Not Making Gains in Weight or Strength

Training Bodybuilding
41

[quote]Vanilla-Gorilla wrote:
martin blank wrote:
I tend to assume that people that want to gain muscle and strength want to get bigger, and I shouldn’t do that. (Gee, why would you do that on a BODYBUILDING forum?) I re-read the OP’s first post and he doesn’t really want to get bigger, so disregard anything I’ve said in here.

The OP is 165# and relatively lean. He wants to gain 10# of muscle. Unless I’m totally misreading what some are saying here, he supposedly can accomplish that with a caloric deficit (hell, a strength coach of 14 yrs and dankid can’t be wrong).

Is -500kcal enough of a deficit? Or can I try 1000? Eating all this damned food to get bigger muscles is getting expensive. I’d like to try this cheaper approach. I’ll post my results on RMP…[/quote]

You, like me, are definitely reading it correctly. Diet plays little to no role in gaining size here. This is not a thread where people want to gain muscular weight in any real world sense, so I think we should just move on.

42

I have actually experienced noticeable strength gains during my first six weeks of slimming down. I have broke all recent PR’s in mostly all my lifts during this period. Can anyone explain?

43

There are some very dangerous statements being tossed around here, IMO. If a person gains muscle and loses fat while eating at or below maintenance, that doesn’t prove that muscle can be built on a caloric deficit.

Surely if they are losing fat, then that is an indicator that the body isn’t being provided with adequate amounts of calories, so it compensates by tapping into its own reserves: I mean, it’s a basic fact that if you don’t provide an energy source in the form of food, the body creates its own by drawing on body fat stores…

That’s why people with high bodyfat levels can appear to gain muscle on a deficit. In reality, it’s not a deficit at all, and certainly not a case of calories in vs. calories out, because the calories required for muscle growth are already inside the body, in the form of excess fat.

Some individuals are mistaking it for a deficit because they are focused on daily caloric intake from food, and not accounting for the reserves the body has built up for itself over time.

In contrast, half-starved, ab-obsessed teenagers invariably fail to make significant gains. Hmmmm - I wonder why… Could it be that they are attempting to build muscle on a true deficit, without adequate reserves of fat to counteract a starvation diet?

44

you have answered your own question…
yes change your sets/reps/frequency.
start maxing out to your last GOOD rep

you sound like that guy in the gym who throws together a random routine that becomes easy and gives you a pump and then your done

my challenge to you

start doing an actual routine
instead of sometimes l do incline
and sometimes l do weighted chins
and sometimes l skip around the weight room
singing songs to all the serious lifters
start stretching
start recording your workouts

basically pick a goal and plot a course to achieving it

btw over an hour is too long

your probably a troll

/thread

45

[quote]roybot wrote:
There are some very dangerous statements being tossed around here, IMO. If a person gains muscle and loses fat while eating at or below maintenance, that doesn’t prove that muscle can be built on a caloric deficit.

Surely if they are losing fat, then that is an indicator that the body isn’t being provided with adequate amounts of calories, so it compensates by tapping into its own reserves: I mean, it’s a basic fact that if you don’t provide an energy source in the form of food, the body creates its own by drawing on body fat stores…

That’s why people with high bodyfat levels can appear to gain muscle on a deficit. In reality, it’s not a deficit at all, and certainly not a case of calories in vs. calories out, because the calories required for muscle growth are already inside the body, in the form of excess fat.

Some individuals are mistaking it for a deficit because they are focused on daily caloric intake from food, and not accounting for the reserves the body has built up for itself over time.

In contrast, half-starved, ab-obsessed teenagers invariably fail to make significant gains. Hmmmm - I wonder why… Could it be that they are attempting to build muscle on a true deficit, without adequate reserves of fat to counteract a starvation diet?

[/quote]

Absolutely, I think you’re right, and have nicely reiterrated and expanded upon what I tried to state as succinctly as possible a few posts ago. The energy has to come from somewhere.

But, I want to take this a step further…

Our OP, again, is 165# and “relatively lean.” Let’s assume this is ~10% BF. That leaves him with 150# of FFM. He wants to gain 10 additional # of FFM. With a caloric surplus of 500-1000kcal over maintenance he can probably reach this-- unlofty for a bodybuilding forum–goal in 10-20 weeks (if he’s not a eunuch).

Yet, some are saying he can achieve this while eating below maintence!!! How? Explain this. Certainly not by drawing from fat stores that he doesn’t have. Certainly not because his hormonal profile may possibly be better than someone who is fatter.

Additionally, let’s look at an individual who is 250# with 30% BF. He carries 175# of LBM, which is 25# more than the OP. Even with his much larger fat stores to draw from, could he gain 10# of LBM in 10-20 weeks while consuming sub-maintenance calories? If so, I’d like to see it. It is imminently more likely that he would be trying to prevent muscle loss while doing so. I will concede that he may gain a modest amount of muscle, but someone will have to delineate the optimal conditions under which this would occur.

46

[quote]roybot wrote:
There are some very dangerous statements being tossed around here, IMO. If a person gains muscle and loses fat while eating at or below maintenance, that doesn’t prove that muscle can be built on a caloric deficit.

Surely if they are losing fat, then that is an indicator that the body isn’t being provided with adequate amounts of calories, so it compensates by tapping into its own reserves: I mean, it’s a basic fact that if you don’t provide an energy source in the form of food, the body creates its own by drawing on body fat stores…

That’s why people with high bodyfat levels can appear to gain muscle on a deficit. In reality, it’s not a deficit at all, and certainly not a case of calories in vs. calories out, because the calories required for muscle growth are already inside the body, in the form of excess fat.

Some individuals are mistaking it for a deficit because they are focused on daily caloric intake from food, and not accounting for the reserves the body has built up for itself over time.

In contrast, half-starved, ab-obsessed teenagers invariably fail to make significant gains. Hmmmm - I wonder why… Could it be that they are attempting to build muscle on a true deficit, without adequate reserves of fat to counteract a starvation diet?

[/quote]

I dont think you are understanding the basical laws of thermodynamics. If an obese person goes from 300 to 250 then there was a “true deficit” It doesn’t matter if energy was already stored in the system, because this is already accounted for in BW. You can not lose WEIGHT without a deficit, and you can not gain WEIGHT without a surplus. Nobody is arguing this point. And I never said that gaining muscle at maintenance or a deficit was optimal for everyone, but for heavier individuals it may make sense. The opposite could be true for lighter “ectos” like myself. I lose weight very easily, and can actually benefit from trying to lose fat in surplus.

47

[quote]dankid wrote:

I dont think you are understanding the basical laws of thermodynamics. If an obese person goes from 300 to 250 then there was a “true deficit” [/quote]

Never mind thermodynamics. You’ve missed my point entirely. If someone claims that you can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time under a caloric deficit, it’s stands to reason that most of that fat loss will come from the energy demand of actually building new muscle and maintaining new mass. It’s common sense. You can’t produce muscle out of thin air.

In your rush to type up a counter-argument, I really don’t think you’ve taken the time to read my post properly. Why are you trying to claim that I said anything about obese people being in a " true deficit", when I was specifically referring to individuals with low bodyfat levels?

This is what I said regarding “true deficit”:

In contrast, half-starved, ab-obsessed teenagers invariably fail to make significant gains. Hmmmm - I wonder why… Could it be that they are attempting to build muscle on a true deficit, without adequate reserves of fat to counteract a starvation diet?

(by ‘true deficit’ I meant that a person under a certain level of bodyfat can’t rely on fat reserves as a ‘buffer’ when sufficient calories from food aren’t available).

Now where in that statement did I make any reference to obese people? Again, for the sake of clarity, my point was this: very lean trainees who attempt to build muscle on a caloric deficit are doomed to fail because they do not have the fat reserves to provide enough energy to support growth.

[quote]
It doesn’t matter if energy was already stored in the system, because this is already accounted for in BW. [/quote]

But it does matter. If you claim that muscle growth is possible under a deficit, you have clearly not taken into account the reserves of energy that body fat mass represents and how it can contribute to the process of building muscle if food intake is restricted.

How does looking at bodyweight tell you how much energy is stored in bodyfat, let alone demonstrate that you have accounted for it? You wouldn’t be able to tell from someone’s bodyweight alone that the extra fat they are carrying might yield an extra 500 calories daily over what you’d consider their level of maintenance. You might assume that they are in a deficit. However, they really wouldn’t be.

Any muscle growth that would occur couldn’t be attributed to a deficit because there was never one to begin with. You’ve only looked at calories from food intake and made the assumption that muscle growth can take place regardless of whether or not a trainee eats sufficient cals. Those magic 500 calories a day would make a huge difference to your results, the problems start when you don’t properly acknowledge things like this…

Besides, if you had taken energy from bodyfat into account, I think you’d have mentioned it earlier. Bringing it up now is just theorizing how it could be done. Which is not proof of actual results or speaking from experience.

If muscle growth in a deficit was possible, then why aren’t there scores of skinny guys that build appreciable mass in spite of themselves. Fact is, there aren’t…and the reason should be obvious.

Isn’t the second point exactly what will-of-iron been arguing against? To be honest, I’m not sure what your standpoint is: one minute you say that you can’t gain weight without a surplus, the next you maintain that it is possible to gain muscle on a deficit. Unless muscle is weightless, you’ve just contradicted yourself.

Then why even bring it up on a thread started by a guy who is clearly not a “heavier individual” and whose progress has stalled out? Arguing the merits of a sub-optimal approach to training makes no sense to me at all, and won’t do the OP any favors either. It’s no wonder people don’t know who to listen to.

I’m not trying to spark an argument here, but some individuals are making some seriously outlandlish claims. I suspect this is because they haven’t accounted for the various energy sources the human body can draw on.

48

Excellent last post Roybot.

And even if the OP were at a considerably higher bodyfat, I don’t think the muscle gained by trying to tap into that bodyfat to subsequently build muscle while consuming less calories than required to maintain current bodyweight would yield much muscle at all. If it were, bodybuilders wouldn’t be so worried about losing muscle while cutting.

49

Roybot:

I brought up the difference between an obese individual, and a “half-starved ab obsessed individual” because you brought it up first.

These are your own words:

“That’s why people with high bodyfat levels can appear to gain muscle on a deficit. In reality, it’s not a deficit at all, and certainly not a case of calories in vs. calories out, because the calories required for muscle growth are already inside the body, in the form of excess fat.”

Its kinda clear that you guys dont understand some basica physiological concepts, so let me try this again. A change in mass signifies that there was not an equilibream of calories in vs. calories out. If weight goes up, there was a surplus, and if weight goes down, there was a deficit. It doens’t matter whether muscle is build, or lost, or fat lost or whatever. A change in mass signifies there wasn’t balance. Muscle vs. fat is just the form that the new energy (mass) is stored.

If a “obese” individual goes from 300lbs to 250lbs there was a deficit. During this time, this individual could have lost 50lbs of fat, lost 50lbs of muscle, or whatever. As far as thermodynamics is concerned more energy left the system then re-entered it.

As for building muscle in a “true-deficit” (and there is no false deficit) It doesn’t just have to do with stored BF. Sure stored BF can be used for energy, and im sure it can be used to build muscle, but this is not the point. It has to do more with hormones and nutrient partitioning. There are individuals that can eat at maintanence or even a deficit, with little exercise and still gain muscle and lose fat. And there are individuals who can eat a huge surplus and lift heavy weights, and not gain much muscle. Body composition is much more complex than thermodynamics. But a change in weight is not.

I never said muscle doesn’t weigh anything. I said you cant gain weight without a surplus, but you can gain muscle. Obviously if you gain muscle but didn’t gain weight, then you must have lost fat.

This is very basic and yet many of you are struggling to understand it. And the reason i would bring this all up, is because if the OP understood this, then he would understand that not gaining weight is simply the result of not taking in enough calories (or burning too many)

50

Also, I’d like to add that I only partially agree with will-of-iron. As far as strength gains being paramount, and the corresponding hormonol profile, etc. I agree 100% that this is what really matters for changes in body composition for individuals near their “ideal weight”.

I disagree with his wording though. Gaining size while on a deficit, sounds like you are saying gaining mass, which is impossible, but im guessing you mean increasing muscle with losses in fat. (And also since muscle is denser than fat, would also be a loss of size)

51

[quote]dankid wrote:
Also, I’d like to add that I only partially agree with will-of-iron. As far as strength gains being paramount, and the corresponding hormonol profile, etc. I agree 100% that this is what really matters for changes in body composition for individuals near their “ideal weight”.

I disagree with his wording though. Gaining size while on a deficit, sounds like you are saying gaining mass, which is impossible, but im guessing you mean increasing muscle with losses in fat. (And also since muscle is denser than fat, would also be a loss of size)[/quote]

Well, I hereby retract my concession that building muscle while consuming a caloric deficit may be even mildly possible for an over-fat individual regardless of nutrient partitioning, hormonal profiles, or how amazing our bodies are. I am reverting to my original stance and not wavering.

I just got off the phone with a former work aqcuaintance who happens to be a Ph.d. in bioenergetics.

He said that this notion flies in the face of physics and that while the percentage of lean body mass will go up, the absolute amount will absolutely not because of the law of thermodynamics.

Can you provide studies showing otherwise?

52

Well thats fine if you want to hold that belief. No I dont know of any studies showing this. Most of the studies ive seen on weight loss or muscle gain were pretty much crap. There are way too many variables to account for, and population sizes are usually way too small. On top of that weight loss or gain on these studies is usually so small that nothing can be concluded from them.

Here is a quote from poliquins German Body Comp program:

“Most men can exprect to drop .5 percent of bodyfat per week while gaining muscle-- Ive seen men gain 12-18lbs of muscle within 12 weeks.”

Now as youve suggested, this may be a relative decrease in fat by adding more muscle than fat, but it certainly is possible regardless of whether you believe it or not. I think for the most part though, losing a little bit of fat while adding muscle in surplus is a lot easier than building a little bit of muscle while losing fat in deficit. But a lot of it comes down to genetics and a person’s training status.

53

[quote]dankid wrote:
Well thats fine if you want to hold that belief. No I dont know of any studies showing this. Most of the studies ive seen on weight loss or muscle gain were pretty much crap. There are way too many variables to account for, and population sizes are usually way too small. On top of that weight loss or gain on these studies is usually so small that nothing can be concluded from them.

Here is a quote from poliquins German Body Comp program:

“Most men can exprect to drop .5 percent of bodyfat per week while gaining muscle-- Ive seen men gain 12-18lbs of muscle within 12 weeks.”

Now as youve suggested, this may be a relative decrease in fat by adding more muscle than fat, but it certainly is possible regardless of whether you believe it or not. I think for the most part though, losing a little bit of fat while adding muscle in surplus is a lot easier than building a little bit of muscle while losing fat in deficit. But a lot of it comes down to genetics and a person’s training status.[/quote]

While I’m familiar with some of the trappings of this program, can you tell me if Poliquin recommends a diminution of kcals to sub-maintenance levels for the program’s duration?

54

[quote]dankid wrote:
Roybot:

I brought up the difference between an obese individual, and a “half-starved ab obsessed individual” because you brought it up first.

[/quote]

I brought up the difference for a very specific reason which, unsuprisingly, you’ve conveniently skimmed over. Here it is -again. You and will-of-iron both said that muscle mass can be built in a caloric deficit. When you claimed that muscle mass and fat loss can take place at the same time specifically by reducing intake of calories and training correctly, you set the limits of your own argument.

There is no point in backtracking now (and you change your line of thinking with every new point that comes up. I honestly think you are making it up as you go along; there is no consistency from one post to another).If you don’t get why I made the distinction, then you need to go back and read that particular post in it’s entirety, instead of rushing to create a response for the sake of it.

The bodyfat levels of an individual can affect the outcome of your claim that muscle can be built in the absence of sufficient calories. Why? because that bodyfat can feed the muscle that apparently appears without the energy to support it. The energy is there, you’ve just assumed that it just ‘burns away’.

You can be pretty damned sure that if you deprive your body of calories and try to force it to gain muscle at the same time, then your body is going to tap into its bodyfat reserves as a response to the apparent shortage of energy going in. What don’t you understand about that? It’s pointless trying to say that you’ve accounted for the effect that bodyfat may have on the results, because you haven’t. It’s not a matter of failing to understand anything - it would be more accurate to say that your argument has undergone more changes than Stephen Hawking’s colostomy bag.

That is just plain wrong: muscle mass requires more energy to maintain than fat, and muscle is heavier than fat. ‘X’ amount of muscle requires more energy than 'x’amount of fat. We are not talking about ‘anonymous obese guy’ losing or gaining “whatever”. We are talking about fat loss and muscle gain on a deficit: that is after all, what you claimed was possible, right?

Thermodynamics only come into play if he is burning fat and not gaining muscle. Thermodynamicsdoesn’t explain where the energy from bodyfat went if the trainee in question was building muscle and losing fat at the same time on a restricted caloric intake. And that is a factor you have repeatedly failed to consider.

Thermodynamics doesn’t provide indisputable proof that any muscle gained by our hypothetical obese guy wasn’t in some way supported by his fat reserves. By using thermodynamics as an argument, you’re essentially saying that the bodyfat reserves just melted away and have no part in helping to build muscle while training under a deficit. Who was it that failed to grasp the basics, again?

Besides, applying thermodynamic theory to this only goes as far as to prove that fat is used as energy. It doesn’t explain how that energy is distributed and used within the body. Your argument is all dressed up with nowhere to go…

[quote]

As for building muscle in a “true-deficit” (and there is no false deficit). [/quote]Yes there is a ‘false deficit’. I’ve explained why in my last post and you’ve done nothing to dispute that short of saying there isn’t one. If a fat dude’s fat reserves keep him above maintainence level for a long enough period of time to provide him with an adequate source of energy, and you ignore that, then it is most certainly is a ‘false’ deficit in the sense that you’ve incorrectly attributed your findings to hormonal profiles, etc., when you have failed to give due consideration to a factor that was - quite literally -staring you in the face.

This idea of a ‘false’ deficit extends beyond obviously fat people: it applies to anybody with high enough bodyfat level to use as calories that could potentially fuel muscle gains. It becomes ‘false’ when you ignore the effect it can have on any muscle mass gained and instead credit any and all fat loss to a caloric deficit from food and the demands of an increased level of activity.

[quote]
It doesn’t just have to do with stored BF. Sure stored BF can be used for energy, and im sure it can be used to build muscle, but this is not the point.[/i][/quote]

It is very much the point when you concede that bodyfat can be used to build muscle, because you’ve just contradicted your whole thermodynamic argument, and pretty much everything you’ve said in defence of your claims.

Who gives a crap if one percent of the population can gain on a deficit, nutrient partitioning, hormone profiling or whatever the hell you want to argue? What good is dispensing advice on a public forum that’ll only benefit the minority? You don’t seem to realize it, but that’s exactly what your doing.

Why even bother to defend it,unless your trying to show off how much you know?

[quote]
I never said muscle doesn’t weigh anything. I said you cant gain weight without a surplus, but you can gain muscle. Obviously if you gain muscle but didn’t gain weight, then you must have lost fat.[/quote]

Your theory only works if equal amounts of fat and muscle use the same amount of energy. They don’t. I’ve already explained this.

[quote]
Well this isn’t true at all. You CAN build muscle in a caloric deficit, just as you can lose fat in a caloric surplus. Your body doesnt work on instantaneous terms. You may be in a net deficit for the week, and lose 1lb, but be in a great surplus post workout if you have something like surge. It is definately possible, but for a skinny guy, or even someone not making gains, its not a good idea to shoot for both. If someone is 25% BF and overweight, then they can eat at maintenance or a deficit and get good results.[/quote]

Good luck with that approach. Once you start losing weight, it’s a fair bet that your body is already well on the way to cannibalizing its own muscle mass (‘starvation mode’ ring any bells?). It’s not good advice for a beginner/ intermediate trainee, and downright catastrophic for an advanced one. All the Surge is the world won’t save you.

It looks like your last point was inspired by a certain article by CT. I don’t think that telling people “it’s OK to be in a deficit and make it up with Surge post workout” was the point he was trying to make. Paraphrasing a respected coach and twisting his original point beyond recognition isn’t a good way to win a debate. Especially if the person you’re debating with knows what the original point was.

[quote]
You CANT gain size with a caloric deficit. It is physically impossible. With a deficit, there will ALWAYS be a weight loss. But you CAN build muscle while losing weight.
This is very basic and yet many of you are struggling to understand it.

[/quote] It’s not basic at all, you’ve continually changed your line of argument, sometimes offering several viewpoints at once. In this last response, you’ve said that "you CAN build muscle in a caloric deficit " only to do a complete argumentative u-turn and say “you can’t gain size with a caloric deficit”.

Either that is a contradiction, or you need to be more specific about what you mean. How does muscle not qualify as size? If I didn’t know any better, I’d assume that you are arguing with as many people as possible to develop your debating skills…

Then why the hell are you even advocating building muscle on a caloric deficit if at the end of it all you think the OP should eat more? Sheesh…

No offence but I’m done here. I’ve beaten this to death already. If you don’t get what I’m talking about, you never will. To debate this any more is just going around in circles.

55

Ya Roybot its probably a good idea that you walk away. Because you DO LACK THE BASIC KNOWLEDGE to grasp this topic. You need to understand the difference between a change in mass and a change in size.

Also, you need to understand that it doesn’t matter if energy is already in the system (stored BF; or stored muscle) if there is a change in mass then there was a deficit or surplus. There is no “false deficit” this just shows you dont understand thermodynamics. If you weigh 300lb and end up at 250, there was a deficit. Even if fat mass fueled muscle building, YOUR TOTAL MASS decreased.

And the only reason im even arguing this is because there are individuals; like yourself that have no understanding of the concepts but will come on here and state that it is physically impossible. I never said it was optimal, but that it can AND DOES happen.

If you look back at my first post, I was actually suggesting just the opposite for the OP and was never in the entirety of this post suggesting he eat at or below maintenance.

And if it seems like im changing my opinions thats because you are struggling to understand such a basic concept that I have to keep elaborating on what should be so simple.

56

[quote]dankid wrote:
Ya Roybot its probably a good idea that you walk away. Because you DO LACK THE BASIC KNOWLEDGE to grasp this topic. You need to understand the difference between a change in mass and a change in size. [/quote]

Looks like a certain person is smarting from a bruised ego! Man, you’ve got a nerve to accuse me of not knowing what the hell I’m talking about when you still think you are right in all this. If I’m so wrong, then how come you’ve totally failed to refute any of the points I’ve made? If I’m so slow on the uptake, how is it that nobody is backing what you say and several people have said that you’re out of line? Why do you think that is??

Being too obstinate to admit when somebody makes a valid and quite correct point doesn’t make you right. Citing GBC as an example of gaining mass in a deficit is just foolish, because Poliquin doesn’t advise a deficit at all. Don’t take my word for it: re-read the article. He actually says that muscular gains won’t come while eating in a deficit. You’ll only lose fat.

If you try to dispute it, as I’m sure you will, I’ll be delighted to dig up the quote.

That’s just one example of how much you don’t know, but think you do.

[quote]
Also, you need to understand that it doesn’t matter if energy is already in the system (stored BF; or stored muscle) if there is a change in mass then there was a deficit or surplus. There is no “false deficit” this just shows you dont understand thermodynamics. If you weigh 300lb and end up at 250, there was a deficit. Even if fat mass fueled muscle building, YOUR TOTAL MASS decreased. [/quote]

Blah, blah, blah. So you keep saying, but you never seem to elaborate on that. Nothing in that paragraph backs up the idea that muscle can be gained on a caloric deficit. All you’ve demonstrated is that a change in mass has occured. You’ve gone no further than that.

Here’s a thought: you can’t go into anymore detail because you pulled this out of your ass halfway through the thread. Problem is, you’ve yet to prove me wrong on anything I’ve said. Telling me I don’t understand what you’re saying is not an adequate explanation of what you think proves your side of this - fat doesn’t dissappear into thin air when muscle is gained on a perceived ‘deficit’; thermodynamics doesn’t explain where it goes, nor does it support you argument. I’ll ask you again to post up a more detailed explanation other than what you said because it doesn’t support your views at all.

Here’s a direct and simple challenge: find me a quote on thermodynamics that backs your theory. Not a definition of it, but a direct quote that supports what you’ve said about muscle gain in a deficit. It shouldn’t be that hard seeing as thermodynamics is a crucial part of your argument.

[quote]
And the only reason im even arguing this is because there are individuals; like yourself that have no understanding of the concepts but will come on here and state that it is physically impossible. I never said it was optimal, but that it can AND DOES happen.[/quote]

I hadn’t even posted on this thread when you started trumpeting about gaining muscle in a deficit, so that’s a flat-out lie. Again, you’re just making this crap up as you go along because you evidently can’t face the shame of not winning the “most knowledgeable guy on the thread” award.

There isn’t a serious trainee on this site that cares if muscle gain on a deficit “can be done”. Especially if that approach only yields results for one guy in a hundred. The only people that concern themselves with things like this are people that forget to actually train because they can’t remove their heads from a text book.

Ask yourself this: what practical purpose does it serve to dredge this crap up? Taking a ‘pig’s might fly’ approach to this is just plain reckless, especially when the guy you are supposedly trying to help is stuck at a plateau. It won’t help him, because you’ve given contradictory advice. The only purpose it serves as far as I can see is to demonstrate how much more you are clued up on training methods than the next man.

Yes, you’ve told him told eat more, but you’ve also made no bones about the fact that he could do well on a deficit. Do you honestly think that is a helpful approach? Don’t you suppose that advising him to take the optimal route would be more sensible, instead of throwing everything but the kitchen sink out there for the sake of debate? However you want to slice it, you’re still guilty of giving out poor advice here.

I only got involved because the advice you and will-of-iron were dispensing to the OP could quite possibly have set his progress back even more if that advice went unchallenged. You still seem blissfully unaware of the damage you could have done. How do you know that the OP had enough “basic knowledge” to decipher what you meant? Don’t you think that when faced with the choice of gaining muscle on deficit and gaining on a caloric excess, he’s more likely to choose the former -especially when one of his problems is consistently undereating? Shouldn’t you have erred on the side of caution and kept things simple for his sake?

But that again is his fault for not being intelligent enough to understand what you meant.It can’t possibly have anything to do with you and the way in which you communicated your ‘advice’…

Normally when people realize that their target audience doesn’t get what they are saying, they attempt to rephrase the same opinion with more clarity: they don’t swing wildly from one argument to another as you’ve been doing.

Go back to yor first post on this thread, read through to the end, and then try to tell me that your posts form a consistent, persuasive and conclusive whole.

Here’s the problem: guy’s like you read ‘x’ amount of articles, think you understand them and then try to act as mediators between the authors and guys that don’t know any better. You think that you know it all, but don’t realize that something has been lost in translation. To be blunt, I don’t think that you should be advising people on how to train at this point in time. I mean, you seem totally confused about how to train yourself. In the last few weeks alone, you’ve been see-sawing between high carb diets, super-accumulation programs, and a bodypart specialization, to correct ‘imbalances’ that apparently only you can see.

You are either very confused yourself, or you are a genius, and all that screwing around is part of a secret “high-carb-super-accumulation-specialization-mega-program”…

It’s training ADD, and shows in your advice to other people as well. You seem to have no direction in your training. How, then, do you propose to direct others in their own training when you seem to have so very little in your own?

Please, try and tell me that I’m making this up. I remember reading your dealings with Nominal Prospect. Back then, you struck me as a sensible and knowledgeable guy. Now it seems as if the more you type, the less you know.

Believe it or not, I take no pleasure in saying this - but, predictably, you just had to have the last word as if you’d managed to prove you’re right, instead of letting this thing die. You’re not right, and you haven’t proved anything. You’re just dismissing what I’ve got to say with no explanation.

Nobody with anything more than rocks for brains would read this thread and assume from what you’ve written so far that you’ve got the upper hand.

Just because I’m sick of hearing you parrot the same old stuff over and over doesn’t mean I think your claim that muscle can be built in a deficit has any substance. I’m certainly not running away with my tail between my legs. I do however, have better ways to spend my time than debate this indefinitely with you.

57

BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!

Im not going to go scower the internet looking for an article that proves that you can build muscle in a deficit. I know for a fact that its not going to mention this, as thermodynamics isn’t really about hypertrophy or nutritent partitioning. Its about conservation of energy, and ive already explained it many times to you. I dont claim to be a genius, but just because Einstein couldnt explain the theory of relativity to a first grader, that doesn’t mean he’s an idiot.

As for giving bad advice. I never advised the OP to try to build muscle in a deficit. I clearly suggested that his lack of increases in weight were due to not eating enough, and his lack of increases in strength were due to his training.

And as for building muscle in a deficit being bad advice for everyone but a small population; i disagree. There are plenty of individuals on here that are overweight, overfat, and undermuscled. These are the perfect individuals for eating at maintenance or even a slight deficit. There is no reason for them to eat more calories than they are already taking in, in order to build muscle, when they are already overweight.

Your starting to sound a lot like Nominal Prospect was on here a while ago. You’d spout off a bunch of rubbish that showed you didn’t really understand anything, wouldn’t really be offering an argument, but would try to attack peoples character; or their arguments, and then whine about how there was no rebbutle. My rebuttle to you was an explanation of the law of conservation and the claim that you dont know what you are talking about.

58

[quote]roybot wrote:
If a person gains muscle and loses fat while eating at or below maintenance, that doesn’t prove that muscle can be built on a caloric deficit.

[/quote]

Roybot, take a look at this sentance you wrote here. This sentance alone disproves everything you are trying to argue. If a person builds muscle and loses fat at or below maintenance, this DOES PROVE that muscle can be build on a deficit.

Below maintenance = deficit.

59

[quote]dankid wrote:
BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!

Im not going to go scower the internet looking for an article that proves that you can build muscle in a deficit. [/quote]

I didn’t ask you for an article. I asked you for a quote from thermodynamics that’d directly support what you claim is true. You wouldn’t have to scower (sic) the internet for a quote if what you said went any further than your own theory. If it was any more than you postulating how it could be done, you would already have the information I requested to hand.

[quote]
I know for a fact that its not going to mention this, as thermodynamics isn’t really about hypertrophy or nutritent partitioning. [/quote]

Again, why are you even bringing thermodynamics into it as proof that muscle can be built in a deficit, when you’ve just said that it has nothing to do with hypertrophy? If it has no bearing on hypertrophy, it doesn’t support what you’ve said, now does it?

[quote]
Its about conservation of energy, [/quote] Your body won’t ‘conserve energy’ if you eat at a deficit and attempt to gain muscle. It’ll draw energy from fat stores, then push some of that energy into the muscles as a response to the stimulus of training. It certainly won’t attempt to conserve energy by withholding it from muscles, otherwise no growth would occur. In fact, the opposite would happen [quote] ive already explained it many times to you. I dont claim to be a genius, but just because Einstein couldnt explain the theory of relativity to a first grader, that doesn’t mean he’s an idiot.[/quote]Yeah, yeah. You keep saying that I don’t understand you. Please humor me then, by assuming exactly that and explain it to me in Layman’s terms. I’m sure a guy of your incredible insight can do that much.

You haven’t “explained it many times to me”. I’ve asked you to elaborate and you just repeat the same thing again and again and again. I understand what you’ve said. The problem is that what you regard as ‘proof’ doesn’t fall in line with your claims. Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.

[quote]
As for giving bad advice. I never advised the OP to try to build muscle in a deficit. I clearly suggested that his lack of increases in weight were due to not eating enough, and his lack of increases in strength were due to his training. [/quote]

Then explain why you just had to bring it up and defend it to the hilt?

Body fat, as I’ve already explained to you, is a usable energy source to fuel muscle. If bodyfat reserves provide a trainee with, say 10,000 calories of energy, don’t you think that should be considered along with whatever they are putting into their mouth? You have yet to account for this and no, thermodynamics doesn’t explain it. I’ve given you a chance to prove that it does by providing a single quote that links building muscle on a deficit and thermodynamics. You’ve admitted you can’t do that. Your whole argument is conjecture; ideas you’ve cooked up on your own with no scientific basis…

[quote]
Your starting to sound a lot like Nominal Prospect was on here a while ago.[/quote] That’s a classic. I’m like Nominal Prospect, even though you’re the one clinging to outlandish claims without a shred of proof to back them up, other than you own opinion and misinterpretation of facts and figures. Dude, you can compare me to the man in the moon for all I care. I’m still waiting for proof of your theories. Stop sidestepping the issue and give me what I’ve asked for.

[quote]
You’d spout off a bunch of rubbish that showed you didn’t really understand anything,[/quote] Still waiting for proof…

How exactly am I attacking your character? Was I lying when I said that you’ve jumped between several training methodologies in the last month? If you want to deny that you’d better get cracking on deleting all those threads you’ve made. How am I “talking rubbish” when I said you were wrong to quote GBC as an example of gaining muscle in a deficit, when Poliquin clearly says that GBC for muscle gain should be used in combination with a bulking diet?

But you’ve made no rebuttal. I keep asking you for one. You haven’t explained anything. In fact, your argument doesn’t go beyond saying that ‘I must be wrong because you’re right’. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. The ‘rebuttle’ you provided doesn’t shed any light on your claims.

You’ve just said that thermodynamics have no bearing on muscle building, and that you can’t provide proof, but you expect me to take it as proof anyway? I’m not refusing to accept proof, and I do understand what you’re saying. The problem here is that your opinions on thermodynamics and your definition of a deficit don’t gel with your claims.

I’ll explain:

Thermodynamics is the study of the transformation of energy from one form to another. It has no bearing on what is being discussed here because it only goes as far to tell you how the body changes fat into energy. It doesn’t explain how and to where that energy is dispersed. Unless you can tell me with total certainty that thermodynamics proves the energy from stored bodyfat won’t be diverted into building muscle when you train and eat a caloric deficit, it was a waste of time bringing it up in the first place.

60

[quote]dankid wrote:
roybot wrote:
If a person gains muscle and loses fat while eating at or below maintenance, that doesn’t prove that muscle can be built on a caloric deficit.

Roybot, take a look at this sentance you wrote here. This sentance alone disproves everything you are trying to argue. If a person builds muscle and loses fat at or below maintenance, this DOES PROVE that muscle can be build on a deficit.

Below maintenance = deficit.
[/quote]

I said "eating at below maintenance". Eating. Bodyfat can provide extra calories and take you above what you may perceive as a deficit. I didn’t think I needed to mention the potential energy source that bodyfat represents again, seeing as I’ve already covered it like a million times before.

Losing fat in this instance doesn’t indicate a deficit, at least not your defintion of it, because some of the fat burned can and will fuel muscle growth (if there is any) if you eat under maintenance. Thermodynamics or redistribution of mass or whatever you want to call it won’t effect that. The energy from fat won’t just burn away into thin air under the conditions we are talking about. The body will attempt to use its immediate energy sources (in other words, body fat reserves) in order to compensate for the caloric deficit from food. It will push some of that energy into the muscles if you are training to stimulate growth. You can’t refute that.

Do you even bother to read my posts? Why else do I have to keep beating you over the head with this? How many times do I have to say that you can’t conclude that calories aren’t necessary to build muscle by looking at diet alone. Don’t bring up thermodynamics again, because that only proves bodyfat is burned as energy: it doesn’t tell you where that energy goes and that it won’t, under any circumstances, go into the muscle and assist muscle growth.

Thermodynamics only comes in to play here if it tells you exactly how the energy burned from bodyfat is used, and that none of it provides energy to the muscles. For the last time, you have no way of determining that, so you have no basis for defending muscle growth in a defict other that the fact that you personally think it’s possible. Which doesn’t make it true.

Which leads to the quesion: why the fuck are you still beating this horse? It’s dead and ready for burial.

1)You’ve said that gaining muscle in a deficit is far from optimal (an understatement!), but insist on defending it come hell or high water.

2)You’ve admitted that it may be possible that energy from bodyfat may have an effect on muscle growth.

3)You’ve conceded that thermodynamics have nothing to do with hypertrophy, and yet you’ve been trying to use it to prove that it allows one to build muscle in a deficit.

Do I really need to continue?