Building muscle at maintenance or just go in to a surplus?

[Mrpb]

If you’re making steady progress on your lifts and you’re at “maintenance”, then absolutely stay the course and milk it for all it’s worth. If your lifts have all stalled out, it’s time to marginally increase your calories. Fixating too much on the scale is a srs mistake when it comes to building muscle. The focus should be on your lifting progress.

Good advice ^^^.

[AdamWW]

You just stumbled upon the answer! The effects of the 'lean bulking' you're talking about is based on such a miniscule surplus of calories that its concomitant anabolic effects is almost undetectable, or non-existent.

No one's gonna bother wasting money on a research seeing if a 100kcal surplus will yield superior anabolic effects compared to someone training at no caloric surplus because researchers are smart enough to know such a low caloric surplus will not yield any results of statistical significance. But thats what you're trying to advocate, that this sort of lean bulking works. ???

Obviously it ‘works’

But again, I’ve already stated this is for people who do not already have adequate fat mass at a level which will maintain optimal hormone markers, sleep, and recovery.

If you DO have enough fat mass, then yea, you can gain muscle while maintaining the same BF%

However, given ‘maintenance’ is a RANGE and not a specific hard number, it’s advantageous to target a small surplus IMO because otherwise you risk not really gaining much muscle because you accidentally under-eat.

I would rather overeat slightly and have to lose fat for a month than undereat and risk gaining a fraction of the mass I could have (if any) when dedicating so much time and energy on trying to make progress.

As long as you stay within 5-10lb or so of your desired ‘lean’ weight, I’d definitely recommend just doing a small surplus.

Losing fat is easy, gaining muscle is hard....

And furthermore, who doesn't enjoy having to not hyper-focus on nit-picking calories and weighing everything to gram and trying to target some nebulous 'maintenance' calorie number? A small window for surplus calories can do a lot for de-stressing in a culture wrought with neurotic micromanaging.

[Tommy W.]

The “range” Adam speaks of is the reason muscle can be gained “at maintenance “. Since your never right at maintenance, especially on a consistent basis, your “range” is most likely very slightly above actual maintenance if you’re building muscle.

[Mrpb]

However, given ‘maintenance’ is a RANGE and not a specific hard number, it’s advantageous to target a small surplus IMO because otherwise you risk not really gaining much muscle because you accidentally under-eat.

Except that there's no evidence that you'd suddenly gain less muscle if you ate 100 kcal less.

And furthermore, who doesn't enjoy having to not hyper-focus on nit-picking calories and weighing everything to gram and trying to target some nebulous 'maintenance' calorie number? A small window for surplus calories can do a lot for de-stressing in a culture wrought with neurotic micromanaging.

Targeting a 100 kcal surplus is just as tedious as targeting some arbitrary "maintenance" number.

Without good evidence on either side I don't see a good reason to keep this discussion going. Just eat enough to make sufficient long term progress on your lifts.

PS. what happened to the COVID thread?

[AdamWW]

Except that there's no evidence that you'd suddenly gain less muscle if you ate 100 kcal less.



Targeting a 100 kcal surplus is just as tedious as targeting some arbitrary "maintenance" number.

Without good evidence on either side I don't see a good reason to keep this discussion going. Just eat enough to make sufficient long term progress on your lifts.

PS. what happened to the COVID thread?

Targeting a small surplus makes it more likely that you’ll at least end up at the higher end of that maintenance ‘range’, and optimize results.

I understand a tiny surplus is hard to actually target, but it increases the likelihood of at least ending up on the higher end of the range, and you’ll barely gain any fat anyway.

[Mrpb]

Targeting a small surplus makes it more likely that you’ll at least end up at the higher end of that maintenance ‘range’, and optimize results.

No good evidence for that, that's why this discussion is never ending.

In fact one could argue that first gaining muscle while gaining fat, then cutting down to reduce the fat is suboptimal.

I understand a tiny surplus is hard to actually target, but it increases the likelihood of at least ending up on the higher end of the range, and you’ll barely gain any fat anyway.

While it's uncertain if a surplus speeds up muscle gain, it's certain that it increases fat gain.

[AdamWW]

No good evidence for that, that's why this discussion is never ending.

In fact one could argue that first gaining muscle while gaining fat, then cutting down to reduce the fat is suboptimal.



While it's uncertain if a surplus speeds up muscle gain, it's certain that it increases fat gain.

I never said the surplus causes more gains

I said TARGETING it increases the likelihood of maintaining an intake at higher end of your maintenance range...

I think it’s reasonable to assume that operating with a ‘full tank’ (higher end of range) without spilling over (a surplus) will result in the best possible recovery, energy, and hormonal profile...

