Can't gain muscle on diet. What??
Replies
-
It is always going to depend on the individual, plus the actual deficit. Yeah it feels unfair, but there are some people who are just better at maintaining or even gaining mass without a calorie surplus.discretekim wrote: »I've decided since no description was given overfat means this: lower than average ratio of muscle to fat based than average for height and weight and gender.
Rule of thumb, I'd go with it meaning you'd need to be at least obese in terms of body fat, so 25%+ for a male, 32%+ for a female.
I did not know that. Learned something new.
0 -
It's from the American Council on Exercise's standards. It goes from normal to obese at that line - nothing in between.yopeeps025 wrote: »
It is always going to depend on the individual, plus the actual deficit. Yeah it feels unfair, but there are some people who are just better at maintaining or even gaining mass without a calorie surplus.discretekim wrote: »I've decided since no description was given overfat means this: lower than average ratio of muscle to fat based than average for height and weight and gender.
Rule of thumb, I'd go with it meaning you'd need to be at least obese in terms of body fat, so 25%+ for a male, 32%+ for a female.
I did not know that. Learned something new.
The technical, medical definition used by physicians is based purely on BMI standards, which includes an overweight category between normal and obese.0 -
It's from the American Council on Exercise's standards. It goes from normal to obese at that line - nothing in between.yopeeps025 wrote: »
It is always going to depend on the individual, plus the actual deficit. Yeah it feels unfair, but there are some people who are just better at maintaining or even gaining mass without a calorie surplus.discretekim wrote: »I've decided since no description was given overfat means this: lower than average ratio of muscle to fat based than average for height and weight and gender.
Rule of thumb, I'd go with it meaning you'd need to be at least obese in terms of body fat, so 25%+ for a male, 32%+ for a female.
I did not know that. Learned something new.
The technical, medical definition used by physicians is based purely on BMI standards, which includes an overweight category between normal and obese.
Yeah but I feel BMI needs to be trashed once someone lifts weights for a certain amount of time.
0 -
So... I'm fresh (as in 2 days) out of a biochemistry class and would like to shed some light on metabolism, anabolism, and catabolism. First off, can't is a very strong word. The human body is an incredible machine that has an amazing capacity to overcome really crappy conditions. An average person can survive a month without food, an obese person, a year.
Diets work by the CICO principle, if calories in are less than cals out, you lose weight. It's pretty simple. Under good well fed conditions cells make their energy from glucose. When conditions are really good, muscle cells convert excess glucose into glycogen, for energy storage. When your muscles start doing work and burn off the immediately available glucose, they go to their glycogen stores. When you run out, (that's what marathon runners refer to as "the wall") your body does gluconeogensis (in the liver), where it makes glucose (your brain is the only organ that must have glucose to survive) out of other non-carbohydrate sources (this is where your muscles get munched on, protein, or amino acids, are a source for this process). At the same time, beta-oxidation is happening of fat cells (this is the big energy pathway of the ketogenic diet), in which fatty acids are broken down to create metabolites that can be used to make energy. Both of these are stimulated by low glucose levels in the blood. This is what's happening during a diet, or starvation conditions, or when you work your body really hard. All of these sources still finish out the same way through two more steps known as the krebs cycle and oxidative phosphorylation.. except fast twitch muscles, which do a lot of lactic acid fermentation.
What does it have to do with gaining muscle mass? So we're clear, lifting weights causes an increase of strength and mass because it tells the body "hey, i need to be able to pick heavy stuff up with this bicep, add more cells here." It's really all about signaling and stimulating specific things in the body. We all know that slow weight loss is healthy maintainable weight loss. If you eat at an extreme calorie deficit say 1300ish or less, and are only mildly overweight, and workout, you're likely not going to see gains because at that point you're so far below what your body needs for energy that stimulation of the muscles through weightlifting will not overcome the stimlulations going on by the rest of the body to fuel those organs (think brain, heart, lungs, etc) that are crucial for staying alive. If you eat at a modest calorie deficit, are mildly overweight, maybe bump your protein intake up a bit, and lift weights, you'll still be able to gain some muscle because you're only stressing the energy system of your body, not creating an energy emergency. You're not "creating something out of nothing" because there's lots of resources available in your body to build muscles from.
Sorry to get super science nerd on this topic but i see this kind of thread so many times. My take away from biochemistry was that life is hard lol0 -
discretekim wrote: »I've seen this a few times today. It makes no sense. I am losing weight and I know for a fact I am getting stronger. My muscles seem to be growing too getting larger and more firm.
Why is this a common idea? Is there some research on this??
I've seen this around also, and thought the same thing. I am a noob, but my arms are noticably larger and more toned. Wondering what all the hype of "no muscle when dieting" is about. Is this just toning, I suppose?0 -
discretekim wrote: »I've seen this a few times today. It makes no sense. I am losing weight and I know for a fact I am getting stronger. My muscles seem to be growing too getting larger and more firm.
Why is this a common idea? Is there some research on this??
I've seen this around also, and thought the same thing. I am a noob, but my arms are noticably larger and more toned. Wondering what all the hype of "no muscle when dieting" is about. Is this just toning, I suppose?
Seeing Muscle definition does not mean you are increasing muscle mass. You are losing fat around the muscle which make it seem bigger. I'm sure measurements would say different. You did say newbie so you might be in that stage where you can increase a little bit of muscle mass on a deficit. Don't waste this stage like I did.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »
It's from the American Council on Exercise's standards. It goes from normal to obese at that line - nothing in between.yopeeps025 wrote: »
It is always going to depend on the individual, plus the actual deficit. Yeah it feels unfair, but there are some people who are just better at maintaining or even gaining mass without a calorie surplus.discretekim wrote: »I've decided since no description was given overfat means this: lower than average ratio of muscle to fat based than average for height and weight and gender.
Rule of thumb, I'd go with it meaning you'd need to be at least obese in terms of body fat, so 25%+ for a male, 32%+ for a female.
I did not know that. Learned something new.
The technical, medical definition used by physicians is based purely on BMI standards, which includes an overweight category between normal and obese.
Yeah but I feel BMI needs to be trashed once someone lifts weights for a certain amount of time.
Agreed, I just had a DEXA scan, and even though I wouldn't count myself an experienced lifter for the purposes, I'd need under 162 to be a proper BMI, but that would put me at 15% body fat, which on the American council scale is below normal and into "fit", close to Athlete that starts at 13%.
Of course doing an anywhere near accurate body fat percentage calculation would be hard for a doctor's office - BMI is just a rule and a scale.0 -
-
For most lifters, protein is usually already above the maximum level that there is strong evidence for in anabolism: .8 g / lb lean body mass. Any effects would generally just come from the deficit decrease.
If you eat at a modest calorie deficit, are mildly overweight, maybe bump your protein intake up a bit, and lift weights, you'll still be able to gain some muscle because you're only stressing the energy system of your body, not creating an energy emergency. You're not "creating something out of nothing" because there's lots of resources available in your body to build muscles from.
Sorry to get super science nerd on this topic but i see this kind of thread so many times. My take away from biochemistry was that life is hard lol
And please, continue sciencing around MFP. There's a lot of threads that could use it.0 -
Yeah I've lost very little weight too. Like less than 5 pounds so it really seems my muscles are growing. I'm going with the theory that mine are since I usually have 1-3 days a week at or above maintenance. And am new.discretekim wrote: »I've seen this a few times today. It makes no sense. I am losing weight and I know for a fact I am getting stronger. My muscles seem to be growing too getting larger and more firm.
Why is this a common idea? Is there some research on this??
I've seen this around also, and thought the same thing. I am a noob, but my arms are noticably larger and more toned. Wondering what all the hype of "no muscle when dieting" is about. Is this just toning, I suppose?
0 -
For most lifters, protein is usually already above the maximum level that there is strong evidence for in anabolism: .8 g / lb lean body mass. Any effects would generally just come from the deficit decrease.
If you eat at a modest calorie deficit, are mildly overweight, maybe bump your protein intake up a bit, and lift weights, you'll still be able to gain some muscle because you're only stressing the energy system of your body, not creating an energy emergency. You're not "creating something out of nothing" because there's lots of resources available in your body to build muscles from.
Sorry to get super science nerd on this topic but i see this kind of thread so many times. My take away from biochemistry was that life is hard lol
And please, continue sciencing around MFP. There's a lot of threads that could use it.
Agreed. More science please.
0 -
discretekim wrote: »I've seen this a few times today. It makes no sense. I am losing weight and I know for a fact I am getting stronger. My muscles seem to be growing too getting larger and more firm.
Why is this a common idea? Is there some research on this??
That is complete and utter bro science BS. There have been numerous published studies dismissing this statement. Unless you're in a significant calorie deficit, you will still stimulate hypertrophy even on a diet.
0 -
coachjschroth wrote: »discretekim wrote: »I've seen this a few times today. It makes no sense. I am losing weight and I know for a fact I am getting stronger. My muscles seem to be growing too getting larger and more firm.
Why is this a common idea? Is there some research on this??
That is complete and utter bro science BS. There have been numerous published studies dismissing this statement. Unless you're in a significant calorie deficit, you will still stimulate hypertrophy even on a diet.
Would love to read some of said studies. Do you have any available that haven't been posted?
0 -
coachjschroth wrote: »discretekim wrote: »I've seen this a few times today. It makes no sense. I am losing weight and I know for a fact I am getting stronger. My muscles seem to be growing too getting larger and more firm.
Why is this a common idea? Is there some research on this??
That is complete and utter bro science BS. There have been numerous published studies dismissing this statement. Unless you're in a significant calorie deficit, you will still stimulate hypertrophy even on a diet.
Would love to read some of said studies. Do you have any available that haven't been posted?
Me too. @coachjschroth
0 -
Seriously, I've seen this kind of BS so many times that I'm now weary of it.
Its nice to see no mention of Positive Nitrogen Deficit...clearly not everyone has read about this - unless I've missed something further up the thread.0 -
patrickfish7 wrote: »Seriously, I've seen this kind of BS so many times that I'm now weary of it.
Its nice to see no mention of Positive Nitrogen Deficit...clearly not everyone has read about this - unless I've missed something further up the thread.
Maybe read the thread and you'll find out?0 -
patrickfish7 wrote: »Seriously, I've seen this kind of BS so many times that I'm now weary of it.
Its nice to see no mention of Positive Nitrogen Deficit...clearly not everyone has read about this - unless I've missed something further up the thread.
"Positive Nitrogen Deficit" isn't a real thing (that i know of) I think you're mashing positive nitrogen balance and calorie deficit together. Positive nitro balance is when you've eaten enough protien, which is made from amino acids, all containing a nitrogen group on the end, that your body flushes it out. They claim that if your body is flushing out nitrogen that means you've consumed enough protein for your body. Negative nitro balance would be where you're not getting enough to even maintain balance, and therefore it's taking what it needs from the body.0 -
This content has been removed.
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