / 250lbs = 0.04% increase. MASSIVE! :drinker:

10 lbs of muscle gain means a total of 84 lbs of fat lost in a year.

That means if you only gained 10 lbs in the one arm, that you had a 800 calorie deficit per day for the entire year. Your other arm increases that to a 900 calorie deficit. Add in chest, legs, and back, and that adds up pretty darn quick.

I think 10 lbs in a year is a tremendously high amount while cutting, but I'm more likely to believe that someone gained 10lbs overall when coming from an extremely heavy weight AND being a new lifter than 10lbs in just one arm.

10lbs in one arm? What? :laugh:

2April

You said:
"I'm saying the baby is getting the calories it needs to grow from it's mother. The calories a fetus needs is only a small fraction of the mother's in-take."
And I responded:
"So why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from its "father"? The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake."
I simply copied what you wrote but substituted fetus for muscle and mother for father for you to consider why the same argument could not apply in both circumstances. (I also corrected your grammatical errors - "It's" is the contraction for "it is" by the way).

[quote

So why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from its "father"? The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake.

LOL, you're trolling right? LMAO

No...if you have an answer i'd like to hear it.

Why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from it's father? "The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake." Say what? LOL, try that again in Engrish.
[/quote]

jg627

You would be surprised what an MRI can show. It just so happens that I read dr. Suess and drank a whole lot of beer with an MRI tech. Just wanted to throw that out there again.

JNick77

You said:
"I'm saying the baby is getting the calories it needs to grow from it's mother. The calories a fetus needs is only a small fraction of the mother's in-take."
And I responded:
"So why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from its "father"? The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake."
I simply copied what you wrote but substituted fetus for muscle and mother for father for you to consider why the same argument could not apply in both circumstances. (I also corrected your grammatical errors - "It's" is the contraction for "it is" by the way).

[quote

So why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from its "father"? The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake.

LOL, you're trolling right? LMAO

No...if you have an answer i'd like to hear it.

Why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from it's father? "The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake." Say what? LOL, try that again in Engrish.

[/quote]

You're just plain ole' silly now. LOL :laugh:

Jeff92se

As silly as thinking the OP claimed he gained 10lbs of muscle in 1 arm? :bigsmile:

jg627

You said:
"I'm saying the baby is getting the calories it needs to grow from it's mother. The calories a fetus needs is only a small fraction of the mother's in-take."
And I responded:
"So why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from its "father"? The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake."
I simply copied what you wrote but substituted fetus for muscle and mother for father for you to consider why the same argument could not apply in both circumstances. (I also corrected your grammatical errors - "It's" is the contraction for "it is" by the way).

[quote

So why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from its "father"? The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake.

LOL, you're trolling right? LMAO

No...if you have an answer i'd like to hear it.

Why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from it's father? "The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake." Say what? LOL, try that again in Engrish.

You're just plain ole' silly now. LOL :laugh:
[/quote]
That went right over your head didn't it?
Well don't look at me. My 3rd rate, cracker jack education didn't include logic. I mean it's not like I speak latin on a daily basis or anything, sed latine loqui possum satis bene. Oh wait. Never mind.

JNick77

You said:
"I'm saying the baby is getting the calories it needs to grow from it's mother. The calories a fetus needs is only a small fraction of the mother's in-take."
And I responded:
"So why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from its "father"? The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake."
I simply copied what you wrote but substituted fetus for muscle and mother for father for you to consider why the same argument could not apply in both circumstances. (I also corrected your grammatical errors - "It's" is the contraction for "it is" by the way).

[quote

So why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from its "father"? The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake.

LOL, you're trolling right? LMAO

No...if you have an answer i'd like to hear it.

Why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from it's father? "The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake." Say what? LOL, try that again in Engrish.

You're just plain ole' silly now. LOL :laugh:

That went right over your head didn't it?
Well don't look at me. My 3rd rate, cracker jack education didn't include logic. I mean it's not like I speak latin on a daily basis or anything, sed latine loqui possum satis bene. Oh wait. Never mind.
[/quote]

Guess so, please explain oh educated one.

jg627

You said:
"I'm saying the baby is getting the calories it needs to grow from it's mother. The calories a fetus needs is only a small fraction of the mother's in-take."
And I responded:
"So why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from its "father"? The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake."
I simply copied what you wrote but substituted fetus for muscle and mother for father for you to consider why the same argument could not apply in both circumstances. (I also corrected your grammatical errors - "It's" is the contraction for "it is" by the way).

[quote

So why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from its "father"? The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake.

LOL, you're trolling right? LMAO

No...if you have an answer i'd like to hear it.

Why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from it's father? "The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake." Say what? LOL, try that again in Engrish.

You're just plain ole' silly now. LOL :laugh:

That went right over your head didn't it?
Well don't look at me. My 3rd rate, cracker jack education didn't include logic. I mean it's not like I speak latin on a daily basis or anything, sed latine loqui possum satis bene. Oh wait. Never mind.

Guess so, please explain oh educated one.
[/quote]
The mother is trying to grow a baby. The father is trying to grow muscles. Get it now?

JNick77

You said:
"I'm saying the baby is getting the calories it needs to grow from it's mother. The calories a fetus needs is only a small fraction of the mother's in-take."
And I responded:
"So why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from its "father"? The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake."
I simply copied what you wrote but substituted fetus for muscle and mother for father for you to consider why the same argument could not apply in both circumstances. (I also corrected your grammatical errors - "It's" is the contraction for "it is" by the way).

[quote

So why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from its "father"? The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake.

LOL, you're trolling right? LMAO

No...if you have an answer i'd like to hear it.

Why can't a muscle get the calories it needs to grow from it's father? "The calories that the muscle needs is only a small fraction of the father's intake." Say what? LOL, try that again in Engrish.

You're just plain ole' silly now. LOL :laugh:

That went right over your head didn't it?
Well don't look at me. My 3rd rate, cracker jack education didn't include logic. I mean it's not like I speak latin on a daily basis or anything, sed latine loqui possum satis bene. Oh wait. Never mind.

Guess so, please explain oh educated one.

The mother is trying to grow a baby. The father is trying to grow muscles. Get it now?
[/quote]
[/quote]

So the comparison is that growing a baby is the same as building muscle mass?? Really? Think there's a minor difference there, just maybe.

Sublog

There are 3 ways to build muscle tissue:

1. Eating a surplus.
2. You can build some new tissue if you are new to lifting or have returned from a long break. (Small muscle gains)
3. You are obese and use fat stores as calories to put on some muscle. (Again some small gains)

By the way, great transformation! Good job.

What Joe said above ^

/thread meow!

jg627

There are 3 ways to build muscle tissue:

1. Eating a surplus.
2. You can build some new tissue if you are new to lifting or have returned from a long break. (Small muscle gains)
3. You are obese and use fat stores as calories to put on some muscle. (Again some small gains)

By the way, great transformation! Good job.

What Joe said above ^

/thread meow!

It can't be over yet. Nobody said, 'that's what Hitler would do'.

Ripken818836701

There are 3 ways to build muscle tissue:

1. Eating a surplus.
2. You can build some new tissue if you are new to lifting or have returned from a long break. (Small muscle gains)
3. You are obese and use fat stores as calories to put on some muscle. (Again some small gains)

By the way, great transformation! Good job.

What Joe said above ^

/thread meow!

Have you tried too? Dude you lost about twice the amount of fat that I have!! You should look like a greek god after you uncovered all that new lean muscle you gained from carrying around an extra 145 lbs. Afterall that's were mine came from.:bigsmile:

jennyredfern

Wow! What an inspiration you are!! You look amazing!

ArroganceInStep

10lbs in one arm? What? :laugh:

You keep changing your position. Pick one.

I missed where the op mentions massive

I already responded to this. In the first thread mention of 10 lbs of muscle to increase arms by 1 inch, and that was just in one arm. I consider that to be massive growth.

How did he do that while on a deficit? Are you not believing the measurements or not believing he was on a deficit at the time?

Those numbers I posted were also assuming a perfect conversion of energy, which doesn't happen.


How much muscle do you think was gained? Pick a number, 20 lbs? 30 lbs? Add that to 74 lbs lost, and you can figure how much of a deficit he had to maintain over that year.

Jeff92se

It wasn't 10lbs in one arm, that's for sure. No one claimed that

And about massive, I commented with the % vs total bodyweight. It wasn't massive.

He even quoted himself

From what I read on other message boards that you will gain 1 inch in both your arms for every 10lbs of lean muscle you gain. (not 10lbs for each arm) I never could wrap my mind around this statement because people have different genetics and different genetic potential etc. But since I have never heard or read anything to dispute this, its the best I got.
But I do view that statement as a ""cookie cutter"" statement

You did read that right?

ArroganceInStep

It wasn't 10lbs in one arm, that's for sure. No one claimed that

And about massive, I commented with the % vs total bodyweight. It wasn't massive.

He even quoted himself

From what I read on other message boards that you will gain 1 inch in both your arms for every 10lbs of lean muscle you gain. (not 10lbs for each arm) I never could wrap my mind around this statement because people have different genetics and different genetic potential etc. But since I have never heard or read anything to dispute this, its the best I got.
But I do view that statement as a ""cookie cutter"" statement

You did read that right?

Yes, and I also read the original statement, which is what I was referring to.

To gain one inch in arm size you need to gain atleast 10 lbs of lean muscle. And since I started working out even though I got rid of most of the fat in my arms I still gained over 1.5 inches in both of my arms. The problem here is I think most of the people that commented that I havent gained any lean muscle in this thread have no clue about what realistic lean muscle gains in one year are!, Even if they are not at a calorie deficit during that entire year.

You were only commenting on how small it was in comparison to total body weight when it made your argument sound better. When I specifically referenced the increase in arm size equating to a 10 lbm increase you asked if I was calling pike a liar. You never made any mention of 10 lbs in the arms being a bit much then.

Missi3601

I understand the concept behind eating at a surplus to build lean muscle mass, but I also can't dismiss the fact that it is possible to gain muscle and lose fat on a calorie deficit either. I have to ask... I have been eating at a deficit for 34 months and have lost 304 lbs. I have read that some think the OP had this muscle already and just uncovered it when he lost the weight. If that was true than your telling me that I had all this muscle already and that my 560 lbs, was just covering it up??? I find that very hard to believe.....

2009 @ 560 lbs.



2010 @ 420 lbs.





Saturday @ 256 lbs.

Amazing! It's nice to know that there are people out there like myself that need to lose a lot of weight and have had success stories! You my friend are an inspiration!

Jeff92se

It wasn't 10lbs in one arm, that's for sure. No one claimed that

And about massive, I commented with the % vs total bodyweight. It wasn't massive.

He even quoted himself

From what I read on other message boards that you will gain 1 inch in both your arms for every 10lbs of lean muscle you gain. (not 10lbs for each arm) I never could wrap my mind around this statement because people have different genetics and different genetic potential etc. But since I have never heard or read anything to dispute this, its the best I got.
But I do view that statement as a ""cookie cutter"" statement

You did read that right?

Yes, and I also read the original statement, which is what I was referring to.

To gain one inch in arm size you need to gain atleast 10 lbs of lean muscle. And since I started working out even though I got rid of most of the fat in my arms I still gained over 1.5 inches in both of my arms. The problem here is I think most of the people that commented that I havent gained any lean muscle in this thread have no clue about what realistic lean muscle gains in one year are!, Even if they are not at a calorie deficit during that entire year.

You were only commenting on how small it was in comparison to total body weight when it made your argument sound better. When I specifically referenced the increase in arm size equating to a 10 lbm increase you asked if I was calling pike a liar. You never made any mention of 10 lbs in the arms being a bit much then.

So after you read his last comment, you still try to adhere to the 10lbs per arm? Why?

ArroganceInStep

It wasn't 10lbs in one arm, that's for sure. No one claimed that

And about massive, I commented with the % vs total bodyweight. It wasn't massive.

He even quoted himself

From what I read on other message boards that you will gain 1 inch in both your arms for every 10lbs of lean muscle you gain. (not 10lbs for each arm) I never could wrap my mind around this statement because people have different genetics and different genetic potential etc. But since I have never heard or read anything to dispute this, its the best I got.
But I do view that statement as a ""cookie cutter"" statement

You did read that right?

Yes, and I also read the original statement, which is what I was referring to.

To gain one inch in arm size you need to gain atleast 10 lbs of lean muscle. And since I started working out even though I got rid of most of the fat in my arms I still gained over 1.5 inches in both of my arms. The problem here is I think most of the people that commented that I havent gained any lean muscle in this thread have no clue about what realistic lean muscle gains in one year are!, Even if they are not at a calorie deficit during that entire year.

You were only commenting on how small it was in comparison to total body weight when it made your argument sound better. When I specifically referenced the increase in arm size equating to a 10 lbm increase you asked if I was calling pike a liar. You never made any mention of 10 lbs in the arms being a bit much then.

So after you read his last comment, you still try to adhere to the 10lbs per arm? Why?

Because I made my original comment that you jumped on before his most recent one.

Given the clarification that it was an lbm increase for that size change in both arms and not just a single arm, a 1.5 inch increase is still 15 lbs of LBM for the size adjustment. My question STILL holds regarding how much mass he gained. Was all the work only on his arms and nothing on his legs? How much muscle do you think was gained? You still haven't answered the question.

You laughed at 10lbs being massive, and yet that coupled with the fat weight that was lost equates to a pretty substantial maintained deficit. If 10lbs is laughable, and he's made good progress, what do you think is more reasonable? 20lbs? 30lbs?

Jeff92se

I used his arms because that's what he referenced. Why would I think he only gained in his arms and not everywhere else?

Question is do you think he's smaller? You didn't think so. You only said he's "about the same" or "not much bigger". Now you are stating that even if he stayed the same, he would have had decent gains.

That's what I've stated. By your own testimony of the pictures.

Ambrogio1

This might be something nooone can answer and the close minded ppl that stand pat like they know are corny


1 luv

jg627

I wouldn't trust internet forum trolls for advice. Try this guy instead.

http://www.aeispeakers.com/hlinks/print.php?SpeakerID=2065
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7Zppu7FWik&context=C4dbcf46ADvjVQa1PpcFOWkaolXZ6UNoZ5NmYRM_WhvWRqayoITQE=

joejccva71

You guys are still debating this? smh

Jeff92se

You guys are still debating this? smh

As soon as the next "you can gain muscle on a deficit" thread comes along, you are most certainly going to be the 1st 5 poster to post / comment in that thread. So...:drinker:

Ripken818836701

It wasn't 10lbs in one arm, that's for sure. No one claimed that

And about massive, I commented with the % vs total bodyweight. It wasn't massive.

He even quoted himself

From what I read on other message boards that you will gain 1 inch in both your arms for every 10lbs of lean muscle you gain. (not 10lbs for each arm) I never could wrap my mind around this statement because people have different genetics and different genetic potential etc. But since I have never heard or read anything to dispute this, its the best I got.
But I do view that statement as a ""cookie cutter"" statement

You did read that right?

Yes, and I also read the original statement, which is what I was referring to.

To gain one inch in arm size you need to gain atleast 10 lbs of lean muscle. And since I started working out even though I got rid of most of the fat in my arms I still gained over 1.5 inches in both of my arms. The problem here is I think most of the people that commented that I havent gained any lean muscle in this thread have no clue about what realistic lean muscle gains in one year are!, Even if they are not at a calorie deficit during that entire year.

You were only commenting on how small it was in comparison to total body weight when it made your argument sound better. When I specifically referenced the increase in arm size equating to a 10 lbm increase you asked if I was calling pike a liar. You never made any mention of 10 lbs in the arms being a bit much then.

So after you read his last comment, you still try to adhere to the 10lbs per arm? Why?

Because I made my original comment that you jumped on before his most recent one.

Given the clarification that it was an lbm increase for that size change in both arms and not just a single arm, a 1.5 inch increase is still 15 lbs of LBM for the size adjustment. My question STILL holds regarding how much mass he gained. Was all the work only on his arms and nothing on his legs? How much muscle do you think was gained? You still haven't answered the question.

You laughed at 10lbs being massive, and yet that coupled with the fat weight that was lost equates to a pretty substantial maintained deficit. If 10lbs is laughable, and he's made good progress, what do you think is more reasonable? 20lbs? 30lbs?

For the record, I stated that for every 10lb's of LM. you gain you will gain 1 inch in your arms. That is not saying you wont also gain LM. feom that same 10lb.s in other parts of your body aswell. But like I also stated, in my opinion, different people have different genetics, different genetic potential and different body types, height,length of arms, legs etc. So in my opinion its a cookie cutter statement.

Ambrogio1

doh

saimabhaidani

bump