Workout with Calorie Deficit - Pointless?

Lago · 16-10-2011 05:07PM #1

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 · 16-10-2011 05:37PM

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 · 16-10-2011 06:47PM

So basically it's possible but not advisable?

Vomit · 16-10-2011 09:52PM

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 · 17-10-2011 04:54AM

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 · 17-10-2011 09:01PM

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 · 17-10-2011 10:23PM

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 · 17-10-2011 10:26PM

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 · 17-10-2011 10:30PM

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 · 17-10-2011 10:42PM

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 · 17-10-2011 11:08PM

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 · 18-10-2011 03:34AM

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 · 18-10-2011 06:01PM

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 · 18-10-2011 07:57PM

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 · 18-10-2011 10:32PM

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 · 18-10-2011 10:50PM

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 · 19-10-2011 01:40AM

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 · 19-10-2011 12:34PM

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 · 19-10-2011 02:31PM

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 · 19-10-2011 03:23PM

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 · 19-10-2011 05:05PM

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 · 19-10-2011 07:51PM

Quite a bit more than 7 lbs if memory serves.

rubadub · 19-10-2011 08:58PM

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 · 19-10-2011 10:56PM

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 · 20-10-2011 02:00AM

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 · 20-10-2011 09:19AM

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 · 20-10-2011 12:49PM

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 · 20-10-2011 01:03PM

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 · 20-10-2011 01:18PM

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 · 20-10-2011 01:25PM

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 · 20-10-2011 01:37PM

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.

Workout with Calorie Deficit - Pointless?

Comments