What happens if...

[Hercules]

Hypothetically, what would happen if you maintained exactly 2000 calories to the dot, all macros/micros remained adequate and just got into lifting. ( you had never lifted a weigth before).

 

Would you gain weight on the scale and why/ why not?

Would you gain muscle and why/ why not?

Would you lose body fat and why/ why not?

 

 

[FellowshipOfTheRon]

body recomposition

[Phedder]

It all depends on what your maintenance calorie intake is. If 2000 is below your maintenance, you'll lose scale weight, but still likely gain a little muscle and drop some fat. If it's above your maintenance, you'll gain scale weight, likely most of it being muscle. If it's around your maintenance level, you'll maintain a similar scale weight and slowly drop bodyfat and gain muscle. Complete newbies can generally do pretty much anything diet wise and have favourable muscle gain and fat loss, but that changes quite quickly. 

What's the point in this question? There's nothing magical about 2000 calories, just because it's the recommended daily intake on the back of packaging doesn't mean it's specifically right for you. A lot of other factors come into play. Height, weight, muscle mass, activity level, metabolism, goals etc. 

[Hercules]

Sorry I forgot to add this 'person' has/had a maintance of 2000 calories and this is remaining the same as they start lifting.

 

The point of the question is, I have two photos when I started training. One that I think is earlier in which I look fatter then the second picture which is more recent and I look less fat.

I was just wondering since I didnt count calories back then and didn't make an attempt to over eat, if it is possible that the photo I look fatter in is in fact earlier then the photo I look less fat  in, even if I ate the same amount of calories during the time duration of the two photos.

[Realtalk]

Dude just go to the gym And eat breakfast, lunch and dinner ffs!

[Leeroid]

Wtf is the point of this thread

[FellowshipOfTheRon]

 

Sorry I forgot to add this 'person' has/had a maintance of 2000 calories and this is remaining the same as they start lifting.

 

The point of the question is, I have two photos when I started training. One that I think is earlier in which I look fatter then the second picture which is more recent and I look less fat.

I was just wondering since I didnt count calories back then and didn't make an attempt to over eat, if it is possible that the photo I look fatter in is in fact earlier then the photo I look less fat  in, even if I ate the same amount of calories during the time duration of the two photos.

what is this, a hypothetical situation or real (post pics then or check the timestamps on them yourself..) or are you trying to make a christmas bulking riddle or something m8?

[Pseudonym]

I was just wondering ... if it is possible that the photo I look fatter in is in fact earlier then the photo I look less fat  in.

Yes, it is possible.

Diet stays the same, you start exercising, you lose fat and gain muscle. Usually, that's exactly the desired effect.

[AZIDE]

you would lose fat and gain muscle, but also lose weight overall because your energy expenditure has been increased while food intake has not.

[jimmybro1]

You would probably lose weight (bodyfat) because of increased calorific needs, I don't think you would build muscle muscle as it requires surplus energy/calories to built muscle tissue. 

I don't really see the point in this question though.... its pretty simple, eat big get big, eat less lose weight.... 

[Dinahlady]

If it was a guy I would guess they would lose weight/body fat over a period of months because that 2000 cals is a generally low amount for an active male of any size/shape/stature/metabolic rate especially if they are lifting well/heavy with a decent progressive program. If they were a beginner I would say they would gain some muscle - but I dont think most people would be making all kindza gains natty on 2k cals. It depends as well if this person started as an obese 100kg + person or as a skinny 65kg late teenager.. the overweight person would be more likely to see weight or body fat loss and the skinny person might see body recomposition and/or a small amount of weight gain from muscle gains and exercise. But on that amount I dont see many males at all gaining kgs and kgs of notable and continual muscle. 

For women its a fairly decent amount of food and they would probably have more of a body recomposition and possibly not lose a dramatic amount of weight if they were weight training - maybe a couple of kgs in a few months - although if they were very overweight they might see more weight loss - but it probably be more of an appearance change - body fat loss and muscle gain ("shaping").

It does also depend on the individual but talking generally in averages (excluding those who might be hugely muscular or have insane metabolism or the other end of the spectrum) individual metabolic rates and factors such as height dont actually vary your caloric requirements HUGELY and you can make some assumptions. 

Source: my own experience with clients. 

[teamfatboy]

Hmmm - coming in late to this one, a question came to mind:

Assumption:. for this example the guy's on 2000 maintenance calories and we assume it's a pretty standard set of macros CHO/PRO/Fat... by adding in exercise (additional to whatever he was doing before) he's created a calorie deficit of unknown proportions. 

We don't know  what the exercise regime is.  Is the regime sets of 8-12 at lighter weight or 3-5 at heavier weight? Hell, is it sets of 15-20 at very light weight?  

Question: to what extent would the rep-range affect the outcome ?  

 

[Pseudonym]

Are you throwing another hypothetical at us, TFB?! OK, I'll run with it...

Given that in your example, our test dummy is now definitely in a caloric deficit, we know he'll be losing mass. So how would the rep-range would affect the outcome? Assuming that the same amount of work is being done in each scenario, I imagine it then becomes a question of recomposition.

