Is a calorie surplus really necessary for "bulking" (building muscle)?

[Bejizzle]

Because this is what many in the fitness community say but I can't seem to fully appreciate why that would need to be the case. If it is protein that builds muscle then why is a "caloric" surplus, as opposed to a protein surplus even necessary considering that a calorie is just a unit of energy? Is it not possible to simply maintain your TDEE and consume more protein, while accounting for muscle repair/recovery/growth as part of your TDEE? If I'm off a bit, if you're directly burning stored fat from say, doing AM cardio wouldn't that also allow you to stay lean and build muscle since all of your calories and nutrients from eating meals throughout the day can then go to daily activities and muscle growth?

Please let me know if I'm missing something as I'm new to all of the technicalities.

[pshickey]

How about you go on an all protein diet, 2x grams of protein per pound of body weight, 0 fat/carbs, then let us know how that works out for you.

[lee__d]

Because you're energy intake has more responsibilities (most of which are more pressing), than building muscle. So you need leftover energy to build muscle.

There's some exceptions, like overweight noobs, but it's not very likely.

[Nexxus]

lots of problems with OP

- Protein does not build muscle anymore than carbs and fats, if anything I'd argue carbs are the most important macronutrient in building muscle.
- Doing morning cardio will not ''burn any stored fat'', actually nothing will ''burn any stored fat'' apart from a caloric deficit.
- If you eat at maintenance your weight won't friggen change, weight changes come with calories, if you want to build muscle you need to gain weight and if you want to gain weight you need to be in a caloric surplus, quite simple really. (What people don't realize is that if they all of a sudden start exercising that they will have metabolic boost so although they may think before exercising that they are ''bulking'' they are in fact ''maintaining'', you are only ''bulking'' if you gain weight'', and gaining weight is the whole point of ''bulking''.)

Is it possible to stay the same weight and appear more muscular?
- Yeah, if you're a newbie and go through newbie gains whilst losing fat whilst eating at maintenance.
- Also possible to ''appear more muscular'' over years of training at the same weight, however in reality it will only really be muscle maturity which may appear to make the cuts come out more, it won't actually be added muscle (unless ofc his bodyfat percentage decreased)

[magic15]

you need to be taking in more calories then burning everyday to be in a caloric surplus to gain weight at the end of that day
1 gram of protein and carbs are both 4 cals 1 gram of fats is 9 calories

[Bejizzle]

lots of problems with OP

- Protein does not build muscle anymore than carbs and fats, if anything I'd argue carbs are the most important macronutrient in building muscle.

From what I'm aware protein is crucial to cellular repair and hence, muscle growth. Carbs from what I understand are great for protecting muscle but not muscular growth. Heavy Carbs for the most part are an agricultural diet that humans took to mainly in the past 10,000 years (sooner in some places) so I find that hard to believe.

Anyways, what is your take on scooby's "recompositioning"? Link:

scoobysworkshop.com/leangains-intermittent-fasting

He seems to argue that bulking and cutting is only needed for "advanced" body builders (those approaching within the top 20% of their genetic max).

- Doing morning cardio will not ''burn any stored fat'', actually nothing will ''burn any stored fat'' apart from a caloric deficit.

Well what does it burn? I appreciate the response but I'm looking for some solid information that is backed by science or at least some form of reasoning. The idea is that it DOES, which is why Dr. Lonnie Lowery is such a huge proponent of AM cardio. Link:

t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_ultimate_cardio_solution_disclosed

- If you eat at maintenance your weight won't friggen change, weight changes come with calories, if you want to build muscle you need to gain weight and if you want to gain weight you need to be in a caloric surplus, quite simple really. (What people don't realize is that if they all of a sudden start exercising that they will have metabolic boost so although they may think before exercising that they are ''bulking'' they are in fact ''maintaining'', you are only ''bulking'' if you gain weight'', and gaining weight is the whole point of ''bulking''.)

Is it possible to stay the same weight and appear more muscular?
- Yeah, if you're a newbie and go through newbie gains whilst losing fat whilst eating at maintenance.
- Also possible to ''appear more muscular'' over years of training at the same weight, however in reality it will only really be muscle maturity which may appear to make the cuts come out more, it won't actually be added muscle (unless ofc his bodyfat percentage decreased)

I hear the same logic everywhere but I was mainly trying to get at least some type of rebuttal to some of what I posted. I assumed that the questions presented were predicated on ideas that you guys already were familiar with (recomp., effects of AM cardio).

[Bejizzle]

you need to be taking in more calories then burning everyday to be in a caloric surplus to gain weight at the end of that day
1 gram of protein and carbs are both 4 cals 1 gram of fats is 9 calories

I get all of that but I am merely speaking muscle gains and/or fat loss, not generalized "weight gain". See above. I take it that AM cardio doesn't burn fat is your position as well?

[jndietz]

On a related note -- why can't you bulk (build muscle) while technically in a caloric deficit? For example, lets say your TDEE is 2500, and you eat 2400. Couldn't the rest of the energy be taken from fat stored in your body? Sorry if this is an ignorant post, but I don't understand the physiology behind that and I don't know how to find out.

[AlwaysTryin]

You can gain muscle at maintenance or a deficit (noob gains/celltech) but the rate and chances are much smaller. This is why most people attempting a recomp etc get no where and spin their wheels


More importantly, who doesn't want to eat extra food

[iambanta]

How about you go on an all protein diet, 2x grams of protein per pound of body weight, 0 fat/carbs, then let us know how that works out for you.

This is a bit of a strawman. I think what the OP means (and which I am curious about as well), is:

why can you not gain lean mass while in a calorie deficit or maintenance but with a protein surplus and a more moderate amount of carbs and fat?

I know anecdotally, the general consensus is that you cannot gain significant lean mass while in a calorie deficit; but why is this the case? As jndietz asked, why doesn't the body use burned fat energy to add lean mass? Some insight on the whole physiological process would be awesome.

[Nexxus]

To OP and the other sceptics (can't bother to quote specifically, I'll just give a general reply:

cuz more protein =/= more muscle, you only need a certain amount of protein in your body in order for cellular repair etc and 1g/lb of bw is a lot more than sufficient, taking more won't do anything extra, you will only run into problems with protein if you don't get enough (such as 0.2g/lb of bw). Carbs are the human body's major source of energy which is needed for the protein and muscle to do their work in growing.
and how in the world would fat magically convert into muscle?
and if you're in a calorie deficit where would you be getting the energy to build any muscle?
As for recomp, it works but the results come much slower.
As for what does ''morning fasted cardio'' burn... well it burns calories which will be replaced by whatever calories you consume during the day, and if you have an excess you will still gain fat and if you have a deficit you will still burn fat.

PS: This is all assuming you're not a newbie to weight lifting and you're not obese and you haven't lifted in the past (muscle memory) and you don't do steroids.

And I'm not gonna search the net for half an hour just to pull up some legit sources, you can do that yourself, take what I'm saying for what it's worth (which isn't much, but hey at least I'm backed up by the stickies and plenty of nutritional scientists who practice bodybuilding, I am also an exercise science major if that matters at all).

[iambanta]

To OP and the other sceptics (can't bother to quote specifically, I'll just give a general reply:

cuz more protein =/= more muscle, you only need a certain amount of protein in your body in order for cellular repair etc and 1g/lb of bw is a lot more than sufficient, taking more won't do anything extra, you will only run into problems with protein if you don't get enough (such as 0.2g/lb of bw).

Carbs are the human body's major source of energy which is needed for the protein and muscle to do their work in growing. Ok, I've been looking through the stickies and they all say that no minimum carb requirement is necessary, just make sure you get some. So if carbs are as important to muscle growth and repair as you claim, why is a minimum requirement not prescribed such as with protein and fat?

and how in the world would fat magically convert into muscle? Not saying it would (and correct me if I'm wrong), but wouldn't the fat be turned into energy, which would then be used to fuel bodily functions such as muscle growth/repair?

and if you're in a calorie deficit where would you be getting the energy to build any muscle? From burned fat stores?

As for recomp, it works but the results come much slower.
As for what does ''morning fasted cardio'' burn... well it burns calories which will be replaced by whatever calories you consume during the day, and if you have an excess you will still gain fat and if you have a deficit you will still burn fat.

PS: This is all assuming you're not a newbie to weight lifting and you're not obese and you haven't lifted in the past (muscle memory) and you don't do steroids.

And I'm not gonna search the net for half an hour just to pull up some legit sources, you can do that yourself, take what I'm saying for what it's worth (which isn't much, but hey at least I'm backed up by the stickies and plenty of nutritional scientists who practice bodybuilding, I am also an exercise science major if that matters at all).

Thanks for the response, man. I bolded stuff and added some thoughts. I'm kinda playing devil's advocate but I am legitimately curious and trying to learn.

[Nexxus]

Carbs are the human body's major source of energy which is needed for the protein and muscle to do their work in growing. Ok, I've been looking through the stickies and they all say that no minimum carb requirement is necessary, just make sure you get some. So if carbs are as important to muscle growth and repair as you claim, why is a minimum requirement not prescribed such as with protein and fat?

As far as I know, carbs are simply the most important macronutrient and is the primary macronutrient when the human body requires energy. In addition, many carbs (whole grains, fruits and vegetables) are filled with useful micronutrients that the body requires in order to perform properly. In pure bodybuilding terms, your body requires glucose/glycogen that comes from the carbs. Your lifting sessions will be seriously depleted without glycogen stores in the muscle and you need carbs after your lifting in order to repair the muscle (since the workout will be depleting your body of the glycogen). But I mean you could always just decide to say ''**** it'' to the carbs and see for yourself.

and how in the world would fat magically convert into muscle? Not saying it would (and correct me if I'm wrong), but wouldn't the fat be turned into energy, which would then be used to fuel bodily functions such as muscle growth/repair?

and if you're in a calorie deficit where would you be getting the energy to build any muscle? From burned fat stores?

no, fat is stored energy but that doesn't mean your body can convert this energy into muscle, fat is burnt because you're eating at a deficit which means energy is burnt (not converted). The energy from the fat dissapears from your body because of the caloric deficit, it's not gonna somehow move into the muscle.

[iambanta]

As far as I know, carbs are simply the most important macronutrient and is the primary macronutrient when the human body requires energy. In addition, many carbs (whole grains, fruits and vegetables) are filled with useful micronutrients that the body requires in order to perform properly. In pure bodybuilding terms, your body requires glucose/glycogen that comes from the carbs. Your lifting sessions will be seriously depleted without glycogen stores in the muscle and you need carbs after your lifting in order to repair the muscle (since the workout will be depleting your body of the glycogen). But I mean you could always just decide to say ''**** it'' to the carbs and see for yourself.

Fair enough. And yes, I have tried heavy resistance training with low-carb and it was murder, my body hated me, haha. I will try to research more about the effect of carbohydrate in protein and fat metabolism and use.

no, fat is stored energy but that doesn't mean your body can convert this energy into muscle, fat is burnt because you're eating at a deficit which means energy is burnt (not converted). The energy from the fat dissapears from your body because of the caloric deficit, it's not gonna somehow move into the muscle.

Ok, I see what you are saying, but let me try to explain what I am trying to say:

Fat stores are burned to compensate for a calorie/energy deficit, which implies that the body has a quota or desired level of energy needed to sustain its normal functions. I assume this is what is usually referred to as "maintenance." So when fat stores are burned, aren't they not just disappearing from your body, but instead being used to power the body in whatever necessary ways?

I may be way off, and this may be where we need to clarify if there is a difference between the terms you used "burnt" and "converted," but I don't think that fat matter or energy necessarily "disappears," but is instead "converted" or reformed and used in some way. I don't see it as "fat being turned to muscle," but instead as the energy from burned fat being used in conjunction with adequate protein/amino acids and what have you to fuel cell repair. So my round-a-bout question is still: isn't fat burned to fuel the necessary functions of the body such as muscle growth/repair? And wouldn't this process provide for at least muscle repair if not growth when adequate protein/aminos are present?

[Nexxus]

not quite sure what to say to that. I just don't see how stored energy (fat) can be ''converted'' if it is being burned.

Anyway im going to bed (Im in europe right now)

sorry if i cant be of more help lol

[2canman]

lots of problems with OP

- Protein does not build muscle anymore than carbs and fats, if anything I'd argue carbs are the most important macronutrient in building muscle.

I disagree. No macro is the most important. If you wanted to argue this, then I'd say protein is the most important because it is the building blocks of muscles (assuming calorie surplus)

[lucasbasciano]

I get all of that but I am merely speaking muscle gains and/or fat loss, not generalized "weight gain". See above. I take it that AM cardio doesn't burn fat is your position as well?

building muscle is weight gain.. and AM light-intensity cardio is great for burning fat

[iambanta]

Any other input from anyone?

[JinKazama23]

Protein is merely a building block that is required in order to physically construct muscle fibers.

However, the fact that you supply your body with surplus of those "building blocks" does not equal automatic muscle growth. In order to trigger anabolic state you need to eat carbs because apart from all the energy that it provides to stimulate muscles during training, it provides insulin response which is an anabolic reaction. Fats play another important role in that equation because most of the hormones are produced off of those fatty chains (testosterone is a great example of such hormone).

I think it would be impossible to build muscle with no carbs even if you look at the fact that you will have problems reaching your maintenance calories (unless you eat like 400-500g of protein a day). So if you supply your body with minimum amount of fats necessary to maintain hormonal balance, and have like 300-400g of protein a day, you will most likely still lose weight and (sick) muscle as well (although high protein intake might slow that process a bit).

Beyond that, without any kind of carb reloading you will completely deplete your glycogen levels in muscles, and after 2-3 months your strength will go down (which is sort of counter-productive to building muscle don't you think?) 25-30% until you reload. I mean just try it and you will see it yourself. That's what people do on Keto diets and even they understand (or sometimes have to understand the hard way) the importance of carb reloading on low-carb diets.

Something I've noticed personally, you can trick your brain to live without glucose (eliminate hunger feeling caused by low glucose), but you can't trick your muscles to maintain strength without glycogen.

[AlwaysTryin]

Is your hair real

[West318]

As I feel most of the scientific metabolic basis for this discussion has already been hashed out...from my personal experience:
-I do gain on a high protein, moderate fat, low/no carb diet.... But rate of growth is pretty slow... I find it shapes the muscle more and increases the muscular density, but I don't necessarily increase in size that much... That said I don't put on extra adipose and gain mostly lean muscle.
-I gain very quickly (6 months of work in 2) on a high protein/moderate-high carbs/low fat.. I put on probably 1.2lb average a week. I put on a little bit of subcutaneous fat too, but I find this is quickly lost once I cut down on my carbs again.

[AlwaysTryin]

As I feel most of the scientific metabolic basis for this discussion has already been hashed out...from my personal experience:
-I do gain on a high protein, moderate fat, low/no carb diet.... But rate of growth is pretty slow... I find it shapes the muscle more and increases the muscular density, but I don't necessarily increase in size that much... That said I don't put on extra adipose and gain mostly lean muscle.
-I gain very quickly (6 months of work in 2) on a high protein/moderate-high carbs/low fat.. I put on probably 1.2lb average a week. I put on a little bit of subcutaneous fat too, but I find this is quickly lost once I cut down on my carbs again.

You think you gain more on one when both are isocaloric? Only water weight from extra carbs

[iambanta]

Here's a good article, OP:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...-mistakes.html

[Olle111]

2 x kg protein + Low calories = Minimum gains
9 x kg protein + Low calories = Minimum gains

2 x kg protein + High calories = Gains
9 x kg protein + High calories = Gains

2 x kg protein + High calories + "Good genetics" = Good gains
2 x kg protein + High calories + Enchaced genetics (steroids) = Dat dere gains, if you don't lift like a mouse, that would still give you good gains however.

The body don't put prio on muscle mass when it has a very limited calorie intake, more prio to survive.

[jndietz]

I forgot about this thread. Thanks for posting some good answers everyone.

[StackingPlates]

As far as I know, carbs are simply the most important macronutrient and is the primary macronutrient when the human body requires energy...

Ironically, CHOs are not even an essential macronutrient...in any case, your assertion is inaccurate.