Targeting (not necessarily achieving) a surplus increases the likelihood of at least being at the higher end of the range.

If I sleep better, feel more energy, have better hormones, recovery, etc while living in that higher end, then you’ll almost certainly grow more.

[Mrpb]

I never said the surplus causes more gains

Good. You did say it would optimise results. And I added that there's no good evidence for that.

If I sleep better, feel more energy, have better hormones, recovery, etc while living in that higher end, then you’ll almost certainly grow more.

Perfect. If that's your situation I think that's what you should do. But OP is in a very different situation (higher body fat, less lifting experience). We have no idea if he'll do better with a real surplus.

[Strawng]

I never said the surplus causes more gains

I said TARGETING it increases the likelihood of maintaining an intake at higher end of your maintenance range...

I think it’s reasonable to assume that operating with a ‘full tank’ (higher end of range) without spilling over (a surplus) will result in the best possible recovery, energy, and hormonal profile...

Targeting (not necessarily achieving) a surplus increases the likelihood of at least being at the higher end of the range.

If I sleep better, feel more energy, have better hormones, recovery, etc while living in that higher end, then you’ll almost certainly grow more.

He’s not saying to never gain or never up calories though. He fully acknowledges that calories need to be increased to keep making progress at certain points. It’s just that when exactly that is is highly individual. No one’s saying someone who is well-trained with say 7% body fat isn’t going to have to increase calories and gain weight to make progress. You, for example, most likely need a “surplus” at the moment to progress because your lifts would likely not increase if you stayed at maintenance. Obviously...you’re extremely lean & have been training for years. OP is in a whole different scenario. Someone at 20% who’se an intermediate could eat maintenance or even a deficit and make gains. There’s no hard and fast rule about when an increase is necessary, other than if your lifts have stalled.

[AdamWW]

He’s not saying to never gain or never up calories though. He fully acknowledges that calories need to be increased to keep making progress at certain points. It’s just that when exactly that is is highly individual. No one’s saying someone who is well-trained with say 7% body fat isn’t going to have to increase calories and gain weight to make progress. You, for example, most likely need a “surplus” at the moment to progress because your lifts would likely not increase if you stayed at maintenance. Obviously...you’re very lean & have been training for years. OP is in a whole different scenario. Someone at 20% who’se an intermediate, however, could eat maintenance or even a deficit and make gains. There’s no hard and fast rule about when an increase is necessary, other than if your lifts have stalled.

I understand that. In post #62 I specifically called out the bodyfat component and how someone’s current body comp effects the appropriateness of targeting a small surplus or not.

[Strawng]

I understand that. In post #62 I specifically called out the bodyfat component and how someone’s current body comp effects the appropriateness of targeting a small surplus or not.

Yea, I mean it’s so individual to both the person and the time of that person’s life as to whether a surplus is necessary because body fat and training experience are such important variables.
I think the main point of contention is the idea that a surplus “optimizes” results. This isn’t true. A surplus is absolutely necessary if you’re a certain level of leanness and are experienced, but that doesn’t mean you can make the statement that “a surplus optimizes results”.

[AdamWW]

Yea, I mean it’s so individual to both the person and the time of that person’s life as to whether a surplus is necessary because body fat and training experience are such important variables.
I think the main point of contention is the idea that a surplus “optimizes” results. This isn’t true. A surplus is absolutely necessary if you’re a certain level of leanness and are experienced, but that doesn’t mean you can make the statement that “a surplus optimizes results”.

I’ve said it many times in this thread: I am not claiming the surplus optimizes results

I am claiming that TARGETING a small surplus increases the likelihood of optimizing results by increasing the likelihood of eating at the top end of someone’s maintenance range...

It isn’t the surplus, it’s the fact that you’re at least getting as close as possible to the peak of maintenance.

[Strawng]

I’ve said it many times in this thread: I am not claiming the surplus optimizes results

I am claiming that TARGETING a small surplus increases the likelihood of optimizing results by increasing the likelihood of eating at the top end of someone’s maintenance range...

It isn’t the surplus, it’s the fact that you’re at least getting as close as possible to the peak of maintenance.

The thing is, that might not help OP though. He may make just as good of gains at the lower range of his maintenance. You need more than maintenance, so in your case you should eat a targeted surplus of say 2-300 calories. OP need not worry about even hitting maintenance if his lifts are going up. A slight deficit may not hurt him one bit.

[Mrpb]

The thing is, that might not help OP though. He may make just as good of gains at the lower range of his maintenance.

Yup. And that way he'd increase his chances of losing fat at the same time (/recomping), which, if he can do it, is probably the fastest way to optimise his body comp.

[AdamWW]

The thing is, that might not help OP though. He may make just as good of gains at the lower range of his maintenance. You need more than maintenance, so in your case you should eat a targeted surplus of say 2-300 calories. OP need not worry about even hitting maintenance if his lifts are going up. A slight deficit may not hurt him one bit.

To clarify: my commentary has never been directed at the OP...

[snailsrus]

To clarify: my commentary has never been directed at the OP...

when reading your posts I felt they more applied to people that are generally not new to exercise and/or fairly over weight

[AdamWW]

when reading your posts I felt they more applied to people that are generally not new to exercise and/or fairly over weight

In general my stance is that if someone's hormones, sleep/recovery, training intensity, and leverages are optimized at their current bodyfat level, there no NEED to be in a surplus to gain muscle mass.

However, because these numbers (BF%, TDEE, caloric intake) are impossible to measure with complete precision, erring on the safe side and ensuring that you're maximizing the likelihood of success makes sense.

For men, if someone was 20% BF, then certainly it makes sense that they would be able to gain some muscle mass while losing bodyfat. Would it be 'as much' as in a surplus? Well, probably not, because when you're heavier you're literally moving around more mass, which requires more muscle.

But in the long term, starting from a lower BF than 20% does make sense to avoid severe cutting in the future.



I think that if some maintains bodyfat eating 2500-2700 calories, then 2700 calories is going to be better for muscle gain than 2500 calories.

Would 2800 calories be better? I have no idea... the difference is so slight I wouldn't be able to even guess. BUT, because of the inability I mentioned in measuring BF, TDEE, and calorie intake precisely, TARGETING a small surplus (like 2800 in this example), will increase the likelihood of success because you're more likely to land closer to 2700 than if you, say, targeting 2600.

[Mrpb]

For men, if someone was 20% BF, then certainly it makes sense that they would be able to gain some muscle mass while losing bodyfat. Would it be 'as much' as in a surplus? Well, probably not, because when you're heavier you're literally moving around more mass, which requires more muscle.

That's a part I disagree on. I consider it highly unlikely that someone at 20% body fat is going to gain more muscle by actual overfeeding. Increased inflammation, decreased insulin sensitivity, reduced anabolic signalling, reduced MPS etc. to name a few reasons.

I think that if some maintains bodyfat eating 2500-2700 calories, then 2700 calories is going to be better for muscle gain than 2500 calories.

Would 2800 calories be better? I have no idea... the difference is so slight I wouldn't be able to even guess. BUT, because of the inability I mentioned in measuring BF, TDEE, and calorie intake precisely, TARGETING a small surplus (like 2800 in this example), will increase the likelihood of success because you're more likely to land closer to 2700 than if you, say, targeting 2600.

You didn't define who we're talking about. That would make a big difference. Let's say it's someone like OP, as this body composition is probably common. While it's uncertain whether those 100 kcal above maintenance will speed up muscle gain, they increase the likelihood of fat gain. That's a trade of that some people might find attractive, some people might not.

In my opinion a much better approach than trying to hit a moving target like "maintenance" or "maintenance + 100 kcal" is eating enough to fuel strength progress in the medium rep ranges. If someone is able to do that well at 2700 kcal, do that. If they can't, try 2800. Etc.

[AdamWW]

That's a part I disagree on. I consider it highly unlikely that someone at 20% body fat is going to gain more muscle by actual overfeeding. Increased inflammation, decreased insulin sensitivity, reduced anabolic signalling, reduced MPS etc. to name a few reasons.

I guess we'll never know for sure..

but I wasn't trying to use that as a reason to suggest a surplus at 20% makes sense anyway...

[Mrpb]

I guess we'll never know for sure..

Knowing for sure is something that's usually impossible, but we can make an educated guess based on the existing evidence.

For example there's a good study showing that having higher body fat reduces MPS. So if you're already 20% you're not a good candidate for a bulk, which comes with some fat gain.

Lyle and Menno have written articles about this topic.

[AdamWW]

Knowing for sure is something that's usually impossible, but we can make an educated guess based on the existing evidence.

For example there's a good study showing that having higher body fat reduces MPS. So if you're already 20% you're not a good candidate for a bulk, which comes with some fat gain.

Lyle and Menno have written articles about this topic.

I’ve already agreed that you shouldn’t bulk at 20%

[Strawng]

PS. what happened to the COVID thread?

One of the mods must work for Johns Hopkins

Actually, I find it very unfortunate because I thought there was a lot of valuable information and links in that thread. It was a balanced discussion that didn't spiral into anything too political, impractical, or derogatory. How that thread got deleted yet so many of the horribly racist, bigoted, and one-sided political threads on the cesspool that is the main Misc. manage to stay up is beyond me.

[JasonMiiii]

Obviously it ‘works’

.

Oh you don't say, thanks for the convincing, well thought out argument backed by empirical research. I've learned a lot from you.

[AdamWW]

Oh you don't say, thanks for the convincing, well thought out argument backed by empirical research. I've learned a lot from you.

You really belong in the Misc

[JasonMiiii]

You really belong in the Misc

Please do take up your own recommendation. Given the mumbo jumbo you spew and your inability to retort, misc would be a great place for you.

[AdamWW]

Please do take up your own recommendation. Given the mumbo jumbo you spew and your inability to retort, misc would be a great place for you.

Lol. Did you really just resort to a variation of ‘I know you are, but what I am?’?

Very strong response...

[Mrpb]

One of the mods must work for Johns Hopkins

Actually, I find it very unfortunate because I thought there was a lot of valuable information and links in that thread. It was a balanced discussion that didn't spiral into anything too political, impractical, or derogatory. How that thread got deleted yet so many of the horribly racist, bigoted, and one-sided political threads on the cesspool that is the main Misc. manage to stay up is beyond me.

Yeah I thought it was a good thread too. I've been doing more reading about the death toll. I thought this was interesting:

Besides visualizing excess mortality as a percentage difference, we can also look at the raw death counts as shown here in this chart. The raw death counts help give us a rough sense of scale: for example, the US suffered some 275,000 more deaths than the five-year average between 1 March and 16 August, compared to 169,000 confirmed COVID-19 deaths during that period.

https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

[kgriffith720]

You really belong in the Misc

To be fair, the guy has repeatedly asked you provide something backing up your arguments but you continue to just say things like "it works" "it increases the likelihood of optimal results". And your only actually rebuttal to that was to tell him to provide a study disproving your points(which is simply not how studies even work, you do a study to prove things not disprove them). It's also weird how you keep trying to imply he's childish when you are the one that has resorted to comments like 'you belong in the misc" or posting memes calling people upset for disagreeing with you....All you ever had to do was provide evidence for your argument or at leas acknowledge you don't have any.

P.S. I'm not saying either one of you is right or wrong in the debate just pointing odd behavior out.

[AdamWW]

To be fair, the guy has repeatedly asked you provide something backing up your arguments but you continue to just say things like "it works" "it increases the likelihood of optimal results". And your only actually rebuttal to that was to tell him to provide a study disproving your points(which is simply not how studies even work, you do a study to prove things not disprove them). It's also weird how you keep trying to imply he's childish when you are the one that has resorted to comments like 'you belong in the misc" or posting memes calling people upset for disagreeing with you....All you ever had to do was provide evidence for your argument or at leas acknowledge you don't have any.

P.S. I'm not saying either one of you is right or wrong in the debate just pointing odd behavior out.

1. If you really think is all I said was 'it works'... clearly you haven't read anything I've posted
2. I never ASKED him to disprove me
3. Im saying he's childish because he was the person who originally became combative several pages ago and continues to throw overt insults

Did you miss THIS one, from the very first page?

I've never read so much drivel in my life. You need to stop spreading misinformation.

4. He never provided actual, definitive evidence either, so your burden of proof comment is moot anyway



Try reading the whole thread before thinking you know the context

[cmacken]

I was listening to an Iron Culture podcast last night on Body Recomposition with Christopher Barakat, and he was discussing this with respect to the results of this study here.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ed_individuals

In the podcast he notes that of the 19 male participants 5 of them show signs of Recomposition - which as he defines it is gaining lean muscle mass while simultaneously losing body fat. One person gained 8 pounds of muscle mass while losing 4 pounds of fat. I think it is important to note that participants gained weight over the course of this study. I think it is also important to note that these were what I would consider trained individuals able to Squat more than 1.8 times their body weight and bench 1.3 times.

Based on this study and the one MRPB shared earlier in this thread, I think we can agree that it is possible to recomp both while losing overall body weight and gaining overall body weight. Which I think is great news for everyone, especially since based on the many many posts I have read here over the years, most people are either lighter or heavier than they would like to be, and if they can lose fat and gain muscle simultaneously on the journey to their ideal weight, that is awesome.

What does this change for me? Well, if someone comes here at their ideal body weight but not their ideal body composition, I will be less inclined going forward to immediately suggest a bulk and cut cycle for them, and might (gasp) recommend a recomp.I think it is incumbent on us when recommending this that we engage a more holistic approach to our feedback, particularly with respect to training – making sure that they are on a proper plan or following the key principles for Hypertrophy.