"You can't build muscle on a calorie deficit"

You can build on a deficit. It really is true, don't let anyone say you can't unless you eat more than you should. It's not the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y

He said "fight like the ****ens" - worth watching for that alone!

Oh really MFP? The name of one of the English Language's most love authors is a swear word now?

And before anyone says it - I know the phrase was around before Charles.....

You can build on a deficit. It really is true, don't let anyone say you can't unless you eat more than you should. It's not the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y

A video from 2011 with information that has been dis-proven with peer-reviewed research mult times. Also daily cardio while trying to build muscle and in a caloric deficit LOL gtfoh

I've managed to do it quite nicely thanks. Easily & without trying :bigsmile:

I've wasted many months of my life listening to people on these forums and getting no results because of it. I now trust MFP recommendations for the most part.
I've always wondered about this particular thing though. So when you get muscles while in a calorie deficit, are you revealing the ones you already had by burning the fat around them or building some muscle while burning fat?
In my experience I could see more muscle definition, but I had not lost any weight AT ALL while eating in a calorie deficit, so I wondered "Is it possible that I burned fat and built muscle simultaneously"?

Burning fat and building muscle is only possible at the beginning of someone's weight lifting routine since you have never hit those muscles before but say after 6 months of training, this will not be the case ... Burn fat during deficit, build muscle during surplus

Not true. You have at least 10 pounds of stored body fat (35,000 calories) worth of energy for your body to use as fuel during eating a calorie deficit. Thus, the stored fat can be used to fuel your body. The protein eaten during a calorie deficit can be used to make muscle. I agree that this is extremely difficult to achieve, but definitely not impossible. Very disciplined people can do this.

I've wasted many months of my life listening to people on these forums and getting no results because of it. I now trust MFP recommendations for the most part.
I've always wondered about this particular thing though. So when you get muscles while in a calorie deficit, are you revealing the ones you already had by burning the fat around them or building some muscle while burning fat?
In my experience I could see more muscle definition, but I had not lost any weight AT ALL while eating in a calorie deficit, so I wondered "Is it possible that I burned fat and built muscle simultaneously"?

Burning fat and building muscle is only possible at the beginning of someone's weight lifting routine since you have never hit those muscles before but say after 6 months of training, this will not be the case ... Burn fat during deficit, build muscle during surplus

This does not make any sense. As long as you are continually pushing the muscle and ripping the fibers, it will grow back bigger and stronger. This nonsense of only beginners gaining muscle on a deficit is just that, nonsense.

So according to this lifting while on a deficit, if I lift heavy and tear down my muscles, then I will not have the fuel to rebuild them on a deficit??? So what you are telling me is that while lifting on a deficit, it will actually make my muscles smaller since they tear down and will not rebuild? GTFOH with that crap.

I have read the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this. I saw someone post that when on a deficit you wont have materials to build muscle because all the material is going to keeping you alive. Now is that really the case if you are doing something like BMR-TDEE method.

Isnt BMR just what you need to keep you alive. That is basically the number of calories you body burns in a sedentary state. TDEE is the amount of calories you really burn per day at your current activity level.

So if I eat more than BMR and less than TDEE. Pick your percentage 5%, 10%, 20% less. Now there is a surplus over the BMR level. Say BMR is 1800 and your eating 2500 and TDEE is 3000.

Now isnt what we want is the 2500 to go towards the activity (working out, building muscle) and when we run out of the fuel we consume the fat is then converted into more energy for basic life maintaining needs.

"You can't build muscle on a deficit because you need calories to build muscle"

"If you eat less calories than you burn, you lose weight"

Think. Really hard. Just for a minute.

Of course you can build muscle on a deficit. If you're on a deficit, you're losing weight. If you're losing weight, you have a bunch of nasty stuff your body can turn into muscle.

Your body doesn't run out of calories to do the things you challenge it to do. When it does, you die.

ETA: I see several others have posted basically the same thing. Well said. +1 and all that

Perhaps... your shirt shrunk. :laugh: Or you're counting your calories incorrectly.

Or, depending on what margin of error we're talking about for your shirt sleeves, you're retaining water. Since you're noticing a difference, and it seems unlikely that you gained... say, 1" around your arms while lifting and not eating all that much, I'm going to suggest it's one of these other explanations.

Lol I hope not, I like that dress!

But there's muscle there where there was once just thinner arms. Unless..........water is stored in the shaped of muscle?

Oh come on, I'm not lying to you - I'm being very honest, there was no muscle and now there is and you're just trying to poo poo my argument with WATER WEIGHT on my arms. Piffle!

You are totally missing the point of what water weight people are talking about - it IS in the muscle - glycogen and water.

But surely I would see a increase/decrease in my muscle, as these stores are replenished and depleted.

No, its a persistent adaptation in the short term, your muscles will be pumped up or really pumped up. You'll know its not real muscle when you quit exercising for 2-3 weeks and pee away all your "muscle".

Muscle firmness is not an indication of real muscle tissue, its a byproduct of the near perma pump you get from strength training over time. Doesn't last long if you quit training, couple weeks at most.

Any barely experienced lifters (more than 3 months) can't really gain much muscle when on a caloric deficit.

FIFY

I have read the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this. I saw someone post that when on a deficit you wont have materials to build muscle because all the material is going to keeping you alive. Now is that really the case if you are doing something like BMR-TDEE method.

Isnt BMR just what you need to keep you alive. That is basically the number of calories you body burns in a sedentary state. TDEE is the amount of calories you really burn per day at your current activity level.

So if I eat more than BMR and less than TDEE. Pick your percentage 5%, 10%, 20% less. Now there is a surplus over the BMR level. Say BMR is 1800 and your eating 2500 and TDEE is 3000.

Now isnt what we want is the 2500 to go towards the activity (working out, building muscle) and when we run out of the fuel we consume the fat is then converted into more energy for basic life maintaining needs.

It does not work that way. Your BMR is the amount of energy needed to maintain while completely inactive. You start moving exercising, repairing, and so on and that is your TDEE. To tap into fat stores you need your intake to be less than your TDEE. All the food you intake will be used up before your body goes stored energy. Leaving nothing to build new mass. You need energy AND building materials to build new mass. You are restricting both on a deficit.

I have read the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this. I saw someone post that when on a deficit you wont have materials to build muscle because all the material is going to keeping you alive. Now is that really the case if you are doing something like BMR-TDEE method.

Isnt BMR just what you need to keep you alive. That is basically the number of calories you body burns in a sedentary state. TDEE is the amount of calories you really burn per day at your current activity level.

So if I eat more than BMR and less than TDEE. Pick your percentage 5%, 10%, 20% less. Now there is a surplus over the BMR level. Say BMR is 1800 and your eating 2500 and TDEE is 3000.

Now isnt what we want is the 2500 to go towards the activity (working out, building muscle) and when we run out of the fuel we consume the fat is then converted into more energy for basic life maintaining needs.

But you are missing the fact that energy is expended throughout the day by just moving - which is above your BMR. Muscle is not considered a priority for your body, however, daily functions (and fat) is. The priority your body puts on fat depends on how much you have. In a caloric deficit, your body is going to look to conserve as much energy for the higher priority needs as possible, which means conserving fat (context is relevant here as noted re dependent on the amount of fat you have). Why would it use the energy that it can get from fat (high priority) to build muscle (low priority) when it is needed for body functions (high priority) and basic energy to move (high priority).

But, since I can lift the same amount I did this time last week, and I'm on a calorie deficit, and I'm lifting heavy, obviously my body directed some of that energy to building back the damage I did to my muscles last week, low priority or not.

This is the most persistent piece of broscience ever. Even when it fails to hold up to basic logic, the proponents won't let it go.

Many studies have been done showing that muscle gain is much more likely with more calories. That's obvious. That is not evidence that it cannot be done.

If you lift when on a deficit, your body must replace the damaged muscle. If you couldn't gain on a deficit, then everyone who lifts on a deficit would atrophy into a horrifying squid-like creature within a few weeks. The very idea is nonsense, and it disregards the most basic human physiology.

That is precisely what would happen. If the deficit was severe enough. Although why you think it'd happen in "a few weeks" is incomprehensible.

Muscle contraction i.e. breakdown/tear in this context doesn't mean your muscle disappears into thin air. It just means it's weakened and will be rebuilt via protein synthesis. Inadequate calories nee nutrients prevents protein synthesis from occurring for a net gain of muscle.

But since you apparently don't think that's how the human body works, why not just stop eating completely while lifting increasingly heavy weights? Or never stop eating on a deficit? Be sure to let us know how being a ripped 6% bodyfat while smashing national lifting records goes. Represent MFP while you're at the national meets too. MFP T-shirt?

Why is everyone on this forum on Scooby's nuts?

Kinda cause he knows what he's talking about more than other numbnuts on here... just sayin

No he doesnt. He is repeatedly wrong in most of his videos. The only reason anyone listens to him his because he has a great chest.

If you lift when on a deficit, your body must replace the damaged muscle. If you couldn't gain on a deficit, then everyone who lifts on a deficit would atrophy into a horrifying squid-like creature within a few weeks. The very idea is nonsense, and it disregards the most basic human physiology.

That is precisely what would happen. If the deficit was severe enough. Although why you think it'd happen in "a few weeks" is incomprehensible.

Muscle contraction i.e. breakdown/tear in this context doesn't mean your muscle disappears into thin air. It just means it's weakened and will be rebuilt via protein synthesis. Inadequate calories nee nutrients prevents protein synthesis from occurring for a net gain of muscle.

But since you apparently don't think that's how the human body works, why not just stop eating completely while lifting increasingly heavy weights? Or never stop eating on a deficit? Be sure to let us know how being a ripped 6% bodyfat while smashing national lifting records goes. Represent MFP while you're at the national meets too. MFP T-shirt?

I respect your sarcasm, it's elegant, but obviously I'm not saying that anabolism isn't affected by calorie intake. OF COURSE it's easier to build on a surplus than a deficit. And nobody's going to break records while on a deficit (mostly because they'd reach that 6% bodyfat long before they got to the record-breaking stage anyway). But there's not a magic number of pounds of muscle that your body memorizes in order to lock it in during a deficit. It's not impossible to build, and it's silly to say that it is.

Of course there's a magic number. You just don't know what it is. (I mean, no one knows, since we eat at and calculate at rounded estimates.)

Otherwise If you assume that any muscle breakdown = muscle gain, as opposed to muscle repair, strength would increase indefinitely up to the genetic limit, yes? As long as you had fat stores to burn.

But if you acknowledge that the process of BUILDING, not repairing, muscle while eating at a caloric deficit is unpredictable, unreliable, and insignificant, then even if it's not "impossible" what are we even debating here? Whether it's possible to increase your lean mass by 1% (net gain of 1.5 lbs) while eating at a deficit for 4 weeks?

I have read the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this. I saw someone post that when on a deficit you wont have materials to build muscle because all the material is going to keeping you alive. Now is that really the case if you are doing something like BMR-TDEE method.

Isnt BMR just what you need to keep you alive. That is basically the number of calories you body burns in a sedentary state. TDEE is the amount of calories you really burn per day at your current activity level.

So if I eat more than BMR and less than TDEE. Pick your percentage 5%, 10%, 20% less. Now there is a surplus over the BMR level. Say BMR is 1800 and your eating 2500 and TDEE is 3000.

Now isnt what we want is the 2500 to go towards the activity (working out, building muscle) and when we run out of the fuel we consume the fat is then converted into more energy for basic life maintaining needs.

But you are missing the fact that energy is expended throughout the day by just moving - which is above your BMR. Muscle is not considered a priority for your body, however, daily functions (and fat) is. The priority your body puts on fat depends on how much you have. In a caloric deficit, your body is going to look to conserve as much energy for the higher priority needs as possible, which means conserving fat (context is relevant here as noted re dependent on the amount of fat you have). Why would it use the energy that it can get from fat (high priority) to build muscle (low priority) when it is needed for body functions (high priority) and basic energy to move (high priority).

But, since I can lift the same amount I did this time last week, and I'm on a calorie deficit, and I'm lifting heavy, obviously my body directed some of that energy to building back the damage I did to my muscles last week, low priority or not.

This is the most persistent piece of broscience ever. Even when it fails to hold up to basic logic, the proponents won't let it go.

Many studies have been done showing that muscle gain is much more likely with more calories. That's obvious. That is not evidence that it cannot be done.

I have to agree with this I am lifting double/triple I was when I started my weight loss. If I am not gaining muscle while loosing fat how come I can lift so much more? I can buy the well you see more muscle because the fat over them is going away if I wasn't getting any stronger.

I have read the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this. I saw someone post that when on a deficit you wont have materials to build muscle because all the material is going to keeping you alive. Now is that really the case if you are doing something like BMR-TDEE method.

Isnt BMR just what you need to keep you alive. That is basically the number of calories you body burns in a sedentary state. TDEE is the amount of calories you really burn per day at your current activity level.

So if I eat more than BMR and less than TDEE. Pick your percentage 5%, 10%, 20% less. Now there is a surplus over the BMR level. Say BMR is 1800 and your eating 2500 and TDEE is 3000.

Now isnt what we want is the 2500 to go towards the activity (working out, building muscle) and when we run out of the fuel we consume the fat is then converted into more energy for basic life maintaining needs.

But you are missing the fact that energy is expended throughout the day by just moving - which is above your BMR. Muscle is not considered a priority for your body, however, daily functions (and fat) is. The priority your body puts on fat depends on how much you have. In a caloric deficit, your body is going to look to conserve as much energy for the higher priority needs as possible, which means conserving fat (context is relevant here as noted re dependent on the amount of fat you have). Why would it use the energy that it can get from fat (high priority) to build muscle (low priority) when it is needed for body functions (high priority) and basic energy to move (high priority).

But, since I can lift the same amount I did this time last week, and I'm on a calorie deficit, and I'm lifting heavy, obviously my body directed some of that energy to building back the damage I did to my muscles last week, low priority or not.

This is the most persistent piece of broscience ever. Even when it fails to hold up to basic logic, the proponents won't let it go.

Many studies have been done showing that muscle gain is much more likely with more calories. That's obvious. That is not evidence that it cannot be done.

I have to agree with this I am lifting double/triple I was when I started my weight loss. If I am not gaining muscle while loosing fat how come I can lift so much more? I can buy the well you see more muscle because the fat over them is going away if I wasn't getting any stronger.

Neuromuscular adaptation. The more stress you place on a muscle, the more twitch fibres become active over time.