Workout with Calorie Deficit - Pointless?

Lago

I remember reading somewhere that if you did weight exercises while having a calorie deficit you could gain muscle and lose fat at the same time, as long as you were taking in enough protein.

Is there any truth to this? I believed it for a while but recently, I've upped my calorie intake and my muscle gains after a workout are noticably better. I even got rid of my annoying chest plataeu. However, that could just be because I've started working out at the gym instead of at home.

Vomit

It is possible to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, but it's difficult. You would have to precisely calculate your meals. The body can get some of the extra energy you need from your fat, but you do need your carbs too.

Yes, eating enough protein is important too, as your body can't get those amino acids anywhere else.

Lago

So basically it's possible but not advisable?

Vomit

It's very possible! All I'm saying is that it's hard. It depends on your genetics and body type also. Some people are going to naturally store more fat than others, and some people are going to build muscle a bit faster too. It's trial and error really. See if it's working, and if it is, stick with it. You'll need to measure your progress by using both a scale and a body fat calliper. That way you can keep track of your body fat percentage while seeing how much muscle you're gaining.

Mellor

Lago wrote: »

So basically it's possible but not advisable?

It's in no way not advisable.

For beginners, its easily achievable.
The problem arises where it isn't conducive to a persons goals.
In the OP you mentioned losing weights and also referenced making size gains as well as strength gains. Which is your primary goal?

A lot (not all) of the time when people say "gain muscle and lose fat", their goal should actually be to lose fat first, simply because lower body fat gives the appearance of more muscle mass.
You can get strogner without getting bigger. Optimising food around workouts and recovery would help there and do the minimal damage to a deficit

top madra

Lago wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere that if you did weight exercises while having a calorie deficit you could gain muscle and lose fat at the same time, as long as you were taking in enough protein.

Is there any truth to this? I believed it for a while but recently, I've upped my calorie intake and my muscle gains after a workout are noticably better. I even got rid of my annoying chest plataeu. However, that could just be because I've started working out at the gym instead of at home.

Do you want to lose weight or gain mass?

Pick one.

Lago

Mellor wrote: »

It's in no way not advisable.

For beginners, its easily achievable.
The problem arises where it isn't conducive to a persons goals.
In the OP you mentioned losing weights and also referenced making size gains as well as strength gains. Which is your primary goal?

A lot (not all) of the time when people say "gain muscle and lose fat", their goal should actually be to lose fat first, simply because lower body fat gives the appearance of more muscle mass.
You can get strogner without getting bigger. Optimising food around workouts and recovery would help there and do the minimal damage to a deficit

Well, I was looking to lose fat, but everytime I started to lose muscle, I went back to working out. Now, after seeing the results with a calorie surplus, I'm thinking I should gain a good amount of muscle and then start losing fat.

top madra

Lago wrote: »

Well, I was looking to lose fat, but everytime I started to lose muscle, I went back to working out. Now, after seeing the results with a calorie surplus, I'm thinking I should gain a good amount of muscle and then start losing fat.

any idea what your bf% is?

jive

You can't lose fat and gain muscle at the same time. You're either losing or gaining both. You can lose fat by eating in a slight calorie deficit some days and at the same time gain slightly more muscle by eating in a surplus other days (which would give the illusion of it happening at the same time but biologically speaking it is impossible for Joe Bloggs (not sure how possible it is when on certain substances but that's for another thread)). This generally happens when eating around the same amount of calories you're burning.

The general consensus is that it is faster to go with either one or the other - a cut or a bulk. I'd agree with that and I'd suggest gaining more muscle provided you are not too overweight because a lot of people cut poorly before they understand dieting properly and as a result they look like a product of Auschwitz.

rubadub

Lago wrote: »

Well, I was looking to lose fat, but everytime I started to lose muscle,

How did you determine that you lost muscle? if say your bicep circumference went down it could be the layer of fat going away, muscle could be the same.

Overweight people would usually have more muscle, they are in effect lifting more weight all day long. I read some figure before of the average amount of excess weight which is muscle, could have been 30%, e.g. if your "ideal weight" is 10stone and you are 15stone then 30% of that extra 5 stone could be muscle -so you could have 1.5stone of muscle built already. If you continue weight training while on a deficit I would imagine you can retain a lot of this.

I remained about 12 stone for around a year, building muscle and losing fat at about the same rate. I wonder if I would have got better results doing bulking & cutting, but it suited me fine the way I did it.

top madra

rubadub wrote: »

I remained about 12 stone for around a year, building muscle and losing fat at about the same rate. I wonder if I would have got better results doing bulking & cutting, but it suited me fine the way I did it.

What kinda rate?
super strict diet?

Mellor

Lago wrote: »

Well, I was looking to lose fat, but everytime I started to lose muscle,

How do you know? What were you using to measure this.
Some of your lift might go down if you are on a deficit, that a function of lower enery not muscle mass.

What you should do depends your current stats a lot.

Vomit

jive wrote: »

You can't lose fat and gain muscle at the same time. You're either losing or gaining both.

Wrong on both counts.

top madra

Vomit wrote: »

Wrong on both counts.

Instead of just saying wrong, expand on your answers until we all learn something..

This is what I'm lead to believe..

To gain muscle you have to eat at a surplus

To lose fat you have to eat at a deficit

To maintain what you have you have to eat at maintenance..

While gaining muscle and losing muscle at the same is not impossible it is extremely hard unless you are a noob, fat or chemically enhanced..

But the average person that has been training for awhile, its borderline pointless because the gains are very very slow compared to a bulk to lets say 15%bf and cut down again.

And to top that your nutrition has to be perfect to get slow gains, its hardly seems worthwhile IMO unless you have a job that requires you to be real lean all year round.

Is there another way I'm not aware of?

Lago

top madra wrote: »

any idea what your bf% is?

Not too sure since I've been up and down a lot over the last few months. But an educated guess would be in the 15%-17% area. 18% would be too high and I'm fairly certain I haven't got back to 14%

rubadub wrote: »

How did you determine that you lost muscle? if say your bicep circumference went down it could be the layer of fat going away, muscle could be the same.

Overweight people would usually have more muscle, they are in effect lifting more weight all day long. I read some figure before of the average amount of excess weight which is muscle, could have been 30%, e.g. if your "ideal weight" is 10stone and you are 15stone then 30% of that extra 5 stone could be muscle -so you could have 1.5stone of muscle built already. If you continue weight training while on a deficit I would imagine you can retain a lot of this.

I remained about 12 stone for around a year, building muscle and losing fat at about the same rate. I wonder if I would have got better results doing bulking & cutting, but it suited me fine the way I did it.

I was about 12 stone last year but then went up to 12 and a half during the early summer. Now I'm back 12 stone after gaining muscle and appearing to gain body fat. Very confusing

Mellor wrote: »

How do you know? What were you using to measure this.
Some of your lift might go down if you are on a deficit, that a function of lower enery not muscle mass.

What you should do depends your current stats a lot.

Well, I'm not really measuring it. It based on my lifts, how strong and fast I feel on the football pitch and basketball court and just what I see in the mirror

Vomit

top madra wrote: »

Instead of just saying wrong, expand on your answers until we all learn something..

This is what I'm lead to believe..

To gain muscle you have to eat at a surplus

To lose fat you have to eat at a deficit

To maintain what you have you have to eat at maintenance..

While gaining muscle and losing muscle at the same is not impossible it is extremely hard unless you are a noob, fat or chemically enhanced..

But the average person that has been training for awhile, its borderline pointless because the gains are very very slow compared to a bulk to lets say 15%bf and cut down again.

And to top that your nutrition has to be perfect to get slow gains, its hardly seems worthwhile IMO unless you have a job that requires you to be real lean all year round.

Is there another way I'm not aware of?

The key to understanding this is to make clear distinctions between muscle and fat, which is something many people fail to do when they make the statement, "I want to gain/lose weight".

Yes, you need a calorie surplus to gain muscle, but your body is capable of taking some of that from your fat stores, without you actually eating it. Building extra muscle doesn't actually require as many extra calories as you might think. You can start to look bigger and more muscular while going down in overall weight. The key to losing fat while gaining muscle is in your macro nutrient ratios and daily calorie requirements. It takes a bit of figuring out, but it's worth getting it as close as you can.

As for people who are already well on their muscle gain road- I would actually agree that it's not worth being so precise if you're not too fat. Bulking is fine to a degree, and something I don't mind doing. But it's worth remembering that stuffing your face does not equal quicker muscle gain. Muscle gains are slow, and will be around half a stone a year if you do it by the book. And if you know somebody who has made huge muscle gain in a short period of time, they are probably on steroids. Nothing wrong with that, but they probably won't admit it, as it's illegal here.

Mellor

Lago wrote: »

Well, I'm not really measuring it. It based on my lifts, how strong and fast I feel on the football pitch and basketball court and just what I see in the mirror

Not really accurate.
Eating a deficit will mean you have less energy in general. so lifts wil go down, you'll feel slower on the oitch etc, but this isn't any loss in muscle mass.

top madra wrote: »

To gain muscle you have to eat at a surplus

To lose fat you have to eat at a deficit

To maintain what you have you have to eat at maintenance..

While gaining muscle and losing muscle at the same is not impossible it is extremely hard unless you are a noob, fat or chemically enhanced..

But the average person that has been training for awhile, its borderline pointless because the gains are very very slow compared to a bulk to lets say 15%bf and cut down again.

If I work realy hard on my two back to back training days, deplete my gylcogen stores, energy etc. Is that a deficit?
If I eat a lot post workout, using that energy to repair and build muscle, and restore gylcogen. Is that a surplus?

