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

can't find the link to the article I mentioned and it is driving me crazy - I must find it if only just for my sanity

^ Yep you are training your muscles to fire more fibers at once. Advanced lifters can actually see a decrease in strength while dieting. Most of us will still see strength gains, or at least maintenance, while dieting.

Go through a couple bulking/cutting cycles and you can definitely feel the difference in strength gains and recovery times.

Exactly. How does a competing lifter stay in the same weight class but continually put up bigger lifts? By training the muscles to fire more fibers, not by increasing muscle mass . They are not dropping BF% and adding muscle mass in huge amounts, because at some point you'd run out of BF to drop.

This is why the one poster who had been an experienced lifter and is back from a layoff was able to increase his bench on a number of occasions while dieting. It's the difference between training and not training. Don't train, your lifts will decrease. Start training again, you have to step back a good ways and revisit weights that used to be light for you. I am doing the same thing. I was a hard/heavy dedicated lifter for a long time. Benched 475 in my last competition. Deadlifted 585 my last competition. I quit lifting for 3 years. Got fatter Dieted the wrong way, dropped 50lbs. I started lifting again in February. I could barely push up 135lbs on bench for 5 reps. 3 months later, I'm pushing 225x10. I'm not bigger than I was when I started in Feb, I've just retrained my body into firing more fibers at once. Those gains will continue until I top out what my body is capable of. At this point, with my reduced weight and increasing age, I don't expect to get back to 4 plates a side, but I can expect 3 plates and to be in generally better shape than I was even when I was lifting at me peak.

Firstly! LOL!! 'It must not be muscle...' was the perfect hint of sarcasm.

Bottom line = it depends where you are getting your calories. I get mine from protein and vegetables. I follow the 80%-20% rule.

I am a no sugar, no refined foods or dairy who runs and lifts type of person 80% of the time and 20% of the time I enjoy wine, bread and dessert (AKA whatever the heck I want).

People need to simmer down and eat to feed the body, not emotions. Am I right? - no need to answer

Hi, I'm really new to MFP - signed up only today, and am so impressed with the quality of thinking and advice on this site!

I've been slowly reading up a lot of different threads on lifting, cardio and nutrition

I read through most of the posts in this thread - and I got totally confused.
I saw a lot of posts disapproving of the 1200 calorie diet the OP is on. When I signed onto MFP, that is what I was told to eat per day, so is MFP wrong to say this? I am a woman of 40, I weigh 165 lb, am 5 foot tall and I would like to lose around 30 odd pounds.

I was hoping to do heavy lifting rather than cardio to get weight loss - but here it says I can't build muscle on a calorie deficit, but I can build LBM.

I hope, over time, to get a better handle on things by reading more, but for now, can someone please help me?
a) should i eat 1200 cals to get a 1 pound a week weight loss?
b) should i do cardio or lifting if I want to lose weight and get a better shape?

Welcome.

If you are new to weight training, you will have small muscle gains at the very beginning, but these won't be for very long, and you won't see any of that mass because the gains are small. Your muscles will get harder and more dense, though as you start to shed intramuscular fat. That is a great feeling when that happens. The "pump" you will get after working out looks great, but that's mostly water retention that aids in muscle repair.

You don't build LBM on a deficit. You lose fat and maintain LBM if you strength train while on a deficit. This reveals the muscle beneath the fat after a certain amount of time training.

a) You are very petite. Most people aren't as petite as you are. The 1200 calorie mark that you have been given is what you would eat before eating back exercise calories. My guess is that your daily calorie consumption should be over 1400-1500 per day. (I wouldn't make a suggestion to go this low for a woman my height, but you're 5 feet tall). Be warned that for your height and weight, the calorie burns on MFP are exaggerated. The calculators on here estimate I burn a bit more calories than what I actually burn.

b) You should do both. Strength for your body recomposition and cardio to keep your heart healthy. How much you do of each is up to you.

Finally, don't rush the process. Go slow, be consistent, train hard, eat at a deficit. You may not see a steady loss and my not see any losses the first month. Just stick with it and it will happen.

I've gained a lot of muscle, mainly on thighs from squats and lunges in the last 5 months on 1200 calories. more muscle than I've ever had. i train at least 7hrs a week and lift weights and i have biceps now lol...all on a calorie deficit. lost 49lb in that time too, so yes u can 100% increase muscle mass on low calorie intake.

