build muscle on calorie deficit?

Options
124

Replies

  • Doberdawn
    Doberdawn Posts: 732 Member
    Options

    Dawn - somebody earlier in the thread linked to an article at bodyrecomposition.com, where Lyle discusses the mechanism of how it happens for overweight beginners. Read this article (it's part 1 of a 5-part series, which really merits reading in its entirety), in which Lyle specifically defines what he considers overweight/obese for purposes of training, and lays out a lot of other very useful diet/training information:

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/training-the-obese-beginner.html

    You know I love articles like this... Off to go read the details.. wonder how I missed the link earlier.

    That article was interesting... LOOOONG, but interesting... it linked to one more directly on point and I thought I would share it as it directly addresses losing fat while adding muscle:

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
  • JNick77
    JNick77 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Options
    There's a difference between building strength and building muscle mass. Strength on a calorie deficit yes, substantial muscle mass, nope. If you disagree refer to the LAW of Thermodynamics. It's not a myth or opinion; it's a scientific law.

    Remember, the appearance of muscle definition (striations and shape) represents a loss in bodyfat and not necessarily a gain in mass.
  • JNick77
    JNick77 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Options
    A gain in strength does not mean you gained LM. Also no offense, but there is no way that you gained 5 lbs of LM in 6 weeks (even if you were eating at a surplus) Your muscle tissue is retaining fluids because you are lifting.

    ^^^^
    THIS
    and
    THIS
    and
    THIS
    ....
    ...
    ...
    and what he said.
  • Nataliaho
    Nataliaho Posts: 878 Member
    Options
    All your calculations and numbers aside, you feel better, you look better and you are stronger... Congrats and keep it up :)
  • Yogi_Carl
    Yogi_Carl Posts: 1,906 Member
    Options
    There's a difference between building strength and building muscle mass. Strength on a calorie deficit yes, substantial muscle mass, nope. If you disagree refer to the LAW of Thermodynamics. It's not a myth or opinion; it's a scientific law.

    Remember, the appearance of muscle definition (striations and shape) represents a loss in bodyfat and not necessarily a gain in mass.

    This is surely good news for anyone who wishes to see strength gains but maintaining a high strength to weight ratio. Not everyone wants to look "buff" - lean definition can be an equally good luck and for many actually a preferred physique if it were not buried under a higher number of "build muscle" posts.
  • Nataliaho
    Nataliaho Posts: 878 Member
    Options
    There's a difference between building strength and building muscle mass. Strength on a calorie deficit yes, substantial muscle mass, nope. If you disagree refer to the LAW of Thermodynamics. It's not a myth or opinion; it's a scientific law.

    Remember, the appearance of muscle definition (striations and shape) represents a loss in bodyfat and not necessarily a gain in mass.

    This is surely good news for anyone who wishes to see strength gains but maintaining a high strength to weight ratio. Not everyone wants to look "buff" - lean definition can be an equally good luck and for many actually a preferred physique if it were not buried under a higher number of "build muscle" posts.

    It's definately good news for competative weight lifters, the last thing you want is superfluous muscle mass pushing you up a weight division without producing proportionate strength gains... You want to be lifting the most at the lightest weight...
  • lizziebeth1028
    lizziebeth1028 Posts: 3,602 Member
    Options
    All this science hurts my head. Unless you're planning on competing in a body building competition quit over analyzing it. For a healthy body - lift weights/ strength train, do some cardio, eat healthy, drink water, sleep, rinse and repeat.
  • Yogi_Carl
    Yogi_Carl Posts: 1,906 Member
    Options
    Yeah - good news for me in more advanced yoga postures as I can be stronger without superfluous mass getting in the way of correct alignment and less mass to hold up in things like inversions and hand balancing.
  • tross0924
    tross0924 Posts: 909 Member
    Options
    I have an unpopular opinion on this.

    First it's not impossible to be eating in a deficit and adding muscle mass. It's a gray area. There isn't a switch at 2000 calories that gets flipped and makes muscle gain a thing of the past when your below it. If you eat close to maintenance with ample protein, your body is capable of pulling some energy from your fat stores and building muscle with the amino acids you've eaten. This is of course provide you have sufficient stores.

