Alternating kcal count for lean mass gain

Hey GymnasticBodies!

I've used the daily energy calculator on IIFYM.com to calculate the general kcal requirements for each day of the week. On IIFYM, it's recommended that you cut 15-20% of kcal if you want to lean out and add 10% of kcal if you want to gain weight.

I was wondering if doing 15% less on rest days and 10% more on training days would be effective. I remember Josh (Slizz) used to do something similar to this, but I don't remember him ever saying anything about how it went before he switched it up.

Seems like something that would be effective. The main thing that would be lowered on rest days would be carbohydrates and fat, but it wouldn't take too much to decrease to reach the kcal goal.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks .

Edit: Forgot to mention that this is just for total kcal consumption. I'm following Josh's guidelines on eating on everything else.

I suppose you could do that, it is simple and fairly effective.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but those lower kcal days are the days you need to be high protein. Those are the days where getting the full 2.8 grams per kg of bodyweight is a very, very good idea. This ensures you retain the maximum possible amount of lean mass.

Great, thank you. I purchased a custom mix of whey concentrate and a casein (15% and 85% respectively) at TrueNutrition which will help me keep up my protein consumption without overdosing on sodium and fat from the hot dogs that I'd otherwise have to eat.

No, why would you do something like that? Your body doesn't work on a 24 hr schedule. If you want to add muscle, why would you stay at a caloric deficit at any one day at all? You're building muscle on off days too, not just on workout days. Say you ingest 3000 kcals on a workout day, then on a rest day you're only ingesting 2500 kcals. The net product of those two days would be 2750 kcals/day, so why not just eat 2750 kcals per day instead of micromanaging and making it complicated?

Some people like to feast/fast, that is, they ingest in the area of 7000 kcals on one day, and on the next they ingest 0 kcals. The net kcals of those 2 days would be 3500 kcals. It works for them and they like it I guess, but I don't see the point of doing something like that unless you REALLY enjoy it.

Carb cycling doesn't do squat for bodycomposition.

Listen, go here: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13re and read the stickies, it might clear some things up about nutrition

I don't think you understand the importance of nutrient timing, Lindahl. Thanks for the link, though. I'll read them.

Lindahl said:

No, why would you do something like that? Your body doesn't work on a 24 hr schedule. If you want to add muscle, why would you stay at a caloric deficit at any one day at all? You're building muscle on off days too, not just on workout days. Say you ingest 3000 kcals on a workout day, then on a rest day you're only ingesting 2500 kcals. The net product of those two days would be 2750 kcals/day, so why not just eat 2750 kcals per day instead of micromanaging and making it complicated?

For the exact same reason you said: Your body does not work on a 24 hour schedule. Your body works in the moment, and the demands of each activity need to be met individually and specifically. The closer your diet reflects this need, the better you will look and perform.

Think about that.

Edit: you will not only feel better, but you will see better results in training. There is a pretty neat body of research on this that is being built up by Dr. Dan Benardot, and it's not based on fasted state subjects. That's really, really important because a fasted state tells you very little about how you respond in real life (unless you are fasting).

Over the next 10-15 years, you will see this become more and more accepted, because it works. Timing is just as important as overall kcal goals. They are inextricably intertwined when you are looking at the big picture.

Patrick Smith said:

I don't think you understand the importance of nutrient timing, Lindahl. Thanks for the link, though. I'll read them.

That's because there is no importance of nutrient timing other than personal reasons such as reducing the feeling of being bloated/starved in the gym.

Joshua Naterman said:

Lindahl said:

No, why would you do something like that? Your body doesn't work on a 24 hr schedule. If you want to add muscle, why would you stay at a caloric deficit at any one day at all? You're building muscle on off days too, not just on workout days. Say you ingest 3000 kcals on a workout day, then on a rest day you're only ingesting 2500 kcals. The net product of those two days would be 2750 kcals/day, so why not just eat 2750 kcals per day instead of micromanaging and making it complicated?

For the exact same reason you said: Your body does not work on a 24 hour schedule. Your body works in the moment, and the demands of each activity need to be met individually and specifically. The closer your diet reflects this need, the better you will look and perform.

Think about that.

Edit: you will not only feel better, but you will see better results in training. There is a pretty neat body of research on this that is being built up by Dr. Dan Benardot, and it's not based on fasted state subjects. That's really, really important because a fasted state tells you very little about how you respond in real life (unless you are fasting).

Over the next 10-15 years, you will see this become more and more accepted, because it works. Timing is just as important as overall kcal goals. They are inextricably intertwined when you are looking at the big picture.

Really? All the recent studies I have seen on the subject, including this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289204 , points at the "4 hour" anabolic window, PWO window and nutrient timing being nothing but myths, but I'd be happy to take part in any studies showing otherwise as I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence

I have some testimonials coming in from people who have implemented what I have said after trying what you said, which is industry standard at the moment, and the results have been overwhelmingly positive. I constantly get approached by people from months ago who are like "hey you probably don't remember me but dude... you've changed my life. Doing things like you said has made a huge difference! I'm leaner and stronger, and it just seems to work so easily. Thank you!"

It's actually one of these that made me realize I should probably be collecting these testimonials.

Anyhow, what that study is establishing is that you are able to take advantage of a larger anabolic window when you train to failure. Notice the specifics surrounding the failure protocols and how the researchers indicate that the failure, particularly at higher loads, is what seems to be working magic.

This is not suggesting, in any way, that nutrient timing is bullshit. Instead, it should be making you realize that when you train to failure you have a very long period of time where you actually NEED to be maintaining a small energy surplus along with providing a steady series of protein pulses, so that you can maximize myofibrillar protein synthesis.

The common threads in all studies regarding enhanced protein synthesis post-workout are as follows:

1) for a period of time following the workout your body is literally primed to make more myofibrillar protein than usual, particularly if you have given it energy substrates and raw materials to work with.

2) In the studies that look at the effect of nutrients on the enhanced synthesis, the enhancement hinges on getting the nutrition. No food, you get a temporary 50% spike that goes away in a few hours. With food, you get a little over a 100% increase and it can last a lot longer, particularly if you go to failure.

How on earth did this make you think that there is somehow no need to worry about when you eat?

I hate to say this because it sounds condescending, but you know just enough to point people in the wrong direction on this subject. You are mis-interpreting the results of the studies you are quoting.

In case it's useful, here's the full study to the above: http://beta.stefanhinote.com/J.%20Nutr.-2011-Burd-568-73.pdf

Joshua Naterman said:

I have some testimonials coming in from people who have implemented what I have said after trying what you said, which is industry standard at the moment, and the results have been overwhelmingly positive. I constantly get approached by people from months ago who are like "hey you probably don't remember me but dude... you've changed my life. Doing things like you said has made a huge difference! I'm leaner and stronger, and it just seems to work so easily. Thank you!"

It's actually one of these that made me realize I should probably be collecting these testimonials.

That's all well and good. But there are also testimonials from people doing IF, who are working out in the evening, and not eating anything until the next morning, who are also making great gains while not gaining much fat. Testimonials are not scientific evidence of anything. There are aesthetic guys who swears by all kinds of bro-sciency strategies, including only eating brown rice, chicken breast and broccoli. Doesn't make it anymore true.

Anyhow, what that study is establishing is that you are able to take advantage of a larger anabolic window when you train to failure. Notice the specifics surrounding the failure protocols and how the researchers indicate that the failure, particularly at higher loads, is what seems to be working magic.

This is not suggesting, in any way, that nutrient timing is bullshit. Instead, it should be making you realize that when you train to failure you have a very long period of time where you actually NEED to be maintaining a small energy surplus along with providing a steady series of protein pulses, so that you can maximize myofibrillar protein synthesis.

The study does indeed conclude that by working to failure you get an increased protein synthesis response. It also concludes that the timeframe in which said increased protein synthesis occurs is at least 24 hours after the workout session, illustrated by the fact that they measured the effects of 15 g of whey ingestion the day after the session, and still found the anabolic response higher than baseline. This to me suggests that nutrient timing isn't at all very important, and that the "PWO window" of 4 hours is indeed bullshit.

As long as you get your macro and micro needs for the day, you're golden, and nutrient timing has no real effect on body composition.

The common threads in all studies regarding enhanced protein synthesis post-workout are as follows:

1) for a period of time following the workout your body is literally primed to make more myofibrillar protein than usual, particularly if you have given it energy substrates and raw materials to work with.

2) In the studies that look at the effect of nutrients on the enhanced synthesis, the enhancement hinges on getting the nutrition. No food, you get a temporary 50% spike that goes away in a few hours. With food, you get a little over a 100% increase and it can last a lot longer, particularly if you go to failure.

I am interested in the studies that show these effects. Do you have a link to them please?

