It´s actually the same. Your body mechanics and functions don´t change because you are bigger. A 100lb and 200lb are both built the same. You have the same physiological processes. The functions and activities carried out by various organs, tissues, and cells within the body are the same for you as they are for me. You are not genetically any different. It´s just a numbers game. I don´t think gaining mass while cutting weight was something we debated. At least it wasn´t my intention to do so. I was simply refuting your claim that if one is in caloric deficit, they will loose muscle. Which isn´t always true. And while it´s not mass as you envision it, a newbie can still put on muscle while burning fat, as long as they eat enough to maintain their basic calorie needs and burn the rest through activities. (* I think they need to eat slightly more than is the daily need for maintenance.) No, it´s not bollocks. It´s fairly simple, altho likely not 100% accurate. I use a simple calculator to get the number of calories my body needs to maintain my current weight, before factoring in my daily activity. I need roughly 2000 calories to maintain my current weight. I live a sedentary life, before accounting for exercise. Yes. And the deficit can be achieved in two ways. Either you burn more through activity or you limit your calorie intake. If you limit how many calories you consume, you risk hampering your body functions. There have been numerous studies on this. If you(someone who doesn´t burn many calories through day to day activities) consistently eat less than you need to maintain your weight, your body essentially starts shutting down. Again, just because you loose weight, doesn´t mean you automatically start loosing muscle. That´s not how the body operates. First you burn off the excess glycogen stored in your lives. Then you start burning the fat reserves. The body starts burning muscle only when it´s "starving". This is why people who fast won´t loose muscle mass the moment they hit a caloric deficit, The body simply isn´t designed like that. To clarify: I mean all of this in a reasonable time frame. Not loosing weight fast or anything like that. And yes, to actually gain muscle you need to eat a lot so that the body can recover and build itself.
And btw i'm not doing this out of hate, as some of Fury fanboys going to claim once again. I have done the same thread on Joe Joyce as he gained some serious weight for the Zhang rematch. My experience is very telling how this transformation has done, especially for people like Fury, who has always struggle to be in shape. Let's not forget that Fury is a well known PED cheater. And most importantly the doctor he is working is the same doctor that the famous egg Connor Benn is working with. I'm talking about the famous Usman Sajjad. The same guy that was in a leaked podcast explaining how to avoid failing a drugs test. Is this once again a coincidence ? I'm sorry but i don't buy all this coincidence stuffs that happen to only one person > Fury. The guy is a dirty cheat both outside and inside the ring. We all saw that sparring and that cut. He was holding his sparring partner behind the head and was pulling him and trying to hit him, while holding, which is absolutely illegal. And its not like we didn't see his blatant 100% full force intentional elbow against Ngannou. His dirty tactics of grab hold and lean, excessive clinching, holding, shots behind the head, all of which illegal. Famous Cunningham illegal KO, etc, etc.
You don´t have to eat less. That is what I am getting at. You don´t have to limit your diet. The reason why you don´t want to eat below your baseline requirement for maintenance is because the body will go into starvation mode. Everyone has a daily requirement. Eat slightly more than that and burn off the rest through exercise. It´s the best way to loose weight. Yup, fully agreed. Of course you could slowly loose fat while gaining muscle, but you would be gaining weight.
You don´t seem to know what a caloric baseline is. It is the number of calories you need to consume to maintain your current weight before accounting for activity. However, the human body has a response to prolonged calorie restriction or severe energy deficiency. Metabolism slows as do most bodily functions. This response only happens when you eat less than you need to maintain. It´s not an issue when you eat more than the baseline but burn off the excess through activity. It´s why crash diets don´t work. Don´t believe me? Go eat 1500 calories a day with no exercise. Then eat 2500 calories and exercise enough to burn fat. See which works better.
I already make the exception for newbie, but this ain't the case. And this effect going to stop very fast, and it's a possibility, but not a certainty. Yes it's bollocks as your claim was you was not in deficit, and you were losing weight, which is bollocks. Go read your post again and see what you write. You clearly had no idea what you were talking and now you are trying to correct yourself. In the other post you are talking about two types of caloric deficit, which is also b.c. What you are doing currently is arguing with math, and trying to explain how something that is a certainty it's not. And the 2000 calories you are keep bragging about is your Basal Metabolic Rate, which does not include your physical activity. It's your fault that you were talking about caloric balance, which is different. Deficit can be achieved in many ways, but deficit is deficit. It's not two or 10 types. Again losing weight it's simply down to being in a caloric deficit. How you going to do this is your own problem. You don't need to use google to try to explain something simple. Also something on theory is completely different in practice. Even Bodybuilders lose muscle when they are cutting weight for a show. Their main goal always was to preserve as much as possible. It's just going to happen, no matter what. Back in the day Phil Heath was talking about this, and how Kai Greene biggest problem was that he always lose too much muscle mass when trying to cut for a show. And Bodybuilders are literally walking experiment, as they are taking tons of drugs. I have gone through tons of cutting down phases, and the only certain way of slimming down without losing mass is with Peds. And again when you are 100kg.+ it's a different ball game, simply because you are carrying a lot more muscle, then let's say your body is going to get let's call it naturally, so you are essentially carry something extra, and preserving that muscle mass is painful. Again even if you compare a 120kg. to 100kg. person trying to weight down, the different is huge. And when we are talking about 60 70 or 80, it's like a day and night comparison. When you are 60, 70, 80, obviously depends on the shape, height, etc. you have, your body just won't allow you to lose muscle that easy. When you are 120kg. for example, the muscle mass is something your body doesn't need that much and it's a lot easy to lose it. And the current situation we are talking here is Fury is doing this extremely fast in the couple of months, which is where you will always have a greater muscle loss when you are cutting down, then let's say doing it slowly in the span of a year or so. So this is even more telling he is most probably on the sweet Juice.
To be a little pedantic , you can burn fat and build muscle at the same time, although it definitely wouldn't be an advisable long term strategy in a combat sport - workout hard on an empty stomach to force the body to burn fat and sugar reserves, then back load low fat high protein calories AFTER the workout
The one that doesn't know what he is talking is you. As you are contradicting yourself in the same sentence, as it's done in this very post: Or it maybe a language barrier i don't know. And then you start explaining how there is two different types of caloric deficit. And BlackDog already correcting you with this: "If You add more training You Burn more and STILL YOU ARE ON deficit." Which is 100% correct. And again we already explained to you that what you were talking, about the 2000 calories is your Basal Metabolic Rate without factoring the physical activity, which is going to change your Caloric intake for maintaining and so on. You failed to mention and explain it, and then blame other people that you were misunderstood.
Ain't going to happen. Again theory stuff is one thing, on practice is completely different. If anyone is promising you to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time, he is either going to put you through PED usage or is talking complete bollocks. I'm being around the gyms my whole life, was taking PEDS, have done tons of weight gaining and cuts in the past, have done it both on PED and naturally and the difference is just night and day. And again i have been working with top nutritionist and top strength and conditioning trainers, and we have talk so much on this topic, and it's simply impossible. Again for a newbie there maybe a small window where you can do that, but everything got to be perfect. Also most people mistaken muscle mass with water, or when their body start showing definition.
Caloric deficit can be achieved two ways. You either eat less than is you normal maintenance. Or your activity level is so high that you end up in a deficit, despite eating enough for maintenance. And there is a big, big difference in them and how they affect your body.