I've come to the conclusion that I'm thinking about a level of muscularity above and beyond everyone else in this thread. I think you are talking about "average gym rat" level of muscularity and I'm talking about "standing out with a sweatshirt on" level of muscularity.Ricky wrote:If you're already where you want to be in terms of bf, why would you need to be in a calorie deficit? You don't need to lose weightnygmen wrote:No way you are forcing your body to gain more muscle than it wants to hold (from an evolutionary perspective) and then keeping ALL the muscle on a calorie deficit. It isn't happening as a natty.
Also, I don't see why you're assuming the body "doesn't want to" hold onto muscle.
Again, if people are at extremes ( < 5% bf) then you're probably right about being able to lose it easily but I'm not talking extremes).
<5% can't be maintained for more than a couple of days before you risk putting yourself in the hospital. You wouldn't have any fat on the pads of your feet at that point. You would be walking on bone.
Also, my perception of what is 10% and below is also quite a bit different here. I'm not sure who is right, but 9% and below is very flippin lean, and a natty isn't going to have the same amount of muscle mass as they would at 12%, 16% & 20%.
That is 12% or so, and a genetic freak. But he isn't holding everything on the way down to:
And you can't honestly think he lost all the muscle he lost between 7-4%, but held it all from 12-8%... That is crazy talk, lol.
here is the most recent pic I recall seeing of a dude <10%.
While ripped to shreds, you wouldn't know he lifts in a shirt. But at 12-15%, I bet he fills out that same shirt.