Can one eat his or her way to more muscle?

[brayj789]

After doing some searching, I still cannot come up with conclusive proof that eating far above maintenence is a beneficial way to gain muscle for the average person. I've done the cut/bulk for the last 1.5 years in and out, and recently have noticed some lose-fat/gain-muscle results at a lil below maintenence, and then at maintenence. I've been lifting for 3 1/2 years, but only serious for last 1.5

If 1lb of muscle is merely 600 calories, then that would mean someone hoping to gain at most .5-.75 lbs of muscle A WEEK would only need a 300-500 kal surplous through a whole week, that would be less than a hundred above maintenence A DAY.

Now I am aware, some of the most experienced bb'rs with very lean b.f's and high muscle mass may need the 500kal. over maintenence routine to trick their bodies for gains and what not, but why would the average lifter looking to make lean gains need this? Could it be that eating at 500 kal. only appear to give us MORE muscle do to the extra fat/size?

Shouldn't common sense tell us if our B.F PERCENTAGE goes up we're eating too much? I understand obviously some fat will come, to keep a HEALTHY b.f% (i.e if we're gaining muscle and staying at 7% b.f, our amt. of b.f will go up along with the gain in weight). But if its going up and we're storing fat, then its kal's we DO NOT NEED, correct?

[willbird]

I'm sure a noob at this, but my guess is that 500+ is enough to enusure you don't drop your car keys and burn your +100 surplus bending over to pick them up and end up in deficit :-)


Bill

[dbx]

After doing some searching, I still cannot come up with conclusive proof that eating far above maintenence is a beneficial way to gain muscle for the average person.

This is going to seem very simplified, but ........ look at what the "average" weight lifter, who has lots of muscle, eats daily. Do you think that if they didn't have to eat "big to get big" that they would kill themselves trying to get in 6-7 quality meals per day? There's your answer. It's always good to question conventional wisdom, as sometimes things aren't what they seem. On the other hand, most of the time they are

[Struct09]

1 lb of muscle is actually about 1800 calories.

1 lb x 453.6 g/lb x 4 cal/g = 1814 calories

It is said that 1 lb of fat is about 3500 calories

1 lb x 453.6 g/lb x 9 cal/g = 4082 calories

(probably water included in the 1 lb of of bodyfat)

[XtremeBody510]

struct nice fact!!!!!!

[357mag]

i was actually wondering something similiar. I never really stuck it through with a bulk and im happy with the progress i made, but what if i could have made better gains? maybe i could have, however, i usually can gain 1lb a month of LBM which is pretty much on par with what is expected. I keep a lean appearance when lifting as well and have gotten some nice size awhile when i hit 152lbs. (many will laugh but i looked pretty big for my frame and height) Anyways i did try to eat better for those months and took my supplemenets, but by no means was i diehard about when i ate. My point is i believe if you eat OK and workout you will gain, but that doesn't mean you can't gain more by eating better, there is always room for improvment, and i will also say these bulks these guys do, they tell me "dont worry about it, you will lose the fat later" if you can cleanly gain you dont need to worry about it, and i hear Fat loss is a serious pain to lose, i never did cardio and don't plan on it.

[brayj789]

1 lb of muscle is actually about 1800 calories.

1 lb x 453.6 g/lb x 4 cal/g = 1814 calories

It is said that 1 lb of fat is about 3500 calories

1 lb x 453.6 g/lb x 9 cal/g = 4082 calories

(probably water included in the 1 lb of of bodyfat)

Even with that then, 1800-2100 calories is vastly less than what we're used to, that would be need a mere 250-300 calories surplous a day, as opposed to the 500 a day.

I think the point most bb make in eating the 500 a day (3500 a week) is to MAKE SURE they gain a pound of weight a week, even knowing not all will be muscle, but they will gain muscle at a more sure basis. My point would be that eating at a little less of a surplous or even closer to maintanence could provide lean gains of muscle, at near the same speed if not the same.



And where did u get the info on 1800 calories = 1 lb of muscle? Not doubting you, I just know i've heard universally that it was about 600 kal, so I'd like to know where both came from & if one or the other is right.
But you know your stuff bro, thnx.

[Struct09]

Even with that then, 1800-2100 calories is vastly less than what we're used to, that would be need a mere 250-300 calories surplous a day, as opposed to the 500 a day.

I think the point most bb make in eating the 500 a day (3500 a week) is to MAKE SURE they gain a pound of weight a week, even knowing not all will be muscle, but they will gain muscle at a more sure basis. My point would be that eating at a little less of a surplous or even closer to maintanence could provide lean gains of muscle, at near the same speed if not the same.



And where did u get the info on 1800 calories = 1 lb of muscle? Not doubting you, I just know i've heard universally that it was about 600 kal, so I'd like to know where both came from & if one or the other is right.
But you know your stuff bro, thnx.

I've read it in a few places before, and the calculation seems to add up.

I will agree with you on the 250-300 calorie surplus per day theory, however it would require quite the precision in your diet to ensure that you're actually going over by that small amount. It's easy to burn an extra 300 calories per day via activity, thermogenics, and many other factors. Personally, I'd rather eat more to be safe to make sure I'm getting the required calories in, and just burn any excess fat later on.

[psychojoe]

what youre all missing is that though 1lb of muscle may "be" however many calories, say 2000, that doesnt mean you will gain 1lb of muscle for every 2000 calories surplus you eat. FFS, isnt that obvious? Its not even NEARLY 100% efficient like that, only a tiny fraction of your food intake will end up as structural muscle tissue.

You need a calorie surplus to create a hormonal profile that is conducive to muscle gains. The hormones are everything. Even eating 1000 calories a day, if you ****ed with your hormones properly, you could be gaining muscle. High cals create an anabolic hormonal environment in which muscle growth is promoted.

[Struct09]

what youre all missing is that though 1lb of muscle may "be" however many calories, say 2000, that doesnt mean you will gain 1lb of muscle for every 2000 calories surplus you eat. FFS, isnt that obvious? Its not even NEARLY 100% efficient like that, only a tiny fraction of your food intake will end up as structural muscle tissue.

You need a calorie surplus to create a hormonal profile that is conducive to muscle gains. The hormones are everything. Even eating 1000 calories a day, if you ****ed with your hormones properly, you could be gaining muscle. High cals create an anabolic hormonal environment in which muscle growth is promoted.

Even though you have that "anger" (can't think of a better way to put it) in this response like most of your other posts, good insight

Repped

[Environ]

1 lb of muscle is actually about 1800 calories.

1 lb x 453.6 g/lb x 4 cal/g = 1814 calories

It is said that 1 lb of fat is about 3500 calories

1 lb x 453.6 g/lb x 9 cal/g = 4082 calories

(probably water included in the 1 lb of of bodyfat)

There's actually approximately 2,500 calories in a lb of muscle. Muscle isn't just pure protein, there's other factors in it too, even water. Or, to phrase it another way, it takes approximately 2,500 calories to build 1 lb of muscle tissue. Only the protein element comes to 1800 calories.


But to get back to the original poster's question, you don't need to eat massive amounts of calories above maintenance to build muscle. In theory, you'd only need roughly 350 calories (2,500 divided by 7) to build 1 lb of muscle in a week. However, it's not that simple. First of all, you have to actually KNOW what 'maintenance' actually is. The calculations are only estimations; they give you a starting point. Secondly, numerous factors can cause you to burn more calories than you think you are burning, such as temperature and humidity. If, for example, it gets very hot and humid, you'd body will be burning more calories to keep your body temperature in check. You'll be sweating like a pig. If you are stressed out, you'll produce cortisol, which is catabolic. It may not be at a level high enough to break down muscle, but it may well intefere with the muscle building process. There's a whole load of other reasons too that may interfere with the muscle building process unless you eat more than science would have you believe is necessary.

[nc9892]

I don't know what you're talking about brayj

eat more.

