"You can't build muscle on a calorie deficit"
Replies
-
Remember that the appearance of muscle definition is not the same as muscle growth / hypertrophy. Increased muscle definition becomes more apparent as we lose bodyfat. Increased muscle size happens as we eat enough calories and experience enough exercise volume. That's why bodybuilders go through a bulk and cutting phase, because you can't do both at the same time.
The scientific LAW of thermodynamics indicates that you can't make something out of nothing.0 -
You actually and physically can't build appreciable muscle on a deficit, just like you can't build fat on a deficit. You have to have materials build IYSWIM.
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't lift weights while in a deficit. Why lift?
1. Weight lifting is exercise, and while people fight and argue about how much it burns (answer-no one knows), it will contribute to your calorie deficit in some manner.
2. While you can't build muscle on a deficit, you can build strength and coordination-two good things to have.
3. While you can't build muscle, you can preserve what you already have, what this means is you have to lose less weight to get to a lower body fat percentage-end result is many people are happier with their bodies.
Have you been measuring your arms? Just because the muscle is more defined doesn't mean it is actually bigger. More likely is that as you have lost weight, you have lost fat which makes it more visible. (ie#3) Either that or you took the picture directly after lifting so it is pumped.
My arms haven't changed much in size since I started. they are less flabby and more muscular. I took this picture today and I have not lifted today.
Can you take a flexed one as well so we can compare?0 -
I've been wondering this myself 'cause I've been eating at a deficit for a year and well yeah...0
-
didn't "build" that muscle. You just maintained it. To actually grow/build/acquire/whatever term you want to use muscle, you have to eat at a SURPLUS. That muscle in your arm was already there you just removed fat that wastifyn'ng it.
When people recommend lifting while eating at a deficit it is to do exactly what you did, albeit in a less drastic method, to preserve the muscle they already have. Everybody has a six pack and ripped biceps underneath their layer of fat. Weight lifting keeps it from disintegrating while we try to lose fat.
I must add, feeling "fine" eating 1200 calories isn't the only indicator. Are you sleepy? Are you irritable? Do you feel fatigued? Can you make it through your workouts? Most importantly, how long have you only been eating 1200? For 2-4 weeks, of course it's fine. You'll lose a lot of water weight. But in the long run, as EVERYONE will tell you, it's not sustainable. You might not feel hungry. But you will feel something that tells you it isn't right.
Since January.
It is definatley not water weight, I have steadily lost 14lbs since I started.
I feel much better now as I use to eat a lot of junk and now I eat healthier foods.
I have ALOT more energy, before i began i use to fall asleep during the day and on the way home from work, now i go for a run or lift weights and get all the house work done.
I have reached my goal weight now and will gradually up my calories.0 -
if you are looking to lift weights and gain muscle mass you really shouldnt be in a deficit.0
-
Remember that the appearance of muscle definition is not the same as muscle growth or hypertrophy. Increased muscle definition becomes more apparent as we lose bodyfat. Increased muscle size happens as we eat enough calories and experience enough exercise volume. That's why bodybuilders go through a bulk and cutting phase, because you can't do both at the same time.
The scientific LAW of thermodynamics indicates that you can't make something out of nothing.
Thermodynamics has nothing to do with this. Noone has suggested that you can add muscle without eating at all. Having a deficit is not equivalent to not eating at all.
My maintenance is probably around 3000 or more, so anything less is a deficit. Let's say I eat 300g of protein (which is used to build muscle), 200g of carbs, and 44g of fat, for a total of 2400 cal/day. Let's also assume that my bodyfat% is about 22%, so there's plenty of fuel available there.
I see no reason why muscle couldn't be produce with moderate lifting, even at much less protein levels, but certainly can't imagine why not at the hypothetical levels indicated above. You'd be building the muscle out of 300g of protein, which far exceeds anyones estimate of what is needed for my size, while using the carbs/fat + bodyfat for energy.
