How many calories to add 1 lbs of muscle
- Thread starter Canuck709
- Start date
This varies among individuals and is too difficult to give a concrete answer. But if you eat about 500 over maintenance each day, you will probably put on a pound or two a week. If you are working out intelligently, then at least half (hopefully more) will probably be muscle.
Ratio probably doesn't matter. The exception is that you'll probably want to get at least one gram of protein per pound of bodyweight just to be safe.
I hope that will probably answer your question.
Ratio probably doesn't matter. The exception is that you'll probably want to get at least one gram of protein per pound of bodyweight just to be safe.
I hope that will probably answer your question.
I have heard the 500 calorie arguement. My challenge is I find it hard to believe in this day of modern medecine and research we can't refine that number. I mean If I only require 250 cal to put on a lbs of muscle will the rest be fat?
Is a possible solution to lower caloric intake on non training days and increase on training days? Primarily with carbs focused on pre-during and post workouts?
Pardon my newbie ramblings, I should probably just shut up workout.
Thanks
Is a possible solution to lower caloric intake on non training days and increase on training days? Primarily with carbs focused on pre-during and post workouts?
Pardon my newbie ramblings, I should probably just shut up workout.
Thanks
Well, this depends quite a bit on YOU and your genetics, which is the main problem in pinning down an exact number.
Lowering intake on non-training days is a very, very bad idea. The day after training is when most of your growth is going to occur. Protein synthesis spikes at about 24 hours after your training bout and is pretty much back to normal within 48 hours after the training bout. So... if anything, you'd want to lower cals on training days and increase on non-training days. Either way is a bad idea in my book though.
I'll just warn you that guys who are all hung up on staying as lean as possible while also bulking up usually meet with dissappointing results. I know a guy who I use an example a lot. He eats clean and he is always "slow bulking" in order to keep the fat at bay. He is my height, but has been training for a much longer time than me. In my first year of serious training, I bulked like mad and ended up bigger than him with more lean mass than him within a year.
Obviously, trying to find the perfect number isn't working out for him.
Anyway, if you want to research some of this yourself, try doing some searches on pubmed.com
Lowering intake on non-training days is a very, very bad idea. The day after training is when most of your growth is going to occur. Protein synthesis spikes at about 24 hours after your training bout and is pretty much back to normal within 48 hours after the training bout. So... if anything, you'd want to lower cals on training days and increase on non-training days. Either way is a bad idea in my book though.
I'll just warn you that guys who are all hung up on staying as lean as possible while also bulking up usually meet with dissappointing results. I know a guy who I use an example a lot. He eats clean and he is always "slow bulking" in order to keep the fat at bay. He is my height, but has been training for a much longer time than me. In my first year of serious training, I bulked like mad and ended up bigger than him with more lean mass than him within a year.
Obviously, trying to find the perfect number isn't working out for him.
Anyway, if you want to research some of this yourself, try doing some searches on pubmed.com
bluejacket
New Member
like totz mentioned, you could try doing some research on pub-med. like he also mentioned though, it mostly will come down to how you (or test subjects you read about) personally respond to excess cals, carbs, fats etc. protein seems to be pretty consistently recommended at 1g per lb bw up to 1.5g per lb but not much else is 100% in stone.
dont anticipate having a problem putting on too much fat (over muscle) when you bulk. if youve bulked before while following a decent lifting plan (progressive load, compounds etc) and put on more fat then muscle then yes, trying to research out a better way for you to gain muscle is a good idea. just dont assume youll have a terrible partioning ratio unless youve tried before and know it to be true. again like totz mentioned 500+ a day, keeping up with the protein and working out hard serves most people well. i dont know if your one of those people but no sense in making it "more" difficult then it needs to be unless you have to.
good luck
dont anticipate having a problem putting on too much fat (over muscle) when you bulk. if youve bulked before while following a decent lifting plan (progressive load, compounds etc) and put on more fat then muscle then yes, trying to research out a better way for you to gain muscle is a good idea. just dont assume youll have a terrible partioning ratio unless youve tried before and know it to be true. again like totz mentioned 500+ a day, keeping up with the protein and working out hard serves most people well. i dont know if your one of those people but no sense in making it "more" difficult then it needs to be unless you have to.
good luck
I
imported_drpierredebs
Guest
You can figure it out, but it will cost you a trip to a sports medicine clinic and you will have to subject yourself to all sorts of tests, but it is possible.
I recommend to read this article by Christian Thibaudeau The Truth About Bulking. I think there's some very valuable information.
"Under the best possible circumstances (perfect diet, training, supplementation, and recovery strategies) the average male body can manufacture between 0.25 and 0.5 pounds of dry muscle tissue per week. That is the amount your natural body chemistry will allow you to build.
Understand that it's possible to gain more weight without adding fat because when you increase your muscle size you also increase glycogen and water storage in those muscles. More muscle equals more glycogen.
A trained individual can store up to 40g of glycogen per 100g of muscle tissue. So if you're gaining ten pounds of new muscle (4545g) you'll also increase glycogen storage by around four pounds (1.8kg). So if you gain ten pounds of muscle, your scale gain will actually be closer to fourteen pounds (if you didn't gain any fat).
Chances are if you're gaining more than three pounds per month, you're gaining some fat."
"Under the best possible circumstances (perfect diet, training, supplementation, and recovery strategies) the average male body can manufacture between 0.25 and 0.5 pounds of dry muscle tissue per week. That is the amount your natural body chemistry will allow you to build.
Understand that it's possible to gain more weight without adding fat because when you increase your muscle size you also increase glycogen and water storage in those muscles. More muscle equals more glycogen.
A trained individual can store up to 40g of glycogen per 100g of muscle tissue. So if you're gaining ten pounds of new muscle (4545g) you'll also increase glycogen storage by around four pounds (1.8kg). So if you gain ten pounds of muscle, your scale gain will actually be closer to fourteen pounds (if you didn't gain any fat).
Chances are if you're gaining more than three pounds per month, you're gaining some fat."
TunnelRat
Active Member
<div>
(Sikanauta @ Jun. 01 2007,18:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I recommend to read this article by Christian Thibaudeau The Truth About Bulking. I think there's some very valuable information.</div>
Wow! Very helpful -- thanks!
(Sikanauta @ Jun. 01 2007,18:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I recommend to read this article by Christian Thibaudeau The Truth About Bulking. I think there's some very valuable information.</div>
Wow! Very helpful -- thanks!
Heavy Duty dude
New Member
It seems that the body can build muscle even when losing weight, in the case of a beginner.
Also, depending on the diet, at equal calories the nitrogen balance can be either negative or positive.
So it seems logical to me that a caloric surplus is not absolutely necessary. What a caloric surplus does is that it puts the body in an even more anabolic state, because there's more food and more hormones. But it may not be the calories themselves that make the difference.
Think of AAS.. someone on AAS will build more muscle at the same number of calories than someone natural, because they have more hormones, not because they have more calories. ( which doesn't mean that someone on AAS should not eat a lot to maximize the effect.. )
Just my 2 cents..
Also, depending on the diet, at equal calories the nitrogen balance can be either negative or positive.
So it seems logical to me that a caloric surplus is not absolutely necessary. What a caloric surplus does is that it puts the body in an even more anabolic state, because there's more food and more hormones. But it may not be the calories themselves that make the difference.
Think of AAS.. someone on AAS will build more muscle at the same number of calories than someone natural, because they have more hormones, not because they have more calories. ( which doesn't mean that someone on AAS should not eat a lot to maximize the effect.. )
Just my 2 cents..
I like what Heavy was saying. If we could study and find out what makes the body anabolic, we could perfect an activity scheme for our day. And if we could find out what foods create an anabolic state, someone would condense them into a pill or powder, advertise them on the web, get everyone growing, make a couple million dollars before the US government banned it due to pressure from the AMA, FDA and massive control issues.
Jeez, I must be bored tonight!
Jeez, I must be bored tonight!
Heavy Duty dude
New Member
Some supplements can already help you achieve a state of anabolism. Those include BCAAs,Test boosters ( ZMA, tribulus.. ) , proteins, etc.
Regarding BCAAs, here are a few insteresting reads:
- http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/inmag5.htm
- http://www.charlespoliquin.net/members....sid=262
- http://www.charlespoliquin.net/members....sid=241 ( Note the ratio of BCAAs that Poliquin recommends, it's very high in leucine)
Also interesting.. http://www.charlespoliquin.net/members....sid=256
The time when you eat your protein has an effect on your gains, which shows that it's not just a question of calories.
Regarding BCAAs, here are a few insteresting reads:
- http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/inmag5.htm
- http://www.charlespoliquin.net/members....sid=262
- http://www.charlespoliquin.net/members....sid=241 ( Note the ratio of BCAAs that Poliquin recommends, it's very high in leucine)
Also interesting.. http://www.charlespoliquin.net/members....sid=256
The time when you eat your protein has an effect on your gains, which shows that it's not just a question of calories.
Heavy Duty dude
New Member
Here's another interesting article:
http://www.musclearticles.com/archives/272 ( here's a review of the study.. http://evidencebasedfitness.blogspot.com/2007....n.html)
Generaly speaking, it is well accepted that the type of protein has an impact on body composition: whey is better at building muscle than casein for instance, while casein is more anti catabolic.
Also, a diet high in protein seems to stimulate fat loss more.
I know that nutrient timing is important in Poliquin's view. The guy trains in my gym sometimes and I know the post workout shakes that he takes.. It contains 3 scoops of whey, 10g of glutamine, and 800 cal of carbs. I calculated in all it's over 1200 calories. And he probably doesn't take BCAAs because they don't have it at the gym to put in the shakes. And that's for a guy who is not so big, he weights probably 180-190lbs, not more.
The guys who do DoggCrap also eat a hell of a lot after their training, over 1000 cal in general.
It's surely not just a matter of calories.. nutrient timing and other factors may play a big role.
This being said, I guess that the calories contained in 1 lb of muscle have to come from somewhere. 1 lb of muscle contains about 400-500 calories ( 454g x 28% of protein + a little bit of glycogen). The process of building 1lb of muscle probably also requires energy.. So it may still require a minimum amount of energy. Which doesn't mean that muscle cannot be built in caloric deficit.. the body may build muscle from the proteins in the diet and get the rest of its energy from the rest of the diet and bodyfat.
http://www.musclearticles.com/archives/272 ( here's a review of the study.. http://evidencebasedfitness.blogspot.com/2007....n.html)
Generaly speaking, it is well accepted that the type of protein has an impact on body composition: whey is better at building muscle than casein for instance, while casein is more anti catabolic.
Also, a diet high in protein seems to stimulate fat loss more.
I know that nutrient timing is important in Poliquin's view. The guy trains in my gym sometimes and I know the post workout shakes that he takes.. It contains 3 scoops of whey, 10g of glutamine, and 800 cal of carbs. I calculated in all it's over 1200 calories. And he probably doesn't take BCAAs because they don't have it at the gym to put in the shakes. And that's for a guy who is not so big, he weights probably 180-190lbs, not more.
The guys who do DoggCrap also eat a hell of a lot after their training, over 1000 cal in general.
It's surely not just a matter of calories.. nutrient timing and other factors may play a big role.
This being said, I guess that the calories contained in 1 lb of muscle have to come from somewhere. 1 lb of muscle contains about 400-500 calories ( 454g x 28% of protein + a little bit of glycogen). The process of building 1lb of muscle probably also requires energy.. So it may still require a minimum amount of energy. Which doesn't mean that muscle cannot be built in caloric deficit.. the body may build muscle from the proteins in the diet and get the rest of its energy from the rest of the diet and bodyfat.