So if you eat at a deficit, you lose weight, eat more gain it. What happens when you eat exactly at maintenance but lift hard and do lots of cardio? Does that make you more "toned" or does your body just stay the same?
>>35388673
bump
someone answer this please
Sounds like the cleanest possible bulk, muscle will probably show up but not very quickly. I'm not sure if it's worth it unless you're only trying to maintain what you already have.
>>35388707
lose weight. because you burn calories and eat on maintenance, which means that you burn more than you eat. unless you work out and cover that energy loss from exercise with food. then probably some CNS adaption and fat to muscle conversion
>>35388673
If you're an absolute beginner (< 3 months) you will gain a bit of muscle. After that you may get stronger, but you won't gain any muscle.
Exceptions include the wildly obese who will probably slowly recomp down to just a little obese and then refer to above.
>>35388717
eating at maintanence implies you adjust your intake if you're exercising more.
so it would be that you essentially lose bf then??
>>35388737
Probably. Very slowly, though. Even a 100 kcal surplus a day will net you a lot larger gains than pure maintenance with minimal fat gains.
>>35388714
No.
>>35388717
NYR
>>35388673
It's called a recomp. Will probably result in nothing happening; at best, your lifts might increase due to bettering your form or strengthening your joints. If
you want to gain muscle mass, you normally need to be at a surplus. In addition to using protein, your body also needs excess energy to fuel the muscle
building process. Shit isn't magic; building mass requires energy in the same way breaking down food uses energy. A better variation of this is mini bulk
cycles and mini cuts or small bulks on workout days and small cuts on rest days; progress will be a lot slower than a standard bulk/cut though because
your body is spending less time in an anabolic state before shifting to catabolic.
>>35388732
>you may get stronger, but you won't gain any muscle
>>35388673
its calld maintenaince for a reason you dumb fuck
if you actually completely account for every calorie you burn and its a zero sum game you MAINTAIN
ofc its not possible for a normal human being to do it 100% accurate because we arent robot and dont have the means to track it on a day by day basis down to the last calorie
or are you that dense and ask
maintenance X + exercise Y
which is completely wrong because then you are on a deficit again and its technically a cut
maintenance accounts for all your activities
get a brain moron
>>35389091
Size doesn't always correlate with strength. Look at those small powerlifters who weigh around 170 and can deadlift over 600 lbs while there are 210 lb guys at your gym that can't even get 5 plates.
>>35389145
it sorta does though. bigger muscles yield greater leverage onto their target points of attachments. size always correlates with strength, ceteris paribus.
>>35388673
best case your body is incredible at burning bodyfat as an energy source, and you are eating at maintenance, but bulking at however much your body can extract from bodyfat.
worst case it's not good at liberating energy from bodyfat (or you don't have much bodyfat from whence to liberate), and instead you barely have energy to get through your workouts and you suffer from DOMS all the time.
The point of this thread was, if you eat very healthily at maintenance and work out super hard, would you body just look the same over time or would aesthetics improve?
>>35390069
>>35388673
Fuck's sake.
HYPOTHETICAL NUMBERS:
>maintenance is 2000cal
>you eat 2000cal
>gym takes 300cal
2000 - 300 = 1700.
So you will LOSE weight if you eat at maintenance and do lifting and cardio.
>>35390069
yes, you'll lose fat and get muscle over time while staying at the same weight
>>35390110
That's not eating at maintenance then, is it? That's a 300 calorie deficit.
>>35388673
demon?
>>35390069
>>35390110
No, I'm talking maintenance taking into consideration all exercise you're doing. So if you burn 300 cal at gym, you eat 300 cal.
You're eating at 100% maintenance.
>>35390431
yes you gain muscle
>>35390110
bait/10
>>35388673
Depends on what you mean by maintenance. Assuming you mean actual maintenance (eat exactly as many calories as your body burns, every day), you will still get stronger/faster/better at whatever you are trying to do, but it will be very slow. Your muscles will get bigger, and you will be less fat, but again, it will be very slow.
I could be wrong, but this is what I understand.
>>35390110
>you will LOSE weight if you eat at maintenance
this level of dumbness...jesus fuck
You fucking retards. He is asking what happens to a body when it has no net deficit or surplus of calories while including good exercise. To answer your question, I believe your cardiovascular performance increases and your muscles gain efficiency, meaning you might gain more definition and convert some fat to muscle but at the least will slowly become fitter and stronger.
>>35388673
Doing this for 3 months. Eat at 2500 and weight dies not change. Lifts either though. 6'2 175. Even now past month i eat over 2700 cals and weight still the same. Workout 4 times. Eat mostly healthy. Count calories religiously. Aiming for lean gains obvs.
>>35391134
P.s
In theory my maintenance is 2300 but in practice it is way above 2600 otherwise i would have gained at least 5 pounds. These calculators suck dicks really do not trust them too much.
I thought that if you eat at maintenance you will still gain muscle and lose fat at the same time but at a very very slow rate
>>35388673
It depends on a lot of factors. If your lean mass isn't at its top, you'll gain muscle weight and lose fat weight. If you are in your lean mass top you'll stay the same.
