Building muscle in a deficit, client observation.
Replies
-
I think the idea that it's "impossible" to gain muscle at maintenance or deficit must come from bodybuilding's popular bulk/cut regime - which may be *optimal* for massive muscle growth but probably isn't required to see growth of a few inches. What did people do before before this trend? I'm also curious to know what happens to army recruits, for example.
for the record, I don't see anyone saying it is impossible; what they have been saying is that it occurs under certain circumstances - new lifters, recomping, etc…
I think the discussion is intresesting and thanks @SideSteel for posting this for reasonable discussion…
0 -
Interesting conversation. A few thoughts occurred to me as I read through...
1) On a day to day basis, whether or not the increased measurement was due to tissue or glycogen may not matter. But, if the client were to stop working out for a week or 2 (say he went on vacation), if it was muscle, his physique would remain largely unchanged, correct? Where as if it were glycogen, would some/most of that size be lost due to the layoff?
2) I think for the vast majority of MFP users, simplifying conversations is good. I also think that generalizing can be good. However, oversimplifying AND overgeneralizing with little to no context is almost always bad. And that's what MFP is best at... so I really like more nuanced conversations like this. Hopefully a good discussion continues.0 -
Interesting conversation. A few thoughts occurred to me as I read through...
1) On a day to day basis, whether or not the increased measurement was due to tissue or glycogen may not matter. But, if the client were to stop working out for a week or 2 (say he went on vacation), if it was muscle, his physique would remain largely unchanged, correct? Where as if it were glycogen, would some/most of that size be lost due to the layoff?
2) I think for the vast majority of MFP users, simplifying conversations is good. I also think that generalizing can be good. However, oversimplifying AND overgeneralizing with little to no context is almost always bad. And that's what MFP is best at... so I really like more nuanced conversations like this. Hopefully a good discussion continues.
As far as 1 goes, probably. So that would be one potential difference but that's going to happen in all circumstances anyway (decrease in glycogen after a long layoff). I mentioned this earlier but I suspect it's a combination of glycogen/muscle in his case.
0 -
I think the idea that it's "impossible" to gain muscle at maintenance or deficit must come from bodybuilding's popular bulk/cut regime - which may be *optimal* for massive muscle growth but probably isn't required to see growth of a few inches. What did people do before before this trend? I'm also curious to know what happens to army recruits, for example.
for the record, I don't see anyone saying it is impossible; what they have been saying is that it occurs under certain circumstances - new lifters, recomping, etc…
I think the discussion is intresesting and thanks @SideSteel for posting this for reasonable discussion…
Yeah, what we're saying is impossible is when someone asks why they're not losing the 1 pound per week they should and someone comes in and says they've been gaining muscle. 1 pound of it (actually would need to be way more than because of increasing deficit from using energy to build that muscle). That's impossible. Losing around a pound per week but gaining 50-100 g of muscle or so? Maybe possible. Under circumstances.0 -
Interesting conversation. A few thoughts occurred to me as I read through...
1) On a day to day basis, whether or not the increased measurement was due to tissue or glycogen may not matter. But, if the client were to stop working out for a week or 2 (say he went on vacation), if it was muscle, his physique would remain largely unchanged, correct? Where as if it were glycogen, would some/most of that size be lost due to the layoff?
2) I think for the vast majority of MFP users, simplifying conversations is good. I also think that generalizing can be good. However, oversimplifying AND overgeneralizing with little to no context is almost always bad. And that's what MFP is best at... so I really like more nuanced conversations like this. Hopefully a good discussion continues.
As far as 1 goes, probably. So that would be one potential difference but that's going to happen in all circumstances anyway (decrease in glycogen after a long layoff). I mentioned this earlier but I suspect it's a combination of glycogen/muscle in his case.
Agreed. The answer to any question is almost always "a bit of both". I guess I was asking more from an educational/theoretical standpoint.0 -
I appreciate this post but have to say I believe it's misplaced
There are a lot of posts on this board specifically about plateaus in weight loss and people who post about muscle gain in defecit give the oft repeated "you're not losing weight because you're gaining muscle"
Few of those who post for advice are following decent structured progressive resistance programmes and few of those who give the "you're gaining muscle" line know what they are talking about. Probably that's because this board appeals more to beginners and those focusing on weight and not weight training
In the vast majority of cases the answer to those threads is not gaining muscle in defecit
I think when someone with your reputation @sidesteel posts this in the general board and not fitness or gains specific it may serve to muddy the waters and add further confusion to the "why am I not losing weight" bleat
The tone and advice of this is different from your amazing Keep it simple sexypants thread ...and I think that's based on the potential audience for the message...this board has never struck me as a jumping off point for those interested in hypertrophy
I don't see where any useful purpose is served by suppressing information because it doesn't fit a comfortable/cliched narrative. Or by making the assumption that the "potential audience" is too stupid to understand nuance.
There are a lot of "sayings" that have evolved into a kind of a canonical scripture on these forums. "You can't gain muscle on a deficit" is one of them. While not entirely incorrect, they are not entirely correct either. When wielded indiscriminately, they can obfuscate more than inform.
I was pleased to read sidesteel's original comments because I knew, coming from him, they would be insightful, taken seriously, and would stimulate a more informed discussion than we usually have on this topic.
+1
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I think the idea that it's "impossible" to gain muscle at maintenance or deficit must come from bodybuilding's popular bulk/cut regime - which may be *optimal* for massive muscle growth but probably isn't required to see growth of a few inches. What did people do before before this trend? I'm also curious to know what happens to army recruits, for example.
for the record, I don't see anyone saying it is impossible; what they have been saying is that it occurs under certain circumstances - new lifters, recomping, etc…
I think the discussion is intresesting and thanks @SideSteel for posting this for reasonable discussion…
Yeah, what we're saying is impossible is when someone asks why they're not losing the 1 pound per week they should and someone comes in and says they've been gaining muscle. 1 pound of it (actually would need to be way more than because of increasing deficit from using energy to build that muscle). That's impossible. Losing around a pound per week but gaining 50-100 g of muscle or so? Maybe possible. Under circumstances.
This is what I see time and time again ...I'm glad I'm not alone0 -
not sure if this was addressed - how frequently is he taking measurements? weekly, monthly, etc..0
-
I think the idea that it's "impossible" to gain muscle at maintenance or deficit must come from bodybuilding's popular bulk/cut regime - which may be *optimal* for massive muscle growth but probably isn't required to see growth of a few inches. What did people do before before this trend? I'm also curious to know what happens to army recruits, for example.
for the record, I don't see anyone saying it is impossible; what they have been saying is that it occurs under certain circumstances - new lifters, recomping, etc…
I think the discussion is intresesting and thanks @SideSteel for posting this for reasonable discussion…
It's a common trope on the board, though, you can't deny that. The posters who've noted that actually a good amount of beginners are overweight newbies aren't wrong, either. I think results like Sidesteel's client's might be less common, but more people probably are building muscle than MFP dogma allows. Lots of people lift not too long after starting to lose (the good word having gotten out).0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »I appreciate this post but have to say I believe it's misplaced
There are a lot of posts on this board specifically about plateaus in weight loss and people who post about muscle gain in defecit give the oft repeated "you're not losing weight because you're gaining muscle"
Few of those who post for advice are following decent structured progressive resistance programmes and few of those who give the "you're gaining muscle" line know what they are talking about. Probably that's because this board appeals more to beginners and those focusing on weight and not weight training
In the vast majority of cases the answer to those threads is not gaining muscle in defecit
I think when someone with your reputation @sidesteel posts this in the general board and not fitness or gains specific it may serve to muddy the waters and add further confusion to the "why am I not losing weight" bleat
The tone and advice of this is different from your amazing Keep it simple sexypants thread ...and I think that's based on the potential audience for the message...this board has never struck me as a jumping off point for those interested in hypertrophy
I don't see where any useful purpose is served by suppressing information because it doesn't fit a comfortable/cliched narrative. Or by making the assumption that the "potential audience" is too stupid to understand nuance.
There are a lot of "sayings" that have evolved into a kind of a canonical scripture on these forums. "You can't gain muscle on a deficit" is one of them. While not entirely incorrect, they are not entirely correct either. When wielded indiscriminately, they can obfuscate more than inform.
I was pleased to read sidesteel's original comments because I knew, coming from him, they would be insightful, taken seriously, and would stimulate a more informed discussion than we usually have on this topic.
+1
+20 -
It's a series of complex questions that really can only be accurately answered with more in depth types of body composition scans beyond measurements and strength IMO.
I firmly believe that recomp and muscle gain in small deficits is possible. Similar to weight loss I think there are genetic and small factors that come into play and affect the overall results, skewing why they don't always align to the more simplistic methods that some people prefer.
As for glycogen stores and the associated bulk, it might be quite possible that someone retains better in certain areas, possibly even areas they struggle to gain actual muscle in. Body adaptation could attempt to overcome weaknesses and adapt to assist. I've seen this personally in how my body changes even doing what I would consider just muscle retention level stuff. For example if I do more body weight and lighter stuff that uses my chest, my chest changes form reasonably quick. I can attribute that only to glycogen and related form changes, since I know I can't gain muscle that quick. And for me personally, it's probably one of the harder areas to gain real muscle in.
