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

albatrosssherpa

bump

TheRightWeigh

BUMP...i'm obese and want muscles

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.

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.

Stating some obvious stuff that you're probably already aware of but who knows who is reading the thread:

Regarding the above, whether or not you're actually increasing LBM while leaning out isn't all that important -- you'll obviously end up with more muscle by lifting weights, vs not lifting weights, since the latter would result in losing LBM (so in other words, you may not GAIN muscle, but your decision to lift weights while dieting will give you more muscle than you would have had, were you to not have lifted).

Regarding gaining LBM when you're lean and trained and in a prolonged energy deficit, I would make the guess that this seldom happens. To my knowledge, most of your drug free bodybuilders who are dieting down will be losing some LBM, with the goal to minimize it. I'm pretty sure there's a couple of studies showing this.

I don't have the full text (I'm very interested if anyone does) to this one, and it's observational but at least somewhat relevant as I believe it will show changes in LBM as they get really lean. I'm basing this off of the protein roundtable vids as I'm pretty sure this is the one they reference periodically in that discussion:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300017

Yanicka1

Bump for a very interesting thread

Iron_Feline

bumping to read tomorrow - thanks in advance.

albertabeefy

Overall there no studies I know of, including the ones already linked here, that show an overall gain in LBM while doing resistance/strength training on a calorie-restricted diet, though most show better retention of LBM with resistance/strength training.

The one that did show hypertrophy on the exercised skeletal muscle also clearly stated "The average weight loss over the 90-d period was 16 kg with approximately 24% of the weight loss from FFM and 76% from fat. The amount and composition of the weight loss did not differ between WT and C groups."

Even though the weight-training groups did experience hypertrophy in the vastus lateralis (the outside sweep of the quadricep), overall they experienced the same loss of weight from lean mass (24%) as the control group. As such hypertrophy occurred in the exercised tissue, but catabolism of non-exercised tissue occurred, which really isn't optimal.

As far as obese individuals goes - these are quite commonly the individuals who make what many in bodybuilding circles refer to as "newb gains", even though they're dieting. This is likely due to the fact that the more adipose (fat) tissue one has, especially visceral (in/around the organs) the higher levels of circulating insulin we see. (Which is also why these individuals are the most-likely to become insulin-resistant.) We know well the role insulin plays in muscle gains, next to testosterone it's widely considered the most-anabolic of hormones. This would quite likely account, from a biochemical perspective, for the initial gains in the obese during diet and resistance/strength training. Of course, as they exercise more and start to lose weight, their levels of both circulating blood glucose and insulin drop to more normal levels, normalizing the process to be the same as non-obese individuals.

CristinaL1983

Overall there no studies I know of, including the ones already linked here, that show an overall gain in LBM while doing resistance/strength training on a calorie-restricted diet, though most show better retention of LBM with resistance/strength training.

The one that did show hypertrophy on the exercised skeletal muscle also clearly stated "The average weight loss over the 90-d period was 16 kg with approximately 24% of the weight loss from FFM and 76% from fat. The amount and composition of the weight loss did not differ between WT and C groups."

Even though the weight-training groups did experience hypertrophy in the vastus lateralis (the outside sweep of the quadricep), overall they experienced the same loss of weight from lean mass (24%) as the control group. As such hypertrophy occurred in the exercised tissue, but catabolism of non-exercised tissue occurred, which really isn't optimal.

As far as obese individuals goes - these are quite commonly the individuals who make what many in bodybuilding circles refer to as "newb gains", even though they're dieting. This is likely due to the fact that the more adipose (fat) tissue one has, especially visceral (in/around the organs) the higher levels of circulating insulin we see. (Which is also why these individuals are the most-likely to become insulin-resistant.) We know well the role insulin plays in muscle gains, next to testosterone it's widely considered the most-anabolic of hormones. This would quite likely account, from a biochemical perspective, for the initial gains in the obese during diet and resistance/strength training. Of course, as they exercise more and start to lose weight, their levels of both circulating blood glucose and insulin drop to more normal levels, normalizing the process to be the same as non-obese individuals.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.full.pdf+html
This study shows an overall increase in LBW for the diet plus exercise group of .43+/- .26 kg over 8 weeks. (See the table on page 23)

Edit to ask: Are you asserting that for non obese individuals no muscle gains can be made? Or would you say that there could be small muscle gains. If your answer is none, what then happens in the muscle that prevents growth?

albertabeefy

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.full.pdf+html
This study shows an overall increase in LBW for the diet plus exercise group of .43+/- .26 kg over 8 weeks. (See the table on page 23)

I've seen it, but with all due respect, I believe you're misinterpreting some of the data. As with other studies, measured hypertrophy occurred only regional (ie: specifically exercised) areas, and although not specifically mentioned, catoblism would have taken place in other areas (as is suggested by the 'maintenance' conclusion).

The study authors correctly concluded the weight-training with diet allowed for maintenance, but not increase of overall lean mass.

"In conclusion, data from this study indicate that weight training added to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW and regional increases in muscle area. When diet plus weight-training is compared to exercise without caloric restriction, there is no difference in the rate of strength gain or magnitude of upper-arm muscle increase."

albertabeefy

Edit to ask: Are you asserting that for non obese individuals no muscle gains can be made? Or would you say that there could be small muscle gains. If your answer is none, what then happens in the muscle that prevents growth?

What I'm suggesting is obese individuals with higher circulating levels of insulin likely can make small overall gains in lean mass initially while undertaking a diet and exercise program. The gains made will be dependent upon the individuals overall anabolic 'aptitude' (IE: young men with high-testosterone levels will have the highest 'aptitude' here.)

Individuals not fitting that criteria (either non-obese, or obese but not with hyperinsulinemia) can see hypertrophy in exercised muscle tissue, but no overall (total body lean mass percentage) gain due to the catabolism of other lean tissue (in addition to stores of bodyfat) to fuel necessary cellular respiration.

CristinaL1983

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.full.pdf+html
This study shows an overall increase in LBW for the diet plus exercise group of .43+/- .26 kg over 8 weeks. (See the table on page 23)

I've seen it, but with all due respect, I believe you're misinterpreting some of the data. As with other studies, measured hypertrophy occurred only regional (ie: specifically exercised) areas, and although not specifically mentioned, catoblism would have taken place in other areas (as is suggested by the 'maintenance' conclusion).

The study authors correctly concluded the weight-training with diet allowed for maintenance, but not increase of overall lean mass.

"In conclusion, data from this study indicate that weight training added to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW and regional increases in muscle area. When diet plus weight-training is compared to exercise without caloric restriction, there is no difference in the rate of strength gain or magnitude of upper-arm muscle increase."

Interesting. I'm certainly not going to argue with you that I could be misinterpreting the results, I have a feeling your expertise in this particular area dwarfs my experience :laugh:

The source of my confusion, I think, is the last sentence combined with the overall data. And the sentence before that when combined with... well, all of page 24.

In particular

The training records of the exercising subjectsreflected increases in weekly training weights throughout
the study for all ofthe exercises. This is suggestive of musle hypertrophy throughout the body (26). The increases
in total LBW support this possibility.

An important finding of this study is the lack of inter- action between the diet and exercise treatments (Table 6). The data suggest that the order of presentation of the treatments would not greatly affect the end result. For example, one could reduce caloric intake for 8 wk and then resistance weight train for 8 wk and obtain the same results as found by dieting and exercising concurrently. Support for this position can be found in Tables 1, 3, and 4 where, in most cases, adding the DO and EO group
changes yields a result very similar to the DPE group.

Is there any way you could help clear up my confusion? What am I missing? Are they saying maintenance of LBW only because .43 kg is within an error margin or am I missing somewhere else that says that there wasn't an actual overall gain?

I wish this study was conducted longer term to see what happens over a longer period than 8 weeks.

albertabeefy

Is there any way you could help clear up my confusion? What am I missing? Are they saying maintenance of LBW only because .43 kg is within an error margin or am I missing somewhere else that says that there wasn't an actual overall gain?

I wish this study was conducted longer term to see what happens over a longer period than 8 weeks.

The amount is what's considered "statistically insignificant" in that it cannot be attributed solely to the intervention the group undertook, there are simply too many other variables to consider.

Where you can really challenge this is to see the changes in lean-body-mass an untrained individual can make when undergoing a typical mass-building diet and exercise program. The amount of LBM gained in 8 weeks of a properly-structured mass-building program for untrained individuals is staggering by comparison.

As such, when determining if energy-restriction truly can increase LBM, one has to ultimately compare it to the standard method for gaining lean mass - and in all studies so far they conclude that calorie-restriction with resistance training will only result in maintenance, never gains.

Though not specifically stated in the studies, that's a standard part of scientific methodology and will be present in any properly conducted trial conclusions.

albertabeefy

BTW when a study reports something as "significant" (You'll see studies say things like "the trial group experienced significantly more weight-loss than the control group") they mean statistically significant - which simply means they can't attribute the difference to random chance, not that the groups are vastly different.

This usage of "significant" in statistical analyses differs from it's use in the rest of the English language where "significant" usually means a considerable difference.

