it is probably not "muscle"
Replies
-
On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.
Yup, I've done it before too, several times. I never tracked very closely until the last time where I ate very "dirty" (included beer, bacon, chocolate and coffee every day on purpose, ate fast food), and I lost 10+lbs over a month and a half, gained 150lbs strength for leg press, mostly over 30lbs lifting strength in the other tracked lifts over a month. It was hard, I tracked closely and exercised frequently. I was in two of the magic "categories" though: I was in the "overweight" and for many of the lifts in the "retraining" categories.
Now, I did not have my body composition tested no. But I find it extremely unlikely I did not gain any muscle whatsoever when my lifts were increased by the large amounts they were. And I definitely usually had to be at a surplus for such gains in the past. I do think "retraining" is a huge part of it and it would have been extremely slow if my past lifts were not well above the current lifts.
0 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I am learning all about lifting weights, cardio and loosing weight. It seems to go slow but I am seeing some progress. I have someone training me and she told me that If I don't loose weight it is probably muscle. So, what you are saying is that it might not be? Like I said I am just learning and want to do this right.
Yes, it might not be true. It depends upon a lot of different variables, but I wouldn't let it get it you. Weight loss and body composition changes take a long time.
@lolbroscience didn't you have access to some studies on this???
Studies regarding the variables?
sorry, I should of clarified..
@lolbroscience studies on building muscle in a deficit in relation to newbie gains and more elite type athletes….
I'm only aware of 1-2 actual studies. One was done on a variety of different athletes at an Olympic level. However, some of the athletes were from sports that don't really have any sort of resistance training built into their training (For example, shooters were lumped into the populations of the study). So, they could possibly fall under the category of "newbie" gains or hypertrophy in underdeveloped areas.
I recall one Helms study in particular where he cited one or two athletes was able to gain while in a caloric deficit, but it was a very small amount (about 1kg) over a lengthier period of time (6+ months).
Also, Brad Schoenfeld addressed it on Facebook that it is POSSIBLE for individuals to have hypertrophy while in a deficit (even at an experienced level), but there are many factors that will determine to what degree. Genetics, sex, training age, nutrition, programming etc, all need to be in line for it to occur, and even then I believe he only mentioned site specific hypertrophy in areas that were more underdeveloped.
Suffice to say... possible, but not nearly as optimal as while in a caloric surplus.
Applying all of that to individuals on here... most of the people on here are making claims of it happening on a noticeable level, while doing at home workouts... it's highly doubtful.
Never say never though...
Agreed.
I will add though that I'm equally frustrated when numerous replies of "you can't build muscle in a deficit" show up, because that's also misleading and not true.
And it's especially incorrect given that, at least in my observations, the majority of the time the OP is overweight or obese and relatively new to resistance training.
It's not like the context is a lean athlete getting leaner.
Yes exactly, I'm also talking about the majority of these threads I see, where the new lifters being talked about are pelted with "you aren't making any new muscle", but they are in one or more of the "newbie", "overweight", "obese" or "retraining" categories, so the fact that they probably are gaining *some* muscle is not really up for debate by the very set of "rules" the deniers are trying to apply. Review your rules please and think about it, before trying to apply a rule to those which are under an exclusion from your own rule, under the guidelines of application of that rule as its stated... and that's even IF the "rule" is true.
Then, more annoyingly, usually the exclusion of "highly trained" is added to the exclusion list...which goes against the principles set for this "rule" in the first place...if "highly trained" is an exclusion category, then the principles of "you need high body fat to utilize, or, re-training of muscles once larger to gain muscle under these deficit circumstances" are blown out of the water, negating the "rule". Annoyingly inconsistent and unscientific approach by people claiming "science" and then there are the studies brought up showing it does happen that are not read...
