Debunking the Myth

Your TDEE may be lower than you think.
Losing fat and becoming more defined will make your muscles look bigger.
You can make n00b gains with your muscle without a real surplus, and you can make strength gains without a surplus.

Great thread, full of comprehensive scientific analysis and data. Oh wait.

I'm not sure you tracked too well. It is possible to gain muscle while losing weight, but usually only for those who have a lot of extra fat to start with, because they can lose the fat, and gain some muscle, for example someone could lose 10 pounds of fat and gain 1 pound of muscle, and on the scale it will show that they lost 9 pounds. But if a person doesn't have the 10 pounds of extra fat to lose and they gain 1 pound of muscle, the scale is going to show a 1 pound gain.

Here is my story, better documented and tracked than what I can see of yours (you may have tracked everything, but you don't post that info for us).

6 months ago I was 51 pounds heavier than I am now. I also had a bodyfat percentage 53.8 percent. I now have a bodyfat percentage of 36.7. So 6 months ago I had a lean body mass of around 130 pounds and 152 pounds of fat (yuck!). Now I have 146 pounds of lean body mass, and around 85 pounds of fat. So I've lost 67 pounds of fat, and gained around 16 pounds of lean body mass for total weight loss of 51 pounds. I have been told by so many that is impossible to gain muscle while still losing weight, that you won't gain significant muscle if you are eating at the calorie deficit needed to lose pounds. Yet, over the past six months I have both lost pounds and gained muscle. So the self proclaimed "experts" who say you can't do that are full of it.

Now, while I fully agree that you can gain muscle while eating at a deficit, you have to have the extra bodyfat at the start. Your body will burn up that fat to supply some of the missing calories, also, you will lose fat, and gain muscle, but every time you gain a pound of muscle that means the scale can't go down a pound that week even if you lose a pound of fat that week. Its all math, and in the end the final number on the scale is going to be made of fat, muscle, skin, bone, water, blood, hair, etc. If you lose fat and gain and equal amount of anything else, the number on the scale won't change. Your bodyfat percentage might, your measurements might, but the scale won't.

Note the reason my ticker shows 53 pounds lost, instead of 51 pounds, is because my ticker starts from my highest weight, while the paragraph above is only dealing with weight loss/gain in the last 6 months.

I'm not sure you tracked too well. It is possible to gain muscle while losing weight, but usually only for those who have a lot of extra fat to start with, because they can lose the fat, and gain some muscle, for example someone could lose 10 pounds of fat and gain 1 pound of muscle, and on the scale it will show that they lost 9 pounds. But if a person doesn't have the 10 pounds of extra fat to lose and they gain 1 pound of muscle, the scale is going to show a 1 pound gain.

Here is my story, better documented and tracked than what I can see of yours (you may have tracked everything, but you don't post that info for us).

6 months ago I was 51 pounds heavier than I am now. I also had a bodyfat percentage 53.8 percent. I now have a bodyfat percentage of 36.7. So 6 months ago I had a lean body mass of around 130 pounds and 152 pounds of fat (yuck!). Now I have 146 pounds of lean body mass, and around 85 pounds of fat. So I've lost 67 pounds of fat, and gained around 16 pounds of lean body mass for total weight loss of 51 pounds. I have been told by so many that is impossible to gain muscle while still losing weight, that you won't gain significant muscle if you are eating at the calorie deficit needed to lose pounds. Yet, over the past six months I have both lost pounds and gained muscle. So the self proclaimed "experts" who say you can't do that are full of it.

Now, while I fully agree that you can gain muscle while eating at a deficit, you have to have the extra bodyfat at the start. Your body will burn up that fat to supply some of the missing calories, also, you will lose fat, and gain muscle, but every time you gain a pound of muscle that means the scale can't go down a pound that week even if you lose a pound of fat that week. Its all math, and in the end the final number on the scale is going to be made of fat, muscle, skin, bone, water, blood, hair, etc. If you lose fat and gain and equal amount of anything else, the number on the scale won't change. Your bodyfat percentage might, your measurements might, but the scale won't.

Note the reason my ticker shows 53 pounds lost, instead of 51 pounds, is because my ticker starts from my highest weight, while the paragraph above is only dealing with weight loss/gain in the last 6 months.

BF% measurements are not accurate.

You are indeed very special if you can gain 16lbs of LBM as a woman in 6 months at a calorie deficit of that size.
Write a book. Mint a fortune.

but I am now living proof that muscle and strength gains can be acheived through an intense lifting regiment and a closely monitered intake even with a slight caloric deficit. Without getting into too much detail about mself, I can just tell you that I net under my TDEE every week, and every week I get bigger, stronger, and more defined.

Pics or it didnt happen

Great thread, full of comprehensive scientific analysis and data. Oh wait.

squats and deadlifts

Great thread, full of comprehensive scientific analysis and data. Oh wait.

squats and deadlifts

That's broscience

I am finally ready after 2 years of experimention to firmly say that the prevailing concept that a caloric surplus is necessary to build muscle is untrue. I know this is going to get a lot of backlash since it has been the belief for so long amongst the general public, but I am now living proof that muscle and strength gains can be acheived through an intense lifting regiment and a closely monitered intake even with a slight caloric deficit. Without getting into too much detail about mself, I can just tell you that I net under my TDEE every week, and every week I get bigger, stronger, and more defined. The key is simply lifting heavy weights to the point of misery, and eating a crap load of protein. Of course if you want to get bigger faster, eat more, but I am much happier making slow gains while maintaining a six pack than benching 285 lbs. with a beer gut.

You may be pregnant.

"TDEE" is just a rough estimate. BMR, RMR, TDEE, all of these calculations are estimates that should be "close" for the majority of people. Just because an online calculator tells you that your TDEE is 3000 cals doesn't mean it isn't really 2800. Just FYI. Also, if you are novice or relatively novice to weight training, you CAN actually build muscle and strength in a slight defecit due to the adaptation to new stresses. This phase doesn't last long though and doesn't prove the law of thermodynamics innacurate (notice that it is a "law"). It just means that we can't put an exact calorie figure on our metabolism down to the calorie. Also, just because it says what the calories are on the side of the box or in MFP doesn't mean that there isn't a margin of error to those figures also. You might think you are taking in 2800 cals and really taking in 3100. Or 2500.

or just study of one?

I don't think 'study of one' constitutes proof of anything.

If something is claimed to be impossible and one person does it, that proves that it isn't impossible. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but one is all it takes to prove that the "impossible" is possible.

OP ignore the haterz. :flowerforyou: Their just jelouse! Thanks for sharing your studies and congradulatons.

no one's ever said that you can't get stronger on a defecit.

or just study of one?

I don't think 'study of one' constitutes proof of anything.

If something is claimed to be impossible and one person does it, that proves that it isn't impossible. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but one is all it takes to prove that the "impossible" is possible.

True, but you also have to ensure that you actually did the "impossible". Without peer review or proper scientific method, we have no reason to believe that his physics-defying program didn't work simply because he mismeasured. It's Occam's Razor.

In...

...for, uh...

...honestly, I have no idea why I'm here.

Because you're jealous. :flowerforyou: