continued bulking debate from 'j-reps' post

S

scientific muscle

New Member
Here we can continue the debate about wether or not it is possible to gain Lean body mass when not eating over maintenence.  Some say it is possible to gain muscle mass with out eating more than maintenance.  Most say you need a caloric surplus in order to give the body the energy and nutrients it needs to cause anabolic protein synthesis.  I am leaning towards the latter, although I am not a diet expert and prefer to se what everyone else has to say.
This is particularly inviting Ashortt and Totentanz to continue the debate started in the 'j-reps' post in the beginner's forum.
 
As far as I understand it there are only two situations in which one can gain muscle with a caloric deficit. One would be with someone who is completely untrained. Even then you dont get much. I had been lifting on and off for 4 years without much to show for it. I thought I was genetically cursed. After I figured out I needed food and ate more it took me 3months to put on 16lbs of LBM. The other way is with steriods. Trying to gain muscle without eating for it is a waste of time.
 
Two situations that it generally will happy

1) novice
2) fat

some report it when lean with UD2 style of caloric manipulation, but not many.
 
Personally, I avoid trying to build muscle on a calorie deficit. I have built muscle sticking with right around my maintenance caloric needs.

This issue has been misconstrued big time in the world of bodybuilding. The notion that unless you consume significant extra calories above maintenance you are catabolic or not anabolic (or not anabolic enough) is nonsense. Not just in the numbers but the very notion. How do you know exactly what you need to maintain at any given moment anyway? Your maintenance isn’t just a daily, weekly cycle it changes by the hour and the month AND the year as you age. Those who needed to eat more to see real lean mass gains (not just fat weight spread out over the body making one look more muscular but a bit smoother) just weren’t eating maintenance all the time to begin with.

If you are very lean naturally then you need to make sure to get enough calories to support growth but force feeding is only going to bring fat with it all. My point is that you need very little extra calories to build muscle and that unless you are well below 10% bodyfat you can even build it on something like a maintenance amount.

Take pictures of yourself relaxed and flexing, check your body weight and Body fat %. Track everything you eat for 7 days (and the size of the portions) while trying to eat normal (not over or under). Now if you didn’t gain or lose fat you divide the total calories by 7 and get your daily maintenance number (approximately). Now try eating 500-800 calories more per day as most suggest. The after a month or two check your body fat and take pictures under same conditions. If you have gained significant weight chances are it is a lot of fat as well. Look a the pics and see how you have smoothed out.

So many people get fooled by this all the time. They add 10 lbs of fat to a 150-175 lb frame and think it is muscle. Fat covers the whole body and especially lean, small build guys can carry extra fat well.

Don’t get caught in the bulking game there is nothing hormonally magical about over eating. Muscle is mostly water and very little tissue and the process of building it isn’t that metabolically costly.

On a interesting note, though I don’t recommend it, I have built muscle on a slight calorie deficit during a 2 week blitz phase. I did this twice, built muscle while dropping a couple of percent in body fat. It is amazing what the body can do if it has to.

What I do is eat above maintenance on training days and the day after, anymore than that and I gain fat. That is my cycle, you may be less advanced and growing faster so you can eat more, more often. You may be younger with greater caloric needs due to hormone levels and life stress. It is all about fine tuning it to you but bear in mind that it is very easy to get too many calories.


Regards,
Andrew
www.zone-training.net
 
Just because you have crappy genes and cannot eat over maintenance without gaining a ton of fat doesn't mean those rules apply to everyone. Don't listen to this guy. The people who try to grow on maintenance calories are the guys who stay small their whole lives. I should know, I used to be tiny and "slight of build" as this guy claims he is, until I discovered how to eat.

AShortt, please explain to me how I managed this: In 2005, I discovered HST in January. I was 180 lbs at around 15% bodyfat. I did HST all year, with a brief cutting cycle in the summer. In January of 2006, I was 215 at 15% bodyfat. According to your posts, I should have been 215 at 30% bodyfat or something along those lines, with minimal muscle gain. What happened there? Oh yeah, maybe all those extra calories went to building muscle or something. Yeah, that could be it.

I know personally a guy (I've mentioned him before) who is all into "eating clean" and is around my height, has been training way longer than me, but is so scared of getting fat that he is still at around 170-180 lbs without visible abs. I guess your whole 'eating at maintenance to gain muscle' theory didn't work out for him, did it?
 
AShortt - you're argument falls flat in one major area - physics, and in particular the conservation of energy.

Maintenance would suggest the required amount of energy to "maintain" your current weight. Now, if you want to "increase" that weight, your body must do extra work (breaking down nutrients, converting proteins etc) and create new tissue. That tissue now adds to the energy requirements of the system (your body). Your energy requirements have now gone up. Sticking with maintenance won't give you the extra energy necessary to support the system (forget maintaining the new weight, you need extra energy/resources to construct the new muscle in the first place!).

You cant gain weight from say 180lb to 200lbs but still be eating for a 180lb frame.

And besides, no one can accurately gauge what a persons maintenance requirements are anyway. So what may seem like maintenance may be only 100kcals excess and therefore adequate to make gains (albeit not huge ones).
 
Tot,

Dude, AShortt is a "fitness clinician", a title/certification you get from IART (the Jrep Org by Brian Johnston, the Jrep Man). Given that, he's not about to agree to anything you will say unless you start chiming to the tune of what IART teaches or something. I personally think it isn't worth the frustration or aggression you may build up. Just let it slide. Anyway, no one will come here and agree to something that disagrees with a concept outlined in one of the basic articles by Bryan Haycock (had to use full name so no one gets confused as the Jrep Man is "Brian" Johnston).

You know what is right (as we see it) and it has made you far bigger than what he says works and so far hasn't given him better gains. That's enough "vindication" if you ever needed one.
 
Bottom line. If you would like to weigh 167 pounds after years of training, follow Shorty's plan of J-reps and a "low-cal lifestyle."

That's 167.
rock.gif
 
I find it too hard to justify just exactly what a person needs to grow 1 Lb muscle but the 2500-3500 Kcals seems about close. Some have shown that it takes about 4.5Kcal/gm or roughly 2000Kcal/Lb of growth which is both fat deposition and protein deposition, so assuming that the partitioning ratio is 70%, although in most it's probably closer to 60/40 or even worse 50/50 (protein to fat) deposition the 2000Kcal would come out to .7Lb lean at best. This accounts for the cost of synthesis and not the actual cost of exercise to raise synthesis. Resistance exercise raises synthesis rates and if it takes 5g of synthesized protein to deposit 1 gm of tissue this would change the energy needed as well.

Where I do agree with Andrew is that the body is very dynamic and all this changes by the minute and the amount needed will vary with macro content, and total energy expenditure.
 
Egad what a friendly bunch! I don’t eat super clean, super lean or super low in calories. I am saying something a bit controversial because it illustrates how narrow-minded most are.

I can easily walk around in the 180’s not 167 (5’8 ¾”) but I like to look fit not big. Guys who say they are over 200 around 15% are probably very smooth and under 200 when fit. Everyone who ever told me you MUST eat 2500-3000 extra calories for a pound of muscle was always smooth and rarely lean. 15% bodyfat (which most guess at but it is probably even higher if that is where you estimate it) is far from fit, it is bulk for bulks sake. Chances are if you cling to that you are just afraid of looking physically small or some such thing.

Personally when I built muscle on a slight calorie deficit I was completely shocked. I tell people now and again because it is interesting not to be pissed on. Remember when I say slight of build I mean I ain’t no genetic rarity who could win high level (though natural ) bodybuilding contests. I’ll bet there aren’t many of those here either. At the very standard bodyfat% of 15% I hold a bit more muscle than at 10% but so what!? I don’t care if the scale says 187 or 167 I ain’t that insecure.

Anyway except for Dan Moore you guys talk like grumpy unhappy unsatisfied types. Take care.

Regards,
Andrew
www.zone-training.net
 
Hey dont take offense to our opposing stance - healthy argument is what leads to enlightenment!

The point that we're trying to make is that you need extra energy to growth and support new muscle. Now guys who say they eat 3000kcals over maintenance ... well I'd agree that thats just crazy unless their metabolism just sucks bad.

My point, however, is how sure are you that your caloric intake IS maintenance? (seeing as need fluctuates daily depending on activity etc). I guess it wouldnt be impossible to build muscle and lose weight (as some do appear to) but rather its a very slow process.
 
ashortt

the only advice i would give would be to relax. this is not generally a "flaming" type of site. people may disagree strongly but thats ok isnt it.

you just cant have it both ways..... say something a bit controversial yet all who disagree are narrow minded.....you are comfortable with your muscularity, leaness and fitness yet those who disagree with you are smooth, unfit and obviously not in the shape they should be in. why is this?

if youve gotten results from your approach then good for you but, as youve stated before, your not interested in scientific studies etc. only in what personally works for you (trial, error). then why are you so quick to discount others exper. (trial, error) as uninformed, unfit and narrow minded.

bring what you got to the table and stand by it but dont get tight when others do the same.
 
Ashortt seems a little stuck on his genetic potential which, imho, is a pretty good way to set yourself up for failure.
 
Also, to reintroduce something I said in the jreps thread, my experience with 'jacking up calories' is that every time I do this, my strength tends to skyrocket.

If you believe that this has actually happened to me (and to many others), Anthony, I'm curious about your explanation for this rapid increase in strength in the face of heightened calories.

Meaning, you not only seem to dismiss the muscle building potential of a high calorie environment, but also the 'hormonal' consequences. What's left to explain the rapid increases in strength, more favorable leverage due to water retention?
 
I have to give credit where credit is due. Because of a particular cycling strategy I am using I have been bulking on calories every other week. I have to say combined with the set-up provided by a low calorie/low carb week it is making a difference.

Other bulking strategies I have tried only made me chubbier so I use to avoid the process.

I now admit that tailored to my cycle it is a positive contributing factor. I also have to say that I wouldn’t have been as open to putting it in the mix if I hadn’t read posts on this site so thanx all.


Regards,
Andrew
zone-training.net
 
Again, I love to debate, but didn't get in on this one, as training is my forte and not diet. But thanks for sharing your newfound conclusions Andrew. Like Mike posted above, I find a big difference of strength and energy levels when I eat enough. One week I went from cutting straight to bulking, my energy was through the roof and my strength was way up, that week I gained about 5 lb.s...probably because my starving muscles were absorbing water and glycogen like a sponge...that would explain the rapid weigth gain and high strength and energy levels.
cool.gif
 
sci,

did you consider a few weeks at maint. cals before going into a bulk?

i do recall you began cutting b/c the fat gain was too high on your previous bulk (iyo). 5lbs is considerable for 1 week, and yes some of it was due to the muscle replenishment you spoke of but that could be easily achieved at maint. cals with only a small change in actual wgt.

we all have diff. goals as well as methods were comfortable with to achieve them. im just wondering aloud if jumping right into a serious bulk (5lbs !) is best in the long run given your previous concern with gaining too much fat too quickly.

i could be wrong as it all depends on how restictive your cut was and how quickly you raised the cals but i would certainly be suspicious of any wgt gain anywhere near 5 lbs past the 1st week if limiting fat gain is a serious consideration.

good luck
 
That only happened once, and it was in the beginning of the bulking cycle where I got fat!
blush.gif
That week however was strange, I really think it was mostly water retention and lean mass. I don't think I put on whole lot of fat that week. I was just poinitng out how being carb-loaded can positively effect training, while being depleted as in a cutting state is not so good for lean mass gains. (as was discussed in this thread,)
Also I have quit 'bulking' since I dropped the fat. Now I am going to simply eat according to my appetite, as this has allowed me to gain muscle without getting fat in the past.
cool.gif
 
i gotcha

i didnt realize that example was from the past. good luck with the "appetite" eating. its not really worked for me past a certain point (usually about +2-5lbs) but it has seemed to work for others.
 
<div>
(AShortt @ Nov. 27 2006,11:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have to give credit where credit is due. Because of a particular cycling strategy I am using I have been bulking on calories every other week. I have to say combined with the set-up provided by a low calorie/low carb week it is making a difference.

Other bulking strategies I have tried only made me chubbier so I use to avoid the process.

I now admit that tailored to my cycle it is a positive contributing factor. I also have to say that I wouldn’t have been as open to putting it in the mix if I hadn’t read posts on this site so thanx all.


Regards,
Andrew
zone-training.net</div>
Great to hear you are having good results. Good luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top