Gaining muscle while at a calorie deficit

EvgeniZyntx

Physiologically speaking - it is, of course, possible to gain muscle while at a calorie deficit. The general mantra "you can't gain muscle at a calorie deficit" makes sense because it's difficult to have BIG gains at a deficit and something else is going on...

I decided to look at the equations on TDEE, BMR, etc and see if my TDEE was correct.

Here is a surprise for people trying to build up muscle - you need to recalculate your TDEE based of your BF% more often than you think - BMR (and therefore TDEE) goes up fast, with increases in muscle mass. And you must use one of the equations that is dependent on LBM such as Katch-McArdle.

Member Heybales published an excellent spreadsheet that can be used for that. Or if someone want mine, I will share it once it is cleaned up.

I'm upping my calories as I write this. If you check your BF% and recalculate your TDEE are you now getting a higher number?

Looking forward to reading input.

Edit: For example, my change from 30% to 20% in BF represents close to 300 calorie increase.

kinmad4it

I'm in a similar position. I'm currently at 180 ish lbs with a bodyfat % of 24. I don't want to lose any weight overall, just decrease bodyfat and increase muscle while remaining at 180 odd lbs.
I would imagine a good way would be to work out how much energy doing weights will require and add that to my daily allowance, whilst also reducing my fat intake and upping the protein.

There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer as I've looked online at a lot of sites and there are so many conflicting opinions it's impossible to make head nor tail of it all. It's even more confusing when I try to look at what exercises to do, when and how often to do them and how much rest is required.

I'm going to take a trial and error approach with it all and pick one and try it for a month or so and see how it works, if nothing happens I'll try another one. It's not as if there aren't any to choose from out there.

TriNorm

It seems I'm in a similar spot; I'd like to lose another 8 or so pounds (check the ticker for the exact number), but I'll get there pretty soon - my big issue will be getting my body fat number down. In the past I was able to get my body fat low by going on a relatively high protein diet, but any other advice/opinions are welcome. And I'd love to see your spreadsheet once its done.

EvgeniZyntx

The issue with predicitive equations used to add xx calories for activities is that we tend to under-calculate the daily effort.
I would suggest you take a look at one of the spreadsheets and play with the different activity levels to get a sense of how these impact TDEE. Your NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) or the calories we burn outside of the gym and cardio can vary from 20% to 90% of TDEE so the activity is important in the actual energy expenditure.

But just as important is keeping it sufficiently simple to not go crazy.

Calculating a good TDEE that works, adding 200-300 for 45 min of gym is one of the general advices given here (see the new road map thread or the heybales worksheet) or working off of a sedentary TDEE and logging every activity (which is what I was doing, but might move to the other method).

My comment and the point of this post was to suggest that even though these are estimates and ideally we are best served by observation and adjusting our practices, it can also be helpful to recheck TDEE with BF% changes and increase the TDEE settings as BF% decreases - especially if it decreases more early on for those that are more novice to weight lifting like myself - initial big gains in LBM should should result in adjustments.

nml2011

Someone who is very overweight will lose fat and build a little muscle on a deficit.

Someone new to weight training will see some gains and lose fat at the same time on a small deficit but this will cease after the first few months.

If you are eating at a 500 cal + deficit you will almost certainly not gain muscle (will gain strength) but you will appear to get larger muscle as you strip away more fat.

If you want fat loss and muscle gain you are better eating at a very slight excess and look into carb backloading - presently maintaining 88kg BW and losing approx 1% bf a month but I am eating at a 500 - 1000 cal excess on training days.

Trial and error is required and slight changes to the diet month on month to keep the fat coming off.

fwalz3

Bumping to read later

EvgeniZyntx

I went from

SW: 97kg BF:30% or so
CW: 86kg BF:20% or so

which sugests that I kept all my LBM or gained a kg or so over 3 months. (high protein, weight training x 3, reduced cardio from very high to med/low activity)

I'm not yet convinced about carb back-loading.

heybales

Yep, trying to nail those numbers with minor deficit (though might be bigger than thought) and good protein.

The other idea being used seems to work for many, but requires basically only lifting, no cardio. 24 hrs after lifting is bigger eat, 24 hrs rest is bigger deficit.

That's a new section in the spreadsheet under deficits for calorie cycling.

And here's one study where already athletic males got some more muscle and LBM.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet

FullOfWin

How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?

nml2011

I went from

SW: 97kg BF:30% or so
CW: 86kg BF:20% or so

which sugests that I kept all my LBM or gained a kg or so over 3 months. (high protein, weight training x 3, reduced cardio from very high to med/low activity)

I'm not yet convinced about carb back-loading.

This is the first 3 months you have been strength training?

Good results, 10% bf and approx 10% bw drop so you have kept the lbm.

nml2011

How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?

Most of the people with the most muscle mass didn't do it naturally.

Those that are suposedly all natural spent 10 - 15 years plus stuffing themselves with food and training as hard as possible and have the best genetics for this.

The natural way is a long slow process.

SideSteel

I'm curious what you believe is driving up TDEE as LBM increases, aside from the actual LBM, unless you're assuming quite large gains.

General consensus seems to be that LBM burns about 6 calories per pound. (<--- and typically, you're not gaining massive amounts of LBM, so this value tends to be small in terms of net)

I would understand a situation where LBM increases, total bodyweight increases, calories are at a surplus and quite likely NEAT increases, which collectively would amount to a significant TDEE increase.

But eating at a deficit, with AT/NEAT possibly downregulating things, bodyweight decreasing even in the face of a potential LBM increase, I'm curious where that big of a TDEE increase would come from.

Thoughts? Curious if I'm missing something here, or just misunderstanding the post.

Bohohippy

My boyfriend started going the gym a while ago but isn't losing weight and is building muscle under the fat and now looks bigger and feels terrible :S Is there anything he can do to reduce the fat and not build the muscle as quickly? Or is he doing it the right way and eventually the fat will come away?

FullOfWin

How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?

Most of the people with the most muscle mass didn't do it naturally.

Those that are suposedly all natural spent 10 - 15 years plus stuffing themselves with food and training as hard as possible and have the best genetics for this.

The natural way is a long slow process.

So building muscle eating at a surplus is slow in comparison to building muscle eating maintenance or below?

FullOfWin

My boyfriend started going the gym a while ago but isn't losing weight and is building muscle under the fat and now looks bigger and feels terrible :S Is there anything he can do to reduce the fat and not build the muscle as quickly? Or is he doing it the right way and eventually the fat will come away?

Eat less while changing nothing else.

kiachu

How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?

Most of the people with the most muscle mass didn't do it naturally.

Those that are suposedly all natural spent 10 - 15 years plus stuffing themselves with food and training as hard as possible and have the best genetics for this.

The natural way is a long slow process.

So building muscle eating at a surplus is slow in comparison to building muscle eating maintenance or below?

No. Building muscle naturally is slower then when your on drugs.

FullOfWin

How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?

Most of the people with the most muscle mass didn't do it naturally.

Those that are suposedly all natural spent 10 - 15 years plus stuffing themselves with food and training as hard as possible and have the best genetics for this.

The natural way is a long slow process.

So building muscle eating at a surplus is slow in comparison to building muscle eating maintenance or below?

No. Building muscle naturally is slower then when your on drugs.

Yes I know that. The point of my first post was, how did the guys who have built the most muscle naturally do it? By bulking and cutting or by eating maintenance or below with some dietary timing tricks?

jg627

This is probably gonna turn into a flame war.

FullOfWin

This is probably gonna turn into a flame war.

It has the potential. A controversialsish topic and a guy named FullOfWin being slightly antagonistic.

JasonDetwiler

I went from

SW: 97kg BF:30% or so
CW: 86kg BF:20% or so

which sugests that I kept all my LBM or gained a kg or so over 3 months. (high protein, weight training x 3, reduced cardio from very high to med/low activity)

I'm not yet convinced about carb back-loading.

What are your questions about CBL? It works.

EvgeniZyntx

I'm curious what you believe is driving up TDEE as LBM increases, aside from the actual LBM, unless you're assuming quite large gains.

General consensus seems to be that LBM burns about 6 calories per pound. (<--- and typically, you're not gaining massive amounts of LBM, so this value tends to be small in terms of net)

That's an excellent question - I just ran that in the worksheet and create the following table (if the formatting does not work, I'll post an image)



For the person with the same weight but different LBM the calories per lb of LBM seem to be around 11-13 when calculated from the Katch-McArdle formula. Why might these be if 6 cals per pound is the accepted value? I would gues that part of it *might* be that the 6 cals per pound are at basal metabolism and the remaining are from the the activity multiplier (1.2 in my example) which does not cover the other 4-5 cals. Could this be NEAT?

I would understand a situation where LBM increases, total bodyweight increases, calories are at a surplus and quite likely NEAT increases, which collectively would amount to a significant TDEE increase.

But eating at a deficit, with AT/NEAT possibly downregulating things, bodyweight decreasing even in the face of a potential LBM increase, I'm curious where that big of a TDEE increase would come from.