How on earth did this make you think that there is somehow no need to worry about when you eat?

Because the period of time you referenced in 1) is so long. It's not like I don't eat food for 30 hours after I work out, but I certainly don't get all stressed out about "missing my PWO window" if I don't eat anything for an hour or two after my session.

I hate to say this because it sounds condescending, but you know just enough to point people in the wrong direction on this subject. You are mis-interpreting the results of the studies you are quoting.

Don't worry about that, I'm not easily offended. However, I don't think I'm misinterpreting the studies. That particular study was used by Alan Aragon to argue the exact same point I'm arguing here, and he's one of the leading experts in the nutritional field in the US. If I'm misinterpreting it, at least I'm in good company.

There was actually a good discussion on this point on the nutritional section of the bodybuilding.com forums a while back. I'll link it if you want to have a read! http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=131821473

May I ask how many people you have worked with on their diet using your methods and what results you produced? Or what results you have produced for yourself?

I just got a notification by Phys.org about a MedicalXpress article "I'ts not just what you eat, but when you eat it."

Not making a comment on the article, but after spending a lot of time reading on BB.com about nutrition and going through old posts here, it's a funny coincidence for me.

Nutrient timing is becoming more prevalent and is very powerful when used right. It goes together with getting your overall macros if you will.

Nic Branson said:

May I ask how many people you have worked with on their diet using your methods and what results you produced? Or what results you have produced for yourself?

I'm not a nutritional expert, I don't have any clients, and I'm not trying to be either. I'm just an interested layman. I'm currently studying medicine, but in a different field. That said, since I've switced from a nutritiming approach, which I was using before (with good results) to an IF protocol, I've not seen any decline in performance or gains. Nor have I seen any specific improvements in either. What I have noticed is that I'm having a much easier time controling my appetite, which in the past has been a problem.

Nic Branson said:

Nutrient timing is becoming more prevalent and is very powerful when used right. It goes together with getting your overall macros if you will.

I see alot of these claims, but not much scientific data to back it up. All the recent scientific studies I've seen points to there being absolutely no upside at all to nutritiming when it comes to bodycomposition.

Lindahl, you are definitely in good company in misinterpreting. Aragon is a very smart man and I hope I have the opportunity to meet him one day!

However, the more correct interpretation is this:

When you work to failure, it appears that the anabolic window is much longer than previously thought.

However, when not working to failure studies show that protein response returns to baseline by 6 hours post workout.

That is a very, very important difference because it illustrates the importance of knowing which protocols will provide you with the greatest opportunity for making gains with a particular nutritional plan.

If following a leangains IF plan, which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from standard IF (and Martin goes to fairly long lengths to point that out) and doing what Martin says (working out at the very beginning of food window) then you're going to be taking advantage of enhanced protein synthesis for a good 12 hours, and it will be during the most sensitive period. This will be what limits fat gains and also what allows you to pile on so much lean mass that even with what you lose in the fasting period you will still come out slightly ahead for a good long while, and this allows for positive body composition changes.

Leangains, because it does a fairly good job of following the basic human system rules as they apply to low-volume athletes (bodybuilders and those interested exclusively in aesthetics, with the low volume referring to the 1 hour or less training session followed by very limited activity the rest of the day) is going to be effective for body composition but has several weaknesses:

1) By nature, it does not include cardio. Therefore, by nature, it is not taking care of your cardiovascular system to the degree that we need on a long term basis. This makes it a reasonable alternative for relatively short periods of time (measured in single digit months, not years), but not as a forever lifestyle.

2) By nature, leangains does not allow the kind of caloric absorption that is required for football players and other serious athletes who have multiple practice hours and sometimes multiple practices per week, especially endurance athletes, to perform at their best. Martin very clearly points out that this is a limitation of Leangains, and that it is not appropriate for many team sport athletes.

3) A lot of people think they can eat whatever they want, and this will lead to health issues down the line. Martin is pretty clear that he is very specific with his personal clients (and they are the ones that always see the best results) about what they eat. This is often glossed over by IF proponents.

So, done within those limitations I personally don't see any short or mid-term harm coming from cyclical bouts of Leangains. I think it's perfectly appropriate for our members here who do nothing besides the 1 hour or so of physical training required for the GB program per session.

However, many of us play sports for fun outside of our training, or train for many hours per day for a variety of reasons. For those members, it may not be as good of an option. Depends on how hard they play, when the sport is relative to their eating window, and how big they are. The bigger you are, in general, the less activity you can have while being successful on Leangains. It's just a matter of caloric absorption ability vs expenditure. 8 hours of eating just doesn't let you absorb as many calories as 16, and there's nothing that can change that.