Are mini bulk and cuts days like this possible? I don't know, I'm just played the devils advocate here.
But I have seen test data where people lost fat and gain muscle over a short test period, c.12 weeks. They would of have a pretty god diet and trained hard.

strongbell

Vomit wrote: »

Muscle gains are slow, and will be around half a stone a year if you do it by the book. And if you know somebody who has made huge muscle gain in a short period of time, they are probably on steroids. Nothing wrong with that, but they probably won't admit it, as it's illegal here.

So you're saying it's only possible to gain 7lbs of muscle in a whole year? I'm sorry but that's a load of balls. Maybe it's the case for a professional bodybuilder who's been doing it for years, but any regular person who wants to bulk up is not limited to half a stone per year if they 'do it by the book' .

Vomit

strongbell wrote: »

So you're saying it's only possible to gain 7lbs of muscle in a whole year? I'm sorry but that's a load of balls. Maybe it's the case for a professional bodybuilder who's been doing it for years, but any regular person who wants to bulk up is not limited to half a stone per year if they 'do it by the book' .

It's not a load of balls, and I didn't say it was limited to 7lbs. It varies a bit from person to person. And we're talking muscle here, not a combination of muscle, fat and water. Remember, people who take creatine retain lots of water too.

But anyone who puts on 7lbs of muscle in a year should be very proud.

BTW I notice you started quoting me right from where I said that muscle gains are slow. Sorry, but they are. You may have put on 30lbs in a year, but most of it is probably fat and water retention.

marathonic

Vomit wrote: »

It's not a load of balls, and I didn't say it was limited to 7lbs. It varies a bit from person to person.

The figures that I've read suggest a 1lb gain in muscle every two weeks is the maximum you should aim for in your first year - and that's if you eat right, sleep right and train right. After that, the expected gains decrease significantly.

Whether they're accurate or not is a different story.

Also, 10lbs of muscle makes a lot more of a difference to most peoples physique/strength than they think when starting out.

boomtown84

This link gives a few opinions on how much muscle you can expect to gain.


http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html

Duck's hoop

Quite a bit more than 7 lbs if memory serves.

rubadub

top madra wrote: »

What kinda rate?
super strict diet?

Not sure of the rate as I was not taking measurements. I was making new holes in my belt all the time, and hacking bits off the belt 2 or 3 times, and I remember 2 thin girls in work warning me against "losing too much weight", even though I was losing no weight... So it was noticeable, Went from 24-36" jeans to 32" ones. I had plateaued losing fat from cycling and weight training really boosted it.

Diet was not overly strict, still drank like a fish and ate junk from time to time. I was calorie counting and naturally ended up going for higher protein low carb meals, like thinking "why waste 200kcal on that bread when I could have a chicken fillet stir fry". Probably 2500kcal a day average, or over that if you included all alcohol calories, but I do not count/view them the same as others.

I did try and eat more on training days and less on others, I would save treats for post workout. I had read about the "anacat protocol" which is mini bulk & cuts. the anacat protocol was on teamtest but is now gone, and gone from google cache, might have been pasted elsewhere

Mellor wrote: »

Are mini bulk and cuts days like this possible? I don't know, I'm just played the devils advocate here.

I was asking about this before, got no answers.

rubadub wrote: »

Originally Posted by Hanley View Post
Yeah... but the argument all along has been you can't gain muscle on below maintenance kcals. Not "you can only gain muscle on below maintenance kcals when they have a specific macro ratio".

I would not even mention "maintenance calories" as it just complicates things e.g. how do you arrive at a figure for this number, and how long a time are you talking about. If my maintenance intake is 2400kcal per day then it is 100kcal per hour and if I eat 200kcal in one hour and nothing else that day then was I in a deficit or surplus for that hour.

I would just simply say the question is can you gain muscle and lose fat at the same time, and by "the same time" I am not talking about some instantaneous moment -perhaps there is some mechanism which prevents this but at the same time for me would mean maybe in the same week -the frequency you often see recommended to weigh yourself.

I don't think anybody would doubt the fact a person could put on muscle and lose fat over a year, so when does it suddenly become a complete and utter impossibility? Could a person put on muscle and lose fat over 6months? what about 3 months? 1 week? 1 day?

Some will not mention beginners and just state that it is a 100% physical impossibility, and that the statement is completely irrefutable as it is backed up by physical laws. I think I saw the laws of thermodynamics mentioned 2-3times in the last week, and saying it would defy these laws. Now I could imagine Stephen Hawking saying the laws of thermodynamics might not hold true in a wormhole or blackhole, but to say fat chicks defy the laws of thermodynamics would be ludicrous (I know you are not saying this ray jay)

If only beginners can do it, then you could say "the VAST MAJORITY of the population are able to put on muscle and lose fat at the same time." It also brings up the question of what is a beginner and when do you stop being one.

jive

Vomit wrote: »

Wrong on both counts.

Proof?

you need a calorie surplus to gain muscle, but your body is capable of taking some of that from your fat stores, without you actually eating it

I would like to see the evidence of this miracle of thermodynamics. Why would the body burn fat to build muscle? The two-states can't just simply co-exist.

Mellor

jive wrote: »

I would like to see the evidence of this miracle of thermodynamics. Why would the body burn fat to build muscle? The two-states can't just simply co-exist.

It's not burning fat to build muscle, its its depleting dietary energy to repair and build muscle, and burn body fat to sustain during rest. Slightly, but crutially different.

Again, I'm not saying this happens, i'm just throwing it out there. at what point does a bulk/cut cycle become so short that its impossible.

Transform

Vomit wrote: »

The key to understanding this is to make clear distinctions between muscle and fat, which is something many people fail to do when they make the statement, "I want to gain/lose weight".

Yes, you need a calorie surplus to gain muscle, but your body is capable of taking some of that from your fat stores, without you actually eating it. Building extra muscle doesn't actually require as many extra calories as you might think. You can start to look bigger and more muscular while going down in overall weight. The key to losing fat while gaining muscle is in your macro nutrient ratios and daily calorie requirements. It takes a bit of figuring out, but it's worth getting it as close as you can.

As for people who are already well on their muscle gain road- I would actually agree that it's not worth being so precise if you're not too fat. Bulking is fine to a degree, and something I don't mind doing. But it's worth remembering that stuffing your face does not equal quicker muscle gain. Muscle gains are slow, and will be around half a stone a year if you do it by the book. And if you know somebody who has made huge muscle gain in a short period of time, they are probably on steroids. Nothing wrong with that, but they probably won't admit it, as it's illegal here.

half a stone a year!! Jesus I have seen and have personally done that in about 6-8 weeks and thats with body fat testing to check for fat gain!!

Missing key here is understanding the role hormones play in fat loss/muscle gain and how its NOT just down to calorie intake

Main issue here is most people are not willing to do the battle with the knife and fork, they are not willing to nail their diet down with good ol' fashioned real food and they still think half range leg presses and calf raises count as a hard leg session.

If in doubt add more weight to your squats, deadlifts, chin ups/one arm row, overhead press/bench press (if you are not doing them thats your first clue) and look at the scale every 2-3 days. if its not going up then eat more. SImples

jive

Mellor wrote: »

It's not burning fat to build muscle, its its depleting dietary energy to repair and build muscle, and burn body fat to sustain during rest. Slightly, but crutially different.

Again, I'm not saying this happens, i'm just throwing it out there. at what point does a bulk/cut cycle become so short that its impossible.

So in a caloric deficit your body uses it's own energy stores to create a caloric surplus in which it builds muscle? Again, I'd ask for evidence of this because it's total bullshít. (I know you're not saying it happens, this is more in response to him saying i'm wrong yet providing no evidence whatsoever and just making statements backed with nothing)

At the point where a bulk/cut cycle becomes so short (maintenance calories) should be irrelevant because it would be such a slow process that it wouldn't be worth it not to mention the discipline required to achieve such a state consistently would be an arduous task to say the least (if even possible to calculate and do it consistently).

jive

Transform wrote: »

half a stone a year!! Jesus I have seen and have personally done that in about 6-8 weeks and thats with body fat testing to check for fat gain!!

The half a stone of muscle a year is an erroneous statement (obviously it completely varies due to the huge amount of variables e.g. genetics, hormones. In fairness he did say around 7lbs a year) but claiming to have done it in 6-8 weeks with body fat testing being the only thing to back up the claim is a bit bogus. I'd like to see that done by a natural athlete and proven scientifically by various measurements. People seriously overestimate the amount of actual muscle you can put on in a year. You always hear claims of people gaining 30lbs of 'muscle' in a year but it's a load of horse shít. I'd imagine the half a stone a year claim probably isn't far off for most people and is a good, realistic target. Gaining 7lbs of muscle in 8 weeks means you theoretically could put on 42lbs a year. Obviously that isn't the case (it would probably be a stretch for even on steroids) and obviously the 2 month gain you claimed doesn't apply year round but surely if you can put on 7lbs in 6-8 weeks you could realistically target for 25+lbs in a year? Yeah, so basically I'm saying that is a load of shít.

sharky86

jive wrote: »

The half a stone of muscle a year is an erroneous statement (obviously it completely varies due to the huge amount of variables e.g. genetics, hormones. In fairness he did say around 7lbs a year) but claiming to have done it in 6-8 weeks with body fat testing being the only thing to back up the claim is a bit bogus. I'd like to see that done by a natural athlete and proven scientifically by various measurements. People seriously overestimate the amount of actual muscle you can put on in a year. You always hear claims of people gaining 30lbs of 'muscle' in a year but it's a load of horse shít. I'd imagine the half a stone a year claim probably isn't far off for most people and is a good, realistic target. Gaining 7lbs of muscle in 8 weeks means you theoretically could put on 42lbs a year. Obviously that isn't the case (it would probably be a stretch for even on steroids) and obviously the 2 month gain you claimed doesn't apply year round but surely if you can put on 7lbs in 6-8 weeks you could realistically target for 25+lbs in a year? Yeah, so basically I'm saying that is a load of shít.

Squat more!









Sorry had to do it

Transform

jive wrote: »

The half a stone of muscle a year is an erroneous statement (obviously it completely varies due to the huge amount of variables e.g. genetics, hormones. In fairness he did say around 7lbs a year) but claiming to have done it in 6-8 weeks with body fat testing being the only thing to back up the claim is a bit bogus. I'd like to see that done by a natural athlete and proven scientifically by various measurements. People seriously overestimate the amount of actual muscle you can put on in a year. You always hear claims of people gaining 30lbs of 'muscle' in a year but it's a load of horse shít. I'd imagine the half a stone a year claim probably isn't far off for most people and is a good, realistic target. Gaining 7lbs of muscle in 8 weeks means you theoretically could put on 42lbs a year. Obviously that isn't the case (it would probably be a stretch for even on steroids) and obviously the 2 month gain you claimed doesn't apply year round but surely if you can put on 7lbs in 6-8 weeks you could realistically target for 25+lbs in a year? Yeah, so basically I'm saying that is a load of shít.

And basically I will climb back under the bar and squat more, run more, lift more, eat more and stick to what I know works rather than having long conversations on what I do and dont see work.

All the best dude

jive

Transform wrote: »

And basically I will climb back under the bar and squat more, run more, lift more, eat more and stick to what I know works rather than having long conversations on what I do and dont see work.

All the best dude

You make a claim on an internet forum (where God forbid a discussion takes place) and then won't discuss/prove it? If you don't want to have a discussion about, or elaborate on, claims that you make which may give people false hope then refrain from posting. There is enough bullshít for people to wade through without 'respected' people on the forum giving people false hope and then backing down when called out on what they've said.

Barry.Oglesby

You might put 3kgs on a neophyte in 6 weeks but without some brand of freakish hormonal behaviour you won't do it with the average dude. Not LBM anyway.

Inspector Coptoor

Transform wrote: »

.
And basically I will climb back under the bar and squat more, run more, lift more, eat more and stick to what I know works rather than having long conversations on what I do and dont see work.

All the best dude

I know you probably have a client to train or something Dominic but I'd like to ask you something.

You say you can put on 7lb or 3.15kg of muscle in 8 weeks and that's fair enough.
I'm pretty sure you can, once, maybe twice.

And I know you were a 72-73kg runner who put in a very respectable marathon time a couple of years ago.

I also know that you are now around 90-92kg at 6'2" and around 8-10% bf.

What I want to know is this: if it's so easy to put on muscle without putting on adipose, why aren't you at 100kg or 110kg at 8-10% bodyfat?

What are your reasons for staying in the 88-92kg bracket? Why don't you push on and put on more lbm.

Is it for aesthetics?
Do you want to look a certain way for your customers? Or do you think fueling the extra lbm would detrimental to your WOD and metcon times?

Genuinely curious.

Banks

Lago wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere that if you did weight exercises while having a calorie deficit you could gain muscle and lose fat at the same time, as long as you were taking in enough protein.

Is there any truth to this? I believed it for a while but recently, I've upped my calorie intake and my muscle gains after a workout are noticably better. I even got rid of my annoying chest plataeu. However, that could just be because I've started working out at the gym instead of at home.

Yes you can drop body fat while increasing LBM, I have seen it first hand with numerous players. Aldon Smith, an NFL player who was 7th overall pick to the SF 49ers trained at Athletes Performance, AZ. Over 12 weeks I saw him put on 17lbs and go from 10% to 6% BF. It can be done with a solid S&C program and calorie intake.

Barry.Oglesby

Banks wrote: »

Yes you can drop body fat while increasing LBM, I have seen it first hand with numerous players. Aldon Smith, an NFL player who was 7th overall pick to the SF 49ers trained at Athletes Performance, AZ. Over 12 weeks I saw him put on 17lbs and go from 10% to 6% BF. It can be done with a solid S&C program and calorie intake.

Was he tampering with his um, eh, um hormonal, em, um... never mind . I would say it's possible in a very, very small percentage of cases. I saw a girl put on a huge amount of muscle in a very short space of time a year or so ago. I think it might have been 2kgs in about 6 weeks with no real amount of effort towards muscle gain. Freakish.

top madra

Vomit wrote: »

Yes, you need a calorie surplus to gain muscle, but your body is capable of taking some of that from your fat stores, without you actually eating it. Building extra muscle doesn't actually require as many extra calories as you might think. You can start to look bigger and more muscular while going down in overall weight. The key to losing fat while gaining muscle is in your macro nutrient ratios and daily calorie requirements. It takes a bit of figuring out, but it's worth getting it as close as you can.

