Bulking is a complete waste of time

[Karl_Hungus]

]

I'll take the OP at his word on his training and nutrition and say it is probably a simple answer......genes

At 5'11" and 162 lbs, I doubt he has maxed his genetic potential.

[Divall213]

Chemically, the energy is the same PER calorie. Since calories are the units we use to quantify the energy available, it's ABSURD to state otherwise.

In your example,you are trying to compare mass versus calories, that is unrelated.

It is a whole different story to say the joules in a sweet potato are different than the joules in a burger. That is a completely ILLOGICAL statement.

This.

You cannot build muscle without a calorific surplus or drugs

And a calorie is a calorie do you think your body knows where a calorie (unit of energy) comes from, how it was cooked and what it came on your plate with.

Fkin retards ITT

[induced_drag]

At 5'11" and 162 lbs, I doubt he has maxed his genetic potential.

What if he is in the 4% or less at two standard deviations to the left on the curve?....

Not saying he has reached his absolute pinnacle, but maybe he is close to topping out especially while staying lean. Dont forget the OP is lean. (I'll guess 9%bf). Put him at 15% bf and he is almost 180. Sure smaller than many mass wise, but I would imagine people fall into this range at the outer parts of the curve....and I am sure there are more that cant even manage that.

[michail71]

Besides looking for obvious deficiencies in the OP's training or nutrition, I think one MAJOR point keeps getting overlooked.

Everything in nature follows this ----vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv


I'll take the OP at his word on his training and nutrition and say it is probably a simple answer......genes.
A member here, Will Brink lays this out well.

I agree, it just sucks being on the left hand side. It doesn't mean I won't try.

[Karl_Hungus]

What if he is in the 4% or less at two standard deviations to the left on the curve?.....

I suppose it is possible.....but I would be more likely to explore all variables in his protocol before concluding his genetics won't let him gain....but you could be right.

[brbacquiring]

This.

You cannot build muscle without a calorific surplus or drugs

Drugs don't change things, the accretion of new mass (in this case muscle tissue) always represents the accretion of new "calories", hence a calorie surplus. Gaining weight (excluding water weight) is the same thing as gaining calories, hence the same thing as being in a calorie surplus. One doesn't cause the other; they're exactly the same thing.

(When looking at long time scales you can have a net mass loss and net calorie surplus (or vice versa) because more than one tissue (fat as well) is subject to change.)

And a calorie is a calorie

Undeniably.

do you think your body knows where a calorie (unit of energy) comes from, how it was cooked and what it came on your plate with.

This is a misleading question - "calories" are not sensed or dealt with in any sense, they don't "exist" as such and the body doesn't work in their terms. It certainly does "know" the difference between different macro-nutrients we eat, though, even with equivalent calorie content - as well as what else you eat with it and so on. The extent to which this affects body composition is complex matter, but that's beside the point for now.

[induced_drag]

.but I would be more likely to explore all variables in his protocol before concluding his genetics won't let him gain....but you could be right.

I would do the same. I think before I threw away any chances, I would allow my BF to drift up to 15% range over time and lift as heavy as I could with big compound lifts. For the OP at 300-400 cal surplus, I believe he could do that in 5-6 months if he planned his nutrition right. If at the end, that did not work, then I would feel I have tried what I could.

[michail71]

The talk of gentics and where they fall on the curve was interesting. He said there isn't a study for weight training but I think there was a recent study that found the genes that were beneficial to strength training. Also, these same people did not do well at endurance sports.

My ex wife probably fell into the 99.999%. She actively worked hard at not building up too much muscle. All she had to do was pick up a fork to get ripped. She was physically active but wouldn't touch weights. So I've seen myself at one end and her at the other.

[Big_Sky_Guy]

Not that the OP said this is his case, but let's end a fallacy.

If you keep your lifting the same and add a couple hundred calories, how exactly is it that you are going to gain more muscle? Unless you were starved and your body was prepared to overcompensate the additional calories. If that's not the case, then those excess calories are going to go almost exclusively to fat as you have not created an "adaptive" response through placing a higher demand on your body to create more muscle.

There is also a huge disconnect where people seem to believe bulking means being a pig. Who ever made that definition? Bulking is simply adding a couple hundred calories that fit your macro % while taking on a serious lifting program that will demand more of your body. It can be as simple as adding a shake before bed. The definition of bulking is just as much about your lifting as your eating, and your sleeping/resting.

OP- sorry it didn't work for you. Most people need to add calories to gain. Not sure there is any other legal way.

[michail71]

Not that the OP said this is his case, but let's end a fallacy.

If you keep your lifting the same and add a couple hundred calories, how exactly is it that you are going to gain more muscle? Unless you were starved and your body was prepared to overcompensate the additional calories. If that's not the case, then those excess calories are going to go almost exclusively to fat as you have not created an "adaptive" response through placing a higher demand on your body to create more muscle.

There is also a huge disconnect where people seem to believe bulking means being a pig. Who ever made that definition? Bulking is simply adding a couple hundred calories that fit your macro % while taking on a serious lifting program that will demand more of your body. It can be as simple as adding a shake before bed. The definition of bulking is just as much about your lifting as your eating, and your sleeping/resting.

OP- sorry it didn't work for you. Most people need to add calories to gain. Not sure there is any other legal way.

Perhaps it is a lifting barrier? Say someone keeps failing to make it past a certain point on lifts. Let's also assume this person is on a good program, can quote every word of Emma Leigh's nutrition stickies and tracks every single gram of food.

So that person deloads, adds in a few more calories and then works back up again, picks up more body mass/fat, only to fail to break the barrier. What did this person do wrong?

[acrawlingchaos]

Half a pound a week every week consistently for 4 months. I wasnt going for strength gains this time, but focusing on adding volume, which i did successfully (the last 2 pointless bulks were strength based and didnt work either so i thought i'd try something different)

IMO, you are trying to remain fair too lean while trying to add mass. The body doesn't "like" being at 7% bodyfat, and you barely have enough to consider what is essential. The second you add a surplus, your body will try to reach a healthier level (9-11%).


. A rate of 2 lbs a month over 4 months is just 8 lbs.
. Consider 1-4 lbs of water retention.
. Consider 2-3 lbs of what is most likely healthy fat gain.

You need to become comfortable with the idea of bulking past a 29 inch waist if you want to add mass.

[Big_Sky_Guy]

Perhaps it is a lifting barrier? Say someone keeps failing to make it past a certain point on lifts. Let's also assume this person is on a good program, can quote every word of Emma Leigh's nutrition stickies and tracks every single gram of food.

So that person deloads, adds in a few more calories and then works back up again, picks up more body mass/fat, only to fail to break the barrier. What did this person do wrong?

I don't necessarily believe they have done anything wrong. A perfect program and food and rest will do next to nothing for them as their body has reached it's genetic limit.

I personally believe people bulk with too much food, too fast rather than taking the long term approach of very slow and steady gains, closer to a half a year, and then hold steady at their new weight for a month so their body adapts to carrying the muscle and managing the workload. Too many move from their bulk straight into a cut. No steady state to let the body acclimate.

Just my opinion.

[Smelly bull]

IMO, you are trying to remain fair too lean while trying to add mass. The body doesn't "like" being at 7% bodyfat, and you barely have enough to consider what is essential. The second you add a surplus, your body will try to reach a healthier level (9-11%).


. A rate of 2 lbs a month over 4 months is just 8 lbs.
. Consider 1-4 lbs of water retention.
. Consider 2-3 lbs of what is most likely healthy fat gain.

You need to become comfortable with the idea of bulking past a 29 inch waist if you want to add mass.

I don't necessarily believe they have done anything wrong. A perfect program and food and rest will do next to nothing for them as their body has reached it's genetic limit.

I personally believe people bulk with too much food, too fast rather than taking the long term approach of very slow and steady gains, closer to a half a year, and then hold steady at their new weight for a month so their body adapts to carrying the muscle and managing the workload. Too many move from their bulk straight into a cut. No steady state to let the body acclimate.

Just my opinion.

These two posts make the most sense. When I started following this thread I thought to myself.... Good god, if I where to read this thread as a newb I would think it is useless to put on mass because it will all fall off when you diet.

[dvmac]

You are all over 35..stop with the bulking stupidity and put this to rest.a little over your macros on a high protein diet while training hard will get you the most gains you can achieve at our age.

[acrawlingchaos]

You are all over 35..stop with the bulking stupidity and put this to rest.a little over your macros on a high protein diet while training hard will get you the most gains you can achieve at our age.

I'm sorry you disagree.

[induced_drag]

Not that the OP said this is his case, but let's end a fallacy.

If you keep your lifting the same and add a couple hundred calories, how exactly is it that you are going to gain more muscle? Unless you were starved and your body was prepared to overcompensate the additional calories. If that's not the case, then those excess calories are going to go almost exclusively to fat as you have not created an "adaptive" response through placing a higher demand on your body to create more muscle.

Just to throw some things out there. There is no fallacy (with all due respect). Eating is MOST powerful tool we have in gaining lean mass. There have been studies where they overfed people with a calorie surplus (without any weight training). Aprox 30% of the weight they gained was lean mass. WITHOUT any training. Another study would surprise people. Sumo wrestlers have been shown to have greater LBM then Mr Olympia contestants. Overeating sets into motion some of the bodies most anabolic hormones. If done RIGHT (and I am stressing that part), a calculated surplus along with heavy weight training is the best way to gain mass in my opinion.

In my opinion, the surplus that is most effective from fat gain, and muscle is in the range of 200-250cal for a natural guy who is past the newb gains. Most people are not regimented enough however to track this closely and that makes larger surpluses a default. (but not the best in my opinion). I have done enough of the above type surpluses to know how well they work. I generally was able to run them for 4-5 months. Tracking bf is important and your body will tell you when it is time to stop and reset. (you will pick up fat more quickly). At that point an 6-8 week cut will put you right back to prior BF levels. (and also prime your body to grow again, increasing insulin sensitivity...etc)

It works, but too few do it surgically and just eat a ton and call it 'bulking'. I have bulked many times and never lost my abs in the process.

There is also a huge disconnect where people seem to believe bulking means being a pig..

100% agree.

You are all over 35..stop with the bulking stupidity and put this to rest.a little over your macros on a high protein diet while training hard will get you the most gains you can achieve at our age.

I personally still 'bulk' and 'cut'. I know it works. I dont think it is stupid at all. Thanks for sharing though

[dvmac]

And my point is at our age and testosterone levels you would make the same gains on a just above macro level and make the same gains in the long run without getting soft as most people do on a bulk.At our age how much real muscle are you going to really put on in a year..2 to 3 lbs.just being honest.If you put on more consistently year after year bulking and cutting then you are one of the few who has really good control over your diet and have the knowledge of how to cut without losing mass.. be honest..

[induced_drag]

And my point is at our age and testosterone levels you would make the same gains on a just above macro level and make the same gains in the long run without getting soft as most people do on a bulk.At our age how much real muscle are you going to really put on in a year..2 to 3 lbs.just being honest.If you put on more consistently year after year bulking and cutting then you are one of the few who has really good control over your diet and have the knowledge of how to cut without losing mass.. be honest..

"Honestly" age does not have much to do with it...test level does not either. (if you are talking normal physiological ranges). What DOES is how close to your genetic limit you are. (yes at a certain point age will become a factor....but for most it is not what limits them).

The closer you get to your potential harder it becomes to put on mass. Surpluses have to be done in a manner not to pick up too much fat in the process. A newb can get away with large surplus and make GREAT progress. (as much as 700-1000 cal). A intermediate maybe can get away with 400-500cal and advanced guys, well, my experience is that 200 is about a magic number.

Its funny....you act as if you 'age' is such a handicap. I have seen guys mid 40's put on 15-20 lbs naturally in their first year of training (naturally) as they were newbs. Hell..I am training a guy right now 39 and he put on 17 lbs in 13 weeks. Skinfold and waist dia were unchanged. Arms went up 1.5", and went from not being able to do a single pullup to doing 15 and not being able to bench 135 to benching 225 in 13 weeks.

It is not magic. It is eating and training coupled with decent or like the guy I am training, very good genes.

[steffo99]

Besides looking for obvious deficiencies in the OP's training or nutrition, I think one MAJOR point keeps getting overlooked.

Everything in nature follows this ----vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv


I'll take the OP at his word on his training and nutrition and say it is probably a simple answer......genes.
A member here, Will Brink lays this out well.

I posted this one once before somewhere here...

The Truth About Exercise With Michael Mosley
http://allshowsdaily.com/the-truth-a...ichael-mosley/
The vidto stream worked fine for me.

Among other things it touches on the fact that people respond differently to training.
At the end of it, Mosley himself gets some results back and it turns out he is a non responder to some things.
I really enjoyed watching it, hopefully some of you will as well

[drudixon]

Drugs don't change things, the accretion of new mass (in this case muscle tissue) always represents the accretion of new "calories", hence a calorie surplus. Gaining weight (excluding water weight) is the same thing as gaining calories, hence the same thing as being in a calorie surplus. One doesn't cause the other; they're exactly the same thing.

(When looking at long time scales you can have a net mass loss and net calorie surplus (or vice versa) because more than one tissue (fat as well) is subject to change.)




Undeniably.



This is a misleading question - "calories" are not sensed or dealt with in any sense, they don't "exist" as such and the body doesn't work in their terms. It certainly does "know" the difference between different macro-nutrients we eat, though, even with equivalent calorie content - as well as what else you eat with it and so on. The extent to which this affects body composition is complex matter, but that's beside the point for now.

This is wrong in parts. If something is metabolized into lean tissue then it's not a calorie. Proteins are broken apart and assembled as needed. Were gluconeogenesis to act upon the cells that initial gram of protein was metabolized into, it would not net 7 calories. Gluconeogenesis is horribly inefficient, hence why lipolisis and glycolisis are primary energy processes.

As for drugs impact on partitioning, most understand partitioning wrong. Your body doesn't magically treat macros one way or another. Macros are used on a first come first serve basis. Food hits your blood, goes to brain and organs, what's left your muscles get dibs on. If after all that glycogen stores are full, tissues don't need the nutrients, then you begin to store fat. Drugs affect this (depending on the drug) because they increase protein turn over and may increase insulin sensitivity.

Could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

[michail71]

Just to throw some things out there. There is no fallacy (with all due respect). Eating is MOST powerful tool we have in gaining lean mass. There have been studies where they overfed people with a calorie surplus (without any weight training). Aprox 30% of the weight they gained was lean mass. WITHOUT any training. Another study would surprise people. Sumo wrestlers have been shown to have greater LBM then Mr Olympia contestants. Overeating sets into motion some of the bodies most anabolic hormones. If done RIGHT (and I am stressing that part), a calculated surplus along with heavy weight training is the best way to gain mass in my opinion.

In my opinion, the surplus that is most effective from fat gain, and muscle is in the range of 200-250cal for a natural guy who is past the newb gains. Most people are not regimented enough however to track this closely and that makes larger surpluses a default. (but not the best in my opinion). I have done enough of the above type surpluses to know how well they work. I generally was able to run them for 4-5 months. Tracking bf is important and your body will tell you when it is time to stop and reset. (you will pick up fat more quickly). At that point an 6-8 week cut will put you right back to prior BF levels. (and also prime your body to grow again, increasing insulin sensitivity...etc)

It works, but too few do it surgically and just eat a ton and call it 'bulking'. I have bulked many times and never lost my abs in the process.




100% agree.




I personally still 'bulk' and 'cut'. I know it works. I dont think it is stupid at all. Thanks for sharing though

Even when I sustain a small surplus like that over time I feel like I'm stuffing myself/pigging out.

[drudixon]

This.

You cannot build muscle without a calorific surplus or drugs

And a calorie is a calorie do you think your body knows where a calorie (unit of energy) comes from, how it was cooked and what it came on your plate with.

Fkin retards ITT

You must not be aware of absorption rates... Inefficient foods are labeled at 100 percent value. It's not a calorie if you never digest it or metabolize it in some way . It's just sht.

In between ignorantly judging people, Google pdcaa. Compare whey to peanuts. A gram of whey protein is 100% digestible. 1 gram of peanut protein is a hair over 50 percent digestible. Both labels would calculate 7 calories per gram of each, but in the case of peanuts, it's worth half much.

Same premise applies to fats and carbs as well.

[Old-Time-Lifter]

After reading this thread I think some of the O35 are ready to crawl in their graves....... sorry count me out, I've got some growing to do yet.

[JediRN]

So much information ITT to digest  with respect to bulking. As a noob, I’d like to think I’m walking away from the table of information with an understanding. So pardon my noob question and bad puns.

Based on a few different but related comments itt (I would multi-post them if I knew how)

1. Would it be a true statement to say that there is a BF% lower limit (which probably varies from person to person) where one is more predisposed to converting excess calories to fat vs building new muscle with all other variables being equal (e.g. diet, exercise, sleep etc)?


2. If I’m hitting my macros and I’m at a BF% where my body is less predisposed to turn calories into fat and more predisposed to building muscle then is a 1 calorie surplus is going to help me build LBM as well as a 500 cal surplus?

Bulking for Jesus,
thanks

[Divall213]

You must not be aware of absorption rates... Inefficient foods are labeled at 100 percent value. It's not a calorie if you never digest it or metabolize it in some way . It's just sht.

In between ignorantly judging people, Google pdcaa. Compare whey to peanuts. A gram of whey protein is 100% digestible. 1 gram of peanut protein is a hair over 50 percent digestible. Both labels would calculate 7 calories per gram of each, but in the case of peanuts, it's worth half much.

Same premise applies to fats and carbs as well.

So correct me if I'm wrong (and why), your saying that if I eat 4000 calorie diet with only foods that have a proven 50% absorption rate on all macronutrients, and then I et 2000 calorie diet with foods with 100% absorption, they will have the same body composition results I.e bet calories


O lawd

[drudixon]

So correct me if I'm wrong (and why), your saying that if I eat 4000 calorie diet with only foods that have a proven 50% absorption rate on all macronutrients, and then I et 2000 calorie diet with foods with 100% absorption, they will have the same body composition results I.e bet calories


O lawd

Yes. That's what absorption means. Why do you think there is protein, fat and carbs in your sht?

Why do some people take laxatives to lose weight?

Why do faster metabolisms contract bowels over 10, times a day, where slower metabolisms contract 6 or less? Less time in intestines equals less absorption.

Malnutrition can affect chronic crohns disease and even chronic ibs sufferers.

Use your head. And Google something instead of mindlessly parroting others.

[brbacquiring]

This is wrong in parts.

I can't see where - perhaps you're reading between the lines a bit?

If something is metabolized into lean tissue then it's not a calorie. Proteins are broken apart and assembled as needed. Were gluconeogenesis to act upon the cells that initial gram of protein was metabolized into, it would not net 4 calories.

I'm not sure which part of my post this refers to, the first paragraph? If so, then what I was saying is that the accretion of new mass (fat or muscle or whatever) is a "calorie surplus" that we talk about, that's what it means. Clearly those molecules thus retained haven't been respired upon, so to speak, and not produced any ATP or similar, but they are the ones that have been retained in excess of those "burned" (none of these terms make sense) and they're the surplus we think about. You're right to say that later if those same amino acids (for instance) were freed and found themselves eventually catabolised into glucose then they wouldn't net the same amount of "energy" as if they were thus metabolised immediately upon entry to the body, due to the costs involved in their original emplacement in, and removal from, other tissue. But that's beside the point for now - my main point for people is that the body does't detect a "calorie surplus"... and then gain weight (or a deficit and lose it), they are one and the same thing.

Gluconeogenesis is horribly inefficient, hence why lipolisis and glycolisis are primary energy processes.

Indeed.

As for drugs impact on partitioning, most understand partitioning wrong. Your body doesn't magically treat macros one way or another.

Magic?

Macros are used on a first come first serve basis. Food hits your blood, goes to brain and organs, what's left your muscles get dibs on. If after all that glycogen stores are full, tissues don't need the nutrients, then you begin to store fat. Drugs affect this (depending on the drug) because they increase protein turn over and may increase insulin sensitivity.

Hmm, I'm not sure this model is entirely how I see it. The repleteness of different tissues does of course matter, and is indicated by local and systemic signalling which will divert (or not) nutrients as necessary, but the "cascading buckets" idea I don't really like (i.e. different hierarchical tissues taking up all they want and only then allowing the next tissue to have a go, etc.). All processes are occurring at all times just at different net rates.

In any case, relevant to this thread in particular is the idea that partitioning varies between individuals considerably, as we all know.

Could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

Not really, I can't quite tell what the point was, sorry. Your visualisation of general metabolism doesn't correspond too well with my own, but that's to be expected and either way what we're both getting at is the idea that that simplistic models of "calories in vs. calories out" rather miss the point and aren't necessarily a good way to think about things.

[brbacquiring]

So much information ITT to digest  with respect to bulking. As a noob, I’d like to think I’m walking away from the table of information with an understanding. So pardon my noob question and bad puns.

Based on a few different but related comments itt (I would multi-post them if I knew how)

1. Would it be a true statement to say that there is a BF% lower limit (which probably varies from person to person) where one is more predisposed to converting excess calories to fat vs building new muscle with all other variables being equal (e.g. diet, exercise, sleep etc)?

Generally, the lower you take your bf% the more keen to gain fat your body becomes. It's a gradual thing but many of us experience a fairly sudden increase in "resistance" below a certain bf%, where everything conspires to get the fat back on us. If you temporarily took your bf% down 7 points lower than where it really likes to be, and then tried gaining weight again, I would suggest that at first your fat gains will be great and rapid. Some people think a fast change to gaining weight helps to avoid this, others think "reverse dieting" helps more. But we try to avoid it anyway. Generally, though, that 7% is coming back no matter what, I think.

2. If I’m hitting my macros and I’m at a BF% where my body is less predisposed to turn calories into fat and more predisposed to building muscle then is a 1 calorie surplus is going to help me build LBM as well as a 500 cal surplus?

No, I don't think so. Of course it's purely theoretical as it's hard enough to accurately gauge a 500kcal surplus let alone 1kcal, but no I'm pretty sure 1kcal would be fairly useless.

Think of it like this: if we take literally what a calorie surplus is and say that 1kg of muscle meat contains (disregarding the cost to build it, because that's not part of the surplus, that was "burned") about 1600kcals (160 per 100g, about right for lean meat?) then if you were literally retaining only 1kcal worth of food each day (which, bear in mind, represents about 1/4 of a gram of protein, for instance) then it would take 1600 days to build that 1kg of muscle. In practice, like building a sandcastle one grain of sand at a time, it would just get washed away before any meaningful progress was made.

I suppose you can think of two curves on a graph representing fat gain and muscle gain, respectively, while eating to potentially gain weight of some kind. The rate of muscle gain (and it's total limit, how much you can ever carry) is very, very limited compared to the rate and limit of fat gain. It may be, for one person, that eating to reach their maximum rate of muscle gain means simply far too high a rate of fat gain, so they have to stay lower where muscle comes more slowly but at a better ratio to fat gains. Other guys can get away with more and since their bodies are so resistant to fat gain they can really push up the rate of muscle gain with eating and not worry.


On that point, to better illustrate the concept of what a "calorie surplus" really is - those guys who can add 1000 calories to a diet that kept their weight stable, and then not get fat, are not in a 1000calorie surplus, nomsayin? Their body is just dealing with all the extra food in ways other than adding a load of fat, such as "burning it off".

[drudixon]

I can't see where - perhaps you're reading between the lines a bit?



I'm not sure which part of my post this refers to, the first paragraph? If so, then what I was saying is that the accretion of new mass (fat or muscle or whatever) is a "calorie surplus" that we talk about, that's what it means. Clearly those molecules thus retained haven't been respired upon, so to speak, and not produced any ATP or similar, but they are the ones that have been retained in excess of those "burned" (none of these terms make sense) and they're the surplus we think about. You're right to say that later if those same amino acids (for instance) were freed and found themselves eventually catabolised into glucose then they wouldn't net the same amount of "energy" as if they were thus metabolised immediately upon entry to the body, due to the costs involved in their original emplacement in, and removal from, other tissue. But that's beside the point for now - my main point for people is that the body does't detect a "calorie surplus"... and then gain weight (or a deficit and lose it), they are one and the same thing.



Indeed.



Magic?



Hmm, I'm not sure this model is entirely how I see it. The repleteness of different tissues does of course matter, and is indicated by local and systemic signalling which will divert (or not) nutrients as necessary, but the "cascading buckets" idea I don't really like (i.e. different hierarchical tissues taking up all they want and only then allowing the next tissue to have a go, etc.). All processes are occurring at all times just at different net rates.

In any case, relevant to this thread in particular is the idea that partitioning varies between individuals considerably, as we all know.



Not really, I can't quite tell what the point was, sorry. Your visualisation of general metabolism doesn't correspond too well with my own, but that's to be expect and either way what we're both getting at is the idea that that simplistic models of "calories in vs. calories out" rather miss the point and aren't necessarily a good way to think about things.

It's more a stab at supplement companies and their nutrient partitioners. Like you said, there's no "buckets". There's either demand for something or there isn't. Hormones obviously affect demand for calories. An excess of insulin with no target binding sites will lead to fat storage. While high levels of insulin are present things like growth hormone (a key hormone in fat loss) are not. Insulin abusers do so for greater protein uptake. Which begs to question, were that protein not taken up, what would have happened to it?
Calorie as a unit of energy is static. It's like for like whether it's food or not. Just saying most people have a set in stone view of macros instead of considering how they can create and improve metabolic conditions more conducive to do using macros for the benefit of losing fat and gaining muscle.

Regarding the OP, it's impossible to know his entire hormone profile and why he's no longer adding muscle. We can conjecture, but that's what it is. Possibilities are that he's lacking nutrients to grow (except that he gained fat). Possibly he lacked proper stimulus for his body to want to add muscle. Possibly he lacked proper recovery.

Regarding gaining muscle at low body fat levels, when blood sugar drops, and there isn't an abundance of adipose tissue to tap, and the liver is below it's desired level of glycogen, proteins and fatty acids are the next stop. Likely in Ops case, not enough protein was available when needed. Just a guess. Anyway, long precoffee ramble over. .

[michail71]

You must not be aware of absorption rates... Inefficient foods are labeled at 100 percent value. It's not a calorie if you never digest it or metabolize it in some way . It's just sht.

In between ignorantly judging people, Google pdcaa. Compare whey to peanuts. A gram of whey protein is 100% digestible. 1 gram of peanut protein is a hair over 50 percent digestible. Both labels would calculate 7 calories per gram of each, but in the case of peanuts, it's worth half much.

Same premise applies to fats and carbs as well.

Interesting, considering I used quite a bit of peanut butter on my last surplus.