"You can't build muscle on a calorie deficit"
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
I'm just waiting for someone to actually define "deficit"...0
-
Pretty good read up talking about a study done showing fat loss and muscle gain. http://muscleevo.net/calorie-deficit/#.UlwcDFBmWXs0
-
All I know with me, I feel fine eating 1100-1300 calories a day, I jog 4 miles every other day and in between I walk 8 miles , do pushups & ab work... I cant say that I'm building muscle but I am definitely getting more toned and stronger in that I'm doing more pushups then when I first started...0
-
I suggest research.0
-
Pretty good read up talking about a study done showing fat loss and muscle gain. http://muscleevo.net/calorie-deficit/#.UlwcDFBmWXs
The article writer is confusing "Fat Free Mass" with muscle.0 -
Some people can build muscle while on a deficit. Those who are new to lifting might build a small amount. For the most part we lift while dieting to preserve muscle and gain strength.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/weight-training-for-fat-loss-part-1.html
And as for 1200, why would anyone want to eat that low? If I can lose weight eating 2000 calories, you bet I'm going to eat 2000 calories, not 1200.
... because not everyone can eat 2000 cals/day and lose. If you can, that's great, but I can't.0 -
Is building strength and building muscle very different?
In terms of a calorie deficit, if protein is ahead and carbs are behind leaving a deficit, is that still a constraint towards building strength and muscle?
I believe they are different. You can build strength in a deficit, up to a point. I do not believe you can build muscle in a deficit. Building muscle means adding mass to your body. You can only add mass by eating more than you burn. Unless there is some process I am unaware of, I do not know how it is possible to add mass to your body by eating in a deficit.
No, adding mass to the body means adding mass to the body. Building muscle means adding more muscle.
And you still haven't defined "deficit".
Is it not possible for an atrophied muscle on an obese person to grow after a limb has been immobilized, even while the patient loss weight?
Is it not possible for an overweight person to undertake a program resulting in higher muscle mass than at the start, but lower overall body mass? Because by definition, this means the energy balance was in a "deficit" for the duration of the program, which seems to refute your irrefutable.
Basically you are confused about practical advice and fitness culture norms vs. actual science. Next you'll tell me gravity is a force of attraction between two bodies in space, and irrefutably so.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Is building strength and building muscle very different?
In terms of a calorie deficit, if protein is ahead and carbs are behind leaving a deficit, is that still a constraint towards building strength and muscle?
I believe they are different. You can build strength in a deficit, up to a point. I do not believe you can build muscle in a deficit. Building muscle means adding mass to your body. You can only add mass by eating more than you burn. Unless there is some process I am unaware of, I do not know how it is possible to add mass to your body by eating in a deficit.
No, adding mass to the body means adding mass to the body. Building muscle means adding more muscle.
And you still haven't defined "deficit".
Is it not possible for an atrophied muscle on an obese person to grow after a limb has been immobilized, even while the patient loss weight?
Is it not possible for an overweight person to undertake a program resulting in higher muscle mass than at the start, but lower overall body mass? Because by definition, this means the energy balance was in a "deficit" for the duration of the program, which seems to refute your irrefutable.
Basically you are confused about practical advice and fitness culture norms vs. actual science. Next you'll tell me gravity is a force of attraction between two bodies in space, and irrefutably so.
You're one of "those" people. I'm done.
I prefer to think of myself as one of those "people".0 -
Apologies if this was already posted:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571
http://brage.bibsys.no/nih/bitstream/URN:NBN:no-bibsys_brage_17906/1/Garthe IntJSportNutrExercMetabol 2011.pdf
^ Example of lean mass increases during caloric restriction. Note that while the subjects were apparently "athletic" their stats would indicate they are quite far from any genetic potential which would make these results not seem out of the ordinary.0 -
Pretty good read up talking about a study done showing fat loss and muscle gain. http://muscleevo.net/calorie-deficit/#.UlwcDFBmWXs
The article writer is confusing "Fat Free Mass" with muscle.
Certainly attributing it entirely to muscle is a mistake as there's a difference between FFM and LBM and skeletal muscle, but at the same time don't you think it's reasonable that if a population begins a resistance training program and shows a marked increase in fat free mass or an increase in lean body mass, that it's reasonable to conclude that they are gaining muscle?0 -
Apologies if this was already posted:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571
http://brage.bibsys.no/nih/bitstream/URN:NBN:no-bibsys_brage_17906/1/Garthe IntJSportNutrExercMetabol 2011.pdf
^ Example of lean mass increases during caloric restriction. Note that while the subjects were apparently "athletic" their stats would indicate they are quite far from any genetic potential which would make these results not seem out of the ordinary.
I also think an important part of the athletic aspect of it actually speaks to this increase of LBM NOT being just glucose stores because they started working out for the first time. Because that's the other followup to saying what the LBM must have been, and very valid point many times too.
Even overweight cardio only folks probably have increased their glucose stores for the biggest % gain they'll get, after that it's specific training to get more. But in this case their training was strength, so unlikely.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet
It was noted in the topic postings there, it was probably their upper body improvement, which actually speaks better, the smaller upper body muscles had that much improvement - while in a deficit.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Apologies if this was already posted:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571
http://brage.bibsys.no/nih/bitstream/URN:NBN:no-bibsys_brage_17906/1/Garthe IntJSportNutrExercMetabol 2011.pdf
^ Example of lean mass increases during caloric restriction. Note that while the subjects were apparently "athletic" their stats would indicate they are quite far from any genetic potential which would make these results not seem out of the ordinary.
I also think an important part of the athletic aspect of it actually speaks to this increase of LBM NOT being just glucose stores because they started working out for the first time. Because that's the other followup to saying what the LBM must have been, and very valid point many times too.
Even overweight cardio only folks probably have increased their glucose stores for the biggest % gain they'll get, after that it's specific training to get more. But in this case their training was strength, so unlikely.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet
It was noted in the topic postings there, it was probably their upper body improvement, which actually speaks better, the smaller upper body muscles had that much improvement - while in a deficit.
I think what is often missed is that if you provide a different stimulus, particularly to a possibly 'undertrained' muscle group, 'newbie' gains can be achieved even in athletes. They were athletes predominantly in fields that were 'leg heavy'. Unfortunately, the full text does not give the individual breakdown (although the small sub category sample would be severely limiting in any event) but the women that made more gains than the men. Also, the gain was pretty small on average 1kg with a SD of 0.2. There is also the possibility of some of the increase being from non-muscle gains particularly due to the fact that they were undertaking compound lifts. It would be interesting to see what their prior training was. Just because someone is an athlete, it does not necessarily mean that they undertake significant full body progressively loaded strength training.
There are studies that show significant gains on a deficit however in untrained males. One of them is linked in the article quoted a few posts above (the muscle evo one). And the average gain was 4kg - too much to assume glycogen/water. Plus this was the average and there were some of the study subjects who gained significantly more (and some less).
I seem to recall that there was one also that had police officers as test subjects, but I could be mis-remembering as I cannot put my hand to it at the moment.0 -
I seem to recall that there was one also that had police officers as test subjects, but I could be mis-remembering as I cannot put my hand to it at the moment.
I recall one with firemen because it was so easy to control the majority of their diet. I remember thinking while reading it, how heavy are they lifting, because while they may have the off-time between calls to workout, could they go out weak to a call, or really sore the next day on a response?
Like you mentioned on "athletes", perhaps that is athlete compared to the researcher's normal obese study participants.
So also strength training may be very easy maintenance level stuff so as not to be sore and tired.0 -
...don't you think it's reasonable that if a population begins a resistance training program and shows a marked increase in fat free mass or an increase in lean body mass, that it's reasonable to conclude that they are gaining muscle?
I'm not in the "impossible" camp, so I certainly accept it as a possibility.
My problem with this discussion is that it is so poorly framed we're ending up with a lot of folks talking past each other. And this is obscuring the (likely) fact that all sides in this discussion actually accept that caloric deficit does not prevent muscle gain.
I make that claim because I doubt anybody is going to deny that you can build muscle eating at a small surplus for six months, and then retain that muscle while eating at a slightly larger deficit for the next six months - presto, net deficit AND net muscle gain. Since (likely) everybody is going to accept there exists some timeframe across which a deficit won't prevent muscle gain, the real point of contention then, it seems to me, is how fast can a typical human body cycle between deficit and surplus and still retain the ability to add muscle mass?
Can a bulk/cut cycle be reduced to, say, 72 hour periodicity? Are there studies that try to determine this, or are we limited to the "best practices" coming from the bodybuilding community? What about the crazy up-down rapid fire calorie cycling from the Leangains crew - is there verifiable, repeatable goodness coming from that super-quick deficit/surplus flip-flopping?
Phrased another way - how long a time do you need to eat at surplus for to gain muscle? If I do a hard lifting workout, and then pack all my daily calories into a tight post-workout window, will I build muscle during the next 8 hours or so while my body believes it is in caloric surplus?
How far can we push this?0 -
I seem to recall that there was one also that had police officers as test subjects, but I could be mis-remembering as I cannot put my hand to it at the moment.
I recall one with firemen because it was so easy to control the majority of their diet. I remember thinking while reading it, how heavy are they lifting, because while they may have the off-time between calls to workout, could they go out weak to a call, or really sore the next day on a response?
Like you mentioned on "athletes", perhaps that is athlete compared to the researcher's normal obese study participants.
So also strength training may be very easy maintenance level stuff so as not to be sore and tired.
Based on everything I have see there are so many factors that impact whether an individual can gain muscle on a deficit that you cannot talk in absolutes. No study can look at all of the factors, which is why there is so much variation in the results. What I do believe is true, based on the myriad of studies out there, is that in some situations, some people can definitely gain muscle on a deficit. The extent to which is dependent on a number of factors, including leanness, size of deficit, gender, prior training, current training routine, macro mix, genetics, age etc etc. Based on the evidence, saying 'you can never gain muscle on a deficit' is just not supported. I also think that you cannot even say that athletic people can never gain muscle on a deficit as it still depends on the factors I mentioned.
It is a bit of an academic discussion. What studies do show is that engaging in a good strength training routine, not having too large of a deficit (which is also context dependent) and getting enough protein will mitigate the risk, either in part or in the whole, of losing muscle while dieting. So at the end of the day, this is what needs to be focused on imo, as the rest is conjecture and you are doing all you can do to maintain or even gain in some situations, muscle mass (as well as improving bone density etc).0 -
...don't you think it's reasonable that if a population begins a resistance training program and shows a marked increase in fat free mass or an increase in lean body mass, that it's reasonable to conclude that they are gaining muscle?
I'm not in the "impossible" camp, so I certainly accept it as a possibility.
My problem with this discussion is that it is so poorly framed we're ending up with a lot of folks talking past each other. And this is obscuring the (likely) fact that all sides in this discussion actually accept that caloric deficit does not prevent muscle gain.
I make that claim because I doubt anybody is going to deny that you can build muscle eating at a small surplus for six months, and then retain that muscle while eating at a slightly larger deficit for the next six months - presto, net deficit AND net muscle gain. Since (likely) everybody is going to accept there exists some timeframe across which a deficit won't prevent muscle gain, the real point of contention then, it seems to me, is how fast can a typical human body cycle between deficit and surplus and still retain the ability to add muscle mass?
Can a bulk/cut cycle be reduced to, say, 72 hour periodicity? Are there studies that try to determine this, or are we limited to the "best practices" coming from the bodybuilding community? What about the crazy up-down rapid fire calorie cycling from the Leangains crew - is there verifiable, repeatable goodness coming from that super-quick deficit/surplus flip-flopping?
Phrased another way - how long a time do you need to eat at surplus for to gain muscle? If I do a hard lifting workout, and then pack all my daily calories into a tight post-workout window, will I build muscle during the next 8 hours or so while my body believes it is in caloric surplus?
How far can we push this?
No studies are cited as its a podcast, but this guy's blogs and podcasts are solid science based ones. He discusses the concept of calorie cycling in it (or body recomp). You may find it interesting just for a listen. Nothing new really, he just explains it well imo: http://impruvism.com/body-recomposition-podcast/
The study that you made the comment on was on untrained overweight individuals, some of who gained a lot of LBM (and who were not calorie cycling) - far too much to be non-muscle mass.0 -
I like this thread. It's one of the more sensible discussions on here and I understand a lot of the arguements. Been here for just over four months and it was primarily to loose weight. I lost pretty much what I want to now and am now looking at 'muscle' (in a very generic way).
This thread will help me decide on the best way to go, so thanks to all who posted.0 -
...don't you think it's reasonable that if a population begins a resistance training program and shows a marked increase in fat free mass or an increase in lean body mass, that it's reasonable to conclude that they are gaining muscle?
I'm not in the "impossible" camp, so I certainly accept it as a possibility.
My problem with this discussion is that it is so poorly framed we're ending up with a lot of folks talking past each other. And this is obscuring the (likely) fact that all sides in this discussion actually accept that caloric deficit does not prevent muscle gain.
I make that claim because I doubt anybody is going to deny that you can build muscle eating at a small surplus for six months, and then retain that muscle while eating at a slightly larger deficit for the next six months - presto, net deficit AND net muscle gain. Since (likely) everybody is going to accept there exists some timeframe across which a deficit won't prevent muscle gain, the real point of contention then, it seems to me, is how fast can a typical human body cycle between deficit and surplus and still retain the ability to add muscle mass?
Can a bulk/cut cycle be reduced to, say, 72 hour periodicity? Are there studies that try to determine this, or are we limited to the "best practices" coming from the bodybuilding community? What about the crazy up-down rapid fire calorie cycling from the Leangains crew - is there verifiable, repeatable goodness coming from that super-quick deficit/surplus flip-flopping?
Phrased another way - how long a time do you need to eat at surplus for to gain muscle? If I do a hard lifting workout, and then pack all my daily calories into a tight post-workout window, will I build muscle during the next 8 hours or so while my body believes it is in caloric surplus?
How far can we push this?
Exactly
It would be extremely useful for me to know because I already know the standard bulk/cut doesn't work for me. I put on fat incredibly fast, for one, and since I'm living out of suitcases most of the time I can't be going around with two sets of pants. So I'd like to maximize my gains within those constraints. Even a month of bulking tends to send my waist size soaring, and suddenly my pants don't freaking fit. Not good.0 -
I like this thread. It's one of the more sensible discussions on here and I understand a lot of the arguements. Been here for just over four months and it was primarily to loose weight. I lost pretty much what I want to now and am now looking at 'muscle' (in a very generic way).
This thread will help me decide on the best way to go, so thanks to all who posted.
I think Sarauk2sf said it best.
Imho, go on and shoot for muscle gain. Forget you ever heard that it's hard or controversial. Then you know you are keeping the muscle you have, at least. And never underestimate newb gains. You never know till you try.
I would never suggest not bulking if that's your plan, but if you've never seen your newb gains you might be surprised at just going for it on maintenance. I don't think it would take long before you see results (or not!).
I get good results in a small deficit; I really do (I've never tried a large deficit). I assume I've got newb gains on my side, and that's fine with me
0 -
...don't you think it's reasonable that if a population begins a resistance training program and shows a marked increase in fat free mass or an increase in lean body mass, that it's reasonable to conclude that they are gaining muscle?
I'm not in the "impossible" camp, so I certainly accept it as a possibility.
My problem with this discussion is that it is so poorly framed we're ending up with a lot of folks talking past each other. And this is obscuring the (likely) fact that all sides in this discussion actually accept that caloric deficit does not prevent muscle gain.
I make that claim because I doubt anybody is going to deny that you can build muscle eating at a small surplus for six months, and then retain that muscle while eating at a slightly larger deficit for the next six months - presto, net deficit AND net muscle gain. Since (likely) everybody is going to accept there exists some timeframe across which a deficit won't prevent muscle gain, the real point of contention then, it seems to me, is how fast can a typical human body cycle between deficit and surplus and still retain the ability to add muscle mass?
Can a bulk/cut cycle be reduced to, say, 72 hour periodicity? Are there studies that try to determine this, or are we limited to the "best practices" coming from the bodybuilding community? What about the crazy up-down rapid fire calorie cycling from the Leangains crew - is there verifiable, repeatable goodness coming from that super-quick deficit/surplus flip-flopping?
Phrased another way - how long a time do you need to eat at surplus for to gain muscle? If I do a hard lifting workout, and then pack all my daily calories into a tight post-workout window, will I build muscle during the next 8 hours or so while my body believes it is in caloric surplus?
How far can we push this?
This is my question also. Not to get nitpicky but I think the LBM increase is still happening in the surplus then maintained in the deficit even on the daily cycle that has net deficit.0 -
...don't you think it's reasonable that if a population begins a resistance training program and shows a marked increase in fat free mass or an increase in lean body mass, that it's reasonable to conclude that they are gaining muscle?
I'm not in the "impossible" camp, so I certainly accept it as a possibility.
My problem with this discussion is that it is so poorly framed we're ending up with a lot of folks talking past each other. And this is obscuring the (likely) fact that all sides in this discussion actually accept that caloric deficit does not prevent muscle gain.
I make that claim because I doubt anybody is going to deny that you can build muscle eating at a small surplus for six months, and then retain that muscle while eating at a slightly larger deficit for the next six months - presto, net deficit AND net muscle gain. Since (likely) everybody is going to accept there exists some timeframe across which a deficit won't prevent muscle gain, the real point of contention then, it seems to me, is how fast can a typical human body cycle between deficit and surplus and still retain the ability to add muscle mass?
Can a bulk/cut cycle be reduced to, say, 72 hour periodicity? Are there studies that try to determine this, or are we limited to the "best practices" coming from the bodybuilding community? What about the crazy up-down rapid fire calorie cycling from the Leangains crew - is there verifiable, repeatable goodness coming from that super-quick deficit/surplus flip-flopping?
Phrased another way - how long a time do you need to eat at surplus for to gain muscle? If I do a hard lifting workout, and then pack all my daily calories into a tight post-workout window, will I build muscle during the next 8 hours or so while my body believes it is in caloric surplus?
How far can we push this?
This is my question also. Not to get nitpicky but I think the LBM increase is still happening in the surplus then maintained in the deficit even on the daily cycle that has net deficit.
But that's exactly the point. We don't define "in a deficit" very well, and people wind up unable to communicate.0 -
Gaining strength isn't always a result of increased muscle. You will have neural adaptation to increased resistance.
I was just going to ask this! I think this answer's a little over my head though. I get the whole not actually adding muscle if you're eating in deficient (which I am), but I am able to lift more than I was at the beginning. Is there a difference between getting stronger and adding muscle?
Thanks to everyone for sharing your smarts! A really interesting read.0 -
Gaining strength isn't always a result of increased muscle. You will have neural adaptation to increased resistance.
I was just going to ask this! I think this answer's a little over my head though. I get the whole not actually adding muscle if you're eating in deficient (which I am), but I am able to lift more than I was at the beginning. Is there a difference between getting stronger and adding muscle?
Thanks to everyone for sharing your smarts! A really interesting read.
Getting stronger is really about neurological adaptations - basically, your brain 'talking' to you muscles better/more efficiently. There is some overlap however, as at some point you need more muscle for your brain to talk to.
Also, you need your ligaments and tendons etc to be strong enough to lift more, which is not related to adding muscle.0 -
Gaining strength isn't always a result of increased muscle. You will have neural adaptation to increased resistance.
I was just going to ask this! I think this answer's a little over my head though. I get the whole not actually adding muscle if you're eating in deficient (which I am), but I am able to lift more than I was at the beginning. Is there a difference between getting stronger and adding muscle?
Thanks to everyone for sharing your smarts! A really interesting read.
Getting stronger is really about neurological adaptations - basically, your brain 'talking' to you muscles better/more efficiently. There is some overlap however, as at some point you need more muscle for your brain to talk to.
Also, you need your ligaments and tendons etc to be strong enough to lift more, which is not related to adding muscle.
It's all of the above, not just muscle or just neurological. Limitations in any department are definitive0 -
nevermind.0
-
yes0
-
Gaining strength isn't always a result of increased muscle. You will have neural adaptation to increased resistance.
I was just going to ask this! I think this answer's a little over my head though. I get the whole not actually adding muscle if you're eating in deficient (which I am), but I am able to lift more than I was at the beginning. Is there a difference between getting stronger and adding muscle?
Thanks to everyone for sharing your smarts! A really interesting read.
Getting stronger is really about neurological adaptations - basically, your brain 'talking' to you muscles better/more efficiently. There is some overlap however, as at some point you need more muscle for your brain to talk to.
Also, you need your ligaments and tendons etc to be strong enough to lift more, which is not related to adding muscle.
It's all of the above, not just muscle or just neurological. Limitations in any department are definitive
Are you agreeing or disagreeing? Not sure based on your response.0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 424 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