>you can build muscle on a calorie deficit

You can build neurological strength gains on a calorie deficit.

>>41976009
>what are steroids

>>41976009

If you have a lot of excess fat then yes you can. If your body fat is already low then it becomes practicaally impossible

>>41976009
>what are noob gains

>>41976049
?
Steroids wont make you mucle on calorie deficit

>>41976069
Yea, that's exactly what will happen you dope.

>what is /fit/

>>41976054
Yes. You wont gain mass but you can translate fat to muscle in a crazy slow manner

Your not gonna build muscle at 10% dropping to 6%

Your also not build while eating 1500 cals.

But if you eat 3000 cals and burn 1000 through cardio there is no reason you cannot build muscle.

Of course, cardio is haaaarrrrddd, so people sya you can't build muscle while losing weight

>>41976091

Well obviously you wont gain weight in total but thats not what op said. He said you cant build muscle on a caloric deficit but thats not always true

>>41976076
>>41976049
Steroids aren't magical fairy dust that converts fat to protein based aminos you nigger fuck.

>>41976110
Doing that much cardio causes hormonal adaptation in your body that prevents muscle growth.
You cannot lose fat and build muscle at the same time.

>>41976110
>burn 1000 through cardio

You have to run like 10 miles a day for that.

>>41976180
Ahahahahha

Keep telling yourself that fatty

>>41976282

"Cardio is haaaarrrrddd"

>>41976009
that's true if you're a beginner or have a high fatpercentage

>>41976166
yes they pretty much are. They did an experiment on that. People lost bf and gained muscle while on steroids and they DIDNT EVEN WORK OUT.

>>41976583
>1 study
>size increases greater in only some body parts
>did not lose fat
>no controls for diet or work
Great study
>>41976507
>he doesn't know what anabolic vs catabolic means

>>41976009
sup yall its me its ya boy asmongold

even if OP's statement is true, it's not worth the time or effort to see what little results you would get (if any)

this I think we can agree on...

This is all I've been reading about lately.

I'm trying to figure out how to go from 25% to 13% while also increasing strength on my lifts.
Everyone says I need to eat at a 500 calorie deficit in order to drop body fat percentage but I feel like this is too large of a percentage and will leave me super weak.

>>41976009
>implying you cant
>implying you dont lose fat faster than you gain muscle
You can gain 2 lbs of muscle a month natty and lose 4 lbs of fat a month. Its a net loss of energy.

>>41977458
Yeah but how much do you eat?

>>41976076
Matter can't be created from nothing. Steroids aren't good and can't literally be used to make muscle.

>>41976009

Of course you can

>he's natty

oh wow, what are you? the LFR raider version of a bodybuilder?

>>41977859
This can be done by cutting 400cals below maintenance. A pound of fat is ~3500 cals and a pound of muscle is ~1700 cals.

>>41977888
Well yeah, it doesn't increase your mass, but it does allow you to cut at a large deficit and maintain basically all of your muscle mass.

Piano can basically slice his calories in half and not lose his strength.

>>41977458
>gain 2 lbs a month natty
>people actually believe this
Maybe if you're a beginner with great programming. You're lucky to gain 20lbs of pure muscle a year on roids after 2-3 years of lifting.

>>41976035
Is no one gonna say anything about this being 100% accurate?

Also that's the entire basis of most strength training programs. Neurological adaptation versus good ol muscular hypertrophy.

>>41977989
Thats what youre supposed to gain as a beginner, yes.

>>41977956
Thanks. 400 makes more sense than people going more than 500.

>>41977975
let the nattycucks chase their pathetic gains. when a natty asks about steroids lie and say they dont do shit, keep it for ourselves

>>41976054
That's not how muscles work. Muscle synthesis requires excess caloric intake. Having large fat stores doesnt matter.

>>41978460
you mean protein sythesis?

>>41976009
You probably actually can under certain circumstances, including being severely undertrained, good hormones (or steroids), good diet + tiny calorie deficit and great training.

>>41978460

>doesn't know what a recomp is

not gonna make it

>>41978460
Nigga you're retarded, go do some googling before you pull this shit

>>41977381
I did 18% to 15% in the last several weeks and my meager gains largely were maintained but I didn't gain more. Still felt pretty good. But I'm a noob.

So it's near impossible to build muscle on a calories deficits but is it still possible to get stronger on a deficit by lifting heavy and getting your CNS use to heavy weights

>>41976515
Literally not good for your heart. Don't call it cardio, call it calorie expenditure, cuz that's all it's good for.

>>41978578
Pretty much what I want to do.

Just curious, what did you cut your calories to, and did any of your lifts improve at all?

I finally started improving my bench and seeing chest gains, and don't really want to start, but there's so much fat over everything

So what the fuck is the point of lifting on a cut then if I'm making 0 gains

never thought i'd see asmongolds face on /fit/

>>41978706
To make sure you don't lose muscle mass/strength. And to burn calories. Are you retarded?

>>41978620
Yes

>>41976166
>>41977888
They actually can, you can eat at maintenance or even below on tren and burn fat and gain muscle. Tren will bind to androgen receptors on fat and literally burn it off.

>>41978706
Preserve muscle mass.

Actually, you can.

t. ex fatty who gained muscles while in caloric deficit and while losing weight

Quite easy, really. Just make sure your protein intake is high while your calories are below TDEE.
Having excess fat helps with that.

It's literally how the body works.

>>41978857
That's not even close to fucking true. First of all, tren is only speculated to cause lipolysis as a SECONDARY property. It only accelerates mobilization of fatty acids. Tren's qualities for cutting are for muscle sparing and strength maintenance. You'd have to be running 700+ to see any lipolytic effect. Have fun dealing with those sides.
Plus who the fuck wants to waste a blast cutting? It's far easier to cut on a trt cruise with dnp and use the blast to make real gains.

>>41978938
Yeah. I've been having similar results.
>losing 8 pounds a month
>developing muscle
>never done any weight training before now or had any muscle.

>>41978059
most strength training programs are absolutely not "neurological adaptation vs. muscular hypertrophy"

a big muscle is a strong muscle, you need enough volume to gain size and then enough specificity, frequency, and work in 80-90%+ ranges to develop neurological adaptations

your body is literally building and breaking down muscle all the time, deficit or surplus

you can absolutely build muscle on a deficit assuming you get the protein, especially if you're using steroids

you wont gain mass, however

>>41980064

This. Can't understand how this is so hard to grasp. Try to explain it and they yell PHYSICS.

>>41980064
>>41980093
You're not building muscle, you're repairing damage from working out. There's a difference.

>>41980064
im sorry but what is ''mass''?

HOW ARE YOU ALL THIS FUCKING DUMB

But you can lose weight and build muscle.

>>41980138

You're fucking dense. Or actually a troll since I've seen several threads like this this week.

>>41978460
>excess caloric intake
the way I understand it is that a small deficit can be compensated for by the energy your lard provides

>>41976009
>>41976054

This. Also don't underestimate how untrained an average person is, for the first 3-4 months such a person can build muscle from everything.

>>41979216
What most people mistake for "big muscle" is actually inflammation and body fat over above average muscle.

File: 1497561755488.jpg (25KB, 253x420px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 253x420px

>you can enter an anabolic state which requires a calorie surplus and high protein intake by eating at a calorie deficit and lifting heavy weights to put you in a further catabolic state

>>41980164
Lol I love how this kind of comment never actually points out what people are doing wrong.

>>41976009
obese people can

>>41980508
Correct. Your body uses your fat reserves for energy when it's at a caloric deficit.

>>41980159
Mass and weight are used interchangeably even though they're not technically the same thing.

weight = mass * gravity
mass = weight / gravity

File: 1497813318405.jpg (14KB, 458x372px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 458x372px

Listen here, you skinny faggots. I've been on a cut since May 1st. I've lost 8lbs of fat and I'm at about a 9 - 10% bf. My lifts have only gone up. I've added 5kg to my bench and squat in that time. The most important thing is to eat 2 hours before your workout. I've found that Mesmorph PWO really helps during a cut too.

File: 1409583532830.png (764KB, 597x598px) Image search: [Google]

764KB, 597x598px

>>41976009
>You can't build muscle on a calorie deficit

File: 1466638004903.jpg (45KB, 500x737px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x737px

>>41981205
>I've added 5kg to my bench and squat in that time.
Thats good bateman

I've definitely built muscle on an exteme deficit.

Idk if it's optimal, but it's definitely possible to build muscle at any calorie intake as long as you are not extremely thin

>>41981640
It's not optimal, but can be done.
The problem is more nutritional.
If you're eating the right macros you'll build muscle, flat out and lose weight. Eventually at a certain body fat percentage it will plateau though since your body no longer has the internal energy source and will begin to use protein and fat (through the conversion process) to make glucose.
If you're already fat though, yes, yes you can gain muscle.

However odds are on a cut where you're trying to build muscle you won't be hitting all of the minerals, vitamins, and other things you need to build muscle and maintain proper health.

>>41976282
>vigorous stair-climbing for 10-13 minutes
>supposedly burn 250-300 cal depending on the level
>repeat 4 times
>hard

>>41976009
If you're fat enough you can.

so the lesson here is "0 calories in is not the same as 1000 calories in and 1000 calories out"

>Can I build a brick wall with no bricks

>>41982002
>>41981671
so if i have 30kg to lose i can cut by 1-1.5k cal and still put on muscle ?

File: smug-wojak-women-s-t-shirt.jpg (19KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x300px

>>41976009
>eat at caloric deficit
>hit above protein goals and make the rest high fat
>do intermittent fasting at same time
literally building muscle while on a caloric deficit right now

get fucked

>>41982134
Your fat is bricks. The calorie deficit? Guess what it does. It just uses the stored energy in your fat to make up the energy deficit you need to build muscle.

You cannot build muscle and lose fat at the same time unless you are in the absolute novice phase of training or introducing steroids into your system.
Your body is designed to survive in the wild where food is not a certain resource that can always be found. In times of famine if your body was burning your long term energy supplies (fat) to survive but also building muscle tissue that actively uses more energy it would be pretty poorly adapted.
Building muscle takes energy, your body is not going to source this energy from your fat stores, that would be the worst adaptation to the environment it evolved in possible.

>>41982876
This is so wrong it's unreal. Your body has evolved to survive, not to build muscle. It's not going to waste carefully gathered fat reserves to build muscle when it thinks it's experiencing a time of famine.

If only there was a way to answer this question in a controlled environment where you can be pretty sure the results are true. Oh wait, there is. It's called a fucking experiment and there have been done a number of them on this exact fucking topic. So instead of spouting your broscience you could try googling about this shit for 2 minutes and find something like this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10838463

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8379514

And yes, you can grow muscle while on a caloric deficit if you eat enough protein and lift.

>>41982746
Yes.

Probably not enough to notice visually but your lifts can increase.

>>41976009
>>41982905

>>41976917
t. angry roider

>>41982989
Both those studies were on overweight individuals which would imply they would be undergoing weight training as novices. Their relevance to the effects of weight training on a deficit for a trained individual is probably none.

>>41982989
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10838463

the subjects were obese anon

>>41982944
>It's not going to waste carefully gathered fat reserves to build muscle when it thinks it's experiencing a time of famine.
It will if you are using those muscles and have enough energy to physically produce muscle

>>41983039
>>41983042
I didn't say it is possible to gain muscle when on a caloric deficit as an intermediate or advanced lifter. I just wanted to show it is actually physically possible to gain muscle while cutting. There's a shitload of retards in this thread claiming it is impossible in principle.

>>41983049
Your body has evolved to survive in an environment where it has to hunt for food, i.e. it is not in constant supply and could be days between meals.
If you're driving a car that's low on fuel and you're unsure when you'll next reach somewhere to fill up do you think it would be a good idea to use up some of the petrol in your tank to build a bigger engine that will burn fuel faster?
Your body doesn't see a calorific deficit as a tool to cut down on fat, it sees it as food not being available. It's not going to build energetically expensive muscle tissue with the fat that could be keeping you alive through a winter.

>>41983103
My bad, I'm in agreement it's totally possible as a novice.

>>41983177
Youre not starving to death, youre on a slight caloric deficit with plenty of fat stores. Your body is not going to shut down your ability to create muscle because you ate slightly less than you usually do.

>>41983237
So you're saying that your body will experience a calorific deficit and start breaking down fat stores in addition to those it needs to survive just to build muscle? Muscle, which if food continues to be at the same availability, that will push you further and further into deficit? You really think that's what your body has adapted to do?
If the biology wasn't enough consider the physics, you are taking energy out of a system, but you still expect the body to put on mass?

>>41976110
>cardio

You do realize excessive cardio damages heart muscle and running more than 10km a day is correlated with a higher risk of sudden heart failure?

Our paleolithic ancestors did not do cardio. Cardio for them was walking. WALKING. and stalking. Their advantage wasn't in how fast they ran. Their advantage was that bipedal motion uses gravity to make it far more efficient than four legged prey.

You damage prey and you stalk it until it runs out of energy.

There are people who can do cardio indefinitely. But at they trade the ability of muscle growth for unlimited endurance.

>>41983331
>It's not going to build energetically expensive muscle tissue with the fat that could be keeping you alive through a winter.

Because muscle growth is signaled by cytokines and the byproducts of muscle damage.

If you "feel the pain", the body will put on muscle because the response doesn't correlate with a simple thermodynamic map. If there's muscle damage, there will be muscle growth.

>>41983354
Repairing muscle is different to actually building more. You are able to repair muscle fibers without adding additional mass.

>>41983331
>So you're saying that your body will experience a calorific deficit and start breaking down fat stores in addition to those it needs to survive just to build muscle? Muscle, which if food continues to be at the same availability, that will push you further and further into deficit?
Yes, if you stimulate muscle growth through exercise.

>If the biology wasn't enough consider the physics, you are taking energy out of a system, but you still expect the body to put on mass?
Read the thread. Its a net loss of mass if youre cutting 1lb of fat and gaining .5 lb of muscle per week.

>>41983369

But the repairing process usually involves muscles getting a bit more thicker.

Exception is people who don't experience muscle damage but they also don't experience muscle growth.

>>41983004
don't bother, everyone here will prefer sperging for hours on end

/fit/ please help.

I am a tall skelly female and I want to get the thicc Instagram model look (ik it's largely unattainable but I think I can get close without plastic surgery). But the thing is, I'm afraid of how much weight I have to gain. I'm also afraid of eating more than like 1600 cals a day.

How do I overcome this? Should I just do it during winter and stay skelly now so I don't look like a fat piece of shit during the summer months? (I live in a beach town)

>5'10"
>133lb
>waist is 26.5"
>hip 34.5"

>>41983416
>I am a tall skelly female
>I'm also afraid of eating more than like 1600 cals a day.
Seek mental help and fuck off.

>>41976166
No, but you will burn fat for energy and convert any protein you eat to muscle. It is entirely possible to lose fat and gain muscle on a caloric deficit with steroids.

>>41983424
I lead a (mostly) sedentary lifestyle. My TDEE is around that if not a little more at most. Fuck off.

>>41978460
It does not require it, eating a caloric excess just makes it much easier. It's only necessary if you are reaching your gentic maximum.

>>41978706
It mostly with preserve your gains

>>41983376
>Yes, if you stimulate muscle growth through exercise.

I'm giving you actual biological explanations as to why this isn't possible or at least why it would be a terribly stupid thing for your body to have evolved to do. You've come back at me with literally nothing that gives any counter arguments to what I've said.

>usually involves muscles getting a bit more thicker.
A recent study (I'll try and find it if you insist) showed that in the first ten weeks of a new exercise regime there was almost no muscle hypertrophy in response to exercise. I.e. your muscles get so damaged most, if not all, of your protein synthesis goes simply to repair rather than adding more. This was under the conditions of a calorie excess.
So at maintenance or at a deficit it's not too hard to imagine you can repair muscle without adding more to it.
Also consider combat athletes, they have to remain within strict weight classes yet through training will constantly cause extreme stress and damage to their muscles. Do they continuously gain more muscle and therefore weight? Do they have to dehydrate further each fight to account for the extra muscle? Do they just lose fat to build the extra muscle even though their bodyfat levels are probably 'unnaturally' low already?

>>41983384
Sorry forgot to reply direct to post, see: >>41983478

>>41978460
Stored fat is basically excess calories your body has stored for later use. If we couldn't store excess calories for later, the human race would be died long ago

File: 212343245.jpg (164KB, 1930x1258px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1930x1258px

>>41976009
noobs definitely can

>>41978660
>needing to justify being lazy andnot doing cardio this bad
Enjoy your heart attack at 35.

>>41983458
>1600 kcal/day
>tall skelly female
>b-but I live a sedentary lifestyle!
>oh btw I want to get thicc

You're an idiot and your opinions are shit. Seek mental help and don't bother to reply to me ever again.

>>41983488
Your body is storing this fat for times of famine, it's not going to burn them off just to add a bit of mass to your biceps

>>41982944
500 cal deficit is far from a famine. You'd have to be eating only like 500 cal for your body to go into panic famine mode. Trust me, I personally dealt with it

>>41983533
Yeah there's a whole other level to it when you really are starving but even a calorie deficit of 500kcal is going to make your body save on some things, adding muscle mass being one of them.

>>41983335
I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is and walk across countries on foot. Bitch you're grasping at straws to make yourself feel better about being a lazy out of shape fuck. No cardio = not for.

what about a skinnyfat? I'm 20 lbs underweight but probably like 18+% bodyfat. As a noob, can I just eat around maintenance while lowering my bodyfat and gaining strength, albeit slowly?

>>41983416
Wow you have no ass. Just go ride a bike for 20- 30 miles at a time to build up your lower body. You really don't need to gain weight, but at 5'10 healthy weight range goes up to like 155lbs so unless you have bird bones or are all fat, you have room to grow

>>41983458
Then why are you on fit?

>>41982944
It will. I've done it. Get fucked.

>>41983478
Your body does not operate on what you personally think makes sense. You seem to be under the impression that a body that is starving to death behaves the same as one on a small caloric deficit, which is patently wrong.

>>41983645
Wonderful response, really great stuff.

>>41983682
The body operates on what makes sense in an evolutionary context, something I've studied quite a bit.
I'm not under that impression at all, I can differentiate between the long lasting effects that have been passed through generations in places like Holland which suffered extreme starvation in WW2 and the effects of a calorie deficit.
While you don't go into nearly the same set of physical conditions as you would in actual starvation at a deficit you're not going to build muscle. With the environment we evolved in creating energetically expensive muscle tissue even while eating at maintenance would be just a horrible adaptation.

>>41983768
>While you don't go into nearly the same set of physical conditions as you would in actual starvation at a deficit you're not going to build muscle.
You keep repeating it but youve yet to post any actual evidence of it.

>>41983039
I know I've read at least one case study where an already trained individual was able to increase muscle mass on a calorie deficit, given proper protein intake.

Regardless, the probability that it's much harder to build muscle on a calorie deficit when you don't have as much fat to pull from as an overweight person does does not change the fact that they're still building muscle on a calorie deficit.

>>41983811
Even worse, he already acknowledged evidence to the contrary in >>41983177 .

>>41983811
Well Google Scholar isn't coming up with a great deal but that's hardly surprising. Studies that focus on pretty well known biological principles generally struggle to find funding.
A couple have been posted in the thread but those only focus on untrained individuals in which muscle gain and fat loss are simultaneously possible.

>>41983835
If you have a case study then please feel free to share.

>>41983872
I'd never dispute it's possible for a novice.
A trained individual cannot build muscle while on a calorie deficit. It doesn't make sense from a biological or physics standpoint.
Why do you think so many skinny kids in the gym don't make it? They're doing pretty standard routines, picking up heavy things and putting them down, going fairly consistently. They're not eating enough, your body isn't going to cannibalise energy stores designed for survival to produce metabolically demanding muscle tissue. At no point has anyone brought forward and reasoning as to why that would be a good adaptation for us to have. Probably because it wouldn't be.
I trained for 2 years with the classic 'I'm a hardgainer' and 'my metabolism is too fast' excuses while making no gains. Spoiler, I wasn't eating enough.
There's a reason why nutrition is cited as the most important factor in determining muscle growth, your body won't just build a load of mass unless you're eating enough.

>>41983606
I was big on exercise and sports until it was discovered I had a heart condition. I browse this board out of habit.

>>41983768
not to throw us down a slippery slope, but you could use that same logic to say 'you can't build new memories on a deficit' or 'your IQ gets lower on a deficit' because just maintinence of your neural tissue is BY FAR the more energy intensive than building muscle - so why don't we start canibalizing less used dendritic connections the moment we are on a deficit?

because it is so masively advantageous to have neural tissue that it is among the last things to get canibalized.

similarly, having muscle mass is so massively advantageous that it is vastly metabolically preferred to use stored fat before burning muscle for energy. If you want to play the evolutionary biology game, an equal case could be made for the benefit of maintaining muscle when food is scarce, because both hunting and gathering, but especially hunting, has a much greater chance of being successful if you have more lean mass.

so if your bodyfat % is high enough, absolutely you can build lean mass on a MODERATE deficit - if regular muscle stimulation is occuring your body alocates resources both internal (stored fat) and external (what you eat) to support that.

at the point where someone has a lower bodyfat % and relatively large amount of muscle mass, say a medium bf% intermediate lifter, no you are not going to build muscle on a deficit. As a beginner at all or even intermediate with higher (>20%) bf? Absolutely you could gain some muscle on a deficit.

tl;dr don't make generalizations and try to defend them like they are absolute fact - there are situations where you can gain muscle on a deficit

>>41984174
Well you're slightly comparing apples and oranges with the brain to muscle comparison but I get your point.
The analogy I used earlier was that of someone driving a car, unsure of when they would next see a petrol station. Obviously you don't want to go straight to saving fuel by dismantling your engine to make it smaller or less powerful which would consume less fuel. However, you're also not going to convert fuel into making your engine bigger because you'll burn through it faster.
Another way to look at it would be life savings. When you're income is far greater than your outgoings you're going to put more into your savings. The lower your income/higher your outgoings the less goes into your savings. When your income is lower than the amount you spend you're going to stop putting money into your savings.
If you put more specific figures to your bodyfat percentages then I'd be more willing to engage in the discussion of intermediates gaining muscle on a deficit but even then it goes against fairly key principles in fitness, biology and physics.
The burden of proof is really on your side of the argument as you're going against fairly key principles and conventional wisdom in multiple fields. I've had a quick search for studies on Google Scholar and pretty much nothing has come up for either side.

>>41976009
you can bulk and cut at the same time with keto

File: 1491675080985.png (81KB, 578x488px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 578x488px

>>41984480

>>41983560
>I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is and walk across countries on foot.

You can. Do you think caveman are fucking fred flintsone?

We were able to migrate so far, partially, because humans use bipedal motion crutching on gravity.

Humans didn't run and plank and burpee across continents. They walked.

I did my dude.
Went from 125kg to 100kg ( i'm 192cm) while successfully increase my gains, but from100kg to below i cant seem to cut and increase strength.
Protein intake + sleep plays a bigger role than cut or maintenance.

>>41984399
You do realize that the body stores glycogen predominately in the muscles, right? Why would the body ever prioritize keeping the secondary tank topped off over filling the primary tank?

And your body doesn't decide to take energy directly from the fat to use it to grow muscles. Muscle growth is a direct result of repairing damaged muscle fibres with protein. Repairing damaged parts of your body is fairly high up on the priority list. Your body isn't going to consult the probability of you taking in enough energy to maintain fat storage before it decides to do it. It's just going to do it and increase your energy consumption.

And because you're at a deficit, when your body eventually realizes it doesn't have enough energy left to top off your muscles with glycogen it's going to go to the next easiest storage, which is your fat, and turn it into glycogen.

>>41981122
What the fuck does first year physics have to do with this discussion lmao

Technically you could say you gain a couple newtons of muscle a week as a beginner

>>41984852
the guy was asking what mass was.

>>41980411
I started working out in Auchwitz mode, the noob gains were fantastic

>>41984810
I've already discussed the fact repair and hypertrophy are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to do one without the other.

>>41984810

>Turning fat into glycogen

Your body consumes food, fat, glycogen, then muscle. The rate at which fat can burn is somewhat limited resulting in glycogen loss during intense bouts of energy exertion and muscle during glycogen depleted states. By maintaining a deficit lower than maximal fat store capabilities, you can indeed gain muscle on a cut.

-Various compiled studies on gaining muscle at maintenance calories:
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/gain-muscle-and-lose-fat-at-the-same-time/

-New lifters gaining muscle on a cut:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160127132741.htm

-Trained athletes gaining muscle on a cut:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=170326581

>tfw started lifting as skinnyfat
>tfw cutting is making my arms bigger and waist smaller
>tfw taking creatine during cutting

>>41984929
First off, I've never claimed they were mutually exclusive. Second, your statement is incorrect: While you can have repair without hypertrophy, you cannot have (long term) hypertrophy without repair.

>>41984947
>Your body consumes food, fat, glycogen, then muscle.
Eh, if we want to get technical, it uses all sources in tandem to create energy. I guess I shouldn't have worded it as I did. The point I was trying to make with that part was that your body is at a deficit, so it's not going to forgo energy to your muscles to recreate fat.

>>41984947
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571
Ahah! There we go, that was the study I couldn't find that I mentioned in >>41983835 . I could have sworn I found it through the harshfit wiki references, but I guess not.

Body eats stored energy. Still gets enough protons to fix and improve itself even tho at a deficit.

It's retarded that we still have to explain this. I am beginning to assume it's murican education or something.