"You can't build muscle on a deficit"

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.

You have misrepresented what Lyle McDonald says - nowhere does he say morbidly obese ( the phrase "overfat" should ring some bells?).
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.

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.

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.

You personally don't find a recomp painfully slow and that's good. Others might for the obvious reasons of not getting instant gratification, demand for precision and accuracy and nd consistency.

Yes, I do believe in noob gains especially in the new lifter and obese. Short lived ones as the readings state. Will there ever be a case where someone might put on some sort of measurable mass and not fall into the outliner category while eating at a deficit, could be, I'd like to see it. What I do object to is those people who don't bother to study the actual science behind how we train, why we train the way we do and what nutrition has to do with it. The ones who claim they put on "significant" muscle eating 1200 calories without ever being able to have an actual conversation on it based on the science itself behind it. The answer in returns always seems to be "I don't need to prove anything to you" or "I know what I've done". You know what, that answer will always be challenged by me. Especially for the person lurking in the background reading this so they can know that individual lacks the substance behind their statement.

I'm always up for a debate. Now if someone wants to wiggle out of it by saying I'm stalking them that's fine. But deep down inside they know they weren't ready to come play in the sandbox.

Read the article again. And then post your own evidence that it's not possible. Or PM me, since you're now on ignore. Because, surprise, you shot holes in the evidence I provided-- shocker. :laugh:

I don't understand why people think anyone here thinks their only option is 1200. People know they can pick a slower deficit and lose slower, don't you think?

People on here can be ever so helpful until you venture into the 1200 calorie conversation. Everyone has a different opinion and all of them are sure they are 100% correct and everyone else is wrong Although 1200 isnt good for MOST people and more calories are needed for that. I would talk to your doctor about your dietary needs and goals ( or perhaps a referral to a nutritionist thats working with your doctor to tailor a diet guide to your needs) Its certainly NOT impossible. I was on 1200 calories for 3/4 of my journey ( BUT i have polycystic ovarian syndrome, hashimotos hypothyroid and a pituitary condition called hyperprolactinemia which all effect the metabolism and cause weight gain so needed a lower caloric intake which was prescribed to me by my endocrinologist working with the hospital nutritionist.. btw was the best thing i ever could of done was seeing an ACTUAL nutritionist )

I can't agree with this enough. I'm building muscle while still at 1200 calories a day. I'm losing weight, building muscle, and feeling a whole lot better than I did before. I'm working with my Dr, a nutritionist and a dietician to ensure that I get everything that I need on a regular basis. My muscle mass has increased, my body fat percentage has decreased. I don't pass out at the gym, I don't struggle with staying under calories, and as of right now, the specialists do not have me eating back my workout calories. Most days, I only net about 600-800 and I still have more energy and stamina than I did six months ago. ONLY a Dr can tell you what is best for you. We can be supportive, but we sure as hell can't give you all of the answers for YOUR body.

So you're being told by a nutritionist and a dietitian to net between 6 and 800 calories and you weigh in the 1 30's is what your saying? And you see nothing wrong with that?

Lots of good advice on this topic! Again, one size (or caloric deficit) does not fit all. I have a SUPER slow metabolism and in my own situation, if I'm not working out with cardio AND strength training, I stay at my same weight. It's just my age and genetics (ooooh, lucky me;))

Your body loves strength training. It's AWESOME for your bones and they WILL thank you as you get older. I also believe that strength training puts me in a "happy place" mentally. I feel it's worth the extra effort and time.

Best to you!

I've never seen any other diet or source or site that says that people with X lbs. or less to lose can't aim for 2 lbs/week. That always seems to be a universal max goal, just as it is here.

In Fitbit's food plan, you can aim for 2 lbs/week and there is no floor value. They assume if you want more to eat, you'll move more. You can get a calorie rec. for the day in the 700s. It expects the user to know or learn what is a realistic minimum for themselves and adjust their expectations accordingly. Or move more to eat more.

Right. We know everything about weight loss. That's why many of us have been fat for years or decades and are somehow just now working together to figure it out.

I've never seen any other diet or source or site that says that people with X lbs. or less to lose can't aim for 2 lbs/week. That always seems to be a universal max goal, just as it is here.

In Fitbit's food plan, you can aim for 2 lbs/week and there is no floor value. They assume if you want more to eat, you'll move more. You can get a calorie rec. for the day in the 700s. It expects the user to know or learn what is a realistic minimum for themselves and adjust their expectations accordingly. Or move more to eat more.

Right. We know everything about weight loss. That's why many of us have been fat for years or decades and are somehow just now working together to figure it out.

If you don't know what intake level is right for yourself or are just learning it, why do you feel like you know what's right for others, better than they do?

I've never seen any other diet or source or site that says that people with X lbs. or less to lose can't aim for 2 lbs/week.