So for a rep range of 8-12, I'd expect more muscle gain offsetting his fat loss, so maybe his overall weight loss would be slower.

With a higher rep range (let's take an extreme example and say 20-50), I'd expect less muscle gain, and more overall weight loss.

What I don't have an answer for is how a low rep range (3-5) might compare...

[Dinahlady]

Are you throwing another hypothetical at us, TFB?! OK, I'll run with it...

Given that in your example, our test dummy is now definitely in a caloric deficit, we know he'll be losing mass. So how would the rep-range would affect the outcome? Assuming that the same amount of work is being done in each scenario, I imagine it then becomes a question of recomposition.

So for a rep range of 8-12, I'd expect more muscle gain offsetting his fat loss, so maybe his overall weight loss would be slower.

With a higher rep range (let's take an extreme example and say 20-50), I'd expect less muscle gain, and more overall weight loss.

What I don't have an answer for is how a low rep range (3-5) might compare...

Surely it depends on his genetics and current muscle composition as to whats best?

If someone had a lot of fast twitch muscle and they did say 4 x 30 rep sets of a light weight (say squatting 60kgs) surely they would be expending less energy than if that same person utilised more of their muscle mass and energy and trained at 3-5 reps much heavier (say 4 sets of 4 reps of 150kg squat). Surely theres better hormonal/protein transcription adaptations of lifting heavier also that will translate into physique/body composition adaptations? Its not just calorie for calorie I mean lifting 150kg is going to affect you a lot longer after doing it and a lot more of your energy from his calorie intake will be going into recovery and adaptation from that - rather than just clearing lactate from the high rep stuff? 

But I am too genuinely curious (As you can tell I'm slightly more biased towards heavier weights haha) 

 

 

[AZIDE]

Are you throwing another hypothetical at us, TFB?! OK, I'll run with it...

Given that in your example, our test dummy is now definitely in a caloric deficit, we know he'll be losing mass. So how would the rep-range would affect the outcome? Assuming that the same amount of work is being done in each scenario, I imagine it then becomes a question of recomposition.

So for a rep range of 8-12, I'd expect more muscle gain offsetting his fat loss, so maybe his overall weight loss would be slower.

With a higher rep range (let's take an extreme example and say 20-50), I'd expect less muscle gain, and more overall weight loss.

What I don't have an answer for is how a low rep range (3-5) might compare...

 

 

it would be pretty hard to train hard doing same work using heavier weights as it would using lighter weights if you pushed yourself with ligher weights. or conversely if you did same work with light weights as you were able to do wth heavier weights youd be doig f*ck all.

work = force x distance

double the weights and halve the reps = same work done.

say you can bench 100kgx20.

100kgx20 = 200kgx10 = 400kgx5 in tems of work. but obviously benching 400x5 is harder than 100x20 

 

 

so i think it would be easier to use more energy/create a higher energy deficit doing lighter weights, and that you would have less muscle and less overall bodyweight at equilibrium than  someone doing heavier weights using less energy

 

[teamfatboy]

 

Are you throwing another hypothetical at us, TFB?! OK, I'll run with it...

Given that in your example, our test dummy is now definitely in a caloric deficit, we know he'll be losing mass. So how would the rep-range would affect the outcome? Assuming that the same amount of work is being done in each scenario, I imagine it then becomes a question of recomposition.

So for a rep range of 8-12, I'd expect more muscle gain offsetting his fat loss, so maybe his overall weight loss would be slower.

With a higher rep range (let's take an extreme example and say 20-50), I'd expect less muscle gain, and more overall weight loss.

What I don't have an answer for is how a low rep range (3-5) might compare...

 

 

it would be pretty hard to train hard doing same work using heavier weights as it would using lighter weights if you pushed yourself with ligher weights. or conversely if you did same work with light weights as you were able to do wth heavier weights youd be doig f*ck all.

work = force x distance

double the weights and halve the reps = same work done.

say you can bench 100kgx20.

100kgx20 = 200kgx10 = 400kgx5 in tems of work. but obviously benching 400x5 is harder than 100x20 

 

 

so i think it would be easier to use more energy/create a higher energy deficit doing lighter weights, and that you would have less muscle and less overall bodyweight at equilibrium than  someone doing heavier weights using less energy

 

The OP asked about body shape and appearance in two pictures taken at different points in training... so I guess I'm interested in understanding the consequences of the energy deficit and the training method... think 100m sprinter versus marathon runner. 

As Azide says, it's possible to create a 500 cal (or whatever number you think of) deficit from lighter weights (probably in a longer time).  But, we all know people who create that 500 cal deficit with jogging/ running or whatever, and still don't shed bodyfat despite the deficit.  Even putting individual metabolic differences to one side, the training method must have an influence... it's not as simple as "eat big, get big; eat less, lose weight".

Dinah's point about "hormonal/ protein transcription adaptations of lifting heavier" is what I'm thinking about, and I don't think an answer can be clear without understanding the lab-rat's training regime.