Muscle Gain in a Calorie Deficit (I just don't get it)

CristinaL1983

So I want to start out by saying that I know that it is often said that you can't experience muscle hypertrophy in a deficit with a few exceptions. Those exceptions are said to be that you must be both new to lifting and obese. Then people say that after a short period of time (or a small amount of gains) you will stall out or plateau (WRT gains).

My question is why? I have searched and searched and cannot find any research that supports that.

I have found research that shows that muscle hypertrophy happens in obese individuals even at an extreme caloric deficit.

Example:
Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 65–69.
The Role of Resistance Exercise in Weight Loss
Jeffrey L. Alexander, MS
Arizona State University-East

In 1993, Donnelly et al. (6) conducted a study to examine whether muscle hypertrophy or increases in muscle size could occur during severe caloric restriction (803.1 kcal/d) with resistance exercise. Fourteen obese females were recruited for the study and were randomized to either a diet only (C) or a diet plus weight training (WT) group. Women in both groups lost a significant amount of weight; however, the WT group demonstrated significant muscular hypertrophy after the 12 weeks of training, but there was no change in the C group. This study suggests that even during severe caloric restriction muscular hypertrophy is not altered during a resistance exercise program.

That refers to: 6. Donnelly, J.E., T. Sharp, J. Houmard, M.G. Carlson, J.O. Hill, J.E. Whately, and R.G. Israel. Muscle hypertrophy with large-scale weight loss and resistance training. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 58:561–565. 1993. [PubMed Citation]

This particular study does not discuss the previous training level of the individuals. And while some do, the only studies I've found that do are on untrained individuals and also show gains. I haven't found anything that explicitly states that individuals are previously trained and either did or did not gain muscle while in a deficit.

By my understanding, muscle hypertrophy occurs as the muscles develop micro-tears which are then repaired through protein synthesis. I guess what I don't get is why this wouldn't happen even in a calorie deficit for an overweight person consuming adequate protein. [Because I don't want this to devolve into a "what is adequate protein intake" argument, let's just say that it's the 1.2-1.8g/kg body weight recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine.]

It seems to me that, because fat is merely energy storage, and that even with restricted caloric intake, the body of an overweight person would have enough actual energy to carry out the same operations as someone of lean body composition with a daily calorie surplus.

The only thing I have found that contradicts this was the suggestion that cortisol may inhibit protein synthesis and that someone in a calorie deficit can experience increases in cortisol (though research suggests that this is not always the case).

I guess what I'm asking is for a biological explanation from someone who has knowledge on this topic. Research would be awesome but since I've spent a lot of time looking and haven't found any, I'm not overly concerned about it.

Also, the whole "my strength increased even though I was in a calorie deficit" thing isn't really a good argument for muscle hypertrophy in a deficit because of this: http://journals.lww.com/ajpmr/Citation/1979/06000/Neural_Factors_Versus_Hypertrophy_in_the_Time.1.aspx
which shows that increases in strength precede hypertrophy by quite a bit because of learned behavior and other neurological reasons.

Edited for clarity 'n' grammar.

jonnythan

Here's the study:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/4/561.long

Apparently muscle fiber cross-sectional area increased, but muscle mass didn't? And the WT and C groups had the same body composition change?

"These results indicate that weight training can elicit musclefiber hypertrophy during periods of severe energy restriction
concurrent with declines of body weight and FFM. Weight
training had no overall effect on total weight loss or the com- position of the weight loss between C and WT. This finding
agrees with earlier findings in that severe energy restriction (2184
kJ/d) combined with weight training or in conjunction with weight training and endurance exercise neither affected the
amount of weight loss nor the composition of the weight loss when compared with energy restriction alone in obese fe- males"

If anything, I read this as an argument against VLCD diets more than "you can build muscle on a deficit." I will concede that you can build small amounts of muscle on a deficit if you start out untrained and overfat/obese, but not anything very significant.

Anyway, the argument is that the body just doesn't build additional mass while experiencing a caloric deficit.

CristinaL1983

Here's the study:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/4/561.long

Apparently muscle fiber cross-sectional area increased, but muscle mass didn't? And the WT and C groups had the same body composition change?

"These results indicate that weight training can elicit musclefiber hypertrophy during periods of severe energy restriction
concurrent with declines of body weight and FFM. Weight
training had no overall effect on total weight loss or the com- position of the weight loss between C and WT. This finding
agrees with earlier findings in that severe energy restriction (2184
kJ/d) combined with weight training or in conjunction with weight training and endurance exercise neither affected the
amount of weight loss nor the composition of the weight loss when compared with energy restriction alone in obese fe- males"

If anything, I read this as an argument against VLCD diets more than "you can build muscle on a deficit." I will concede that you can build small amounts of muscle on a deficit if you start out untrained and overfat/obese, but not anything very significant.

Anyway, the argument is that the body just doesn't build additional mass while experiencing a caloric deficit.

Interesting. 2184 kJ/day is equivalent to 521 kcal/day which is definitely a huge deficit. Ideally, I'm asking more about in a moderate calorie deficit. There are tons of studies that show that under 600 cal/ day FFM loss is significant pretty much across the board.

Do you know what causes the bolded statement to be true biologically speaking?

Note: This is a genuine question because I can't logic it out myself. I'm not arguing that it isn't true.

SRH7

Bumping as I like a good read! (and find this topic confusing at the best of times!)

jonnythan

Here's the study:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/4/561.long

Apparently muscle fiber cross-sectional area increased, but muscle mass didn't? And the WT and C groups had the same body composition change?

"These results indicate that weight training can elicit musclefiber hypertrophy during periods of severe energy restriction
concurrent with declines of body weight and FFM. Weight
training had no overall effect on total weight loss or the com- position of the weight loss between C and WT. This finding
agrees with earlier findings in that severe energy restriction (2184
kJ/d) combined with weight training or in conjunction with weight training and endurance exercise neither affected the
amount of weight loss nor the composition of the weight loss when compared with energy restriction alone in obese fe- males"

If anything, I read this as an argument against VLCD diets more than "you can build muscle on a deficit." I will concede that you can build small amounts of muscle on a deficit if you start out untrained and overfat/obese, but not anything very significant.

Anyway, the argument is that the body just doesn't build additional mass while experiencing a caloric deficit.

Interesting. 2184 kJ/day is equivalent to 521 kcal/day which is definitely a huge deficit. Ideally, I'm asking more about in a moderate calorie deficit. There are tons of studies that show that under 600 cal/ day FFM loss is significant pretty much across the board.

Do you know what causes the bolded statement to be true biologically speaking?

Note: This is a genuine question because I can't logic it out myself. I'm not arguing that it isn't true.

No idea. If I had to guess, it would be that when you start to tap into the relatively large fat stores of an obese person, you end up with enough calories in the bloodstream to allow for muscle tissues to get a little bigger. Combine that with the hormones stimulated when just starting to work out and you can make some small gains.

That's wild speculation. I have no idea. But I know that the number of calories you can get from fat stores in the body is directly related to how much fat there is. So if you start exercising, start generating those hormones, and start releasing energy from fat mass you can get a calorie bonanza in there.

smittieaj

Jonnythan, thank you for that find! And thank you Cristina for the original post. I've wondered about this topic for a while now. Unfortunately, I finished reading that study feeling even more confused than I was before, but at least I know that scientists are looking into the subject and don't seem to have many firm conclusions yet.

I can't even begin to understand how the muscle grows larger, without additional mass. Is the tissue less dense? The tests show that the WT group was stronger than before. If they are stronger and have 'bigger' muscles, what's the deal with the mass in those muscles?

krhn

Well the basic principle is that to gain muscle for the experienced requires a definite surplus in calories to feed the muscles

CristinaL1983

No idea. If I had to guess, it would be that when you start to tap into the relatively large fat stores of an obese person, you end up with enough calories in the bloodstream to allow for muscle tissues to get a little bigger. Combine that with the hormones stimulated when just starting to work out and you can make some small gains.

That's wild speculation. I have no idea. But I know that the number of calories you can get from fat stores in the body is directly related to how much fat there is. So if you start exercising, start generating those hormones, and start releasing energy from fat mass you can get a calorie bonanza in there.

So related to that part, if I have 40 lbs of fat mass right now and we assume that my body can access 30 cal/lb/day, I can produce a maximum of 1200 calories per day internally. If I also eat 1200 calories per day (just for the sake of numbers as this is not particularly relevant so assuming the min. healthy amount) then total potential energy is 2400 calories per day. My current TDEE is about 2100 which leaves me with a potential surplus of 300 calories per day. Why could my body not use that to synthesize the necessary protein for muscle growth?

psuLemon

Here is a good read. I will reply with more later but this can help.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

CristinaL1983

For those reading the studies:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.short

It 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. These individuals were at a more modest calorie deficit consuming 1000 cal/day with TDEEs ranging from 2200-2500.
Full study here: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.full.pdf+html
Body composition was measured both with radiograph and physical measurement. In this both muscle size and mass increased.

