Building muscle in a caloric deficit? See this...your thought?

[tkdnj]

This guy (Jeff Cavaliere -AthleanX.com) seems pretty informed. He believes you can burn fat and gain muscle at the same time by being in a caloric deficit and in a positive nitrogen balance. He preaches bulking/cutting is a waste since you look soft half the year. What do you think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3AG-oCXTE

[Vytis]

This guy (Jeff Cavaliere -AthleanX.com) seems pretty informed. He believes you can burn fat and gain muscle at the same time by being in a caloric deficit and in a positive nitrogen balance. He preaches bulking/cutting is a waste since you look soft half the year. What do you think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3AG-oCXTE

Others like Kurt Weidner say it can be done. Nutrient timing can dictate this to a large extent.

[bustasinclair]

I've always looked at it like this. The average natural trainee who's been training for years is only going to add about 3# of muscle per year....if that.

So, 3# is 10,500 calories surplus for the year. Divided by 52 weeks equals about 200 calorie surplus per week. That's about 1/3 cup of almonds per week. So my contention is that it's impossible to have your intake down to such scrutiny--you're going to have periods of calorie deficit where you're adding grams of muscle as long as you're in positive nitrogen balance.

[JerryB]

It depends on the state of your muscular development, the combination of your macros, and your training.
Training for only 45 minutes is optional is balderdash and he provides just a general comment with no details about the nutritional requirement

In regards to studies I see them as sources of information, not gospel and the authors are not prophets.

[Juggertha]

Sure, I think it's possible.

[VIsland]

Love to think it's possible but personal experience tells me otherwise.

[DuracellBunny]

Technically possible and practically achievable are two different things. The fact that it can be done, doesn't mean that the vast majority of people will be able to get their body to do it.

For 99.9% of people, getting their body to add muscle without a lot of fat along with it is a big enough issue. The rare people that are able/willing to micromanage their lives to the extent where they can get this to work, will have enough expertise and experience to produce greater net improvements via other training/nutrition protocols.

[EjnarKolinkar]

I've always looked at it like this. The average natural trainee who's been training for years is only going to add about 3# of muscle per year....if that.

So, 3# is 10,500 calories surplus for the year. Divided by 52 weeks equals about 200 calorie surplus per week. That's about 1/3 cup of almonds per week. So my contention is that it's impossible to have your intake down to such scrutiny--you're going to have periods of calorie deficit where you're adding grams of muscle as long as you're in positive nitrogen balance.

And that is just it. People will go with what they believe. I mean you can't even measure a 12 months period and 3 pounds muscle gain reliably. It will never be proven to satisfy anyone who needs proof nor disproven for those who think another way.

DXA scans just aren't that accurate, and even in a perfect world of testing hydration can and will shift that 3 pounds all the time.

I mean if I diet off 15 pounds and say I gained 3 pounds of muscle there is no real way to dispute this. People always will claim this, and sell their products and services to those that want to believe.

I think people should do whatever they want.

[bustasinclair]

And that is just it. People will go with what they believe. I mean you can't even measure a 12 months period and 3 pounds muscle gain reliably. It will never be proven to satisfy anyone who needs proof nor disproven for those who think another way.

DXA scans just aren't that accurate, and even in a perfect world of testing hydration can and will shift that 3 pounds all the time.

I mean if I diet off 15 pounds and say I gained 3 pounds of muscle there is no real way to dispute this. People always will claim this, and sell their products and services to those that want to believe.

I think people should do whatever they want.

Agreed^^

I came up with a rudimentary example of what I was trying to convey. Keep in mind, this example would be under perfect conditions which is nearly impossible as DB mentioned.

Assumption #1 - Maintenance calories for, we'll call him Bocephus, a 200# man, is 2,500 k/cal per day.
Assumption #2 - Bocephus eats 2,100 calories per day, five days per week for a deficit of 2,000
Assumption #3 - The other two days of the week, Bocephus eats 3,000 calories per day, for a surplus of 1,000

So, in seven days, Bocephus is in a 1,000 calorie deficit. If Bocephus' body used that 2,000 calorie deficit to burn actual pure bodyfat and the 1,000 calories surplus to add muscle, then Bocephus cut fat and added muscle at the same time.

Is this possible? Yes. Is it plausible? No.

YMMV

[ironwill2008]

This guy (Jeff Cavaliere -AthleanX.com) seems pretty informed. He believes you can burn fat and gain muscle at the same time by being in a caloric deficit and in a positive nitrogen balance. He preaches bulking/cutting is a waste since you look soft half the year. What do you think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3AG-oCXTE

Oh, brother.....

Looks good on paper, but IRL, trying to do this will leave you looking exactly like you are now, if not worse. Posts by skinny teens, almost by the minute, in the 'nutrition' and 'workout programs' forums, who can't even manage to add a couple of pounds of body weight even in a claimed calorie surplus, will bear this out.

Following that guy's advices will leave you spinning your wheels in the dust, forever remaining as you are, if not skinnier.

[bucsdodgers]

You can do it, it takes a lot of dedication and counting everything. like jerry said training for 45mins is bs. as long as your nutrition is good and you get proper rest you can train for longer periods of time.

[JerryB]

Technically possible and practically achievable are two different things. The fact that it can be done, doesn't mean that the vast majority of people will be able to get their body to do it.

Well said. The majority do not know their bodies well enough to formulate an approach to make it achievable.

[DuracellBunny]

Agreed^^

I came up with a rudimentary example of what I was trying to convey. Keep in mind, this example would be under perfect conditions which is nearly impossible as DB mentioned.

Assumption #1 - Maintenance calories for, we'll call him Bocephus, a 200# man, is 2,500 k/cal per day.
Assumption #2 - Bocephus eats 2,100 calories per day, five days per week for a deficit of 2,000
Assumption #3 - The other two days of the week, Bocephus eats 3,000 calories per day, for a surplus of 1,000

So, in seven days, Bocephus is in a 1,000 calorie deficit. If Bocephus' body used that 2,000 calorie deficit to burn actual pure bodyfat and the 1,000 calories surplus to add muscle, then Bocephus cut fat and added muscle at the same time.

Is this possible? Yes. Is it plausible? No.

YMMV

You can extend the argument further than that. A pound of fat is around 3500 calories and a pound of muscle around 750 calories. Looking at it from a calorie perspective, you could lose 1lb of fat and build 2lbs of muscle and still have a 2000 calorie deficit, which clearly won't happen.

Resistance training, powerlifting, bodybuilding, whatever you want to call things, is about creating a stimulus that will force an adaptation. In a deficit, peoples max load and volume decreases; in short, their strength and stamina tanks. Regardless of what may be possible thermodynamically regarding calories etc; people are not typically providing enough stimulus to require any adaptation whilst in a deficit, rendering the issue of whether their body will realise that adaptation a moot point.

[IIISpartacusIII]

Jeff Cavaliere's got a great physique but has he taken his own advice? I'd be interested to know how much muscle he's gained in the last few years. The 45 minute workout rule seems arbitrary; what studies give this any credibility? Countless natural strength athletes train 2 hrs per workout and have gained lean muscle tissue with the consistent higher volume. I'm not sold on his methodology but there may be something to his pet theory on balance.

[DuracellBunny]

Jeff Cavaliere's got a great physique but has he taken his own advice? I'd be interested to know how much muscle he's gained in the last few years. The 45 minute workout rule seems arbitrary; what studies give this any credibility? Countless natural strength athletes train 2 hrs per workout and have gained lean muscle tissue with the consistent higher volume. I'm not sold on his methodology but there may be something to his pet theory on balance.

All of the variations on the 45 (or 60 etc) minute rule, that circulate, have their basis in one study that had nothing to do with resistance training. There was a study conducted on elite endurance athletes that found after 50 minutes of continuous high level cardio, there was a spike in cortisol levels.

BB'ing, an industry which is full of marginally educated people posing as experts, then spun this study in to all sorts of BS which attained the status of received wisdom.

[grubman]

Jeff Cavaliere's got a great physique but has he taken his own advice? I'd be interested to know how much muscle he's gained in the last few years. The 45 minute workout rule seems arbitrary; what studies give this any credibility? Countless natural strength athletes train 2 hrs per workout and have gained lean muscle tissue with the consistent higher volume. I'm not sold on his methodology but there may be something to his pet theory on balance.

I like Jeff Cavalier. He is one of the few guys I watch regularly...however, we all look at things from our own perspective. Jeff obviously has genetics and a metabolism that keep him lean and muscular with much less effort than the "average" guy. He's only done a few nutrition videos (what he eats videos) and his diet is healthy, but kind of random, with no measuring or real attention to macros. The "average" guy would never develop a physique like his eating the way he does. So I think he (like most anyone) believes research must be accurate if it works for him.

[EjnarKolinkar]

Agreed^^

I came up with a rudimentary example of what I was trying to convey. Keep in mind, this example would be under perfect conditions which is nearly impossible as DB mentioned.

Assumption #1 - Maintenance calories for, we'll call him Bocephus, a 200# man, is 2,500 k/cal per day.
Assumption #2 - Bocephus eats 2,100 calories per day, five days per week for a deficit of 2,000
Assumption #3 - The other two days of the week, Bocephus eats 3,000 calories per day, for a surplus of 1,000

So, in seven days, Bocephus is in a 1,000 calorie deficit. If Bocephus' body used that 2,000 calorie deficit to burn actual pure bodyfat and the 1,000 calories surplus to add muscle, then Bocephus cut fat and added muscle at the same time.

Is this possible? Yes. Is it plausible? No.

YMMV

Its a good example, and I like your conclusion fwiw. I think it has a lot to do with the mass a fellow has to start with. I've added about 35 pounds LBM since I was 21 (I weighed 185 pounds when I got married )

I don't think I could do that with cyclical intake like that. DOubt I would have the stamina with all those intake gymnastics. Kind of like IW is suggesting about all the underweight guys trying to make gains and keep crisp abs. I mean you can't gain 35 pounds LBM and stay in the same pants size IMO. At some point you get a lot bigger or you don't.

Probably a bit off topic of the more advanced lifters goals, ad it's just my experience. But I see a lot of folks trying to recomp a low LBM body into what will need to be 20 pounds added muscle. I think they just don't realize how much weight they will need to gain to fill out.

[angrypenguin54]

There are a lot of factors involved and its hard to make blanket statements. Someone who use to carry a fair amount of muscle and is at 20% bf will be totally different from someone at 14% bf trying to put on muscle for the first time in their life.

I find that whenever I let myself get above 15%, I can continue to add muscle even when on a deficit until I get to around there again fairly easily. From 15% to 12% as long as I am fairly strict with my macros I can add a bit, but not at any rate worth noting.

Once I get to around 12% or under, I have not had any success at adding muscle at a deficit.

For those guys already lean that need to add muscle, especially if it is for the first time, I really believe being at a surplus will have a night and day difference with muscle gains. Putting on a bit of fat would probably do their body and hormones a bit of good too as long as they dont get carried away.

[so-tex]

There are a lot of factors involved and its hard to make blanket statements. Someone who use to carry a fair amount of muscle and is at 20% bf will be totally different from someone at 14% bf trying to put on muscle for the first time in their life.

I find that whenever I let myself get above 15%, I can continue to add muscle even when on a deficit until I get to around there again fairly easily. From 15% to 12% as long as I am fairly strict with my macros I can add a bit, but not at any rate worth noting.

Once I get to around 12% or under, I have not had any success at adding muscle at a deficit.

For those guys already lean that need to add muscle, especially if it is for the first time, I really believe being at a surplus will have a night and day difference with muscle gains. Putting on a bit of fat would probably do their body and hormones a bit of good too as long as they dont get carried away.

^^^Totally agree with this.^^^ I'll take it a step further by adding the more body fat you have( which has been my case) the easier .
I also agree with Matt. You can go slow and steady and with good genetics, you could possibly put on 3 lbs. of muscle per year.

[Jbizzlechizzle]

I believe there's some truth in what he's saying but it's not practical advice for people with lower body fat percentages. I've seen myself maintain strength and get leaner over periods of time, but not necessarily get stronger while in a deficit. Maybe this is possible for some people, but it's not a practical way to approach maximizing muscle gains for leaner people. People who have more weight to lose may have an easier time losing weight and gaining quality muscle because of the extra fat stores they have to convert to energy.

Disclaimer: This is all bro science.

[skilledhunter]

Could someone clarify for me??? I always thought that your body burned fat if it needed it. So why cant it burn the fat and use those calories to build muscle if you are in a deficit?

[Jbizzlechizzle]

Could someone clarify for me??? I always thought that your body burned fat if it needed it. So why cant it burn the fat and use those calories to build muscle if you are in a deficit?

I don't think many people are disputing that it's possible. I believe this can happen under certain conditions, but it's not very effective unless you have a lot of weight to lose.