CristinaL1983

Is there any way you could help clear up my confusion? What am I missing? Are they saying maintenance of LBW only because .43 kg is within an error margin or am I missing somewhere else that says that there wasn't an actual overall gain?

I wish this study was conducted longer term to see what happens over a longer period than 8 weeks.

The amount is what's considered "statistically insignificant" in that it cannot be attributed solely to the intervention the group undertook, there are simply too many other variables to consider.

Where you can really challenge this is to see the changes in lean-body-mass an untrained individual can make when undergoing a typical mass-building diet and exercise program. The amount of LBM gained in 8 weeks of a properly-structured mass-building program for untrained individuals is staggering by comparison.

As such, when determining if energy-restriction truly can increase LBM, one has to ultimately compare it to the standard method for gaining lean mass - and in all studies so far they conclude that calorie-restriction with resistance training will only result in maintenance, never gains.

Though not specifically stated in the studies, that's a standard part of scientific methodology and will be present in any properly conducted trial conclusions.

Thanks for clarifying.

laurynwithawhy

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)

I feel like if that is true (which the evidence suggests it is), then genetics would have to play just as much of a role in muscle gain as diet. Basically, does your body like to hold on to its protein stores or break them down. I know that I have a very muscular body type, even eating negative net calories for about a year (I was young and stupid, I know) I didn't lose very much in the way of muscle.

So, even though no one is a "special snowflake" I would think that muscle gain during a calorie deficit would vary from person to person. Some people likely cannot gain muscle at all, and others might be more inclined to see muscle gains if the right conditions (slight deficit, large protein intake) were met.

Also, "muscle gain" is very subjective without actual scientific measuring. Water, fat, body composition can all cause you to look bigger, smaller, or more or less defined.

LiftAllThePizzas

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?

I don't think it's a matter of why it could, but why it would. If you're in a calorie deficit and using up internal stores already, then it's not a wise time to be building new muscles which will cost even more calories to maintain.

albertabeefy

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?

I don't think it's a matter of why it could, but why it would. If you're in a calorie deficit and using up internal stores already, then it's not a wise time to be building new muscles which will cost even more calories to maintain.

And bear in mind when in a deficit your body must already use existing protein (both dietary and lean tissue) and bodyfat stores to generate ATP for the cellular respiration needed for your body's metabolism. The metabolic pathway for repairing and building muscle is separate from this process and yes, would require more calories (whether ingested or through catabolism) to do. It chooses the basic function of cellular respiration (ie: life) as opposed to muscle-building as a survival mechanism.

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?

I don't think it's a matter of why it could, but why it would. If you're in a calorie deficit and using up internal stores already, then it's not a wise time to be building new muscles which will cost even more calories to maintain.

And bear in mind when in a deficit your body must already use existing protein (both dietary and lean tissue) and bodyfat stores to generate ATP for the cellular respiration needed for your body's metabolism. The metabolic pathway for repairing and building muscle is separate from this process and yes, would require more calories (whether ingested or through catabolism) to do. It chooses the basic function of cellular respiration (ie: life) as opposed to muscle-building as a survival mechanism.

Stupid body. Why doesn't it know what I want it to do? Just build a bunch of muscles and burn a bunch of fat... I don't see what's so hard about this. :grumble: :laugh:

geebusuk

Posting more to keep track - but I have seen increase in muscle size while eating at an overall deficit and losing weight over a period of time.
However, lots of protein and not always great a deficit - at the time was often eating TDEE or more on weekends, though generally only doing weights in the week while on a deficit.

I'm sure a case of 'noobie gains', too.

oddyogi

OP, have you ever heard of carb back-loading?

It was "invented" by trainer Kiefer over at dangerouslyhardcore.com. He concludes that by manipulating your food and when you eat it, you can burn fat and build muscle at the same time.

Pretty much, you go through a 10-day low carb phase of 30g/day of net carbs. Then, on lifting days, before you lift you stay at ultra low carb. After you lift, you eat stuff to spike your insulin levels, and because you just lifted, it is pretty much impossible for the stuff to go into the fat cells. The muscle cells eat all that crap up because of something called tGLUT which gets activated by lifting, and leave none for the fat cells. When you read through all the crap on carbbackloading.com it sounds like a gimmick, but it actually works.

Sorry I don't remember all of the technical terms. I can't reference any links to studies but he has a crapton of them on his site that I mentioned earlier.

albertabeefy

Stupid body. Why doesn't it know what I want it to do? Just build a bunch of muscles and burn a bunch of fat... I don't see what's so hard about this. :grumble: :laugh:

I know, eh?