As usual, the answer is somewhere in between the new muscle deniers and the newbie "I gained 5lbs muscle claims: all the newbie lifters and obese and retraining lifters are almost guaranteed to be making *some* new muscle if they are under a progressive resistance training program, even at a reasonable deficit, but its also probably not anywhere near as much as they think, and its a slow process to build up muscle tissue base. Of course its not optimal, of course you aren't going to be Arnold training like this...but they are probably building some muscle.
you are assuming that all newbies are doing some kind of progressive lifting program, which they are all not doing. And, I specifically put in my OP hat people eating 1200 calories, doing primarily cardio, and complain about "not losing" and then response is "well, it is probably muscle" is what I was referring to, and I also qualified it with the conditions where said gain could happen.
Also, if someone is eating 1200 calories AND doing a progressive lifting program I highly doubt that they are putting on any appreciable mass.
Did you go back and read the study that USMC posted?
It sounds like you are just arguing to argue...
Yeah I saw that, and I addressed that. If you read above, both SideSteel and I are talking in general about most of the posts bombing new lifters with "you arent making any new muscle". You posted a general attitude type post, and the attitude annoys some people, because it gets applied to people who do not deserve the denial discouragement all the time. That's all.
I'm speaking up against the repeated statement of "you did not gain any new muscle" commonly applied to the typical newbie lifter, who is usually obese or overweight, which is complete bunk, and goes against the very "rules" that many are trying to apply. Yes it can be true for a specific circumstance or a theoretical "if 1200 calories, if primarily cardio and not losing", I am not talking about that. However even 1200 cals is no rule either, neither is primarily cardio = no new muscle, but they are significant bumps in the road probably almost nobody would be able to go over and still roll forwards.
You were trying to create a scenario where this rule could be essentially right, but I moved away from it to talk about the popular on MFP chorus of "you arent building any new muscle" that is misapplied to other situations. The former annoys you, the latter annoys me, the truth is in between.
0 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »On general principal and for the average person, I agree with this post. However, I will say I had relatively reliable medical testing that has proven I have gained muscle while running in a calorie deficit deficit (1,200-1,275 calories a day for 10 months). I lost 52 pounds according to an average scale, but the the tests indicate I gained 5-6 pounds of muscle (over 1 year). The change in the amount I can lift indicates, at minimum, an increase in strength.
It was hard, consistent, and dedicated work both with strength training and eating a very clean an purposeful diet at the macro and micro level. High protein levels were a must. I am not a believer in a simplistic "CICO" approach (calories in - calories out). I think 1,200 calories in of HIGH quality balanced nutrients will yield a very different result than 1,200 calories of processed and/or low quality nutrients going in when balanced with "calories out" that is a balance of cardio and cycled strength training.
Yup, I've done it before too, several times. I never tracked very closely until the last time where I ate very "dirty" (included beer, bacon, chocolate and coffee every day on purpose, ate fast food), and I lost 10+lbs over a month and a half, gained 150lbs strength for leg press, mostly over 30lbs lifting strength in the other tracked lifts over a month. It was hard, I tracked closely and exercised frequently. I was in two of the magic "categories" though: I was in the "overweight" and for many of the lifts in the "retraining" categories.
Now, I did not have my body composition tested no. But I find it extremely unlikely I did not gain any muscle whatsoever when my lifts were increased by the large amounts they were. And I definitely usually had to be at a surplus for such gains in the past. I do think "retraining" is a huge part of it and it would have been extremely slow if my past lifts were not well above the current lifts.
According to the article, it seemed everyone's strength markers increased even though they were all at a deficit and most of the FR group *lost* muscle. I think it would be extremely useful information if some of the "normal" people who say they gained muscle had some supporting reliable measurements to go with it.0 -
This whole thread has been completely unclear to me. I'm going to have to talk with a trainer I know. I've been in a deficit for months and been losing weight. I've also been doing cardio and weight lifting. I know I've gained muscle because I can actually flex and my brother can't squash my arm down. That and I am hella stronger.
So if I can't build muscle while in deficit... How have I built muscle? I know you need energy to help build but couldn't my body just use stored fat to do so?0 -
This whole thread has been completely unclear to me. I'm going to have to talk with a trainer I know. I've been in a deficit for months and been losing weight. I've also been doing cardio and weight lifting. I know I've gained muscle because I can actually flex and my brother can't squash my arm down. That and I am hella stronger.
So if I can't build muscle while in deficit... How have I built muscle? I know you need energy to help build but couldn't my body just use stored fat to do so?
I'll try and clear this up.
BUILDING brand new muscle fiber (aka hypertrophy) requires extra calories (energy) in most cases. Generally people deliberately eat more to help the process.
BUT, that doesn't mean that strength training while in a deficit inhibits you from gaining strength (muscle mass =/= strength). Have you ever seen a power lifter vs. a bodybuilder?
Also, strength training in a deficit also doesn't inhibit your body from repairing atrophied muscle mass. You might also see a pump where your muscles swell with water and glycogen.
The above combined with fat loss also gives the illusion of "LOOK AT HOW MY MUSCLES HAVE GROWN!" when in reality, you have lost the pudge on top and repaired the muscle mass you already have.
It takes excess calories and a LOT of time (especially for women who have lower levels of testosterone) to actually put on *new* muscle mass.0 -
haysavam, just think of it this way: its really not important, and know it alls want to try to be an "authority" on here, ignore them. What's important is that you gain strength, and keep all your muscle while losing weight. Whether you build some new muscle as you lose weight? Doesn't really matter, even though people will jump at the opportunity on here to say "you aren't building any".0
-
rainbobow....good post..
0 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I am learning all about lifting weights, cardio and loosing weight. It seems to go slow but I am seeing some progress. I have someone training me and she told me that If I don't loose weight it is probably muscle. So, what you are saying is that it might not be? Like I said I am just learning and want to do this right.
Yes, it might not be true. It depends upon a lot of different variables, but I wouldn't let it get it you. Weight loss and body composition changes take a long time.
@lolbroscience didn't you have access to some studies on this???
Studies regarding the variables?
sorry, I should of clarified..
@lolbroscience studies on building muscle in a deficit in relation to newbie gains and more elite type athletes….
I'm only aware of 1-2 actual studies. One was done on a variety of different athletes at an Olympic level. However, some of the athletes were from sports that don't really have any sort of resistance training built into their training (For example, shooters were lumped into the populations of the study). So, they could possibly fall under the category of "newbie" gains or hypertrophy in underdeveloped areas.
I recall one Helms study in particular where he cited one or two athletes was able to gain while in a caloric deficit, but it was a very small amount (about 1kg) over a lengthier period of time (6+ months).
Also, Brad Schoenfeld addressed it on Facebook that it is POSSIBLE for individuals to have hypertrophy while in a deficit (even at an experienced level), but there are many factors that will determine to what degree. Genetics, sex, training age, nutrition, programming etc, all need to be in line for it to occur, and even then I believe he only mentioned site specific hypertrophy in areas that were more underdeveloped.
Suffice to say... possible, but not nearly as optimal as while in a caloric surplus.
Applying all of that to individuals on here... most of the people on here are making claims of it happening on a noticeable level, while doing at home workouts... it's highly doubtful.
Never say never though...
Agreed.
I will add though that I'm equally frustrated when numerous replies of "you can't build muscle in a deficit" show up, because that's also misleading and not true.
And it's especially incorrect given that, at least in my observations, the majority of the time the OP is overweight or obese and relatively new to resistance training.
It's not like the context is a lean athlete getting leaner.
Yes exactly, I'm also talking about the majority of these threads I see, where the new lifters being talked about are pelted with "you aren't making any new muscle", but they are in one or more of the "newbie", "overweight", "obese" or "retraining" categories, so the fact that they probably are gaining *some* muscle is not really up for debate by the very set of "rules" the deniers are trying to apply. Review your rules please and think about it, before trying to apply a rule to those which are under an exclusion from your own rule, under the guidelines of application of that rule as its stated... and that's even IF the "rule" is true.
Then, more annoyingly, usually the exclusion of "highly trained" is added to the exclusion list...which goes against the principles set for this "rule" in the first place...if "highly trained" is an exclusion category, then the principles of "you need high body fat to utilize, or, re-training of muscles once larger to gain muscle under these deficit circumstances" are blown out of the water, negating the "rule". Annoyingly inconsistent and unscientific approach by people claiming "science" and then there are the studies brought up showing it does happen that are not read...
As usual, the answer is somewhere in between the new muscle deniers and the newbie "I gained 5lbs muscle claims: all the newbie lifters and obese and retraining lifters are almost guaranteed to be making *some* new muscle if they are under a progressive resistance training program, even at a reasonable deficit, but its also probably not anywhere near as much as they think, and its a slow process to build up muscle tissue base. Of course its not optimal, of course you aren't going to be Arnold training like this...but they are probably building some muscle.
you are assuming that all newbies are doing some kind of progressive lifting program, which they are all not doing. And, I specifically put in my OP hat people eating 1200 calories, doing primarily cardio, and complain about "not losing" and then response is "well, it is probably muscle" is what I was referring to, and I also qualified it with the conditions where said gain could happen.
Also, if someone is eating 1200 calories AND doing a progressive lifting program I highly doubt that they are putting on any appreciable mass.
Did you go back and read the study that USMC posted?
It sounds like you are just arguing to argue...
Yeah I saw that, and I addressed that. If you read above, both SideSteel and I are talking in general about most of the posts bombing new lifters with "you arent making any new muscle". You posted a general attitude type post, and the attitude annoys some people, because it gets applied to people who do not deserve the denial discouragement all the time. That's all.
I'm speaking up against the repeated statement of "you did not gain any new muscle" commonly applied to the typical newbie lifter, who is usually obese or overweight, which is complete bunk, and goes against the very "rules" that many are trying to apply. Yes it can be true for a specific circumstance or a theoretical "if 1200 calories, if primarily cardio and not losing", I am not talking about that. However even 1200 cals is no rule either, neither is primarily cardio = no new muscle, but they are significant bumps in the road probably almost nobody would be able to go over and still roll forwards.
You were trying to create a scenario where this rule could be essentially right, but I moved away from it to talk about the popular on MFP chorus of "you arent building any new muscle" that is misapplied to other situations. The former annoys you, the latter annoys me, the truth is in between.
I was not trying to make a rule. I agree that there are different scenarios and that there is no general rule.
I just find it frustrating when someone says I am eating 1200 and doing cardio and not losing and the response is "oh, it is probably muscle.."
I think I agree with the rest of what you are saying....0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »This whole thread has been completely unclear to me. I'm going to have to talk with a trainer I know. I've been in a deficit for months and been losing weight. I've also been doing cardio and weight lifting. I know I've gained muscle because I can actually flex and my brother can't squash my arm down. That and I am hella stronger.
So if I can't build muscle while in deficit... How have I built muscle? I know you need energy to help build but couldn't my body just use stored fat to do so?
I'll try and clear this up.
BUILDING brand new muscle fiber (aka hypertrophy) requires extra calories (energy) in most cases. Generally people deliberately eat more to help the process.
BUT, that doesn't mean that strength training while in a deficit inhibits you from gaining strength (muscle mass =/= strength). Have you ever seen a power lifter vs. a bodybuilder?
Also, strength training in a deficit also doesn't inhibit your body from repairing atrophied muscle mass. You might also see a pump where your muscles swell with water and glycogen.
The above combined with fat loss also gives the illusion of "LOOK AT HOW MY MUSCLES HAVE GROWN!" when in reality, you have lost the pudge on top and repaired the muscle mass you already have.
It takes excess calories and a LOT of time (especially for women who have lower levels of testosterone) to actually put on *new* muscle mass.
@rainbowbow Thank you. This is something I will have to continue to research. I was contemplating increasing my calories for a few weeks because I wanted to get stronger, but saw no weight loss and since I'm overweight I went back to doing 1200. I will wait until I am at a weight to maintain to do that.
So basically, from what I understand, strength doesn't mean big muscles. And I can gain strength but not big muscles on a deficit. So my muscles become repaired- but would they get more dense (not necessarily bigger just more dense) And if so, wouldn't that add weight? Assuming that increasing density increases weight?0 -
haysavam, just think of it this way: its really not important, and know it alls want to try to be an "authority" on here, ignore them. What's important is that you gain strength, and keep all your muscle while losing weight. Whether you build some new muscle as you lose weight? Doesn't really matter, even though people will jump at the opportunity on here to say "you aren't building any".
Yes, I definitely do not want to lose muscle. But, I'm just trying to get a better understanding. Knowledge is power (*)0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »This whole thread has been completely unclear to me. I'm going to have to talk with a trainer I know. I've been in a deficit for months and been losing weight. I've also been doing cardio and weight lifting. I know I've gained muscle because I can actually flex and my brother can't squash my arm down. That and I am hella stronger.
So if I can't build muscle while in deficit... How have I built muscle? I know you need energy to help build but couldn't my body just use stored fat to do so?
I'll try and clear this up.
BUILDING brand new muscle fiber (aka hypertrophy) requires extra calories (energy) in most cases. Generally people deliberately eat more to help the process.
BUT, that doesn't mean that strength training while in a deficit inhibits you from gaining strength (muscle mass =/= strength). Have you ever seen a power lifter vs. a bodybuilder?
Also, strength training in a deficit also doesn't inhibit your body from repairing atrophied muscle mass. You might also see a pump where your muscles swell with water and glycogen.
The above combined with fat loss also gives the illusion of "LOOK AT HOW MY MUSCLES HAVE GROWN!" when in reality, you have lost the pudge on top and repaired the muscle mass you already have.
It takes excess calories and a LOT of time (especially for women who have lower levels of testosterone) to actually put on *new* muscle mass.
@rainbowbow Thank you. This is something I will have to continue to research. I was contemplating increasing my calories for a few weeks because I wanted to get stronger, but saw no weight loss and since I'm overweight I went back to doing 1200. I will wait until I am at a weight to maintain to do that.
So basically, from what I understand, strength doesn't mean big muscles. And I can gain strength but not big muscles on a deficit. So my muscles become repaired- but would they get more dense (not necessarily bigger just more dense) And if so, wouldn't that add weight? Assuming that increasing density increases weight?
I will leave the details of that question to someone with more research on the topic as i wouldn't want to mislead you.
My understanding is that you may gain WATER weight as your muscles will have a "pump" of water and glycogen, but you would not be gaining muscle weight.
As far as your initial comment is concerned, since you are overweight you likely already have a good amount of muscle mass. Your goal should be (if it were me) to RETAIN as much muscle mass as you can while on a deficit and to cut FAT. This will allow you to have the "fit" and "tight" look most women want.
To do this you need to consume adequate protein and strength train consistently to oppose muscle catabolism.
Once you get down to a low enough body fat% you will see muscle. From there you can decide if you want to intentionally put on more or not. You might find that you're happy with where you are.
Here's a good example below of people around the same body fat % with different amounts of muscle mass.
I guess this also depends on your goal. I.e. if you are focusing on aesthetics or if your main goal is to be strong and powerlift.
I dont know your specific goals so it's hard for me to suggest anything further. If you're lifting for strength vs. aesthetics you should adjust your calories accordingly.
0 -
bumping because I am seeing a lot of "it is probably muscle" posts...
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.0
-
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »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.
You might want to try not to sound like that then.0 -
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »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.
You might want to try not to sound like that then.
Doh! Typo LOL. I'll stand by the statement though anyways.0 -
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »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....0 -
CalorieCountChocula 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.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »CalorieCountChocula 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.0 -
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!0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »CalorieCountChocula 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?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »CalorieCountChocula 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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »CalorieCountChocula 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.0 -
says who0
-
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions