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

rainbowbow

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.

Most definitely possible. Matter of fact according to a dexa scan from when i first started to about three months ago i have LOST lean muscle mass (and a ton of fat of course) and i lift SIGNIFICANTLY heavier and am SIGNIFICANTLY stronger than when i started. I couldn't even curl 10lb dumbbells when i started. Now i curl 25lb dumbbells and i have 3 lbs less LBM.


I of course, ate at a deficit, consumed adequate protein to maintain as much muscle as possible, and lifted heavy. I did LOSE muscle (as i was in a deficit) but considering i lost about 26 pounds about 23 pounds of that were fat.


Now the muscle mass i already had, and preserved, is no longer atrophied, constantly pumped with water and glycogen, and my strength has increased.


But i can assure you i did not gain new/more muscle fiber.

Joocey

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.

In hindsight, I would reword it again to "You can't build muscle if there are fewer nutrients/calories available than is necessary to do so" Which is both logically and scientifically sound, as well as blindingly obvious.

That you are stronger/weaker over the years suggests there is a lot else going on other than some linear non-negligible increase in lean mass simultaneous with a linear decrease in bodyfat. Anyway, a lot is happening. An increase in reps is progress, but you can't say conclusively that it was the result of an increase in lean mass. The more you do something the better you get at it. That also applies, initially, to lifting weights. And a lot of other factors go into how much you can lift on any specific day, such as your energy levels, or recovery ability, etc. And yes, to some extent, your body is cannibalizing fat for calories.

Anyway, this has sort of gotten off track!

sullus

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."

Based on calculations and body fat measurements done with my trainer, over the last 16 months I have put on appx 10 lbs of lean mass while losing 80 lbs overall.

It was measured with pincers and math. And an ultrasound and different math.

I fully get that "lean mass" is not solely muscle. I also get that for a lean person, athlete, or weightlifter, that this is simply not possible.

But keep in mind, a person 100 lbs overweight is carrying around a 350,000 calorie surplus - at all times. Those are no less valid than food as an energy source.

Pepper2185

I'm here to read the replies because I wonder about this, too!

iwillbetinytea

So far on this site I've been told that I can't eat 1200kcal as I won't be able to lose weight. Wrong. That when I stop eating 1200kcal I'll gain weight. Wrong. That my body will cling onto fat. Wrong. Now people are saying that this woman has lost fat because she's eating 1200kcal...isn't that contradictory to 'the body clings onto fat' theory? Can't people just accept the fact that the OP may have just gained muscle?!

Joocey

Based on calculations and body fat measurements done with my trainer, over the last 16 months I have put on appx 10 lbs of lean mass while losing 80 lbs overall.

It was measured with pincers and math. And an ultrasound and different math.

I fully get that "lean mass" is not solely muscle. I also get that for a lean person, athlete, or weightlifter, that this is simply not possible.

But keep in mind, a person 100 lbs overweight is carrying around a 350,000 calorie surplus - at all times. Those are no less valid than food as an energy source.

Well, if you had an ultrasound done then I'll defer to you. When were the dates of the two ultrasound measurements? And what was the weight/composition difference in between the two ultrasounds?

I only ask to clarify if you were actually gaining lean mass during a caloric deficit or, an alternative possibility, the two occurred into distinct phases. In other words, there were times during the 16 months when you WEREN'T losing fat but instead was gaining lean mass... whereas there were more times during the 16 months where you were losing fat but WEREN'T gaining lean mass.

Sarauk2sf

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.

Strength gains =/= sarcoplasmic hypertorphy. Strength gains are neuromuscular adaptations and not due to muscle mass gains.

However, whether you can or cannot gain on a deficit is a bit of a moot point imo. Strength training while in a deficit will help at least maintain LBM, increase strength, improve bone density and give a slew of other benefits.

Joocey

So far on this site I've been told that I can't eat 1200kcal as I won't be able to lose weight. Wrong.

Who said this?

That when I stop eating 1200kcal I'll gain weight. Wrong.

This is probably not wrong, but it depends on how much you're eating and what you're doing. Simple math will show that it's possible to be a correct statement and account for your personal experience.

If your BMR is 1500: You can eat at 1200 and lose weight, and then stop eating at 1200 and instead eat 1500 without gaining weight.

Can't people just accept the fact that the OP may have just gained muscle?!

It's difficult to accept because there are 50 other and far more likely explanations for what the OP is experiencing. It's like blaming ghosts for a door closing. COULD it be ghosts? I guess. But it was probably the wind or your dog or some slight tremor or a large truck passing by.

I guess ghosts are a bit of exaggeration since the likelihood here is not THAT remote but... I was thinking of ghosts so I'm leaving this as is.

Sarauk2sf

Based on calculations and body fat measurements done with my trainer, over the last 16 months I have put on appx 10 lbs of lean mass while losing 80 lbs overall.

It was measured with pincers and math. And an ultrasound and different math.

I fully get that "lean mass" is not solely muscle. I also get that for a lean person, athlete, or weightlifter, that this is simply not possible.

But keep in mind, a person 100 lbs overweight is carrying around a 350,000 calorie surplus - at all times. Those are no less valid than food as an energy source.

How do you test BF using an ultrasound out of interest? I have never heard of that method.

And yes, someone who is significantly overweight are one of the 'exceptions' to not being able to gain on a deficit. The extent varies, but it is definitely feasible.

Edited to fix quotes

sullus

Based on calculations and body fat measurements done with my trainer, over the last 16 months I have put on appx 10 lbs of lean mass while losing 80 lbs overall.

It was measured with pincers and math. And an ultrasound and different math.

I fully get that "lean mass" is not solely muscle. I also get that for a lean person, athlete, or weightlifter, that this is simply not possible.

But keep in mind, a person 100 lbs overweight is carrying around a 350,000 calorie surplus - at all times. Those are no less valid than food as an energy source.

Well, if you had an ultrasound done then I'll defer to you. When were the dates of the two ultrasound measurements? And what was the weight/composition difference in between the two ultrasounds?

I only ask to clarify if you were actually gaining lean mass during a caloric deficit or, an alternative possibility, the two occurred into distinct phases. In other words, there were times during the 16 months when you WEREN'T losing fat but instead was gaining lean mass... whereas there were more times during the 16 months where you were losing fat but WEREN'T gaining lean mass.

Last ultrasound was about 2 months ago. Previous one was about 6 mos before that. Most of the time it's just calipers, a trainer with absurdly strong fingers, and 2 days of pain ....

Long answer short on the caloric deficit - over the last 16 months, it's been rare for me to even hit 2000 calories on a given day. (I'm seeing issues from this, see some babble on my wall if it interests you)

craigmandu

Based on calculations and body fat measurements done with my trainer, over the last 16 months I have put on appx 10 lbs of lean mass while losing 80 lbs overall.

It was measured with pincers and math. And an ultrasound and different math.

I fully get that "lean mass" is not solely muscle. I also get that for a lean person, athlete, or weightlifter, that this is simply not possible.

But keep in mind, a person 100 lbs overweight is carrying around a 350,000 calorie surplus - at all times. Those are no less valid than food as an energy source.

Well, if you had an ultrasound done then I'll defer to you. When were the dates of the two ultrasound measurements? And what was the weight/composition difference in between the two ultrasounds?

I only ask to clarify if you were actually gaining lean mass during a caloric deficit or, an alternative possibility, the two occurred into distinct phases. In other words, there were times during the 16 months when you WEREN'T losing fat but instead was gaining lean mass... whereas there were more times during the 16 months where you were losing fat but WEREN'T gaining lean mass.

I highly doubt two ultrasounds could give you enough data to be able to determine if at "times" within the weight loss period there were some anabolic states that happened. Wouldn't you have to be monitoring anabolic/catatonic states to be able to really see on a detailed level what was going on? I've read alot of forums on BB and others about folks calorie cycling to try to force their states to try to spur the leanest possible muscular gain, and alot of them can't really get it to work well....if the pros can't be consistent with it, I sure as hell know I can't.

iwillbetinytea

Strength gains =/= sarcoplasmic hypertorphy. Strength gains are neuromuscular adaptations and not due to muscle mass gains.

However, whether you can or cannot gain on a deficit is a bit of a moot point imo. Strength training while in a deficit will help at least maintain LBM, increase strength, improve bone density and give a slew of other benefits.

Lol but the dude said he had also gained muscle as well as gained strength. So you just used big words to basically agree with him.

IronPlayground

Strength gains =/= sarcoplasmic hypertorphy. Strength gains are neuromuscular adaptations and not due to muscle mass gains.

However, whether you can or cannot gain on a deficit is a bit of a moot point imo. Strength training while in a deficit will help at least maintain LBM, increase strength, improve bone density and give a slew of other benefits.

Lol but the dude said he had also gained muscle as well as gained strength. So you just used big words to basically agree with him.

No, that's not what she said.

Joocey

Last ultrasound was about 2 months ago. Previous one was about 6 mos before that. Most of the time it's just calipers, a trainer with absurdly strong fingers, and 2 days of pain ....

Long answer short on the caloric deficit - over the last 16 months, it's been rare for me to even hit 2000 calories on a given day. (I'm seeing issues from this, see some babble on my wall if it interests you)

If it's not putting you out too much, what were the starting and ending results for that 6 month period for weight, lbm, bf%, etc.?

I highly doubt two ultrasounds could give you enough data to be able to determine if at "times" within the weight loss period there were some anabolic states that happened. Wouldn't you have to be monitoring anabolic/catatonic states to be able to really see on a detailed level what was going on? I've read alot of forums on BB and others about folks calorie cycling to try to force their states to try to spur the leanest possible muscular gain, and alot of them can't really get it to work well....if the pros can't be consistent with it, I sure as hell know I can't.

Pros are in a slightly different situation. I don't think anyone disagrees that trying to build muscle on a caloric deficit is, at the least, if not impossible then inefficient.

Pros can't be messin' 'round with that inefficiency when their paycheck and relatively short career depends on it.

jwdieter

So far on this site I've been told that I can't eat 1200kcal as I won't be able to lose weight. Wrong. That when I stop eating 1200kcal I'll gain weight. Wrong. That my body will cling onto fat. Wrong. Now people are saying that this woman has lost fat because she's eating 1200kcal...isn't that contradictory to 'the body clings onto fat' theory? Can't people just accept the fact that the OP may have just gained muscle?!

If the OP is just now noticing muscle in her arms, it's probably increased definition from fat loss. That would be true even if she weren't operating at a big caloric deficit.

Sarauk2sf

Strength gains =/= sarcoplasmic hypertorphy. Strength gains are neuromuscular adaptations and not due to muscle mass gains.

However, whether you can or cannot gain on a deficit is a bit of a moot point imo. Strength training while in a deficit will help at least maintain LBM, increase strength, improve bone density and give a slew of other benefits.

Lol but the dude said he had also gained muscle as well as gained strength. So you just used big words to basically agree with him.

Lolno. Tip: look up what those 'big words' mean before making statements like ^^that.

MassiveDelta

So...If I have 50 extra pounds of FAT on my body and I Start lifting weights but eat only 500 Calories of lets say 75g of Pure protein. Even though Im eating a severe deficit. some of you are suggesting that because I'm 50lbs over weight my body will use that EXCESS to build muscle?

sullus

Based on calculations and body fat measurements done with my trainer, over the last 16 months I have put on appx 10 lbs of lean mass while losing 80 lbs overall.

It was measured with pincers and math. And an ultrasound and different math.

I fully get that "lean mass" is not solely muscle. I also get that for a lean person, athlete, or weightlifter, that this is simply not possible.

But keep in mind, a person 100 lbs overweight is carrying around a 350,000 calorie surplus - at all times. Those are no less valid than food as an energy source.

Well, if you had an ultrasound done then I'll defer to you. When were the dates of the two ultrasound measurements? And what was the weight/composition difference in between the two ultrasounds?

I only ask to clarify if you were actually gaining lean mass during a caloric deficit or, an alternative possibility, the two occurred into distinct phases. In other words, there were times during the 16 months when you WEREN'T losing fat but instead was gaining lean mass... whereas there were more times during the 16 months where you were losing fat but WEREN'T gaining lean mass.

I highly doubt two ultrasounds could give you enough data to be able to determine if at "times" within the weight loss period there were some anabolic states that happened. Wouldn't you have to be monitoring anabolic/catatonic states to be able to really see on a detailed level what was going on? I've read alot of forums on BB and others about folks calorie cycling to try to force their states to try to spur the leanest possible muscular gain, and alot of them can't really get it to work well....if the pros can't be consistent with it, I sure as hell know I can't.

My claim is not that I'm manipulating catabolic and anabolic states, or that the gains and losses did or did not occur at the same times.

My simple claim is .. that for the last 16 months, I have been consistently eating at a deficit, and have made small gains in lean body mass, using the surplus calories from a massive amount of stored fat to fuel a portion of the process.

iwillbetinytea

So far on this site I've been told that I can't eat 1200kcal as I won't be able to lose weight. Wrong.

Who said this?

That when I stop eating 1200kcal I'll gain weight. Wrong.

This is probably not wrong, but it depends on how much you're eating and what you're doing. Simple math will show that it's possible to be a correct statement and account for your personal experience.

If your BMR is 1500: You can eat at 1200 and lose weight, and then stop eating at 1200 and instead eat 1500 without gaining weight.

Can't people just accept the fact that the OP may have just gained muscle?!

It's difficult to accept because there are 50 other and far more likely explanations for what the OP is experiencing. It's like blaming ghosts for a door closing. COULD it be ghosts? I guess. But it was probably the wind or your dog or some slight tremor or a large truck passing by.

I guess ghosts are a bit of exaggeration since the likelihood here is not THAT remote but... I was thinking of ghosts so I'm leaving this as is.

Ok I appreciate your opinion but may I put forward my argument:

I have this dress that has sleeves which stop half way down my biceps. I had biggggg flabby arms that when I raised my arm rolled over the sleeves. Ew.

I eat 1200kcals I lost weight, didn't do any weights. My arms no longer rolled over my sleeves (again ew) they were looser.

I started weight training (still at 1200kcal). Noooowwww my sleeves are tight again, because I have muscle instead of fat.

It's been there for a while now. How'd that happen?

iwillbetinytea

Strength gains =/= sarcoplasmic hypertorphy. Strength gains are neuromuscular adaptations and not due to muscle mass gains.

However, whether you can or cannot gain on a deficit is a bit of a moot point imo. Strength training while in a deficit will help at least maintain LBM, increase strength, improve bone density and give a slew of other benefits.

Lol but the dude said he had also gained muscle as well as gained strength. So you just used big words to basically agree with him.

Lolno. Tip: look up what those 'big words' mean before making statements like ^^that.

I know what they mean. I did human anatomy at uni.

Skeletal muscle/neural responses blah blah