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

[Strawng]

So if a 160 lb man at 15% bf were to eat maintenece cals & start training, don't you think he'd reach 160 at 9% faster if he gained & lost weight than if he ate maintenence calories? It seems absurd that someone could train & eat maintenence to dip below 10%.

[Mrpb]

So if a 160 lb man at 15% bf were to eat maintenece cals & start training, don't you think he'd reach 160 at 9% faster if he gained & lost weight than if he ate maintenence calories?

I'm aware most people would assume the former to be faster. I'm not convinced as evidence is non existent.

It seems absurd that someone could train & eat maintenance to dip below 10%.

I don't think it's absurd. Some guys in the Antonio study probably achieved that as some of them lost ~8% body fat.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4617900/

Obviously BodPod has it's limitations but it sure is possible.

[Skp4909]

You can put on lbm and lose fat. You just have to do it carefully. My last hydrostatic test for 28days period said I gained .9lbs of lean mass and loss 8lbs of fat. My math says I averaged a 1100 calorie a day deficit. I busted my ass and hit weights hard. I also did hiit/cardio acceleration 7 days a week. My diet was on point with tons of veggies/lean protein/creatine.

Good luck.

[Shadowman82]

I think aside from getting sufficient protein and fats proper stimulus maybe more important than being in a surplus . It's been stated that our hunter gatherer ancestors were considerably stronger than most people are today . Are we supposed to be believe that they were always in a surplus to attain that kind of muscle mass ? I'd say them being hunter gatherers they most certainly were not . But they did do a heck of allot that challenged them physically .

[okayest]

I think aside from getting sufficient protein and fats proper stimulus maybe more important than being in a surplus . It's been stated that our hunter gatherer ancestors were considerably stronger than most people are today . Are we supposed to be believe that they were always in a surplus to attain that kind of muscle mass ? I'd say them being hunter gatherers they most certainly were not . But they did do a heck of allot that challenged them physically .

Huh? The average modern person is weak and scrawny. Early human didn't have large musculature. There are still populations that live similar to early human and the men are toned at best, the women are a bit pudgy. Google Korowai and Waorani.

[GGGTeam]

Really odd emphasis in the title.

I suppose you could DRINK a calorie surplus. If South Park is an empirical guide you could SUPPOSIT a calorie surplus.

[Brozef]

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

This does not compute. Care to explain further?

[Mrpb]

This does not compute. Care to explain further?

Explained here: http://shreddedbyscience.com/can-you...lorie-deficit/

[AdamWW]

Huh? The average modern person is weak and scrawny. Early human didn't have large musculature. There are still populations that live similar to early human and the men are toned at best, the women are a bit pudgy. Google Korowai and Waorani.

I dunno about scrawny

[AdamWW]

I think aside from getting sufficient protein and fats proper stimulus maybe more important than being in a surplus . It's been stated that our hunter gatherer ancestors were considerably stronger than most people are today . Are we supposed to be believe that they were always in a surplus to attain that kind of muscle mass ? I'd say them being hunter gatherers they most certainly were not . But they did do a heck of allot that challenged them physically .

You've made a few claims concerning things that have 'been stated' or that you've 'read literature' on, yet have not provided those sources... I'd love to take a peek at them... if they exist.

[SuffolkPunch]

Huh? The average modern person is weak and scrawny. Early human didn't have large musculature. There are still populations that live similar to early human and the men are toned at best, the women are a bit pudgy. Google Korowai and Waorani.

Exactly. People romanticise early humans for some reason - probably because of overzealous artists impressions. Just another example of the naturalistic fallacy at work.

[Heisman2]

Explained here: http://shreddedbyscience.com/can-you...lorie-deficit/

I wish he gave a citation for this: "Literature shows that it takes approximately 4-6 times as much energy to build muscle, which puts the total caloric “cost” of a pound of muscle at roughly 3500 kcal."