It should go without saying that noone who's primary goal is to add muscle mass should eat at a deficit. But if your goal is to lose bodyfat and weight while maintaining or even slightly increases muscle mass, there's no reason not to lift heavy in a deficit. To the contrary, I think it's a pretty good idea, as long as you take care to get enough protein (would obviously require a higher protein % than at maintenance levels to achieve this).0 -
This is one of many things I have heard on the forums, is there something I'm not getting about this statement, for example maybe you can't get "bulky" lifting weights on a calorie deficit? What does it actually mean. Are you guys litrally suggesting you cant increase muscle while on a calorie defecit and if so are you suggesting there is then no point lifting weights while on a calorie defecit?
Im pretty sure that is muscle in my photo there but it mustn't be because I've been eating at 1200 calories. If I listened to some people on the forums I shouldn't have reached my goal weight either because my body should have "clung" on to all my fat due to "starvation mode"
Also I'm not hear to suggest anyone eats at 1200, it suited me as I was at a healthy BMI to begin with. Im not suggesting its for everyone!
I agree with you for one reason that everyone fails to mention: WE ALL HAVE EXCESS CALORIES, EVERYDAY, AT ALL TIMES. It's called STORED FAT. It gets recruited when we have calorie needs in excess of our calorie intake. Why does no one consider this?0 -
you are not building muscle, you are losing body fat which is making the muscles you have show.
According to bodyrecompisition.com - the obese beginner may say some muscle gain while working out in a deficit but after first four to eight weeks of training there will be no more muscle gains (I am paraphrasing)...
After that, if you actually want to gain muscle you have to eat in a surplus. Calories are energy and your muscles need energy to grow...0 -
I'm not getting any bigger on a deficit that is for sure but people swear I look bigger because they can see muscle definition & that's because I've been lifting since I decided to drop the fat.
I do sometimes see a strength gain here & there depending on how small a deficit I'm running & how long I'm on it but for the most part my strength stays about the same lately.0 -
Guys I'm not trying to claim I know more than you. I'm not trying to claim I am any kind of expert, clearly I am not. I was asking a question about the statement and sharing my experiences.0
-
When people's body parts get "bigger" when they start a lifting program, then it's a normal storage of glycogen and water in the cells.
Everyone has muscle. That's what helps the body move around. To what degree varies from person to person, just as fat storage does from person to person.
Understand that if one is to build muscle, then literally that means adding tissue. To have this happen, then there has to be more surplus since one can't build out of nothing. Body recomposition is possible, but it's not a fast process.
Short story long, you're seeing definition which may indicate to you that you're building muscle. The likelihood of building muscle on a deficit isn't high and really only specific to a degree to some category of people (returning athlete after long layoff, newbie to lifting weights, very overweight/obese person lifting weights).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I think it's difficult and that the progress is not tremendous, but I just can't bring myself to agree with the common belief that it's impossible.
If, for arguments sake, you did not gain any -appreciable- muscle while eating at a prolonged caloric deficit, it might as well be impossible. Although I agree that impossible in any context might be overreaching, the generalized statement would be more accurately reworded as: "You can't build muscle if your body does not have the necessary nutrients and therefore, while on a calorific deficit, you should not lift with the expectation of building muscle, but instead lift for the other benefits [listed above]."
In practice, there is a lot of guesswork happening with any anecdotal accounts of building muscles at a caloric deficit. For example, is the increase in strength due to an increase in lean mass or is it CNS adaptation? Are you getting stronger or just more efficient at performing an exercise? Just getting the proper mechanics of a bench press down can increase the weight pressed but it isn't because of any lean mass gains. Are you actually eating at a deficit? Online calculators are adveraged guesswork at your BMR and calorie expenditure. Did you have excess fat that could be converted into nutrients? And so on.0 -
Remember that the appearance of muscle definition is not the same as muscle growth or hypertrophy. Increased muscle definition becomes more apparent as we lose bodyfat. Increased muscle size happens as we eat enough calories and experience enough exercise volume. That's why bodybuilders go through a bulk and cutting phase, because you can't do both at the same time.
The scientific LAW of thermodynamics indicates that you can't make something out of nothing.
Thermodynamics has nothing to do with this. Noone has suggested that you can add muscle without eating at all. Having a deficit is not equivalent to not eating at all.
My maintenance is probably around 3000 or more, so anything less is a deficit. Let's say I eat 300g of protein (which is used to build muscle), 200g of carbs, and 44g of fat, for a total of 2400 cal/day. Let's also assume that my bodyfat% is about 22%, so there's plenty of fuel available there.
I see no reason why muscle couldn't be produce with moderate lifting, even at much less protein levels, but certainly can't imagine why not at the hypothetical levels indicated above. You'd be building the muscle out of 300g of protein, which far exceeds anyones estimate of what is needed for my size, while using the carbs/fat + bodyfat for energy.
Let's say that a scientific law has nothing to do with this and pretend I don't have a few years experience myself. Why do bodybuilders then go through the trouble of a bulk and cut cycle? Based on what you're saying they could eat low cal with massive amounts of protein to build muscle size.0 -
When people's body parts get "bigger" when they start a lifting program, then it's a normal storage of glycogen and water in the cells.
Everyone has muscle. That's what helps the body move around. To what degree varies from person to person, just as fat storage does from person to person.
Understand that if one is to build muscle, then literally that means adding tissue. To have this happen, then there has to be more surplus since one can't build out of nothing. Body recomposition is possible, but it's not a fast process.
Short story long, you're seeing definition which may indicate to you that you're building muscle. The likelihood of building muscle on a deficit isn't high and really only specific to a degree to some category of people (returning athlete after long layoff, newbie to lifting weights, very overweight/obese person lifting weights).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0 -
I don't like blanket statements, like 'you can't build muscle in a deficit'. Especially when they're that general.
Now, it can be easily granted that it's easier to build muscle without being in a deficit, but I don't think it's impossible.
I've was 278 two months ago and am 244 now. My reps for 225 on the bench press have gone from 3 to 7 during that time. My arms have gotten bigger, also. Now, I guess it's possible that I haven't built any muscle at all and have instead just somehow gotten stronger with the same (or less) muscle and that my arms have added fat or water instead of muscle, but that seems to stretch the limits of credulity a bit far, to me.
I think if one were to add muscle in a deficit, it would require moderate strength training and adequate protein. And I think that any added muscle that you might be lucky enough to produce would be less than would have been produced by the same amount of lifting if you weren't eating at a deficit.
I think it's difficult and that the progress is not tremendous, but I just can't bring myself to agree with the common belief that it's impossible.
Gaining strength isn't always a result of increased muscle. You will have neural adaptation to increased resistance.
Nice weight loss, BTW!
Regarding building muscle on a deficit. Three ways: newbie gains, very obese beginning to lift or previous lifter returning after a long hiatus. All very short term. Building muscle needs energy. At a deficit, there isn't any leftover energy to do so.0 -
Also thank you for the replies.0
-
This is one of many things I have heard on the forums, is there something I'm not getting about this statement, for example maybe you can't get "bulky" lifting weights on a calorie deficit? What does it actually mean. Are you guys litrally suggesting you cant increase muscle while on a calorie defecit and if so are you suggesting there is then no point lifting weights while on a calorie defecit?
Im pretty sure that is muscle in my photo there but it mustn't be because I've been eating at 1200 calories. If I listened to some people on the forums I shouldn't have reached my goal weight either because my body should have "clung" on to all my fat due to "starvation mode"
Also I'm not hear to suggest anyone eats at 1200, it suited me as I was at a healthy BMI to begin with. Im not suggesting its for everyone!
I agree with you for one reason that everyone fails to mention: WE ALL HAVE EXCESS CALORIES, EVERYDAY, AT ALL TIMES. It's called STORED FAT. It gets recruited when we have calorie needs in excess of our calorie intake. Why does no one consider this?
That is assuming that your body considers building muscle a need - it does not.0 -
The point is that fuel is needed to create muscle.
By eating at a deficit, you are exhausting all that fuel just in the process of living, so the body has none left for niceties like building non-essential muscle. Your body's concern is survival, not how good you look on the beach, so it will not expend precious energy on non-essential muscle.
There are three things happening to you -
1. You are losing fat, which is revealing muscle.
2. A small degree of 'newbie gains' which are possible at a deficit.
3. A small degree of water retention in healing muscle. i.e. a 'pump'
Weight loss = body in a catabolic state
Muscle gain = body in an anabolic state
Catabolic and anabolic are opposite. While many professionals believe it is possible to rapidly switch between the two states in order to bulk and cut simultaneously, this is out of reach of most of us who aren't highly trained athletes with a team of trained coaches and nutritionists behind us.
^^good explanation.0 -
Thermodynamics has nothing to do with this. Noone has suggested that you can add muscle without eating at all. Having a deficit is not equivalent to not eating at all.
My maintenance is probably around 3000 or more, so anything less is a deficit. Let's say I eat 300g of protein (which is used to build muscle), 200g of carbs, and 44g of fat, for a total of 2400 cal/day. Let's also assume that my bodyfat% is about 22%, so there's plenty of fuel available there.
Then your definition of maintenance is simply incorrect. Since maintenance should be the amount of calories/nutrients/etc. necessary to MAINTAIN your body in its current form. If there is anything left over, then you are eating above maintenance.
If 3,000 calories is the amount it takes for NO CHANGES TO OCCUR to your body, where are all the "calories" for muscle-building coming from?0 -
This is one of many things I have heard on the forums, is there something I'm not getting about this statement, for example maybe you can't get "bulky" lifting weights on a calorie deficit? What does it actually mean. Are you guys litrally suggesting you cant increase muscle while on a calorie defecit and if so are you suggesting there is then no point lifting weights while on a calorie defecit?
Im pretty sure that is muscle in my photo there but it mustn't be because I've been eating at 1200 calories. If I listened to some people on the forums I shouldn't have reached my goal weight either because my body should have "clung" on to all my fat due to "starvation mode"
Also I'm not hear to suggest anyone eats at 1200, it suited me as I was at a healthy BMI to begin with. Im not suggesting its for everyone!
I agree with you for one reason that everyone fails to mention: WE ALL HAVE EXCESS CALORIES, EVERYDAY, AT ALL TIMES. It's called STORED FAT. It gets recruited when we have calorie needs in excess of our calorie intake. Why does no one consider this?
That is assuming that your body considers building muscle a need - it does not.
And if you have what the body considers excess stores of fat too.0 -
Remember that the appearance of muscle definition is not the same as muscle growth / hypertrophy. Increased muscle definition becomes more apparent as we lose bodyfat. Increased muscle size happens as we eat enough calories and experience enough exercise volume. That's why bodybuilders go through a bulk and cutting phase, because you can't do both at the same time.
The scientific LAW of thermodynamics indicates that you can't make something out of nothing.
You're not accounting for all of your inputs.
Food Calories + Stored Fat Calories works just as well as only Food Calories, provided you have enough fat.0 -
From my experience..I have learned that you need a good amount of protein/high carbs/healthy amount of fats in order to build muscle.
If you want to lose fat, then you need to create a calorie deficit. I have been bulking for 1 week now and I love the way I feel.
Everyone is different. Alot of people on here are "Know-it-all" when in reality, you're the only one who really understands your own body. Not some website that tells you how much you should and shouldn't eat.
Just my opinion.0 -
Remember that the appearance of muscle definition is not the same as muscle growth / hypertrophy. Increased muscle definition becomes more apparent as we lose bodyfat. Increased muscle size happens as we eat enough calories and experience enough exercise volume. That's why bodybuilders go through a bulk and cutting phase, because you can't do both at the same time.
The scientific LAW of thermodynamics indicates that you can't make something out of nothing.
You're not accounting for all of your inputs.
Food Calories + Stored Fat Calories works just as well as only Food Calories, provided you have enough fat.
If you're relying on stored fat calories to supply the difference, the end result is that whatever lean mass you do build is likely to be negligible. It's not "impossible". But it's certainly not practical.0 -
Remember that the appearance of muscle definition is not the same as muscle growth / hypertrophy. Increased muscle definition becomes more apparent as we lose bodyfat. Increased muscle size happens as we eat enough calories and experience enough exercise volume. That's why bodybuilders go through a bulk and cutting phase, because you can't do both at the same time.
The scientific LAW of thermodynamics indicates that you can't make something out of nothing.
You're not accounting for all of your inputs.
Food Calories + Stored Fat Calories works just as well as only Food Calories, provided you have enough fat.
If you're relying on stored fat calories to supply the difference, the end result is that whatever lean mass you do build is likely to be negligible. It's not "impossible". But it's certainly not practical.
When you;re over 300 lbs, it's practical. Definitely seeing diminishing returns on that though.0 -
From my experience..I have learned that you need a good amount of protein/high carbs/healthy amount of fats in order to build muscle.
If you want to lose fat, then you need to create a calorie deficit. I have been bulking for 1 week now and I love the way I feel.
Everyone is different. Alot of people on here are "Know-it-all" when in reality, you're the only one who really understands your own body. Not some website that tells you how much you should and shouldn't eat.
Just my opinion.
Thank you0 -
I think it's difficult and that the progress is not tremendous, but I just can't bring myself to agree with the common belief that it's impossible.
If, for arguments sake, you did not gain any -appreciable- muscle while eating at a prolonged caloric deficit, it might as well be impossible. Although I agree that impossible in any context might be overreaching, the generalized statement would be more accurately reworded as: "You can't build muscle if your body does not have the necessary nutrients and therefore, while on a calorific deficit, you should not lift with the expectation of building muscle, but instead lift for the other benefits [listed above]."
In practice, there is a lot of guesswork happening with any anecdotal accounts of building muscles at a caloric deficit. For example, is the increase in strength due to an increase in lean mass or is it CNS adaptation? Are you getting stronger or just more efficient at performing an exercise? Just getting the proper mechanics of a bench press down can increase the weight pressed but it isn't because of any lean mass gains. Are you actually eating at a deficit? Online calculators are adveraged guesswork at your BMR and calorie expenditure. Did you have excess fat that could be converted into nutrients? And so on.
I consider going from 3 to 7 reps at 225 in 6 or 7 weeks progress, but not tremendous progress. But I don't think it can be viewed as negligible, could it? I've been much stronger and much weaker at times over the years and it sure seems like I'm building (small amounts) of muscle here.
You raise good questions and I'm honestly interested in this from a logical viewpoint. Will answer some of your questions from my perspective, just to possibly help the discussion along. I've been bench pressing on and off for about 30 years, so my technique isn't likely changing any with the paltry amount I've done in the last couple months. Seems like I'd HAVE to have been eating at a deficit to lose 33 lbs in two months, wouldn't I? Now, clearly I have excess bodyfat - that's why I'm eating at a deficit and trying to lose weight in the first place. There's no question it's been used for nutrients over the last few months - lost fat has to explain the vast majority of my weight loss, I'd think.
It's an interesting discussion. I can see why an accomplished body builder might HAVE to lose mass during a deficit - it'd be hard to maintain his peak level of lifting in a deficit.
My goal is really just to maintain as much muscle mass as possible by lifting moderate and increasing protein % while in a deficit. I can imagine arriving at my goal of 220 and being able to rep 225 up to 10-12 times, rather than the 3 times when I started. Is just hard for me to imagine that change wouldn't be the result of having more muscle, but I suppose it's possible.0 -
Remember that the appearance of muscle definition is not the same as muscle growth / hypertrophy. Increased muscle definition becomes more apparent as we lose bodyfat. Increased muscle size happens as we eat enough calories and experience enough exercise volume. That's why bodybuilders go through a bulk and cutting phase, because you can't do both at the same time.
The scientific LAW of thermodynamics indicates that you can't make something out of nothing.
You're not accounting for all of your inputs.
Food Calories + Stored Fat Calories works just as well as only Food Calories, provided you have enough fat.
If you're relying on stored fat calories to supply the difference, the end result is that whatever lean mass you do build is likely to be negligible. It's not "impossible". But it's certainly not practical.
When you;re over 300 lbs, it's practical. Definitely seeing diminishing returns on that though.
For discussions sake, how much lean mass did you put on and over what time period? How was it measured?
It's not practical in the sense that if you were to ask how you build muscle, the response is NOT "lift heavy while eating fewer calories than your body needs."1 -
I eat at a deficit and lift. My question is this then. I have not lost more the 5 pounds in the last few months but have lost inches all over my body. I am not a newbi. I have been lifting since I started MFP over a year ago. I have lost over a 100 pounds. So what happen? I thought I had gained muscle but after reading all the post about this topic I am still confused.
Did I not gain muscle since the scale didnt budge and I lost inches?
Most likely you are experiencing more nutrients/water (glycogen) being shuttled to those muscles, in addition to more nutrients being shuttled to the connective tissues (ligaments, tendons, etc..) This will make them swell a little. If your deficit is "small" you may have entered an anabolic state every once in a while (although it would have been very sporadic at best).which "could" have spurred very minor actual new muscle tissue. Again, it depends on how big your deficit is, how much protein and aminos you are consuming, and a host of other factors that may have "aligned" for you....
Your "newbie" gains, which is the period the body has to acclimate to the new stresses put on it, should be long over if you've done it for a year, so I wouldn't attrib any of it to that.
The reason you are losing inches is a pure volume thing. More nutrients/water stored in the muscles, and more nutrients in your connectors, will be much denser than the fat around your body by volume. Couple that with your natural water weight, hormonal, and cyclic weight changes, and I can easily see where you could be 5lbs lighter and it not be 5lbs of muscle (because it probably isn't).
ETA: Also realize, 5lbs of fat is alot of space. Especially on an already relatively lean body!0 -
I don't like blanket statements, like 'you can't build muscle in a deficit'. Especially when they're that general.
Now, it can be easily granted that it's easier to build muscle without being in a deficit, but I don't think it's impossible.
I've was 278 two months ago and am 244 now. My reps for 225 on the bench press have gone from 3 to 7 during that time. My arms have gotten bigger, also. Now, I guess it's possible that I haven't built any muscle at all and have instead just somehow gotten stronger with the same (or less) muscle and that my arms have added fat or water instead of muscle, but that seems to stretch the limits of credulity a bit far, to me.
I think if one were to add muscle in a deficit, it would require moderate strength training and adequate protein. And I think that any added muscle that you might be lucky enough to produce would be less than would have been produced by the same amount of lifting if you weren't eating at a deficit.
I think it's difficult and that the progress is not tremendous, but I just can't bring myself to agree with the common belief that it's impossible.
Gaining strength isn't always a result of increased muscle. You will have neural adaptation to increased resistance.
Nice weight loss, BTW!
Regarding building muscle on a deficit. Three ways: newbie gains, very obese beginning to lift or previous lifter returning after a long hiatus. All very short term. Building muscle needs energy. At a deficit, there isn't any leftover energy to do so.
Thanks for the kind words. If mine isn't from new muscle, it'd fall into the very obese (I guess. I was probably 28% BF initially and maybe 22-23%ish now) and a previous lifter returning after a hiatus.0 -
You can build muscle on a deficit. But it's a slow process. Perhaps that is why people think that it is not possible. Building muscle is part of your body's natural reaction to increased demand on the muscles. The muscle is an organ, and the body will protect its organs above all else. The body doesn't deny the muscle unless the calorie deficit is too severe that the energy is required to sustain other important organs.
I agree with this. And the reason is because I've seen it happen to myself. It's an extremely slow process, though. So I don't rely on it. I'd rather bulk and cut...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