386: Losing Muscle Mass On A Cut - Menno Henselmans

[@menno.henselmans]

Thanks for having me on, Steve. Always good to chat. I see there are some comments asking for data supporting my position that strength maintenance is often not enough for muscle maintenance, except for exercises you've been doing for a long-time non-stop (notably powerlifters). There are multiple lines of evidence supporting this view. The strongest support for this position is probably the 2021 meta-analysis by Murphy & Koehler, which found energy deficit does not significantly impair strength gains but does impair size gains. There are even studies finding strength gains while losing muscle, so mere maintenance of strength is absolutely not a guarantee of size maintenance. There are also multiple papers from Jeremy Loenneke's research group showing that strength gains are almost entirely neural in basis over the course of weeks. Multiple of his studies show very poor relationships between short-term strength gains and size gains, as well as almost null effects of additional size gains on strength development. For example, adding bodybuilding work to 1RM training increases size very well but does almost nothing for strength. So if your total training program's work load is not increasing, that's a very bad sign. It's a tough pill to swallow for many lifters, but that's how it is.

[@ReviveStronger]

Thank you Menno!

[@GoneCarnivore]

I agree with gaining weight and gaining strength. Regardless of how it's done I'm stronger when I gain weight, gym or no gym.

[@scottmckeitch7908]

Am I correct in saying you stated that ROL without losing much muscle could look like this...? Obese BMI (30>) = Fast as possible weight loss (50% deficit on PSMF for example until you reach overweight BMI category. Go as hard as you can) Overweight BMI (

[@RealitySucksBigTime]

@@scottmckeitch7908ROL?

[@GuaridoNutri]

Bring Eric, Mike, Brad (if its even possible) and Menno to discuss it in a round table

[@nomad9584]

This was an awesome podcast, Steve. Thank you. Menno is just an absolute goldmine of information and although I don't always agree with his conclusions I'm glad we have someone with his level of intellect in the fitness space.

[@ReviveStronger]

Glad you enjoyed it! - Steve

[@user-ii7xc1ry3x]

Really love when we get to see Menno, Layne, or someone from the RP or the Stronger By Science crews. Definitely listening to this one.

[@SchmittsPeter]

I think with his controversal statement, Menno is somewhat ignoring the fitness/fatigue relation. You may actually build some small amount of muscle, but you are not able to express the strength granted by that because your fatigue is negatively affected by lower caloric intake. Further, there may be actual changes in ROM and levers which may make it look as if you lost actual strength (but in reality, you just slightly adjusted the exercise). Edit: Ah, he later talks about that points.

[@scottmckeitch7908]

@revivestronger Am I correct in saying he stated that ROFL without losing much muscle could look like this...? Obese BMI (30>) = Fast as possible weight loss (50% deficit on PSMF for example until you reach overweight BMI category. Go as hard as you can) Overweight BMI (

[@faithnfitnessguykk9569]

So so many good points! thanks.

[@kornisonkiseli3248]

An excellent talk. Every time I hear a podcast with Menno I learn something important and useful.

[@benkalman8751]

I would love to hear Menno debate with Greg Knuckols on the merits of going up or down a weight class in powerlifting for competitiveness in the sport. Very different perspectives!

[@saudibonesawexpert8937]

I think the basic idea is that strength gains are largely neurological, so they should be unhindered by a fat loss phase (I can attest to this personally, I almost ALWAYS get stronger on cuts), and that if your strength plateaus, that means the additional strength gains cover up an underlying loss of mass. Cut with no tissue loss: Muscle is the same + Neurological improvements = strength gains Cut with tissue loss: Muscle is decreased + Neurological Improvements = Strength is the same Honestly after hearing his perspective I think he has a good point. Theres definitely areas of training where this isn’t a good principle to apply, but at the very least, strength maintenance on a cut should be used as a proxy for potential muscle loss

[@dannymeslier6658]

Well, there's an article by Greg Nuckols supporting the idea that the most important determinant of strength for powerlifters is actually muscle mass (by far).

[@saudibonesawexpert8937]

@@dannymeslier6658 it is. the 3 main components of improving strength are: 1: More Muscle 2: Technical Efficiency 3: Neural Efficiency The thing is though, muscle growth occurs on a scale of a few grams from one session. You don’t build muscle fast enough for that to be the primary driver in strength improvements in the short to medium term (4-20 weeks lets say). Now over the long term (years and decades), muscle mass is absolutely the most important factor by far (besides genetics). However when your doing an exercise for 16 weeks and lets say youve added 25lbs to your 8 rep max with it, those strength gains are neurological…you didn’t build that much muscle that quickly. If that was how easy it was, we would all be Ronnie Coleman. So, in reference to Menno’s theory, if your strength is stagnating on a given lift during a given block of training, its possible that the neurological strength gains are masking an underlying decrease in muscle. Again i’m not 100% sure I agree with this, but its definitely an idea with merit and worth entertaining.

[@dannymeslier6658]

You don't know that the muscle mass built doesn't account for most of the load and rep increases...It seems that you underestimate how quickly hypertrophy can occur. If you gain reps on machines with a very easy learning curve, it's probably muscle driving your gains. What's more, as you do gain muscle, you also improve the leverage of the hypertrophied muscle. In compound lifts, this can yield a synergistic effect. A quick point about powerlifters: studies point out that regional hypertrophy is important. For example, just upper quads (can't remember if this is correct, just an example, but the principle holds). So you don't need a dramatic increase in bodyweight to see hypertrophy-driven strength gains. Conversely, cutting will dfinitely decrease your leverages. @@saudibonesawexpert8937

[@saudibonesawexpert8937]

@@dannymeslier6658 i understand the leverages point but this only really holds well for decent changes in bodyweight, like 25+ pounds. The leverages component would fit under the umbrella of technical efficiency. There have been a lot of 8-20 week studies where participants had muscle biopsies done pre and post study…we’re pretty confident about the range of possible muscle hypertrophy outcomes. Having an additional ounce or two of muscle wont translate to notable increases in rep strength. We just dont build muscle that quickly, shit takes years and decades to make dramatic progress. So we kinda do know that the new additional muscle mass doesn’t account for much of the load and rep increases seen in training programs. At least in the short to medium term. Long term theres obviously nothing better to explain gains other than muscle. If you go from incline benching 205x6 to 225x8 3 years later its hard to imagine thats anything but new muscle…but if you go from 205x6 to 205x8 within the span of 4 weeks its hard to imagine thats anything other than neurological improvements. Additionally increases and decreases in rep strength come and go very quickly. Lean, dry, contractile tissue doesn’t. Within 6 weeks of training my incline bench goes from 225x6 to 225x8-10…and after i swap incline bench out for 12-20 weeks and come back, i’m right back to 225x6. I don’t think Menno is wrong here. There are some scenarios (like contest prep, or peaking for a powerlifting meet) where this doesn’t seem like sound logic but in terms of regular old dieting for normal people I think its something with merit and to keep in mind.

[@dannymeslier6658]

I don't think you understood the leverage point. The hypertrophied muscle undergoes structural changes that improve its angle of pull, increasing strength further than just having more muscle. @@saudibonesawexpert8937

[@Jean-PaulLaBrecque-ll5ge]

I did this year I lost 20 pounds from 283 down to 263 as I was trying to get a 6 pack,and I noticed from the bodyfat tests that I was losing 1-2 pounds of lean mass for every 10 pounds lost,and I lost half an inch off my arms and my strength level also went down,so I went back to my go to bulking and I'm 275 now and regained the half inch on my arms and the strength I'd lost in the last 2 months.

[@reeves1881]

I’m unsure how I feel about this guy. He seems to draw up conclusions rather quickly based on whatever single study he looks into. Eric Helms, Mike israetel, Brad Schoenfeld, Lyle McDonald, Greg nuckols and Layne Norton all seem to take a less firm stance without additional supporting evidence.

[@emmang2010]

I totally agree man

[@deathbringersaurfang]

+1, I've never liked him. He just gives the impression of being omniscient and should be more humble drawing up the conclusions

[@GuaridoNutri]

I think i was being too "picky" but i tend to agree

[@Egyfitness]

He likes to go against mainstream and making a buzz out of single studies to be heard. All marketing. Remember he built his name out of 1 gm/lb protein is “too much”. And things like dietary cholesterol builds muscles, Yohimbine doesn’t work..etc. That being said, he is a very smart guy and worth listening to.

[@jeffreydhill]

Agreed. I do respect Menno and have learned from him, but out of the well known crew of exercise scientists, I find he often comes to the most questionable conclusions.

[@CoachValentin]

Great podcast, thanks! 💪

[@ReviveStronger]

Thanks for tuning in! - Steve

[@azulsimmons1040]

It has to be the combination of all factors and the max level weights. Maybe the heart rate increase too. Nothing gets my heart going like squats and deadlifts. It almost feels like you're sprinting and lifting at the same time when doing heavy squats and deadlifts. I don't get that heart rate increase from any other exercise. Not heavy bench, heave OHP, heavy leg presses, heavy rows, or any other exercise. But man when I do heavy squats and deadlifts, it takes a while for the heart rate to drop and feel like you're ready to go for the next set.

[@lukeamartins]

Beautiful.

[@TypicallyUniqueOfficial]

Even if what Menno is saying is true, does it matter? Say you lose muscle, when you reverse out of a cut and start eating at maintenance or slightly above is muscle memory not a thing? Every time I have cut, when I reverse out of it I get an explosion of strength gains and PRs. Post diet rebound is real…so does it matter if you lose some size? You can see the muscles refilling with glycogen and water quite fast.

[@SeuOu]

I think you hit the key point. You never lose recruited muscle satellite nuclei on a cut, just like you never lose adipose nuclei. Any muscle mass lost (aside from rhabdo) will regain relatively quickly and easily after a cut.

[@Seneca121]

Minicuts of just a few days!? That seems very unorthodox and extreme and against the conventional advice preached about minicuts from yourself and others like Mike Israetel etc

[@deathbringersaurfang]

Thats quite controversial, I thought that as long as you eat enough protein and don't experience significant strength loss during the cut you are not likely to lose any muscle

[@stoempert]

How is that controversial? A trained person can't retain strength and muscle in a significant, prolonged caloric deficit, no matter the macro breakdown.

[@emmang2010]

​​@@stoempertAnd remember, even if you could maintain strength in a deficit, most strength gains in general are due to neural adaptations so it makes sense that in a deficit, strength preservation could also be mainly due to neural adaptations with simultaneous muscle atrophy.

[@emmang2010]

Menno is also clearly talking about like grams of muscle loss. Nothing crazy which I think people think when they hear a title or claim like, "you are losing muscle mass when cutting".

[@hoops133]

commenting for the algorithm

[@NJN23]

“If your strength is stable while cutting, you're losing muscle mass”. WTF??? I used to really like Menno, but this is a ridiculous statement. He’s assuming that, regardless of where you are in your training life, you should always be getting stronger even if it’s just due to neurological improvements. That just makes no sense. If you’ve been training properly for decades, there may be no more room from neurological improvements. So maintaining strength would be a great indicator that your maintaining muscle. Are you guys getting better and better at tying your shoe each time you do it even after 20 years? His assumption is just so ridiculous. I’m surprised there’s not more comments regarding how ridiculous this is.

[@theeman2424]

If you lift weights with the same focus and intensity as tying your shoes, makes sense why you’re not getting stronger 😂

[@gamerchristina1079]

💪💪❤️❤️‼️

[@paezwa33]

6:07 Can scientific principles elucidate the phenomenon observed in individuals like Kevin Levrone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and others who consistently experienced muscle growth while simultaneously undergoing a cutting phase? 9:25 It's important to note that skill-based exercises are influenced during a cutting phase due to alterations in biomechanical leverage, rather than solely stemming from muscle strength loss. It's crucial to differentiate between myofibrillar strength and neurological strength in this context.

[@ReviveStronger]

Totally, it's interesting, I just spoke to Bill Campbell who will be running a case study on this exact topic. - Steve

[@ChadAV69]

I don’t agree with this at all. It makes no sense. If you start at 200lbs and curling 100lbs, if you diet down to 160lbs and you still curl 100lbs how did you lose muscle? Are you saying that in that 4-6 month time span you kept growing neurological strength despite a massive amount of tissue loss? If that were actually true, then you’d be able to diet in a way that would make you the world’s strongest 130lbs person. It does not make sense. Also, you don't add weight to a lift every session but it still promotes growth. You can retake a weight at least 3 times at the same reps before it stops giving you any growth. Even if you're bulking. So using your logic, if you stay curling 100lbs, you could theoretically go back and forth between losing muscle mass and gaining it just by curling the same weight for the same reps. Again, it just does not make sense.

[@Kalilloko]

👏👏👏👏

[@MrStreetninja007]

I smell.a round table

[@timostein4830]

Henselmans going for clickbait with no data...

[@ReviveStronger]

Hope you saw Menno's comment. - Steve

[@ericjames7819]

Menno's credibility just to a big drop.

[@SeuOu]

Why? If his position is based on credible science, how is it somehow less credible now? Because you disagree? lol bro

[@ericjames7819]

@@SeuOu that's the problem .it isn't.

[@cutiemarshall6502]

I am sorry but if you are advanced and gaining or maintaining strength on a long cut, you are either on PEDs or your training during your bulk was trash.

[@fvgrrghytrrrcg]

Interesting theory wheres the data

[@ReviveStronger]

Hope you saw Menno's comment. - Steve

[@samkim2389]

Bs