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

hungrywhodat

"You can't build muscle on a deficit because you need calories to build muscle"

"If you eat less calories than you burn, you lose weight"

Think. Really hard. Just for a minute.

Of course you can build muscle on a deficit. If you're on a deficit, you're losing weight. If you're losing weight, you have a bunch of nasty stuff your body can turn into muscle.

Your body doesn't run out of calories to do the things you challenge it to do. When it does, you die.

ETA: I see several others have posted basically the same thing. Well said. +1 and all that

stumblinthrulife

you have a bunch of nasty stuff your body can turn into muscle

Exactly what do you think the body uses to build muscle? Because I may not have a medical degree, but I'm pretty certain it's not 'a bunch of nasty stuff'.

waldo56

Perhaps... your shirt shrunk. :laugh: Or you're counting your calories incorrectly.

Or, depending on what margin of error we're talking about for your shirt sleeves, you're retaining water. Since you're noticing a difference, and it seems unlikely that you gained... say, 1" around your arms while lifting and not eating all that much, I'm going to suggest it's one of these other explanations.

Lol I hope not, I like that dress!

But there's muscle there where there was once just thinner arms. Unless..........water is stored in the shaped of muscle?

Oh come on, I'm not lying to you - I'm being very honest, there was no muscle and now there is and you're just trying to poo poo my argument with WATER WEIGHT on my arms. Piffle!

You are totally missing the point of what water weight people are talking about - it IS in the muscle - glycogen and water.

But surely I would see a increase/decrease in my muscle, as these stores are replenished and depleted.

No, its a persistent adaptation in the short term, your muscles will be pumped up or really pumped up. You'll know its not real muscle when you quit exercising for 2-3 weeks and pee away all your "muscle".

Muscle firmness is not an indication of real muscle tissue, its a byproduct of the near perma pump you get from strength training over time. Doesn't last long if you quit training, couple weeks at most.

Sarauk2sf

I have read the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this. I saw someone post that when on a deficit you wont have materials to build muscle because all the material is going to keeping you alive. Now is that really the case if you are doing something like BMR-TDEE method.

Isnt BMR just what you need to keep you alive. That is basically the number of calories you body burns in a sedentary state. TDEE is the amount of calories you really burn per day at your current activity level.

So if I eat more than BMR and less than TDEE. Pick your percentage 5%, 10%, 20% less. Now there is a surplus over the BMR level. Say BMR is 1800 and your eating 2500 and TDEE is 3000.

Now isnt what we want is the 2500 to go towards the activity (working out, building muscle) and when we run out of the fuel we consume the fat is then converted into more energy for basic life maintaining needs.

But you are missing the fact that energy is expended throughout the day by just moving - which is above your BMR. Muscle is not considered a priority for your body, however, daily functions (and fat) is. The priority your body puts on fat depends on how much you have. In a caloric deficit, your body is going to look to conserve as much energy for the higher priority needs as possible, which means conserving fat (context is relevant here as noted re dependent on the amount of fat you have). Why would it use the energy that it can get from fat (high priority) to build muscle (low priority) when it is needed for body functions (high priority) and basic energy to move (high priority).

waldo56

Any barely experienced lifters (more than 3 months) can't really gain much muscle when on a caloric deficit.

FIFY

ironanimal

Le sigh.

Your muscle was already there, but it was largely inactive and when you start using it, it swells up and with reduced bodyfat you can see it better, making it appear larger.

Conservation of Mass.
Neuromuscular Adaptation.
Glycogen and Water retention.

mustgetmuscles1

I have read the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this. I saw someone post that when on a deficit you wont have materials to build muscle because all the material is going to keeping you alive. Now is that really the case if you are doing something like BMR-TDEE method.

Isnt BMR just what you need to keep you alive. That is basically the number of calories you body burns in a sedentary state. TDEE is the amount of calories you really burn per day at your current activity level.

So if I eat more than BMR and less than TDEE. Pick your percentage 5%, 10%, 20% less. Now there is a surplus over the BMR level. Say BMR is 1800 and your eating 2500 and TDEE is 3000.

Now isnt what we want is the 2500 to go towards the activity (working out, building muscle) and when we run out of the fuel we consume the fat is then converted into more energy for basic life maintaining needs.

It does not work that way. Your BMR is the amount of energy needed to maintain while completely inactive. You start moving exercising, repairing, and so on and that is your TDEE. To tap into fat stores you need your intake to be less than your TDEE. All the food you intake will be used up before your body goes stored energy. Leaving nothing to build new mass. You need energy AND building materials to build new mass. You are restricting both on a deficit.

hungrywhodat

you have a bunch of nasty stuff your body can turn into muscle

Exactly what do you think the body uses to build muscle? Because I may not have a medical degree, but I'm pretty certain it's not 'a bunch of nasty stuff'.

That line addressed the specific problem of calorie deficit. Obviously fat doesn't just turn magically into protein. But I think you understood what I meant. I suspect this by the way you isolated that single line of my post.

If you lift when on a deficit, your body must replace the damaged muscle. If you couldn't gain on a deficit, then everyone who lifts on a deficit would atrophy into a horrifying squid-like creature within a few weeks. The very idea is nonsense, and it disregards the most basic human physiology.

hungrywhodat

I have read the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this. I saw someone post that when on a deficit you wont have materials to build muscle because all the material is going to keeping you alive. Now is that really the case if you are doing something like BMR-TDEE method.

Isnt BMR just what you need to keep you alive. That is basically the number of calories you body burns in a sedentary state. TDEE is the amount of calories you really burn per day at your current activity level.

So if I eat more than BMR and less than TDEE. Pick your percentage 5%, 10%, 20% less. Now there is a surplus over the BMR level. Say BMR is 1800 and your eating 2500 and TDEE is 3000.

Now isnt what we want is the 2500 to go towards the activity (working out, building muscle) and when we run out of the fuel we consume the fat is then converted into more energy for basic life maintaining needs.

But you are missing the fact that energy is expended throughout the day by just moving - which is above your BMR. Muscle is not considered a priority for your body, however, daily functions (and fat) is. The priority your body puts on fat depends on how much you have. In a caloric deficit, your body is going to look to conserve as much energy for the higher priority needs as possible, which means conserving fat (context is relevant here as noted re dependent on the amount of fat you have). Why would it use the energy that it can get from fat (high priority) to build muscle (low priority) when it is needed for body functions (high priority) and basic energy to move (high priority).

But, since I can lift the same amount I did this time last week, and I'm on a calorie deficit, and I'm lifting heavy, obviously my body directed some of that energy to building back the damage I did to my muscles last week, low priority or not.

This is the most persistent piece of broscience ever. Even when it fails to hold up to basic logic, the proponents won't let it go.

Many studies have been done showing that muscle gain is much more likely with more calories. That's obvious. That is not evidence that it cannot be done.

mustgetmuscles1

you have a bunch of nasty stuff your body can turn into muscle

Exactly what do you think the body uses to build muscle? Because I may not have a medical degree, but I'm pretty certain it's not 'a bunch of nasty stuff'.

That line addressed the specific problem of calorie deficit. Obviously fat doesn't just turn magically into protein. But I think you understood what I meant. I suspect this by the way you isolated that single line of my post.

If you lift when on a deficit, your body must replace the damaged muscle. If you couldn't gain on a deficit, then everyone who lifts on a deficit would atrophy into a horrifying squid-like creature within a few weeks. The very idea is nonsense, and it disregards the most basic human physiology.

Repairing damaged cells and creating new mass are not the same. Even repairing damage can take longer in a deficit and long periods of deficit have shown a loss of LBM. Heavy resistance training helps minimize the loss of muscle but cannot always prevent it completely.

.

Joocey

If you lift when on a deficit, your body must replace the damaged muscle. If you couldn't gain on a deficit, then everyone who lifts on a deficit would atrophy into a horrifying squid-like creature within a few weeks. The very idea is nonsense, and it disregards the most basic human physiology.

That is precisely what would happen. If the deficit was severe enough. Although why you think it'd happen in "a few weeks" is incomprehensible.

Muscle contraction i.e. breakdown/tear in this context doesn't mean your muscle disappears into thin air. It just means it's weakened and will be rebuilt via protein synthesis. Inadequate calories nee nutrients prevents protein synthesis from occurring for a net gain of muscle.

But since you apparently don't think that's how the human body works, why not just stop eating completely while lifting increasingly heavy weights? Or never stop eating on a deficit? Be sure to let us know how being a ripped 6% bodyfat while smashing national lifting records goes. Represent MFP while you're at the national meets too. MFP T-shirt?

hungrywhodat

If you lift when on a deficit, your body must replace the damaged muscle. If you couldn't gain on a deficit, then everyone who lifts on a deficit would atrophy into a horrifying squid-like creature within a few weeks. The very idea is nonsense, and it disregards the most basic human physiology.

That is precisely what would happen. If the deficit was severe enough. Although why you think it'd happen in "a few weeks" is incomprehensible.

Muscle contraction i.e. breakdown/tear in this context doesn't mean your muscle disappears into thin air. It just means it's weakened and will be rebuilt via protein synthesis. Inadequate calories nee nutrients prevents protein synthesis from occurring for a net gain of muscle.

But since you apparently don't think that's how the human body works, why not just stop eating completely while lifting increasingly heavy weights? Or never stop eating on a deficit? Be sure to let us know how being a ripped 6% bodyfat while smashing national lifting records goes. Represent MFP while you're at the national meets too. MFP T-shirt?

I respect your sarcasm, it's elegant, but obviously I'm not saying that anabolism isn't affected by calorie intake. OF COURSE it's easier to build on a surplus than a deficit. And nobody's going to break records while on a deficit (mostly because they'd reach that 6% bodyfat long before they got to the record-breaking stage anyway). But there's not a magic number of pounds of muscle that your body memorizes in order to lock it in during a deficit. It's not impossible to build, and it's silly to say that it is.

trojanbb

Why is everyone on this forum on Scooby's nuts?

Kinda cause he knows what he's talking about more than other numbnuts on here... just sayin

No he doesnt. He is repeatedly wrong in most of his videos. The only reason anyone listens to him his because he has a great chest.

trojanbb

"You can't build muscle on a deficit because you need calories to build muscle"

"If you eat less calories than you burn, you lose weight"

Think. Really hard. Just for a minute.

Of course you can build muscle on a deficit. If you're on a deficit, you're losing weight. If you're losing weight, you have a bunch of nasty stuff your body can turn into muscle.

Your body doesn't run out of calories to do the things you challenge it to do. When it does, you die.

ETA: I see several others have posted basically the same thing. Well said. +1 and all that

lol.

You should write a physics textbook. You've created a brand new theory that discredits thermodynamics.


Muscle is built as a LAST resort by the body. Cell and muscle repair is one thing. Additional muscle growth is another. Under a deficit, absolutely no priority is given to muscle growth. Even repair is much, much slower. If your body was able to still use excess calories to grow muscle, then by definition you would not be in a deficit.

Joocey

If you lift when on a deficit, your body must replace the damaged muscle. If you couldn't gain on a deficit, then everyone who lifts on a deficit would atrophy into a horrifying squid-like creature within a few weeks. The very idea is nonsense, and it disregards the most basic human physiology.

That is precisely what would happen. If the deficit was severe enough. Although why you think it'd happen in "a few weeks" is incomprehensible.

Muscle contraction i.e. breakdown/tear in this context doesn't mean your muscle disappears into thin air. It just means it's weakened and will be rebuilt via protein synthesis. Inadequate calories nee nutrients prevents protein synthesis from occurring for a net gain of muscle.

But since you apparently don't think that's how the human body works, why not just stop eating completely while lifting increasingly heavy weights? Or never stop eating on a deficit? Be sure to let us know how being a ripped 6% bodyfat while smashing national lifting records goes. Represent MFP while you're at the national meets too. MFP T-shirt?

I respect your sarcasm, it's elegant, but obviously I'm not saying that anabolism isn't affected by calorie intake. OF COURSE it's easier to build on a surplus than a deficit. And nobody's going to break records while on a deficit (mostly because they'd reach that 6% bodyfat long before they got to the record-breaking stage anyway). But there's not a magic number of pounds of muscle that your body memorizes in order to lock it in during a deficit. It's not impossible to build, and it's silly to say that it is.

Of course there's a magic number. You just don't know what it is. (I mean, no one knows, since we eat at and calculate at rounded estimates.)

Otherwise If you assume that any muscle breakdown = muscle gain, as opposed to muscle repair, strength would increase indefinitely up to the genetic limit, yes? As long as you had fat stores to burn.

But if you acknowledge that the process of BUILDING, not repairing, muscle while eating at a caloric deficit is unpredictable, unreliable, and insignificant, then even if it's not "impossible" what are we even debating here? Whether it's possible to increase your lean mass by 1% (net gain of 1.5 lbs) while eating at a deficit for 4 weeks?

Sarauk2sf

I have read the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this. I saw someone post that when on a deficit you wont have materials to build muscle because all the material is going to keeping you alive. Now is that really the case if you are doing something like BMR-TDEE method.

Isnt BMR just what you need to keep you alive. That is basically the number of calories you body burns in a sedentary state. TDEE is the amount of calories you really burn per day at your current activity level.

So if I eat more than BMR and less than TDEE. Pick your percentage 5%, 10%, 20% less. Now there is a surplus over the BMR level. Say BMR is 1800 and your eating 2500 and TDEE is 3000.

Now isnt what we want is the 2500 to go towards the activity (working out, building muscle) and when we run out of the fuel we consume the fat is then converted into more energy for basic life maintaining needs.

But you are missing the fact that energy is expended throughout the day by just moving - which is above your BMR. Muscle is not considered a priority for your body, however, daily functions (and fat) is. The priority your body puts on fat depends on how much you have. In a caloric deficit, your body is going to look to conserve as much energy for the higher priority needs as possible, which means conserving fat (context is relevant here as noted re dependent on the amount of fat you have). Why would it use the energy that it can get from fat (high priority) to build muscle (low priority) when it is needed for body functions (high priority) and basic energy to move (high priority).

But, since I can lift the same amount I did this time last week, and I'm on a calorie deficit, and I'm lifting heavy, obviously my body directed some of that energy to building back the damage I did to my muscles last week, low priority or not.

This is the most persistent piece of broscience ever. Even when it fails to hold up to basic logic, the proponents won't let it go.

Many studies have been done showing that muscle gain is much more likely with more calories. That's obvious. That is not evidence that it cannot be done.

As has been noted before strength =/= muscle mass. repairing damage =/= muscle gains.

keithf1138

I have read the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this. I saw someone post that when on a deficit you wont have materials to build muscle because all the material is going to keeping you alive. Now is that really the case if you are doing something like BMR-TDEE method.

Isnt BMR just what you need to keep you alive. That is basically the number of calories you body burns in a sedentary state. TDEE is the amount of calories you really burn per day at your current activity level.

So if I eat more than BMR and less than TDEE. Pick your percentage 5%, 10%, 20% less. Now there is a surplus over the BMR level. Say BMR is 1800 and your eating 2500 and TDEE is 3000.

Now isnt what we want is the 2500 to go towards the activity (working out, building muscle) and when we run out of the fuel we consume the fat is then converted into more energy for basic life maintaining needs.

But you are missing the fact that energy is expended throughout the day by just moving - which is above your BMR. Muscle is not considered a priority for your body, however, daily functions (and fat) is. The priority your body puts on fat depends on how much you have. In a caloric deficit, your body is going to look to conserve as much energy for the higher priority needs as possible, which means conserving fat (context is relevant here as noted re dependent on the amount of fat you have). Why would it use the energy that it can get from fat (high priority) to build muscle (low priority) when it is needed for body functions (high priority) and basic energy to move (high priority).

But, since I can lift the same amount I did this time last week, and I'm on a calorie deficit, and I'm lifting heavy, obviously my body directed some of that energy to building back the damage I did to my muscles last week, low priority or not.

This is the most persistent piece of broscience ever. Even when it fails to hold up to basic logic, the proponents won't let it go.

Many studies have been done showing that muscle gain is much more likely with more calories. That's obvious. That is not evidence that it cannot be done.

I have to agree with this I am lifting double/triple I was when I started my weight loss. If I am not gaining muscle while loosing fat how come I can lift so much more? I can buy the well you see more muscle because the fat over them is going away if I wasn't getting any stronger.

trojanbb

^^you can easily gain strength without gaining muscle mass.

Look at olympic lifters that stay in very low weight classes while continually getting stronger.

More importantly, were you an experienced lifter before you started your weight loss? It's well known and documented that muscle gain is far easier to inexperienced weightlifters, even under large calorie deficits. The more muscle mass you gain, the harder it gets...to the point where muscle gain under a deficit is insignificant at best and muscle loss more likely.

ironanimal

I have read the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this. I saw someone post that when on a deficit you wont have materials to build muscle because all the material is going to keeping you alive. Now is that really the case if you are doing something like BMR-TDEE method.

Isnt BMR just what you need to keep you alive. That is basically the number of calories you body burns in a sedentary state. TDEE is the amount of calories you really burn per day at your current activity level.

So if I eat more than BMR and less than TDEE. Pick your percentage 5%, 10%, 20% less. Now there is a surplus over the BMR level. Say BMR is 1800 and your eating 2500 and TDEE is 3000.

Now isnt what we want is the 2500 to go towards the activity (working out, building muscle) and when we run out of the fuel we consume the fat is then converted into more energy for basic life maintaining needs.

But you are missing the fact that energy is expended throughout the day by just moving - which is above your BMR. Muscle is not considered a priority for your body, however, daily functions (and fat) is. The priority your body puts on fat depends on how much you have. In a caloric deficit, your body is going to look to conserve as much energy for the higher priority needs as possible, which means conserving fat (context is relevant here as noted re dependent on the amount of fat you have). Why would it use the energy that it can get from fat (high priority) to build muscle (low priority) when it is needed for body functions (high priority) and basic energy to move (high priority).

But, since I can lift the same amount I did this time last week, and I'm on a calorie deficit, and I'm lifting heavy, obviously my body directed some of that energy to building back the damage I did to my muscles last week, low priority or not.

This is the most persistent piece of broscience ever. Even when it fails to hold up to basic logic, the proponents won't let it go.

Many studies have been done showing that muscle gain is much more likely with more calories. That's obvious. That is not evidence that it cannot be done.

I have to agree with this I am lifting double/triple I was when I started my weight loss. If I am not gaining muscle while loosing fat how come I can lift so much more? I can buy the well you see more muscle because the fat over them is going away if I wasn't getting any stronger.

Neuromuscular adaptation. The more stress you place on a muscle, the more twitch fibres become active over time.

mustgetmuscles1

^ Yep you are training your muscles to fire more fibers at once. Advanced lifters can actually see a decrease in strength while dieting. Most of us will still see strength gains, or at least maintenance, while dieting.

Go through a couple bulking/cutting cycles and you can definitely feel the difference in strength gains and recovery times.