Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by livueta 974 days ago
I did a bit of a double-take at the headline because it seems to imply that one can grow stronger while calorie-restricted, which is contrary to common practice around strength development - caloric surplus is generally understood to be necessary for muscle growth.

I've only read the abstract, but the title as I interpreted it seems misleading:

> One study showed that individuals on calorie restriction lost muscle mass and an average of 20 pounds of weight over the first year and maintained their weight for the second year. However, despite losing muscle mass, calorie restriction participants did not lose muscle strength, indicating calorie restriction improved the amount of force generated by each unit of muscle mass, called muscle specific force.

So even if force per unit increased, overall mass decreased and total strength was unchanged. I guess the title is technically correct but the implication is off. This might be better phrased as "calorie restriction in humans doesn't incur as much muscle/strength loss as previously thought", which is still an interesting result.

6 comments

Increased power over weight ratio does count as "increased strength" IMO. You will run and bike much faster for one thing.
Might not wrestle better in open weight class, chop as much wood or shovel as much snow or dirt, though ?
Wrestling seems like exactly the wrong thing to cite here, since it's generally not done in openweight, and if you're wrestling in traditional weight classes then what's described here is hugely beneficial - you can drop a weight class but not lose strength.
> you can drop a weight class but not lose strength.

Exactly. This aligns to strategic weight cutting. Once you go up and then go back down, you feel stronger than you were for about as long as you continue regular training.

Also your opponent would have an advantage of you being lighter, which affects the results
Normally in weight classed sports, people cut and dehydrate etc so that they are just inside the weight class they want to be in.

In other words, if they didn't cut they wouldn't be meeting that opponent at all because they would be in a different weight class.

Except both you and your opponent would be using tricks to be lighter (e.g. not drinking at least 1 day before the weighing)
those activities are a bit useless nowadays compared to cycling/walking/running
Sure, but for how long?
Potentially very long. If you look at the top endurance runners (e.g. Killian Jornet) they're not particularly muscular. In this sport efficiency rules over power.
> which is contrary to common practice around strength development

This belief is already changing in bodybuilding and strength circles. Surprisingly, the fitness influencers on tiktok are leading the charge in changing minds about this.

"This belief is already changing in bodybuilding and strength circles."

This is a mistake and one that can be extrapolated to the much larger world.

Real world growth implies building in excess of the target and then trimming the leftover.

I don't care if you're planning a battle charge or setting your family finances or going for massive gains in your delts: exact allocation of resources is doomed to fail.

In fact: the "bro science" of bulking up in a training phase and then "cutting" to a competition weight, etc., is revealing a deeper truth about the world.

Interesting - guess that hasn't percolated through to my traditional powerlifting-ish circles yet. I'd love to read/watch anything on this you've found useful.
Idk the bro science i always heard, for at least 10 to 15 years, suggests that strength is alot of stuff like neurons firing. You can take time off from lifting and get back to it pretty quick. Size from body building is mostly targeting hypertrophy, breaking down muscle and have then regrow to be larger. Strength and size would normally correlate but couldn't get someone's strength just from their size.
Oh yeah, no doubt about that. I've observed the same picking back up after injuries, and some version of this whole thing is ultimately what's backing the concept of cutting. Definitely not trying to say that mass equals power or anything. I'm just trying to zero in on the gains while not at surplus thing, because ime I can lift all day but don't gain (as measured by increasing lift capacity) jack shit unless I also eat big. I don't particularly love bulking and cutting, though, so I was kinda hoping there was a trick I was missing.
That Ukrainian guy on tiktok who only weighs around 80kg but can deadlift over 270kg.
Anatoly. Very fun channel on YouTube.
I'm probably leaving way too much information on myself on this website, but Anne Debouté, a french kayakist (won France Championship, top 8 in a world cup) told me she ate a lot after the competion season, but 5 month later (in the 90s), she cut her calory intake and lost up to 15 kg. Her trainer was skeptical, but she did it every year and told me she really felt relatively stronger despite being less muscular, so i guess she was right in the end, and her trainer wrong. I'll bookmark this.
That strength (which has to be defined via a mostly arbitrary set of tests) can increase while body mass or even muscle mass decreases is not controversial, anyone who starts strength training while losing weight can attest to that. There's more to force output in a specific context than contractile tissue mass.

Increasing muscle mass while losing body mass is a very different question though.

I was part of 9 month University weight loss study.

I had a Dexa scan before and after. As well as various other ultrasounds, physical tests and blood tests.

I lost weight and gained muscle according to the Dexa scan!

No other changes to my general exercise. I wasn’t weight training or doing cardio. Just walking and day to day stuff.

This is super interesting though! It would defeat the myth "don't try to lose weight while weight lifting".