IF eating at Maintenance, BUTTTTTT not working out at all, will you lose muscle mass?

[Crunchbar]

Assuming of course that macro's are in check.

Basicly the underlying quesiton is this: Is retaining muscle mass dependant on consecutive working out or can it be fufilled merely by providing the body with the resources (eating maintenance)?


*Most people tend to stray from the question in their replys (when responding to questions like these) and end up saying things like "just do both dude" or "dont be a wuss gotta work dem Gunz". Please dont do this. Ofcourse I will continue working out and eating right, but none the less i am interested in the science. "_"

[rhizome]

This is realy a function of how much muscle mass you have accumulated above your normal genetic amount. So yes you can lose some muscle mass as your body seeks equilibrium.

[mac520]

Muscle atrophies without stimulation. Without stimulation, calories will go towards accumulating fat reserves instead of maintaining muscle. Daily activities are not enough to maintain muscle beyond what is required for survival, which is very little. If you took a year off lifting and maintained your weight, your lifts would go down, guaranteed.

[Crunchbar]

This is realy a function of how much muscle mass you have accumulated above your normal genetic amount. So yes you can lose some muscle mass as your body seeks equilibrium.

hmm... Your normal genetic amount? never heard of that.

So your implying that your body seeks to dismantle muscle over time unless stimulated to maintain due to resistance training? Please elaborate. Cite sources if you have any

Muscle atrophies without stimulation. Without stimulation, calories will go towards accumulating fat reserves instead of maintaining muscle. Daily activities are not enough to maintain muscle beyond what is required for survival, which is very little. If you took a year off lifting and maintained your weight, your lifts would go down, guaranteed.

So your suggesting that in your body's natural state, calories go souly towards accumilating fat reserves as apposed to maintaing muscle?

I am aware that STRENGTH would likely go down, but strength, as I understand it is not directly related to muscle mass. For instance, MEGA muscular bodybuilders might lift less then lower weight powerlifters.

[noethix]

Those bodybuilders are also genetically gifted and heavily drugged you are not like them.

You would lose lbm. No stimulation i think would lead to the loss as muscle does require the most energy in the first place, and since synthesis and breakdown occur daily, what incentive is there for the body to hold on to this "expensive" muscle. Your daily requiremenys will also lower fro
the lowered activity. The more scientific will chime in hopefully.

[Phosphate bond]

Assuming of course that macro's are in check.

If you stop lifting weights your muscles will atrophy.

Eating on maintenance calories while you are more sedentary only means you won't get fatter.

[JuiceWeasel]

you will lose muscle if you stop working out

/thread

[Crunchbar]

If you stop lifting weights your muscles will atrophy.

Eating on maintenance calories while you are more sedentary only means you won't get fatter.

So according to your statement, if you discontinue muscular stimulus, then your maintenance calories will decrease over time (beacse of the muscle atrophy?).

Is this correct

[Phosphate bond]

if you discontinue muscular stimulus, then your maintenance calories will decrease over time .

Is this correct

Yep that sounds right to me.

Less calories burned, less calories needed.