it is probably not "muscle"

11011121416

Replies

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. I usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.

    Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,053 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.

    Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....

    He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that's it is probably not muscle.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.

    Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....

    He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that's it is probably not muscle.

    I don't think people are obnoxious in telling people it isn't muscle, I think people just get upset by learning it isn't muscle because the truth is less comforting than the falsehood.
  • starwhisperer6
    starwhisperer6 Posts: 402 Member
    I don't think the OP was obnoxious at all, but I have definitely seen places that this was said in a very obnoxious way. If it has to do with not losing it is probably not muscle, but I am really enjoying seeing my muscle resurface from my layer of fat. New old, I don't care in the least, just welcome back pretty muscle groups!
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.

    Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....

    He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that's it is probably not muscle.

    What specifically was obnoxious about my post?
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.

    Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....

    He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that's it is probably not muscle.

    What specifically was obnoxious about my post?

    I don't know that s/he thought you were obnoxious. I think it's the general "some people" are obnoxious thing.
  • Debmal77
    Debmal77 Posts: 4,770 Member
    @ndj1979 Thank you for the op and bumping it also. I missed it the first time around.
  • tincanonastring
    tincanonastring Posts: 3,944 Member
    I know it's Friday, but could we avoid derailing this into a mean people thread? I'm sure there are plenty of other threads for that today.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Debmal77 wrote: »
    @ndj1979 Thank you for the op and bumping it also. I missed it the first time around.

    You are welcome

    Just wanted to share with newer members....
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,072 Member
    edited December 2015
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Can we not drag this into the tired old "someone says they gained muscle in a deficit so they MUST be wrong" thing? Please!
    There are so many variables that it would be nice if we could have sensible discussions without trying to disprove everyone.


    Brad Schoenfeld
    There is no question that even advanced lifters can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. However, you CANNOT maximize hypertrophy while losing fat. Important distinction.



    I don't disagree..

    I just highly doubt that most people asking about this are in the "advanced lifter" category.

    The quote says "even advanced lifters," not "only advanced lifters." It implies that the author has already asserted/accepted the idea that those who are not advanced lifters can gain muscle in deficit (as in "newbie gains"), and now is taking the argument further to say that even those who are advanced lifters, and outside the "newbie gains" category, can gain muscle in deficit. Just not as fast as they could if they were in a calorie surplus.

    So no matter what category of lifter the people asking are in, the quote (which you say you don't disagree with) is saying that gaining some muscle while losing fat is not the theoretical impossibility that many people say it is.

    You just need to have a deficit small enough that you're not outpacing the ability of your body to generate energy from fat to make up for the deficit, and the deficit has to be measured against all the energy needs of your body, including the energy equivalent of the protein you need to build however much muscle you're building.

    I'm not suggesting it's easy, or that it actually is a description of what's going on for most people who complain that they're doing everything right and not losing weight. I think for most people, the weight of the muscle that they could build in any given period of time is so small that any average daily fat loss it could outweigh is likewise so small that it would probably fall within their measuring error for input calories. That is, unless they're saying "I'm lifting heavy and consuming my TDEE less 100 calories, but I'm not losing any weight," (or "I'm gaining weight") I doubt the reason they're not losing weight is that they're building muscle as fast or faster than they're losing fat.

    ETA: sorry, I missed that this was a necro-thread.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,053 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.

    Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....

    He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that it is probably not muscle.

    What specifically was obnoxious about my post?

    I don't believe @CalorieCountChocula was referring to your OP, but to other threads in which people have been obnoxious while saying that it's probably not muscle.
  • dhimaan
    dhimaan Posts: 774 Member
    says who
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    dhimaan wrote: »
    says who

    I agree
  • watercross
    watercross Posts: 3 Member
    Forget the scale - measure inches. If you are at a calorie deficit and doing cardio you could lose muscle as well as fat. You could also gain muscle if a newbie to exercising. Could also be water. So again measure inches and forget the scale.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    dhimaan wrote: »
    says who

    Evolutionary and physiological science.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.

    Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....

    He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that it is probably not muscle.

    What specifically was obnoxious about my post?

    I don't believe @CalorieCountChocula was referring to your OP, but to other threads in which people have been obnoxious while saying that it's probably not muscle.

    which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,053 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.

    Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....

    He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that it is probably not muscle.

    What specifically was obnoxious about my post?

    I don't believe @CalorieCountChocula was referring to your OP, but to other threads in which people have been obnoxious while saying that it's probably not muscle.

    which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

    Of course it does. If I understand @CalorieCountChocula correctly, he's saying people who point this out don't need to do it in such an obnoxious way as he has seen in the past.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.

    Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....

    He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that it is probably not muscle.

    What specifically was obnoxious about my post?

    I don't believe @CalorieCountChocula was referring to your OP, but to other threads in which people have been obnoxious while saying that it's probably not muscle.

    which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

    Of course it does. If I understand @CalorieCountChocula correctly, he's saying people who point this out don't need to do it in such an obnoxious way as he has seen in the past.

    again, it was already pointed out that there is nothing obnoxious in this thread, so it does not pertain to this thread.

    I re-bumped this to help new members, not to argue about perceived slights…

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.

    Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....

    He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that it is probably not muscle.

    What specifically was obnoxious about my post?

    I don't believe @CalorieCountChocula was referring to your OP, but to other threads in which people have been obnoxious while saying that it's probably not muscle.

    which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

    Of course it does. If I understand @CalorieCountChocula correctly, he's saying people who point this out don't need to do it in such an obnoxious way as he has seen in the past.

    How exactly can one say that in an obnoxious way even?
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Meh. I'm torn. I really probably isn't muscle but the people always remind people of that in the douchiest way. It usually just sounds like "it's probably not muscle and you're probably a loser and I'm the only one who can build muscle." It happens though I guess.

    Did you even read my op? The reason I put probably is because there are certain scenarios where one can add muscle in a deficit. However, if you are eating 1200 calories a day and doing minimal training then it is not muscle....

    He's agreeing with you, but wanting people to not be obnoxious when they point out that it is probably not muscle.

    What specifically was obnoxious about my post?

    I don't believe @CalorieCountChocula was referring to your OP, but to other threads in which people have been obnoxious while saying that it's probably not muscle.

    which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

    Of course it does. If I understand @CalorieCountChocula correctly, he's saying people who point this out don't need to do it in such an obnoxious way as he has seen in the past.

    That's all well and fine, but there are only so many ways to say it. Frankly, I've not seen evidence for there being "obnoxiousness" in the past, and how the concept of "obnoxiousness even got introduced into the conversation is beyond me.

    Can we please not have yet another thread derailed with dem feelz? This is good, factual information. A lot of people are spouting the erroneous "it's probably muscle" to queries about people not losing weight.

    Correcting that misinformation is important.