Gain Muscle Lose Fat?
Carolyn_79
Posts: 935 Member
Quick question. I'm 5'6 and 153 pounds and I'm eating at a caloric deficit (around 1600) while lifting and doing cardio about 5 days a week (lifting 3x and cardio 2x). I'm estimating I have approximately 15 pounds left to lose. I was running numbers into the Scooby TDEE calculator and they have a goal option of "gain muscle lose fat". I selected this out of curiosity and the amount of calories they indicated I eat was the same as maintenance calories. I'm a little confused because I was under the impression that you couldn't really gain muscle unless you're eating a calorie surplus. Can someone elaborate? Thanks for any input!
0
Replies
-
I think this thread should help somewhat:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818594-building-muscle-and-losing-fat-at-the-same-time0 -
Outside of newbie gains and for those that are overweight, you cannot. I am not sure why they have that you can as it does not even show calorie cycling for that option. To be honest, Scooby is very much 'out there' and has a pretty strange outlook on things in general so I would not advise anyone to pay attention to much of what is on that site.
The link above explains where you can possibly have a very slow and possibly inefficient/ineffective method when you calorie cycle but end up at maintenance or at a deficit on average, but as I noted, that calculator does not even touch on that.0 -
Thank you both! I was always under the impression as the article confirms, that outside of newbie gains, you can't really build muscle on a deficit. The option on the calculator confused me though. I'll keep plugging away as I've been doing with my deficit until the day comes where I can begin eating at a surplus to build muscle.0
-
The option on the calculator confused me though.
They should have labeled it gain LBM lose fat. Several studies have shown that can happen at maintenance.
And since more LBM, even if not muscle, increases metabolism slightly, that's always a useful thing.0 -
The option on the calculator confused me though.
They should have labeled it gain LBM lose fat. Several studies have shown that can happen at maintenance.
And since more LBM, even if not muscle, increases metabolism slightly, that's always a useful thing.
What studies out of interest - outside the untrained individuals taking up exercise exception?0 -
Interested in the studies too. Bump!0
-
Older men, traded fat for LBM. Diet wasn't even part of the study they just ate at maintenance. They didn't do DEXA, so LBM was only claim that could be made, nothing about muscle.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/76/1/133.short
http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/298.full
This study actually did have deficit, small one, but gained LBM. Which would show even easier at maintenance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571
And then couple on Lyle's site under the discussion of newbie potential muscle gains, where he points out the studies only say LBM, not muscle.
I'm fully convinced that is why there are so many doing the IPOARM and EM2WL with inflated TDEE values, such that even with a deficit they have little to no real deficit, almost eating at maintenance.
And while they do lose inches, they lose no weight, because of gaining LBM.0 -
Older men, traded fat for LBM. Diet wasn't even part of the study they just ate at maintenance. They didn't do DEXA, so LBM was only claim that could be made, nothing about muscle.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/76/1/133.short
http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/298.full
This study actually did have deficit, small one, but gained LBM. Which would show even easier at maintenance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571
And then couple on Lyle's site under the discussion of newbie potential muscle gains, where he points out the studies only say LBM, not muscle.
I'm fully convinced that is why there are so many doing the IPOARM and EM2WL with inflated TDEE values, such that even with a deficit they have little to no real deficit, almost eating at maintenance.
And while they do lose inches, they lose no weight, because of gaining LBM.
Thank you!0 -
Older men, traded fat for LBM. Diet wasn't even part of the study they just ate at maintenance. They didn't do DEXA, so LBM was only claim that could be made, nothing about muscle.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/76/1/133.short
http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/298.full
This study actually did have deficit, small one, but gained LBM. Which would show even easier at maintenance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571
And then couple on Lyle's site under the discussion of newbie potential muscle gains, where he points out the studies only say LBM, not muscle.
I'm fully convinced that is why there are so many doing the IPOARM and EM2WL with inflated TDEE values, such that even with a deficit they have little to no real deficit, almost eating at maintenance.
And while they do lose inches, they lose no weight, because of gaining LBM.
I may have missed it but the first two relate to untrained individuals and if they were not under a calorie controlled situation it is hard to make any assumption in regard to gains.
Don't forget that when most people start a lifting program - this will increase LBM without muscle by appox. 4lb, which is what I think you were indicating when you differentiated muscle from the larger definition of LBM.
