We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Calories in strength training?
Replies
-
Strength gains in a deficit can be the result of neuromuscular adaptations. Essentially, your existing muscles get more efficient. At a certain point there will be a rate of diminishing returns where the adaptations will max out. The existing muscle tissue can get more prominent and developed. That doesn't mean hypertrophy, increase in muscle mass has occured. This is pretty common knowledge. Google it if you don't believe me.
So, you still insist on justifying your claim of muscle growth with visuals. Visuals are not reliable. Again, have you had a dexa scan or hydrostatic body composition testing?? Yes or no? Stop ducking the question. Either you have or you haven't. If you haven't, you are only speculating and probably inaccurately so.
Yes I have have hydrostatic body composition testing. It's not speculation. So chill about being so knowledgeable about someone you don't know.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
My shoulders look like they grew too.
You know why?
Because I lost so much arm fat that my shoulders are now more prominent than my arms are.
As @mmapags keeps reiterating, visuals are an unreliable indicator.
Also, you once again keep offering the intensity of your effort as evidence of the result you're claiming. That means nothing. I trained as hard as I could with weight lifting and plateaued with strength gains because I'm in that small percentage of people who don't make the neuro-muscal adaptations necessary to continue progressing. Doesn't mean I didn't work hard. Hard work =/= the result you necessarily think you're getting.
3" wider, isn't looks. It's a quantitative measurement. While there are looks changing. My determination for real changes are measurable changes. Body fat composition and percentage, diameter/width of various body measurements, and so on.1 -
Serious question: why are you concentrating on muscle growth when you still have so much body fat?
In order to have put on significant muscle, you had to have been eating at a surplus, and you have said you have done bulk cycles.
I can't even for the life of me figure out why a team of specialists would endorse bulk/cut cycles for someone who is not starting from a baseline of an ideal weight.9 -
BabyBear76 wrote: »
Yes I have have hydrostatic body composition testing. It's not speculation. So chill about being so knowledgeable about someone you don't know.
Whether I "know" you or not is utterly and completely irrelevant. Data is data. Testing is testing. You continue to duck the real question. If you did indeed have hydrostatic testing, you would have been tested at first and subsequent times that would show lean mass% and body fat %.
What were the results of each test? If what you are saying is true, this is easy peasy to prove. The fact that you resist showing actual results beyond your subjective assertions cast serious doubt on your credibility. Anyone can come on the internet and say anything. I can say I gained 10 lbs of lean body mass in the last week if I want. If I can't prove it with test result, I'm just blowing smoke.
So please, share the proof or be just one more person on the internet that posts things that they can't back up.
PS: I am very chill. You?2 -
Strength training calorie burn is quite difficult to measure, But providing that you keep your average heart rate constantly above 120 bpm, 300-400 kcal per hour should be close enough.
Would be an over calculation for me. I'm 5'3 and 115, 46 and female. Depends on OPs stats as well.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Were you obese when you started lifting? How are you tracking/assessing your muscle gains? How much is a lot? What kind of program have you been running?
Yea , I have a body fat scale that reads everything but it's not just about the scale . It's also what I started to see in the mirror like before when I tried to make a muscle I could barely see it. Now I can see it a lot and its not from losing weight because I have lose weight in my arm area yet . My chest area also started to tone up and lift in position how it should5 -
BabyBear76 wrote: »
Same here. Congratulations on doing something that is fairly difficult. Balancing calorie deficits and macros. Well done!
Thank you same to you ❤️0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Define "a lot".
I started at 35.something%muscle . I just recently hit 40% about a week ago0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
How are you tracking this gain?
Body fat scale , pictures and just looking in the mirror. Big difference1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
At the same time?
Yes it's actually easier than what I thought and i use to do cardio only all the time but I didn't wanna flabby so I started weight training and now I love it so much more than cardio . You just need to make sure you intake a lot of protein i get 150-200 grams of protein everyday , I think that's why a lot of ppl probably struggle with gaining muscle while losing weight because not enough nutrition. If you look on YouTube I'm sure you can find videos explaining how to balance it out5 -
HarlemNY17 wrote: »
Yea , I have a body fat scale that reads everything but it's not just about the scale . It's also what I started to see in the mirror like before when I tried to make a muscle I could barely see it. Now I can see it a lot and its not from losing weight because I have lose weight in my arm area yet . My chest area also started to tone up and lift in position how it should
Body fat scales are very inaccurate.5 -
HarlemNY17 wrote: »
Body fat scale , pictures and just looking in the mirror. Big difference
Take measurements because these metrics aren't accurate or reliable. It's certainly possible to add some muscle in a moderate deficit but those methods aren't the way to prove it.
Body fat scale - dreadfully unreliable and inaccurate.
Pictures and just looking in the mirror - you are describing getting leaner not confirming actual growth.
If your arms or legs are growing while you are losing weight then it would confirm you are achieving what you think you are. "Gained a lot."
Even if the measurements are staying the same whilst seeing more definition then it would be a sign there's something good going on. "Gained a little."
6 -
HarlemNY17 wrote: »
I started at 35.something%muscle . I just recently hit 40% about a week ago
Do realise that;
1) Body fat scales are very inaccurate, and
2) As your body fat percentage decreases your other percentages will increase, not because you have gained muscle but because you now have a higher ratio of muscle compared with fat, and
3) Your muscles pop out much more when they are not hidden by fat. You may not think you have lost fat from that area of your body but relying on visuals only can be inaccurate.9 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »
Do realise that;
1) Body fat scales are very inaccurate, and
2) As your body fat percentage decreases your other percentages will increase, not because you have gained muscle but because you now have a higher ratio of muscle compared with fat, and
3) Your muscles pop out much more when they are not hidden by fat. You may not think you have lost fat from that area of your body but relying on visuals only can be inaccurate.
All of this^. Percentages are pretty irrelevant for muscle mass gains. Congrats though on changing body compositon for the better by dropping fat. This is why people look for dexa scans, hydrostatic testing or even bodpod. They tell you both lbs of lean mass and %. Lbs of body fat and % referenced to total weight. If lean mass lbs have gone up then likely muscles mass (along with bone density and other things).
Lots of weight loss that is primarily fat will skew the % even if you lost some muscle mass. If you were obese and a newbie to weight training, you likely gained a pound or 2 of muscle mass. You could have also lost some depending on how much overall weight you lost and how long you were in calorie deficit.
Why is this a hill people need to die on? If you lost weight, mostly body fat and you are in much better shape with muscular development, what does it matter if you gained muscle mass or not?6 -
Why is this a hill people need to die on? If you lost weight, mostly body fat and you are in much better shape with muscular development, what does it matter if you gained muscle mass or not?
Denial? Perhaps they've paid someone a lot of money to give them ALL THE GAINZZ & they can't bring themselves to admit it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Or maybe they want to be That Guy/Lady who defied the physiology/physics/biology rules the rest of us mere mortals must obey.
Also, people hate to be wrong.5 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »
Do realise that;
1) Body fat scales are very inaccurate, and
2) As your body fat percentage decreases your other percentages will increase, not because you have gained muscle but because you now have a higher ratio of muscle compared with fat, and
3) Your muscles pop out much more when they are not hidden by fat. You may not think you have lost fat from that area of your body but relying on visuals only can be inaccurate.
I haven't lost fat from my arms yet because I haven't actually lost fat yet just water weight. I've measured my arms BTW. Rather if they scale is wrong or not I know I've gained muscle I have pictures that shows my muscle getting bigger . Has nothing to do with being lean7 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »
Yes I have have hydrostatic body composition testing. It's not speculation. So chill about being so knowledgeable about someone you don't know.
Veronica, you have actual data. The "crevasse" you observe may be a functioning of dropping fat layers. The three inches in shoulder width (I do relate, having had to let go of some of my skinny shirts, thanks to traps, shoulders, and biceps) isn't merely a function of fat loss. What you are doing is working great for you. 'Nuff said. There are outliers in any population sample and apparently you are one of them.5 -
Veronica, you have actual data. The "crevasse" you observe may be a functioning of dropping fat layers. The three inches in shoulder width (I do relate, having had to let go of some of my skinny shirts, thanks to traps, shoulders, and biceps) isn't merely a function of fat loss. What you are doing is working great for you. 'Nuff said. There are outliers in any population sample and apparently you are one of them.
Babybear76, I mean VeronicaA76 from Texas I mean Manhattan has a history of exaggeration and making stuff up and isn't an outlier.4 -
Take measurements because these metrics aren't accurate or reliable. It's certainly possible to add some muscle in a moderate deficit but those methods aren't the way to prove it.
Body fat scale - dreadfully unreliable and inaccurate.
Pictures and just looking in the mirror - you are describing getting leaner not confirming actual growth.
If your arms or legs are growing while you are losing weight then it would confirm you are achieving what you think you are. "Gained a lot."
Even if the measurements are staying the same whilst seeing more definition then it would be a sign there's something good going on. "Gained a little."
I haven't lost fat in my arm area yet . I measure to make sure. I don't really care about the whole scale thing I know scales aren't always 100% accurate but I take pictures every month of my muscle and it's getting bigger ! And my chest is toning up . It's not from losing weight it's from adding in weight training3 -
HarlemNY17 wrote: »
I haven't lost fat from my arms yet because I haven't actually lost fat yet just water weight. I've measured my arms BTW. Rather if they scale is wrong or not I know I've gained muscle I have pictures that shows my muscle getting bigger . Has nothing to do with being lean
Are you familiar with the term "getting a pump"? It's when the muscles get filled with water and glycogen after working out. They will measure noticeably bigger. It's not hypertrophy though. You will believe whatever you chose to believe but unless you've got measurable test results from a reliable source, you may as well believe there are unicorns on Mars. That would be just as likely.6 -
Veronica, you have actual data. The "crevasse" you observe may be a functioning of dropping fat layers. The three inches in shoulder width (I do relate, having had to let go of some of my skinny shirts, thanks to traps, shoulders, and biceps) isn't merely a function of fat loss. What you are doing is working great for you. 'Nuff said. There are outliers in any population sample and apparently you are one of them.
This same poster has also not answered questions that show her story to be inconsistent with reality (like why any team of trainers would put an obese 40 year old on bulk/cut cycles or be studying her in the first place), so her saying that she's had hydrostatic weight testing is a pretty worthless statement at this point.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.7K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions