You Can Gain Muscle On A Calorie Deficit!!

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