Claim: It is possible to build muscle in a calorie deficit

[EiFit91]

This is also a topic where there is a lot of science suggesting recomp is not only possible but common.

Is it still controversial on here?

[safcpaul]

I think it depends on the person. Training history, how advanced they are and how much bodyfat they are carrying. For me I judge muscle on wether I can progressively overload and I know in a deficit I'm only going to be able to maintain my lifts not increase them. In obese untrained individuals though it has been shown in many cases that they can increase muscle whilst losing weight. Even if recomp is possible. (Probably is) the bulk and cut route is definitely the quickest way. Eat in a surplus and make sure your lifts are increasing enough in line with your weight increase

[Tommy W.]

There are way to many variables to give an answer. Best to choose fatloss or muscle gain and focus on one or the other. One of the big reasons is you can actually SEE progress quicker. When attempting recomping it's very hard to tell if there's progress in either direction. Most people spin their wheels for months then end up concentrating on 1 direction or the other and that direction is almost always fatloss.

[ManwittaPlan]

Yes it’s possible.

Individual based and I can’t say everyone for certain and here’s a good example.

Let’s say you’re a 200lb individual who has a high percentage of bodyfat, are averaging 3000 cals a day and then begin a great program such as GVT (geared for mass gains) and reduce your calories to 2600 a day. This time around your diet is clean, you’re taking in well over 200 grams of protein but still lower total calories. You’ll lower your bodyfat and increase your muscle mass.

[EiFit91]

Yes it’s possible.

Individual based and I can’t say everyone for certain and here’s a good example.

Let’s say you’re a 200lb individual who has a high percentage of bodyfat, are averaging 3000 cals a day and then begin a great program such as GVT (geared for mass gains) and reduce your calories to 2600 a day. This time around your diet is clean, you’re taking in well over 200 grams of protein but still lower total calories. You’ll lower your bodyfat and increase your muscle mass.

This is a great point, I think recomp often happens when someone finally dials in their training and diet. I experienced something similar last year.

[EiFit91]

There are way to many variables to give an answer. Best to choose fatloss or muscle gain and focus on one or the other. One of the big reasons is you can actually SEE progress quicker. When attempting recomping it's very hard to tell if there's progress in either direction. Most people spin their wheels for months then end up concentrating on 1 direction or the other and that direction is almost always fatloss.

Yup I think proper bulk/cut is going to be more efficient for most people.

But the guys who cannot contain themselves on a bulk may actually reach their goals faster by slowly recomping IMO. You know those guys who come to «losing fat» after gaining 40 pounds in a few months lol

[Tommy W.]

Yup I think proper bulk/cut is going to be more efficient for most people.

But the guys who cannot contain themselves on a bulk may actually reach their goals faster by slowly recomping IMO. You know those guys who come to «losing fat» after gaining 40 pounds in a few months lol

They should concentrate on losing the 40 lbs. If they're that far off base on calorie consumption calculations there is no way they'll be able to dial calories in close enough for a recomp. And that is only 1 piece of the recomp puzzle.

[EiFit91]

They should concentrate on losing the 40 lbs. If they're that far off base on calorie consumption calculations there is no way they'll be able to dial calories in close enough for a recomp. And that is only 1 piece of the recomp puzzle.

But there are plenty of guys coming to that forum who cut/bulk and spin their wheels for years. My point is just that maybe these would do better recomping slowly from their starting (fat) weight.

[SuffolkPunch]

Hmm, I have read from experienced lifters like Menno who say that they could not gain any new muscle without being in a surplus.

My own mental model of how it works is that recomping is indeed possible but being at maintenance or lower presents a friction to that process. In the case of chubby young guys without much lifting experience, that friction might not amount to much and won't stop them. But in the case of experienced/lean/older lifters, it could mean that it completely nullifies muscle gain which was a slow/weak process already.

I'm quite interested in the notion that big guys like rugby players or strongmen might have more total muscle mass than competing bodybuilders because they never have to do harsh diets which put the dampeners on their long term muscle gain momentum - and being fatter may even mean you just find it easier to reach a higher genetic muscular potential compared to if you try to be lean.

[desslok]

Is it possible? Yes.
Is it easier to “think” you are doing it due to not knowing your ACTUAL BMR and TDEE in conjunction with allowed discrepancies of actual calories vs labels etc? Yes.

[Tommy W.]

But there are plenty of guys coming to that forum who cut/bulk and spin their wheels for years. My point is just that maybe these would do better recomping slowly from their starting (fat) weight.

if they’re spinning their wheels concentrating on one thing they’ll spin harder trying to concentrate on 2 things.

[EliKoehn]

I'm quite interested in the notion that big guys like rugby players or strongmen might have more total muscle mass than competing bodybuilders because they never have to do harsh diets which put the dampeners on their long term muscle gain momentum - and being fatter may even mean you just find it easier to reach a higher genetic muscular potential compared to if you try to be lean.

Are you saying that this could possibly activate a higher genetic limit somehow?

If so, then wouldn't it stand to reason that people who dreamer bulk for years knocking on obesity's door while training very hard, and then cut down seriously, would end up with greater muscle mass than someone who consistently ran a small surplus over the same period of time? If so, then in a macroscopic sense, this would technically be a viable approach.

[MG5]

It's definitely possible. I didn't even know people still thought this was impossible. It's been proven over and over that it is possible. An overweight or skinny fat beginner can do so easily. But beyond that beginners stage, a recomp will happen very slowly. Better off committing to a surplus or deficit and going through phases of lean bulks and cutting.

Others like those on certain supplements and those who've lifted in the past, taken time off away from the gym and returned will also be able to recomp.

I think I've seen studies showing pretty advanced lifters doing it, but like I mentioned, it happens much slower. But for some people, they're fine with that really slow progress if it means almost always recomping, but staying leaner year round. Kinda where I'm at in my training. I'd be happy only gaining 0.5-1 pound of muscle a year for the next 10 years, then never gaining anything after that if it means staying pretty lean year round.

[Mrpb]

if they’re spinning their wheels concentrating on one thing they’ll spin harder trying to concentrate on 2 things.

Plenty of people who get better results without alternating bulking cutting cycles. This is also confirmed by Eric Helms.

I'm one of the people who does better by avoiding cutting.

[Tommy W.]

Plenty of people who get better results without alternating bulking cutting cycles. This is also confirmed by Eric Helms.

I'm one of the people who does better by avoiding cutting.

Plenty of people don’t

[EiFit91]

Are you saying that this could possibly activate a higher genetic limit somehow?

If so, then wouldn't it stand to reason that people who dreamer bulk for years knocking on obesity's door while training very hard, and then cut down seriously, would end up with greater muscle mass than someone who consistently ran a small surplus over the same period of time? If so, then in a macroscopic sense, this would technically be a viable approach.

Don’t...tempt me Frodo

[Tommy W.]

Are you saying that this could possibly activate a higher genetic limit somehow?

If so, then wouldn't it stand to reason that people who dreamer bulk for years knocking on obesity's door while training very hard, and then cut down seriously, would end up with greater muscle mass than someone who consistently ran a small surplus over the same period of time? If so, then in a macroscopic sense, this would technically be a viable approach.

then you’re spending years being fat.

[EiFit91]

Hmm, I have read from experienced lifters like Menno who say that they could not gain any new muscle without being in a surplus.

My own mental model of how it works is that recomping is indeed possible but being at maintenance or lower presents a friction to that process. In the case of chubby young guys without much lifting experience, that friction might not amount to much and won't stop them. But in the case of experienced/lean/older lifters, it could mean that it completely nullifies muscle gain which was a slow/weak process already.

I'm quite interested in the notion that big guys like rugby players or strongmen might have more total muscle mass than competing bodybuilders because they never have to do harsh diets which put the dampeners on their long term muscle gain momentum - and being fatter may even mean you just find it easier to reach a higher genetic muscular potential compared to if you try to be lean.

I agree those factors will work against a successful recomp - but in fairness they may make it more difficult to build muscle in general. I think about it as muscle building being optimal in a surplus, and then more difficult when you are in a deficit and when the deficit increases you move to just maintaining muscle and when it increases even further you lose muscle.

I do think many intermediate, overweight lifters can recomp relatively easily if they do it slowly and on a good diet and training program. And there may be a case for this if they tend to pile on fat during bulks - if they can more easily stick to a slow recomp they may be spending more time in relatively more favourable muscle building conditions.

However if bulking properly, I think bulk/cut wins the race for most people.

[Mrpb]

Plenty of people don’t

True. Some do, some don't.

[Tommy W.]

True. Some do, some don't.

The ones that do tend to have the knowledge, both diet and training, the genetics, the correct amount of fat and icing on the cake is if they had a good amount of muscle in the recent past.

The fewer of those factors, the less successful they’ll be

[EliKoehn]

then you’re spending years being fat.

True, but when we're talking lifetime physique goals, two or three years of high bodyfat to unlock more overall mass might be a desirable tradeoff to improve your maximum possible lean size down the road. If someone's thinking in terms of their whole life, and increasing their strength and lean size for the long haul, then being chubby for a short period of time probably won't matter very much. Granted, that depends on whether or not this actually holds true in the first place, and if so, to what extent.

I am starting to look pretty good leaning down right now and I don't think I would have achieved the same amount of mass and strength as quickly if I was only running a small surplus for the same period of time. And of course, properly losing fat is a much faster process than properly building muscle, so speeding up the latter at the expense of the former in the short run should be even less concerning.

[Mrpb]

The ones that do tend to have the knowledge, both diet and training, the genetics, the correct amount of fat and icing on the cake is if they had a good amount of muscle in the recent past.

The fewer of those factors, the less successful they’ll be

Actually the ones that do respond favourably to bulking and cutting need favourable genetics. If they have poor genetics for bulking they're better off with a 'gaintaining' approach.

[EiFit91]

Actually the ones that do respond favourably to bulking and cutting need favourable genetics. If they have poor genetics for bulking they're better off with a 'gaintaining' approach.

Is there any data that you know of where people are put on the same training program and diet protocol while bulking and they look at the muscle/fat ratio of the weight they gain and how it varies across individuals? Would be really interesting to see how much variation there is on this variable in a controlled setting (and how that distribution looks)!

[Tommy W.]

Actually the ones that do respond favourably to bulking and cutting need favourable genetics. If they have poor genetics for bulking they're better off with a 'gaintaining' approach.

regardless of the approach, genetics and T levels will always be a significant factor.

[Mrpb]

Is there any data that you know of where people are put on the same training program and diet protocol while bulking and they track the muscle/fat ratio of the weight they gain? Would be really interesting to see how much variation there is on this variable in a controlled setting (and how that distribution looks)!

I think that data does exist as there are many studies that have had people in surplus while lifting. I'm not sure if the individual data is available though and whether it's accurate enough.

Perhaps close to what you're saying is an upcoming Helms/Krieger study that has 3 groups of experienced lifters, one on maintenance, one on 250kcal and one on 500 kcal surplus and will compare the body comp effects. It's been heavily delayed because of COVID.

[Strawng]

Perhaps close to what you're saying is an upcoming Helms/Krieger study that has 3 groups of experienced lifters, one on maintenance, one on 250kcal and one on 500 kcal surplus and will compare the body comp effects. It's been heavily delayed because of COVID.

I keep wondering about that. I remember hearing about it damn near 3 years ago when it was actually being conducted and thinking the results would be coming soon.

[EiFit91]

I think that data does exist as there are many studies that have had people in surplus while lifting. I'm not sure if the individual data is available though and whether it's accurate enough.

Perhaps close to what you're saying is an upcoming Helms/Krieger study that has 3 groups of experienced lifters, one on maintenance, one on 250kcal and one on 500 kcal surplus and will compare the body comp effects. It's been heavily delayed because of COVID.

Is there any preprint or do you know if it is close to publication?

Will be extremely interesting to see the results of that one.

[Mrpb]

Is there any preprint or do you know if it is close to publication?

Will be extremely interesting to see the results of that one.

Data collection is still happening at the moment. Publication probably 2022.

[SSM12]

In my experience it is but it’s a slow process. I’m also not like super advanced. I just focus on progressive overload. I’ll also watch the scale more and if my lifts are going up. Even slowly. And my weight is going down and I’m looking leaner I know I’m gaining some muscle. Is it ideal or the best method? Probably not, but as a former fat kid im super insecure about bulking.

It also takes a lot of effort. You can’t go in and really half ass a week or so of lifts. I take a lot of notes on my lifts. I’ll even add more sets if I can’t up a lift one week and then usually I can add 2.5 to 5lbs and lower the sets to my standard amount the next week or so.

But if I miss a day or two training that individual muscle group, I stall. It’s slow. But possible. Nutrition wise I focus on as much protein as possible while in the deficit. Whether it helps, idk, but I don’t think it it hurts

It’s not easy at all IMO and you can feel drained quickly. I think I may start an actual slow bulk this winter instead.

[SuffolkPunch]

Are you saying that this could possibly activate a higher genetic limit somehow?

If so, then wouldn't it stand to reason that people who dreamer bulk for years knocking on obesity's door while training very hard, and then cut down seriously, would end up with greater muscle mass than someone who consistently ran a small surplus over the same period of time? If so, then in a macroscopic sense, this would technically be a viable approach.

Yeah, I almost regret posting that since it's a little too speculative. I couldn't really say if there is a difference and whether it was due to being able to reach a higher bar or simply because of more time spent in an anabolic state (getting to your individual high bar sooner). We need data!