As for placement in the forums and partitioning of information, personally I think there are a lot of more in depth topics that should be available to newbies and apply to loss just as well as gains. Unless I assume a superior intellect, there is no reason for me to think that they can't absorb the information. I've known very few people over the years that have no priorities at all in their body composition desires, regardless of whether they are gaining or losing weight. And personally I think that the dumbing down of information exchange is often as harmful if not more in skewing goals for people. I see trends in statements here on the forums that are IMO just too critical of being a local trend "catch phrase" and not based on any science at all.
It seems to me that a trend is that the most successful people often have a lot more knowledge and use a lot more tools to make their decisions and find what works for them. Similar to the body making adaptations based on diet and loads, they make adaptations to their lifestyle, what keeps them motivated, their individual factors that affect them more, and their overall goals. It may be very simple, it may be very complex. But if it works then it's hard to argue with results.0 -
I think the idea that it's "impossible" to gain muscle at maintenance or deficit must come from bodybuilding's popular bulk/cut regime - which may be *optimal* for massive muscle growth but probably isn't required to see growth of a few inches. What did people do before before this trend? I'm also curious to know what happens to army recruits, for example.
for the record, I don't see anyone saying it is impossible; what they have been saying is that it occurs under certain circumstances - new lifters, recomping, etc…
I think the discussion is intresesting and thanks @SideSteel for posting this for reasonable discussion…
It's a common trope on the board, though, you can't deny that. The posters who've noted that actually a good amount of beginners are overweight newbies aren't wrong, either. I think results like Sidesteel's client's might be less common, but more people probably are building muscle than MFP dogma allows. Lots of people lift not too long after starting to lose (the good word having gotten out).
most of the response I see are prefaced by the conditions that would allow one to build muscle in a deficit or while recomping...0 -
I think the idea that it's "impossible" to gain muscle at maintenance or deficit must come from bodybuilding's popular bulk/cut regime - which may be *optimal* for massive muscle growth but probably isn't required to see growth of a few inches. What did people do before before this trend? I'm also curious to know what happens to army recruits, for example.
for the record, I don't see anyone saying it is impossible; what they have been saying is that it occurs under certain circumstances - new lifters, recomping, etc…
I think the discussion is intresesting and thanks @SideSteel for posting this for reasonable discussion…
It's a common trope on the board, though, you can't deny that. The posters who've noted that actually a good amount of beginners are overweight newbies aren't wrong, either. I think results like Sidesteel's client's might be less common, but more people probably are building muscle than MFP dogma allows. Lots of people lift not too long after starting to lose (the good word having gotten out).
most of the response I see are prefaced by the conditions that would allow one to build muscle in a deficit or while recomping...
With the strong suggestion that those are rare and special circumstances, usually.
Anyway I don't want to make a big deal of it, the scientific discussion earlier was interesting, would like to hear more of what the trainers and lifelong strength people have to say.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »For someone who is approaching their ultimate genetic potential, they really can't build in a deficit - a surplus promotes muscle growth while a deficit inhibits it. Of course, this is by no means the only promoter/inhibitor, just one of many. When near the peak of one's potential, you really need the stars to align perfectly to get those last few percent of gains.
I am hung up on a couple of aspects - firstly what is the time frame for this surplus or deficit. What physiological parameters differentiate the two states.
Secondly, no amount of fat or carbs ever becomes protein so is it not possible to be in a caloric surplus and protein deficient (like the fat policemen perhaps were).
And no amount of fat or carbs will ever become a wall in a house, but it still requires those to power the labor that puts them there.
Also, I'm sure you're aware of carbs causing hormone signaling cascades, often around the hormone insulin? Insulin is a profoundly anabolic hormone - one explanation for the rise of large guts in modern body building is that it is a side effect of all the insulin used to grow muscles.0 -
There are a lot of posts on this board specifically about plateaus in weight loss and people who post about muscle gain in defecit give the oft repeated "you're not losing weight because you're gaining muscle"
Few of those who post for advice are following decent structured progressive resistance programmes and few of those who give the "you're gaining muscle" line know what they are talking about. Probably that's because this board appeals more to beginners and those focusing on weight and not weight training
In the vast majority of cases the answer to those threads is not gaining muscle in defecit
That's true, but I think the problem is that if "you can't build muscle in a deficit" becomes too dogmatic, it makes people not even try.
I agree that most people aren't building muscle in a deficit, but I think most people could build muscle in a deficit if they knew how to structure their training properly. Most people aren't advanced or even intermediate lifters, most people are starting from zero and have plenty of room for some amount of gains even in a deficit.0 -
I think the idea that it's "impossible" to gain muscle at maintenance or deficit must come from bodybuilding's popular bulk/cut regime - which may be *optimal* for massive muscle growth but probably isn't required to see growth of a few inches. What did people do before before this trend? I'm also curious to know what happens to army recruits, for example.
for the record, I don't see anyone saying it is impossible; what they have been saying is that it occurs under certain circumstances - new lifters, recomping, etc…
I think the discussion is intresesting and thanks @SideSteel for posting this for reasonable discussion…
It's a common trope on the board, though, you can't deny that. The posters who've noted that actually a good amount of beginners are overweight newbies aren't wrong, either. I think results like Sidesteel's client's might be less common, but more people probably are building muscle than MFP dogma allows. Lots of people lift not too long after starting to lose (the good word having gotten out).
most of the response I see are prefaced by the conditions that would allow one to build muscle in a deficit or while recomping...
Some are mentioning conditions, many are not and very many are "admitting" a very, very limited scope that is unrealistic. Rehab for example, never heard anyone IRL say you must eat in a surplus to rehab from muscle loss through, or following, injury.
There's also a very one-sided bias of prove it happened which isn't balanced by prove it didn't. It's not actually easy to prove either way as this thread shows.
Funny enough there's fairly broad agreement about what people should do for their own individual best possible outcome when dieting and it's just the range of possible outcomes that seems to create most of the debate.
0 -
not sure if this was addressed - how frequently is he taking measurements? weekly, monthly, etc..
Monthly although he missed a couple.
The oddest part is that a big spike occurred between oct-current rather than early on.
I also had him doublecheck his measurements since posting this thread and he measured exactly the same.
0 -
rankinsect wrote: »There are a lot of posts on this board specifically about plateaus in weight loss and people who post about muscle gain in defecit give the oft repeated "you're not losing weight because you're gaining muscle"
Few of those who post for advice are following decent structured progressive resistance programmes and few of those who give the "you're gaining muscle" line know what they are talking about. Probably that's because this board appeals more to beginners and those focusing on weight and not weight training
In the vast majority of cases the answer to those threads is not gaining muscle in defecit
That's true, but I think the problem is that if "you can't build muscle in a deficit" becomes too dogmatic, it makes people not even try.
I agree that most people aren't building muscle in a deficit, but I think most people could build muscle in a deficit if they knew how to structure their training properly. Most people aren't advanced or even intermediate lifters, most people are starting from zero and have plenty of room for some amount of gains even in a deficit.
my only issue with the "it's muscle" is that a lot of people will tell an OP who is supposedly eating 1200 calories a day and has stalled that "it is probably muscle, because muscle weighs more than fat" even though OP is not on any kind of lifting regimen and is doing zumba four times a day ....
I agree there are conditions where one can build muscle in a deficit, and it may even be more encompassing than my current understanding of the topic.0 -
not sure if this was addressed - how frequently is he taking measurements? weekly, monthly, etc..
Monthly although he missed a couple.
The oddest part is that a big spike occurred between oct-current rather than early on.
I also had him doublecheck his measurements since posting this thread and he measured exactly the same.
interesting, I think that your glycogen explanation may be the culprit.
I say this because on my current bulk I weighed in the week after thanksgiving and I was 192 pounds, which i assumed was bloat; then I weighed in a week later and was still 192 pound and was starting to think I overcooked my bulk because 192 was my end point and I was starting to feel bloated and fat...then the week after I felt a little leaner and low and behold I was 190 on the scale and did not feel as bloated...
So perhaps he took the measurement when he was retaining more water..??
Perhaps, it would be beneficial for him to take that same measurement once a week on the same day and time and see if the results hold steady? It would be interesting to find out what happens...0 -
not sure if this was addressed - how frequently is he taking measurements? weekly, monthly, etc..
Monthly although he missed a couple.
The oddest part is that a big spike occurred between oct-current rather than early on.
I also had him doublecheck his measurements since posting this thread and he measured exactly the same.
interesting, I think that your glycogen explanation may be the culprit.
I say this because on my current bulk I weighed in the week after thanksgiving and I was 192 pounds, which i assumed was bloat; then I weighed in a week later and was still 192 pound and was starting to think I overcooked my bulk because 192 was my end point and I was starting to feel bloated and fat...then the week after I felt a little leaner and low and behold I was 190 on the scale and did not feel as bloated...
So perhaps he took the measurement when he was retaining more water..??
Perhaps, it would be beneficial for him to take that same measurement once a week on the same day and time and see if the results hold steady? It would be interesting to find out what happens...
I basically shot up 10 pounds all at once cause I didn't feel like slowly transitioning from TDEE - 500 to TDEE + 300.0 -
Been following this thread, but something is bothering me which I hope can be cleared up. How are the thigh measurements taken? The OP says mid-thigh, but is this both legs together? Because 35+ inches for a thigh measurement of a male with a 31-35" inch waist seems a little ridiculous. But if the legs are together, then it seems that could create a lot of room for measurement errors. Am I missing something because something isn't adding up right for me.0
-
Lourdesong wrote: »Been following this thread, but something is bothering me which I hope can be cleared up. How are the thigh measurements taken? The OP says mid-thigh, but is this both legs together? Because 35+ inches for a thigh measurement of a male with a 31-35" inch waist seems a little ridiculous. But if the legs are together, then it seems that could create a lot of room for measurement errors. Am I missing something because something isn't adding up right for me.
The intent was mid thigh but the actual site is higher up.
You're absolutely right with the above, and when I posted this thread and looked at the data I realized that proportionately something was way off.
He's measuring a few inches below his glutes which is higher than mid thigh and in a thicker part of the thigh.
But, I did have him re measure and I questioned it exactly for reasons you mention.
I did not ask him if this was both legs together, and that's plausible.
I'll check.0 -
Just texted him, very glad the above poster pointed this out.
This is in fact a circumference around both legs which makes the data both more plausible (the change in circumference isn't as drastic) and it also explains the proportionate issue between waist and mid thigh.
It also introduces additional potential for error. The sites are measured multiple times but this definitely further confounds things0 -
Cool, thanks for taking the time to contact him about it and clearing that up so quickly.0
-
Lourdesong wrote: »Cool, thanks for taking the time to contact him about it and clearing that up so quickly.
Of course. I'm after discussion and accuracy is important and after I posted this last night it hit me that something was off, not because he gained circumference, but because the thigh to waist ratio was way off.
My initial hunch was that he was using a 60" tape measure and reading it from the wrong end (60-37=23 which is way more plausible). If this were the case it would also show a circumference reduction rather than increase and that's also plausible given his weight loss and the fact that he's not a beginner.
I had him re measure to double check this but it didn't cross my mind that he would be measuring both legs, so I'm glad you chimed in with that.
0 -
Acute energy deprivation affects skeletal muscle protein synthesis and associated intracellular signaling proteins in physically active adults.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/201643710 -
I think Brad Schoenfeld talked about it on Facebook one time. He said that it is extremely rare but it can happen.
0 -
From Alan Agaron
"Gaining muscle in a calorie deficit is possible mostly for newbs & deconditioned folks. Those far past the newb stage stand far less of a chance to experience this. The more advanced you are in your development amd/or level of conditioning, the less this can happen. Perfect examples of who can gain muscle in a calorie deficit are overweight/sedentary newbs who weight train for the first time in years, or ever. Here's a couple research examples:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9280173 "0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »Acute energy deprivation affects skeletal muscle protein synthesis and associated intracellular signaling proteins in physically active adults.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20164371
Nobody would dispute that - a calorie deficit absolutely does inhibit muscle growth.
The question is, is that inhibition stronger than the other factors (such as progressive resistance training) that promote muscle growth? Both effects are real, and, along with all the other things that influence muscle growth or loss, determine what happens. In short, to gain muscle, the sum of all factors promoting muscle growth need to be stronger than the sum of all factors inhibiting.Wetcoaster wrote: »From Alan Agaron
"Gaining muscle in a calorie deficit is possible mostly for newbs & deconditioned folks. Those far past the newb stage stand far less of a chance to experience this. The more advanced you are in your development amd/or level of conditioning, the less this can happen. Perfect examples of who can gain muscle in a calorie deficit are overweight/sedentary newbs who weight train for the first time in years, or ever. Here's a couple research examples:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9280173 "
Overweight, sedentary people with no history of any resistance training is a very large set of the population. Three-quarters of the population do no strength training.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »From Alan Agaron
"Gaining muscle in a calorie deficit is possible mostly for newbs & deconditioned folks. Those far past the newb stage stand far less of a chance to experience this. The more advanced you are in your development amd/or level of conditioning, the less this can happen. Perfect examples of who can gain muscle in a calorie deficit are overweight/sedentary newbs who weight train for the first time in years, or ever. Here's a couple research examples:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9280173 "
No one is arguing that this is not the case.
What we are saying in this thread is that our knowledge of the subject may be limited, as it has been shown that one can recomp (eat at maintenance and lift heavy) and lose fat and gain some muscle over a prolonged period.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions