The Mythical "Recomp"

[tfranc]

This is exactly my question. Why doesn't it work? I believe you that it doesn't work; I have tried it, and it didn't work. I realize that pragmatically, the question is answered with, "it doesn't work," but I am curious what makes it NOT work. If it's measurement error, something inherent in human physiology/metabolism, etc... If that's not a question you're interested in, or if that's still a poor question, that's fine, but I just wanted to be sure I was making myself clear.

I know J answered this already but it’s also just like math, right? If you diet with cheat days, vs staying on a strict diet, there are more days where you’re giving your body optimum nutrition, so of course the results would be different/better

No

Well there we are then. OP you can thank me later lol

[whale]

Ha! I would not recommend that type of training progression.

Would you recommend Nike Davinhos or regular lifting shoes for deadlift?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Would you recommend Nike Davinhos or regular lifting shoes for deadlift?

1 of each.

[RickBarker]

Multiple reasons, really. The main thing is you're not able to separate noise from the signal with regards to meaningful changes with respect to lean body mass gain and fat mass loss, respectively. Additionally, there's some sort of body inertia where things work a little better when you do them for a period of time- not too short or not too long. I think this probably has more to do with the hormonal milieu and cumulative effects of the intervention.

Thanks for taking the time to wade through all this and still give a response. The "body inertia" idea is what fascinates me. Thanks for giving some insight into why this might happen (hormonal milieu, cumulative effects). From your responses, it seems like it is multifactorial and contextual how much time it takes to reverse that body inertia; hence, it cannot be easily said how long or short bulking and cutting cycles could theoretically be.

Thanks again for taking the time. I appreciate the discussion.

[Cambridge93]

I was trying to encourage the folks posing the questions to think about them a little harder. Everyone learns when we think, ya know?

Did you look at the raw data with all the numbers of the subjects?

Is the point that the Intermittent group lost 150% the fat mass of the Continuous group, but also 150% of the fat-free mass? And so the Intermittent approach was no more effective than the traditional one for improving body composition, since the muscle:fat loss ratio was the same? And, further, that the additional weight loss in the Intermittent group is probably due to measurement error in the caloric intake rather that any metabolic voodoo inherent to the experimental protocol?

(I'm looking at Table 2, the "Completed per protocol" numbers, since I just care about the stats of the people who successfully adhered to the diet.)

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Is the point that the Intermittent group lost 150% the fat mass of the Continuous group, but also 150% of the fat-free mass? And so the Intermittent approach was no more effective than the traditional one for improving body composition, since the muscle:fat loss ratio was the same? And, further, that the additional weight loss in the Intermittent group is probably due to measurement error in the caloric intake rather that any metabolic voodoo inherent to the experimental protocol?

(I'm looking at Table 2, the "Completed per protocol" numbers, since I just care about the stats of the people who successfully adhered to the diet.)

Cambridge, that is one of my gripes with the conclusions reached by the authors, yes.

[Chris McBride]

Multiple reasons, really. The main thing is you're not able to separate noise from the signal with regards to meaningful changes with respect to lean body mass gain and fat mass loss, respectively. Additionally, there's some sort of body inertia where things work a little better when you do them for a period of time- not too short or not too long. I think this probably has more to do with the hormonal milieu and cumulative effects of the intervention.

Basically, thinks change over the course of week or two and you can use that data to alter the intervention. After 10-14 days, you may know whether you're actually losing body fat or gaining LBM with some reasonable certainty. It doesn't mean you should microcycle like that, but rather what you're looking at outcome wise is actually meaningful.

Mainly because there's no need to micromanage your diet unless it drastically improves compliance, otherwise there's no difference.

This is more or less what I was looking for (and I think what the OP was asking about.) Thanks for putting in the work on this board and all the other content you produce.

[whale]

Doctor Jordan Feigenbaum, do you ever consider the First Law of Thermodynamics when dealing with muscle / fat changes?

Here's an example:

Based on that law, theoretically you could gain weight while on caloric deficit. Let's say your training regimen is perfect and you gain 2g of muscle and lose 1g of fat. You are in a energy deficit (~ -1 kcal) but you did get 1g of weight. Given the accuracy of body weight measurement and noise we have, it's nearly impossible to measure such thing in individuals who trained a little and are not morbidly obese and even in every other human being. Even if it could be measured, the conclusion would be wrong because scientists are more likely to presume an energy surplus in that situation.

Another example:
Let's say a guy ends up his LP at 220lbs bodyweight. He started around 170 and went from 12% to 20% BF (I hope my numbers are realistic). He then decided to stay at this weight because Rip said so, for the rest of his life. He knows exactly how much calories/macros he needs to consume to stay at 220 every day. He gets programming and coaching from best coaches in the universe. 20 years later, he did not get older, he does not need more better quality protein, his testosterone is above 1000 ng/dl etc...

I know you're evidence based kind of guy, but, do you expect him to be the strongest version of himself at 220, and also the leanest version of himself at 220?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Doctor Jordan Feigenbaum, do you ever consider the First Law of Thermodynamics when dealing with muscle / fat changes?

Here's an example:

Based on that law, theoretically you could gain weight while on caloric deficit.

No you cannot. Absolutely. By definition.

For clarity, the first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of energy, e.g. it cannot be created or destroyed..only transformed.

And the second law, states that entropy always increases.

Let's say your training regimen is perfect and you gain 2g of muscle and lose 1g of fat. You are in a energy deficit (~ -1 kcal) but you did get 1g of weight.

Never happens.

Given the accuracy of body weight measurement and noise we have, it's nearly impossible to measure such thing in individuals who trained a little and are not morbidly obese and even in every other human being. Even if it could be measured, the conclusion would be wrong because scientists are more likely to presume an energy surplus in that situation.

What you're suggesting cannot happen.

Another example:
Let's say a guy ends up his LP at 220lbs bodyweight. He started around 170 and went from 12% to 20% BF (I hope my numbers are realistic)

They are not.

I know you're evidence based kind of guy, but, do you expect him to be the strongest version of himself at 220, and also the leanest version of himself at 220?

Neither.

[whale]

By definition.

How can that be a definition though? The 1st law of TD is not a definition. That can be merely an approximation to make our lives easier.

Never happens.

The point of my post is this. Was there any study longer than 16 weeks that looked at trained individuals, on maintenance calories, and their total muscle / fat weight? It seems to me that such study is not really conductible because:
1. You can't rigorously control subjects for a long time
2. You don't know the exact maintenance calories which are likely going to increase if training is done (volume going up).
3. We probably don't have measurement tools that would be able to measure such small changes in trained individuals so it has to be done for a long time.

Let's take a more obvious example of a person who is not getting older for 100 years. He is training and increasing volume. He is eating at maintenance calories every day. Maintenance calories likely changes every day for a really small unmeasureable amount but God tells him what his maintenance calories for the day are. God also tells feeds him with perfect macros with accuracy of +-0.001%. In 100 years he will partition his energy stores so that training volume doesn't kill him. Eventually he will die with a slow death because in order to tolerate more volume, he's going to have to be under 4% BF.

Now, all this is obviously theoretical and I can feel you are getting annoyed. Also I can see the appeal in making discrete, "more aggressive" changes in calories for fat loss/gain. You don't have to wait for a few years to see a change so it definitely helps with compliance. I find it hard to believe that when obese untrained individual gets trained and not obese, he loses the power of doing what he did before. I believe the process is continuous, definitely slows down, but we, the people, make it discrete so we can make our lives easier. Every computer engineer and other engineers / scientists know that most of the things we believe are approximations and most of the things we measure are discrete changes. In training we measure 5lb jumps, not 2.8024 jumps.

Thanks for your time doc.