Athletes can gain muscle while losing fat on deficit diet

When I started to "transform" (i.e. lose the 30 extra lbs I was carrying) I hit the gym EVERY DAY for 90 days. Not easy with injuries, party offers etc...

I lost 12 lbs fat and gained 6 lbs muscle based on body composition. This was done with no regard to nutrition other than adding protein shakes/supps to my wifes cooking.

Since there was a net loss there must have been a calorific deficit, right?

Funny thing, since joining MFP my weight loss has become much more rapid but I'm also seeing muscle/strenght loss too

I've been on a 1,000 calorie deficit for a month.

So, I believe the premise but getting the nutrition right to do it is hard as H#ll...

Can I see anyones muscle gain or do we just have to believe you?

bump

bump

This worked for me!

Can I see some noticeable gains please people? Would be interesting to see

When I started to "transform" (i.e. lose the 30 extra lbs I was carrying) I hit the gym EVERY DAY for 90 days. Not easy with injuries, party offers etc...

I lost 12 lbs fat and gained 6 lbs muscle based on body composition. This was done with no regard to nutrition other than adding protein shakes/supps to my wifes cooking.

Since there was a net loss there must have been a calorific deficit, right?

Funny thing, since joining MFP my weight loss has become much more rapid but I'm also seeing muscle/strenght loss too

I've been on a 1,000 calorie deficit for a month.

So, I believe the premise but getting the nutrition right to do it is hard as H#ll...

And there is the huge difference between the study and your results, and what the majority on MFP are doing, and what you later did.

And that is accepting that MFP truly knows what your real maintenance or TDEE is to take a deficit from.

The study they knew what it was, and while the deficit seems steep (0.7% of bodyweight), it's a deficit off true maintenance.

Many on MFP think they are taking a mild deficit, and compared to 2 lbs are indeed, but it's still possibly much bigger than they know, hence the difficulty of obtaining these results.

I agree that we're mosty using guesstimate tools.

I'm tired of losing strenght and muscle so I'm going to a 300 cal deficit with 200 gms protein.

I'm going to apply starting strengh logic to my old 5 day split since my form has gone to *kitten* struggling to push the weights I used just a month ago...

My gold standard will be my waist measurement now. If it grows I'll drop cals but I'm now happy to see my weight go up.

Let's see if this idea flies ^^

It's very early days but....

I've been running a 300 cal deficit for a week now with a target of 200 gms protein. Most days I've only gotten 150 but 200 is the target. Tuna gets dull

I've lost 1/2 inch for my waist since last week and only lost 0.3 lbs. That looks VERY promising to me.

As I say it's early days. I'll record my results here next week and see if the trend continues.

Hmmmm, weight went up 0.7 kgs this week and my waist shrank by slightly over 1/2 inch...

Definate strengths gains even if modest...

Pleased with this high protein, 300 cal deficit. Will maintain till 10% BF.

This is pretty much my accidental protocol. Slow loss while wt.
However, in terms of efficiency it might still be better to lose at the faster rate for a shorter time and then bulk. I'd like to see that as a comparison.

The full study can be found here

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CD4QFjAF&url=http://brage.bibsys.no/nih/bitstream/URN:NBN:no-bibsys_brage_17906/1/Garthe%20IntJSportNutrExercMetabol%202011.pdf&ei=CxEPT-W2CsHs0gH41r2LAw&usg=AFQjCNHSb3EHhURcxsBAz20_6k_PvtyAUg&sig2=KQAQTF9njVVaZfOT_MVaNA


In the discussion section they do note that the lbm gains for the slow reduction group came almost all from their upper body, and that most of the athletes trained their legs heavily for their sport and that may have lead to the upper body being slightly less trained and therefore more apt to respond to to the training

It still doesn't not change the fact that these athletes GAIN MUSCLE on a CALORIE DEFICIT, which has been said million times here that is not possible. Moreover upper body is the place where many people want to focus on gaining muscle. That is certainly true for most pear shaped women, who wants to lose the fat in their butt and wants to build a bit muscle on their upper body at the same time.

This is not true. No one has never said it wasn't possible. Conditions have to almost perfect, ESPECIALLY when you're not going through the "newbie gains".

LOL @ most people. Yeah, those who don't understand how the body works. If you want to build a physique, you start at the legs.

Bump

Interesting. I have long thought that this was true because of watching my oldest son. At 16, he swims upwards of two hours a day six days a week, plus does strength/weight training for 45-60 minutes three days a week. I know he is eating at a deficit many days (unless he is sneaking food, which I am sure does happen from time to time) because he eats the same healthy diet as me, and sometimes not a lot more ( I am a 129 lb middle aged woman. He is 6+ feet tall and weighs 160 lbs and is still growing). His appetite has never been huge. But I can look at pictures and easily see the muscle mass growing. There is NO fat covering him anywhere, and his biceps and chest are getting huge.

I know there are growth hormones and such involved here, but if he is truly in deficit, you would think he would just turn into skin and bones.

On the other hand, my younger 13 year old son eats huge amounts without stopping and doesn't seem to ever build muscle. He also swims or runs 6 days a week and does bodyweight training, since he is too young to lift much. He has no fat either, but his body does not seem to easily produce muscle. He is more the skin and bones type, even though he eats plenty.

Some of it has to be genetic predisposition.