"You can't build muscle on a deficit"
Replies
-
You should check out scoobysworkshop.com. Most people, as you will come to find on MFP, are here for weight loss, not a bodybuilding program. The author gives really helpful advice on burning fat and gaining muscle concurrently through carb cycling; which is exactly the advice my coach gave me while prepping for a competition. Will you see big measurable gains while at a deficit? Most certainly not. But you can see some gains with proper nutrition and training.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I'm not going to add up vitamins and minerals. And the macros are easy-- protein: 46g~200 calories. Fat is a max requirement. WW requires you to have 2t. of healthy oils a day. CDC just has the max. 2t. olive oil is 80 calories. So you have 940 calories left for your additional vitamins and minerals. You don't think that's possible? Even if you go for 100g protein and 2T fat, you still have 560 calories to add additional vitamins and minerals. That's a lot of produce.You're ok with CDC recs then? Or do you expect me to intuit your macro preferences?
any macro mix is fine. Just get all my vitamins and minerals and fiber and iron without fortified foods or supplements.0 -
Or you could just answer that basic questions on fitness, physiology and biology that have been posed to you in reference to your claims.MrM your persistence to reply to any of my posts and constant need for getting my attention to reply to you seems down right inappropriate and a bit stalkerish to be honest. Its almost bordering behavioral attitudes that end up with restraining orders. You would think the fact that I've had you on ignore because of your narcissistic obnoxious attitudes would be enough. But to keep calling out to me is just down right CREEPY (I counted just 7 on a quick scan through) The fact that i dont reply causes you to become more frequent in this is even more concerning. I really just suggest you knock it off. Is this something I am going to need to be concerned with? Because frankly I am not comfortable with it in any way shape or form. I didnt come to this post to give you your personal need for attention. Im here to reply to an OP asking a question in which i gave an honest answer. My job isnt to come here and debate with you and stroke your precious ego. Thats your SO's job
You can choose to cry harassment when asked questions on a public forum instead but that doesn't help prove your stance.
I like you.It amazes me how people can become so defensive when asked to show simple evidence of their claims.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Hitchens Razor
A classic debate gets flipped into stalking, bullying, hating, etc. Staahp it!
0 -
So you have 940 calories left for your additional vitamins and minerals. You don't think that's possible? Even if you go for 100g protein and 2T fat, you still have 560 calories to add additional vitamins and minerals. That's a lot of produce.
Go for it, I'm ready. Show me how to get all of the minimum RDIs.
Here's the target vitamins and minerals to get without going over 1200 calories, and without supplements, and without fortified foods. I'm ready!
A, C, D, E, K, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, B6, Folate, B12, Pantothenic Acid, Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, sodium, zinc, copper, manganese, selenium
Seriously, you said it's easy. I'm looking for a menu!0 -
At some point though I wonder how many people even eating 2000 calories eat a diet that satisfies your request. My money says that the vast majority do not hit every single RDA on their micronutrients and they continue functioning just fine. Some take a multivitamin, some don't, but life goes on. If the average diet doesn't meet your criteria, it doesn't seem like a valid criticism of a lower calorie diet - and to the extent this is a valid criticism of a diet, does your own diet hit every RDA for A, C, D, E, K, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, B6, Folate, B12, Pantothenic Acid, Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, sodium, zinc, copper, manganese, selenium every day of the week? If so, why are you taking a multivitamin? At this point, I don't think there's much here other than pointless bickering.0
-
um i had NOOOOO muscle before i started my weight loss the 2 started hand and hand lol I went from 20 YEAR lifestyle of eating and gaming and sitting on my tushy and build nice pecs with my um mouse?
But in conversations like this its really evident no matter what evidence you lay before people there is no changing their idea's . Because its what you BELIEVE doesnt make you correct. Its like the world is flat debate all over again
Everyone has muscle, even overweight people or people who never exercise them.
No seriously - everyone does - otherwise you would not be able to lift a forkfull of food toward your face, press the remote to switch channels or walk to the washroom. Now - how efficient those muscles are, well that's a different story. And in that vein - I would hazard a guess that a significantly overweight person living a sedentary lifestyle would have more base muscle than a moderately weighted person living the same livestyle. You would need to to carry around the extra weight. So - if you practice resistance training while eating at a defecit you will maintain muscle mass and strengthen (read make more efficient) the existing muscle structure. So when you lose the weight those strengthened muscles become more obvious. After 5 months of lifting I am significantly stronger than I was when I started, but measurements show no, nada, bubkiss, bugger all, appreciation of muscle on any of my extremities.
However, sometimes we believe what we want to believe in the face of facts, beacuse, well we want to believe it!0 -
I was told it's easy to do.0
-
Yes some people can gain muscle in a deficit - I'm constantly amazed at the almost religious fervour amongst people on here saying it's not possible. Often from the people who would find it the hardest to do so! (Lean, fully trained people.)
No you don't have to be obese, no you don't have to be an absolute beginner. Is it easy? No - but certainly not impossible. A huge calorie deficit is a good way to make it "impossible" though. Not everyone is the same, even people with the same stats are going to react to training differently - P ratios for example.
Stroutman81 has infinitely more knowledge than me so if you are interested his many contributions to this thread are worth reading:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1339511-skinny-fat-muscle-gain-or-fat-loss?page=2
BTW - even at my advanced age and with almost 40 "training years" I saw concurrent fat loss and muscle gain.
No not massive gains but that wasn't going to happen at my age anyway - over 6 months 4lb weight loss, 8lb fat loss and 4lb lean mass gain. Yes I'm aware that lean mass =/= muscle mass.
(No I'm also not confusing strength gains, better muscle definition, glycogen bounces - please give me some credit that I might have gained a little knowledge over the years!)0 -
I agree.At some point though I wonder how many people even eating 2000 calories eat a diet that satisfies your request. My money says that the vast majority do not hit every single RDA on their micronutrients and they continue functioning just fine. Some take a multivitamin, some don't, but life goes on. If the average diet doesn't meet your criteria, it doesn't seem like a valid criticism of a lower calorie diet - and to the extent this is a valid criticism of a diet, does your own diet hit every RDA for A, C, D, E, K, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, B6, Folate, B12, Pantothenic Acid, Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, sodium, zinc, copper, manganese, selenium every day of the week? If so, why are you taking a multivitamin? At this point, I don't think there's much here other than pointless bickering.
If someone wants to post a menu of 1200 calories in 'whole foods' that doesn't meet basic nutritional requirements, may they feel free. Obviously it's possible or you wouldn't see so many diets use 800-1200 as safe floors. If 1200 was unsafe, MFP would've been out of business long ago. Every diet plan would be out of business.0 -
MrM your persistence to reply to any of my posts and constant need for getting my attention to reply to you seems down right inappropriate and a bit stalkerish to be honest. Its almost bordering behavioral attitudes that end up with restraining orders. You would think the fact that I've had you on ignore because of your narcissistic obnoxious attitudes would be enough. But to keep calling out to me is just down right CREEPY (I counted just 7 on a quick scan through) The fact that i dont reply causes you to become more frequent in this is even more concerning. I really just suggest you knock it off. Is this something I am going to need to be concerned with? Because frankly I am not comfortable with it in any way shape or form. I didnt come to this post to give you your personal need for attention. Im here to reply to an OP asking a question in which i gave an honest answer. My job isnt to come here and debate with you and stroke your precious ego. Thats your SO's job
What MrM is trying to do though is have you give evidence of why you are a special "snowflake". He wants to know why you defy science when all the experts say it is impossible to build muscle on a deficit/cut. He doesn't want newer people on the forum that may read this thread to get the wrong idea from you and think you can build muscle while eating at a deficit.
I will list a few names of the experts. Alan Aragon, Lyle Mcdonald, Mark Rippetoe, Lou Schuler, Alwyn Cosgrove, Jim Wendler .............. I could keep going on and on. There is evidence that Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon referece that newbies to weight lifting and morbidly obese people can build some muscle when they first start weight training but nothing truly significant.0 -
I agree.At some point though I wonder how many people even eating 2000 calories eat a diet that satisfies your request. My money says that the vast majority do not hit every single RDA on their micronutrients and they continue functioning just fine. Some take a multivitamin, some don't, but life goes on. If the average diet doesn't meet your criteria, it doesn't seem like a valid criticism of a lower calorie diet - and to the extent this is a valid criticism of a diet, does your own diet hit every RDA for A, C, D, E, K, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, B6, Folate, B12, Pantothenic Acid, Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, sodium, zinc, copper, manganese, selenium every day of the week? If so, why are you taking a multivitamin? At this point, I don't think there's much here other than pointless bickering.
If someone wants to post a menu of 1200 calories in 'whole foods' that doesn't meet basic nutritional requirements, may they feel free. Obviously it's possible or you wouldn't see so many diets use 800-1200 as safe floors. If 1200 was unsafe, MFP would've been out of business long ago. Every diet plan would be out of business.
If it's so easy to do, post a menu. I'm serious 100%0 -
Ksy what you are seeing are probably the posts long after he was ignored.... Im guessing you missed the several pages where he insists he can laugh and insult ppl because thats genuinely being helpful right? Maybe you should actually read prior posts before jumping in and defending him. Im sorry but following someone around and directing 8 plus posts at them them with aggressive attitudes accomplishes what? Please tell me and just FYI his posts were ignored long before he started demanding evidence. But thank you anyway! Have a good evening
fyi i mean physically on ignore0 -
MrM your persistence to reply to any of my posts and constant need for getting my attention to reply to you seems down right inappropriate and a bit stalkerish to be honest. Its almost bordering behavioral attitudes that end up with restraining orders. You would think the fact that I've had you on ignore because of your narcissistic obnoxious attitudes would be enough. But to keep calling out to me is just down right CREEPY (I counted just 7 on a quick scan through) The fact that i dont reply causes you to become more frequent in this is even more concerning. I really just suggest you knock it off. Is this something I am going to need to be concerned with? Because frankly I am not comfortable with it in any way shape or form. I didnt come to this post to give you your personal need for attention. Im here to reply to an OP asking a question in which i gave an honest answer. My job isnt to come here and debate with you and stroke your precious ego. Thats your SO's job
What MrM is trying to do though is have you give evidence of why you are a special "snowflake". He wants to know why you defy science when all the experts say it is impossible to build muscle on a deficit/cut. He doesn't want newer people on the forum that may read this thread to get the wrong idea from you and think you can build muscle while eating at a deficit.
I will list a few names of the experts. Alan Aragon, Lyle Mcdonald, Mark Rippetoe, Lou Schuler, Alwyn Cosgrove, Jim Wendler .............. I could keep going on and on. There is evidence that Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon referece that newbies to weight lifting and morbidly obese people can build some muscle when they first start weight training but nothing truly significant.
We don't want newbies reading that it's even possible to build any sort of muscle while eating at a deficit, because newbies are one of the only groups that have been observed to build a small amount of muscle while eating at a deficit. Honestly why doesn't it matter so much? Get enough protein, get your calories inline, train hard and if you build muscle in spots that's great - if you don't, at least you retained more muscle than a non-lifter. No I can't start cutting and end up looking like Ronnie Coleman (for several reasons
) but whether I build slight amounts of muscle in spots (even as my total lean body mass decreases) or just slow my loss of muscle, what's important is that I am lifting. 0 -
You have misrepresented what Lyle McDonald says - nowhere does he say morbidly obese ( the phrase "overfat" should ring some bells?).What MrM is trying to do though is have you give evidence of why you are a special "snowflake". He wants to know why you defy science when all the experts say it is impossible to build muscle on a deficit/cut. He doesn't want newer people on the forum that may read this thread to get the wrong idea from you and think you can build muscle while eating at a deficit.
I will list a few names of the experts. Alan Aragon, Lyle Mcdonald, Mark Rippetoe, Lou Schuler, Alwyn Cosgrove, Jim Wendler .............. I could keep going on and on. There is evidence that Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon referece that newbies to weight lifting and morbidly obese people can build some muscle when they first start weight training but nothing truly significant.
Funny how people in calorie deficit can still grow hair, nails etc. and continue the process of cell breakdown and renewal for everything apart from muscle cells. Hmmm, makes you wonder.0 -
If it's so easy NOT to do, post a menu.
I agree.At some point though I wonder how many people even eating 2000 calories eat a diet that satisfies your request. My money says that the vast majority do not hit every single RDA on their micronutrients and they continue functioning just fine. Some take a multivitamin, some don't, but life goes on. If the average diet doesn't meet your criteria, it doesn't seem like a valid criticism of a lower calorie diet - and to the extent this is a valid criticism of a diet, does your own diet hit every RDA for A, C, D, E, K, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, B6, Folate, B12, Pantothenic Acid, Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, sodium, zinc, copper, manganese, selenium every day of the week? If so, why are you taking a multivitamin? At this point, I don't think there's much here other than pointless bickering.
If someone wants to post a menu of 1200 calories in 'whole foods' that doesn't meet basic nutritional requirements, may they feel free. Obviously it's possible or you wouldn't see so many diets use 800-1200 as safe floors. If 1200 was unsafe, MFP would've been out of business long ago. Every diet plan would be out of business.
If it's so easy to do, post a menu. I'm serious 100%
You being 'serious 100%' and insisting on seeing visual evidence of self-evident facts does not make you more correct, I'm sorry. It does make me wonder if your profile age is exaggerated, though.
You can log a bowl of Total for breakfast and call yourself 'proven wrong'. But you assume no one can eat enriched foods, right? That's just silly. What other dietary restrictions are you applying to the general population?0 -
If it's so easy NOT to do, post a menu.
I agree.At some point though I wonder how many people even eating 2000 calories eat a diet that satisfies your request. My money says that the vast majority do not hit every single RDA on their micronutrients and they continue functioning just fine. Some take a multivitamin, some don't, but life goes on. If the average diet doesn't meet your criteria, it doesn't seem like a valid criticism of a lower calorie diet - and to the extent this is a valid criticism of a diet, does your own diet hit every RDA for A, C, D, E, K, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, B6, Folate, B12, Pantothenic Acid, Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, sodium, zinc, copper, manganese, selenium every day of the week? If so, why are you taking a multivitamin? At this point, I don't think there's much here other than pointless bickering.
If someone wants to post a menu of 1200 calories in 'whole foods' that doesn't meet basic nutritional requirements, may they feel free. Obviously it's possible or you wouldn't see so many diets use 800-1200 as safe floors. If 1200 was unsafe, MFP would've been out of business long ago. Every diet plan would be out of business.
If it's so easy to do, post a menu. I'm serious 100%
You being 'serious 100%' and insisting on seeing visual evidence of self-evident facts does not make you more correct, I'm sorry. It does make me wonder if your profile age is exaggerated, though.
You can log a bowl of Total for breakfast and call yourself 'proven wrong'. But you assume no one can eat enriched foods, right? That's just silly. What other dietary restrictions are you applying to the general population?
I was told it's easy to make a menu of 1200 total calories without supplements. I said it's hard to do. I'm still waiting for proof.0 -
You have misrepresented what Lyle McDonald says - nowhere does he say morbidly obese ( the phrase "overfat" should ring some bells?).What MrM is trying to do though is have you give evidence of why you are a special "snowflake". He wants to know why you defy science when all the experts say it is impossible to build muscle on a deficit/cut. He doesn't want newer people on the forum that may read this thread to get the wrong idea from you and think you can build muscle while eating at a deficit.
I will list a few names of the experts. Alan Aragon, Lyle Mcdonald, Mark Rippetoe, Lou Schuler, Alwyn Cosgrove, Jim Wendler .............. I could keep going on and on. There is evidence that Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon referece that newbies to weight lifting and morbidly obese people can build some muscle when they first start weight training but nothing truly significant.
Funny how people in calorie deficit can still grow hair, nails etc. and continue the process of cell breakdown and renewal for everything apart from muscle cells. Hmmm, makes you wonder.
You know, I used to say the same thing but then I started reading stuff by the experts. I may not remember exact verbage but I do remember the jist of what I read and you are nitpicking the verbage. Bottom line is there is very minimal to be gained. Lyle does go about explaining how you can lose weight and gain muscle at the same time with body recomp, but it is a very slow. I have read some say it is "painful" process because it is so slow. Many have said you would probably be better off just losing what weight you need to lose first and then work on an actual bulk.0 -
I don't find recomp at all painful, I eat, I train and I enjoy life. It is slow though but it's still a valid choice for many. Depends on your goals, capabilities and priorities.
You have misrepresented what Lyle McDonald says - nowhere does he say morbidly obese ( the phrase "overfat" should ring some bells?).What MrM is trying to do though is have you give evidence of why you are a special "snowflake". He wants to know why you defy science when all the experts say it is impossible to build muscle on a deficit/cut. He doesn't want newer people on the forum that may read this thread to get the wrong idea from you and think you can build muscle while eating at a deficit.
I will list a few names of the experts. Alan Aragon, Lyle Mcdonald, Mark Rippetoe, Lou Schuler, Alwyn Cosgrove, Jim Wendler .............. I could keep going on and on. There is evidence that Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon referece that newbies to weight lifting and morbidly obese people can build some muscle when they first start weight training but nothing truly significant.
Funny how people in calorie deficit can still grow hair, nails etc. and continue the process of cell breakdown and renewal for everything apart from muscle cells. Hmmm, makes you wonder.
You know, I used to say the same thing but then I started reading stuff by the experts. I may not remember exact verbage but I do remember the jist of what I read and you are nitpicking the verbage. Bottom line is there is very minimal to be gained. Lyle does go about explaining how you can lose weight and gain muscle at the same time with body recomp, but it is a very slow. I have read some say it is "painful" process because it is so slow. Many have said you would probably be better off just losing what weight you need to lose first and then work on an actual bulk.
What I object to is when people use absolute terms like "impossible". Difficult, atypical yes - but not impossible. There isn't some magical switch that gets thrown when people have a calorie surplus or deficit.
For example if you took a group of fully trained and lean people in their 30's and compared the outcomes with a group of 18 year old chubby males you would see dramatic differences in their ability to gain muscle bulk.0 -
No matter what I post as evidence, you're going to shoot holes in it. But here's one link, anyway.I was told it's easy to make a menu of 1200 total calories without supplements. I said it's hard to do. I'm still waiting for proof.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Womens_Health_Watch/2009/July/Getting-your-vitamins-and-minerals-through-diet0 -
This content has been removed.
-
2000 calories-- You're male, at maintenance (I assume), 16 years younger than me and well, you actually spend less time at exercise than I do. But you're probably more active overall, unless you too have a desk job.
Actually, 2000 seems kind of low for a young male in maintenance. Are you tiny? Can we make fun of you for being tiny? Because that's what it seems like when the men make fun of the women here for eating less, except they actually imply worse-- that we're stupid. Rolling eye gifs and outright ridicule. And then more men come in with "QFT" and "he's so right". It's bizarre.
Love this! Thank you for standing up for all smaller or older or shorter ladies!! I couldn't have said it better.0 -
If a 1200 target has them losing weight at their desired rate (and assuming it's a reasonable rate), what's the problem?
Because, malnutrition if you do this over the long term.
If people eating 1200 are guaranteeing me that they're getting all their vitamins and minerals and fiber and sufficient protein and fat to make their bodies work, then I'm fine(ish) with it. But look at the dietary guidelines. Without a lot of supplements, it. is. TOUGH to get adequate nutrition on only 1200 calories. Sure, it's enough calories to get out of bed. But vitamins and minerals, fiber, protein? THAT"S the real reason I urge people to eat as much as possible while still losing weight at a sensible rate. There's protein and fat you need to just make your body work. Not energy to move around. Just fat molecules to make your organs and nerves function properly.
Personally. Totally just MHO.
But I certainly don't, myself, make fun of them.
I'm a 5'1", 122 lb, 43 year old female who works out 3-4 time a week. My TDEE is about 1600 calories a day. While I do not strive for 1200 calories (more like 1360), I think there is no 'one size fits all' minimum number of calories one needs. a 20% deficit from TDEE (which most people consider reasonable) for me would be 1280 calories!
By the time I hit my goal weight, my TDEE will be about 1575--and I will happily eat that amount--but small people just don't need as much. It doesn't mean we can't be nutritionally sounds--but I think it does mean we don't have as much room for non nutritionally dense foods if we want to hit the macros, fiber, vitamins and not over eat.
This! This! This!
It is VERY hard to keep to a low goal and get nutrients. But as these stats show, it is necessary for some of us. It is a continual frustration to me to know that for the rest of my life there will be very little room for error, and a treat will have to be budgeted carefully.
The thing is, even though the bodies of smaller gals (and it will just get worse as we age) NEED less, that doesn't mean our appetites WANT less. And sometimes adding more exercise is not possible. I already run 15-20 miles a week and lift three days. So can't add a lot more.
Sorry to continue derailment, but I am so glad to see small gals standing up for themselves on here. Finally!0 -
MrM your persistence to reply to any of my posts and constant need for getting my attention to reply to you seems down right inappropriate and a bit stalkerish to be honest. Its almost bordering behavioral attitudes that end up with restraining orders. You would think the fact that I've had you on ignore because of your narcissistic obnoxious attitudes would be enough. But to keep calling out to me is just down right CREEPY (I counted just 7 on a quick scan through) The fact that i dont reply causes you to become more frequent in this is even more concerning. I really just suggest you knock it off. Is this something I am going to need to be concerned with? Because frankly I am not comfortable with it in any way shape or form. I didnt come to this post to give you your personal need for attention. Im here to reply to an OP asking a question in which i gave an honest answer. My job isnt to come here and debate with you and stroke your precious ego. Thats your SO's job
What MrM is trying to do though is have you give evidence of why you are a special "snowflake". He wants to know why you defy science when all the experts say it is impossible to build muscle on a deficit/cut. He doesn't want newer people on the forum that may read this thread to get the wrong idea from you and think you can build muscle while eating at a deficit.
I will list a few names of the experts. Alan Aragon, Lyle Mcdonald, Mark Rippetoe, Lou Schuler, Alwyn Cosgrove, Jim Wendler .............. I could keep going on and on. There is evidence that Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon referece that newbies to weight lifting and morbidly obese people can build some muscle when they first start weight training but nothing truly significant.
We don't want newbies reading that it's even possible to build any sort of muscle while eating at a deficit, because newbies are one of the only groups that have been observed to build a small amount of muscle while eating at a deficit. Honestly why doesn't it matter so much? Get enough protein, get your calories inline, train hard and if you build muscle in spots that's great - if you don't, at least you retained more muscle than a non-lifter. No I can't start cutting and end up looking like Ronnie Coleman (for several reasons) but whether I build slight amounts of muscle in spots (even as my total lean body mass decreases) or just slow my loss of muscle, what's important is that I am lifting.
Because they don't lose weight on the "1200 calorie" diet and 75% of the responders tell them they must be gaining muscle?
BTW I agree that most people's 2000+ calorie diets probably wouldn't meet very stringent micro nutrient requirements. However I'm all for explaining to newbies that they do not have to eat so little, just like another poster explained. They think they have to when they really don't. Not everyone checks but you can clearly see in a ticker when someone has 80+ lbs to lose. It seems cruel on a weight loss HELP forum to not quickly explain that they can eat more.
And it seems more and more frequent that people are having to explain how a public forum works. All these prefaces to posts with rules on how to respond, very freakin bizarre in my opinion! How about the perfect way to avoid the oh so unpleasant interaction with other adults, just use the search button as the topic has already been covered dozens of times before!
And now I'm whining just like the whiners I'm complaining about 0 -
MrM your persistence to reply to any of my posts and constant need for getting my attention to reply to you seems down right inappropriate and a bit stalkerish to be honest. Its almost bordering behavioral attitudes that end up with restraining orders. You would think the fact that I've had you on ignore because of your narcissistic obnoxious attitudes would be enough. But to keep calling out to me is just down right CREEPY (I counted just 7 on a quick scan through) The fact that i dont reply causes you to become more frequent in this is even more concerning. I really just suggest you knock it off. Is this something I am going to need to be concerned with? Because frankly I am not comfortable with it in any way shape or form. I didnt come to this post to give you your personal need for attention. Im here to reply to an OP asking a question in which i gave an honest answer. My job isnt to come here and debate with you and stroke your precious ego. Thats your SO's job
Holy **** a category 8 meltdown! This is so much better than those end of the world movies I can't get enough of!!0 -
MrM your persistence to reply to any of my posts and constant need for getting my attention to reply to you seems down right inappropriate and a bit stalkerish to be honest. Its almost bordering behavioral attitudes that end up with restraining orders. You would think the fact that I've had you on ignore because of your narcissistic obnoxious attitudes would be enough. But to keep calling out to me is just down right CREEPY (I counted just 7 on a quick scan through) The fact that i dont reply causes you to become more frequent in this is even more concerning. I really just suggest you knock it off. Is this something I am going to need to be concerned with? Because frankly I am not comfortable with it in any way shape or form. I didnt come to this post to give you your personal need for attention. Im here to reply to an OP asking a question in which i gave an honest answer. My job isnt to come here and debate with you and stroke your precious ego. Thats your SO's job
What MrM is trying to do though is have you give evidence of why you are a special "snowflake". He wants to know why you defy science when all the experts say it is impossible to build muscle on a deficit/cut. He doesn't want newer people on the forum that may read this thread to get the wrong idea from you and think you can build muscle while eating at a deficit.
I will list a few names of the experts. Alan Aragon, Lyle Mcdonald, Mark Rippetoe, Lou Schuler, Alwyn Cosgrove, Jim Wendler .............. I could keep going on and on. There is evidence that Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon referece that newbies to weight lifting and morbidly obese people can build some muscle when they first start weight training but nothing truly significant.
We don't want newbies reading that it's even possible to build any sort of muscle while eating at a deficit, because newbies are one of the only groups that have been observed to build a small amount of muscle while eating at a deficit. Honestly why doesn't it matter so much? Get enough protein, get your calories inline, train hard and if you build muscle in spots that's great - if you don't, at least you retained more muscle than a non-lifter. No I can't start cutting and end up looking like Ronnie Coleman (for several reasons) but whether I build slight amounts of muscle in spots (even as my total lean body mass decreases) or just slow my loss of muscle, what's important is that I am lifting.
Because they don't lose weight on the "1200 calorie" diet and 75% of the responders tell them they must be gaining muscle?
BTW I agree that most people's 2000+ calorie diets probably wouldn't meet very stringent micro nutrient requirements. However I'm all for explaining to newbies that they do not have to eat so little, just like another poster explained. They think they have to when they really don't. Not everyone checks but you can clearly see in a ticker when someone has 80+ lbs to lose. It seems cruel on a weight loss HELP forum to not quickly explain that they can eat more.
And it seems more and more frequent that people are having to explain how a public forum works. All these prefaces to posts with rules on how to respond, very freakin bizarre in my opinion! How about the perfect way to avoid the oh so unpleasant interaction with other adults, just use the search button as the topic has already been covered dozens of times before!
And now I'm whining just like the whiners I'm complaining about
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but there's a difference between laughing at an older, smaller and more sedentary person for eating 1200 net calories versus educating an obese beginner than eating 1200 calories isn't necessary. This discussion started off with the former, not the latter. And in terms of the people saying that someone's 6 month plateau when they're supposedly eating at a moderate deficit is caused by muscle building, I agree that's BS - but not because it's impossible to build small amounts of muscle at a deficit (even if total lean body mass decreases), but more because the numbers don't add up. That is, a woman that should be losing at 2 lbs/week if she truly ate the calories she says she's eating is almost certainly not gaining 2 pounds of muscle every week for 6 months (okay, maybe if she's on gear). At a minimum, recomps are much slower in terms of fat loss and muscle gain.
At the end of the day, anytime people start talking in absolutes ("No one should eat 1200 net calories!", "It's impossible to gain any muscle whatsoever at a deficit of any kind", etc.) it's usually overstated and, at least some some degree, inaccurate.0 -
In. I gain pounds of pure muscle while cutting,
/s0 -
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but there's a difference between laughing at an older, smaller and more sedentary person for eating 1200 net calories versus educating an obese beginner than eating 1200 calories isn't necessary. This discussion started off with the former, not the latter.
Frankly, I had assumed some of those initial comments were made tongue in cheek, but given the way the thread has unfolded, hey, what do I know :drinker:0 -
It's possible0
-
Strength training/weight lifting serves a much greater purpose than just building muscle.
1) Strengthening bones. This is critical, especially as we age.
2) Creating cellular metabolic flexibility. Switching back and forth from aerobic to anaerobic respiration trains your cells to use different energy sources for fuel, which ultimately improves your body's ability to burn fat.
3) Slows/halts mitochondrial decay. Our telomeres shorten as we age with each cell division until they get too short, preventing further cellular division, and at this point, the cell becomes inactive or dies. We believe this is what contributes to a whole host of aging issues, including skin wrinkles, declining muscle mass, decreasing aerobic capacity, eroding bone and connective tissue, and possibly cancer and other ailments. Strength training has been shown to slow this shortening of telomeres, and in some cells, even halting the decay.
So lift. If you happen to build muscle, great. But there are so many more benefits that will show up in your physical health that you should do it regardless.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions