Cant gain muscle while at a deficit?
Replies
-
...
To gain muscle(esp for a female) you need to be eating at a surplus of calories, and lifting heavy. You can't build muscle(IE new muscle tissue) if there is no extra calories to help stimulate that growth. If your eating 1700 calories, burn off 500, your body only has 1200 calories left to make your brain/heart function, help with digestion, repair muscles etc. You can't expect it to use those calories for muscle building, when basic bodily functions are not being supported.
...
I don't agree with this. Way Oversimplified: To build muscle it takes 2 things - energy and protein. As long as your protein is up, it's possible to build muscle while eating a deficit and losing fat. In the food example above, your food calories are not going to provide the energy for the muscles to use the protein to repair themselves. However, your stored fat calories can provide that energy. If there's not enough caloric energy in your body to run any process, your body will go break down fat in order to obtain energy.
The point here is - you dont need to eat a surplus of calories, since you've stored surplus calories in body fat over time. This is a totally valid source of energy to run the muscle building process - just lift and add protein.
"You can't build muscle on a caloric deficit" may be true for people at or near optimal body fat percentage, but for guys like me who started at 300+ and 35% body fat well there's plenty of fat to go to for energy .. The more weight you lose, the more true "You can't build muscle on a caloric deficit" becomes.0 -
I've been watching the Biggest Loser this season and one of the girls, Danni, had lost 95 pounds by last week but she had gained 19 pounds of muscle. They said they had never seen this before on the show and the Dr. checked the results three times. I'm no expert in this field either but I believe you can build muscle while losing fat. I see it in my own body, but I really don't have a way to quantify it on myself..........:)
There are exceptions to the rule, like people with a lot of weight to lose, however, Danni is being hotly debated. I won't derail the thread with that debate, there are several topics on it already but what she did is pretty unbelievable and some people say impossible. A lot question the methods used to measure her.0 -
Great article that was posted in the forums that finally made the light bulb go off for me. Thanks for posting it SideSteel.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
Yes, it's a good article. I was one of those people who was able to do it, to a significant degree, because it developed like a perfect storm: athletic and lean for most of my life, followed by a period of morbid obesity, insulin resistance, and detrained condition.
I'd even take it one step further: for people who are especially athletic, recomp is easy at maintenance.0 -
Great article that was posted in the forums that finally made the light bulb go off for me. Thanks for posting it SideSteel.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
Yes, it's a good article. I was one of those people who was able to do it, to a significant degree, because it developed like a perfect storm: athletic and lean for most of my life, followed by a period of morbid obesity, insulin resistance, and detrained condition.
I'd even take it one step further: for people who are especially athletic, recomp is easy at maintenance.
I've been amazed at the inches I've lost and muscles reappearing after only about 5 weeks back into it, (after 1 year off) I'm pleasantly surprised - it took me a very long time to have these results the first time I started working out a few years ago.0 -
Great article that was posted in the forums that finally made the light bulb go off for me. Thanks for posting it SideSteel.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
Yes, it's a good article. I was one of those people who was able to do it, to a significant degree, because it developed like a perfect storm: athletic and lean for most of my life, followed by a period of morbid obesity, insulin resistance, and detrained condition.
I'd even take it one step further: for people who are especially athletic, recomp is easy at maintenance.
I've been amazed at the inches I've lost and muscles reappearing after only about 5 weeks back into it, (after 1 year off) I'm pleasantly surprised - it took me a very long time to have these results the first time I started working out a few years ago.
Yes: my data showed it happening most during the first 8 months. I've lost some connective tissue along the way because my body (I suppose), just doesn't need it like it did 128 lbs. ago. At leaner levels, you may find yourself losing some muscle mass -- the process is dynamic.0 -
I'm so confused about this, if you cannot gain muscle at a deficit how come when the scale doesn't move we are told to take measurements instead?
I haven't lost anything in almost 2 weeks but I am losing inches, especially in my stomach. How is this possible to be smaller without losing anything on the scale, if you cant gain muscle while at a deficit
I am lifting 3 days a week and doing insanity 3 days a week. Eating between 1500-1700 calories.
I
you. Finally someone asking intelligent questions of the people who claim to know everything. 0 -
I definitely think it comes down to your starting shape and where you want to be. I'm obese. By eating at a deficit and weight training, I know I'm building up my muscles (because I can see and feel it happening) and am losing fat (both in inches and on the scale) because I have plenty of fat stores to lose. I know that once I've lost even 10% of my body weight, I likely won't see those results continue, especially not at the same rate. This is why it's recommended to reassess your plan every so often to make sure you are meeting your current goals. My current goal is simply not to be so fat and flabby. Later my goal may be to have Linda Hamilton Terminator 2 arms. If, in the meantime, I can go from only being able to bench 50 pounds to being able to bench 80 pounds, AWESOME.0
-
I eat at a deficit all the time. ALL the time. And I gain new muscle ALL the time. I get adequate protein to support my bodily functions as well as my muscle growth. Is it slower muscle gains than someone who is bulking? Yes. But is it gain nonetheless? Yes.0
-
I have a year of weight loss and increased muscles that disagree with having to eat at a deficit to gain muscles. Perhaps it is a difference in the definition of muscles?
The difference is not in the definition if muscles. It's in the definition of gains or increase in muscles. If you been in a deficit, you didn't gain new muscle tissue as defined by hypertrophy. (with the exception of newbie gains) You developed and enlarged the muscles you already had that were underdeveloped or atrophied.
Got it, this makes sense, I haven't increased my muscle mass I just developed the muscle that was already in my body. At least I think that is what you are saying? Thanks that helps me understand when people talk about not gaining muscle on a deficit.
Yup, that is it! And as Ironplayground pointed out, people can increase thier lean mass with strength training because it increases things like bone density and connective tissue, Also, the retaining of intramusclar fluid/ glycogen stores can give the appearance of larger muscles.0 -
sullus said:
This is true ... entirely true. It's also why low carb, high fat diets work. And frankly, I'm doing it right now. I eat at a deficit, I eat very low carbs, moderate protein and high fat. I drop inches off my abdomen and waist, and add inches on my neck and biceps. I am clearly adding muscle, not just retraining my fast twitch muscles, and burning fat. I take measurements every two weeks, same day, same time, and the day after my Day 3 cardio, not after resistance training.To build muscle it takes 2 things - energy and protein. As long as your protein is up, it's possible to build muscle while eating a deficit and losing fat. In the food example above, your food calories are not going to provide the energy for the muscles to use the protein to repair themselves. However, your stored fat calories can provide that energy. If there's not enough caloric energy in your body to run any process, your body will go break down fat in order to obtain energy.
Bottom line, it is entirely possible to eat at a caloric deficit and use resistance training to build muscle. As long as you have adequate body fat to provide you with the energy needed by depleting your body fat storage and converting the fat to ketones that can be used for energy.0 -
I eat at a deficit all the time. ALL the time. And I gain new muscle ALL the time. I get adequate protein to support my bodily functions as well as my muscle growth. Is it slower muscle gains than someone who is bulking? Yes. But is it gain nonetheless? Yes.
How are you measuring? What are your gains over what time frame?0 -
...
To gain muscle(esp for a female) you need to be eating at a surplus of calories, and lifting heavy. You can't build muscle(IE new muscle tissue) if there is no extra calories to help stimulate that growth. If your eating 1700 calories, burn off 500, your body only has 1200 calories left to make your brain/heart function, help with digestion, repair muscles etc. You can't expect it to use those calories for muscle building, when basic bodily functions are not being supported.
...
I don't agree with this. Way Oversimplified: To build muscle it takes 2 things - energy and protein. As long as your protein is up, it's possible to build muscle while eating a deficit and losing fat. In the food example above, your food calories are not going to provide the energy for the muscles to use the protein to repair themselves. However, your stored fat calories can provide that energy. If there's not enough caloric energy in your body to run any process, your body will go break down fat in order to obtain energy.
The point here is - you dont need to eat a surplus of calories, since you've stored surplus calories in body fat over time. This is a totally valid source of energy to run the muscle building process - just lift and add protein.
"You can't build muscle on a caloric deficit" may be true for people at or near optimal body fat percentage, but for guys like me who started at 300+ and 35% body fat well there's plenty of fat to go to for energy .. The more weight you lose, the more true "You can't build muscle on a caloric deficit" becomes.
You are essentially correct. If you have high body fat, it is possible for awhile. There is a rate of diminishing returns. This blog by Lyle McDonald explains it in some detail.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
eta: should have read all the way up. Someone already posted this.0 -
I eat at a deficit all the time. ALL the time. And I gain new muscle ALL the time. I get adequate protein to support my bodily functions as well as my muscle growth. Is it slower muscle gains than someone who is bulking? Yes. But is it gain nonetheless? Yes.
How are you measuring? What are your gains over what time frame?
Yes, that would be my question also.0 -
...
To gain muscle(esp for a female) you need to be eating at a surplus of calories, and lifting heavy. You can't build muscle(IE new muscle tissue) if there is no extra calories to help stimulate that growth. If your eating 1700 calories, burn off 500, your body only has 1200 calories left to make your brain/heart function, help with digestion, repair muscles etc. You can't expect it to use those calories for muscle building, when basic bodily functions are not being supported.
...
I don't agree with this. Way Oversimplified: To build muscle it takes 2 things - energy and protein. As long as your protein is up, it's possible to build muscle while eating a deficit and losing fat. In the food example above, your food calories are not going to provide the energy for the muscles to use the protein to repair themselves. However, your stored fat calories can provide that energy. If there's not enough caloric energy in your body to run any process, your body will go break down fat in order to obtain energy.
The point here is - you dont need to eat a surplus of calories, since you've stored surplus calories in body fat over time. This is a totally valid source of energy to run the muscle building process - just lift and add protein.
"You can't build muscle on a caloric deficit" may be true for people at or near optimal body fat percentage, but for guys like me who started at 300+ and 35% body fat well there's plenty of fat to go to for energy .. The more weight you lose, the more true "You can't build muscle on a caloric deficit" becomes.
You are essentially correct. If you have high body fat, it is possible for awhile. There is a rate of diminishing returns. This blog by Lyle McDonald explains it in some detail.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
I've found that in order to maintain the same rate of gains and losses, I've needed to eat a little more lately. Not a lot more, but maybe 300 cal/day more than I was eating 6 months ago.0 -
I like the article that was posted and makes sense, converting calories into the right areas of the body, but only if you are stimulating the muscles to require them. To many people are concerned about weight loss, and not body composition. If you don't stimulate the body with physical activity, while being at a calorie deficit, you will lose weight (fat/muscle/water etc) but if you are stimulating your body, your body will first fix itself, using surplus calories (fat), if there are there or, using your daily calories if leaner, to repair itself.
Here is another explanation of gaining muscle while at a deficit http://scoobysworkshop.com/gain-muscle-lose-fat/.0 -
I eat at a deficit all the time. ALL the time. And I gain new muscle ALL the time. I get adequate protein to support my bodily functions as well as my muscle growth. Is it slower muscle gains than someone who is bulking? Yes. But is it gain nonetheless? Yes.
How are you measuring? What are your gains over what time frame?
Yes, that would be my question also.
I had bodpods done so I think my numbers are fairly accurate, not sue about the above poster though.
Many people confuse harder muscle for having more muscle. Muscle will often harden with exercise even if no muscle mass was gained.0 -
I eat at a deficit all the time. ALL the time. And I gain new muscle ALL the time. I get adequate protein to support my bodily functions as well as my muscle growth. Is it slower muscle gains than someone who is bulking? Yes. But is it gain nonetheless? Yes.
How are you measuring? What are your gains over what time frame?
Yes, that would be my question also.
I had bodpods done so I think my numbers are fairly accurate, not sue about the above poster though.
Many people confuse harder muscle for having more muscle. Muscle will often harden with exercise even if no muscle mass was gained.
Yes, that and the illusion created by creater fluid and and glycogen. The real question is: why does it matter??
Are you stronger? Are you healthier? Do you look better? Do you have more endurance and funtionality? If yes, then what is the big deal about needing to think you are building muscle in a deficit?? It's a useless argument. As my friend DavPul likes to say :
JUST WORK OUT!!0 -
I eat at a deficit all the time. ALL the time. And I gain new muscle ALL the time. I get adequate protein to support my bodily functions as well as my muscle growth. Is it slower muscle gains than someone who is bulking? Yes. But is it gain nonetheless? Yes.
How are you measuring? What are your gains over what time frame?
Yes, that would be my question also.
I had bodpods done so I think my numbers are fairly accurate, not sue about the above poster though.
Many people confuse harder muscle for having more muscle. Muscle will often harden with exercise even if no muscle mass was gained.
Yes, that and the illusion created by creater fluid and and glycogen. The real question is: why does it matter??
Are you stronger? Are you healthier? Do you look better? Do you have more endurance and funtionality? If yes, then what is the big deal about needing to think you are building muscle in a deficit?? It's a useless argument. As my friend DavPul likes to say :
JUST WORK OUT!!
QFT
I often get caught up in the little details, its good to remember this. Thank goodness for Dav.0 -
Awesome question! Thanks so much! What I'm understanding is that you don't gain NEW muscle fibers, but you increase the size and strength of the muscle fibers you already have?0
-
I eat at a deficit all the time. ALL the time. And I gain new muscle ALL the time. I get adequate protein to support my bodily functions as well as my muscle growth. Is it slower muscle gains than someone who is bulking? Yes. But is it gain nonetheless? Yes.
How are you measuring? What are your gains over what time frame?
Yes, that would be my question also.
I had bodpods done so I think my numbers are fairly accurate, not sue about the above poster though.
Many people confuse harder muscle for having more muscle. Muscle will often harden with exercise even if no muscle mass was gained.
Yes, that and the illusion created by creater fluid and and glycogen. The real question is: why does it matter??
Are you stronger? Are you healthier? Do you look better? Do you have more endurance and funtionality? If yes, then what is the big deal about needing to think you are building muscle in a deficit?? It's a useless argument. As my friend DavPul likes to say :
JUST WORK OUT!!
Exactly.
From my point of view I'm always interested in the science side of weight loss so that's why I read up on it and study it and maybe go to further extremes in tracking things than the average person. It's not required, may not result in better results but I find it interesting.0 -
I eat at a deficit all the time. ALL the time. And I gain new muscle ALL the time. I get adequate protein to support my bodily functions as well as my muscle growth. Is it slower muscle gains than someone who is bulking? Yes. But is it gain nonetheless? Yes.
How are you measuring? What are your gains over what time frame?
Yes, that would be my question also.
I had bodpods done so I think my numbers are fairly accurate, not sue about the above poster though.
Many people confuse harder muscle for having more muscle. Muscle will often harden with exercise even if no muscle mass was gained.
Yes, that and the illusion created by creater fluid and and glycogen. The real question is: why does it matter??
Are you stronger? Are you healthier? Do you look better? Do you have more endurance and funtionality? If yes, then what is the big deal about needing to think you are building muscle in a deficit?? It's a useless argument. As my friend DavPul likes to say :
JUST WORK OUT!!
Exactly.
From my point of view I'm always interested in the science side of weight loss so that's why I read up on it and study it and maybe go to further extremes in tracking things than the average person. It's not required, may not result in better results but I find it interesting.
Oh, I totally agree the science is interesting. It is more the folks that get thier panties in a bunch and want to insist that, at a fairly reasonable body fat level they are gaining in a deficit that I find tiresome. This whole topic has been argued on her 100s of times and it's the same every time. Yes, the science is interesting and it is not 100% cut and dry but it's probably 95%.0 -
Awesome question! Thanks so much! What I'm understanding is that you don't gain NEW muscle fibers, but you increase the size and strength of the muscle fibers you already have?
Essetially. Google myofbrillar and sarcoplamic hypertrophy and you'll understand it a little better.0 -
I eat at a deficit all the time. ALL the time. And I gain new muscle ALL the time. I get adequate protein to support my bodily functions as well as my muscle growth. Is it slower muscle gains than someone who is bulking? Yes. But is it gain nonetheless? Yes.
How are you measuring? What are your gains over what time frame?
Yes, that would be my question also.
I had bodpods done so I think my numbers are fairly accurate, not sue about the above poster though.
Many people confuse harder muscle for having more muscle. Muscle will often harden with exercise even if no muscle mass was gained.
Yes, that and the illusion created by creater fluid and and glycogen. The real question is: why does it matter??
Are you stronger? Are you healthier? Do you look better? Do you have more endurance and funtionality? If yes, then what is the big deal about needing to think you are building muscle in a deficit?? It's a useless argument. As my friend DavPul likes to say :
JUST WORK OUT!!
I'm the kind of person that wants to know why the light went on, not just that it did. I'm a weirdy. lol0 -
When i was on bed rest last year i lost muscle, for around 6 weeks of back to exercising i maintained weight, but lost lots of inches
All the professionals involved said is was muscle gain after bein inactive, so it is possible if you've suddenly started exercising that your gaining muscle. Also my friend on here has gained a LOT of muscle at deficit, eating plenty of protein and lifting heavy, so not impossible! She looks incredible! I don't know the science, but it's clear looking at her that it can happen!0 -
I've been watching the Biggest Loser this season and one of the girls, Danni, had lost 95 pounds by last week but she had gained 19 pounds of muscle. They said they had never seen this before on the show and the Dr. checked the results three times. I'm no expert in this field either but I believe you can build muscle while losing fat. I see it in my own body, but I really don't have a way to quantify it on myself..........:)
There are exceptions to the rule, like people with a lot of weight to lose, however, Danni is being hotly debated. I won't derail the thread with that debate, there are several topics on it already but what she did is pretty unbelievable and some people say impossible. A lot question the methods used to measure her.
I wish they would have said how they came up with that number. The doctor only said he checked it three different ways. It would have been nice if he'd gone into it0 -
I've read this here over and over, but I was watching Biggest Loser this last week and one of the female contestants was told by the doctor that she had gained 19 LBS of muscle since she started. He did say that this much muscle gain was 'unheard of' and the first time he'd seen anything like that, but supposedly they tested her several different ways.
Anyway.... I know Biggest Loser is a show and you can't believe everything on there...but they've got to be on a deficit since they're still losing, and this girl lost 11 lbs that "week" on the show. I take it all with a grain of salt, but thought it was really interesting :ohwell:
Edited to add...I didn't read the earlier posts before posting, but I now see that someone else already mentioned this!!0 -
that show is a joke... there is NO WAY a woman will gain 19lbs of extra muscle mass in that short of time let alone a lifetime..I've been watching the Biggest Loser this season and one of the girls, Danni, had lost 95 pounds by last week but she had gained 19 pounds of muscle. They said they had never seen this before on the show and the Dr. checked the results three times. I'm no expert in this field either but I believe you can build muscle while losing fat. I see it in my own body, but I really don't have a way to quantify it on myself..........:)
There are exceptions to the rule, like people with a lot of weight to lose, however, Danni is being hotly debated. I won't derail the thread with that debate, there are several topics on it already but what she did is pretty unbelievable and some people say impossible. A lot question the methods used to measure her.
I wish they would have said how they came up with that number. The doctor only said he checked it three different ways. It would have been nice if he'd gone into it0 -
Simple Math & Science:
Gaining Muscle removes calories from the system (turns calories and other "stuff" into muscle)
Fat Removal adds calories to the system - turn fat into calories (this is the important bit to note)
Eating Food adds calories to the system
Being alive removes calories from the system
Exercise removed calories from the system
Let's assume you lift weights (heavy duty, not just going through the motions) in the morning - burning 150 calories, followed by 200 calorie protein rich breakfast
You eat lunch at 1000 calories
Your BMR for the day is, say, 1500
You eat dinner - let's say 1000 calories
After dinner, you run 10 miles, burning 1000 calories
Total Adds to the system: 200 + 1000 + 1000 = 2200 calories
Total Removes: 200 + 1000 + 1500 = 2700
That leaves you with a 500 calorie deficit.
There has to be a balance, there has to be a 500 calorie add in there somewhere (Law of Conservation of Engery)*
Where does that come from? That's right, the fat removal. Assuming the deficit you end up with is within the limits of what YOUR body can convert from fat to energy in the given timeframe, you will both lose fat & gain muscle at the same time.
If you exceed that limit, you will do "dangerous things".
Everyone's body is going to do this differently, so you need to make adjustments based on the feedback your body gives you.
*added this line0 -
Found all this information very helpful...never knew you could retain water from muscles repairing themselves.0
-
Bump for later... about to leave work0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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