What affect does having a negative calorie intake have on building muscle. I am on the anabolic diet and right now im trying to lose fat and gain muscle, will having a negative calorie intake prevent this?
|
-
12-07-2008, 07:59 PM #1
-
12-07-2008, 08:12 PM #2
-
12-07-2008, 08:28 PM #3
-
12-07-2008, 08:53 PM #4
-
-
12-08-2008, 06:04 AM #5
-
12-08-2008, 06:08 AM #6
english. Do you speak it?
Are you trying to say you want to go on a calorie deficit?
If you want to build up because you're new to lifting, then make sure to eat well @ breakfast, before and after workouts, as well as another meal after that. Eat healthy foods, and aim for 200-300 calories over your maintenance..200lbs. . . . . . . . . . . . I'll rep back 800+ :)
YOUR BODY IS A TEMPLE, TRAIN ACCORDINGLY
Christ Followers... Go here for study & Reps :D
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=113796121
-
12-08-2008, 06:12 AM #7
-
12-08-2008, 07:49 AM #8
Yeah but are there any bricks in the adipose cells that can spare bricks elsewhere. (Most people don't mind losing those bricks)
Other than that it is safe to say a guy with 7% bodyfat is going to need a slight surplus to gain muscle with a weight training program that involves progressively increasing volume and intensity.
-
-
12-08-2008, 08:11 AM #9
-
12-08-2008, 08:37 AM #10
I was just thinking about this more but then I realized this is probably a hopeless strategy (even with extra calories in Adipose)
Lets say before working out a person was couch potato eating 2500 calories per day and burning 2500 calories per day.
Then the person begins a rigorous training program where they are burning 4000 calories but only taking in 3800 calories.
So even though they have a deficit compared to previously the energy expenditure is way higher and they are eating more total food.
Only trouble with what I am thinking is this guy is on a low carb diet.
Seriously how much Change in weightlifting is going to occur in this situation? Is there even any real hope for an increase in training volume or intensity?
In reality I bet what happens here is muscle loss and the fact cardio is probably going to replace weightlifting is only going to make the situation worse.
P.S. I am not really up on the Anabolic diet, but about the only time I can think lowering carbs not affecting things is if carb intake was unneccessarily high to begin with.
-
12-08-2008, 08:42 AM #11
-
12-08-2008, 09:07 AM #12
-
-
12-08-2008, 09:18 AM #13
-
12-08-2008, 09:19 AM #14
[Regarding muscle gains in a caloric deficit]
Lets say someone normally does 12 sets per day in the gym at X volume/X intensity. They eat maintenance calories every day to accomplish this and there is no change in muscle size from week to week.
Then they decide to use a new strategy (14 sets (up from 12) and X+1 volume and X+1 intensity). Workloads are now greater than before which can and probably will stimulate calorie consuming adaptations that lead to increased protein synthesis. Okay so now this is happening where is the fuel going to come from to get the 600 calories of stored energy it takes for each new pound of muscle? Well if training was sufficient to liberate enough epinephrine beta receptors on adipose can be stimulated enough to release their fat. This alone can contribute to satisfying energy requirements for muscle in some cases. Actually this is partly how I think "recomping" works.
P.S. Keep in mind that changes in training that add volume and intensity will require higher calories. There can be situations where the person will eat more but still be eating under maintenance. However this doesn't neccessarily prevent hypertrophy if responses from adipose were enough to fully or partly compensate for energy needs.
You see how that can work?Last edited by Phosphate bond; 12-08-2008 at 09:27 AM.
-
12-08-2008, 09:29 AM #15
-
12-08-2008, 09:33 AM #16
Sometimes figuring out a strategy to increase energy expenditure (from weightlifting) is a better plan than being constantly "shipwrecked" at lower energy expenditures and thinking a "recomp" can happen with cutting calories.
P.S. I'll also bet a lot of those guys with high muscle and low fat (Bodybuilders and Sprinters alike) got that way by constantly eating tons of calories but at the same time actually being slightly below maintenance. This happening until they reached some sort of equilibrium where adipose finally became too scant Otherwise how did they lose the fat? I don't think sendentary super cutting and eating under maintenance is going to work the same way.Last edited by Phosphate bond; 12-08-2008 at 11:42 AM.