As for people who are already well on their muscle gain road- I would actually agree that it's not worth being so precise if you're not too fat. Bulking is fine to a degree, and something I don't mind doing. But it's worth remembering that stuffing your face does not equal quicker muscle gain. Muscle gains are slow, and will be around half a stone a year if you do it by the book.

If it didnt take that many calories, everybody that goes to the gym would be jacked and just because you look bigger in the mirror while going down in weight doesn't mean your getting bigger its just what happens when you cut bodyfat..

And by bulking I don't mean stuffing your face like on a dreamer bulk, but eating over maintenance by x amount of cals until you reach your goal or your bf goes to a point where you want to cut back down again

Mellor wrote: »

If I work realy hard on my two back to back training days, deplete my gylcogen stores, energy etc. Is that a deficit?
If I eat a lot post workout, using that energy to repair and build muscle, and restore gylcogen. Is that a surplus?

When I added calculated my calorie needs I tried not to be so anal about it, I added in my activity level as fairly active because even on off days from the gym I'm doing cardio, mountain biking or something so I just keep my calories the same each day

eg .. bulking 3400
maint 2850
cutting 2300

Transform wrote: »

half a stone a year!! Jesus I have seen and have personally done that in about 6-8 weeks and thats with body fat testing to check for fat gain!!

Missing key here is understanding the role hormones play in fat loss/muscle gain and how its NOT just down to calorie intake

Main issue here is most people are not willing to do the battle with the knife and fork, they are not willing to nail their diet down with good ol' fashioned real food and they still think half range leg presses and calf raises count as a hard leg session.

If in doubt add more weight to your squats, deadlifts, chin ups/one arm row, overhead press/bench press (if you are not doing them thats your first clue) and look at the scale every 2-3 days. if its not going up then eat more. SImples

Half a stone in 6-8 weeks?

Sounds like one of those ads you see in supplement mags.

just sayin..

Transform

jive wrote: »

You make a claim on an internet forum (where God forbid a discussion takes place) and then won't discuss/prove it? If you don't want to have a discussion about, or elaborate on, claims that you make which may give people false hope then refrain from posting. There is enough bullshít for people to wade through without 'respected' people on the forum giving people false hope and then backing down when called out on what they've said.

plenty of pics posted in the past of before and after and to be honest I have nothing more to discuss on it other than as mentioned - train hard and eat big

Transform

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

I know you probably have a client to train or something Dominic but I'd like to ask you something.

You say you can put on 7lb or 3.15kg of muscle in 8 weeks and that's fair enough.
I'm pretty sure you can, once, maybe twice.

And I know you were a 72-73kg runner who put in a very respectable marathon time a couple of years ago.

I also know that you are now around 90-92kg at 6'2" and around 8-10% bf.

What I want to know is this: if it's so easy to put on muscle without putting on adipose, why aren't you at 100kg or 110kg at 8-10% bodyfat?

What are your reasons for staying in the 88-92kg bracket? Why don't you push on and put on more lbm.

Is it for aesthetics?
Do you want to look a certain way for your customers? Or do you think fueling the extra lbm would detrimental to your WOD and metcon times?

Genuinely curious.

I am already at the upper end of what i want to be at for crossfit competitions.

Any heavier and the gymnastics stuff is going to be an effort e.g. muscle ups, ring dips, handstand press ups etc

Add to that and I like to run and have to run with clients daily and some times 3 times a day so even 95kg would be an effort to lug around

Mellor

I put on 1 lb of muscle in 5 mins once.

Checked weight and bf%,
Did 10 explosive squats and drank some water.
Checked weight and bf%, 1lb lean mass increase.

I know its unbelieveable, but it's caliper tested

jive

Mellor wrote: »

I put on 1 lb of muscle in 5 mins once.

Checked weight and bf%,
Did 10 explosive squats and drank some water.
Checked weight and bf%, 1lb lean mass increase.

I know its unbelieveable, but it's caliper tested

Same. Took photos too if you need the evidence.

Vomit

Ok, lots of posts since I was here last.

Firstly, reconsider what you mean by 'calorie deficit'. Are you talking about the calories you actually put in your mouth, or the total amount of calories your body uses (incl. from body fat).

Now, the guy who said he put on 7lbs in 8 weeks, and verified it was all muscle by measuring body fat- have you considered that it might also be water retention? Did you take creatine?

jive

Vomit wrote: »

Ok, lots of posts since I was here last.

Firstly, reconsider what you mean by 'calorie deficit'. Are you talking about the calories you actually put in your mouth, or the total amount of calories your body uses (incl. from body fat).

Calorie deficit = eating less calories than you are using.

e.g. eating 2000 calories and using 2500 is a calorie deficit of 500.

Now please go on and explain what I said was wrong, I've really been looking forward to you elaborating on it.

Vomit

jive wrote: »

Calorie deficit = eating less calories than you are using.

e.g. eating 2000 calories and using 2500 is a calorie deficit of 500.

Now please go on and explain what I said was wrong, I've really been looking forward to you elaborating on it.

I don't think you're getting what's being said here. I already made a long post about this earlier, and somebody else expanded on it. The energy available to your body in a given day does not all have to come from the food you put in your mouth. Some of it can come from your fat stores. How else do you think it's even possible to lose fat?

jive

Vomit wrote: »

I don't think you're getting what's being said here. I already made a long post about this earlier, and somebody else expanded on it. The energy available to your body in a given day does not all have to come from the food you put in your mouth. Some of it can come from your fat stores. How else do you think it's even possible to lose fat?

I said it's not possible to both lose fat and gain muscle at the SAME time. You said I was wrong. Then you said "you need a calorie surplus to gain muscle, but your body is capable of taking some of that from your fat stores, without you actually eating it.". What you are saying is that when you're in a calorie deficit your body will use it's own fat to create a calorie surplus. I'm saying you're talking out your arse and have asked for proof - care to provide it? What I have said is right and what you have said is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Vomit

jive wrote: »

I said it's not possible to both lose fat and gain muscle at the SAME time. You said I was wrong. Then you said "you need a calorie surplus to gain muscle, but your body is capable of taking some of that from your fat stores, without you actually eating it.". What you are saying is that when you're in a calorie deficit your body will use it's own fat to create a calorie surplus. I'm saying you're talking out your arse and have asked for proof - care to provide it? What I have said is right and what you have said is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Well, I've spoken at length about this more than once here, and responded directly when asked to back up what I said. All you've done is accuse me of talking out of my arse, without actually providing a counter-argument yourself. I think it's your turn to do some typing, if indeed you have any actual argument for why losing fat and gaining muscle at the same time is "impossible". I suspect you don't, though, because I know you don't want to admit that you simply misunderstood the whole thing in the first place, as evidenced by your knee-jerk smartarse remark about miraculously violating the laws of thermodynamics.

jive

Vomit wrote: »

Well, I've spoken at length about this more than once here, and responded directly when asked to back up what I said. All you've done is accuse me of talking out of my arse, without actually providing a counter-argument yourself. I think it's your turn to do some typing, if indeed you have any actual argument for why losing fat and gaining muscle at the same time is "impossible". I suspect you don't, though, because I know you don't want to admit that you simply misunderstood the whole thing in the first place, as evidenced by your knee-jerk smartarse remark about miraculously violating the laws of thermodynamics.

The burden of proof is on you because what I say is backed up by basic biochemistry. Caloric surplus = muscle and fat gain. Caloric deficit = muscle and fat loss. How can you have both at the same time? How can the two states co-exist? You are saying that you can create a caloric surplus when being in a caloric deficit. How is my remark about the laws of thermodynamics a smart arse one? It's perfectly apt. Again, the burden of proof lies with you and I'm going to go wild and say that you can't actually prove it because what you've said is wrong and backed up by nothing.

I haven't misinterpreted anything. You said I was wrong when I stated you can't do both at the same time. You haven't elaborated on it yet and I don't think you will for the sole reason that you are incorrect and have nothing to back it up. You keep saying you discussed it at length when you haven't. You mentioned I was wrong and that you can create muscle by using fat stores.

Just provide the 'proof'. I don't need any more talk about who discussed what, where, when or how many times. I can't comprehend why people think you can have a surplus and a deficit at the same time. The mind boggles.

Vomit

jive wrote: »

The burden of proof is on you because what I say is backed up by basic biochemistry. Caloric surplus = muscle and fat gain. Caloric deficit = muscle and fat loss. How can you have both at the same time? How can the two states co-exist? You are saying that you can create a caloric surplus when being in a caloric deficit. How is my remark about the laws of thermodynamics a smart arse one? It's perfectly apt. Again, the burden of proof lies with you and I'm going to go wild and say that you can't actually prove it because what you've said is wrong and backed up by nothing.

I haven't misinterpreted anything. You said I was wrong when I stated you can't do both at the same time. You haven't elaborated on it yet and I don't think you will for the sole reason that you are incorrect and have nothing to back it up. You keep saying you discussed it at length when you haven't. You mentioned I was wrong and that you can create muscle by using fat stores.

Just provide the 'proof'. I don't need any more talk about who discussed what, where, when or how many times. I can't comprehend why people think you can have a surplus and a deficit at the same time. The mind boggles.

Muscle and fat are not the same thing. It seems that you treating them as such is the source of your confusion. I didn't say muscle turns into fat. And by 'deficit', you made it clear that you are talking about the calories consumed (i.e. put in the mouth), you're refusing to acknowledge the energy available in fat stores.

If the body is deprived of the energy it needs in a day, it will dig into fat stores. If part of the body's task in a given day includes the repair of damaged muscle fibres, it's the same principle. The amount of fat your body uses up depends how much and how often you eat. But you must eat the right proportion of carbs, fats and protein, as well as the right amount of total calories. Doesn't have to be single-digit precise, but within a certain range. This range, as well as the macro-nutrient ratios, can be calculated with one of many online calculators.

To lose fat you must place extra caloric requirements on the body, where the body is deprived of the necessary carbs. This is NOT to say that fat 'converts to muscle'. The body decides how to utilise the energy available throughout the day. You must eat enough carbs if you want to build muscle. This, again, is where the calculator comes in. You must get your macronutrient ratios correct.

Fat and muscle are different tissues, and are used in different ways by the body. The body will only start to eat into muscle for energy if it is severely deprived of energy and amino acids. I have successfully gained muscle and lost fat over the years, as have many others here. Once again, the way your body uses energy available to it depends on how much, how often and what you eat, and your level and type of activity. Just about every user here will tell you that the scales alone is not the way to measure progress, and that you need to measure actual body fat.

jive

Vomit wrote: »

Muscle and fat are not the same thing. It seems that you treating them as such is the source of your confusion. I didn't say muscle turns into fat. And by 'deficit', you made it clear that you are talking about the calories consumed (i.e. put in the mouth), you're refusing to acknowledge the energy available in fat stores.

I didn't say muscle and fat are the same. Nobody said muscle turns into fat. What are you on about?

If the body is deprived of the energy it needs in a day, it will dig into fat stores. If part of the body's task in a given day includes the repair of damaged muscle fibres, it's the same principle.

You seriously don't understand how the body works. The body won't build new muscle in a deficit. The 2 states are mutually exclusive. You simply can't have a surplus and a deficit at once. That's what you are indirectly suggesting what is happening. If you are in a deficit you don't even have enough energy to sustain your mitochondrial needs and yet you think the body will build new muscle? The body doesn't even have the materials to do it. You can't build something out of nothing. You realise even protein synthesis requires energy?

Can't even be arsed discussing it anymore. I just suggest you take what I said on board before encouraging people to do things that can't be done. Again, the law of thermodynamics is extremely applicable.

Vomit

jive wrote: »

I didn't say muscle and fat are the same. Nobody said muscle turns into fat. What are you on about?



You seriously don't understand how the body works. The body won't build new muscle in a deficit. The 2 states are mutually exclusive. You simply can't have a surplus and a deficit at once. That's what you are indirectly suggesting what is happening. If you are in a deficit you don't even have enough energy to sustain your mitochondrial needs and yet you think the body will build new muscle? The body doesn't even have the materials to do it. You can't build something out of nothing. You realise even protein synthesis requires energy?

Can't even be arsed discussing it anymore. I just suggest you take what I said on board before encouraging people to do things that can't be done. Again, the law of thermodynamics is extremely applicable.

No, you're the one who doesn't understand. You are hanging on the word 'deficit' as the crux of your argument, almost with your fingers in your ears. You're also assuming I don't think you need energy to build muscle! I'm not about to copy and paste what I said just one post ago. I don't think you even read my posts fully at this stage.

But lets go back to your first post on this:

biologically speaking it is impossible for Joe Bloggs (not sure how possible it is when on certain substances but that's for another thread)

Are you saying that with certain substances you're not sure if it's possible to violate the laws of thermodynamics???

Let me ask you this: Do you thinks it's possible to lost fat while maintaining muscle?

rubadub

If "Joe Bloggs" is an average Irish man, then he is overweight and has done little or no weight training before. I have seen at least one study where such people have put on fat and lost muscle over the time of the study.

Unlike the recent scientific community furore over claims of breaking the speed of light, this study caused no commotion even though it "broke the laws of thermodynamics" (in some peoples minds). After studying and using thermodynamics for the past 20 years this does not surprise me though, I do find it amusing looking at forumlas and notions some people come up with (I have used some energy balance comments myself in threads to dumb things down).

If a bodybuilder broke his leg and stopped training and put on loads of fat then I wonder after his bone repaired would it be possible for him to "break the laws of thermodynamics" by putting back on muscle on his severly atrophied leg while losing some fat at the same time. There should be NO exceptions, even with steroids etc, if a drug is out there which makes thermodynamics "a little wrong", then the law is wrong (far more likely your application of the law is wrong). One of the "exceptions" I see mentioned in threads like these is overweight untrained people, but they are far from being the exception.

Logical Fallacy

jive wrote: »

You seriously don't understand how the body works. The body won't build new muscle in a deficit. The 2 states are mutually exclusive. You simply can't have a surplus and a deficit at once.

This is true, but there is no need to have either a continual surplus or a continual deficit. Your body pretty much cycles between the two states all day everyday...it's more about how you balance your calorie intake in relation to activity over the course of the day than something as simple as how many calories you have to eat that day.