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

[MikeK46]

Your constant use of the word "I" indicates that you are extremely self-centered and selfish. The fact that you can't spell "deficit" and use the word "jacked" indicate that you are not very bright which explains why you may only know "a thing or two" about nutrition. Also I doubt you were in a deficit for 2 years. Also, lay off the catnip.

You forgot to mention that it's also completely anecdotal

[hankst]

Your constant use of the word "I" indicates that you are extremely self-centered and selfish. The fact that you can't spell "deficit" and use the word "jacked" indicate that you are not very bright which explains why you may only know "a thing or two" about nutrition. Also I doubt you were in a deficit for 2 years. Also, lay off the catnip.

We can resume talking in German, if you like. I'll gladly switch to my native tongue, if that is more comfortable for you.

Also, I find it highly ironic that you are talking about being "self centered" while having Christian Bale in his role as Patrick Bateman in "American Psycho" as your avatar - which is also against the bb.com terms of service, I might add.

Edit:
also, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571 does not address composition of the gained LBM, at least in the abstract; for all I know their kidneys could have hypertrophied by two solid pounds (which, I might add before you keep trying to be very witty, is improbable).
All I am saying is: lean body mass does not automatically equal muscle mass.

You forgot to mention that it's also completely anecdotal

I think I made that clear by the excessive use of "I" and "me".
n = 1

Edit:
@WonderPug: thanks for uploading the whole thing, will read it

[WonderPug]

I have posted this before http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...1&postcount=37

I don't think any reputable posters are arguing that LBM gains are impossible during CR, but, rather, that such gains would be, at best, marginal in all but those far from their genetic maximum.

For example, in the study you site in the referenced post, the LBM gains in a trained population were, at best, marginal (see below).*





------------
* Full-text study: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attach...1&d=1310659166

[SumDumGoi]

I don't think any reputable posters are arguing that LBM gains are impossible during CR, but, rather, that such gains would be, at best, marginal in all but those far from their genetic maximum.

For example, in the study you site in the referenced post, the LBM gains in a trained population were, at best, marginal (see below).*





------------
* Full-text study: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attach...1&d=1310659166

Lean body mass gains in experienced athletes are always marginal.

Edit: Just to quantify the numbers we should look at how much muscle mass you should expect to increase with training. I think these numbers are a relatively good starting off point.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...potential.html

Using Lyle McDonald's numbers he goes ~3 lbs/year or ~0.25 lbs/month.

Using Alan Aragon's numbers he goes with 0.5% of total body weight per month. The average starting weight was ~ 72 kg so he would expect that they would gain ~ 0.36 kg (0.79 lbs).

I am using the numbers for advanced lifters because all of the subjects in the study were experienced athletes. I have also chosen to present the number on the high end of the scale for each calculation. Over 12 weeks the average increase in LBM was ~ 2.2 lbs. If you were to extrapolate the calculations above to 12 weeks it would be expected that the subjects should increase their LBM by 0.75-2.4 lbs. Therefore, the results achieved in the study were actually on the high end of what is to be expected. I wouldn't exactly call this "marginal".

[HunterCML]

In my opinion.. it's all different from individual to individual. A person's genetics, natural P-ratio, current hormonal state, optimal macro/micro-nutrient sufficiency and ratio, training, testosterone/thyroidal/leptin levels, and many other factors that I'm not even educated enough to consider all have a major effect.

Basically, for certain well trained individuals where everything is pretty much as optimal as humanly possible; better ratios are achieved. Losing fat and gaining LBM will be possible, but even in an optimal state, those gains are still minimal and marginal at best.

[WonderPug]

Lean body mass gains in experienced athletes are always marginal.

Let's not play semantic games.

[SumDumGoi]

Let's not play semantic games.

I'm not sure if you posted this before I edited the post above. But when you look at the expected and observed increase in LBM during the 12 weeks of training I don't think you can call the increase in LBM to be "marginal".

[thaxceptional1]

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

i want your body.

[Dujin77]

Yes you need a surplus.

[WonderPug]

I'm not sure if you posted this before I edited the post above. But when you look at the expected and observed increase in LBM during the 12 weeks of training I don't think you can call the increase in LBM to be "marginal".

I did post before your edit.

That said, now that I'm looking at your edit, a critical factor is that "athlete" != weightlifter. As evidence of this, look at the baseline data from the relevant study:



The average male subject was 177 cm (~5'10") tall and weighed 78kg (~172 pounds), with 17% BF. These are not individuals that were anywhere near their genetic muscular max (adjusted for BF), but rather are much more consistant in terms of muscularity and BF with a relative newbie to weightlifting.

[SumDumGoi]

I did post before your edit.

That said, now that I'm looking at your edit, a critical factor is that "athlete" != weightlifter. As evidence of this, look at the baseline data from the relevant study:



The average male subject was 177 cm (~5'10") tall and weighed 78kg (~172 pounds), with 17% BF. These are not individuals that were anywhere near their genetic muscular max (adjusted for BF), but rather are much more consistant in terms of muscularity and BF with a relative newbie to weightlifting.

This is from the methods of the study:

Training. The intervention period started off-season for all athletes to be able to add additional training to their schedule and for practical reasons (e.g., traveling and competitions). All athletes continued their sport-specific training schedule (14.6 ± 3.5 hr/week, presented as a mean of the training during the previous year). They included four strength-training sessions per week to emphasize muscle strength and hypertrophy. The strength-training program was a two-split periodized program. Each muscle group was exercised twice a week with two exercises in each session, one main exercise attacking multiple muscle groups (e.g., squat) and one working on a specific muscle group (e.g., knee
extension). Main exercises for leg muscles were clean (whole body), squat, hack squat, and dead lift, and main exercises for upper body muscles were bench press, bench pull, rowing, chins, shoulder press, and core exercises.

All of the subjects in the study were athletes during the off-season of their sports programs. Each of their strength training programs was designed to increase muscular size/hypertrophy. Given that the athletes were lifting weights to increase muscle size/strength your differentiation between athlete and weightlifter does not matter.

Also, I think something else needs to be pointed out. When measuring percent body fat using a DEXA and other methods such as underwater weighing, I have observed the the DEXA measurement to consistently be higher. I have personally had both measurements performed and the DEXA measurement was ~ 5% higher than my underwater weighing measurement. Therefore someone with a 12% bodyfat as measured by underwater weighing could be measured as 17% bodyfat using DEXA.

[WonderPug]

All of the subjects in the study were athletes during the off-season of their sports programs. Each of their strength training programs was designed to increase muscular size/hypertrophy. Given that the athletes were lifting weights to increase muscle size/strength your differentiation between athlete and weightlifter does not matter.

Now I'm afraid you're being disingenuous, as I was replying to your post where you stated:

I am using the numbers for advanced lifters because all of the subjects in the study were experienced athletes.

Obviously, a 5'10" tall, 172 pound, 17% BF individual should not be considered an "advanced lifter". And that's why I was pointing out that an "athlete" != "advanced weightlifter".

[sunngodd]

Lyle has already cleared this up: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...ng-fat-qa.html

Cliffs: Works for fat newbs, becomes harder as you're more experienced and/or leaner

[DTRrex]

I've found that if you eat slightly under maintenance (deficit), and make sure all your foods are from good sources (mostly lean protein, higher fat, low-moderate carb) you can add muscle while dropping fat. It's a slow process however.

I have found the best balance to be eating very slightly over maintenance (about 200 cals over) but making sure protein is high and carbs are only moderate. Mass gain will be slow, but it will come and bodyfat added is often next to nothing. I prefer this to the other option of eating tons of food, gaining size quickly, but also adding 5% boyfat.

I'm currently cutting on a 200 cal deficit while keeping protein high and training hard. Gaining muscle at the moment, but fat loss is very slow... noticeable, but slow. I think if I did this for a year or so I could lean down while still putting on size, but I don't have that kind of patience.

Recomp slightly over maintenance while doing cardio most of the year with a few months of solid cutting for summer seems best.

[WonderPug]

I've found that if you eat slightly under maintenance (deficit), and make sure all your foods are from good sources (mostly lean protein, higher fat, low-moderate carb) you can add muscle while dropping fat.

This was (unintentionally) funny.

[DTRrex]

This was (unintentionally) funny.

say what

[SumDumGoi]

Now I'm afraid you're being disingenuous, as I was replying to your post where you stated:



Obviously, a 5'10" tall, 172 pound, 17% BF individual should not be considered an "advanced lifter". And that's why I was pointing out that an "athlete" != "advanced weightlifter".

The athletes in the study were recruited from the Norwegian OLYMPIC Sports Center. In other words they were individuals who were training to compete in the freaking Olympics. You seriously don't think these are experienced athletes? Not to mention, as i said before, and you neglected to mention, the percent body fat from DEXA is higher than what is predicted from other methods such as hydrostatic weighing. These differences in bodyfat percent can be by as much as 4-5%.

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/ab..._males.17.aspx

I find it odd that you are accusing me of being disingenuous with my argument given that you are completely ignoring this vital piece of information. I have personally had my DEXA measurement over-predict my bodyfat percent by 5% compared to hydrostatic weighing. In other words, someone who you would see and think would be 10-12% bodyfat by eyeballing them could actually be 15-17% bodyfat when measured using DEXA!

[ko300zx]

say what

You suggested lean meat and higher fat....how about fatty meat? 2 birds one stone?

[WonderPug]

The athletes in the study were recruited from the Norwegian OLYMPIC Sports Center...In other words they were individuals who were training to compete in the freaking Olympics. You seriously don't think these are experienced athletes?...

Training for the Olympics != training for weightlifting. Athletes != weightlifters.

Below is a picture of an Olympic gold medal winner crossing the finish line.



Now come on, you're a very intelligent poster and I'm sure you know that the population sample in the relevant study was not composed of "advanced lifters" (which is the claim I have been disputing).

[msmartsmart]

The athletes in the study were recruited from the Norwegian OLYMPIC Sports Center. In other words they were individuals who were training to compete in the freaking Olympics. You seriously don't think these are experienced athletes?

Have you ever seen curling?

[hankst]

"Experienced athlete" does not equal "experienced weight lifting athlete".
I am pretty sure someone who has been playing soccer for several years counts as an experienced athlete, but his experience in the weight room may still be in the beginner stages, muscle development wise.

Edit:
too slow.

[msmartsmart]

"Experienced athlete" does not equal "experienced weight lifting athlete".
I am pretty sure someone who has been playing soccer for several years counts as an experienced athlete, but his experience in the weight room may still be in the beginner stages, muscle development wise.

Edit:
too slow.

Hold up! You're saying that Phil Mickelson's man boobs aren't from years and years of benching and advanced weight training?

[x-ray vision]

You seriously don't think these are experienced athletes?

...

I find it odd that you are accusing me of being disingenuous...

You're being disingenuous right there. Please stop the straw man arguments. You know that Pug never inferred any such thing.

[DTRrex]

You suggested lean meat and higher fat....how about fatty meat? 2 birds one stone?

In moderation.

I wouldn't want all my meat/protein sources coming from animal fat though. When I say higher fat, I mean at least 60% of that coming from monounsaturated sources such as nuts/olive oil/soy, etc...

Nothing wrong with using fatty meat as your meat source once or twice a day though.

[x-ray vision]

I wouldn't want all my meat/protein sources coming from animal fat though. When I say higher fat, I mean at least 60% of that coming from monounsaturated sources such as nuts/olive oil/soy, etc...

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

Nothing wrong with using fatty meat as your meat source once or twice a day though.

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?

[tsrobfl]

do you smell what the BRO is cooking????

[SumDumGoi]

Training for the Olympics != training for weightlifting. Athletes != weightlifters.

Below is a picture of an Olympic gold medal winner crossing the finish line.



Now come on, you're a very intelligent poster and I'm sure you know that the population sample in the relevant study was not composed of "advanced lifters" (which is the claim I have been disputing).

Pug, you are being intentionally deft. The point was can you in fact gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. The answer was "YES", this is something that has been documented. The study I provided was only a single example of many studies that have shown this. Although studies do not address this issue specifically, if you were to look at the results of just about any study where they have measured changes in LBM and fat mass in response to training you will find the same types of results.

To address your idiotic picture above, all of the athletes in the study have had over 10 years of experience. In addition they all underwent a strength training program designed to increase muscle mass. Originally your argument was that the increase in muscle mass experienced in this population group was "marginal". That was the exact phrasing you used. I then pointed out that the increase in muscle mass was anything but marginal if you were to compare the observed and expected gains in muscle mass. Once you lost this point you changed the topic.

You have sidestepped your original assertion completely in favor of your next argument that these individuals weren't well trained athletes. You based this assertion on the fact that the individuals in the study had an average body fat percentage of 17%, which somehow enabled you to believe that showed these guys weren't well trained. I have supplied you evidence that the DEXA scan often over-predicts bodyfat percentage compared to other methods such as underwater weighing and it is entirely possible that these "athletes" in the study could be closer with what you would eyeball as being 11-12% bodyfat. Using percent bodyfat to make your assertion is ridiculous at best.

Now your assertions that these athletes are not advanced "lifters". Once again, this is a ridiculous argument for you to make on many levels. First, there was a wide variety of athletes in the study which encompassed many sports. To succeed in many of these sports the training involved is going to include lifting weights. In other words, is there a reason to believe that during the 10+ years of average experience in these sports that the athletes did not include weight lifting as part of their strength and conditioning programs? If you believe this that is just stupid. Additionally, each of the strength training programs was designed to improve muscular size/strength. The improvements in size and strength that occurred, as mentioned above, were actually within what is to be expected. therefore, experienced athletes who include strength training as part of their program have been shown to increase both muscular size and strength during a Caloric deficit. To my knowledge this was the question being asked.

If you want to talk about "advanced lifters" specifically all you are doing is continuing to place yourself into a smaller and smaller box. First, if you want to address this population of "advanced lifters" specifically, despite what some may believe their is a very good chance many of the posters do not fall into this category. As i said previously, as you cut your bodyfat level to a smaller and smaller percentage losing fat and gaining muscle would become increasingly difficult. However, most people on these boards are not sub 10% body fat, let alone at the bodyfat percentage which is required for competition. In other words, this is not a problem for the majority of the people on the board. In addition, if you read my previous posts it should be quite obvious that this is not the population I am addressing.




EDIT:

Just a question, do you think the athlete in the picture you posted represents someone who is 5'10" and weighs 173 lbs? That guy would be lucky to be 130-140 lbs. Choosing a picture of an athlete who in no way represents the subject population would be quite disingenuous, no?

He is actually 5' 4" and weighed 110 lbs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Wanjiru

[Lvisaa2]

Pug, you are being intentionally deft. The point was can you in fact gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. The answer was "YES", this is something that has been documented. The study I provided was only a single example of many studies that have shown this. Although studies do not address this issue specifically, if you were to look at the results of just about any study where they have measured changes in LBM and fat mass in response to training you will find the same types of results.

To address your idiotic picture above, all of the athletes in the study have had over 10 years of experience. In addition they all underwent a strength training program designed to increase muscle mass. Originally your argument was that the increase in muscle mass experienced in this population group was "marginal". That was the exact phrasing you used. I then pointed out that the increase in muscle mass was anything but marginal if you were to compare the observed and expected gains in muscle mass. Once you lost this point you changed the topic.

You have sidestepped your original assertion completely in favor of your next argument that these individuals weren't well trained athletes. You based this assertion on the fact that the individuals in the study had an average body fat percentage of 17%, which somehow enabled you to believe that showed these guys weren't well trained. I have supplied you evidence that the DEXA scan often over-predicts bodyfat percentage compared to other methods such as underwater weighing and it is entirely possible that these "athletes" in the study could be closer with what you would eyeball as being 11-12% bodyfat. Using percent bodyfat to make your assertion is ridiculous at best.

Now your assertions that these athletes are not advanced "lifters". Once again, this is a ridiculous argument for you to make on many levels. First, there was a wide variety of athletes in the study which encompassed many sports. To succeed in many of these sports the training involved is going to include lifting weights. In other words, is there a reason to believe that during the 10+ years of average experience in these sports that the athletes did not include weight lifting as part of their strength and conditioning programs? If you believe this that is just stupid. Additionally, each of the strength training programs was designed to improve muscular size/strength. The improvements in size and strength that occurred, as mentioned above, were actually within what is to be expected. therefore, experienced athletes who include strength training as part of their program have been shown to increase both muscular size and strength during a Caloric deficit. To my knowledge this was the question being asked.

If you want to talk specifically about "advanced lifters" specifically all you are doing is continuing to place yourself into a smaller and smaller box. First, if you want to address this population of "advanced lifters" specifically, despite what some may believe their is a very good chance many of the posters do not fall into this category. As i said previously, as you cut your bodyfat level to a smaller and smaller percentage losing fat and gaining muscle would become increasingly difficult. However, most people on these boards are not sub 10% body fat, let alone at the bodyfat percentage which is required for competition. In other words, this is not a problem for the majority of the people on the board. In addition, if you read my previous posts it should be quite obvious that this is not the population I am addressing.

Whether they are experienced or not, at 5'10'', 170 and 12% or 17% they still aren't nearing their genetic potential and thus have the ability to make good gains. Recomps can happen, but they are less efficient which I believe is the point trying to be made.

[ko300zx]

Whether they are experienced or not, at 5'10'', 170 and 12% or 17% they still aren't nearing their genetic potential and thus have the ability to make good gains. Recomps can happen, but they are less efficient which I believe is the point trying to be made.

If using body fat for fuel to gain LBM while in a deficit, that BF% will be a significant factor. Maximum genetic potential won't be much of a factor until the subject is actually nearing it but gains for the example subject of 5'10" 170 at 12% may be more difficult and less efficient than at 17% in that situation.

[SumDumGoi]

Whether they are experienced or not, at 5'10'', 170 and 12% or 17% they still aren't nearing their genetic potential and thus have the ability to make good gains. Recomps can happen, but they are less efficient which I believe is the point trying to be made.

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.

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.

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.