Lose good muscle on a cut, re-gain it easily once you bulk?

[unleashthelion]

As we've seen with former athletes and Christian Bale post-Machinist, people are able to re-gain old gains/mass far easier than people lookin to build "new" muscle. So, if a person really lost some quality muscle on a cut, wouldn't it come back on pretty easily once they bulk? If that's the case, is it really a concern of losing the muscle or just not efficiently cutting/bulking (as the cut did not retain the mass gained by the bulk and bulking puts you at square one)?

[matman1813]

Bale's transformation between the machinist and batman had far more to do with 'supplements' then anything else.

[unleashthelion]

It was still a lot easier than if he had never been that big. There was a girl on the biggest loser who gained >10lbs of muscle (LBM) while losing >100lbs of fat and I know of a former athlete who was able to put on a ton of muscle while losing a good amount of fat. It's just that it is a bit easier to re-gain than to gain; pathways being re-utilized instead of created, and all that jazz.

[matman1813]

It was still a lot easier than if he had never been that big. There was a girl on the biggest loser who gained >10lbs of muscle (LBM) while losing >100lbs of fat and I know of a former athlete who was able to put on a ton of muscle while losing a good amount of fat. It's just that it is a bit easier to re-gain than to gain; pathways being re-utilized instead of created, and all that jazz.

Yeah, it is easier to regain muscle, nobody knows exactly why though and it's still better to try to maintain what you have on a cut. If you don't, your first month or two of bulking could be wasted regaining muscle you could have held on to my getting diet and training right during your cut. That would be far less efficient than just cutting properly and maintaining as much muscle mass as possible.

[unleashthelion]

Oh, for sure. Not saying it's something to be done; just putting it into perspective. It sucks, but it isn't like the muscle you've lost is gone and you have nothing to show for it; at least it will come back on quicker than if you had never built it.

Just trying to assuage my own fears of having lost too much mass

I'm sure you're in the same state of mind: the kraken will be released, in our bodies, once we are able to finally feed our bodies, properly!

[22pete22]

PM curjo about this.....He went on a extreme diet and got a dexa scan like once a month while not lifting. After his cut, he resumed a bulk, while continuing the dexa scan readings. Ever since I have seen his results, I have completely stopped freaking out about losing muscle mass.

I am obviously not trying to lose muscle mass, but I sure don't worry about it like when I first started.

[matman1813]

Oh, for sure. Not saying it's something to be done; just putting it into perspective. It sucks, but it isn't like the muscle you've lost is gone and you have nothing to show for it; at least it will come back on quicker than if you had never built it.

Just trying to assuage my own fears of having lost too much mass

I'm sure you're in the same state of mind: the kraken will be released, in our bodies, once we are able to finally feed our bodies, properly!

I certainly hope that is the case. Great job on the weight loss by the way, you're less than half of your former self now, that must feel great.

[getTONKS]

PM curjo about this.....He went on a extreme diet and got a dexa scan like once a month while not lifting. After his cut, he resumed a bulk, while continuing the dexa scan readings. Ever since I have seen his results, I have completely stopped freaking out about losing muscle mass.

I am obviously not trying to lose muscle mass, but I sure don't worry about it like when I first started.

intradesting

[unleashthelion]

I certainly hope that is the case. Great job on the weight loss by the way, you're less than half of your former self now, that must feel great.

Thanks man. Yeah, I couldn't be happier; my head is still spinning from how quickly this has happened, but I am just overwhelmed with gratitude for the gift I've been given.

With you, I'm sure it is. I think you are already in a very good place with your aesthetics, and things will only get better and better from here.

[buckiaj]

Honestly, I think that if you cut slowly and appropriately, you will think you have lost more muscle than you really have. For a couple reasons:

1) you are just smaller in general. You will feel smaller and thus thinking you lost tons of muscle.

2) You tend to not have your glycogen stores full and water weight is low. once you are finished with your cut, spend a week eating around maint and eating plenty of carbs and drinking water to help your muscles fill back up. I think most have found that once they do this, they definitely feel a lot of size come right back.

[igglesphan]

When you add muscle, you add muscle cell nuclei... those nuclei don't die when you lose muscle. Since the nuclei are already there, you can synthesize protein more rapidly once you start to add muscle again. In addition, there are MHC type IIx fibers that are neither type I (slow twitch) or type II (fast twitch). When you lose muscle, the number of type IIx fibers actually increases. Since the type IIx fibers can later be recruited to become type I or type II fibers, you can build muscle faster as you are starting off with more fibers.

[MercurialXIII]

When you add muscle, you add muscle cell nuclei... those nuclei don't die when you lose muscle. Since the nuclei are already there, you can synthesize protein more rapidly once you start to add muscle again. In addition, there are MHC type IIx fibers that are neither type I (slow twitch) or type II (fast twitch). When you lose muscle, the number of type IIx fibers actually increases. Since the type IIx fibers can later be recruited to become type I or type II fibers, you can build muscle faster as you are starting off with more fibers.

Thats false. Cells grow in two ways. By volume and by cell division. When you first start building muscle on a short term basis they will grow by volume up to a threshold because that takes less energy expenditure than cell division. After constant exertion however cell division wil take place creating new muscle cells and building new muscle. Now when you stop using those muscles the cells undergo apoptosis as it is inefficient for the body to expend energy maintaining them. Idk why you seem to think the nuclei are spared. Theyre not. Endonucleases will digest intracellular dna. We infact dont know why it seems to be easier to regain old muscle.



Source: a fourth year microbio major and thats basic cell science

[matman1813]

Thats false. Cells grow in two ways. By volume and by cell division. When you first start building muscle on a short term basis they will grow by volume up to a threshold because that takes less energy expenditure than cell division. After constant exertion however cell division wil take place creating new muscle cells and building new muscle. Now when you stop using those muscles the cells undergo apoptosis as it is inefficient for the body to expend energy maintaining them. Idk why you seem to think the nuclei are spared. Theyre not. Endonucleases will digest intracellular dna. We infact dont know why it seems to be easier to regain old muscle.



Source: a fourth year microbio major and thats basic cell science

Interesting. So what about fat cells that no longer have use? I often see people saying that fat cells will not be destroyed, is that also false?

[Znik]

Thats false. Cells grow in two ways. By volume and by cell division. When you first start building muscle on a short term basis they will grow by volume up to a threshold because that takes less energy expenditure than cell division. After constant exertion however cell division wil take place creating new muscle cells and building new muscle. Now when you stop using those muscles the cells undergo apoptosis as it is inefficient for the body to expend energy maintaining them. Idk why you seem to think the nuclei are spared. Theyre not. Endonucleases will digest intracellular dna. We infact dont know why it seems to be easier to regain old muscle.
Source: a fourth year microbio major and thats basic cell science

How old are those books ? There has been no human trials on "muscle cell memory" as far as I know but latest research on mice and rats have shown that while getting muscle stimulation the number of nuclei increase, but when that muscle is lost the increased nuclei is still there and do not undergo apoptosis for a estimated time span of 10 years or possible forever. Been two studies that confirms this.
Studies showed that mice with increase nuclei after undergoing muscle loss gained muscle at a rate of 36% in 6 weeks while mice with no previous stimulation only grew 6%

So unless human muscle are different from mice , the same should apply for us and would explain why it is easy to regain old muscle.

[BradKemp]

Bale's transformation between the machinist and batman had far more to do with 'supplements' then anything else.

How do you know?

[22pete22]

How old are those books ? There has been no human trials on "muscle cell memory" as far as I know but latest research on mice and rats have shown that while getting muscle stimulation the number of nuclei increase, but when that muscle is lost the increased nuclei is still there and do not undergo apoptosis for a estimated time span of 10 years or possible forever. Been two studies that confirms this.
Studies showed that mice with increase nuclei after undergoing muscle loss gained muscle at a rate of 36% in 6 weeks while mice with no previous stimulation only grew 6%

So unless human muscle are different from mice , the same should apply for us and would explain why it is easy to regain old muscle.

http://www.mn.uio.no/ibv/english/res...per/gundersen/

Here is the link for that from Kristian Gundersen - UiO: Department of Biosciences

[matman1813]

How do you know?

He wasn't natural, he even admitted he was taking creatine.


Edit: For the non regulars, notsrs

[BradKemp]

He wasn't natural, he even admitted he was taking creatine.

So me the link or suffer mod negs.

[davidphillips33]

interesting...in for more answers.

[Znik]

http://www.mn.uio.no/ibv/english/res...per/gundersen/

Here is the link for that from Kristian Gundersen - UiO: Department of Biosciences

Thanks for the link, there was another recent study think in 2011 or 2012 published by norwegian scientist team that confirmed the same results. They also discovered that when juicing the rats, they got increased nuclei even with no muscle stimulation. Could cause a drastic change in drug rules and temporary bans in most sports if it proves to be the same for humans, especially if it lasts your whole lifespan.

[22pete22]

Thanks for the link, there was another recent study think in 2011 or 2012 published by norwegian scientist team that confirmed the same results. They also discovered that when juicing the rats, they got increased nuclei even with no muscle stimulation. Could cause a drastic change in drug rules and temporary bans in most sports if it proves to be the same for humans, especially if it lasts your whole lifespan.

Yeah, I think that was it.....UiO is in Olso, Norway I believe.....Don't quote me on that tho

[igglesphan]

Thats false. Cells grow in two ways. By volume and by cell division. When you first start building muscle on a short term basis they will grow by volume up to a threshold because that takes less energy expenditure than cell division. After constant exertion however cell division wil take place creating new muscle cells and building new muscle. Now when you stop using those muscles the cells undergo apoptosis as it is inefficient for the body to expend energy maintaining them. Idk why you seem to think the nuclei are spared. Theyre not. Endonucleases will digest intracellular dna. We infact dont know why it seems to be easier to regain old muscle.



Source: a fourth year microbio major and thats basic cell science

Please see the following:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930527/

ABSTRACT
Effects of previous strength training can be long-lived, even after prolonged subsequent inactivity, and retraining is facilitated by a previous training episode. Traditionally, such “muscle memory” has been attributed to neural factors in the absence of any identified local memory mechanism in the muscle tissue. We have used in vivo imaging techniques to study live myonuclei belonging to distinct muscle fibers and observe that new myonuclei are added before any major increase in size during overload. The old and newly acquired nuclei are retained during severe atrophy caused by subsequent denervation lasting for a considerable period of the animal’s lifespan. The myonuclei seem to be protected from the high apoptotic activity found in inactive muscle tissue. A hypertrophy episode leading to a lasting elevated number of myonuclei retarded disuse atrophy, and the nuclei could serve as a cell biological substrate for such memory. Because the ability to create myonuclei is impaired in the elderly, individuals may benefit from strength training at an early age, and because anabolic steroids facilitate more myonuclei, nuclear permanency may also have implications for exclusion periods after a doping offense.

And this:

http://nutsci.org/2010/08/23/muscle-...the-myonuclei/

Summary

As the authors describe, they found that nuclei number increases before muscle fibers hypertrophy, which suggests that more nuclei increases the total protein synthesis capacity of the cells.

The previous paradigm is that nuclei added after resistance are lost during atrophy is not supported, and the authors offer the following model instead:

[unleashthelion]

Well, there you go. Guys, thanks for all of these links and explanations; really fascinating stuff.

For me, on top of the fact that most LBM lost during a cut is just connective tissue and other non-functional forms of LBM that are not adaptive at a lower body weight, this shows that one should not be overly concerned about losing LBM while moving from obese to lean.

[Znik]

Well, there you go. Guys, thanks for all of these links and explanations; really fascinating stuff.

For me, on top of the fact that most LBM lost during a cut is just connective tissue and other non-functional forms of LBM that are not adaptive at a lower body weight, this shows that one should not be overly concerned about losing LBM while moving from obese to lean.

Kinda disagree, while the muscle lost might come back fast. Having a increased muscle loss from lack of focus on avoiding that means you have to cut alot longer than you would otherwise. So potentially someone could be needing to cut to 150lbs instead of 180lbs etc. if they lost alot of muscle on the way down. And while it comes back fast it will still take time to gain it back.
And how much mass you retain will make a big difference on how you look at the end of your cut, I did not know much about weight loss when I lost my weight and lost quite alot of muscle so I ended up looking like **** at the end of my cut.

[unleashthelion]

Kinda disagree, while the muscle lost might come back fast. Having a increased muscle loss from lack of focus on avoiding that means you have to cut alot longer than you would otherwise. So potentially someone could be needing to cut to 150lbs instead of 180lbs etc. if they lost alot of muscle on the way down. And while it comes back fast it will still take time to gain it back.
And how much mass you retain will make a big difference on how you look at the end of your cut, I did not know much about weight loss when I lost my weight and lost quite alot of muscle so I ended up looking like **** at the end of my cut.

Oh, I'm not talking about completely ignoring it; I'm talking about being okay with the 1:3-1:4 ratio of LBM:Fat loss. As for needing to cut a lot longer than you would otherwise, that's only the case if you are aiming for a BF%; if I am looking to remove 50lbs of excess fat, it doesn't matter what my LBM is (outside of its effect on my TDEE).

As for how much muscle you lost, I'd love to know how much muscle you actually lost and how much more muscle you lost than if you had done everything you could to preserve LBM.

I think everyone drastically overstates their beginning musculature and this is what causes us to believe that we are losing heaps of muscle while cutting; I'd be surprised if it were anywhere close to what we think it is.

It's such a cluster***, but I just think we have so many misconceptions that we can't think straight. Just like with the whole "skinny-fat" thing. When one describes themselves as skinny-fat, they are just speaking to the fact that they are under-muscled and over-fat, which is how almost anyone on a long cut will appear when they are 90% to their goal. Then, when they get to ~10%, they look lean and under-muscled; the point is, they were probably under-muscled all along, that was the constant, and the only thing that significantly changed was their level of body fat - which previously obscured how under-muscled they were.

I just know myself and I know that I have never had a good muscular base; even if you were to have removed all of my body fat when I was a big ol' boy, at a LBM of 200+, you wouldn't have seen a strong chest, good bi's, or anything else impressive (other than, possibly, my triceps and quads from living with such a high body weight). So if someone tells me that I have lost all my muscle while on this cut, I'll just tell them that I really never had any to begin with

If anything, this is the most muscular I've ever been (and not because of the way it appears, whereby everyone looks more muscular when they are leaner); my lifts have never been higher so I can't imagine that I was any stronger or more muscular, before my cut.

[igglesphan]

How old are those books ?

^This... repped

[davidphillips33]

As for needing to cut a lot longer than you would otherwise, that's only the case if you are aiming for a BF%; if I am looking to remove 50lbs of excess fat, it doesn't matter what my LBM is (outside of its effect on my TDEE).

agreed. If you are looking to cut the fat before lean bulking, and not worried about bf% at the end of cut.

[scots40]

Very informative thread!

[Serpentarius]

the only muscle memory is the neurological gains, its not the actual physical muscle that comes back.

Most people confuse getting strong for muscle mass when it has more to do with synapses and neural coding.

[matman1813]

the only muscle memory is the neurological gains, its not the actual physical muscle that comes back.

Most people confuse getting strong for muscle mass when it has more to do with synapses and neural coding.

Surely if there are more cells, your potential for growth is higher, which was the correlation shown in the studies. Your counter argument is basically, 'nope, that's not true.'