    The greater deficit that you eat at the harder it becomes. But it's never impossible. It just takes longer. As an simplified example - Imagine you cut your finger. If you then eat at a calorie deficit for 90 days your body still continues to heal and build tissue to bridge the cut. It's a slower process though than if you give it lots of building blocks that it really has nothing else to do with. On a deficit it may take 3 weeks to heal completely where it might only take a week and a half if you were eating at a surplus.

    Also bulking and cutting are more efficient ways to do it. If over the course of a year you were to try to build muscle and lose fat at the same time you might gain 5 lbs of muscle and lose 10 lbs of fat. If however you were to do multiple bulking and cutting cycles over the course of the same year you might gain 10 lbs of muscle and lose 20 lbs of fat.

    And one more thing that bugs me is the size and strength being unrelated. Yes you can have 2 people exactly the same size and have one be stronger than the other. But there's a reason the heavy weight power lifters lift more than their light weight counterparts. Size follows strength. The guy that benches 600 lbs doesn't have the chest of a marathon runner. The guy that squats 1000 lbs doesn't have little chicken legs. Yes 2 people can look the same and one can be stronger than the other, but it's not going to be a huge difference.
  • naveed1naveed
    naveed1naveed Posts: 75
    Options
    if it were not buried under a higher number of "build muscle" posts.

    Yes
    misinterpretation among "building" "toning" and "strength"

    Yes again
    Lowering our body fat percentage makes us look more muscular.

    We do not gain or lose muscles as an adult, we just tone them up. Muscles are already around our bones, protecting/supporting our column and nerves system. Making muscles stronger is a bit different thing. some endo's own more stronger muscles than ecto's, even they look chubby and short.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet

    Can't have that steep of a deficit off true TDEE, otherwise your body is having trouble getting enough calories for normal metabolism, let alone building something.
    Must eat enough protein.
    Can't do too much cardio.
    Must be lifting heavy.

    It will be slow.

    Can the body build material when at a deficit? Hair, nails, skin, muscle breakdown/building all take energy, and is done all the time. Well, unless you are starving yourself too much.

    You are likely to see more increase in LBM minus any muscle. Which is still great for metabolism!

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/778012-potential-muscle-gain-lifting-and-metabolism-improvement

    This was at maintenance, just traded fat weight for LBM weight. No scans to confirm what LBM was though.
  • Yogi_Carl
    Yogi_Carl Posts: 1,906 Member
    Options
    And one more thing that bugs me is the size and strength being unrelated. Yes you can have 2 people exactly the same size and have one be stronger than the other. But there's a reason the heavy weight power lifters lift more than their light weight counterparts. Size follows strength. The guy that benches 600 lbs doesn't have the chest of a marathon runner. The guy that squats 1000 lbs doesn't have little chicken legs. Yes 2 people can look the same and one can be stronger than the other, but it's not going to be a huge difference.

    Hi Tross - I understand, but that is at the extreme end of the strength and building games. I would suggest that most people are more towards the early stages where size and strength can be significantly unrelated. Women in particular need to realise that they will gain significant strength before ever gaining more than a visual muscle definition without the bulk they fear.

    Most people who lift weights or do other strength work, as non-competition athletes, will hit a plateau where the real world prevents them from spending any more time or money on further increases. In many cases, this is fine and actually preferred.
  • Nataliaho
    Nataliaho Posts: 878 Member
    Options
    And one more thing that bugs me is the size and strength being unrelated. Yes you can have 2 people exactly the same size and have one be stronger than the other. But there's a reason the heavy weight power lifters lift more than their light weight counterparts. Size follows strength. The guy that benches 600 lbs doesn't have the chest of a marathon runner. The guy that squats 1000 lbs doesn't have little chicken legs. Yes 2 people can look the same and one can be stronger than the other, but it's not going to be a huge difference.

    Of course they're not unrelated, I doubt anyone is saying that. However when talking about the difference between strength and size, people aren't usually talking about two powerlifters in different weight classes. They're talking about the difference between a 95kg bodybuilder and a 66kg powerlifter (for example) where its is highkly probable that the 66kg powerlifter is stronger...
  • JNick77
    JNick77 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Options
    It's definately good news for competative weight lifters, the last thing you want is superfluous muscle mass pushing you up a weight division without producing proportionate strength gains... You want to be lifting the most at the lightest weight...

    Look at competitive fighters (wrestlers, boxers, MMA), those guys are pretty damn strong and are any of them massive? Even in the heavy weight division there are few lean and massive fighters, most are just overweight and big.
    And one more thing that bugs me is the size and strength being unrelated. Yes you can have 2 people exactly the same size and have one be stronger than the other. But there's a reason the heavy weight power lifters lift more than their light weight counterparts. Size follows strength. The guy that benches 600 lbs doesn't have the chest of a marathon runner. The guy that squats 1000 lbs doesn't have little chicken legs. Yes 2 people can look the same and one can be stronger than the other, but it's not going to be a huge difference

    You're talking apples and oranges. You can't compare the strength of a heavy-weight lifter to the weight of a middle-weight lifter. The 300lb lifter is not only more massive they're usually also carrying that weight on a taller frame whereas your lighter lifters are also shorter. You compare a 200lb competitive powerlifter to a 200lb competitive bodybuilder (who will be more massive) I can guarantee you that 99% of the time the powerlifter will be considerably stronger.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    ...We do not gain or lose muscles as an adult, we just tone them up. Muscles are already around our bones, protecting/supporting our column and nerves system. Making muscles stronger is a bit different thing. some endo's own more stronger muscles than ecto's, even they look chubby and short.
    Completely, totally wrong. It is quite possible to increase the size of muscles (hypertrophy) and/or for them to shrink in size (atrophy). Of course you don't gain or lose "new" muscles - you don't add additional biceps muscles to the ones you have, or sprout some new, unnamed muscle alongside it - but it's certainly possible to make the existing muscles larger. By your logic, bodybuilders were born with huge muscles and have had them their entire life.
  • JNick77
    JNick77 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Options
    ...We do not gain or lose muscles as an adult, we just tone them up. Muscles are already around our bones, protecting/supporting our column and nerves system. Making muscles stronger is a bit different thing. some endo's own more stronger muscles than ecto's, even they look chubby and short.

    OMG, how did I miss that comment? Delete your account. LOL
  • Nataliaho
    Nataliaho Posts: 878 Member
    Options
    It's definately good news for competative weight lifters, the last thing you want is superfluous muscle mass pushing you up a weight division without producing proportionate strength gains... You want to be lifting the most at the lightest weight...

    Look at competitive fighters (wrestlers, boxers, MMA), those guys are pretty damn strong and are any of them massive? Even in the heavy weight division there are few lean and massive fighters, most are just overweight and big.

    True, plus once you are into the top weight ranges, there's no real incentive to get more lean, unless you are on the cusp. My husband competes in BJJ, the top weight div is over 94kgs. Given how hard it is for him to get under that, he instead just lets himeself beef up and is now about 108kgs (on a big 6'5" frame). He's still fighting people that are 130kg+ though :(
  • ilovedeadlifts
    ilovedeadlifts Posts: 2,923 Member
    Options
    ...We do not gain or lose muscles as an adult, we just tone them up. Muscles are already around our bones, protecting/supporting our column and nerves system. Making muscles stronger is a bit different thing. some endo's own more stronger muscles than ecto's, even they look chubby and short.

    OMG, how did I miss that comment? Delete your account. LOL

    yeah I was kind of mind=blown on that one.
  • almonds1
    almonds1 Posts: 642 Member
    Options
    ...We do not gain or lose muscles as an adult, we just tone them up. Muscles are already around our bones, protecting/supporting our column and nerves system. Making muscles stronger is a bit different thing. some endo's own more stronger muscles than ecto's, even they look chubby and short.

    OMG, how did I miss that comment? Delete your account. LOL
    I no longer want to live on this earth
  • Yogi_Carl
    Yogi_Carl Posts: 1,906 Member
    Options
    ...We do not gain or lose muscles as an adult, we just tone them up. Muscles are already around our bones, protecting/supporting our column and nerves system. Making muscles stronger is a bit different thing. some endo's own more stronger muscles than ecto's, even they look chubby and short.

    OMG, how did I miss that comment? Delete your account. LOL

    yeah I was kind of mind=blown on that one.

    I think I read it differently. I think the poster meant:

    "We do not gain or lose extra muscles as an adult, we just build or reduce the ones we already have.

    Making muscles stronger is a bit different thing. some endomorphs have a tendency to build muscle mass easier than ectomorphs; having a tendency to look more bulky. "

    Actually - now I've tried to translate it, I'm not sure I agree with it either :smile:

Categories