Guest SuperBru Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Hi all, I was just curious about something. Is it true that you have to eat excess calories to gain muscle mass or is that just a myth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Long Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 from everything that I have ever heard or seen written it is true. Although Don't take my word for it because I know nothing about such matters. Also I have to say I have managed to gain muscle on what was meant to be a deficient. Maybe that had something to do with the timing of my meals? Again I don't know hope fully someone else will chime in here. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Naterman Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 You have to have caloric excess to gain WEIGHT. It is possible to stay the same weight and gain muscle while losing fat, it simply requires reasonably strict nutrition and consistent resistance exercise. It is also possible to slowly gain muscle while hypocaloric (in a deficit), but the deficit can't be huge. 19% seems to be perfectly doable according to research on athletes within the past 12 months, but a 30% deficit appeared to be too much to gain muscle while losing body mass. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quick Start Test Smith Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 You have to have caloric excess to gain WEIGHT. It is possible to stay the same weight and gain muscle while losing fat, it simply requires reasonably strict nutrition and consistent resistance exercise. It is also possible to slowly gain muscle while hypocaloric (in a deficit), but the deficit can't be huge. 19% seems to be perfectly doable according to research on athletes within the past 12 months, but a 30% deficit appeared to be too much to gain muscle while losing body mass. Josh, what percentage range for caloric excess do you think is reasonable? I keep reading the standard 300-500 kcal surplus or deficit for either losing or gaining weight, but it seems too unspecific to be that effective. 500 kcal seems to be an extremely large surplus, especially if you're only eating about 2500-3000 kcal a day... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Naterman Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Josh, what percentage range for caloric excess do you think is reasonable? I keep reading the standard 300-500 kcal surplus or deficit for either losing or gaining weight, but it seems too unspecific to be that effective. 500 kcal seems to be an extremely large surplus, especially if you're only eating about 2500-3000 kcal a day...It is. The research I have seen suggests that more than a 20% deficit is going to interfere with your ability to gain lean mass, but that you can maintain nearly all of your lean mass for at least 8 weeks while having a ~35% deficit (I believe that's what it was). Be advised that this protocol was extremely strict. That second, larger deficit program takes a LOT of discipline. The 300-500 is there because it covers 20% for nearly everyone. Example, I burn ~3000 kcal during a school day. I could, in theory, maintain a 600kcal deficit and still gain muscle. IF I was lifting heavy every other day, full body, and eating what I need around the workout. Again, this can get complicated for the uninitiated, but it's totally doable. A 20% deficit, along with proper physical training for this purpose, allows you to reduce your body mass by ~5% without losing any muscle at all, in 8 weeks. For me, that's ~12 lbs of fat lost in 8 weeks, while being able to put on around 2 extra lbs of muscle according to the research presented a few months ago in Norway. That would be pretty good, but in my situation it may not work out like that because I am already at my theoretical genetic limitation for drug-free muscle mass. I can be6'1" and 218 lbs at 8%, and that's it. More muscle means a higher body fat percentage after that, at least according to FFMI (Fat Free Mass Index) research. I suppose we'll find out, over the next few years, whether that seems to hold true. I am thinking that I will be able to pass that with really good, sustained nutrition + Foundation programming. F1's 5 day split and bulgarian split squats for leg work already have me at 225, ~11-12% which is my theoretical limit at 225, and after 2 weeks I appear to be maintaining weight but slowly leaning out. It's too soon to say much, I mean maybe I'll just end up at 218 and 8%. Nothing wrong with that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quick Start Test Smith Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Cool... thanks very much. I haven't been aiming for a specific deficit, but 20% is as good as anything else. I'll give it a go. I've got the peri-workout routine down quite precisely and I eat small meals throughout the day to stay close to zero point. It's also neat to see you're back to using bulgarian split squats. I just recently start using them again as well because of the intense hip flexor stretch I get from them. I figure that if deep wide squats improve hip mobility (and they really do for me) then split squats would be good for my hip flexors. Once I reach 80 lbs for 5 reps with both legs, I'm going to experiment with their jumping variations. Have they essentially replaced front squats for you? I hope you're not going full Mike Boyle on us My ability to accurately calculate a day's total caloric expenditure is no doubt only a mildly close approximation (I use iifym.com/tdee-calculator), so a milder deficit would probably be a good idea. 35% is pretty crazy to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Naterman Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Cool... thanks very much. I haven't been aiming for a specific deficit, but 20% is as good as anything else. I'll give it a go. I've got the peri-workout routine down quite precisely and I eat small meals throughout the day to stay close to zero point. It's also neat to see you're back to using bulgarian split squats. I just recently start using them again as well because of the intense hip flexor stretch I get from them. I figure that if deep wide squats improve hip mobility (and they really do for me) then split squats would be good for my hip flexors. Once I reach 80 lbs for 5 reps with both legs, I'm going to experiment with their jumping variations. Have they essentially replaced front squats for you? I hope you're not going full Mike Boyle on us My ability to accurately calculate a day's total caloric expenditure is no doubt only a mildly close approximation (I use