"You can't build muscle on a calorie deficit"

pcastagner

...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.

cafeaulait7

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

mustgetmuscles1

...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.

pcastagner

...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.

aaasky

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.

Sarauk2sf

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.

pcastagner

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

FrnkLft

nevermind.

hedgiie

yes

Sarauk2sf

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.

pcastagner

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.

Disagreeing but only a bit. Muscle mass is definitely a limiting factor in absolute strength.

Sarauk2sf

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.

Disagreeing but only a bit. Muscle mass is definitely a limiting factor in absolute strength.

I did say that - which is why I was confused.

moxiept

Keeping these links to read later.

petermad123

To maintain your strength
Lets say you don't lift while cutting weight
Chances are once you do loose the weight
you will also loose strength.

iballin

Actually an obese person in a deficit can definitely build muscle , because a deficit to maintain a bunch of fat is different then a deficit to maintain muscle which people never understand, you take a an obese person with minimal muscle and 100 pounds of fat, and say it takes 4000 calories to maintain that fat, well it might take 2500 calories to build muscle on his frame under that fat, and still oxidize fat, my obese friend lost 110 pounds and gained a ton of muscle in the process and the excuse oh it was just hidden is not viable here, he ended up at 10 percent body fat at 180 pounds 5 foot 8 , so yes you can build muscle in a deficit if your largely over weight with minimal muscle, to say an obese guy to build muscle has to eat the 4000 calories hes used to in order to create protein synthesis is just flat out wrong. now for a bodybuilder whos looking to add more muscle yes he has to be in a surplus but for someone just starting out and overweight theres a muscle maintenance and a fat maintenance

ninerbuff

Actually an obese person in a deficit can definitely build muscle , because a deficit to maintain a bunch of fat is different then a deficit to maintain muscle which people never understand, you take a an obese person with minimal muscle and 100 pounds of fat, and say it takes 4000 calories to maintain that fat, well it might take 2500 calories to build muscle on his frame under that fat, and still oxidize fat, my obese friend lost 110 pounds and gained a ton of muscle in the process and the excuse oh it was just hidden is not viable here, he ended up at 10 percent body fat at 180 pounds 5 foot 8 , so yes you can build muscle in a deficit if your largely over weight with minimal muscle, to say an obese guy to build muscle has to eat the 4000 calories hes used to in order to create protein synthesis is just flat out wrong. now for a bodybuilder whos looking to add more muscle yes he has to be in a surplus but for someone just starting out and overweight theres a muscle maintenance and a fat maintenance

There are exceptions to the main rule and your friend is one of them. The other 2 would be:
A person who's NEVER weight trained consistently
A returning athlete after a long layoff

Other than those, the general population would need a surplus to build new muscle tissue.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

pavrg

It's moreso that the 'rule' is only applicable to people who are already relatively lean, which is what information on the subject is geared to.

In 2013 America, that's a small minority.

happyrelation

Young adults are already in a category that lose weight a lot faster than say someone who is 45.
I am 40 and found P90X and Insanity worked well..very well. Bill Phillips Body for Life worked very well years ago.
And I wanted something that was easier on my body, didn't take as much time, and I didn't have to think about what my next meal was going to be.
I researched and found two that my full criteria. I know there are more out there...
First I found one that is great for men and women at http://buildthemuscle.net.
And the one I decided to do because it has a great support system of women doing the program and finished the program, just for women, and simply laid out and guaranteed and I found it at http://inshapenow.net.
I'm losing on average 1 1/2 pounds a week.
I think one of the keys to success is setting yourself up for success. Find a plan that is realistic to your lifestyle so you aren't cheating or angry at yourself for missing a workout or a meal.

To your lifestyle change!

Kimsoontobe

Bump

obrientp

In for reading later. This is great stuff.