Muscle Gain in a Calorie Deficit (I just don't get it)

Is there any way you could help clear up my confusion? What am I missing? Are they saying maintenance of LBW only because .43 kg is within an error margin or am I missing somewhere else that says that there wasn't an actual overall gain?

I wish this study was conducted longer term to see what happens over a longer period than 8 weeks.

The amount is what's considered "statistically insignificant" in that it cannot be attributed solely to the intervention the group undertook, there are simply too many other variables to consider.

Where you can really challenge this is to see the changes in lean-body-mass an untrained individual can make when undergoing a typical mass-building diet and exercise program. The amount of LBM gained in 8 weeks of a properly-structured mass-building program for untrained individuals is staggering by comparison.

As such, when determining if energy-restriction truly can increase LBM, one has to ultimately compare it to the standard method for gaining lean mass - and in all studies so far they conclude that calorie-restriction with resistance training will only result in maintenance, never gains.

Though not specifically stated in the studies, that's a standard part of scientific methodology and will be present in any properly conducted trial conclusions.

No idea. If I had to guess, it would be that when you start to tap into the relatively large fat stores of an obese person, you end up with enough calories in the bloodstream to allow for muscle tissues to get a little bigger. Combine that with the hormones stimulated when just starting to work out and you can make some small gains.

That's wild speculation. I have no idea. But I know that the number of calories you can get from fat stores in the body is directly related to how much fat there is. So if you start exercising, start generating those hormones, and start releasing energy from fat mass you can get a calorie bonanza in there.

So related to that part, if I have 40 lbs of fat mass right now and we assume that my body can access 30 cal/lb/day, I can produce a maximum of 1200 calories per day internally. If I also eat 1200 calories per day (just for the sake of numbers as this is not particularly relevant so assuming the min. healthy amount) then total potential energy is 2400 calories per day. My current TDEE is about 2100 which leaves me with a potential surplus of 300 calories per day. Why could my body not use that to synthesize the necessary protein for muscle growth?

I don't think it's a matter of why it could, but why it would. If you're in a calorie deficit and using up internal stores already, then it's not a wise time to be building new muscles which will cost even more calories to maintain.

OP, have you ever heard of carb back-loading?

It was "invented" by trainer Kiefer over at dangerouslyhardcore.com. He concludes that by manipulating your food and when you eat it, you can burn fat and build muscle at the same time.

Pretty much, you go through a 10-day low carb phase of 30g/day of net carbs. Then, on lifting days, before you lift you stay at ultra low carb. After you lift, you eat stuff to spike your insulin levels, and because you just lifted, it is pretty much impossible for the stuff to go into the fat cells. The muscle cells eat all that crap up because of something called tGLUT which gets activated by lifting, and leave none for the fat cells. When you read through all the crap on carbbackloading.com it sounds like a gimmick, but it actually works.

Sorry I don't remember all of the technical terms. I can't reference any links to studies but he has a crapton of them on his site that I mentioned earlier.

I have heard that as well. My personal experience is that it just inst true. I cardio 4 days a week and strength train 3 days a week. When I strength train I eat 150+g of protein a day and still try to break 100 every other day. This keeps my muscles fed. I maintain a cal deficit every day. I most certainly have been putting on muscle and building strength.

From an evolutionary point of view, the ability to build muscle at a deficit would not be selected for. I put scientific theories about human physiology to the "Homo erectus test" which basically means, if Homo erectus's body had worked like this, what would have happened.... if the answer is "they would die" then it's unlikely that Homo sapiens bodies work that way.

So why wouldn't building muscle while in a calorie deficit be selected for, when too much fat is bad for health and muscle is good for health?

In the palaeolithic era, if your are eating at a deficit, then it's for one reason only - there isn't enough food. If there isn't enough food, then your body needs fat a lot more than it needs muscle. The longer your fat stores last, the longer you can survive on insufficient food (0% body fat is dead). Muscle is a liability in a food shortage, muscle cells burn more energy than fat cells even when they're idle, in other words, muscle is a tissue that is expensive to maintain, and so idle muscle is jettisoned during a food shortage because it's using up energy without providing any kind of survival benefit, and it is in addition a source of fuel... i.e. the body will burn idle skeletal muscle in preference to fat during a calorie deficit, in order to survive the food shortage. Even when not eating at a deficit, the body will metabolise idle muscle. When body fat levels are low, then even skeletal muscle that's being used regularly will be metabolised, in preference to running out of fat and dying.

If there was a Homo erectus whose body was building muscle during a food shortage, and using up fat in order to do so, that individual would be the first to die during the food shortage, because he or she would run out of fat much sooner than the others. That would be the end of the genes that code for the ability to build muscle while eating at a deficit.