He never actually summarizes the whole article to indicate why it's possible to gain weight in a caloric deficit. Previously I thought this was the case as I was under the assumption that metabolizable LBM yields ~800 kcal/pound (as he states, citing Kevin Hall's paper) and was under the assumption that the cost of building muscle was considerably less than 3500 kcal. If it actually is 3500 kcal, similar to the cost of fat loss, I don't see how you can gain weight in a deficit (discounting water weight).j

If building LBM only cost say 1750 kcal/lb while burning fat yielded 3500- kcal/lb, then regarding energy balance you could burn one pound of fat and build two pounds of muscle; therefore if eating at maintenance you could gain 1 pound bodyweight if for every pound of fat loss you were to gain 2 pounds of LBM (this would have to be done quite slowly due to the time course of building muscle). But if the cost of building muscle is equivalent to the cost of losing fat it doesn't make sense to me.

[Mrpb]

I wish he gave a citation for this: "Literature shows that it takes approximately 4-6 times as much energy to build muscle, which puts the total caloric “cost” of a pound of muscle at roughly 3500 kcal."

He never actually summarizes the whole article to indicate why it's possible to gain weight in a caloric deficit. Previously I thought this was the case as I was under the assumption that metabolizable LBM yields ~800 kcal/pound (as he states, citing Kevin Hall's paper) and was under the assumption that the cost of building muscle was considerably less than 3500 kcal. If it actually is 3500 kcal, similar to the cost of fat loss, I don't see how you can gain weight in a deficit (discounting water weight).j

If building LBM only cost say 1750 kcal/lb while burning fat yielded 3500- kcal/lb, then regarding energy balance you could burn one pound of fat and build two pounds of muscle; therefore if eating at maintenance you could gain 1 pound bodyweight if for every pound of fat loss you were to gain 2 pounds of LBM (this would have to be done quite slowly due to the time course of building muscle). But if the cost of building muscle is equivalent to the cost of losing fat it doesn't make sense to me.

I always take these kinds of discussions with a grain of salt because the amount of calories that is required to gain LBM is unlikely the same as the amount of calories that is required to gain skeletal muscle tissue.

Afaik data on the latter is too sparse to draw any strong conclusions. For the time being my own summary is: it's complicated.

Another factor that complicates the topic is that people tend to assume that maintenance is a fixed number, while in reality it's a moving target.

[TheEternalCut]

Exactly. People romanticise early humans for some reason - probably because of overzealous artists impressions. Just another example of the naturalistic fallacy at work.

Disagree, brah. I only eat meat and fats because carbs are against all natural laws. Just made a fourteen egg omelette, making another one in two hours, will have to throw away some of the yolks though BECAUSE I ONLY WANT TEH PROTEIN!! Only cucks eat carbs, bro. Brb, need more butter in my coffffee..

Ahem...

Regarding which is better, recomping or traditional bulking and cutting. From a personal point of view, I think I prefer bulking and cutting. Building muscle seems so much more difficult than losing fat, it makes sense to put every effort into doing so. I'm not talking about extremes, a 200-300 swing on maintenence should be enough to see results in the mirror in a short enough period of time to not feel like you are spinning your wheels. Recomping can have its advantages in staying lean year round, but 3 months of bulking and a month of cutting seems fair.

It can be interesting to get into the science of things, but for most, the advice stays the same, train hard on an effective program, eat a balanced diet with enough energy to supply your strength demands, and rest and stay hydrated. No need to overcomplicate things.

[Shadowman82]

I was refering to this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...g-rapidly.html

Seems people , men in particular got smaller and weaker after we stopped being hunter gatherers and started doing farming and so on .

[Joseph1990]

Why is this even a question? In what case could this realistically matter?

Spoiler!

It doesn't.

If we could make worthwhile gains during a deficit we would all be doing it, at least someone would. Truth is you can't (omitting outlier cases of untrained obese subjects with relatively low LBM). Using Alan or Lyle's method for calculating the high end of LBM that can be obtain during a month of training as a lifter with 2 years of experience we get +5kg/year or 416g/month or 0.0138g/day.

Cool, under the best circumstances in a caloric surplus you would be doing amazing to gain 13 thousandth's of a gram daily. I'm sure you can agree that in a deficit your gains would not be optimal, lets use a "the jacked guy at the gym said so" educated guess and say you can gain even 50% of that (6.5 thousandth's of a gram/day) during a 250kcal deficit.

So you've been lifting for 2 years and you are starting to notice your overall shape is looking more athletic. @ 160lbs you figure just 8 more lbs and I'll finally be 10% BF. You have to start cutting now to make it there by beach season so you meticulously count every calorie down to the gram and estimate your expenditure with a heart rate monitor, temperature sensor, historical data, etc etc etc for optimal accuracy.

In 32 day's of meticulously tracking every calorie in and out with no margin for error -250kcal/day wohoo 152lbs finally 10%! And I also gained 22 hundreths of a kg of diamond hard, razor sharp, 1337 sauce, painty dropping, muscle at the same time! So much worth!

Weakness in my example.

- Gifting that it's even possible to make gains at all in a deficit, I doubt it would be as much as 50%.
- You will have a margin of error tracking expenditure and intake.

If the goal is to remain close as you can to a certain level of leanness while gaining, I recommend mini bulks and cuts (2-4 weeks) where you can realistically measure progress.

[The_cannibal]

I guess some people in this thread forgot about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? You know, one of the most important laws of physics in our universe, the one that says that entropy is always increasing?

When you put mass in a body, you increase order in the universe, and therefore, energy HAS TO BE PUT IN. I don't care what some mishandled study in a lab may have proven, nobody has ever disproven the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You may be able to put on muscle in a deficit if you have enough fat, but gaining weight (as in overall weight (not just LBM)) is ridiculous. If anyone believes that, they may as well invest in a perpetual motion machine: there's plenty of people on the web looking for people gullible enough to invest in those.

[Joseph1990]

I guess everyone forgot about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? You know, one of the most important laws of physics in our universe, the one that says that entropy is always increasing?

When you put mass in a body, you increase order in the universe, and therefore, energy HAS TO BE PUT IN. I don't care what some mishandled study in a lab may have proven, nobody has ever disproven the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You may be able to put on muscle in a deficit if you have enough fat, but gaining weight (as in overall weight (not just LBM)) is ridiculous.

Why would anyone be arguing with thermodynamic law or making the multiverseal leap from claiming you can gain some muscle and lose fat, to gaining more muscle than fat lost simultaneously. I'm sure you know no one is saying this and if they are why even respond to this person.

[The_cannibal]

Why would anyone be arguing with thermodynamic law or making the multiverseal leap from claiming you can gain some muscle and lose fat, to gaining more muscle than fat lost simultaneously. I'm sure you know no one is saying this and if they are why even respond to this person.

Just look a few posts above yours and people were discussing the idea that you could put on weight in a deficit or at maintenance.

[Joseph1990]

Just look a few posts above yours and people were discussing the idea that you could put on weight in a deficit or at maintenance.

mrpb and skp? Posts like theirs are full broscience end of story. To actually find LBM growth in trained individuals in a study the controls would have to be phenomenal, far more controlled then anything that has ever been attempted.

[The_cannibal]

mrpb and skp? Posts like theirs are full broscience end of story. To actually find LBM growth in trained individuals in a study the controls would have to be phenomenal, far more controlled then anything that has ever been attempted.

I don't think there is any need to insult other people's posts and start e-battles. Instead, I like to make people think for themselves and remind them of irreducible facts that will preempt any need for experimental evidence.

[Heisman2]

Keep in mind that weight does not equate to energy. Any one of us could drink a liter of water and gain 1 kilogram while having a net loss of energy due to burning a tiny bit in the act of drinking. If fat yields more energy per unit mass when metabolized than needed to synthesize the same unit mass of LBM, then you can gain more weight in LBM than you lose in fat while being energy neutral.

[The_cannibal]

Keep in mind that weight does not equate to energy. Any one of us could drink a liter of water and gain 1 kilogram while having a net loss of energy due to burning a tiny bit in the act of drinking. If fat yields more energy per unit mass when metabolized than needed to synthesize the same unit mass of LBM, then you can gain more weight in LBM than you lose in fat while being energy neutral.

But an increase in weight from water you drank is not the same as gaining weight the way Mrpb meant it. There's no way you can anabolize more molecules in a body than the energy that would be released from burning the same weight in fat. Doing so would increase the order in the universe: that's why it costs so much in ATP and GTP to build proteins.. that's also why every time the ribosome makes mistakes, it costs even more GTPs and ATPs to fix it, because there is a metabolic cost associated to increasing order. Swallowing water doesn't decrease entropy.

EDIT: I understand what you mean by weight does not equate energy, but you have to consider it in terms of thermodynamics: you increase entropy by burning food and by breaking proteins into individual amino acids but you only recover about 60% of the energy as ATP and GTP (or much less when breaking peptide bonds in the liver), and then you have to use that energy to decrease entropy by anabolizing molecules using information contained in DNA, but the body is very inefficient at inputting back that energy because of the need for order.

In other words, the body used exothermic reactions without capturing all the energy from it, and then it has to basically reverse the process, while being barely about 20% efficient at doing it, so there is a net need for more matter to provide the energy for it.

EDIT#3: I do realize that the food is metabolized all the way down to CO2 and H2O whereas it is being anabolized from pre-formed amino acids, carbs and fats, so the process is not truly being reversed all the way, but I still think that by anabolizing more weight than is being metabolized, this would lead to decreased entropy, which would require a net input of energy.

2nd EDIT: As an added anecdote, it is worth noting that this way of thinking can be extended to more than chemistry. In "Applied Cryptography", Bruce Schneier makes the case for unbreakable 256-bit symmetric encryption: encryption increase information entropy, decryption decreases it. Now if a 256-bit algorithm can't be weakened by various techniques (such as differential cryptanalysis), then even if it was possible to make a machine that only used 10^-30 Joules every time its state was changed to try a new key combination, the resulting expense in energy would be higher than the energy of a supernova (about 10^46 Joules): 2^256 * 10^-30 >> 10^46.

[Joseph1990]

I don't think there is any need to insult other people's posts and start e-battles. Instead, I like to make people think for themselves and remind them of irreducible facts that will preempt any need for experimental evidence.

mrpbs just confused me when he posted this along with his study.

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.

Keep in mind that weight does not equate to energy. Any one of us could drink a liter of water and gain 1 kilogram while having a net loss of energy due to burning a tiny bit in the act of drinking. [b]If fat yields more energy per unit mass when metabolized than needed to synthesize the same unit mass of LBM, then you can gain more weight in LBM than you lose in fat while being energy neutral.[b]

Hypothetically it is possible to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time if metabolic efficiency is constant?

[EjnarKolinkar]

Hypothetically it is possible to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time if metabolic efficiency is constant?

What is the point wringing your hands over it? Bodybuilders look to train effectively and eat to achieve a primary goal. Light folks tend to gain, fattier folks tend to diet a bit.

If a bodybuilder is training effectively, and eating well what more can they really do anyway? I just don't see any point in stressing out over it?

[The_cannibal]

What is the point wringing your hands over it? Bodybuilders look to train effectively and eat to achieve a primary goal. Light folks tend to gain, fattier folks tend to diet a bit.

If a bodybuilder is training effectively, and eating well what more can they really do anyway? I just don't see any point in stressing out over it?

I don't think anybody is truly stressing over it. It's an internet forum and it is interesting to discuss subjects that are more valuable than "Critic my diet" or "Why are horses/gorillas more muscular than humans"

[Mrpb]

mrpb just confused me when he posted this along with his study.

You mean the part that one can gain weight in a deficit?

mrpb and skp?

Who is skp? Or did you mean SumDumGoi?

[Heisman2]

But an increase in weight from water you drank is not the same as gaining weight the way Mrpb meant it. There's no way you can anabolize more molecules in a body than the energy that would be released from burning the same weight in fat. Doing so would increase the order in the universe: that's why it costs so much in ATP and GTP to build proteins.. that's also why every time the ribosome makes mistakes, it costs even more GTPs and ATPs to fix it, because there is a metabolic cost associated to increasing order. Swallowing water doesn't decrease entropy.

If the body is treated as a closed system I agree. This is why I find it so interesting to consider the energy costs of synthesizing LBM and adipose tissue, as well as the energy released that can be used by the body when metabolizing LBM and adipose tissue, simply to figure this out theoretically.

EDIT: I understand what you mean by weight does not equate energy, but you have to consider it in terms of thermodynamics: you increase entropy by burning food and by breaking proteins into individual amino acids but you only recover about 60% of the energy as ATP and GTP (or much less when breaking peptide bonds in the liver), and then you have to use that energy to decrease entropy by anabolizing molecules using information contained in DNA, but the body is very inefficient at inputting back that energy because of the need for order.

In other words, the body used exothermic reactions without capturing all the energy from it, and then it has to basically reverse the process, while being barely about 20% efficient at doing it, so there is a net need for more matter to provide the energy for it.

Right, I haven't considered energy lost as heat. I don't know these numbers off the top of my head. For that reason I definitely wouldn't think all of the energy released from metabolizing one pound of fat could be used directly to synthesize LBM; it would be a relatively small amount and enough would be given off as heat to increase the overall entropy of the universe even if within the body (or a specific compartment) there is a decrease of entropy with synthesis of new tissue.

EDIT#3: I do realize that the food is metabolized all the way down to CO2 and H2O whereas it is being anabolized from pre-formed amino acids, carbs and fats, so the process is not truly being reversed all the way, but I still think that by anabolizing more weight than is being metabolized, this would lead to decreased entropy, which would require a net input of energy.

I haven't reviewed thermodynamics in a long time. I'm not sure that entropy is directly correlated with weight. For example, would a solution of large polymers that weighs X have more, less, or the same amount of entropy as the same solution if the polymers were broken down into individual components? I'm under the impression the individual components would have much more despite being the same weight. Since adipose tissue and LBM have different compositions I don't think they can be compared directly in that regard.

2nd EDIT: As an added anecdote, it is worth noting that this way of thinking can be extended to more than chemistry. In "Applied Cryptography", Bruce Schneier makes the case for unbreakable 256-bit symmetric encryption: encryption increase information entropy, decryption decreases it. Now if a 256-bit algorithm can't be weakened by various techniques (such as differential cryptanalysis), then even if it was possible to make a machine that only used 10^-30 Joules every time its state was changed to try a new key combination, the resulting expense in energy would be higher than the energy of a supernova (about 10^46 Joules): 2^256 * 10^-30 >> 10^46.

Haha, I like that.

Hypothetically it is possible to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time if metabolic efficiency is constant?

I'm not sure what you mean by "if metabolic efficiency is constant". I simply pulled those numbers out of thin air to illustrate my point. I continue to struggle to determine the energy cost of synthesizing skeletal muscle and LBM. I may try to contact the author of the link that Mrpb provided to see if he can show me whatever citation he got that number from.

[ironwill2008]

I feel bad for all the skinny kids posting on this site, trying to build muscle while also obtaining a "six-pack," who will be misled by some of the posts ITT, and go away thinking they will actually accomplish this, even while other posts appear, almost by the minute, from their contemporaries who complain of never making any progress at all when trying to do this.



Sometimes, you just have to step away from the studies, and apply a little bit of common sense instead.

[Strawng]

Sometimes, you just have to step away from the studies, and apply a little bit of common sense instead.

This. For me (skinny kid), eating at maintenance always led to wheel-spinning, & there seem to be a plethora of accounts on this site of people who are not even advanced lifters who make no strength gains at maintence cals.