(This study is consistent with the idea that obese people can gain muscle in a deficit but still does not explain why someone who is merely overweight wouldn't be able to. It doesn't say whether the individuals had previous training or not.)

SideSteel

No idea. If I had to guess, it would be that when you start to tap into the relatively large fat stores of an obese person, you end up with enough calories in the bloodstream to allow for muscle tissues to get a little bigger. Combine that with the hormones stimulated when just starting to work out and you can make some small gains.

That's wild speculation. I have no idea. But I know that the number of calories you can get from fat stores in the body is directly related to how much fat there is. So if you start exercising, start generating those hormones, and start releasing energy from fat mass you can get a calorie bonanza in there.

So related to that part, if I have 40 lbs of fat mass right now and we assume that my body can access 30 cal/lb/day, I can produce a maximum of 1200 calories per day internally. If I also eat 1200 calories per day (just for the sake of numbers as this is not particularly relevant so assuming the min. healthy amount) then total potential energy is 2400 calories per day. My current TDEE is about 2100 which leaves me with a potential surplus of 300 calories per day. Why could my body not use that to synthesize the necessary protein for muscle growth?

Using your above example, if your TDEE is 2100 and you are eating 1200, you are creating a maximal energy deficit of 900.
I would expect that of that 900 you would lose most of it from fat and whether or not you'd lose LBM would depend on leanness, protein intake, and to some extent training as it would improve nutrient partitioning.

Additionally, you'd have to factor in that we're talking about net gain in muscle and not acute protein synthesis. Protein synthesis will still happen in a caloric deficit, the question is whether or it exceeds protein breakdown (resulting in net gain in muscle, obviously)

SideSteel

For those reading the studies:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.short

It 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. These individuals were at a more modest calorie deficit consuming 1000 cal/day with TDEEs ranging from 2200-2500.
Full study here: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.full.pdf+html
Body composition was measured both with radiograph and physical measurement. In this both muscle size and mass increased.

(This study is consistent with the idea that obese people can gain muscle in a deficit but still does not explain why someone who is merely overweight wouldn't be able to. It doesn't say whether the individuals had previous training or not.)

Thanks, will check this out.

Regarding the obese/overweight thing, I think it's somewhat intuitive (although it sounds like you're not looking for intuitive, you're looking for data and I get that) that the fatter you are, the more available fat is as a fuel source. As you get leaner, fat is less preferential.

It wouldn't surprise me if studies show LBM gains in overweight or obese people, and I think when people make the claim "you can't gain muscle in a deficit" they are unfortunately neglecting context (see article linked above at Lyle's site).

I would like to see if there are studies taking an obese or overweight person and putting them on a lifting program in an energy deficit and following their measurements until they are lean. I would expect LBM gains initially followed by LBM losses or a stand-still as they get leaner and leaner.

concordancia

Unfortunately, the bookmark is on my Ipad, which I don't have with me, but I have a link to a study in which athletes on a moderate (~200/day) calorie deficit were able to add LBM. I will try to remember to post this evening.

This is mostly a partial truth that is perpetuated because it is more efficient to bulk on a surplus, and once people who have trained that way pass the word of mouth on to their own clients... It is also more efficient to eat at a reasonable, but higher, deficit if one is cutting/ wants to lose weight.

Furthermore, even with HRMs and BodyBuggs, the most accurate measures of calories burned requires RMR and VO2max testing. Without such precision, it is really hard to eat at a 200 calorie deficit.

professorRAT

tagging

woodml1

In the past 3 months, I've lost 23 pounds of fat while gaining .8 pounds of muscle. It's not much hypertrophy but it's not atrophy either! Smart training and nurtition (paying attention to macronutrient breakdown as well as timiming your meals appropriatly) were the key for me!

My 2 month progress photos are on my profile At that point, I had lost about 18 pounds. New progress pics coming soon!