Okay... so what if a Homo erectus, by building muscle at a deficit, becomes strong enough to be a better hunter and gets more food? Well, this is a logical suggestion, but the human body can make huge gains in strength without adding to the amount of muscle mass while eating at a deficit. So it doesn't really make sense to actually build more lean body mass. Homo erectus can become a stronger, better hunter even during a food shortage, without needing to build lean body mass at a deficit, and so the above still applies, if his or her body is using fat to build lean tissue while eating at a deficit, then they will be the first to die in a food shortage due to being the first to run out of fat. Genes for getting stronger while eating at a deficit without needing to use up any fat to increase the amount of lean body mass, have clearly been selected for. The fact that a) the human body can do a huge amount of low intensity steady state cardio while eating at a deficit, and that loss of lean muscle mass due to lots of cardio + eating at a deficit does not prevent humans from running marathons, and b) Homo erectus most likely hunted using methods that involved a lot of low intensity steady state cardio, i.e. repeatedly chasing the same animal, tracking it each time after it escapes, until it is literally run into the ground and drops dead from a combination of heat exhaustion and whatever injuries you managed to inflict on it in the process, are almost certainly linked. In other words, the human body's main adaptation to being able to continue to hunt effectively while eating at a deficit, is that you can carry on doing ridiculous amounts of steady state cardio while losing lean body mass and eating at a deficit. We're adapted to run marathons during severe food shortages, in pursuit of food.

While the evolutionary approach may seem to be very much a "round the houses" method of answering questions like these, the fact remains that we're the products of billions of years of natural selection, and the problem of obesity is one created by the modern world, which evolution hasn't had to deal with, because Homo erectus wouldn't have been able to get obese. All of the annoying things about trying to lose fat and increase lean body mass, come from the fact that we're adapted to survive food shortages in the palaeolithic era, not to be surrounded by processed food that's artificially high in calories while being sedentary.

Regarding concurrent fat loss and muscle gain in obese, sedentary people who are trying to get into shape... I'd say that's down to the fact that if you are sedentary, you probably have less muscle mass than you're genetically supposed to have. If you have lost muscle mass, you can regain it a lot more easily than muscle you've never had. If you have far too much body fat, then you're all set up to survive a food shortage anyway, so using some of that fat to gain muscle, so you can stop being sedentary and start hunting effectively would make sense. However, when it comes to obesity and being sedentary, I don't think natural selection has had much chance to operate, as our evolutionary ancestors were not sedentary, and would have found it extremely hard to become obese. Skinny-fat maybe (i.e. normal weight obesity) if they are subjected to frequent food shortages, i.e. keeping lean body mass levels as low as possible without compromising the ability to hunt, while storing as much fat as possible when there's not a food shortage, in order to withstand the next food shortage.... but the situation with very overfed, sedentary individuals, I don't see how that would have happened often enough for natural selection to operate.

What you can learn from all this is that if you only do cardio and eat at a calorie deficit for weight loss, you will sooner or later lose lean body mass, and if you repeatedly subject yourself to severe food shortages, your body will store more fat to survive the next one (i.e. yo-yo dieting). Using your muscles to their maximum capacity (i.e. strength training to failure) won't increase your lean body mass while eating at a deficit (sedentary people with high body fat percentages may be an exception) but it will prevent them from being lost, as long as you don't make the deficit too big or stay in a deficit for too long. And if you're using your muscles to their maximum capacity, then it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view, that when food is plentiful again (i.e. a bulking cycle) the body will put on more lean mass, to hopefully be a better hunter during the next food shortage (cutting cycle).

Great thread!

Personally, I no longer worry about it. I'm no longer worried about whether or not I gain mass, so long as I am gaining strength. I am keeping my deficit small so I don't lose too quickly and focusing on increasing my strength.

This is a interesting and informative thread. I will follow your guide for maintaining the fitness.:):)

Black magic.

I can post some bodpod results that show my weigh loss and muscle gain over the last 4 months. Where I went from 234 pounds (33% body fat) to 213 pounds (21.4% body fat) while adding 13 pounds of lean body mass. While people say it's impossible I strongly disagree. I think it has to do with some other things where in obese or people with higher body can do both.

Also if you watched the biggest loser you will she Danni gained 20 lbs of muscle while drop over 100 lbs for weight. This was verified using DEXA scan

in before the lock

bump

Good questions and discussion. And very respectful. Great thread.

I keep reading that "Abs are made in the kitchen" . I have to really think about that...a LOT. It's not just calories anymore...it's what kind.

There is an oft quoted article here that got me spinning in some new directions. Here is the link: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912914-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-2013 The inward links in that article has helped me reformulate new goals for "the last leg". Seemed like something you may enjoy chewing on as well. One little line in it suggests a short-term drop below EDEE to accomplish the last 5-10 pounds--perhaps this is to compensate for less internal insulin, as one contributor here noted above suggested. Good food for thought.