Does Hypertrophy require much excess calories?
- Thread starter Jens
- Start date
Tom Treutlein
New Member
The faster you want hypertrophy, the more calories above maintenance you must eat (within reason).
Some, such as Old and Grey, get by fine using 250 above maintenance. It takes more time, but it's steady.
Some, such as Old and Grey, get by fine using 250 above maintenance. It takes more time, but it's steady.
Muscle hypertrophy does not require a great deal of extra calories if you are not already "big". In other words, the more room you have to grow, the easier it is to grow without getting fat in the process.[b said:
If you don't want to add any additional fat, you should eat at maintenance calories.
If you are at 20% bodyfat I would suggest you add cardio to your schedule until you are around 12-13%.
Starting a bulk at 20% is a bad idea IMO. When your bf% starts getting above ~15% insulin resistance becomes a problem and your ratio of fat to muscle gains wont be very good.
Better to get yourself a bit leaner first before you consider a proper 'bulk'. Bryans pretty much on the money at 12-13%, although that doesnt give you much more room for bulking before the IR becomes a problem again. If you can stick cutting for that long Id get down to 10% then cycle between 10-15% as you bulk then cut. But then thats just me!
Either way, eat clean (bulking an cutting), train HST, stick to it for time and just watch the transformation!
EDIT - I came down from ~18-20% to ~9-10% in two 8 week HST cycles, following Twin Peaks carb cycling diet (see Avant)
Better to get yourself a bit leaner first before you consider a proper 'bulk'. Bryans pretty much on the money at 12-13%, although that doesnt give you much more room for bulking before the IR becomes a problem again. If you can stick cutting for that long Id get down to 10% then cycle between 10-15% as you bulk then cut. But then thats just me!
Either way, eat clean (bulking an cutting), train HST, stick to it for time and just watch the transformation!
EDIT - I came down from ~18-20% to ~9-10% in two 8 week HST cycles, following Twin Peaks carb cycling diet (see Avant)
Tom Treutlein
New Member
Can we have a link to TP's Carb-Cycling diet, man? Those are some nice results.
As for bulking/cutting - I'm starting to think that whole thing isn't worth it. Much better to make steadier gains in lean mass over a longer period of time. Definitely healthier for you, too.
As for bulking/cutting - I'm starting to think that whole thing isn't worth it. Much better to make steadier gains in lean mass over a longer period of time. Definitely healthier for you, too.
Pauly,
You used carb cycling while during the HST cycles, or after with another program?
And for others, go to avantlabs.com[/b] and go to the online magazine. Carb cycling will be in one of the past issues.
You used carb cycling while during the HST cycles, or after with another program?
And for others, go to avantlabs.com[/b] and go to the online magazine. Carb cycling will be in one of the past issues.
Yeah, I used carb cycling with HST (which I train 6 days a week). But I prefer to have the same diet on any given day of the week though (for simplicity of planning), so instead of a strict three day cycle my plan was (and still is)...[b said:Quote[/b] (EctoSquat @ Dec. 22 2004,11)]Pauly,
You used carb cycling while during the HST cycles, or after with another program?
Mon - No
Tue - High
Wed - Low
Thu - No
Fri - High
Sat - Low
And so that I didnt have to rely on my judgement to decide when Id had enough carbs on the high days (which is a dangerous strategy for a carb addict like myself), I followed a '0-1-2 program', which is a carb intake of 0g/lb LBM on the 'no' days, 1g/lb LBM on the 'low' days and 2g/lb LBM on the 'high' days. This with 1-1.5g/lb protein and 30-40g/day fat gives a good calorie deficit, but also tops up glycogen twice a week so I can still train hard and stops any cravings from getting too bad. Its a good plan - hats off to Twin Peak!
EDIT - Incase anyones wondering about Sundays, I keep carbs moderate (aim for 1.5g/lb LBM) so I dont get too hungry, but then hopefully wont get any fat spillover either (or so the theory goes
)
I
imported_dkm1987
Guest
There is nothing unhealthy about cyclical energy intake. We have survived for thousands of years because our genetic makeup is such we can sustain life during many shifts in feasting or famine. Actually, until very recent history, this was the norm.[b said:
In terms of muscle growth I would agree.
the more u are able to eat clean calories in the max frequency the better. eating say per two hours makes insulin levels more stable and preventing ups and downs in blood sugar levels thus providing the extra kick in the gh levels and preventing the calories turning into fat... and the more calories u eat, the more anabolic hormones in your system.. and the less u eat, the more catabolic hormones in your body.. so if u r bulking up boost calories but not junk food unless getting fat is not a problem...
dividing your food up actually doesn't matter. It all evens out of the course of day. Obviously it's not practical to eat all at once and eating frequently can help you eat more or less, depending on your goals, but timing your meals (except with respect to training) is irrelevant. And clean or not, if you have too many calories, you'll put on fat.
Tom Treutlein
New Member
BoSox:
A) Go eat all your calories for a day in one or two meals, and tell me that it's the same as spreading it out across the day. Yeah, it really doesn't make a difference.
B) Eat under maintenance calories, but eat all M&Ms. Or better yet, eat oreos with whole milk all day. Better yet, eat them all at once, since spreading your meals out doesn't really matter at all, right?
It's not as simple as calories in vs. calories out.
A) Go eat all your calories for a day in one or two meals, and tell me that it's the same as spreading it out across the day. Yeah, it really doesn't make a difference.
B) Eat under maintenance calories, but eat all M&Ms. Or better yet, eat oreos with whole milk all day. Better yet, eat them all at once, since spreading your meals out doesn't really matter at all, right?
It's not as simple as calories in vs. calories out.
A. It's the same Tom. While it may not be practical (I can't eat that much in one sitting), it is nutritionally equivalent. You can't expect these things to be intuitive. Just because it doesn't sound like it would work doesn't mean it won't.[b said:Quote[/b] (Tom Treutlein @ Dec. 27 2004,11:18)]BoSox:
A) Go eat all your calories for a day in one or two meals, and tell me that it's the same as spreading it out across the day. Yeah, it really doesn't make a difference.
B) Eat under maintenance calories, but eat all M&Ms. Or better yet, eat oreos with whole milk all day. Better yet, eat them all at once, since spreading your meals out doesn't really matter at all, right?
It's not as simple as calories in vs. calories out.
B. Obviously. My point was only that eating clean doesn't ensure that you won't put on fat. Show me where I said you can eat oreos and M&M's and not put on weight. Please.
Tom Treutlein
New Member
You said it was as simple as calories in vs. calories out. Never said anything about eating clean. Calories in vs. calories out would mean as long as you're eating less calories than you put out, you wouldn't gain weight. If maintenance is 2500, eat 2000 in oreos and crap food. You'll still gain fat.
And it's not the same to eat it all in one sitting (not that anyone could, anyway), because your body wouldn't be able to partition and utilize the nutrients as well, and you wouldn't have stable blood-sugar levels throughout the day. While the quantity would be the same, the quality certainly would NOT be.
And it's not the same to eat it all in one sitting (not that anyone could, anyway), because your body wouldn't be able to partition and utilize the nutrients as well, and you wouldn't have stable blood-sugar levels throughout the day. While the quantity would be the same, the quality certainly would NOT be.
Tom, c'mon. We're both intelligent people, we both know a bodybuilder shouldn't have a diet of oreos in order to lose weight. Let's not get hung up on technicalities, because we both know that is not what I meant.[b said:
And your statements about "partitioning and utilizing" nutrients are off target as well. Yes, that might seem logical. But biology isn't always logical. I thought the multi-meals myth was dispelled a while ago. Obviously, I'm not advocating the one meal a day routine. It's not practical. And yes, multi meals is easier, more enjoyable, whatever. But daily intake is what counts, not how many ways it is divided up.
well I only apply common sense when it isn't opposed by biology.[b said:Quote[/b] (salihyz @ Dec. 27 2004,3:57)]and bosox... do u believe what u say? then how u ever become using hst which requires a little bit common sense
And HST works... therefore, common sense would be to keep doing what's working