iifym.com/tdee-calculator), so a milder deficit would probably be a good idea. 35% is pretty crazy to me.HAHAHAHAHA!!! I made a joke to myself about Mike Boyle in the gym yesterday about exactly that! No, I still front squat once or twice every two weeks, but my lifting shoes stay at home so I tend to do the Bulgarians at the gym. Right now I'm just using 80 lbs total for 6-7 reps. I do the skier squats from F1 to warm up. I front squatted 185 (lbs) for 10 reps with supreme ease last week, so they are definitely working. I need to remember to bring my lifting belt... it definitely helps with front squats, and I honestly don't see any decrease in my unbelted lifts. Justin Lacek(spelling?) from 70'sBig taught me the right way to use my belt about 2 years ago, via some private emails, and I just started practicing this maybe three weeks ago? It was only once, but man... I ended up doing band front squats with 310 total lbs at the top and 165 at the bottom, no problem for 3 sets of 5 reps. That was probably 50 lbs more band resistance than I could have handled without the belt, and it felt really good. Well, ok... it was actually incredibly hard as I stood up past the halfway point for the last 3 reps But I could power through it, and my legs were doing more work. It was quite nice, very different from my experience with lifting belts back in the day (I wasn't using them right, as Justin pointed out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quick Start Test Smith Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Haha, I obviously need to look into getting some bands then, because that sounds like it makes the easiest part of the squat the hardest. After the initial effort of getting out of the ATG position, front squats are really easy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Naterman Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Haha, I obviously need to look into getting some bands then, because that sounds like it makes the easiest part of the squat the hardest. After the initial effort of getting out of the ATG position, front squats are really easy.Yes, yes it does. It's incredibly useful. I recommend Body Bands, they are the same as all the others for a better price. I use one green and one purple on each side of the bar. I built a wooden platform that sits inside my power rack, and has a pipe run through it under the footboard as the band anchor. It is simple yet highly effective, and the whole thing cost me 15 bucks because I didn't have to buy plywood. I just got three 2x6x12 pieces, cut them into 4 foot segments, and made the box. vertical supports are ~6 inches apart. The thing is super solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SuperBru Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Thanks all for the replies! I particularly like the fact that you can gain muscle whilst staying the same weight. I guess Kohei Uchimur is a good example of this. At 54kg his got some serious size. Me at 64 kg not so much. I remember a lot of gym rats weighing themselves after they worked out to see if they weighed heavier. Weight=muscle probably not true. http://nimg.sulekha.com/sports/thumbnailfull/kohei-uchimura-2009-10-15-17-10-56.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quick Start Test Smith Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Sweet. I'll just order the bands, then, because I think I've got all the stuff for a platform already. PainIsGain, Kohei Uchimur is really, really well built. It's always surprising to me how much bigger a smaller but leaner person can look than a bigger but less lean person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Branson Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I always liked using chains over bands. Something manly about a couple hundred pounds of chain hanging off the bar. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Naterman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I always liked using chains over bands. Something manly about a couple hundred pounds of chain hanging off the bar.I must give you the manliness factor. There's nothing cooler than moving lots and lots of metal, especially when it's a giant chain hanging off each side of the bar! However, the bands remain my favorite They just accelerate so many times faster than gravity that there is a totally different feel, as if you are really fighting the whole way up. They have made regular weights seem so.... easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Branson Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Bands are indeed great things when used correctly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Svensson Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 You have to have caloric excess to gain WEIGHT.It is possible to stay the same weight and gain muscle while losing fat, it simply requires reasonably strict nutrition and consistent resistance exercise.It is also possible to slowly gain muscle while hypocaloric (in a deficit), but the deficit can't be huge. 19% seems to be perfectly doable according to research on athletes within the past 12 months, but a 30% deficit appeared to be too much to gain muscle while losing body mass.What do you think are the minimum protein requirements to save, or even build, muscle mass during a calorie deficit?The most common suggestion seem to be 2-3 grams/kg bw, or maybe more. Would you agree with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Naterman Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 2.2g/kg according to research I am familiar with. I would go with the full 2.8 g/kg. Anything beyond that is unsafe to recommend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Hinote Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 2.2g/kg according to research I am familiar with. I would go with the full 2.8 g/kg. Anything beyond that is unsafe to recommend.Those numbers are with the presumption that the person is of average body fat levels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgaron Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 2.2g/kg according to research I am familiar with. I would go with the full 2.8 g/kg. Anything beyond that is unsafe to recommend.Hey, Josh Could you provide us with some research that says that more than 4-5 protein pulses in a day results in more protein synthesis? Everyone seems to be saying it can only be effectively spiked 4-5 times a day (so 4-5 meals I suppose). Also, what about the body adapting to such feeding frequency and not being as sensitive to the amino acids later on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts