Gaining muscle while at a calorie deficit
Options
Replies
-
How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?
with a higher level of protein calories. even if you go over you calories, it should be because of protein.0 -
I went from
SW: 97kg BF:30% or so
CW: 86kg BF:20% or so
which sugests that I kept all my LBM or gained a kg or so over 3 months. (high protein, weight training x 3, reduced cardio from very high to med/low activity)
I'm not yet convinced about carb back-loading.
What are your questions about CBL? It works.
What I've seen for the most part about timing of food does not suggest that there is a significant impact to eating carbs late. And I'm frankly concerned that it is too restrictive (mentally) in my lifestyle so that CBL might only give me small value versus a more normal diet but really screw up the rest of my life/work style.
It is something I am not sufficiently read up on to be sure one way or the other.0 -
I'm curious what you believe is driving up TDEE as LBM increases, aside from the actual LBM, unless you're assuming quite large gains.
General consensus seems to be that LBM burns about 6 calories per pound. (<--- and typically, you're not gaining massive amounts of LBM, so this value tends to be small in terms of net)
That's an excellent question - I just ran that in the worksheet and create the following table (if the formatting does not work, I'll post an image)
For the person with the same weight but different LBM the calories per lb of LBM seem to be around 11-13 when calculated from the Katch-McArdle formula. Why might these be if 6 cals per pound is the accepted value? I would gues that part of it *might* be that the 6 cals per pound are at basal metabolism and the remaining are from the the activity multiplier (1.2 in my example) which does not cover the other 4-5 cals. Could this be NEAT?I would understand a situation where LBM increases, total bodyweight increases, calories are at a surplus and quite likely NEAT increases, which collectively would amount to a significant TDEE increase.
But eating at a deficit, with AT/NEAT possibly downregulating things, bodyweight decreasing even in the face of a potential LBM increase, I'm curious where that big of a TDEE increase would come from.
Thoughts? Curious if I'm missing something here, or just misunderstanding the post.
These calculations are prior to any calorie restriction so downregulation should not be occurring. But you bring up an import point - for someone dieting for extended periods the AT/NEAT down regulation might impact or kill the TDEE increase. Perhaps that is why we get the 6 cal/kg measurement versus the 11-12 from the equation. I don't know if the data evaluation from Katch-McArdle was done with a static population or a over a changing period.
If anyone wants to play with these numbers and (un)validate them just take the spreadsheet and enter the data and vary only the percent BF. Then calculate the change in cals per change in LBM.
I'm curious to hear other thoughts.
edit: image
I think I see what you're getting at although I'm replying without giving this time to mull around in my head, so I'll re-post if I have further thoughts.
Since any estimation tool is essentially looking at a snapshot in time, it's not going to factor in any AT/NEAT up/downregulation. (At least, I don't get how it could since then it would be way off for everyone who that doesn't apply to).
I think that's exactly what you're saying here:These calculations are prior to any calorie restriction so downregulation should not be occurring. But you bring up an import point - for someone dieting for extended periods the AT/NEAT down regulation might impact or kill the TDEE increase. Perhaps that is why we get the 6 cal/kg measurement versus the 11-12 from the equation. I don't know if the data evaluation from Katch-McArdle was done with a static population or a over a changing period.
It would be interesting to see if the bolded part is correct above.
Chances are that I'm over-nerding on this, because in reality it's a reasonable assumption that people are going to make rather minor changes in body composition over the course of a few months, rather than suddenly gaining 10lbs of LBM and losing 20lbs of fat. (So net change in TDEE "should" be small and can just be tweaked based on observational results rather than re-running K.A.).
I still find it interesting though.0 -
Chances are that I'm over-nerding on this
This is pretty common. The things we argue about 90% of the time probably account for 10% of our results. People overcomplicate things. Eat big. Lift big. Get big.0 -
Chances are that I'm over-nerding on this
This is pretty common. The things we argue about 90% of the time probably account for 10% of our results. People overcomplicate things. Eat big. Lift big. Get big.
Absolutely.
But as long as people recognize the difference between discussing something from a point of understanding vs trying to apply all the minutia, I don't see a problem with it.0 -
Chances are that I'm over-nerding on this
This is pretty common. The things we argue about 90% of the time probably account for 10% of our results. People overcomplicate things. Eat big. Lift big. Get big.
Absolutely.
But as long as people recognize the difference between discussing something from a point of understanding vs trying to apply all the minutia, I don't see a problem with it.
We have to entertain ourselves at work somehow right? What else are we gonna do? Work?
0 -
That's an excellent question - I just ran that in the worksheet and create the following table (if the formatting does not work, I'll post an image)
For the person with the same weight but different LBM the calories per lb of LBM seem to be around 11-13 when calculated from the Katch-McArdle formula. Why might these be if 6 cals per pound is the accepted value? I would gues that part of it *might* be that the 6 cals per pound are at basal metabolism and the remaining are from the the activity multiplier (1.2 in my example) which does not cover the other 4-5 cals. Could this be NEAT?
These calculations are prior to any calorie restriction so downregulation should not be occurring. But you bring up an import point - for someone dieting for extended periods the AT/NEAT down regulation might impact or kill the TDEE increase. Perhaps that is why we get the 6 cal/kg measurement versus the 11-12 from the equation. I don't know if the data evaluation from Katch-McArdle was done with a static population or a over a changing period.
Starters, on that table, I get different calories TDEE / lb LBM. Now even though the TDEE values have been rounded slightly it appears, the math is still off, I'm getting around 14.x calories/LBM lb.
The Katch BMR formula based on a study of course. Going off memory, it was a range of ages, but all considered healthy individuals within a healthy weight range, so an assumed avg ratio of LBM/Fat mass. Static, not a part of weight loss, so no follow up for the purposes of the BMR. Usually on these BMR/RMR studies, they don't want dieting people, because of the known effect that could be caused of suppressed metabolism or other diet induced differences.
So Katch underestimated BMR when overweight, because fat is metabolically active, though a whole lot less LBM, but not accounted for beyond expected ratio. Don't know what that ratio is, only saw it once, don't recall. I just remember thinking when I saw, automatic deficit for over-fat folks using it. That's good.
Also, 6 cal/kg shouldn't be compared to 11 cal/lb or whatever the value really is. Conversion, ugh.0 -
Also, 6 cal/kg shouldn't be compared to 11 cal/lb or whatever the value really is. Conversion, ugh.
^ Can you explain what you're getting at with the above?
I thought it was 6cal/lb as the commonly accepted value in terms of LBM. Just trying to understand further.0 -
If you are noticing your TDEE rise, and believe it is because of muscle mass gain...
Chances are it is because of what you are doing to gain the muscle mass. Strength training. As you get stronger and stronger the calorie cost of recovery from strength training goes up and up.
The effect can get very large, up to a 10-15% rise in TDEE (mine goes up 10%, I've noted this multiple times in my data) . It isn't the muscle mass gain, it is the strength gain and fatigue it brings.
Once you get reasonably strong, if you are working primairly compound movements and not doing a bro split, chances are any estimate for the calorie burn of strength training that you will find is laughably low. Even if the estimate is good for the burn in the gym (a la the circuit training entry), there is still no accounting for the 10-15% rise in your non-exercise TDEE due to recovery.0 -
If you are noticing your TDEE rise, and believe it is because of muscle mass gain...
Chances are it is because of what you are doing to gain the muscle mass. Strength training. As you get stronger and stronger the calorie cost of recovery from strength training goes up and up.
The effect can get very large, up to a 10-15% rise in TDEE (mine goes up 10%, I've noted this multiple times in my data) . It isn't the muscle mass gain, it is the strength gain and fatigue it brings.
Once you get reasonably strong, if you are working primairly compound movements and not doing a bro split, chances are any estimate for the calorie burn of strength training that you will find is laughably low. Even if the estimate is good for the burn in the gym (a la the circuit training entry), there is still no accounting for the 10-15% rise in your non-exercise TDEE due to recovery.
I have been wondering about\sorta assuming this myself. After I finished cutting and started trying to bulk and started lifting heavier and heavier, the amount of cals it is taking for weight gain is a lot more than I expected. A year ago I was maintaining weight at 188 on ~2600-2800. At 177 I went 2 weeks on 3200 with no gain, 5 days on 3500 with no gain, and finally got pissed and went to 4k. Probably gonna back it down to 3800 in a couple weeks or so.0 -
If you are noticing your TDEE rise, and believe it is because of muscle mass gain...
Chances are it is because of what you are doing to gain the muscle mass. Strength training. As you get stronger and stronger the calorie cost of recovery from strength training goes up and up.
The effect can get very large, up to a 10-15% rise in TDEE (mine goes up 10%, I've noted this multiple times in my data) . It isn't the muscle mass gain, it is the strength gain and fatigue it brings.
Once you get reasonably strong, if you are working primairly compound movements and not doing a bro split, chances are any estimate for the calorie burn of strength training that you will find is laughably low. Even if the estimate is good for the burn in the gym (a la the circuit training entry), there is still no accounting for the 10-15% rise in your non-exercise TDEE due to recovery.
I do a bro split...*sad face*
This thread is overly complicated. You need more caloric income to support more intense activity and the recovery and repair after. Especially the leaner you are.
If you just have enough straw to just repair the existing house the big bad wolf blew down there will be no making of bricks to reinforce it the next time he comes around.0 -
If you are noticing your TDEE rise, and believe it is because of muscle mass gain...
Chances are it is because of what you are doing to gain the muscle mass. Strength training. As you get stronger and stronger the calorie cost of recovery from strength training goes up and up.
The effect can get very large, up to a 10-15% rise in TDEE (mine goes up 10%, I've noted this multiple times in my data) . It isn't the muscle mass gain, it is the strength gain and fatigue it brings.
Once you get reasonably strong, if you are working primairly compound movements and not doing a bro split, chances are any estimate for the calorie burn of strength training that you will find is laughably low. Even if the estimate is good for the burn in the gym (a la the circuit training entry), there is still no accounting for the 10-15% rise in your non-exercise TDEE due to recovery.
I do a bro split...*sad face*
This thread is overly complicated. You need more caloric income to support more intense activity and the recovery and repair after. Especially the leaner you are.
If you just have enough straw to just repair the existing house the big bad wolf blew down there will be no making of bricks to reinforce it the next time he comes around.
For the record I agree with the above, but I still find the discussion interesting. From an application standpoint I think "observe results, adjust" is sufficient.0 -
Also, 6 cal/kg shouldn't be compared to 11 cal/lb or whatever the value really is. Conversion, ugh.
^ Can you explain what you're getting at with the above?
I thought it was 6cal/lb as the commonly accepted value in terms of LBM. Just trying to understand further.
Oh, only that someone threw out 6 cal / kg, but the table for comparison says 11-12 cal / lb.
Merely wanted to point on difference in values is kg vs lbs.
If not heard the 6 value anyway, so not even in that discussion, just noticed possible communication issue with conversion not being done.
But since you said 6 cal / lb, perhaps the kg was wrong?0 -
Also, 6 cal/kg shouldn't be compared to 11 cal/lb or whatever the value really is. Conversion, ugh.
^ Can you explain what you're getting at with the above?
I thought it was 6cal/lb as the commonly accepted value in terms of LBM. Just trying to understand further.
Oh, only that someone threw out 6 cal / kg, but the table for comparison says 11-12 cal / lb.
Merely wanted to point on difference in values is kg vs lbs.
If not heard the 6 value anyway, so not even in that discussion, just noticed possible communication issue with conversion not being done.
But since you said 6 cal / lb, perhaps the kg was wrong?
This is an appeal to authority on my part, but since the authority is Lyle McDonald, I'm good with that
See below, it's a good read.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html0 -
Also, 6 cal/kg shouldn't be compared to 11 cal/lb or whatever the value really is. Conversion, ugh.
^ Can you explain what you're getting at with the above?
I thought it was 6cal/lb as the commonly accepted value in terms of LBM. Just trying to understand further.But since you said 6 cal / lb, perhaps the kg was wrong?
Yes, my typo as I wrote 6 cal / kg but meant 6 cal / lb from SS post.
What is being compared in the table is the same units.
and should be 11-13 cal / lbs (results from theoretical Katch McArdle) vs 6 cal / lbs (which I have also seen on several web sites but do not know the scientific ref.)0 -
That's an excellent question - I just ran that in the worksheet and create the following table (if the formatting does not work, I'll post an image)
For the person with the same weight but different LBM the calories per lb of LBM seem to be around 11-13 when calculated from the Katch-McArdle formula. Why might these be if 6 cals per pound is the accepted value? I would gues that part of it *might* be that the 6 cals per pound are at basal metabolism and the remaining are from the the activity multiplier (1.2 in my example) which does not cover the other 4-5 cals. Could this be NEAT?
These calculations are prior to any calorie restriction so downregulation should not be occurring. But you bring up an import point - for someone dieting for extended periods the AT/NEAT down regulation might impact or kill the TDEE increase. Perhaps that is why we get the 6 cal/kg measurement versus the 11-12 from the equation. I don't know if the data evaluation from Katch-McArdle was done with a static population or a over a changing period.
Starters, on that table, I get different calories TDEE / lb LBM. Now even though the TDEE values have been rounded slightly it appears, the math is still off, I'm getting around 14.x calories/LBM lb.
On this point: I'm using your spreadsheet as check (weight 81 kg, sedentary and then those values for %BF) and coming up with the same.
If you are getting 14 cal/LBM lb is this at a higher activity rate (which would be accounted by the multiplier?)
And the funny thing is that this 6 vs 11 vs 14 is that one is for muscle and the other are for LBM which is not only muscle...
Throws hands up in the air.0 -
How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?
Most of the people with the most muscle mass didn't do it naturally.
Those that are suposedly all natural spent 10 - 15 years plus stuffing themselves with food and training as hard as possible and have the best genetics for this.
The natural way is a long slow process.
So building muscle eating at a surplus is slow in comparison to building muscle eating maintenance or below?
No. Building muscle naturally is slower then when your on drugs.
Yes I know that. The point of my first post was, how did the guys who have built the most muscle naturally do it? By bulking and cutting or by eating maintenance or below with some dietary timing tricks?
Ahhh I see... I would assume bulking and cutting but doesn't mean that it's the most effective way;
What people are realising now through studies etc. may prove a lot of these long held body building beliefs to be less than effective.
6 - 8 meals a day has been debunked a fair few times now and oats every morning is looking to be just as futile.0 -
How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?
Most of the people with the most muscle mass didn't do it naturally.
Those that are suposedly all natural spent 10 - 15 years plus stuffing themselves with food and training as hard as possible and have the best genetics for this.
The natural way is a long slow process.
So building muscle eating at a surplus is slow in comparison to building muscle eating maintenance or below?
No. Building muscle naturally is slower then when your on drugs.
Yes I know that. The point of my first post was, how did the guys who have built the most muscle naturally do it? By bulking and cutting or by eating maintenance or below with some dietary timing tricks?
Ahhh I see... I would assume bulking and cutting but doesn't mean that it's the most effective way;
What people are realising now through studies etc. may prove a lot of these long held body building beliefs to be less than effective.
6 - 8 meals a day has been debunked a fair few times now and oats every morning is looking to be just as futile.
There have certainly been a lot of myths debunked, but I don't think "mass can't be created out of thin air" is going to be one of them. I don't see how one could possibly add mass to their body without putting more mass into it than it burns off.0 -
I went from
SW: 97kg BF:30% or so
CW: 86kg BF:20% or so
which sugests that I kept all my LBM or gained a kg or so over 3 months. (high protein, weight training x 3, reduced cardio from very high to med/low activity)
I'm not yet convinced about carb back-loading.
What are your questions about CBL? It works.
What I've seen for the most part about timing of food does not suggest that there is a significant impact to eating carbs late. And I'm frankly concerned that it is too restrictive (mentally) in my lifestyle so that CBL might only give me small value versus a more normal diet but really screw up the rest of my life/work style.
It is something I am not sufficiently read up on to be sure one way or the other.
Well, keep reading. It works. Nutrient timing works. Insulin manipulation works. How would it be mentally restricting in your lifestyle?0 -
How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?
Most of the people with the most muscle mass didn't do it naturally.
Those that are suposedly all natural spent 10 - 15 years plus stuffing themselves with food and training as hard as possible and have the best genetics for this.
The natural way is a long slow process.
So building muscle eating at a surplus is slow in comparison to building muscle eating maintenance or below?
No. Building muscle naturally is slower then when your on drugs.
Yes I know that. The point of my first post was, how did the guys who have built the most muscle naturally do it? By bulking and cutting or by eating maintenance or below with some dietary timing tricks?
Ahhh I see... I would assume bulking and cutting but doesn't mean that it's the most effective way;
What people are realising now through studies etc. may prove a lot of these long held body building beliefs to be less than effective.
6 - 8 meals a day has been debunked a fair few times now and oats every morning is looking to be just as futile.
There is not a lot science in most of what goes on in bodybuilding in terms of spreads around, mostly anectodal. However, the hubris of science is that if it can't proven now it does not exist. You have to rely on a balance both. Both have indicated that under certain circumstances building muscle on a deficit is possibe but at a rate which is not substainable. Both would also indicate that along with progressive overload a person not within the range of a higher bodyfat level and/or physiologically unfamiliar with experienced overload, will need extra building blocks to support any muscle growth and the energy required to overload the muscle.
A body recomp is a slower process than a natural "bulk" cycle is slower than using chemical enhancements applying any of the other methods. Cutting only serves a vehicle to get rid of bodyfat, a recomp minimizes the need for this.
And lacking knowledge of these basics is why you see so many people, especially women, in the gym spinning their wheels.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions