You Are Not Different

I suggest you read the article more carefully.

Why? I got to this part and knew he just makes stuff up that suits his purposes. Just because something "sounds right", or "makes sense" doesn't make it true:

You can’t gain bodymass unless your energy intake exceeds your energy output because you can’t make something out of nothing (muscle or fat).

What could I hope to gain here? This is obviously just someone's opinion without any facts to back it up. Sorry, I don't need any more opinions, there are more than enough of those to go round already.

*sigh*

Ah, the *sigh* technique, yes that will definitely make up for any and all logical fallacies and conjecture on your part. So let's stick to facts here. These are quotes from the abstracts I posted:

Although less commonly used, resistance exercise appears to prevent loss of or even increase muscle mass during energy restriction.

Physical training in the group of obese men resulted in a decrease of body fat, a further increase of lean body mass, an increase of fast twitch, aerobic type, muscle fibres as well as lower plasma insulin, cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations and lower blood pressure.

In the obese RTWL group (n = 7), body weight, fat mass, and percent body fat were significantly decreased (P < 0.001). Fat-free mass and RMR significantly increased with training in both groups combined (P < 0.05).

Yes they are abstracts, but I'd rather place my trust in abstracts of peer reviewed studies than the opinion of some web blogger.

I'd also be interested in why you think only full study links are valid, but the abstracts of those same studies are not? Personally I think this is just a red-herring on your part since I'm betting you already know very few full scholarly articles are available online.

In regard to your link? It's an excellent study, but meaningless in this context. You are guilty of a logical fallacy if you believe it proves anything regarding the ability to gain muscle mass when in a calorie deficit. Simply put, a study that proves lean mass was retained on a VLCD (the one you posted), does not mean lean mass cannot be gained on VLCD or any other type of caloric deficit. They are not mutually exclusive. I hope you can see that this is a bit like saying that because you personally were unable to lose weight on 1800 calories a day, therefore no one can lose on 1800 calories a day. Obviously we know that's not true.

In regard to this statement:

Food for thought: where do you think the energy comes from for obese individuals to gain LBM?

I already explained where it comes from, but perhaps you couldn't be bothered to read that either?

What I see here is a classic case of confirmation bias. I also used to believe what you did until I was presented by the evidence. You have a choice, continue to only believe those things that match your beliefs, or open you mind to the fact that you may be wrong and actually investigate the truth.

Some people have diseases or allergies that causes them to not metabolize things the same as others. I'm sorry, but everyone is genetically pre-dis-positioned differently and because of our genetic makeup, no single person on earth should follow the same diet as everyone else. You don't tell a hypoglycemic person to go on a low carb diet; you also don't tell person who just had cardiovascular surgery to go on a high fat diet.

The article mentioned that and accounted for it. It's talking about people who are not genetically pre-dispositioned for diabetes, insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome, and other things that have a direct effect on fat storage.

However, once those syndromes are under control via medication, the "lower your calories, lose weight" formula applies the same as it does for everyone else. That's what the article is addressing.

The key is to identify the factors and to know you have them, but there isn't always a solution, just a patch up and acceptance. Tell my friend who has MS or my colleague who is diminishing before my eyes because of cancer consuming calories.
I agree that there are those who think they might be special (or on the long tail of a bell shaped curve for a given factor) and are fobbing. But for those who have to manage an identified condition then this is not motivating and reduces the struggles we have.
I'm sad and my snowflake melted into an ice cube.
Jasmin

*sigh*

Ah, the *sigh* technique, yes that will definitely make up for any and all logical fallacies and conjecture on your part. So let's stick to facts here. These are quotes from the abstracts I posted:

Although less commonly used, resistance exercise appears to prevent loss of or even increase muscle mass during energy restriction.

Physical training in the group of obese men resulted in a decrease of body fat, a further increase of lean body mass, an increase of fast twitch, aerobic type, muscle fibres as well as lower plasma insulin, cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations and lower blood pressure.

In the obese RTWL group (n = 7), body weight, fat mass, and percent body fat were significantly decreased (P < 0.001). Fat-free mass and RMR significantly increased with training in both groups combined (P < 0.05).

Yes they are abstracts, but I'd rather place my trust in abstracts of peer reviewed studies than the opinion of some web blogger.

I'd also be interested in why you think only full study links are valid, but the abstracts of those same studies are not? Personally I think this is just a red-herring on your part since I'm betting you already know very few full scholarly articles are available online.

In regard to your link? It's an excellent study, but meaningless in this context. You are guilty of a logical fallacy if you believe it proves anything regarding the ability to gain muscle mass when in a calorie deficit. Simply put, a study that proves lean mass was retained on a VLCD (the one you posted), does not mean lean mass cannot be gained on VLCD or any other type of caloric deficit. They are not mutually exclusive. I hope you can see that this is a bit like saying that because you personally were unable to lose weight on 1800 calories a day, therefore no one can lose on 1800 calories a day. Obviously we know that's not true.

In regard to this statement:

Food for thought: where do you think the energy comes from for obese individuals to gain LBM?

I already explained where it comes from, but perhaps you couldn't be bothered to read that either?

What I see here is a classic case of confirmation bias. I also used to believe what you did until I was presented by the evidence. You have a choice, continue to only believe those things that match your beliefs, or open you mind to the fact that you may be wrong and actually investigate the truth.

One of the points which you are totally missing here is that abstracts do not give all the data of a study and are indeed often summaries of more than one study.

What I was trying to get you to understand is that if fat stores are used for energy which in turn leads to LBM gains - there is still a loss of total mass - something I do not see the article as saying is impossible. If you would be so kind as to provide links that give peer reviewed studies that show otherwise I would be grateful as I am actually always open to new information.

I would also be very grateful for you pointing out exactly where I have a logical fallacy in my post.

One of the points which you are totally missing here is that abstracts do not give all the data of a study and are indeed often summaries of more than one study.

Of course not, they are summaries. I've yet to read both a summary and a full article that disagreed with each other, however.

What I was trying to get you to understand is that if fat stores are used for energy which in turn leads to LBM gains - there is still a loss of total mass - something I do not see the article as saying is impossible. If you would be so kind as to provide links that give peer reviewed studies that show otherwise I would be grateful as I am actually always open to new information.

I don't think I ever said someone would gain weight on a calorie restricted diet. If you thought so, I think you may have been seeing something that's not there. What I took issue with was the statement in the original post that one COULD NOT gain LBM on a calorie restricted diet. I think I've been able to show that it can and does happen all the time. It's generally a phenomenon that's restricted to the obese or morbidly obese that are new to resistance training, but it DOES happen.

I would also be very grateful for you pointing out exactly where I have a logical fallacy in my post.

Certainly: you posted a study that showed LBM was retained on a calorie restricted diet and felt this was proof LBM could not be gained on a calorie restricted diet. This is a non sequitur.

And we are back to my original comment. Unless I am totally misreading the article it does not say what you are saying it says.

Which, by the way, makes my post of the study relevant.

Good God there's a name from the past....Lyle McDonald. Got his book, Ketogenic Diet, on my bookshelf. Back in the Dark Ages of Usenet he was a voice of reason on the dieting and body building groups. A snarky, mean as hell voice of reason, but a voice of reason nonetheless.

He was right then, he's right now. Those who want to lose weight have to ditch the BS weight upstairs first.

I suggest you read the article more carefully.

Why? I got to this part and knew he just makes stuff up that suits his purposes. Just because something "sounds right", or "makes sense" doesn't make it true:

You can’t gain bodymass unless your energy intake exceeds your energy output because you can’t make something out of nothing (muscle or fat).

What could I hope to gain here? This is obviously just someone's opinion without any facts to back it up. Sorry, I don't need any more opinions, there are more than enough of those to go round already.

Why are you arguing Lyle's statement? He never said you couldn't gain LBM on a caloric deficit. He said you couldn't gain BODYMASS on a caloric deficit. Whole different animal. Look again at what you quoted. The information was there the whole time.

I suggest you read the article more carefully.

Why? I got to this part and knew he just makes stuff up that suits his purposes. Just because something "sounds right", or "makes sense" doesn't make it true:

You can’t gain bodymass unless your energy intake exceeds your energy output because you can’t make something out of nothing (muscle or fat).

What could I hope to gain here? This is obviously just someone's opinion without any facts to back it up. Sorry, I don't need any more opinions, there are more than enough of those to go round already.

Why are you arguing Lyle's statement? He never said you couldn't gain LBM on a caloric deficit. He said you couldn't gain BODYMASS on a caloric deficit. Whole different animal. Look again at what you quoted. The information was there the whole time.

THANK YOU

That was exactly my point but obviously I was not making it very well.

One of the points which you are totally missing here is that abstracts do not give all the data of a study and are indeed often summaries of more than one study.

Of course not, they are summaries. I've yet to read both a summary and a full article that disagreed with each other, however.

What I was trying to get you to understand is that if fat stores are used for energy which in turn leads to LBM gains - there is still a loss of total mass - something I do not see the article as saying is impossible. If you would be so kind as to provide links that give peer reviewed studies that show otherwise I would be grateful as I am actually always open to new information.

I don't think I ever said someone would gain weight on a calorie restricted diet. If you thought so, I think you may have been seeing something that's not there. What I took issue with was the statement in the original post that one COULD NOT gain LBM on a calorie restricted diet. I think I've been able to show that it can and does happen all the time. It's generally a phenomenon that's restricted to the obese or morbidly obese that are new to resistance training, but it DOES happen.

I would also be very grateful for you pointing out exactly where I have a logical fallacy in my post.

Certainly: you posted a study that showed LBM was retained on a calorie restricted diet and felt this was proof LBM could not be gained on a calorie restricted diet. This is a non sequitur.

They see me trollin'

The Lyle McD = broscience was a little over the top IMO, but you got some good responses so I'll give you 6/10

bump

You can’t gain bodymass unless your energy intake exceeds your energy output because you can’t make something out of nothing (muscle or fat).

Why are you arguing Lyle's statement? He never said you couldn't gain LBM on a caloric deficit. He said you couldn't gain BODYMASS on a caloric deficit. Whole different animal. Look again at what you quoted. The information was there the whole time.

I have "looked again" again. You're focusing on the word BODYMASS, yet he clarifies at the end of the sentence that in his opinion you can't gain either muscle of fat eating at a deficit. Seems pretty plain to me. Or are you saying we should just ignore that last part?

I am still trying to find what you are referring to because I am honestly confused where you are seeing this. You seem to like extracting quotes - doing so in this case would probably clear up a lot of the confusion that appears to be happening.

ETA: I in no way disagree with you on your comments about gaining LBM while on a deficit when someone is obese, and in fact have made the same point in this and other threads, so I am definately not trying to debate that point:

Great article.......I am not different.....just diet resistant.....

No one should make excuses, and MANY people fool themselves into hopelessness, but people certainly do have vast metabolic differences when it comes to muscle gain(especially) and fat loss.

I am still trying to find what you are referring to because I am honestly confused where you are seeing this. You seem to like extracting quotes - doing so in this case would probably clear up a lot of the confusion that appears to be happening.

ETA: I in no way disagree with you on your comments about gaining LBM while on a deficit when someone is obese, and in fact have made the same point in this and other threads, so I am definately not trying to debate that point:

So it sounds like we may be closer together on this issue that you realize. I'm not saying EVERYTHING he wrote is incorrect, but I do have 2 serious issues with his article:
1. The aforementioned statement that you can't gain LBM eating at a deficit. (I'll get to this in a minute), and
2. The remainder of the article where he talks about how some people are different, yet then goes on to say no one is different.

I think the reason I find this so offensive is because there is quite a bit of information that comes out of the bodybuilding world (such as most of this author's stuff), that simply DOES NOT APPLY to those of us that are more than 30 lbs overweight. Tons of people on MFP post stuff that may be great advice for someone trying to go from 12% to 8% BF, but is terrible advice for an obese person. The reverse is also true. Physiologically, there are some serious hormonal differences between an obese body and one just carrying a few extra pounds. As a result, we just can't make these type of generalizations. An example would be statements like "it's all about thermodynamics, just eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight." It sounds good, but it discounts the fact that our bodies are not just simple machines that respond exactly the same every time. Even the author know that or he wouldn't have made his money hyping various modified eating plans, macro requirements, etc,, and wouldn't have talked at length in this article about how some people have to really struggle to lose fat.

As to the quote that started my rant (yes I recognize it as such),

You can’t gain bodymass unless your energy intake exceeds your energy output because you can’t make something out of nothing (muscle or fat).

That is quoted from the article and is the place where I got so turned off by this guys stuff. I could easily re-write this sentence without changing the meaning by simply eliminating the parenthetical statement and instead putting it where the antecedent "something" is at: "You can’t gain bodymass unless your energy intake exceeds your energy output because you can't make muscle or fat out of nothing." Further, just to clarify, if you remove the words "or fat" from the statement it becomes "You can’t gain bodymass unless your energy intake exceeds your energy output because you can't make muscle out of nothing."

This is still the same statement. I'm not sure why you can't see that, but I suppose it's because you're a fan of this author.