[Struct09]

There's actually approximately 2,500 calories in a lb of muscle. Muscle isn't just pure protein, there's other factors in it too, even water. Or, to phrase it another way, it takes approximately 2,500 calories to build 1 lb of muscle tissue. Only the protein element comes to 1800 calories.

Wouldn't that make a pound of muscle less than 1800 calories then? If there's factors in muscles (like water) that contribute to the weight, then there's mass that contain no calories. So unless there's something more calorie dense than 4 cals/g (which would be fat) in the muscle, it seems the max amount of calories a pound of muscle could be is 1800.

I'm not arguing that it takes only 1800 calories to "build" a pound of muscle, but in terms of what your body can get from burning a pound of muscle the max should be 1800 calories.

Obviously I'm no expert here, I'm just going off of what I have read in the past and some basic math. I haven't been able to find a link with the specifics on this, but it would be very interesting to see.

[psychojoe]

well if we look at animal muscle, that we eat all the time, normally we expect about 30% protein and varying amounts of fat, lets say ~10%. Around 200 cals per 100g of meat, or about 900cals per lb. I suppose, then, then human muscle tissue isnt so different, and if it were completely catabolised it should give a similar yield.

Remember that anabolism itself "wastes" energy. All the macromolecular construction requires energy, which is not matched by the "metabolic" energy available in all the proteins/carbs/fats involved in the anabolism. For example, 100g of glycogen will give ~400cals when it's constituent glucose molecules are burnt. But the polymerisation of the glycogen in the first place is endothermic and requires energy. This has no relation to the amount of energy then stored in the glycogen since glycogen formation only bonds between the glucose molecules. It is not those bonds that yield energy later on, but the intra-glucose bonds, as it were.

Similarly, building up muscle takes an amount of energy unrelated to the amount available if it were catabolised and it's macronutrients fully metabolised. Think of all the amino acids, carbs, and fats that will be used to build the muscle, as pieces of wood. Using energy from builders and carpenters, those bits of wood an be assembled into a final product, a house or whatever. The wood contains energy itself, remember, and can be burnt for heat and light. A further input of energy (less than the building crew) can demolish the house and return the pile of wood pieces, unchanged from before. These can now be used again to build a house (requiring more energy) or set alight to release all their energy. See that breaking apart the pieces of wood from the house, doesn't actually give any energy unless the individual pieces are then burnt.

That went kind of off topic - the relevant point is that it takes a ****load more excess calories than the calorie content of 1lb of muscle, to allow 1lb of muscle to be built.

[empresscat]

That went kind of off topic - the relevant point is that it takes a ****load more excess calories than the calorie content of 1lb of muscle, to allow 1lb of muscle to be built.

Bingo.
The body uses calories in the process of digesting food, and creating that muscle.

Add to that what was mentioned above, about not knowing your exact true maintenance calories, because it varies so much based on individual metabolisms as well as activities - when bulking, you want to add more calories to your diet than the minumim needed.

Actually, watching the journal threads of a few very lean women who are bulking right now - they have been surprised that they have to keep upping their calories to see results. Some of them are around 1000 cals over maintencance before they see gains - and these are women who have cut for competitions and so know their dietary needs well.

[brayj789]

well if we look at animal muscle, that we eat all the time, normally we expect about 30% protein and varying amounts of fat, lets say ~10%. Around 200 cals per 100g of meat, or about 900cals per lb. I suppose, then, then human muscle tissue isnt so different, and if it were completely catabolised it should give a similar yield.

Remember that anabolism itself "wastes" energy. All the macromolecular construction requires energy, which is not matched by the "metabolic" energy available in all the proteins/carbs/fats involved in the anabolism. For example, 100g of glycogen will give ~400cals when it's constituent glucose molecules are burnt. But the polymerisation of the glycogen in the first place is endothermic and requires energy. This has no relation to the amount of energy then stored in the glycogen since glycogen formation only bonds between the glucose molecules. It is not those bonds that yield energy later on, but the intra-glucose bonds, as it were.

Similarly, building up muscle takes an amount of energy unrelated to the amount available if it were catabolised and it's macronutrients fully metabolised. Think of all the amino acids, carbs, and fats that will be used to build the muscle, as pieces of wood. Using energy from builders and carpenters, those bits of wood an be assembled into a final product, a house or whatever. The wood contains energy itself, remember, and can be burnt for heat and light. A further input of energy (less than the building crew) can demolish the house and return the pile of wood pieces, unchanged from before. These can now be used again to build a house (requiring more energy) or set alight to release all their energy. See that breaking apart the pieces of wood from the house, doesn't actually give any energy unless the individual pieces are then burnt.

That went kind of off topic - the relevant point is that it takes a ****load more excess calories than the calorie content of 1lb of muscle, to allow 1lb of muscle to be built.

I agree with you here, but my point is if one is is gaining unwanted fat (or their bf% goes up 2% or more) then shouldn't common sense tell us we're taking in uneeded calories? I know no one knows what the exact needed calories would be for exact maintanence or perfectly above it, but couldn't one just decrease to say 2500-3000 kal surplous a week and yield the muscle results minus the fat gain on 3500 a week or more? I know part of the calorie excess is to ensure a proper envirment, but it must be different than 'proper' i guess, if one is storing kal's for fat. Keep in mind I'm not talking about the amt. of b.f changing, I'm saying our bf%.

And of course I'm not meaning this towards ecto's who just may need to eat tons and tons to gain weight.

[brayj789]

And I guess I'm saying finding one's proper calorie excess to ensure muscle gain would yield no less mucle gain then eating the extra calories that just go to fat. I'm not saying its possible to find the exact amt.of calories. However, I don't see how its 'impossible' as some would like to say, to gain muscle without b.f% going up a significant amount (more than 1-2%) . I'm talking about hardcore 'bulk' then 'cut' cycles would be useless in the case of muscle gain w/o fat gain.

Also, I mean to refere to novice-intermediate lifters, not ecto-type beginners looking to put on A LOT of MASS quickly. Nor am I talking about seasoned veterans.

[numinix]

I agree with you here, but my point is if one is is gaining unwanted fat (or their bf% goes up 2% or more) then shouldn't common sense tell us we're taking in uneeded calories? I know no one knows what the exact needed calories would be for exact maintanence or perfectly above it, but couldn't one just decrease to say 2500-3000 kal surplous a week and yield the muscle results minus the fat gain on 3500 a week or more? I know part of the calorie excess is to ensure a proper envirment, but it must be different than 'proper' i guess, if one is storing kal's for fat. Keep in mind I'm not talking about the amt. of b.f changing, I'm saying our bf%.

And of course I'm not meaning this towards ecto's who just may need to eat tons and tons to gain weight.

If YOU gained 2% bodyfat while doing a clean bulk, then perhaps YOUR calculations are incorrect. And as someone said before, eating the surplus calories contained in 1lb of muscle is not enough to build 1lb of muscle... It's like saying to build a car all you need is metal. You can't build something completely with less energy than is required to build it. You can however build and store the excess energy. Once the building stage is complete, the excess energy can be discarded.

Furthermore, IF we lived ina perfect world where we could calculate everything to the decimal point and you gained fat at the exact number of calories required to build AND store a lb of muscle, then the answer lies not in your diet, but in your training method for requiring your body to build that muscle in the first place.

[brayj789]

If YOU gained 2% bodyfat while doing a clean bulk, then perhaps YOUR calculations are incorrect. And as someone said before, eating the surplus calories contained in 1lb of muscle is not enough to build 1lb of muscle... It's like saying to build a car all you need is metal. You can't build something completely with less energy than is required to build it. You can however build and store the excess energy. Once the building stage is complete, the excess energy can be discarded.

Furthermore, IF we lived ina perfect world where we could calculate everything to the decimal point and you gained fat at the exact number of calories required to build AND store a lb of muscle, then the answer lies not in your diet, but in your training method for requiring your body to build that muscle in the first place.

Read my next post after that one to get what I meant bro

p.s - I don't understand your first sentence.

[biochemlab]

1 lb of muscle is actually about 1800 calories.
1 lb x 453.6 g/lb x 4 cal/g = 1814 calories
It is said that 1 lb of fat is about 3500 calories
1 lb x 453.6 g/lb x 9 cal/g = 4082 calories
(probably water included in the 1 lb of of bodyfat)

bull****

muscle is NOT 100% protein and body fat is NOT 100% fat

Muscle is composed of ~70% (70-75) water, ~22% (20-22) protein ~6% (4-8) lipids ~2% (1-2) inorganic material.

1lb of muscle = 580-760cals by my calculations & 1lb of fat = 3081-3500 cal

[numinix]

And I guess I'm saying finding one's proper calorie excess to ensure muscle gain would yield no less mucle gain then eating the extra calories that just go to fat. I'm not saying its possible to find the exact amt.of calories. However, I don't see how its 'impossible' as some would like to say, to gain muscle without b.f% going up a significant amount (more than 1-2%) . I'm talking about hardcore 'bulk' then 'cut' cycles would be useless in the case of muscle gain w/o fat gain.

Also, I mean to refere to novice-intermediate lifters, not ecto-type beginners looking to put on A LOT of MASS quickly. Nor am I talking about seasoned veterans.

It would be time inefficient to try to bulk without any fat gain. You can gain muscle and then cut the fat faster than you could gain the muscle without maximizing your calories. This is assuming that we CANNOT calculate our metabolic rates and our calorie consumption perfectly.

BUT, to minimize fat gain while bulking, you need to concentrate on certain types of foods eaten at specific times in the day. This is where research in the glycemic index can be very helpful.

You need to do more research on what hormones in the body affect muscle growth/fat storage and what foods affect these hormones.

[numinix]

Read my next post after that one to get what I meant bro

p.s - I don't understand your first sentence.

read the rest of my post to understand how you could have miscalculated...

[Struct09]

bull****

muscle is NOT 100% protein and body fat is NOT 100% fat

Muscle is composed of ~70% (70-75) water, ~22% (20-22) protein ~6% (4-8) lipids ~2% (1-2) inorganic material.

1lb of muscle = 580-760cals by my calculations & 1lb of fat = 3081-3500 cal

It's not that I don't believe you, but do you have a link/article that discusses this?

I've been searching for relevant articles, and have been coming up short. Like I said, all I was going off of was some old info I read and then those calculations (I heard the 1800 calories figure before I did those calculations).

[numinix]

Ok, to go into more detail. It is POSSIBLE to not gain fat while bulking; calorie surplus. But it would be nearly impossible (I won't say impossible because I don't know), to gain muscle while cutting.

How I did it: Going back to my statement about the glycemic index. I know the GI is far from perfect but we do know that 1) the foods that have a high GI do raise blood-glucose levels and 2) insulin is required for both protein synthesis and storing glycogen/fat. I hypothesized that IF I consciously spiked my insulin only during post workout when the need for protein synthesis would be at it's greatest and fat storage at it's lowest, my body would use the insulin primarily for protein synthesis. I find that this method works, but I can't generalize it to everyone else without a controlled study on a large sample. Also, we don't know what other foods had false negatives on the glycemic index testing so we could be spiking our insulin at other times of the day unconsciously...

[brayj789]

It would be time inefficient to try to bulk without any fat gain. You can gain muscle and then cut the fat faster than you could gain the muscle without maximizing your calories. This is assuming that we CANNOT calculate our metabolic rates and our calorie consumption perfectly.

BUT, to minimize fat gain while bulking, you need to concentrate on certain types of foods eaten at specific times in the day. This is where research in the glycemic index can be very helpful.

You need to do more research on what hormones in the body affect muscle growth/fat storage and what foods affect these hormones.

So you saying eating supposably low GI foods in excess will not be stored as fat? For one, the GI index is flawed in many ways, but I still understand what your saying.

I'm talking strickly about calories in, calories out bro. Not macronutrients, and I think thats clear. One can eat all the 'clean foods' he or she wants, and if calories in > calories out THEY WILL STORE FAT. I've experienced this and its a no brainer. I'm not saying macro's don't matter, there a must and very important, but not in this discussion.

And where are you basing the fact that say a 3 month bulk and say a 1 month cut will yield results better than a 4 month clean(er)[the more conservative kal wise] bulk.

[brayj789]

Ok, to go into more detail. It is POSSIBLE to not gain fat while bulking; calorie surplus. But it would be nearly impossible (I won't say impossible because I don't know), to gain muscle while cutting.

How I did it: Going back to my statement about the glycemic index. I know the GI is far from perfect but we do know that 1) the foods that have a high GI do raise blood-glucose levels and 2) insulin is required for both protein synthesis and storing glycogen/fat. I hypothesized that IF I consciously spiked my insulin only during post workout when the need for protein synthesis would be at it's greatest and fat storage at it's lowest, my body would use the insulin primarily for protein synthesis. I find that this method works, but I can't generalize it to everyone else without a controlled study on a large sample. Also, we don't know what other foods had false negatives on the glycemic index testing so we could be spiking our insulin at other times of the day unconsciously...

I utilize this all the time. I rarely if ever eat High GI carbs, even pwo I use oats and haven't noticed any difference from the former(dextrose or malto, which I both used).

My carbs come from breakfast, pwo, & thats it for the most part,excluding trace carbs, and my high carb days. I eat some carbs pre-workout on my bigger lift days if I feel that need as well. I'm carb-cycling/ TCD right now though, and cutting for that matter( from fat gained during my bulk of all things ) This will of course change when I attempt my next bulk, which will be much more conservative than a 500 kal surplous.

But I haven't noticed any muscle loss, and definately even some gains when I was closer to maintenence. Part in due, to the fact I'm a teen with sky high test levels I'm sure.

[Troutwine]

bull****

muscle is NOT 100% protein and body fat is NOT 100% fat

Muscle is composed of ~70% (70-75) water, ~22% (20-22) protein ~6% (4-8) lipids ~2% (1-2) inorganic material.

1lb of muscle = 580-760cals by my calculations & 1lb of fat = 3081-3500 cal

what is body fat composed of?

[garlichead]

The simple act of increasing muscle size burns enery, and lots of it. And the myriad of other factors will effect a simple calorie calculation that you want, it can't be accurate. Body types and genetics are just a few factors that will effect your reasoning..............

[357mag]

It would be time inefficient to try to bulk without any fat gain. You can gain muscle and then cut the fat faster than you could gain the muscle without maximizing your calories. This is assuming that we CANNOT calculate our metabolic rates and our calorie consumption perfectly.

BUT, to minimize fat gain while bulking, you need to concentrate on certain types of foods eaten at specific times in the day. This is where research in the glycemic index can be very helpful.

You need to do more research on what hormones in the body affect muscle growth/fat storage and what foods affect these hormones.

This guy has found the answer, so he says anyways.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/issa110.htm
ALthough a guy at work has told me that he best of the best of the best weightlifters can gain only a true lb. of muscle per month, i acutlaly want to find more information on this.

[biochemlab]

I got this information from e-book Mike Mentzer - Heavy Duty Nutrition.pdf.
After that i went on google and found

http://www.wellness.gatech.edu/infor...losing_fat.php
*22% of protein
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2437.html
*15 - 20 percent protein, 70 - 75 percent water
http://www.nwhealth.edu/healthyU/eatWell/hydrate_5.html
*75% water
http://www.fitnessmanagement.com/FM/...facts0694.html
* 30. The recipe for making skeletal muscles. Approximately 75 percent of skeletal muscle is water, 20 percent is protein and the remaining 5 percent is made up of inorganic salts and other substances.