The third study is interesting. I cannot tell for sure from the extract so will need to get into the full study but it seemed as though they added resistance training so I am not sure whether they did it before even though they are athletes - also, I cannot see how long the study was for. Will look at further.
It is interesting the fact that the smaller deficit had preferential results however.0 -
Older men, traded fat for LBM. Diet wasn't even part of the study they just ate at maintenance. They didn't do DEXA, so LBM was only claim that could be made, nothing about muscle.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/76/1/133.short
http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/298.full
This study actually did have deficit, small one, but gained LBM. Which would show even easier at maintenance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571
And then couple on Lyle's site under the discussion of newbie potential muscle gains, where he points out the studies only say LBM, not muscle.
I'm fully convinced that is why there are so many doing the IPOARM and EM2WL with inflated TDEE values, such that even with a deficit they have little to no real deficit, almost eating at maintenance.
And while they do lose inches, they lose no weight, because of gaining LBM.
I may have missed it but the first two relate to untrained individuals and if they were not under a calorie controlled situation it is hard to make any assumption in regard to gains.
Don't forget that when most people start a lifting program - this will increase LBM without muscle by appox. 4lb, which is what I think you were indicating when you differentiated muscle from the larger definition of LBM.
The third study is interesting. I cannot tell for sure from the extract so will need to get into the full study but it seemed as though they added resistance training so I am not sure whether they did it before even though they are athletes - also, I cannot see how long the study was for. Will look at further.
It is interesting the fact that the smaller deficit had preferential results however.
Well, regarding the 1st study where they seemed to trade fat loss with LBM gain. If they were eating above TDEE, would that have happened?
16 weeks is pretty decent time span to have put on some extra mass if they were eating above TDEE I'd think. Shoot, count water weight, they should have gained anyway it seems like.
But that's my point with many on MFP starting out and the question normally asked or the statement normally made. Well, ok, usually people say someone must have added 2 lb muscle over the week rather than LBM, so outside of their incorrect separation of muscle and LBM, that first study seems to show a very slow trade of almost a lb a month fat for muscle.
So as you mention, more water weight than anything.
So 3500 calories in month (almost) was used from fat to create 1 lb of LBM, what ever that may be. It increased RMR 7% in 16 weeks, not too bad.
In 3rd study, IIRC, they were lifting with new muscles in some areas, so not sport specific. So again pretty much newbie gains. But 0.7% is pretty steep deficit, compared to 15%.0 -
Older men, traded fat for LBM. Diet wasn't even part of the study they just ate at maintenance. They didn't do DEXA, so LBM was only claim that could be made, nothing about muscle.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/76/1/133.short
http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/298.full
This study actually did have deficit, small one, but gained LBM. Which would show even easier at maintenance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571
And then couple on Lyle's site under the discussion of newbie potential muscle gains, where he points out the studies only say LBM, not muscle.
I'm fully convinced that is why there are so many doing the IPOARM and EM2WL with inflated TDEE values, such that even with a deficit they have little to no real deficit, almost eating at maintenance.
And while they do lose inches, they lose no weight, because of gaining LBM.
I may have missed it but the first two relate to untrained individuals and if they were not under a calorie controlled situation it is hard to make any assumption in regard to gains.
Don't forget that when most people start a lifting program - this will increase LBM without muscle by appox. 4lb, which is what I think you were indicating when you differentiated muscle from the larger definition of LBM.
The third study is interesting. I cannot tell for sure from the extract so will need to get into the full study but it seemed as though they added resistance training so I am not sure whether they did it before even though they are athletes - also, I cannot see how long the study was for. Will look at further.
It is interesting the fact that the smaller deficit had preferential results however.
Well, regarding the 1st study where they seemed to trade fat loss with LBM gain. If they were eating above TDEE, would that have happened?
16 weeks is pretty decent time span to have put on some extra mass if they were eating above TDEE I'd think. Shoot, count water weight, they should have gained anyway it seems like.
But that's my point with many on MFP starting out and the question normally asked or the statement normally made. Well, ok, usually people say someone must have added 2 lb muscle over the week rather than LBM, so outside of their incorrect separation of muscle and LBM, that first study seems to show a very slow trade of almost a lb a month fat for muscle.
So as you mention, more water weight than anything.
So 3500 calories in month (almost) was used from fat to create 1 lb of LBM, what ever that may be. It increased RMR 7% in 16 weeks, not too bad.
In 3rd study, IIRC, they were lifting with new muscles in some areas, so not sport specific. So again pretty much newbie gains. But 0.7% is pretty steep deficit, compared to 15%.
Sorry, I was not clear in my first comment. They may have been eating under TDEE but experienced newbie gains plus water weight. Its really hard to conclude without totally accurate BF measurements and without being able to differentiate muscle from LBM.
I think I am missing the 15% you are referring to. The 0.7% is the BW loss in the 0.5kb/wk group. What is the 15% - sorry if I am missing it?0 -
Sorry, I was not clear in my first comment. They may have been eating under TDEE but experienced newbie gains plus water weight. Its really hard to conclude without totally accurate BF measurements and without being able to differentiate muscle from LBM.
I think I am missing the 15% you are referring to. The 0.7% is the BW loss in the 0.5kb/wk group. What is the 15% - sorry if I am missing it?
Oh, I understood your comment. I included that study for the idea I mentioned you can eat at maintenance, and trade fat weight for LBM weight. If it's water, that's fine too, because it counts. That's the primary energy usage of BMR, water management in the cells. Muscle improvements, whether actual new mass, is still a good thing.
All to that comment that Scooby should change phrase from Fat Loss/Muscle Gain to Fat Loss/LBM Gain.
The 15% was in reference to the EM2WL suggested max of 15% cut to TDEE, which is no where as steep a deficit as what they did in the study and still gained LBM.
Was just interjecting side comments that have come up in many PM's lately as to why ones following that program aren't losing weight, just inches. Forgot the 15% hadn't come up yet here.0 -
Sorry, I was not clear in my first comment. They may have been eating under TDEE but experienced newbie gains plus water weight. Its really hard to conclude without totally accurate BF measurements and without being able to differentiate muscle from LBM.
I think I am missing the 15% you are referring to. The 0.7% is the BW loss in the 0.5kb/wk group. What is the 15% - sorry if I am missing it?
Oh, I understood your comment. I included that study for the idea I mentioned you can eat at maintenance, and trade fat weight for LBM weight. If it's water, that's fine too, because it counts. That's the primary energy usage of BMR, water management in the cells. Muscle improvements, whether actual new mass, is still a good thing.
All to that comment that Scooby should change phrase from Fat Loss/Muscle Gain to Fat Loss/LBM Gain.
The 15% was in reference to the EM2WL suggested max of 15% cut to TDEE, which is no where as steep a deficit as what they did in the study and still gained LBM.
Was just interjecting side comments that have come up in many PM's lately as to why ones following that program aren't losing weight, just inches. Forgot the 15% hadn't come up yet here.
I think I am still missing something. How did the controls in the studies ensure that they were actually at maintenance?0 -
I think I am still missing something. How did the controls in the studies ensure that they were actually at maintenance?
True, there were none. But they didn't gain or lose weight. For 16 weeks, if they had been one side or the other of TDEE, there would have been gain or loss, right.0 -
I think I am still missing something. How did the controls in the studies ensure that they were actually at maintenance?
True, there were none. But they didn't gain or lose weight. For 16 weeks, if they had been one side or the other of TDEE, there would have been gain or loss, right.
Not necessarily due to water weight increases.
Lets say an average water weight increase due to starting exercising is 4lbs. This increase will remain as long as they continue to resistance train. So, could not have been at a slight deficit so as to lose 4lb of 'real weight' but the scale remains the same due to the water weight. Same applies if they gained an additional 2lb of newbie gains - 6lb or real weight lose and 6 lb of water weight plus muscle (all LBM) gained.
In the case of the second study (it has more data so it is easier to show as an example), and assuming BF% tests are accurate which they are not, there was a loss of BF of 2kg and a gain of LBM or 2kg - totally within the expectations of increased water weight (plus maybe a bit of newbie gains thrown in).
The other thing that makes me question whether they were at maintenance is that the food intake apparently did not change from the start of the study - but the energy expenditure would have due to the increased exercise.0 -
What kind of things constitute LBM?0
-
What kind of things constitute LBM?
Everything that is not fat - so muscle, water, organs, bones, even food in your intestines and pee in your bladder.0
