Do you really need to EAT a calorie surplus to gain muscle?

[WonderPug]

Pug, you are being intentionally deft.

Frankly, I think you're recalcitrant (at least in this instance).

That said, rather than continuing this back-and-forth, I propose we let folks read our posts in this thread and decided for themselves.

[tsrobfl]

No one is arguing that it can't be done. They are just stating that it is not OPTIMAL for muscle growth compared to a bulk cycle followed by a cut

[Lvisaa2]

You can not make assertions whether or not someone is at their genetic potential based on the information provided above. This is especially true in sport that include weight classes. However, let's place this into some context by calculating BMI as a gauge. If you were to calculate the BMI of these particular individuals it would come out as being > 25 which would indicate them as being "overweight". One of the reasons why someone may be classified as falsely classified as being overweight in athletes is due to an increase in muscle mass. In other words, these individuals would be on the high end of having a normal body weight.

I can not make that assertion about these particular people, but I can say that in general for people of that height they are not near their genetic potential. 5'10. 170, 17% is 141 LBM. 5'10, 170, 12% is 149.

However, I am certain that you will now mention something about body fat percentage, because it was reported as being ~17% on average. If you do decide to make this argument please be aware of the argument I have already made regarding DEXA and how it relates to other measurements of bodyfat.

The whole reason I said 12% OR 17% is for this very reason. I even included it in my previous post.

Also, I would like to point out that your own personal stats are not all that dissimilar compared to those of the athletes in the study.

And I am by no means an experienced lifter. Actually after this cut I'm going to go on a long-term bulk and expect to still make a bunch of noobish gains. Also, my bf% is 7-8% so even as a 'noob' I have a higher LBM than the average participant. (Assuming 8%, my LBM is 161)

Edit: again not inserting recomps can't happen, I'm simply stating that I think it may be more efficient to do moderate bulks and cuts(I'm not a fan of putting on much fat, but popping a little bit over 10% BF won't be too awful). Especially considering, recomps can end in spinning your wheels if not done efficiently.

[SumDumGoi]

Frankly, I think you're recalcitrant (at least in this instance).

That said, rather than continuing this back-and-forth, I propose we let folks read our posts in this thread and decided for themselves.

Yes Pug, when you continue to place yourself into a smaller and smaller box eventually you will get down to the population you have described and where I have said it would be extremely difficult if at all possible to do. Honestly, i would like you to respond to y previous post. Where are your agreements/disagreements? Every time I provided any evidence to respond to your claims you changed the topic.

Unfortunately this is a common tactic that I have had the displeasure of dealing with on many occasions on these boards. I wouldn't count on the average poster of this board to determine if information is correct or not. I have heard the myth before and believed it myself. Some people are just immune to facts so that they can hold on to their dogma.

Why most people are resistant to this argument is that people tend to not be patient and want to see immediate results. Unfortunately gaining muscle mass is a very slow and arduous process and people want to see all that hard work paying off in the gym immediately. They are unsatisfied with the fact that they may only gain 2 lbs of muscle inside of 3 months and therefore feel the need to overeat so that they can see the results on the scale while justifying the increase of their waistline. The point here is that most people don't need to go through drastic cycles of bulking and cutting to achieve their goals.

[SumDumGoi]

I can not make that assertion about these particular people, but I can say that in general for people of that height they are not near their genetic potential. 5'10. 170, 17% is 141 LBM. 5'10, 170, 12% is 149.



The whole reason I said 12% OR 17% is for this very reason. I even included it in my previous post.



And I am by no means an experienced lifter. Actually after this cut I'm going to go on a long-term bulk and expect to still make a bunch of noobish gains. Also, my bf% is 7-8% so even as a 'noob' I have a higher LBM than the average participant. (Assuming 8%, my LBM is 161)

What factors determine one's genetic potential? I can assure you it is not just a simple ratio of height and weight. Also, although you might not have been the "average" person in the study it should be pointed out that there were many different sports included which could result in a wide range of body types. In spite of this, with your current stats you would still easily be included in the range of individuals who were studied.

Also, as I told Pug, I am not interested in talking about individuals who are within that very small box he placed himself in. I am speaking about the majority of posters on this board.

[WonderPug]

Honestly, i would like you to respond to y previous post. Where are your agreements/disagreements? Every time I provided any evidence to respond to your claims you changed the topic.

Frankly, you keep introducing straw man arguments to avoid my simple point which is:

Athletes != weightlifters

The relevant study involved athletes. You explicated equated athletes with "experienced lifters". I definitively refuted this. Your ego was singed and now you're just babbling.

You're not always right. Nobody is. In this instance, you made a simple mistake. You should be adult enough to admit it and move on...or at least move on.

[joelash302]

Gonna edit this and not be in the discussion. Sidelines + popcorn.