The data for nutrient timing is often poorly tested, in my opinion, because it is almost never tested in the fashion that I am presenting.

For example, there are studies testing 30g whey +5g creatine + 5 or 10g BCAA vs isocaloric carbohydrate drink.

Unsurprisingly to me, there is zero difference in results after a 6 or 8 week period. Why? Because the body wants energy first. That's the first priority: fuel to live on. AFTER that is met, you start seeing extra gains when providing the right fuel but when doing carbs vs protein research you're basically going up to a homeless guy in an Alaska winter and saying "Hey, you want logs or furniture to burn"

The guy's going to be like " I don't care as long as I can burn it. Give me something to burn, I'm f-ing cold!"

To me, this kind of research actually emphasizes the importance of having nutrients TOGETHER in combinations that specifically address the needs of energy status and biological processes at work.

Lindahl,

Fair enough, do what works for you. I would never advise otherwise. My recent use with nutrient timing has not been based around body composition but athletic performance. It's not always the easiest approach for some, and it does take some fine tuning to see a difference in results.

Just wanted to mention that I'm about two thirds done with Alan Aragon's book, "Girth Control," and I think you, Lindahl, would be surprised at how much he and Josh agree on about NutrientTiming... he certainly doesn't have the opinion that timing has no effect. On the contrary, he writes extensively on eating carbohydrates as soon as possible after training. I'm not sure what he thinks today, but at the time he wrote that book, he clearly believed that timing was an important aspect of nutrition.

Patrick Smith said:

Just wanted to mention that I'm about two thirds done with Alan Aragon's book, "Girth Control," and I think you, Lindahl, would be surprised at how much he and Josh agree on about NutrientTiming... he certainly doesn't have the opinion that timing has no effect. On the contrary, he writes extensively on eating carbohydrates as soon as possible after training. I'm not sure what he thinks today, but at the time he wrote that book, he clearly believed that timing was an important aspect of nutrition.

How about that. I didn't even know he had a book.

I think that, to a fair extent, Alan Aragon falls victim to time and space constraints. I think that if we had a conversation we would end up realizing that we have nearly identical opinions.

I may be reaching too far with this next statement, but I think that much of what he says is on websites is to make sure that people don't stop going to the gym just because they are intimidated by all the PWO stuff. It's better to work out and not have PWO nutrition perfectly timed than to not work out, and the danger with telling things exactly how they are to the general population is that they will only read a snippet and then run off a cliff thinking they're doing the right thing for them (so to speak).

Kind of how if we really explained the depth of the problems with our economy and the true roots that we are aware of, and what objective solutions would be vs what our government is capable of implementing (forget parties, just think practical considerations regarding keeping businesses on our shores) the stock markets would more or less collapse because people would realize they are betting their life savings on untenable circumstances. However, by keeping the truth locked up and allowing it to be debated as OPINION on talk shows where everything just becomes a popularity contest anyways no one knows how shaky things really are, and most are happy to keep their heads in the sand. This keeps the markets stable for a while, perhaps even long enough to implement real solutions.

In other words, sometimes people are better off not knowing the truth. I prefer to believe that people are better off having the opportunity to learn exactly how it works, but I would not be surprised if this mechanism plays some part in perceived differences between my take and Alan's.

Joshua Naterman said:

In other words, sometimes people are better off not knowing the truth. I prefer to believe that people are better off having the opportunity to learn exactly how it works, but I would not be surprised if this mechanism plays some part in perceived differences between my take and Alan's.

This is true. However, I feel that for those willing to learn, the opportunity should be there. To learn and understand.

Kind of reminds me of the Ismaili doctrine... scary that. They were the first terrorists (around 1000 AD in the middle east), and they basically assassinated people that stood in their way. It's actually where the name 'assassin' comes from, since they were also called hashashin. Their signature move was to let themselves get cut down by the guards after the kill.

Sorry, nerding out hard over here. Please continue.

Joshua Naterman said:

I think that, to a fair extent, Alan Aragon falls victim to time and space constraints. I think that if we had a conversation we would end up realizing that we have nearly identical opinions.

I wouldn't be very surprised if that were true. You and he write quite a lot alike.

I expected him to be anti-carb and all "paleo" but in fact he is the only other person besides you who I have read recommending up to 400g+ carbs for someone while also seeming right about most other stuff...

It's a really good book. Looking forward to yours, Josh.

Joshua Naterman said:

I may be reaching too far with this next statement, but I think that much of what he says is on websites is to make sure that people don't stop going to the gym just because they are intimidated by all the PWO stuff. It's better to work out and not have PWO nutrition perfectly timed than to not work out, and the danger with telling things exactly how they are to the general population is that they will only read a snippet and then run off a cliff thinking they're doing the right thing for them (so to speak).

[...]

In other words, sometimes people are better off not knowing the truth. I prefer to believe that people are better off having the opportunity to learn exactly how it works, but I would not be surprised if this mechanism plays some part in perceived differences between my take and Alan's.

I think you're right. Sometimes (often) people get too caught up in the details and kind of "miss the forest for all the trees," if you know the saying. I've done it more than a few times.

Rik de Kort said:

This is true. However, I feel that for those willing to learn, the opportunity should be there. To learn and understand.

Kind of reminds me of the Ismaili doctrine... scary that. They were the first terrorists (around 1000 AD in the middle east), and they basically assassinated people that stood in their way. It's actually where the name 'assassin' comes from, since they were also called hashashin. Their signature move was to let themselves get cut down by the guards after the kill.

Sorry, nerding out hard over here. Please continue.

LOL. So why does this remind you of the Ismaili doctrine?

Thought I'd mention that I just read in AA's book about something he calls "Nonlinear Variation" which is basically a fluctuating of Calorie count depending on the day's activity. He discusses two methods of non-linear variation: 1) basic nonlinear, and 2) complex nonlinear variation. Both methods include finding 100% of your maintenance/goal Calories and balancing it out so that all days have the same average (the 100%). If you increase one day to 120%, you have to decrease by a net 20% in the remaining days.

Patrick Smith said:

LOL. So why does this remind you of the Ismaili doctrine?

Sorry, I'm mixing up reality and fiction. I'm discussing it here from the book 'Alamut' by Vladimir Bartol, which is a work of fiction. It's excellent and if you haven't read it, you really should! That said, the novel was very well researched and there's certainly some overlap (like their signature move). Only I do not know how much.

Well, they were set up in several tiers. You had the supreme commander at the top and then through a couple of levels of commanders, the regular folks. Now the regular folks were taught about religion, that their commander held the key to paradise (he could literally open up paradise). But what the Ismaili's real doctrine revolved around the statement "Nothing is true, everything is permitted", and that religion is false, a tale to keep the masses obedient. The tale of the commander holding the key to paradise was nonsense, and the further you worked your way up, the more of this was revealed. So you've got the commander who is controlling all his followers through their religious devotion, while not believing in it himself.

Really, read the book. It's amazing.

Sounds very realistic... I will look it up.

By the way, how should I address you? Isn't "Rik" Swedish for the name Rich?

Patrick Smith said:

Thought I'd mention that I just read in AA's book about something he calls "Nonlinear Variation" which is basically a fluctuating of Calorie count depending on the day's activity. He discusses two methods of non-linear variation: 1) basic nonlinear, and 2) complex nonlinear variation. Both methods include finding 100% of your maintenance/goal Calories and balancing it out so that all days have the same average (the 100%). If you increase one day to 120%, you have to decrease by a net 20% in the remaining days.

This is basic zig-zagging, and as long as you're not going crazy with the surplus and deficit it can work for quite a while.

I don't know if he gets as specific as I do about what it means to match energy requirements to what you do in real time (according to our best estimates), but the idea of consuming energy according to how much you burn is always the right way to go. Always.

I'm actually going to look into doing some work on this with anaerobic training at Emory since rumor has it they have a direct calorimetry room.

The 5-6 METs thing for weightlifting, as just one example, breaks down under fairly simple scrutiny: If I am 200 lbs and squat 200 lbs 10 times, and a year later I am 225 lbs but I am squatting something like 300 lbs for 8 reps, the METs have clearly changed if rest times stay the same.

However, the 5-6 METs is a good baseline to run off of, and as I get stronger I will eat more than this suggests. I already consume more like 6-7 METs worth of food after each workout, and sometimes even that doesn't quite feel like enough. Anaerobic work is hard to judge with gas-exchange calorimetry, so doing a study where we see if there is a normalization curve that tracks MET output during lifting as a function of % body weight being lifted is the best way to go IMO. I am putting together a study design now, and will contact Emory over the break.