Oh, yeah, way back then...

I only know this from personal experience. I don't have anything to back me up. But inflammation holds water, so it always seemed logical to me.

Anybody got something more scientific?

No ...other than I tend to go up a lb or 2 after a really heavy session..I always assumed inflamation and water as well

Here is an actual study that tracked muscle gain (presumably with a calorie deficit).

http://thefactsaboutfitness.com/print/20jun2004.htm

Normal:
Total calories 2,540 calories
Protein 113 grams (20% of total calories)
Carbohydrate 306 grams (48% of total calories)
Fat 91 grams (32% of total calories)



Low-carbohydrate:

Total calories 2,334 calories
Protein 176 grams (30% of total calories)
Carbohydrate 46 grams (8% of total calories)
Fat 157 grams (62% of total calories)

And the result?

Total fat loss at the end of the six-week study was just over seven pounds in the low-carbohydrate group. The group following their normal diet lost no weight.

The men following the low carb diet diet gained just over two pounds of muscle. The control group, on the other hand, gained just under one pound.


In other words the "low carbers" gained 2 pounds of muscle in 6 weeks.

That's freakin' AMAZING!

that would be newbie phenomenon or a really really serious mesomorph that you're referring to.

very cool find!

the cals combined with the protein are contributors to size in the low carb diet.... is what it looks like to me.

i'm curious about the fat gain in the high carb group.

I would have to read the published study to be sure... but I'm thinking they imply that the higher carb group did not gain or lose fat.

Yes, that's how I'm reading it, too.
The higher-cal group gained LESS muscle than the lower cal group, too, which I'm finding interesting, since I gained a LOT of musle my first year lifting, while dropping fat, and I did it low carb.

Ha!

Which did you start 1st... low carb or lifting?

You are correct. WHile on a heavy lifting routine I generally retain at least 5 to 6 lbs of excess fluids. Then if I take a week off from lifting.....boom, gone goes 5 lbs. This is the phenomenon that most people are really describing when they say "if you are exercising, then take measurements".

But wouldn't that cause an increase in measurements? (At least for arms and legs I would think.) But the posters who say to take measurements are implying that people would be losing inches instead of pounds when they're "stalled".

Low carb for the first 5 weeks without lifting. Dropped 13 pounds. Then I started lifting. And I was lifting dinky little girlie weights back then - total newbie. It built up pretty quick though.

I have only lost 5 pounds on the scale since February. I have lost 6% Body fat which accounts for about 14 pounds of fat since February. I have also gained a lot of muscle probably near the differance in fat and body weight. I think I have added about 9 pounds of muscle in 6-7 months of lifting.
Your mileage may vary!
Jag

You know, I never really measure anything these days. But at least for me I know my waist keeps getting smaller even while retaining the water, but yea I guess the arms and such would probably be a little larger. But while the arms might be slightly larger, thats a good thing for me

About 5-6 years ago when I was caving quite a bit (before I tore my ACL and rotator cuff) my calves were pretty big. My weight was around 125 lbs. I also worked out a couple of times a week. I had some jeans that were tight around the calves. Now I weigh more, am less active (no caving), but my calves are smaller. Those same jeans are loose around the calves (my old caving jeans). So there are some places where gaining inches is a good thing.

I am hoping I can get my calves a bit more filled out by maybe October. I do like going dancing in short skirts, and you gotta have nice legs for that.