Muscle has ALWAYS been there. They increase in SIZE due to glycogen/water retention from lifting and will stay "blown" up while you continue. If you can "see" your muscle now compared to when you couldn't.
While a very overweight/obese person can add some muscle in the beginning, I guarantee you it's continued happening in 5 months while on a calorie deficit.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

You actually and physically can't build appreciable muscle on a deficit, just like you can't build fat on a deficit. You have to have materials build IYSWIM.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't lift weights while in a deficit. Why lift?

1. Weight lifting is exercise, and while people fight and argue about how much it burns (answer-no one knows), it will contribute to your calorie deficit in some manner.
2. While you can't build muscle on a deficit, you can build strength and coordination-two good things to have.
3. While you can't build muscle, you can preserve what you already have, what this means is you have to lose less weight to get to a lower body fat percentage-end result is many people are happier with their bodies.

Have you been measuring your arms? Just because the muscle is more defined doesn't mean it is actually bigger. More likely is that as you have lost weight, you have lost fat which makes it more visible. (ie#3) Either that or you took the picture directly after lifting so it is pumped.

Thank you! ...... some people insist because their (home scale) muscle % is going up they are gaining muscle .......

The % is going up because the FAT % is going down ..... 2 different things

Artificial limitation. Building muscle on a deficit can be done, but it is difficult. Short answer- use stored body fat (many thousands of calories for energy) and use the consumed protein to build the muscle. Consumption of calories is not the only source of calories. You are leaving out the large source of calories from stored fat.

You actually and physically can't build appreciable muscle on a deficit, just like you can't build fat on a deficit. You have to have materials build IYSWIM.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't lift weights while in a deficit. Why lift?

1. Weight lifting is exercise, and while people fight and argue about how much it burns (answer-no one knows), it will contribute to your calorie deficit in some manner.
2. While you can't build muscle on a deficit, you can build strength and coordination-two good things to have.
3. While you can't build muscle, you can preserve what you already have, what this means is you have to lose less weight to get to a lower body fat percentage-end result is many people are happier with their bodies.

Have you been measuring your arms? Just because the muscle is more defined doesn't mean it is actually bigger. More likely is that as you have lost weight, you have lost fat which makes it more visible. (ie#3) Either that or you took the picture directly after lifting so it is pumped.

Thank you! ...... some people insist because their (home scale) muscle % is going up they are gaining muscle .......

The % is going up because the FAT % is going down ..... 2 different things

Artificial limitation. Building muscle on a deficit can be done, but it is difficult. Short answer- use stored body fat (many thousands of calories for energy) and use the consumed protein to build the muscle. Consumption of calories is not the only source of calories. You are leaving out the large source of calories from stored fat.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the body will not go to stored fat for energy until it has used up all energy from the food you have ingested. Meaning the all the protein you ate got used up for energy first. When the body ran out of immediate energy and still needs more THEN it will go to fat stores.

You will not have a surplus of protein and tap into fat store at the same time.

I've gained a lot of muscle, mainly on thighs from squats and lunges in the last 5 months on 1200 calories. more muscle than I've ever had. i train at least 7hrs a week and lift weights and i have biceps now lol...all on a calorie deficit. lost 49lb in that time too, so yes u can 100% increase muscle mass on low calorie intake.

Muscle has ALWAYS been there. They increase in SIZE due to glycogen/water retention from lifting and will stay "blown" up while you continue. If you can "see" your muscle now compared to when you couldn't.
While a very overweight/obese person can add some muscle in the beginning, I guarantee you it's continued happening in 5 months while on a calorie deficit.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I have changed my profile pic to show u what I'm talking about as I don't know how to add pics here. I was slim before children, standard slim legs. Then I gained a lot of weight through Chinese and not being very active. Since Jan I've trained my *kitten* off, started from 14hrs a week but due to shin splints and sometimes sore knees etc I now do minimum of 7 hrs, but usually not much more. The definition of muscle in my legs have NEVER been there before!! They are solid apart from just under my bum, I'm working on that! I have never, even when 3 stone lighter than I am now, had my legs with nowhere near as much muscle as this. I eat 1200 calories and at least 900 calories from that is either chicken, eggs, peanut butter, turkey, bacon and the odd diet whey shake. I am sure when u have fat stores u don't need a high calorie intake as u use your fat stores along with what u consume. I KNOW I'm decreasing my bf% and increasing my muscle mass.

The muscle has always been there though. Strength can/will increase without adding mass, and definition doesn't necessarily come with muscle growth as much as fat loss. If you lose the fat over the muscle it will become more defined.

Yep. And if you couldn't see it when you were lighter before, it doesn't mean it wasn't there. That's why a lot of people are "skinny fat". You can be lighter and still have fat covering your muscle.

I tend to "lean out" while in the first few weeks of a fresh deficit, where there may be very little strength gains, or at least no strength loss, while fat stores thin out a little bit.

By week 12 of something like a 30 week cut, I'm still probably keeping 95-100% of my strength. By week 25 maybe down 10% on most lifts (push movements go the fastest), endurance suffers greatly and soreness post workout increases dramatically. Joints start having a "dry" feeling. By week 32, -15% strength, very injury prone, and soreness could last days.

One aspect of strength, is that fat acts as a subcutaneous cushion. If i lose 2 inches from my lats, 3 inches from my waist, the platform from which my triceps and shoulders have to push from is smaller and therefore probably less stable...at least that is what circulates in my awareness when I'm performing near max exercises. Since joints are no longer cushioned and compressed by fat under the skin, they may have a more "creaky/stiff" feeling.

So, over long periods, deficits will see you lose strength/muscle. If you're talking like...5 weeks of lifting, your sample size is way too small to make any conclusions.

I've gained a lot of muscle, mainly on thighs from squats and lunges in the last 5 months on 1200 calories. more muscle than I've ever had. i train at least 7hrs a week and lift weights and i have biceps now lol...all on a calorie deficit. lost 49lb in that time too, so yes u can 100% increase muscle mass on low calorie intake.

Muscle has ALWAYS been there. They increase in SIZE due to glycogen/water retention from lifting and will stay "blown" up while you continue. If you can "see" your muscle now compared to when you couldn't.
While a very overweight/obese person can add some muscle in the beginning, I guarantee you it's continued happening in 5 months while on a calorie deficit.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I have changed my profile pic to show u what I'm talking about as I don't know how to add pics here. I was slim before children, standard slim legs. Then I gained a lot of weight through Chinese and not being very active. Since Jan I've trained my *kitten* off, started from 14hrs a week but due to shin splints and sometimes sore knees etc I now do minimum of 7 hrs, but usually not much more. The definition of muscle in my legs have NEVER been there before!! They are solid apart from just under my bum, I'm working on that! I have never, even when 3 stone lighter than I am now, had my legs with nowhere near as much muscle as this. I eat 1200 calories and at least 900 calories from that is either chicken, eggs, peanut butter, turkey, bacon and the odd diet whey shake. I am sure when u have fat stores u don't need a high calorie intake as u use your fat stores along with what u consume. I KNOW I'm decreasing my bf% and increasing my muscle mass.

The muscle has always been there though. Strength can/will increase without adding mass, and definition doesn't necessarily come with muscle growth as much as fat loss. If you lose the fat over the muscle it will become more defined.

Yep. And if you couldn't see it when you were lighter before, it doesn't mean it wasn't there. That's why a lot of people are "skinny fat". You can be lighter and still have fat covering your muscle.

No my legs were a lot slimmer as there wasn't the muscle mass there when slim as I didnt train. They weren't there when fat as I didn't train. The muscle is bigger and more defined cos I've trained and built this muscle. When I lose the rest of the fat, yes they will be more defined, hopefully under my bum more so. If I lost the weight without training then there would be no definition and it wouldn't be solid muscle because that muscle would not have been built without the training!

The appearance of muscle definition is related to the reduction in body fat in that region. Definition is not the same as increase in muscle mass. You can have an increase in muscle mass without a reduction body fat, but you cannot have the appearance of definition without a reduction in body fat%. I think I said it before in this thread, that's why bodybuilders go through a "bulking" phase and then a cutting phase. The bulking phase is to add muscle mass and the cutting phase is reduce bodyfat to improve their muscle definition for the show they're prepping for. If you could add muscle mass during a calorie deficit there would be no need to have two different phases.

I've gained a lot of muscle, mainly on thighs from squats and lunges in the last 5 months on 1200 calories. more muscle than I've ever had. i train at least 7hrs a week and lift weights and i have biceps now lol...all on a calorie deficit. lost 49lb in that time too, so yes u can 100% increase muscle mass on low calorie intake.

Muscle has ALWAYS been there. They increase in SIZE due to glycogen/water retention from lifting and will stay "blown" up while you continue. If you can "see" your muscle now compared to when you couldn't.
While a very overweight/obese person can add some muscle in the beginning, I guarantee you it's continued happening in 5 months while on a calorie deficit.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I have changed my profile pic to show u what I'm talking about as I don't know how to add pics here. I was slim before children, standard slim legs. Then I gained a lot of weight through Chinese and not being very active. Since Jan I've trained my *kitten* off, started from 14hrs a week but due to shin splints and sometimes sore knees etc I now do minimum of 7 hrs, but usually not much more. The definition of muscle in my legs have NEVER been there before!! They are solid apart from just under my bum, I'm working on that! I have never, even when 3 stone lighter than I am now, had my legs with nowhere near as much muscle as this. I eat 1200 calories and at least 900 calories from that is either chicken, eggs, peanut butter, turkey, bacon and the odd diet whey shake. I am sure when u have fat stores u don't need a high calorie intake as u use your fat stores along with what u consume. I KNOW I'm decreasing my bf% and increasing my muscle mass.

Okay not to discourage you, it's much more likely you "built muscle" from being overweight. The accumulating weight over time added weight which your legs (through regular work of walking, squatting, etc.) compensated by increasing in size. This ISN'T uncommon amongst people who gain weight. You're now just stripping the fat away to reveal them.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I've gained a lot of muscle, mainly on thighs from squats and lunges in the last 5 months on 1200 calories. more muscle than I've ever had. i train at least 7hrs a week and lift weights and i have biceps now lol...all on a calorie deficit. lost 49lb in that time too, so yes u can 100% increase muscle mass on low calorie intake.

Muscle has ALWAYS been there. They increase in SIZE due to glycogen/water retention from lifting and will stay "blown" up while you continue. If you can "see" your muscle now compared to when you couldn't.
While a very overweight/obese person can add some muscle in the beginning, I guarantee you it's continued happening in 5 months while on a calorie deficit.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I have changed my profile pic to show u what I'm talking about as I don't know how to add pics here. I was slim before children, standard slim legs. Then I gained a lot of weight through Chinese and not being very active. Since Jan I've trained my *kitten* off, started from 14hrs a week but due to shin splints and sometimes sore knees etc I now do minimum of 7 hrs, but usually not much more. The definition of muscle in my legs have NEVER been there before!! They are solid apart from just under my bum, I'm working on that! I have never, even when 3 stone lighter than I am now, had my legs with nowhere near as much muscle as this. I eat 1200 calories and at least 900 calories from that is either chicken, eggs, peanut butter, turkey, bacon and the odd diet whey shake. I am sure when u have fat stores u don't need a high calorie intake as u use your fat stores along with what u consume. I KNOW I'm decreasing my bf% and increasing my muscle mass.

The muscle has always been there though. Strength can/will increase without adding mass, and definition doesn't necessarily come with muscle growth as much as fat loss. If you lose the fat over the muscle it will become more defined.

Yep. And if you couldn't see it when you were lighter before, it doesn't mean it wasn't there. That's why a lot of people are "skinny fat". You can be lighter and still have fat covering your muscle.

No my legs were a lot slimmer as there wasn't the muscle mass there when slim as I didnt train. They weren't there when fat as I didn't train. The muscle is bigger and more defined cos I've trained and built this muscle. When I lose the rest of the fat, yes they will be more defined, hopefully under my bum more so. If I lost the weight without training then there would be no definition and it wouldn't be solid muscle because that muscle would not have been built without the training!

The appearance of muscle definition is related to the reduction in body fat in that region. Definition is not the same as increase in muscle mass. You can have an increase in muscle mass without a reduction body fat, but you cannot have the appearance of definition without a reduction in body fat%. I think I said it before in this thread, that's why bodybuilders go through a "bulking" phase and then a cutting phase. The bulking phase is to add muscle mass and the cutting phase is reduce bodyfat to improve their muscle definition for the show they're prepping for. If you could add muscle mass during a calorie deficit there would be no need to have two different phases.

^^Yep

bump bump bump

yes you can build on a deficit if your nutrition is right, but you need to be at an excess to get really big