Thoughts? Curious if I'm missing something here, or just misunderstanding the post.

These calculations are prior to any calorie restriction so downregulation should not be occurring. But you bring up an import point - for someone dieting for extended periods the AT/NEAT down regulation might impact or kill the TDEE increase. Perhaps that is why we get the 6 cal/kg measurement versus the 11-12 from the equation. I don't know if the data evaluation from Katch-McArdle was done with a static population or a over a changing period.

If anyone wants to play with these numbers and (un)validate them just take the spreadsheet and enter the data and vary only the percent BF. Then calculate the change in cals per change in LBM.

I'm curious to hear other thoughts.

edit: image

cbrrabbit25

How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?

with a higher level of protein calories. even if you go over you calories, it should be because of protein.

EvgeniZyntx

I went from

SW: 97kg BF:30% or so
CW: 86kg BF:20% or so

which sugests that I kept all my LBM or gained a kg or so over 3 months. (high protein, weight training x 3, reduced cardio from very high to med/low activity)

I'm not yet convinced about carb back-loading.

What are your questions about CBL? It works.

What I've seen for the most part about timing of food does not suggest that there is a significant impact to eating carbs late. And I'm frankly concerned that it is too restrictive (mentally) in my lifestyle so that CBL might only give me small value versus a more normal diet but really screw up the rest of my life/work style.

It is something I am not sufficiently read up on to be sure one way or the other.

SideSteel

I'm curious what you believe is driving up TDEE as LBM increases, aside from the actual LBM, unless you're assuming quite large gains.

General consensus seems to be that LBM burns about 6 calories per pound. (<--- and typically, you're not gaining massive amounts of LBM, so this value tends to be small in terms of net)

That's an excellent question - I just ran that in the worksheet and create the following table (if the formatting does not work, I'll post an image)



For the person with the same weight but different LBM the calories per lb of LBM seem to be around 11-13 when calculated from the Katch-McArdle formula. Why might these be if 6 cals per pound is the accepted value? I would gues that part of it *might* be that the 6 cals per pound are at basal metabolism and the remaining are from the the activity multiplier (1.2 in my example) which does not cover the other 4-5 cals. Could this be NEAT?

I would understand a situation where LBM increases, total bodyweight increases, calories are at a surplus and quite likely NEAT increases, which collectively would amount to a significant TDEE increase.

But eating at a deficit, with AT/NEAT possibly downregulating things, bodyweight decreasing even in the face of a potential LBM increase, I'm curious where that big of a TDEE increase would come from.

Thoughts? Curious if I'm missing something here, or just misunderstanding the post.

These calculations are prior to any calorie restriction so downregulation should not be occurring. But you bring up an import point - for someone dieting for extended periods the AT/NEAT down regulation might impact or kill the TDEE increase. Perhaps that is why we get the 6 cal/kg measurement versus the 11-12 from the equation. I don't know if the data evaluation from Katch-McArdle was done with a static population or a over a changing period.

If anyone wants to play with these numbers and (un)validate them just take the spreadsheet and enter the data and vary only the percent BF. Then calculate the change in cals per change in LBM.

I'm curious to hear other thoughts.

edit: image

I think I see what you're getting at although I'm replying without giving this time to mull around in my head, so I'll re-post if I have further thoughts.

Since any estimation tool is essentially looking at a snapshot in time, it's not going to factor in any AT/NEAT up/downregulation. (At least, I don't get how it could since then it would be way off for everyone who that doesn't apply to).

I think that's exactly what you're saying here:

These calculations are prior to any calorie restriction so downregulation should not be occurring. But you bring up an import point - for someone dieting for extended periods the AT/NEAT down regulation might impact or kill the TDEE increase. Perhaps that is why we get the 6 cal/kg measurement versus the 11-12 from the equation. I don't know if the data evaluation from Katch-McArdle was done with a static population or a over a changing period.

It would be interesting to see if the bolded part is correct above.

Chances are that I'm over-nerding on this, because in reality it's a reasonable assumption that people are going to make rather minor changes in body composition over the course of a few months, rather than suddenly gaining 10lbs of LBM and losing 20lbs of fat. (So net change in TDEE "should" be small and can just be tweaked based on observational results rather than re-running K.A.).

I still find it interesting though.

FullOfWin

Chances are that I'm over-nerding on this

This is pretty common. The things we argue about 90% of the time probably account for 10% of our results. People overcomplicate things. Eat big. Lift big. Get big.

SideSteel

Chances are that I'm over-nerding on this

This is pretty common. The things we argue about 90% of the time probably account for 10% of our results. People overcomplicate things. Eat big. Lift big. Get big.

Absolutely.

But as long as people recognize the difference between discussing something from a point of understanding vs trying to apply all the minutia, I don't see a problem with it.

FullOfWin

Chances are that I'm over-nerding on this

This is pretty common. The things we argue about 90% of the time probably account for 10% of our results. People overcomplicate things. Eat big. Lift big. Get big.

Absolutely.

But as long as people recognize the difference between discussing something from a point of understanding vs trying to apply all the minutia, I don't see a problem with it.

We have to entertain ourselves at work somehow right? What else are we gonna do? Work?

heybales

That's an excellent question - I just ran that in the worksheet and create the following table (if the formatting does not work, I'll post an image)



For the person with the same weight but different LBM the calories per lb of LBM seem to be around 11-13 when calculated from the Katch-McArdle formula. Why might these be if 6 cals per pound is the accepted value? I would gues that part of it *might* be that the 6 cals per pound are at basal metabolism and the remaining are from the the activity multiplier (1.2 in my example) which does not cover the other 4-5 cals. Could this be NEAT?

These calculations are prior to any calorie restriction so downregulation should not be occurring. But you bring up an import point - for someone dieting for extended periods the AT/NEAT down regulation might impact or kill the TDEE increase. Perhaps that is why we get the 6 cal/kg measurement versus the 11-12 from the equation. I don't know if the data evaluation from Katch-McArdle was done with a static population or a over a changing period.

Starters, on that table, I get different calories TDEE / lb LBM. Now even though the TDEE values have been rounded slightly it appears, the math is still off, I'm getting around 14.x calories/LBM lb.

The Katch BMR formula based on a study of course. Going off memory, it was a range of ages, but all considered healthy individuals within a healthy weight range, so an assumed avg ratio of LBM/Fat mass. Static, not a part of weight loss, so no follow up for the purposes of the BMR. Usually on these BMR/RMR studies, they don't want dieting people, because of the known effect that could be caused of suppressed metabolism or other diet induced differences.

So Katch underestimated BMR when overweight, because fat is metabolically active, though a whole lot less LBM, but not accounted for beyond expected ratio. Don't know what that ratio is, only saw it once, don't recall. I just remember thinking when I saw, automatic deficit for over-fat folks using it. That's good.

Also, 6 cal/kg shouldn't be compared to 11 cal/lb or whatever the value really is. Conversion, ugh.

SideSteel

Also, 6 cal/kg shouldn't be compared to 11 cal/lb or whatever the value really is. Conversion, ugh.

^ Can you explain what you're getting at with the above?

I thought it was 6cal/lb as the commonly accepted value in terms of LBM. Just trying to understand further.

waldo56

If you are noticing your TDEE rise, and believe it is because of muscle mass gain...

Chances are it is because of what you are doing to gain the muscle mass. Strength training. As you get stronger and stronger the calorie cost of recovery from strength training goes up and up.

The effect can get very large, up to a 10-15% rise in TDEE (mine goes up 10%, I've noted this multiple times in my data) . It isn't the muscle mass gain, it is the strength gain and fatigue it brings.

Once you get reasonably strong, if you are working primairly compound movements and not doing a bro split, chances are any estimate for the calorie burn of strength training that you will find is laughably low. Even if the estimate is good for the burn in the gym (a la the circuit training entry), there is still no accounting for the 10-15% rise in your non-exercise TDEE due to recovery.

FullOfWin

If you are noticing your TDEE rise, and believe it is because of muscle mass gain...

Chances are it is because of what you are doing to gain the muscle mass. Strength training. As you get stronger and stronger the calorie cost of recovery from strength training goes up and up.

The effect can get very large, up to a 10-15% rise in TDEE (mine goes up 10%, I've noted this multiple times in my data) . It isn't the muscle mass gain, it is the strength gain and fatigue it brings.

Once you get reasonably strong, if you are working primairly compound movements and not doing a bro split, chances are any estimate for the calorie burn of strength training that you will find is laughably low. Even if the estimate is good for the burn in the gym (a la the circuit training entry), there is still no accounting for the 10-15% rise in your non-exercise TDEE due to recovery.

I have been wondering about\sorta assuming this myself. After I finished cutting and started trying to bulk and started lifting heavier and heavier, the amount of cals it is taking for weight gain is a lot more than I expected. A year ago I was maintaining weight at 188 on ~2600-2800. At 177 I went 2 weeks on 3200 with no gain, 5 days on 3500 with no gain, and finally got pissed and went to 4k. Probably gonna back it down to 3800 in a couple weeks or so.