School me on strength gains in a deficit.

Muscles are made up of fibers, the majority of which are unreactive or dormant in a sedentary individual. As you regularly place increasing strain on your muscle, they compensate by activating more fibers over a period of time, increasing your ability to contract or extend a muscle, making you stronger.

Neurological adaptation, and engaging more of the muscle fibers that you already have (using all of your existing muscle instead of just some of it)

Strength and mass aren't necessarily the same thing. Strength is quite literally a skill, just like hitting a baseball. The more often you practice a skill, the better your body will get at performing that skill. You are training the Central Nervous System.

Muscle mass does make a difference, but less than many people think. Look at exceptionally strong but lithe people like dancers, gymnasts, rock climbers, etc.

It also depends on how much of a deficit you are in and if you do any nutrient timing. If you are in a small deficit but eat well around workout, you can still gain some lean mass and improve the mass you have.

In any case, the more you can lift, the more you can burn, so strength = better. Lifting 400lbs in your set will burn more than when you could only lift 300lbs in your set.

Good luck!

Muscles are made up of fibers, the majority of which are unreactive or dormant in a sedentary individual. As you regularly place increasing strain on your muscle, they compensate by activating more fibers over a period of time, increasing your ability to contract or extend a muscle, making you stronger.

Thanks So I will eventually get to a point (assuming I'm stil in a deficit or at maintenance) where I can no longer activate any more fibres and my muscles will not be able to lift any more weight, correct? If that were to happen, am I at risk of losing lean mass since I can't add more weight or would lifting my current max be sufficient to maintain until I'm done losing?

Yes, you won't lose mass from that, as long as you are challenging the muscles and forcing them to work hard your body will see them as essential and spare as much as it can. That said, if you body fat% is low and your deficit is too large it will have no choice but to shed some muscle.

Strength is not muscle. Muscle opens up the POTENTIAL for greater gains, but most people don't even maximize the potential they already have with relatively little LBM. Strength is largely a component of the nervous system. Training your body to better recruit and make use of the muscle fibers it already has. Let's look at it this way:

I am very active on motorcycle forums and one thing that we joke about is people who are sub-par riders putting modifications on their bike in the hope it would make them corner better when they themselves just plain suck at riding. Modifying the bike = adding muscle mass. Learning to ride better = training your nervous system how to better recruit the muscle fibers you have.

Modifying the bike opens up the potential for better performance but unless you practice cornering techniques, things like body position in turns, you'll still get embarrassed on a racetrack by someone on a sub-par bike who just plain knows how to ride better.

When people say adding muscle mass is how you get stronger, that's the same as saying modifying your bike makes you faster. What about the aspect of learning HOW to ride better and practicing to get better and make use of what you've already got?

Get it?

I definitely follow but I'm not sure how I would learn to use what I have more effectively. Do you mean proper form?

Neuorlogical Adaption. It has nothing to do with form.

Note: I am just a regular guy that reads alot about nutrition and exercise.

Like Sidesteel's comments and articles, I share basically the same opinion: It's possible but not particularly probable.

Your body always seeks balance, so unless you have "perfect" nutrition, its probably unlikely that you will be able to lose fat and gain muscle mass at the same time. And certainly not over a long period of time, nor in the most efficient manner for each.

Going with the motorcycle metaphor: Your better off training cornering on a light bike and training speed control on a big bike. If you switch constantly between the two bikes you will come out a better overall rider. Riding the same bike every day will not give you as much progress as a rider.

Of course doing both at the same time is possible. But you are better off bulking up for a few months, then slimming down for a few months. You will gain a little extra fat in your bulking up, but more muscle. And you will lose much more fat when slimming with proportionally less muscle loss.

It's all up to why you go to the gym. I don't feel the need to be particularly muscular. I like to do yoga and be able to twist my body around and go scuba diving and not sink too much because I have too much muscle. But that's just me!

Gaining muscle on a deficit is not at all impossible, but it requires really tight and specific meal timing, and is much slower (aka, I really wouldn't even bother with it lol). Also, regarding strength, it is super difficult to increase or maintain strength while on a deficit. I'm learning this now for the first time, but from when I switched over to cutting from bulking, my strength degraded too.

I still lift, and increment up while cutting, but I'm just more weary of what's going on. Regardless of all this, you need to be lifting heavy in the gym on a deficit to preserve what muscle you have. Otherwise your body will start to catabolize the muscle as well as the fat.

Muscles are made up of fibers, the majority of which are unreactive or dormant in a sedentary individual. As you regularly place increasing strain on your muscle, they compensate by activating more fibers over a period of time, increasing your ability to contract or extend a muscle, making you stronger.

According to the HST documentation, studies showed all fibers are activated when an untrained individual tries to lift their maximum.

What's HST? Doesn't really correlate with anything I've read nor my own experience.

Strength is not muscle. Muscle opens up the POTENTIAL for greater gains, but most people don't even maximize the potential they already have with relatively little LBM. Strength is largely a component of the nervous system. Training your body to better recruit and make use of the muscle fibers it already has. Let's look at it this way:

I am very active on motorcycle forums and one thing that we joke about is people who are sub-par riders putting modifications on their bike in the hope it would make them corner better when they themselves just plain suck at riding. Modifying the bike = adding muscle mass. Learning to ride better = training your nervous system how to better recruit the muscle fibers you have.

Modifying the bike opens up the potential for better performance but unless you practice cornering techniques, things like body position in turns, you'll still get embarrassed on a racetrack by someone on a sub-par bike who just plain knows how to ride better.

When people say adding muscle mass is how you get stronger, that's the same as saying modifying your bike makes you faster. What about the aspect of learning HOW to ride better and practicing to get better and make use of what you've already got?

Get it?

One of the best explanations I've read in a long time.

Strength is not muscle. Muscle opens up the POTENTIAL for greater gains, but most people don't even maximize the potential they already have with relatively little LBM. Strength is largely a component of the nervous system. Training your body to better recruit and make use of the muscle fibers it already has. Let's look at it this way:

I am very active on motorcycle forums and one thing that we joke about is people who are sub-par riders putting modifications on their bike in the hope it would make them corner better when they themselves just plain suck at riding. Modifying the bike = adding muscle mass. Learning to ride better = training your nervous system how to better recruit the muscle fibers you have.

Modifying the bike opens up the potential for better performance but unless you practice cornering techniques, things like body position in turns, you'll still get embarrassed on a racetrack by someone on a sub-par bike who just plain knows how to ride better.

When people say adding muscle mass is how you get stronger, that's the same as saying modifying your bike makes you faster. What about the aspect of learning HOW to ride better and practicing to get better and make use of what you've already got?

Get it?

I definitely follow but I'm not sure how I would learn to use what I have more effectively. Do you mean proper form?

Neuorlogical Adaption. It has nothing to do with form.

You're training your nerves how to better make use of the muscle you HAVE to in applications of strength by recruiting more muscle fibers. In doing so you are accomplishing the same result as teaching someone who to ride better as opposed to slapping performance enhancing modifications on their bike.

Thank you for this understanding! Question: How does one train your nerves on using the muscles you have by using more muscle fibers?? lifting at maximum? higher reps? Low reps?

A lot of strength gains for newbies can also be technique related.

If you have terrible deadlift form and you fix that then you will be able to lift more without gaining any 'real' strength.

Thank you for this understanding! Question: How does one train your nerves on using the muscles you have by using more muscle fibers?? lifting at maximum? higher reps? Low reps?

Lifting in a combination of rep ranges, progressively adding weight/reps to each lift over time..not any single rep range necessarily.

There are other elements which go into getting stronger over time, bar speed, time under tension etc.

Basically get on a legit, proven, strength training program and follow it for a decent amount of time.

Changes in muscle fiber size is only one of the adaptations which occur in muscles in response to exercise. Many of the adaptations involve increased mitochondrial density and oxidative enzymes, increased capillary density, enhanced glycogen storage, and the increased activity of various enzymes associated with muscle contraction. In fact much (most) of the early increases in strength resulting from resistance training, are the result of these adaptations and also neurological changes, rather than an increase in muscle mass.

What's HST? Doesn't really correlate with anything I've read nor my own experience.

http://hypertrophy-specific.com/

I apologize, it's been a couple of months since I read through (back in April) so I don't remember the specific location of the study he cited.
<snip to shorten>
Also, on the topic of how long you can go gaining strength on a deficit, my upper body peaked within a few months. My lower body seems to have finally peaked after about 8 months. (And when I did a short bulk, my strength did increase for a short while at that point, and then went back down when I returned to a deficit.) YMMV but that was my experience so far.

My own experience includes the vivid memory of what it feels like for muscles to NOT react with a strong contraction on demand. I know now what it feels like for the fibers to fire as they should, and that they never used to. But, I understand my experiences =/= science, so no worries there

As for peaks - I'm still happily progressing at a constant deficit, albeit more slowly now. This is about a year in to strength-centric programming, and neither upper nor lower body have plateaud (plateued?).

What's HST? Doesn't really correlate with anything I've read nor my own experience.

http://hypertrophy-specific.com/

I apologize, it's been a couple of months since I read through (back in April) so I don't remember the specific location of the study he cited.
<snip to shorten>
Also, on the topic of how long you can go gaining strength on a deficit, my upper body peaked within a few months. My lower body seems to have finally peaked after about 8 months. (And when I did a short bulk, my strength did increase for a short while at that point, and then went back down when I returned to a deficit.) YMMV but that was my experience so far.

My own experience includes the vivid memory of what it feels like for muscles to NOT react with a strong contraction on demand. I know now what it feels like for the fibers to fire as they should, and that they never used to. But, I understand my experiences =/= science, so no worries there

Yeah I remember that sensation too, but I didn't interpret it as specific fibers not doing anything. That was why the mention of that study stuck in my memory. (Not that the details are really relevant, but they're fascinating anyway. )

As for peaks - I'm still happily progressing at a constant deficit, albeit more slowly now. This is about a year in to strength-centric programming, and neither upper nor lower body have plateaud (plateued?).

Yep, there's bound to be individual variation. (Especially my upper body being teh sux as part of that equation. My plateau on bench/ohp was still in the "beginner" range, argh!)

Plus I'm getting down to lower bodyfat levels now (started at 25%, now down to 15%) so I suspect my fat can't supply so many calories to make up for my deficit like it used to. I've noticed meal timing relative to my workout now makes a big difference in my abilities during that workout, whereas before it didn't really matter.