it is very easy to say somebody is wrong, and i am willing to admit that i might be, but certainly you have given me no reason to suggest that i am.
if this is a ridiculous post, i would like to suggest an equally ridiculous explanation as to why i am wrong.
undernourished children that are described as suffering from protein deficiency, can put on muscle, when lying in bed, if they are simply given a glass of coke every day. i.e activity, and even protein intake are secondary to the basic number of calories.
adequately fed people will put on a lot of fat by eating more calories, but even if you lay in bed all day, you will still add a small amount of muscle if you are eating enough.
1.atrophy due to inactivity is much slower than atrophy due to starvation
2.catabolism and anabolism (metabolism) are directly governed by calories. muscle activity is important, but secondary.
working out breaks down muscle. As we have already established, muscles when cutting, are considered expendable. why would your body waste calories in repairing a muscle that is, once repaired simply going to waste even more calories.
The body has a hierachy of energy needs which is dependant on whether you have enough or too little calories. muscle repair, whilst cutting, is a low priority need.
In addition, the act itself of working out uses a huge number of calories, as well as elevating the resting metabolism for extended periods of time. the result, an even greater calorie deficit, and therefore an even greater amount of muscle loss.
because i have not denied that muscle loss due to inactivity occurs. general activity can maintain some muscle, without rasing the resting metabolic rate, without wasting a huge number of calories, and without literally breaking down the muscles as you do it (catabolism).