What elevated caloric level has to do anything with building muscle tissue?

[sonnydfrizzy]

Anyone would. However, that's built on the assumption that building muscle happens ~5 times faster with a surplus, at your training status.

That's one assumption I would not make.

I would develop the notion that if one has training and total caloric surplus in check, they would want to err on the side of a surplus if the goal was maximal muscle mass in a relatively short amount of time.

I have yet to see an individual on a solid routine with proper form and sufficient protein not make substantial gains in muscle and strength.
I feel as though these people that are not gaining adequate LBM in a surplus are:
1. On an inferior training protocol
2. Not consistently nor sufficiently reaching proper macro and micronutrient needs.
3. Not giving enough effort in the gym.

The individuals most interested in this concept are the individuals who probably should worry the least in regards to gaining ample amounts of muscle mass in a surplus.

[Mrpb]

I would develop the notion that if one has training and total caloric surplus in check, they would want to err on the side of a surplus if the goal was maximal muscle mass in a relatively short amount of time.

Often yes, but not always. It depends on several circumstances.

For example: People significantly over 15% body fat usually have a very hard time gaining more muscle than fat on a surplus. When the goal is improving body composition, bulking will likely produce suboptimal results in their case.

[sonnydfrizzy]

Often yes, but not always. It depends on several circumstances.

For example: People significantly over 15% body fat usually have a very hard time gaining more muscle than fat on a surplus. When the goal is improving body composition, bulking will likely produce suboptimal results in their case.

Ah yes great point and in my posts (and mind) I was assuming the individual that was bulking was lean.
I would never recommend an individual to bulk past 18-20% body fat.
And the closer they get to that limit, the less weight gain I would suggest.

Mike Israetel has mentioned this quite often in that it is most effective for individuals to bulk and then maintain their weight for periods of time to allow for continued strength gains and simultaneous LBM increases and FM decreases.

[DannPM]

There are a lot of studies that show overfeeding even without working out increases LBM as well as FM. How much of each depends on the individual. Pair that with resistance training which stimulates muscle growth and you get the most effective way to add muscle mass.

Here’s a single study that exemplifies this point: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23736367. I’m not finding any reviews or I’d link those instead.

[DimQ]

There are a lot of studies that show overfeeding even without working out increases LBM as well as FM. How much of each depends on the individual. Pair that with resistance training which stimulates muscle growth and you get the most effective way to add muscle mass.

Here’s a single study that exemplifies this point: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23736367. I’m not finding any reviews or I’d link those instead.

Why was this study made on regular sedentary individuals without taking into the account regular diet, that these people were subjected to, prior to the study? If a person is not an athlete and also eats sub-par nutrients, then of course body will generate muscle tissue and all kinds of other tissues to get to naturally adequate level for that person. The key point of this thread is what effect (enhancement or otherwise) do the calories have in form of pure energy after all the nutritional values are met. There is no doubt that amount of nutrients has to be increased to build and support bigger body. For now the biggest factor that I see (not sure how much of an effect it actually has on progress) is insulin + HGH mix.

[EjnarKolinkar]

Often yes, but not always. It depends on several circumstances.

For example: People significantly over 15% body fat usually have a very hard time gaining more muscle than fat on a surplus. When the goal is improving body composition, bulking will likely produce suboptimal results in their case.

Its an absolute analysis you are making here, which is fine. And yet it is an individual matter. Its not like gainz dry up and blow away at 15%

I mean its bodybuilding.com but not everyone here is a competitive body builder. In fact the majority of people on this site making gains are likely over 15%.

This becomes even more laughable when dealing with a light weight lifter. Most folks in 150's shift water weight greater than 3%.

I think 10-15% is a slippery slope to rest on for the amature or novice. Especually those with low LBM

[DannPM]

Why was this study made on regular sedentary individuals without taking into the account regular diet, that these people were subjected to, prior to the study? If a person is not an athlete and also eats sub-par nutrients, then of course body will generate muscle tissue and all kinds of other tissues to get to naturally adequate level for that person

The subjects were thus overfed during 84 of the 100 days, for a total excess energy intake of 353 MJ (84 000 kcal). The contribution of each macronutrient to energy intake was standardized on a 24-hour basis as follows: 15 percent from protein, 35 percent from lipid, and 50 percent from carbohydrate. The subjects were instructed to refrain from exercising for the 4 months of the study. They were under constant supervision, and their program of activities included reading, playing video games, playing cards, TV, music, and other activities with low energy costs. They took a supervised 30-min daily walk during the whole overfeeding period.

You overfeed someone, they gain Fat and LBM even while sedentary. Pair resistance training with the overfeeding and you have the most effective way to add LBM.

[DimQ]

You overfeed someone, they gain Fat and LBM even while sedentary. Pair resistance training with the overfeeding and you have the most effective way to add LBM.

I understand that point, but the diet prior to overfeeding of these people was sub-par and they were not getting adequate amounts of nutrients, for example protein. By adequate I mean the amount that sustains the maximum muscle mass that genetics allow without resistance training.
Note: the reason that I define adequate amounts of nutritional values as the above is that anything below that means that the person is under eating - not fulfilling their genetic needs.
Also I wonder if those people would be able to preserve that LBM after going down in body fat, just by adjusting diet (like keeping the nutrients high, energy low, as in the theory behind cutting goes).

Please explain if I am missing something.

[DannPM]

I understand that point, but the diet prior to overfeeding of these people was sub-par and they were not getting adequate amounts of nutrients, for example protein. By adequate I mean the amount that sustains the maximum muscle mass that genetics allow without resistance training.

Please explain if I am missing something.

You’re making bogus assumptions about unrecorded data (their previous diets.)

This was not a study on refeeding anorexics, this was a study on overfeeding normal healthy adult men.

[rhadam]

You’re making bogus assumptions about unrecorded data (their previous diets.)

This was not a study on refeeding anorexics, this was a study on overfeeding normal healthy adult men.

There's really no point in responding to this idiot. Just ignore him and maybe he'll go back to his hole (see: mom's basement).

[DimQ]

I found this very interesting article, where Cliff Wilson talks about exactly how to go about building muscle tissue while not overfeeding till point of insanity.
http://www.muscleandstrength.com/art...scle-bulk.html

[Mrpb]

You overfeed someone, they gain Fat and LBM even while sedentary.

Some of them do. Some of them just gain fat.

The LBM recorded is mostly water weight because DXA sees glycogen as LBM.

[cerigitts]

lulz....I've read enough, i'm off to hunt for eggs like our ancestors

[MichielN]

but who was mTORC1 and energy availability

[sonnydfrizzy]

but who was mTORC1 and energy availability

Lol came in to say this ^^^

Jinx?

[rhadam]

but who was mTORC1 and energy availability

as if the OP has any clue what mtorc is and the effects on amino acids and protein synthesis. Dude is a legit retard.

[MichielN]

as if the OP has any clue what mtorc is and the effects on amino acids and protein synthesis. Dude is a legit retard.

That's what I was implying

[lee__d]

IGF-1 as laguna80 mentioned has glucose as a catalyst, but here's another intriguing part, level of HGH is not dependent on sugar level, as long as insulin takes care of it.
Note: elevated sugar decreases HGH production.
Insulin spike happens on both carbs and protein, and in both cases insulin is there to store the nutrients into the body.
from http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/the-...o-insulin.html

HGH spurt happens 2 hours into the night sleep for most people, as well as the major recovery with no stress happens at night, so wouldn't it make sense to put the caloric surplus all towards the end of the day where HGH is there to utilize that energy with the rest of hormones? Then the next day perhaps you wake up with minor fat accumulated and can roll the day off from most of that fat while the body doesn't fall into the biggest recovery state during night again. Perhaps there are some health factors, and brain needs sugars which of course shouldn't be taken out when it's needed, but I just wonder if the written above would work the way I described it here.

Any thoughts on this? ^

http://nutridylan.com/2012/04/24/gro...ut-nothing-12/

I haven't read that in a while, but it seems relevant.