[WonderPug]

Gonna edit this and not be in the discussion. Sidelines + popcorn.

My discussion in this thread with SumDumGoi is over.

If he wants to respond, so be it. He can have the last word. Others can read the prior posts and decide based on what's already been said.

I'm taking this position because I think the discussion has degenerated into a reflection of ego(s) at this stage and it's no longer productive. My point is that Athletes != weightlifters and I believe I've clearly stated and defended this position.

End of story.

[SumDumGoi]

Frankly, you keep introducing straw man arguments to avoid my simple point which is:

Athletes != weightlifters

The relevant study involved athletes. You explicated equated athletes with "experienced lifters". I definitively refuted this. Your ego was singed and now you're just babbling.

You're not always right. Nobody is. In this instance, you made a simple mistake. You should be adult enough to admit it and move on...or at least move on.

The study involved athletes who have experience with weight lifting. Sorry, the ridiculousness of this argument has already been addressed. Also, what happened to those "marginal" increases in LBM that your original argument was based on? Smaller and smaller box Pug.

Given the OP stats of being 71 kg and 6 ft tall, using your criteria for being an elite weight lifter status, would this guy be elite? If not, why are we arguing over this point to begin with? Is this guy close to his genetic potential according to the standards which have been provided in this thread?

[dumbchicken]

I didn't read the last 3 pages, but people get PR's when they're cutting all the time.
Doesn't that equate to a gain in muscle?

[phal]

I didn't read the last 3 pages, but people get PR's when they're cutting all the time.
Doesn't that equate to a gain in muscle?

No.

[juliacheh]

No.

X2.
Actually in a prolonged caloric deficit and when cutting to a really low level of bodyfat muscle loss is a legitimate concern.

[Electricheadd]

I didn't read the last 3 pages, but people get PR's when they're cutting all the time.
Doesn't that equate to a gain in muscle?

Strength does not necessarily equate to additional muscle mass. There is a CNS/Muscle memory component to strength as well. If you look at the non heavy weight power lifters they are constantly getting stronger in the same weight class. Sure some of it is body recomposition but a lot is simply getting better at it.

[SumDumGoi]

X2.
Actually in a prolonged caloric deficit and when cutting to a really low level of bodyfat muscle loss is a legitimate concern.

I would agree with a really low percent bodyfat this would be true or at least very difficult. The problem with this thread is that people take a very specific population of individuals and use them to generalize these claims to everyone. If people are at or close to their genetic potential they are not going to be putting on copious amounts of muscle mass regardless of their Caloric intake. There is a genetic limit. Then when you couple that with very low energy intake and very low energy stores (fat), yes it would be difficult if not impossible to achieve both at the same time. However, most people don't fit into this category.

[DTRrex]

Can you tell us how you arrived at that 60% number?


What's wrong with more than twice a day? Is this for both people that eat two meals a day and six meals a day? Where did you get this information?

This is my preference. Troll elsewhere cuz.

[US_Ranger]

I always get stronger when I'm cutting. I think a lot of it has to do with psychological effects. Right now, all my lifts have gone up and I'm 10 pounds down from the weight I started with on my cut. My back strength has gone up significantly though and I don't even think psychological effects can cover that. I'm not complaining.

[Lvisaa2]

I always get stronger when I'm cutting. I think a lot of it has to do with psychological effects. Right now, all my lifts have gone up and I'm 10 pounds down from the weight I started with on my cut. My back strength has gone up significantly though and I don't even think psychological effects can cover that. I'm not complaining.

My experience is rising strength levels and then they start to drop after a prolonged deficit and lower BFs

[x-ray vision]

This is my preference. Troll elsewhere cuz.

No one gives a damn what your preference is. You were clearly making recommendations, not blogging your preferences. When asked how you arrived at your recommendations, you claim you're merely posting your preferences and accuse me of being the troll. Negged.

[peanut-butter]

Everyone is always looking for a workaround to gaining fat while bulking.

My advice: get over it. Bulk at a small surplus for several months and lift, lift, lift. Worry about the little bit of fat you will gain later. The earth won't implode if people gain a bit of fat, and you can bulk without gaining a lot of fat.

The people who fear fat when bulking are the people who stay small. JMO

This exactly.

[juliacheh]

I always get stronger when I'm cutting. I think a lot of it has to do with psychological effects. Right now, all my lifts have gone up and I'm 10 pounds down from the weight I started with on my cut. My back strength has gone up significantly though and I don't even think psychological effects can cover that. I'm not complaining.

What is your current bodyfat level?

[US_Ranger]

What is your current bodyfat level?

Not sure at the moment. I'm a pound less than I was at last summer (192) when I was measured at 7% though. I feel right around the same but it's always hard to tell. Plus, this lower back fat that doesn't go away is annoying as f0ck.

[US_Ranger]

My experience is rising strength levels and then they start to drop after a prolonged deficit and lower BFs

That's why I try to take a day a week, sometimes two, and move my calories up. It seems to be the golden ticket with deficit training.

[alXito]

[QUOTE=juliacheh;717586331]NP. I consider myself a meathead too.
I like studies, but I can't read them all day as well as cook. Gotta train too.

I was lifting for 3 years with whey protein as the only one supplement, ate like a horse and gained a lot of weight and my bloodwork was horrible with ALT much higher than normal coz my liver was suffering from all that food i was shoving down. Until we made a photoshoot at the gym with a friend who was at 12% bf at the time and i was 22% or even more. I looked and felt like **** and started to lose the fat. Im now at 10%bf and i figured i didnt put a whole lot of muscle this bulking way even though i lifted hard everytime, however without using paper and pen to write down reps and load. Im now on intermittent fasting and pretty sure in a deficit of calories as i only eat 2 meals a day in the evening, rich in protein. The body feeds on stored fat during the fasted state and i give it macros just enough to repair those muscles. (read How much protein by Brad Pilon, it will open your eyes) Correct time managment in regards to feeding windows will be created by the body itself and those few proteic and fatty meals you eat. Eating like crazy all day doesnt have any advantage on building muscle, just like the quantity of eaten protein doesnt affect the growth. It DOES however comprimise your general health as body is constantly replicating its cells and doesnt have the chance to repair the existing ones.
Muscle growth is dependant on hormones and progressive overload on the bar with just enough protein in your diet. Look at those dudes in prison. Btw studies showed that group that trained and ate a surplus gained less muscle that people sitting in their houses doing nothing but receiving testosterone injections. Makes you think.
Btw im not a bro scientist, im a med student. Read the book i mentioned above if you want numbers and reports from actual studies done on humans.

[Shadowman82]

Sorry to resurrect an old topic but I too think you don't always need to be in a calorie surplus to build muscle . I think it depends allot on just how high your body fat percentage is . If you don't have allot of body fat then yes it makes absolute sense that you can't build muscles if you are not in a surplus . But let's assume you have 20% body fat or more it would make no sense if you couldn't build muscle being in a deficit then provided you get enough protein and fats . I don't know exactly at what body fat percentage you would need to be in a surplus to build muscle .

[SuffolkPunch]

http://www.nutritiontactics.com/meas...ein-synthesis/

Cliff notes:
More research is needed

[blue9steel]

The energy needs to come from somewhere, as you get leaner you're less able to liberate that energy from fat reserves, at some point there is a crossover where stored energy is insufficient to support optimal growth, the exact point that happens is still being researched. So no, but kind of yes.

[Shadowman82]

Interesting . Kind of makes you wonder why allot of people make such clear cut claims . Like I've been downing about 30-50 grams of simple carbs with my post workout protein shake solely because all the literature I have read stated that this will help the body to go back to an anabolic state much more quickly .

I thought that having a higher body fat percentage would make it unnecessary to be in a surplus because the body could get the energy it needs to build muscle from fat stores . If you have very little body fat then there wouldn't be much energy there to use hence a surplus of calories would be required . Obviously sufficient protein and fats would be needed in either case .

[Mrpb]

Interesting . Kind of makes you wonder why allot of people make such clear cut claims . Like I've been downing about 30-50 grams of simple carbs with my post workout protein shake solely because all the literature I have read stated that this will help the body to go back to an anabolic state much more quickly .

You must not have read a lot of advice here. All the regulars in the nutrition forum know that's nonsense.

And yes you can absolutely build muscle without a surplus, that's been proven over and over. The big question right now is whether a surplus speeds up muscle gain. Currently this is unknown.

[Strawng]

And yes you can absolutely build muscle without a surplus, that's been proven over and over. The big question right now is whether a surplus speeds up muscle gain. Currently this is unknown.

Isn't a surplus essential once you reach a certain level of leanness? There's no way you can gain muscle at maintenence indefinitely.

[Mrpb]

Isn't a surplus essential once you reach a certain level of leanness? There's no way you can gain muscle at maintenence indefinitely.

If you want to grow from a lean 75kg to a lean 80kg you will have to eat enough to gain weight. So if you define a surplus as a number of calories to gain weight then a surplus will be necessary.

The tricky part is that people can gain weight at maintenance or even in deficit.

And none of the above proves that a surplus speeds up muscle tissue gain. It seems that building muscle is more dependant on muscle protein balance instead of calorie balance. And we also know that deficits should be avoided as they reduce MPS.

I expect more research to come out investigating the effect of a calorie surplus on 24h MPS and muscle growth. Could take years though.