-
-
12-08-2008, 09:52 AM #17
-
12-08-2008, 09:53 AM #18
but wouldn't there be less energy available for building muscle if there was a negative energy balance? other, more vital, biological processes would use the energy "available"?
to put this into specifics:
let's assume a person trains hard and needs about 3000 kcal per day to neither lose nor gain weight. this also includes energy needs for muscle building, daily activity etc.
wouldn't 3000+ kcal a day build more muscle than, say, 2500 kcal a day? this is what i mean by an energy deficiency.
-
12-08-2008, 09:57 AM #19
Yeah 3000 calories no doubt would build more muscle than 2500 calories per day, but what does this have to do with caloric deficit?
Since muscle has only 600 calories of stored energy in each pound how much energy per day is needed from either adipose or diet surplus to accumulate this?
How many pounds of muscle can be accumulated per week (realistically)?
This is why I think trying to figure out caloric surplus is probably a waste of time for all practical purposes.
Trying to figure out strategies to eat more and more while being more and more efficient in the gym makes more sense.
-
12-08-2008, 10:03 AM #20
No matter what I think Recomping is more than likely going to happen with higher caloric intake. (With the person pushing themselves harder and harder as caloric intake rises)
Whether this is maintenance or slightly below maintenance depends on how well the epinephrine was able to stimulate the beta receptors on the adipose cells (in conjunction with Malonyl COA levels in muscle cells)
Also it is amazing to me that almost 6 pounds of muscle can be added from just one pound of fat. (Because of the water transfer)
So very slight deficits can get a lot of mileage as far as adding muscle goes provided the training stimulus is of sufficient magnitude. But realize this does not mean eating low calories.Last edited by Phosphate bond; 12-08-2008 at 10:11 AM.
-
-
12-08-2008, 10:28 AM #21
after 1 month of eating at maintenance (wasnt losing or gaining weight) I havent seen hardly any gains anymore and barely any size difference. my arms in general are still small and I am going on a bulk now at least 3200 and going to see if my arms start building. I just eat up too many calories throughout the day at work, etc.. where eating 2800 wasnt cutting the mustard and I never did add any weight at all and my waist is still slightly getting smaller, however, the size in my upper body is still mostly remaining the same. I am just going to do a clean bulk and then cut, I dont have enough mass at all to just eat at maintenance.
When I first started losing weight I made some gains in strength and started looking decent, however, I was still losing weight too quickly and not building any muscle just keeping what I had if that..
-
12-08-2008, 10:35 AM #22
-
12-08-2008, 10:37 AM #23
-
12-08-2008, 10:41 AM #24
-
-
12-08-2008, 10:51 AM #25
-
12-08-2008, 10:57 AM #26
Here is another thing to think about:
We know people on relatively sedentary weight loss diets can handle caloric deficits of 500 calories or more per day.
Doesn't it make sense that someone training at higher energy expenditure (with all the developments surrounding epinephrine and beta 2 receptors) could handle a caloric deficit of 200 calories (with 300 calories being moved from adipose to effectively give muscles 100 extra calories per day)
So 200 calorie a deficit doesn't neccessarily have to feel like a deficit at muscle if 300 calories of fat can be mobilized.
Essentially this is the same as a 100 calorie surplus as far as muscle is concerned (even though it is a 300 calorie deficit as far as adipose is concerned)
-
12-08-2008, 12:13 PM #27
- Join Date: Apr 2003
- Location: Boston, Massachusetts, United States
- Age: 40
- Posts: 2,451
- Rep Power: 0
YES! Exactly man.
To further drive this point home for others. Let's say that we want to achieve a 500 calorie deficit per day.
1. Eat 4000 cals, burn 4500, = -500
2. Eat 1800, BMR = 1700, burn 600 = -500
What you will get from #1 is a lean, muscular physique, fast metabolism, greater strength and aerobic capacities, etc.
What you will get from #2 is a depressed metabolism, muscle loss along with fat loss, decreased strength, sex drive, etc.
That's what G-Flux is all about...being #1.
-
12-08-2008, 01:45 PM #28
-
-
12-08-2008, 01:46 PM #29
-
12-08-2008, 01:58 PM #30
Bookmarks