Building on a deficit...
Options
Hornsby
Posts: 10,322 Member
I asked this question in a different thread.
I'm really just thinking out loud here, but since everyone agrees for the most part that you can, in fact, build muscle at maintenance, which would is building muscles out of nothing, basically as you do not have the surplus to actually build yet it is possible. How fast or slow that is is probably debatable. Why is it that it seems so far fetched for someone's body to adapt and to build muscle on a small deficit?
Another follow up question is would cycling high/low calorie days have an impact? Say 4 high days and 3 low days leaving you at a moderate deficit for the week...
I dunno. I'm just kinda sick of seeing the "you can't build on a deficit" as the standard reply (although 95% of the time it's probably warranted).
I'm really just thinking out loud here, but since everyone agrees for the most part that you can, in fact, build muscle at maintenance, which would is building muscles out of nothing, basically as you do not have the surplus to actually build yet it is possible. How fast or slow that is is probably debatable. Why is it that it seems so far fetched for someone's body to adapt and to build muscle on a small deficit?
Another follow up question is would cycling high/low calorie days have an impact? Say 4 high days and 3 low days leaving you at a moderate deficit for the week...
I dunno. I'm just kinda sick of seeing the "you can't build on a deficit" as the standard reply (although 95% of the time it's probably warranted).
0
Replies
-
At maintenance it's called a body recomp. For the majority of people it will only work in their first 6-12 months of lifting. Body recomps generally aren't possible for already trained athletes. Muscle is for the most part stored energy, in a pinch your body will sustain itself off of it. Seeing as it's metabolically taxing your body to maintain, it will pretty much refuse to produce anymore if it's already struggling to find enough energy due to you being in a caloric deficit. If you're burning fat for energy, why would your body decide to start building an even more energy consuming tissue?0
-
At maintenance it's called a body recomp. For the majority of people it will only work in their first 6-12 months of lifting. Body recomps generally aren't possible for already trained athletes. Muscle is for the most part stored energy, in a pinch your body will sustain itself off of it. Seeing as it's metabolically taxing your body to maintain, it will pretty much refuse to produce anymore if it's already struggling to find enough energy due to you being in a caloric deficit. If you're burning fat for energy, why would your body decide to start building an even more energy consuming tissue?
Because it's responding to a stimulus0 -
-
At maintenance it's called a body recomp. For the majority of people it will only work in their first 6-12 months of lifting. Body recomps generally aren't possible for already trained athletes. Muscle is for the most part stored energy, in a pinch your body will sustain itself off of it. Seeing as it's metabolically taxing your body to maintain, it will pretty much refuse to produce anymore if it's already struggling to find enough energy due to you being in a caloric deficit. If you're burning fat for energy, why would your body decide to start building an even more energy consuming tissue?
On your question, I have no idea. That's why I'm asking. I've been recomping with success for 2 years with pretty good success in my opinion so definitely don't feel like 6-12 is the limit on that. I do realized you said majority of people though, not all.
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
So yea, he said it better than I did... but yea, that was kinda my thinking. Not as in depth obviously, but I kinda feel like that's enough to stop the silly phrase. Why do we continue to say it?
Often times a lot of people come on here and are on a moderate deficit, stimulating their muscles, yet we (myself included) always say "you can't build on a deficit". I don't get it.
1 -
I have not had a problem gaining muscle while cutting. As much as if I were eating at maintenance or bulking, no. I routinely have my BF% checked, as well as body measurements. Genetics play a role as well. Some people have an easier time adding muscle, where others do not. I gain weight quickly if I don't eat right, but it's also easier for me to gain muscle. I have a friend who is the polar opposite. He burns calories much quicker than I, but really struggles to gain any muscle. Even eating a very high calorie diet.0
-
LolBroScience wrote: »
So yea, he said it better than I did... but yea, that was kinda my thinking. Not as in depth obviously, but I kinda feel like that's enough to stop the silly phrase. Why do we continue to say it?
Often times a lot of people come on here and are on a moderate deficit, stimulating their muscles, yet we (myself included) always say "you can't build on a deficit". I don't get it.
I would agree.
People tend to make blanket statements rather than consider the context and circumstances where it is possible. However, I think most people can agree that comparing what can be built in a deficit is not nearly as much as while in a surplus. So, for a lot of people it's just not a good use of time... especially as you become a more advanced trainee.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
So yea, he said it better than I did... but yea, that was kinda my thinking. Not as in depth obviously, but I kinda feel like that's enough to stop the silly phrase. Why do we continue to say it?
Often times a lot of people come on here and are on a moderate deficit, stimulating their muscles, yet we (myself included) always say "you can't build on a deficit". I don't get it.
I would agree.
People tend to make blanket statements rather than consider the context and circumstances where it is possible. However, I think most people can agree that comparing what can be built in a deficit is not nearly as much as while in a surplus. So, for a lot of people it's just not a good use of time... especially as you become a more advanced trainee.
Is it me or did Eric put a lot of emphasis on meal timing without necessarily meaning to?0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
So yea, he said it better than I did... but yea, that was kinda my thinking. Not as in depth obviously, but I kinda feel like that's enough to stop the silly phrase. Why do we continue to say it?
Often times a lot of people come on here and are on a moderate deficit, stimulating their muscles, yet we (myself included) always say "you can't build on a deficit". I don't get it.
I would agree.
People tend to make blanket statements rather than consider the context and circumstances where it is possible. However, I think most people can agree that comparing what can be built in a deficit is not nearly as much as while in a surplus. So, for a lot of people it's just not a good use of time... especially as you become a more advanced trainee.
Is it me or did Eric put a lot of emphasis on meal timing without necessarily meaning to?
I watched it like two weeks ago, but if memory serves me correctly... he was using it to demonstrate that the body is in a constant state of flux with fed/fasted because many people just look at it from an overall surplus or deficit spread over a day or a week or something.0 -
I asked this question in a different thread.
I'm really just thinking out loud here, but since everyone agrees for the most part that you can, in fact, build muscle at maintenance, which would is building muscles out of nothing, basically as you do not have the surplus to actually build yet it is possible. How fast or slow that is is probably debatable. Why is it that it seems so far fetched for someone's body to adapt and to build muscle on a small deficit?
Regarding the bold - nope, not nothing.
You are still eating (and hopefully hitting all your nutrient needs) and making up an energy deficit from your fat stores.
How fast or slow or at what point a calorie deficit would preclude making gains is going to be completely individual.
Gender, current body comp, age, training status/history, size of deficit, diet, training stimulus, genetics gifts (and I've probably missed some) are all going to make a difference.
Take an extreme example of a 18 year old chubby male new to lifting in a moderate deficit and their sub optimal (for them) rate of muscle gain in a deficit is going to outstrip most people eating in a surplus.
Eric Helms with a complex set of maths actually points out that someone recomping at maintenance (no change in weight) is actually at an energy deficit when stored energy (fat v. lean mass) is taken into consideration.
I've gained muscle in a deficit at different times in my life and under very different circumstances - never thought it was that difficult or unusual until I got old!
0 -
I don't pretend to be an expert on this subject but i follow Jim Stoppani on Youtube and he referenced a Study by McMaster University a few months back on muscle building/fat loss while on a calorie deficit with a high protein intake.
https://youtu.be/Ixr2zr0GGf0
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/103/3/7380 -
The idea behind body recomp at maintenance, as far as I can tell, is that you'll never be smack dab on maintenance, you're in states of slight surplusses and slight deficits. During the states of surplusses, protein can be synthesized to muscle, during times of deficits, fat is lost.
Thus, over time, you add muscle and lose fat, while staying the same weight. But because those surplusses and deficits are so small and only for such short timeframes each, the amount added/burnt is equally small and that's what makes recomp such a long and arduous process.
During a deficit, the times you're at a deficit and the amount of those deficits far outweigh the times of surplus (obviously, that's the point), leading to less possibility for muscle building to be happening. Add to that possible slight LBM losses if you're already fairly lean and it's no surprise that the endproduct ends up at "no muscle built".
Or in other words, your body is like "Ain't nobody got time (or resources) fo' dat."0 -
stevencloser wrote: »The idea behind body recomp at maintenance, as far as I can tell, is that you'll never be smack dab on maintenance, you're in states of slight surplusses and slight deficits. During the states of surplusses, protein can be synthesized to muscle, during times of deficits, fat is lost.
Thus, over time, you add muscle and lose fat, while staying the same weight. But because those surplusses and deficits are so small and only for such short timeframes each, the amount added/burnt is equally small and that's what makes recomp such a long and arduous process.
During a deficit, the times you're at a deficit and the amount of those deficits far outweigh the times of surplus (obviously, that's the point), leading to less possibility for muscle building to be happening. Add to that possible slight LBM losses if you're already fairly lean and it's no surprise that the endproduct ends up at "no muscle built".
Or in other words, your body is like "Ain't nobody got time (or resources) fo' dat."
So what would happen if someone at at say 5000 calories for 5 training days and 1200 on off days, theoretically would you be effectively be bulking for 5 days and cutting for 2 to maintain. Would that be more effective than one who eats at constant number for the same maintenance?
Almost lends credence to IF...
ETA - also, would the person's TDEE play a role. Surely someone eating 4K calories to maintain would have a higher chance of gains compared to someone with a TDEE of 1800 or something, no?0 -
The trick would be getting your body to prioritize protein utilization. To do this reliably, I would suspect you would need a drug cocktail to override the host of normal deficit hormonal responses. If you could do it consistently, I am not sure it would even be a good idea because you might end up short-changing important stuff like cell turnover, organ maintenance, and hemoglobin synthesis.0
-
I asked this question in a different thread.
I'm really just thinking out loud here, but since everyone agrees for the most part that you can, in fact, build muscle at maintenance, which would is building muscles out of nothing, basically as you do not have the surplus to actually build yet it is possible. How fast or slow that is is probably debatable. Why is it that it seems so far fetched for someone's body to adapt and to build muscle on a small deficit?
Another follow up question is would cycling high/low calorie days have an impact? Say 4 high days and 3 low days leaving you at a moderate deficit for the week...
I dunno. I'm just kinda sick of seeing the "you can't build on a deficit" as the standard reply (although 95% of the time it's probably warranted).
I sure wish I was 5% exclusion. But I am older.. I guess I will stop using the "you cannot build on a deficit" and leave that to others although this is my experience for nearly a year.
I will eat my words from the other thread as the the study above pointed out that in 40 young males aged 18-30 that consumed 2.4 g protein vs 1.2 g protein produced LBM increases and fat loss while in a deficit and conducting very high volumes of resistances training.
Interestingly males that were 15% body fat or more was excluded from the study.
But what is missing to make a full conclusion is a study for women.0 -
I asked this question in a different thread.
I'm really just thinking out loud here, but since everyone agrees for the most part that you can, in fact, build muscle at maintenance, which would is building muscles out of nothing, basically as you do not have the surplus to actually build yet it is possible. How fast or slow that is is probably debatable. Why is it that it seems so far fetched for someone's body to adapt and to build muscle on a small deficit?
Another follow up question is would cycling high/low calorie days have an impact? Say 4 high days and 3 low days leaving you at a moderate deficit for the week...
I dunno. I'm just kinda sick of seeing the "you can't build on a deficit" as the standard reply (although 95% of the time it's probably warranted).
I sure wish I was 5% exclusion. But I am older.. I guess I will stop using the "you cannot build on a deficit" and leave that to others although this is my experience for nearly a year.
I will eat my words from the other thread as the the study above pointed out that in 40 young males aged 18-30 that consumed 2.4 g protein vs 1.2 g protein produced LBM increases and fat loss while in a deficit and conducting very high volumes of resistances training.
Interestingly males that were 15% body fat or more was excluded from the study.
But what is missing to make a full conclusion is a study for women.
But haven't you learned from the forums that some women can just magically build muscle without even trying while eating only 1200 calories.
0 -
MichelleLei1 wrote: »I asked this question in a different thread.
I'm really just thinking out loud here, but since everyone agrees for the most part that you can, in fact, build muscle at maintenance, which would is building muscles out of nothing, basically as you do not have the surplus to actually build yet it is possible. How fast or slow that is is probably debatable. Why is it that it seems so far fetched for someone's body to adapt and to build muscle on a small deficit?
Another follow up question is would cycling high/low calorie days have an impact? Say 4 high days and 3 low days leaving you at a moderate deficit for the week...
I dunno. I'm just kinda sick of seeing the "you can't build on a deficit" as the standard reply (although 95% of the time it's probably warranted).
I sure wish I was 5% exclusion. But I am older.. I guess I will stop using the "you cannot build on a deficit" and leave that to others although this is my experience for nearly a year.
I will eat my words from the other thread as the the study above pointed out that in 40 young males aged 18-30 that consumed 2.4 g protein vs 1.2 g protein produced LBM increases and fat loss while in a deficit and conducting very high volumes of resistances training.
Interestingly males that were 15% body fat or more was excluded from the study.
But what is missing to make a full conclusion is a study for women.
But haven't you learned from the forums that some women can just magically build muscle without even trying while eating only 1200 calories.
Win Win.. loved this.
0 -
Are you talking surplus or deficit based on BMR or TDEE? Seems like they are used interchangeably on some threads. I'm having a very hard time hitting my TDEE calories, too much food and I feel sick. I'm currently about 150 kcal over my BMR. I've been able to drastically increase my strength gains, and visibly my shoulders and chest are expanding. I'm also going 1 week heavy (5 sets of 4, struggling on the 4th rep), and 1 week regular (3 of 11).0
-
TDEE of course.0
-
At maintenance it's called a body recomp. For the majority of people it will only work in their first 6-12 months of lifting. Body recomps generally aren't possible for already trained athletes. Muscle is for the most part stored energy, in a pinch your body will sustain itself off of it. Seeing as it's metabolically taxing your body to maintain, it will pretty much refuse to produce anymore if it's already struggling to find enough energy due to you being in a caloric deficit. If you're burning fat for energy, why would your body decide to start building an even more energy consuming tissue?
Let's break this down a bit as it contains a lot of the beliefs around the subject
For the majority of people it will only work in their first 6-12 months of lifting.
I started training in 1974 and can still recomp (very slowly, not even a deliberate goal). The true end point is your genetic potential. Speed of change obviously declines but doesn't have a stop point based on duration alone.
Body recomps generally aren't possible for already trained athletes.
Actually yes they are. Slower probably.
A novel training stimulus is a good example. There's a frequently posted study that clearly shows muscle increase in trained elite athletes in a deficit (but not elite athletes in strength related sports).
Muscle is for the most part stored energy, in a pinch your body will sustain itself off of it.
Fat is the primary stored energy of course but the rest is true in starvation conditions. Fat and glycogen are far and away the preferred energy sources.
Seeing as it's metabolically taxing your body to maintain, it will pretty much refuse to produce anymore if it's already struggling to find enough energy due to you being in a caloric deficit. If you're burning fat for energy, why would your body decide to start building an even more energy consuming tissue?
Actually not true. Muscle is barely any more taxing than fat to maintain (6cals versus 2cals for muscle / fat per pound per day).
"Struggling" would indicate a large deficit. A slight deficit really isn't taxing on your body, sub-optimal would be a better description.
If you're burning fat for energy, why would your body decide to start building an even more energy consuming tissue?
Your body doesn't really have this sense of self. It simply responds to stimulus. Your body doesn't know you are in a deficit and cannot make decisions.
Fat burning isn't special - it's a perfectly normal part of daily life whether in an overall surplus or deficit your body is shuttling energy into and out of fat cells. Even while you sleep.
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFo_wQq8M3Q
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions