Gaining muscle on a calorie deficient diet

>bench: 235
>push ups in 60 sec: 29

wuh

Dude 15% BF and described as "All participants were recreationally active (i.e.,
played noncompetitive sports or engaged in some form of
physical activity 1–2 times/wk); however, no participants were
regularly performing resistance exercise nor were they regularly
performing structured progressive aerobic or anaerobic training."

Basically these guys where ripe for noob gains have plenty of highly available fat stores.

A person who has taken training seriously for a year or more and is natty can only be effective at cutting, bulking or maintenance.

GAINING MUSCLE
WHILE LOSING FAT
HAS
ALWAYS
BEEN
POSSIBLE
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE YOU HAVE A WHOLE 16 HOURS TO GO IN AND OUT OF CATABOLIC AND ANABOLIC STATES OF COURSE YOU CAN DO BOTH OVER THE COURSE OF A 24 HOUR SPAN
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Studies that show one month results on untrained individuals are more or less useless when it comes to extrapolating long term sustainable progress expectations. If you read that study and thought "gee wiz, I'm going to add 2.6lbs of muscle every month, science says so!" then you should go ahead and get your pro card paperwork in order. You'll be the first Mr Olympia to walk on stage after 2-3 years of training, congrats.

The science applies to natties (people who actually work hard). Try again.

>noob gains

starting bench was 235.

This is where you link a study, any study, that says a natty can add 30lb's of lean muscle mass in a year. Or 90lbs of LMM in three years. Cus ya know, that happens all the time.

spoiler: virtually every long term study out there estimates a max of 1lb LMM/month of natty training, with small exceptions regarding untrained people during their first year of training. And then each year after about 4 years (or earlier) the rate drops significantly, gaining maybe a few lbs of LMM/year until you eventually platue hence the term "natural limit".

I've seen how bench numbers are often determined for this sort of study. It means very little unless you have the actual rules they were using to analyse how it compares to normal form (it's often extremely standardised, with the result that it looks nothing like what you'd expect).

This is kind of why I take issue with programs that put so much emphasis on strengthening of the legs and almost completely ignores the upper body or does very lower amounts of training for the upper body.

I'm natty and I've gained 25 lbs in about 6 months.. Being that my BF% is the same and my lifts have incrased ~66% I'd say that yea, a natty can gain 30 lbs in a year with hard work.

That pic is a few weeks old, I'm 180 lbs now.

So if I'm 204lbs, I'd say 170 lean, how much protein should I take in according to their math on a cut?

you just got a weak upper body i can rep 225 on the bench but cant squat 185

Because you are a fucking untrained newb who did fuck all before he started lifting.

You got what are called NEWB GAINS.
You will never in your life see gains like that ever again.

How is this contradictory to my point? I already gained almost 30 lbs so it's possible :) Also I worked manual labor hauling carpet/debris before this.

You do realise that, of that 25lbs, maybe 10lbs of that is actual muscle, right? The rest is bloat and fat.

You don't seem to get it.
You are a new lifter.
No one ever said you were not active.

That has nothing to do with putting on the kind of muscle we are talking about.

You are a new lifter and you will see the majority of your gains within the first 1-2 years of lifting. Period.
You've already gotten almost 30 pounds of muscle right?
Okay, you are not going to see massive gains of muscle like that ever again. You are going to have to work for extra muscle mass from now on.
Period.
That's how it is.

>29 push ups, with correct form, in 60 seconds. explain how that one is just a loophole?

Did you really look at the starting numbers and think these were untrained? There's no way an untrained, overweight person is doing those kind of body weight exercises

Unless you know what they're defining as correct form, it's not saying much of anything. 'correct form' in a lab setting is generally more about removing variables than it is about approximating real-world form.

Also, I'm extremely suspicious of any setup that has people doing 3x10@80% with low rest and expects them to still have reps in the tank on the last set.

I imagine most participants did not complete full sets. Obviously I was not there, but I suspect a better way of wording it might have been 3 sets of up to, but not exceeding, 10 reps per set.

Good job making it past the abstract though.

Considering they explicitly called out the last set as being to volitional failure, I'm not sure that's what they meant.

There's an email for correspondence under the author notes. Maybe we should ask?

Might be an idea.

I'm just prone to assuming the worst on this sort of stuff because you see so many studies with rep/set/rest setups that seem to defy both personal experience and the few studies I know of specifically dealing with relationships between the three. I've got my ideas on why that's the case but nothing I'd say rises to the level of an actual hypothesis.