CristinaL1983

Here is a good read. I will reply with more later but this can help.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

This is really interesting. It supports my thought process and says the following:

But none of those approaches generate a muscle gain to equal the fat loss, at best they generate a small muscle gain in the face of a much larger fat loss (e.g. someone might lose a lot of fat while gaining a pound or two of muscle or what have you). But for the non-beginner/non-returning from a layoff trainee that’s about the best you’re going to get. Potential rates of muscle gain are never going to approach the potential rate of fat loss once folks are past the beginner stage. Even in the beginner stage, it’s generally always easier to lose fat much faster than you can gain muscle.
So the idea of replacing every pound of lost fat with exactly one pound of muscle will be essentially impossible for the intermediate/advanced trainee. There’s simply not enough fat/the fat cells dont want to ‘give up their calories’ and the ability to stimulate rapid muscle gains isn’t there any more.
A followup question might be what about fatter but more advanced trainees. Certainly in that situation, fat cell insulin sensitivity/etc. can approach what is occurring with the overfat beginner but there is still the issue of rate of muscle gain being drastically slowed. It’s probably possible briefly at the start of the diet to get some caloric shunting but it’s never going to approach a 1:1 gain in muscle with fat loss; the potential rate of fat loss (1-2 lbs/week) to rates of muscle gain (0.5 lbs/week if you’re lucky) simply doesn’t exist.

Basically, he is saying that you can't replace equal amounts of fat with muscle and that muscle gains aren't going to be impressive for those already trained or lean but that you can, in fact, gain muscle in a deficit whether obese/lean trained/untrained.

People with more fat/less trained will have better gains but it is more a case of diminishing returns than disappearing returns. You can continue to gain strength and muscle in a deficit even into "single digit body fat percentages." He seems to recommend a cyclical approach for that throughout the week but the overall numbers still seem to be a deficit.

Unless I read that completely wrong...

Pepper2185

I'm here to read replies to this one, I've been wondering about this as well.

CristinaL1983

For those reading the studies:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.short

It 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. These individuals were at a more modest calorie deficit consuming 1000 cal/day with TDEEs ranging from 2200-2500.
Full study here: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.full.pdf+html
Body composition was measured both with radiograph and physical measurement. In this both muscle size and mass increased.

(This study is consistent with the idea that obese people can gain muscle in a deficit but still does not explain why someone who is merely overweight wouldn't be able to. It doesn't say whether the individuals had previous training or not.)

Thanks, will check this out.

Regarding the obese/overweight thing, I think it's somewhat intuitive (although it sounds like you're not looking for intuitive, you're looking for data and I get that) that the fatter you are, the more available fat is as a fuel source. As you get leaner, fat is less preferential.

It wouldn't surprise me if studies show LBM gains in overweight or obese people, and I think when people make the claim "you can't gain muscle in a deficit" they are unfortunately neglecting context (see article linked above at Lyle's site).

I would like to see if there are studies taking an obese or overweight person and putting them on a lifting program in an energy deficit and following their measurements until they are lean. I would expect LBM gains initially followed by LBM losses or a stand-still as they get leaner and leaner.

Both really good posts, thanks. I would really like to see any long term studies done on weight loss and body composition as well as more studies done on people with more moderate calorie deficits as both seem to be severely lacking and nearly impossible to find.

Also with very obese individuals, I would definitely like to see a start to goal study. It makes sense that even with a weight lifting program, there would be less lean mass required at the end than the beginning for the simple fact that there is less mass to move around on a constant basis. I wonder how much of that applies to someone who loses less weight.

Most of my curiosity stems from the fact that I am overweight but not obese and technically I'm at an acceptable body fat percentage. I've also always been involved in some sort of strength training so I don't get the benefits of beginner gains, maybe a little as I switch back to free weights from machines and movement restricting equipment though I don't know because I've found less difficulty than expected with the switch. I have no problem continuing to lift with or without gains but the more I think about it, the more it doesn't really make sense that you cannot make ANY gains. It makes sense that the less fat/ more advanced you are, the smaller the gains would be but I think that's natural in any training regimen with any goal. Not sure if that makes sense but basically, I fall into all the "no gains for you" categories and couldn't help but wonder about it.

kusterer

This has been a fantastically informative thread. Thank you Christinal1983, and all who added to her work.

Mock_Turtle

Furthermore, even with HRMs and BodyBuggs, the most accurate measures of calories burned requires RMR and VO2max testing. Without such precision, it is really hard to eat at a 200 calorie deficit.

This is a great, albeit tangential point. Even if someone went militant 24/7 in measuring foods to be as precise as possible in measuring calories IN, the error bar on calories OUT is going to be high, especially for people who are lifting weights ..... and by high I'm referring to trying to do something that results in 'optimal' results, like targetting very small deficits.

sijomial

Tagging to follow....
Nice to see some informed debate on this rather than just assertions!

I'm at goal weight but also trying to reduce my body fat percentage - currently seeing a 1%/month reduction in body fat without significant change in weight.