If you can't gain muscle in a calorie deficit, how can you get stronger?
Okay, I don't really understand this concept. If its impossible to gain muscle mass while in a calorie deficit, how is it possible to increase your strength, and be able to lift more/do more? Is it even possible? I'm starting P90X soon and I have no idea if I should be eating with a deficit or not. I know that the number on the scale really doesn't matter, and that if I ate at maintenance level I might gain, but would probably look better, but I just don't want to be over a certain weight. I want to lose maybe another 10 or 15 lbs. (right now I'm about 225). This is what I was thinking about doing: I was going to do P90X for the fis 30 days at a deficit, then if I was at my goal weight (or near it) maybe switch my calories back to maintenance level. I'm just really confused about whether or not a calorie deficit could hurt my progress in this program. Any help?
No help? *bump*
ok, im here hopefully to help, yes you can gain muscle on a cal deficit, but you wont gain muscle very effectively, weight lifting burns cals even after your done ( one of the reasons why you need more cals) I weight train and dont even count my cals as I am not to worried about them but what I have heard is to add another 700 or so ontop of your maintain amount of cals (you might wanna double check the number cuz im not sure if its 700 or not) . If your going for muscle gain def. stop the diet or the results will suffer, you are going to gain weight while weight training so dont worry about it to much.. i wont go into great detail cuz im off to to the gym =] lol if you still have questions when i get back ill reply again
If you're at more than 10-12% body fat (if you're male, add 5-9% if you're female) your skeletal muscle's insulin sensitivity is decreased and your fat cells' are increased, which means that at a higher level of body fat you're more predisposed to gain additional fat than muscle.
So the better strategy is to train to increase your strength (neural factors are trainable in a deficit), run a deficit to lose fat until you're at a useful level of leanness, and cross your fingers that you're going to see newbie gains in muscle despite the deficit.
Here's the answer from the perspective of cellular biology: Every body cell has at least one mitochondria, but muscle cells can have one or many. When you strength train, two things generally happen: First, your muscle cells multiply and you add muscle mass, and second, each muscle cell replicates its mitochondria so that each cell is more efficient (or stronger). In a calorie deficit, you will be less able to grow new muscle cells, but there's nothing stopping your existing muscles from producing more mitochondrion so that you are stronger with the same muscle mass. (have you ever wondered how some people have a lot of muscle bulk but may not be as strong as smaller people? It all about the mitochondrion) So to answer your question, yes - you can become significantly stronger in a calorie deficit.
Out of curiosity, melkor, how much muscle mass can a newbie reasonably expect to gain while lifting heavy (for them) on a deficit? Obviously, the number's different for everyone, but over a couple of months are we talking 1 pound? 2 pounds? 5 pounds? I guess gender makes a difference too, so I'm more interested in the answer for women.
'course, then you can compare with the Zuti, Golding study where you see that they gained 1lbs over 16 weeks, so you gotta wonder if they gained 2lbs by the 8 week mark and then lost one over the next 8 weeks.
Dr. Berardi had an experiment with a client where he did his precision nutrition thing for one of his clients who gained 20lbs in 20 weeks - so you can see why most people who are interested in gaining muscle dismiss the gains you can potentially make in a calorie deficit as pretty insignificant.
Actually you can gain muscle of a deficit diet...it just makes it a little harder...
Since being in a positive nitrogen balance - that is, retain more protein than you excrete - is kind of the basic requirement for building muscle at all, it's a really novel interpretation of established physiology to suggest that one can be in a negative calorie and protein balance and still build muscle.
Original Post by systemdrop:
ok, im here hopefully to help, yes you can gain muscle on a cal deficit, but you wont gain muscle very effectively, weight lifting burns cals even after your done ( one of the reasons why you need more cals) I weight train and dont even count my cals as I am not to worried about them but what I have heard is to add another 700 or so ontop of your maintain amount of cals (you might wanna double check the number cuz im not sure if its 700 or not) . If your going for muscle gain def. stop the diet or the results will suffer, you are going to gain weight while weight training so dont worry about it to much.. i wont go into great detail cuz im off to to the gym =] lol if you still have questions when i get back ill reply again
Ok, here's what I'm going for. I want a lean, muscular look, if that makes sense. I don't necessarily want to gain *new* muscle, I just want to look semi-muscular. Basically, I want to lose the body fat so my six pack shows trough, and maybe get some definition in my biceps. The thing is, on this program that I'm starting, everyone seems to loose about 20 or 30 lbs, and STILL end up looking muscular and "ripped" after 90 days. Gaining muscle is not really all that important, but I still wanna *look* like I have the muscle. Make sense? Thanks for all your replies!
Who is "everyone"?
Original Post by trhawley:
"...everyone seems to loose about 20 or 30 lbs, and STILL end up looking muscular and "ripped" after 90 days..."
Who is "everyone"?
The people in the commercials.
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by trhawley:
"...everyone seems to loose about 20 or 30 lbs, and STILL end up looking muscular and "ripped" after 90 days..."
Who is "everyone"?The people in the commercials.
Exactly... Well... Kind of. I'm just talking about everyone who has used this program in general. Including the people of this site who have used it.
I don't. Haven't even really SEEN the advertisement. I've just read all reviews (on Amazon.com, and elsewhere, like weight-loss sites, etc) and I've seen results videos on youtube and such. I didn't see the info-mercial and say "wow, that looks like it would really work." It was actually suggested to me by someone on this site, who is also ripped as a result. Trust me, I've done my research on this program, and EVERYONE says it works. In fact, of the hundreds of reviews I've read, I have not come across ONE negative review. I've even asked around this site for advice on the program, and everyone says it works if you're dedicated enough. The icing on the cake is that I didn't have to pay for it! Really, it's a win-win situation.
Original Post by joekame:
...I've even asked around this site for advice on the program, and everyone says it works if you're dedicated enough...
Everything works if your dedicated enough...
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by joekame:
...I've even asked around this site for advice on the program, and everyone says it works if you're dedicated enough...
Everything works if your dedicated enough...
I'm dedicated to blowing bubbles. Will that work?
just kidding. But Joe - if you have this program and you want to try it, do it! What's to lose? I guess I'm not sure if there is still an open question on this thread?
Original Post by amethystgirl:I'm dedicated to blowing bubbles. Will that work?
Yup.
Think of the difference between a 220lbs bodybuilder and a 330lbs sumo wrestler.
The bodybuilder looks strong and impressive, but trust me, the sumo could pick him up and throw him like a frisbee, because on average he's carrying 40-70lbs more muscle than the bodybuilder.
It's just that the visual impact of muscle you can see is greater - and I'm pretty sure there's a bunch of bodybuilders ready to make me eat a dumbbell for this, but: bodybuilding is an aesthetic sport on par with gymnastics, figure skating, or synchronized swimming, where the aesthetics of form is paramount.
If you want to train for aesthetics, by all means learn what you can from other physique athletes who also do so. If you have performance goals related to other sports, there are probably more relevant training programs that will give you results that are functionally better for that particular sport.
(Bodybuilding probably has most in common with synchro - they're both judged on performing an aesthetic set of moves set to music, while wearing a bathing suit. Well, maybe gymnastics is a similar match, but they're judged on what they can actually do as well, as opposed to just looks :-P)
lol ~feeds melkor a barbell~ but yes alot of it is for looks, but it can also be like any other sport, look at alot of the people who do dead lifts, bench presses and what not... they have big ole lifting bellys, in that sense its about who can lift more, not who looks best.. and that goes back to your point of the sumo vs. bodybuilder, the guy that trains for max weight my not look as good as the guy who lifts for the looks but, he sure can move alot more weight =] thats guys my point of view as a builder, But i dont focus on either one, i go between
Okay, this answers my question. Basically, I can still eat at a calorie deficit to lose weight and/or body fat, and my muscle will be more visible giving me that muscular *appearance*! Great. like I said, I'm not as interested in gaining *new* muscle and/or improving my strength as I am in just *looking* fit and muscular. Thanks!
Want to be a leader?Start your own group!
