"You can't build muscle on a deficit"

Does it have a Omega-3 and Omega-6 listing (since it has herring, it's probably fine -- i just wondered if the program you have has that on another tab.)

It's fitday.com which is both a free web tool and a paid download program. Shuws PUFA and MUFA but doesn't split n-3 and n-6 etc I did it in November but managed to locate it :-

I wouldn't be sensitive to people 'advising others that 1200 might not be fine' if that's what they did. But they tell them flat-out that 1200 is dangerous and is not right for virtually anyone. Which is totally untrue. I know people are trying to help but giving out misinformation isn't helpful.

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?

There are general rules of thumb, and calculators used by medical professionals that give good estimates. Does *everyone* fall into these general average ranges? No. There will be some people outside those ranges. But MOST people DO fit into those ranges. SOME people can do fine at a lower level, while SOME people can do fine at a higher level. The reason why here on this forum there are so many people advising that 1200 is likely too low is that we know how MFP setup gives 1200 by default based on the input of the user. This input is generally chosen because everyone wants to lose 2 pounds per week regardless of whether this is realistic for them, giving too steep a deficit. Also because people do not understand that MFP numbers do not include exercise, so they really need to eat more unless they are really sedentary. 1200 NET is a confusing point for some people.

1200 might be perfectly fine for you. But just because there are many people on the forum advising others that 1200 might not be fine doesn't mean that it is bad and wrong for you. So don't be so sensitive about it. People are truly trying to be helpful and guide people into finding what is healthy.

I wouldn't be sensitive to people 'advising others that 1200 might not be fine' if that's what they did. But they tell them flat-out that 1200 is dangerous and is not right for virtually anyone. Which is totally untrue. I know people are trying to help but giving out misinformation isn't helpful.

There are lots of egotistical *kitten* hats that like to spout off in the forums. I try to take discussing a differing position via PMs and they get pissed because they aren't getting their public attention.

Not sure if you are referring to me but I responded to your PM, I'm waiting for your reply. If you are referring to me I will gladly continue the conversation in the PM as I have already started. Respond here or there if you want. As far as egotistical, I get nothing out of what a bunch of people would think of me online.

If you have not dealt with small numbers like these, please don't comment on what might be appropriate intake for someone that size.

I wouldn't be sensitive to people 'advising others that 1200 might not be fine' if that's what they did. But they tell them flat-out that 1200 is dangerous and is not right for virtually anyone. Which is totally untrue. I know people are trying to help but giving out misinformation isn't helpful.

There are lots of egotistical *kitten* hats that like to spout off in the forums. I try to take discussing a differing position via PMs and they get pissed because they aren't getting their public attention.

TLDR
<--- Example of recomp. I started on a 1lb weekly deficit and recently shifted to 0.5lb weekly deficit. It can be done, but takes a lot of work and heavy lifting.

This would be a cut, not a recomp, would it not?

TLDR
<--- Example of recomp. I started on a 1lb weekly deficit and recently shifted to 0.5lb weekly deficit. It can be done, but takes a lot of work and heavy lifting.

This would be a cut, not a recomp, would it not?

I didn't have this much muscle before, therefore, I'd classify it as a recomp

I see. Recomping is essentially eating at maintenance -- at least that's how it's typically defined.

All that being said, I believe you CAN gain muscle in a deficit, depending on a number of variables.

I wouldn't be sensitive to people 'advising others that 1200 might not be fine' if that's what they did. But they tell them flat-out that 1200 is dangerous and is not right for virtually anyone. Which is totally untrue. I know people are trying to help but giving out misinformation isn't helpful.

There are lots of egotistical *kitten* hats that like to spout off in the forums. I try to take discussing a differing position via PMs and they get pissed because they aren't getting their public attention.

Consider though, that debating in private prevents other people from potentially gaining new information about the topic. Just because you are having a discussion with 1 person does not mean there aren't 500 other people reading along.

Do as you please obviously, but I know in my own case I've learned a great deal on the internet because some people take the time to hash it out with someone.

Very true. For those lurkers.

I remember seeing an interview with Alan Aragon where he recalled one day being asked why he spent so much time arguing and debating online and his response was along those lines.

TLDR
<--- Example of recomp. I started on a 1lb weekly deficit and recently shifted to 0.5lb weekly deficit. It can be done, but takes a lot of work and heavy lifting.

This would be a cut, not a recomp, would it not?

I didn't have this much muscle before, therefore, I'd classify it as a recomp

This is a common thought. People who cut have muscle that looks bigger when the fat strips away. I looked bigger at 175-180 than I did at over 200lbs. People thought I was "bulking" when I was at that lower bodyweight. Even with recomping the conditions have to be damn near perfect, even people on drugs and top level prep coaches get it wrong sometimes. I am not trying to say you didn't recomp, just that the bolded is a very common reaction when people lose bodyfat while keeping the muscle they had underneath it.

I see. Recomping is essentially eating at maintenance -- at least that's how it's typically defined.

All that being said, I believe you CAN gain muscle in a deficit, depending on a number of variables.

I was under the impression that recomping is the breakdown of fat to fuel the muscle gains, hence the term recomposition - reorganizing/rearranging.

However, I didn't want to squabble over semantics. I just want to show folks there are cases of obtaining some muscle gains without eating a surplus.

This is what I thought too because my weight didn't change but my appearance did...but I was told so many times here that it was wrong. LOL

Just to clarify, you guys though it meant to tap into fat strong and break it down to provide the necessary components for muscle protein synthesis or was it you thought you tap into fat stores for energy?