Can't Build Muscle while at a Deficit - Revisited
Replies
-
The Livestrong article cited 3 University studies.
Did you read them?0 -
Sar, I revisited lifting about 5 years ago for a year and started again 6 weeks ago... Lifestyle and laziness kept me from being lean and healthy..
OK - makes more sense. You fall into the 'exceptions' category. Your size gains will from a combination of glycogen/water in the muscle plus there may well be some mass gains (sorry, I assumed you had been lifting for a while).
One of the exceptions are 'returning to lifting' gains which are usually not that much, however, when combined with having some weight to lose (no offense :flowerforyou: ), you can actually make mass gains on a deficit - the amount depends on a bunch of variables and is finite - but it is definitely a possibility.0 -
Myofibrillar hypertrophy =/= sarcoplasmic hypertrophy0
-
This leads me to believe I am getting stronger - hence building muscle.
This is the root of your misunderstanding. You can gain strength without building muscle. Gaining strength is based on neuromusular adaptation. An oversimplification is; you are recruiting existng muscle fibers and training your neuromuscular system to lift more weight. Thus get stronger. There is only a slight relationship with getting stronger and building muscle. At some point you would max out and not be able to get stronger without building more muscle tissue. (hypertrophy)
Building muscle is hypertrophy. You can do this and not nessesarily get stronger. (though you likely will slightly) This is an anabolic process, thus it requires a calorie surplus. When you are in calorie deficit, you are essentially in a catabolic state. Your body can perform anabolic functions in a catabolic state.
Thank you for explaining this so well!0 -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.shortIt was concluded that weight training results in comparable gains in muscle area and strength for DPE and EO. Adding weight training exercise to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW compared with DO.
...
The increase of 0.43 kg in LBW for the DPE group is comparable to the largest increases reported in other dietplus-exercise studies. Zuti and Golding (5) and Lewis et al (27) report LBW increases of 0.5 and 1. 1 kg over 16and 17 wk, respectively.
In this article, they put 1 group on weight lifting plus diet, 1 group exercise only, 1 group diet only. In 16 weeks they developed 1/2 a kilo in lean body mass (muscle) (about 1 pound). They also cite a study where people gained up to 1.1 kg muscle in 17 weeks.
It seems (from this and a couple other studies) that there can be some muscle gain when in a deficit. I believe that people usually look for 1/2 a pound a month when 'bulking' (or maybe that's just women) so it is usually somewhere less than that but it has been done.0 -
Sar, I revisited lifting about 5 years ago for a year and started again 6 weeks ago... Lifestyle and laziness kept me from being lean and healthy..
OK - makes more sense. You fall into the 'exceptions' category. Your size gains will from a combination of glycogen/water in the muscle plus there may well be some mass gains (sorry, I assumed you had been lifting for a while).
One of the exceptions are 'returning to lifting' gains which are usually not that much, however, when combined with having some weight to lose (no offense :flowerforyou: ), you can actually make mass gains on a deficit - the amount depends on a bunch of variables and is finite - but it is definitely a possibility.
Sar... I have more than some weight to lose! But thanks anyway! :blushing: about 40 more pounds in reality (10-12% BF target), I did mention I was also amazed at the size increase!0 -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.shortIt was concluded that weight training results in comparable gains in muscle area and strength for DPE and EO. Adding weight training exercise to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW compared with DO.
...
The increase of 0.43 kg in LBW for the DPE group is comparable to the largest increases reported in other dietplus-exercise studies. Zuti and Golding (5) and Lewis et al (27) report LBW increases of 0.5 and 1. 1 kg over 16and 17 wk, respectively.
In this article, they put 1 group on weight lifting plus diet, 1 group exercise only, 1 group diet only. In 16 weeks they developed 1/2 a kilo in lean body mass (muscle) (about 1 pound). They also cite a study where people gained up to 1.1 kg muscle in 17 weeks.
It seems (from this and a couple other studies) that there can be some muscle gain when in a deficit. I believe that people usually look for 1/2 a pound a month when 'bulking' (or maybe that's just women) so it is usually somewhere less than that but it has been done.
Couple of things here:
- the subjects were obese
- LBM =/= muscle, it also includes water weight
- they maintained LBM. That amount of variance is too small to determine gains due to inaccuracies of BF testing methods.0 -
I agree! :happy:0
-
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.shortIt was concluded that weight training results in comparable gains in muscle area and strength for DPE and EO. Adding weight training exercise to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW compared with DO.
...
The increase of 0.43 kg in LBW for the DPE group is comparable to the largest increases reported in other dietplus-exercise studies. Zuti and Golding (5) and Lewis et al (27) report LBW increases of 0.5 and 1. 1 kg over 16and 17 wk, respectively.
In this article, they put 1 group on weight lifting plus diet, 1 group exercise only, 1 group diet only. In 16 weeks they developed 1/2 a kilo in lean body mass (muscle) (about 1 pound). They also cite a study where people gained up to 1.1 kg muscle in 17 weeks.
It seems (from this and a couple other studies) that there can be some muscle gain when in a deficit. I believe that people usually look for 1/2 a pound a month when 'bulking' (or maybe that's just women) so it is usually somewhere less than that but it has been done.
Couple of things here:
- the subjects were obese
- LBM =/= muscle, it also includes water weight
- they maintained LBM. That amount of variance is too small to determine gains due to inaccuracies of BF testing methods.
If you read the study, they determined muscle increases through both hydrostatic measurements and taking physical measurements as well as increases in strength. Edit to add: Also through radiograph.0 -
So for me, since Nov. I have been running a calorie deficit. My starting wt. was 220 BF 25%,my waist was 38 my thigh 21 and my biceps 15. Today I am 205 17%BF waist 34, thighs 22 and biceps 16 1/4. Did this not happen? Or am I another anomaly. A perfectly lean body builder cannot gain muscle in a deficit but if you have stored calories (fat) and are taking in enough protein, you can lose weigh,t gain muscle and run a deficit.0
-
So for me, since Nov. I have been running a calorie deficit. My starting wt. was 220 BF 25%,my waist was 38 my thigh 21 and my biceps 15. Today I am 205 17%BF waist 34, thighs 22 and biceps 16 1/4. Did this not happen? Or am I another anomaly. A perfectly lean body builder cannot gain muscle in a deficit but if you have stored calories (fat) and are taking in enough protein, you can lose weigh,t gain muscle and run a deficit.
How did you get your BF tested out of interest?
ETA: as I have already said, if you are new to training, and especially if you have a decent amount of weight to lose...you can gain muscle on a deficit, but it is limited and finite.0 -
With few exceptions, you cannot build muscle on a deficit. Getting stronger does not mean gainin muscle.
When I think of it this way, it makes it easier to understand. When u eat a deficit, ur not giving ur body enough fuel to operate, so it feeds on ur fat for fuel. How can u expect it to build something when it doesn't even have enough fuel to get through the day tht It's actually feeding off ur own body so to speak?0 -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.shortIt was concluded that weight training results in comparable gains in muscle area and strength for DPE and EO. Adding weight training exercise to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW compared with DO.
...
The increase of 0.43 kg in LBW for the DPE group is comparable to the largest increases reported in other dietplus-exercise studies. Zuti and Golding (5) and Lewis et al (27) report LBW increases of 0.5 and 1. 1 kg over 16and 17 wk, respectively.
In this article, they put 1 group on weight lifting plus diet, 1 group exercise only, 1 group diet only. In 16 weeks they developed 1/2 a kilo in lean body mass (muscle) (about 1 pound). They also cite a study where people gained up to 1.1 kg muscle in 17 weeks.
It seems (from this and a couple other studies) that there can be some muscle gain when in a deficit. I believe that people usually look for 1/2 a pound a month when 'bulking' (or maybe that's just women) so it is usually somewhere less than that but it has been done.
Couple of things here:
- the subjects were obese
- LBM =/= muscle, it also includes water weight
- they maintained LBM. That amount of variance is too small to determine gains due to inaccuracies of BF testing methods.
If you read the study, they determined muscle increases through both hydrostatic measurements and taking physical measurements as well as increases in strength.
Which are not totally accurate and the changes are within the inaccuracies seen in them. And as I said, LBM =/= muscle as it includes water weight. Strength =/= muscle gains.
ETA: I am not actually saying that gains cannot be made by overweight/obese people on a deficit who are new to training. I just do not think that is a good study to show it.0 -
Just work out
0 -
^EXACTLY0
-
Just work out
Were men so that's about all we need to understand!0 -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.shortIt was concluded that weight training results in comparable gains in muscle area and strength for DPE and EO. Adding weight training exercise to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW compared with DO.
...
The increase of 0.43 kg in LBW for the DPE group is comparable to the largest increases reported in other dietplus-exercise studies. Zuti and Golding (5) and Lewis et al (27) report LBW increases of 0.5 and 1. 1 kg over 16and 17 wk, respectively.
In this article, they put 1 group on weight lifting plus diet, 1 group exercise only, 1 group diet only. In 16 weeks they developed 1/2 a kilo in lean body mass (muscle) (about 1 pound). They also cite a study where people gained up to 1.1 kg muscle in 17 weeks.
It seems (from this and a couple other studies) that there can be some muscle gain when in a deficit. I believe that people usually look for 1/2 a pound a month when 'bulking' (or maybe that's just women) so it is usually somewhere less than that but it has been done.
Couple of things here:
- the subjects were obese
- LBM =/= muscle, it also includes water weight
- they maintained LBM. That amount of variance is too small to determine gains due to inaccuracies of BF testing methods.
If you read the study, they determined muscle increases through both hydrostatic measurements and taking physical measurements as well as increases in strength.
Which are not totally accurate and the changes are within the inaccuracies seen in them. And as I said, LBM =/= muscle as it includes water weight. Strength =/= muscle gains.
ETA: I am not actually saying that gains cannot be made by overweight/obese people on a deficit who are new to training. I just do not think that is a good study to show it.
Radiograph analyses
Changes in the arm areas are presented in Table 1 and
are graphically shown in Figure 1. The changes in totalarm-area (fat and muscle-bone) range from a 6.08 cm2
(2.4%) increase for the EO group to a -4.79 cm2 (- 1.9%)
decrease for the DO group. The C and EO group changes
are statistically more positive than the DO group changes.
Analysis of the muscle-bone area changes show that the
DPE and EO groups significantly increase upper-arm
muscle area by 1 1 .23 cm2 (6.4%) and 10.44 cm2 (6.0%),
respectively , compared with the C and DO groups (Table
1). Fat area changes (total arm area minus muscle-bone
area) range from -0.69 cm2 (1.0%) for the C group to
- 10.60 cm2 (12.3%) for the DPE group. The DPE group
significantly reduced its mean fat area compared with C.
I'd say that data is pretty solid... I'll take my data from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition over a random stranger on the internet anyday.0 -
Seems it is possible for the average overweight joe (though not for an advanced bodybuilder)
In addition to the academic studies above, please also see:
http://scoobysworkshop.com/gain-muscle-lose-fat/
http://exercise.about.com/od/weightloss/f/losefatgainmusc.htm0 -
This has TONS of great information in it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111632620/Muscle
Here is a short excerp, last paragraph mostlyt:
"To summarize: work hard, but don't grind your muscles into powder. At least not at every session. It's better tolay out hard training and save space for some lighter training in between.I realize some people don't have it in them to scale back the effort, and it's counterintuitive to not give it yourbest. I also know that some people swear by the exhausted feeling and being sore. But I'm telling you, yetagain, it doesn't work that way when it comes to long term results.Don't be dumb about it and assume that your desire to be all hardcore is doing you any favors. You'll feelbetter and see better results by exploiting your body's responses, not trying to brute-force them intocooperating.The leads me into what I want to talk about, namely the different methods of recovery and regeneration work.As I said, the first step is prevention: don't wear yourself out in the first place and you won't have a problem.Since I know you won't listen to me, I want to discuss some other potential options.Diet would be the big recovery issue. You can't be in a calorie deficit and expect to recovery optimally.
This goes for all you girls out there that want to eat 800 calories a day while spending three hours on thetreadmill, and then wonder why you feel like crap and don't lose any weight. Well no wonder: you're doing too much exercise and allowing too little recovery. You simply don't have the resources to recover, which puts youin a state of chronic stress. Keep that up too long and the specter of Han Selye's ghost will come to visit you as your body exhausts itself. Your body will effectively give up and do what little it can to make sure you don't endup dead.You need amino acids from protein and you need some carbohydrates in order to maximize recovery from taxing exercise. You need to be in a calorie surplus so that you've got the spare energy to fuel all these metabolic functions. If you're not getting these things, then it's no wonder your recovery time isn't what it could be. You're fueling physical changes to your body, which requires both nutrients and energy. If you don'thave those resources and still expect adaptations to happen, you're asking for trouble."0 -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.shortIt was concluded that weight training results in comparable gains in muscle area and strength for DPE and EO. Adding weight training exercise to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW compared with DO.
...
The increase of 0.43 kg in LBW for the DPE group is comparable to the largest increases reported in other dietplus-exercise studies. Zuti and Golding (5) and Lewis et al (27) report LBW increases of 0.5 and 1. 1 kg over 16and 17 wk, respectively.
In this article, they put 1 group on weight lifting plus diet, 1 group exercise only, 1 group diet only. In 16 weeks they developed 1/2 a kilo in lean body mass (muscle) (about 1 pound). They also cite a study where people gained up to 1.1 kg muscle in 17 weeks.
It seems (from this and a couple other studies) that there can be some muscle gain when in a deficit. I believe that people usually look for 1/2 a pound a month when 'bulking' (or maybe that's just women) so it is usually somewhere less than that but it has been done.
Couple of things here:
- the subjects were obese
- LBM =/= muscle, it also includes water weight
- they maintained LBM. That amount of variance is too small to determine gains due to inaccuracies of BF testing methods.
If you read the study, they determined muscle increases through both hydrostatic measurements and taking physical measurements as well as increases in strength.
Which are not totally accurate and the changes are within the inaccuracies seen in them. And as I said, LBM =/= muscle as it includes water weight. Strength =/= muscle gains.
ETA: I am not actually saying that gains cannot be made by overweight/obese people on a deficit who are new to training. I just do not think that is a good study to show it.
Radiograph analyses
Changes in the arm areas are presented in Table 1 and
are graphically shown in Figure 1. The changes in totalarm-area (fat and muscle-bone) range from a 6.08 cm2
(2.4%) increase for the EO group to a -4.79 cm2 (- 1.9%)
decrease for the DO group. The C and EO group changes
are statistically more positive than the DO group changes.
Analysis of the muscle-bone area changes show that the
DPE and EO groups significantly increase upper-arm
muscle area by 1 1 .23 cm2 (6.4%) and 10.44 cm2 (6.0%),
respectively , compared with the C and DO groups (Table
1). Fat area changes (total arm area minus muscle-bone
area) range from -0.69 cm2 (1.0%) for the C group to
- 10.60 cm2 (12.3%) for the DPE group. The DPE group
significantly reduced its mean fat area compared with C.
I'd say that data is pretty solid... I'll take my data from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition over a random stranger on the internet anyday.
I am not sure why your are suddenly giving me attitude. I was pointing out some variables in the study that should be taken into consideration when interpreting that muscle can be gained on a deficit. The main one of which, was the fact they were untrained and obese - which are two of the exceptions in the 'cannot gain muscle on a deficit' and it is important to make that distinction . I also only pointed out the possible 'issues' with what you had pulled from the study, not the study itself.0 -
After reading this, I thought "Oh now I understand." But after reading all the subsequent posts, I am confused as ever! I need to read some of those references.This leads me to believe I am getting stronger - hence building muscle.
This is the root of your misunderstanding. You can gain strength without building muscle. Gaining strength is based on neuromusular adaptation. An oversimplification is; you are recruiting existng muscle fibers and training your neuromuscular system to lift more weight. Thus get stronger. There is only a slight relationship with getting stronger and building muscle. At some point you would max out and not be able to get stronger without building more muscle tissue. (hypertrophy)
Building muscle is hypertrophy. You can do this and not nessesarily get stronger. (though you likely will slightly) This is an anabolic process, thus it requires a calorie surplus. When you are in calorie deficit, you are essentially in a catabolic state. Your body can perform anabolic functions in a catabolic state.0 -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.shortIt was concluded that weight training results in comparable gains in muscle area and strength for DPE and EO. Adding weight training exercise to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW compared with DO.
...
The increase of 0.43 kg in LBW for the DPE group is comparable to the largest increases reported in other dietplus-exercise studies. Zuti and Golding (5) and Lewis et al (27) report LBW increases of 0.5 and 1. 1 kg over 16and 17 wk, respectively.
In this article, they put 1 group on weight lifting plus diet, 1 group exercise only, 1 group diet only. In 16 weeks they developed 1/2 a kilo in lean body mass (muscle) (about 1 pound). They also cite a study where people gained up to 1.1 kg muscle in 17 weeks.
It seems (from this and a couple other studies) that there can be some muscle gain when in a deficit. I believe that people usually look for 1/2 a pound a month when 'bulking' (or maybe that's just women) so it is usually somewhere less than that but it has been done.
Couple of things here:
- the subjects were obese
- LBM =/= muscle, it also includes water weight
- they maintained LBM. That amount of variance is too small to determine gains due to inaccuracies of BF testing methods.
If you read the study, they determined muscle increases through both hydrostatic measurements and taking physical measurements as well as increases in strength.
Which are not totally accurate and the changes are within the inaccuracies seen in them. And as I said, LBM =/= muscle as it includes water weight. Strength =/= muscle gains.
ETA: I am not actually saying that gains cannot be made by overweight/obese people on a deficit who are new to training. I just do not think that is a good study to show it.
Radiograph analyses
Changes in the arm areas are presented in Table 1 and
are graphically shown in Figure 1. The changes in totalarm-area (fat and muscle-bone) range from a 6.08 cm2
(2.4%) increase for the EO group to a -4.79 cm2 (- 1.9%)
decrease for the DO group. The C and EO group changes
are statistically more positive than the DO group changes.
Analysis of the muscle-bone area changes show that the
DPE and EO groups significantly increase upper-arm
muscle area by 1 1 .23 cm2 (6.4%) and 10.44 cm2 (6.0%),
respectively , compared with the C and DO groups (Table
1). Fat area changes (total arm area minus muscle-bone
area) range from -0.69 cm2 (1.0%) for the C group to
- 10.60 cm2 (12.3%) for the DPE group. The DPE group
significantly reduced its mean fat area compared with C.
I'd say that data is pretty solid... I'll take my data from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition over a random stranger on the internet anyday.
I am not sure why your are suddenly giving me attitude. I was pointing out some variables in the study that should be taken into consideration when interpreting that muscle can be gained on a deficit. The main one of which, was the fact they were untrained and obese - which are two of the exceptions in the 'cannot gain muscle on a deficit' and it is important to make that distinction . I also only pointed out the possible 'issues' with what you had pulled from the study, not the study itself.
The "attitude" is because you were remarking on a study without having read it. Because a half a dozen folks with PhDs spent the time to work out all the numbers study all the variables and finally publish the article, which I took the time to find and read. And you immediately dismiss it without having read it. I'm not sure what your PhD is in or which research you have contributed to but people who post things that are not scientifically valid irk me. Especially when they don't even bother to read the information put out there or provide a dissenting study. And it happens constantly here. I cannot understand why people think that they know better than someone who has devoted their life to learning about a very specific topic.
You have yet to post one study that backs up your opinion. As does anyone on this thread who has said that it isn't possible to gain muscle on a deficit.0 -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.shortIt was concluded that weight training results in comparable gains in muscle area and strength for DPE and EO. Adding weight training exercise to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW compared with DO.
...
The increase of 0.43 kg in LBW for the DPE group is comparable to the largest increases reported in other dietplus-exercise studies. Zuti and Golding (5) and Lewis et al (27) report LBW increases of 0.5 and 1. 1 kg over 16and 17 wk, respectively.
In this article, they put 1 group on weight lifting plus diet, 1 group exercise only, 1 group diet only. In 16 weeks they developed 1/2 a kilo in lean body mass (muscle) (about 1 pound). They also cite a study where people gained up to 1.1 kg muscle in 17 weeks.
It seems (from this and a couple other studies) that there can be some muscle gain when in a deficit. I believe that people usually look for 1/2 a pound a month when 'bulking' (or maybe that's just women) so it is usually somewhere less than that but it has been done.
Couple of things here:
- the subjects were obese
- LBM =/= muscle, it also includes water weight
- they maintained LBM. That amount of variance is too small to determine gains due to inaccuracies of BF testing methods.
If you read the study, they determined muscle increases through both hydrostatic measurements and taking physical measurements as well as increases in strength.
Which are not totally accurate and the changes are within the inaccuracies seen in them. And as I said, LBM =/= muscle as it includes water weight. Strength =/= muscle gains.
ETA: I am not actually saying that gains cannot be made by overweight/obese people on a deficit who are new to training. I just do not think that is a good study to show it.
Radiograph analyses
Changes in the arm areas are presented in Table 1 and
are graphically shown in Figure 1. The changes in totalarm-area (fat and muscle-bone) range from a 6.08 cm2
(2.4%) increase for the EO group to a -4.79 cm2 (- 1.9%)
decrease for the DO group. The C and EO group changes
are statistically more positive than the DO group changes.
Analysis of the muscle-bone area changes show that the
DPE and EO groups significantly increase upper-arm
muscle area by 1 1 .23 cm2 (6.4%) and 10.44 cm2 (6.0%),
respectively , compared with the C and DO groups (Table
1). Fat area changes (total arm area minus muscle-bone
area) range from -0.69 cm2 (1.0%) for the C group to
- 10.60 cm2 (12.3%) for the DPE group. The DPE group
significantly reduced its mean fat area compared with C.
I'd say that data is pretty solid... I'll take my data from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition over a random stranger on the internet anyday.
I am not sure why your are suddenly giving me attitude. I was pointing out some variables in the study that should be taken into consideration when interpreting that muscle can be gained on a deficit. The main one of which, was the fact they were untrained and obese - which are two of the exceptions in the 'cannot gain muscle on a deficit' and it is important to make that distinction . I also only pointed out the possible 'issues' with what you had pulled from the study, not the study itself.
The "attitude" is because you were remarking on a study without having read it. Because a half a dozen folks with PhDs spent the time to work out all the numbers study all the variables and finally publish the article, which I took the time to find and read. And you immediately dismiss it without having read it. I'm not sure what your PhD is in or which research you have contributed to but people who post things that are not scientifically valid irk me. Especially when they don't even bother to read the information put out there or provide a dissenting study. And it happens constantly here. I cannot understand why people think that they know better than someone who has devoted their life to learning about a very specific topic.
You have yet to post one study that backs up your opinion. As does anyone on this thread who has said that it isn't possible to gain muscle on a deficit.
I have read the study. And actually, I have a bunch of studies to back up that you can gain muscle on a deficit under certain situations - if you paid attention, I was not actually arguing with that
How about you show me a study, if that's your assertion, of trained individuals, who are not overweight, who have gained muscle on a deficit?0 -
After reading this, I thought "Oh now I understand." But after reading all the subsequent posts, I am confused as ever! I need to read some of those references.This leads me to believe I am getting stronger - hence building muscle.
This is the root of your misunderstanding. You can gain strength without building muscle. Gaining strength is based on neuromusular adaptation. An oversimplification is; you are recruiting existng muscle fibers and training your neuromuscular system to lift more weight. Thus get stronger. There is only a slight relationship with getting stronger and building muscle. At some point you would max out and not be able to get stronger without building more muscle tissue. (hypertrophy)
Building muscle is hypertrophy. You can do this and not nessesarily get stronger. (though you likely will slightly) This is an anabolic process, thus it requires a calorie surplus. When you are in calorie deficit, you are essentially in a catabolic state. Your body can perform anabolic functions in a catabolic state.
He's right. Don't worry ab what everyone else is saying.
0 -
In the past I am confident that *I* have built muscle while on a calorie deficit.
I went from around 15-16 stone to 12stone8pounds.
I also had to buy new motorcycle racing leathers - not because of the usual stomach issues, not even extra free space - the old ones now wouldn't zip up around my chest and shoulders. Added to a fair bit of fat loss, I'm confident that I'd built muscle based on that.
At the time I was always making sure I had plenty of protein, but otherwise eating at a deficit.
That was a few years ago and I've let myself go inbetween.
Now I'm doing the big three + chin ups on a leangains style cut program and the weights I'm lifting are still going up, but I only started doing weights again two months ago and leangains at the beginning of January, so it's two early to draw conclusions for me this time.0 -
I have read the study. And actually, I have a bunch of studies to back up that you can gain muscle on a deficit under certain situations - if you paid attention, I was not actually arguing with that
How about you show me a study, if that's your assertion, of trained individuals, who are not overweight, who have gained muscle on a deficit?
That's not my assertion. I was under the impression that we were looking specifically at overweight/obese individuals who have the fat to spare (from the OP). I haven't looked into people who are of healthy or athletic weight and don't have the spare fat to use because it wouldn't make sense. All I'm saying is that if there is fat to spare then it makes sense that there can be some gains (as borne out by quite a bit of research). Again, I thought that was the point of the OP.0 -
I have read the study. And actually, I have a bunch of studies to back up that you can gain muscle on a deficit under certain situations - if you paid attention, I was not actually arguing with that
How about you show me a study, if that's your assertion, of trained individuals, who are not overweight, who have gained muscle on a deficit?
That's not my assertion. I was under the impression that we were looking specifically at overweight/obese individuals who have the fat to spare (from the OP). I haven't looked into people who are of healthy or athletic weight and don't have the spare fat to use because it wouldn't make sense. All I'm saying is that if there is fat to spare then it makes sense that there can be some gains (as borne out by quite a bit of research). Again, I thought that was the point of the OP.
The 'obese' variable was not mentioned by the OP but it looks like that is where our 'disagreement' is from even though I don't think we are disagreeing in the end. From the amount of weight the OP has to lose, I would not assume that she is in the obese BF% category. From the studies I have looked at, I have only seen obese women possibly making gains, or at least maintaining (there may be some out there that show them at a lower BF% - I have just not seen them). However, I have seen studies that have 'just' overweight (i.e. not obese) untrained men make gains - which makes sense as they have the potential to make better gains anyway.0 -
I agree with the notions that you can gain muscle for awhile at a deficit but eventually it will slow down or stop altogether. Assuming you are not overweight and super fit, I think that you have you will have to eat a bit more - perhaps lean meats, legumes, greek yogurt, protein supplements and other stuff high in protein. So instead of eating 1200, eat 1600, etc,.
So much quarreling and "newbie" being thrown around.. just do your own thing girl and don't pay attention to the studies if you are confused. Everyone has their interpretation.. I think what you consume, your macros for example is really what will affect your gains at the end of the day.0 -
I have read the study. And actually, I have a bunch of studies to back up that you can gain muscle on a deficit under certain situations - if you paid attention, I was not actually arguing with that
How about you show me a study, if that's your assertion, of trained individuals, who are not overweight, who have gained muscle on a deficit?
That's not my assertion. I was under the impression that we were looking specifically at overweight/obese individuals who have the fat to spare (from the OP). I haven't looked into people who are of healthy or athletic weight and don't have the spare fat to use because it wouldn't make sense. All I'm saying is that if there is fat to spare then it makes sense that there can be some gains (as borne out by quite a bit of research). Again, I thought that was the point of the OP.
The 'obese' variable was not mentioned by the OP but it looks like that is where our 'disagreement' is from even though I don't think we are disagreeing in the end. From the amount of weight the OP has to lose, I would not assume that she is in the obese BF% category. From the studies I have looked at, I have only seen obese women possibly making gains, or at least maintaining (there may be some out there that show them at a lower BF% - I have just not seen them). However, I have seen studies that have 'just' overweight (i.e. not obese) untrained men make gains - which makes sense as they have the potential to make better gains anyway.
I'm not sure whether women who are overweight but not obese can make gains or not (I've read some mixed studies with obese and overweight women but not one with only overweight women) but I have had my BF% checked twice since I started losing weight and I have at least maintained. I had mine checked with calipers and the second reading (with everything calculated) suggested that my LBM was 2 lbs higher. To me, all that means is that I have at least pretty much maintained my FFM which makes me perfectly happy. I'm planning on doing a bulk once I'm done losing.
I think the disagreement was probably more an overreaction on my part than an actual disagreement. I haven't been posting on these boards very long but about 50% of the time I post something, someone asks for proof, I cite several journals and without even reading them, they dismiss them (not for a legitimate reason but because science doesn't prove anything because my grandma's aunt's uncle's wife had the opposite of this study happen). It would probably be better for me to just stay away from boards but occasionally there is actually something worth reading/ something to learn so I still look through them. Like I said it is irksome and I thought that is what you were doing (because of your comments which made it seem like you hadn't read the study and were dismissing it without reading it). I think I jumped the gun on that though... sorry.0 -
I'm not sure whether women who are overweight but not obese can make gains or not (I've read some mixed studies with obese and overweight women but not one with only overweight women) but I have had my BF% checked twice since I started losing weight and I have at least maintained. I had mine checked with calipers and the second reading (with everything calculated) suggested that my LBM was 2 lbs higher. To me, all that means is that I have at least pretty much maintained my FFM which makes me perfectly happy. I'm planning on doing a bulk once I'm done losing.
I think the disagreement was probably more an overreaction on my part than an actual disagreement. I haven't been posting on these boards very long but about 50% of the time I post something, someone asks for proof, I cite several journals and without even reading them, they dismiss them (not for a legitimate reason but because science doesn't prove anything because my grandma's aunt's uncle's wife had the opposite of this study happen). It would probably be better for me to just stay away from boards but occasionally there is actually something worth reading/ something to learn so I still look through them. Like I said it is irksome and I thought that is what you were doing (because of your comments which made it seem like you hadn't read the study and were dismissing it without reading it). I think I jumped the gun on that though... sorry.
Bolded the part that really is the important thing for many of us imo - and if I can/have maintained mine I will also be very happy.
I think the other thing that often gets missed because of all the nerding out with the studies and discussions whether or not you can gain on a deficit or not, and I am very guilty of forgetting to mention it a lot of the time, is the plethora of other benefits that strength training gives.
I probably was not clear enough as to why I was picking up on the study, so we are all good. I tend to try to clarify the situations when women can possibly gain muscle v's not as the thought of gaining mass can be worrying for many, and it really is not a concern and I would hate for them to be put off strength training because of that concern. As I mention, and as I am sure you are aware, there are so many other benefits to it, especially with regard to improving bone density which is particularly important for women.
Cliffs: we are good ;-)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions