Interesting take on the idea of having to be lean to gain muscle efficiently

[SuffolkPunch]

1:32 mark

*edit - AND they talk about "CNS fatigue" straight after which is another bugbear of mine...
**edit - nice sum up at 1:55 because it gets way technical...

[Mrpb]

Pretty big straw man in there. "They're" not saying being fat is prohibitive of gaining muscle. They're saying being at higher body fat isn't optimal.

Of course if you're a powerlifter at 25% you can still gain muscle by bulking. But it's unlikely that the ratio of muscle to fat is going to be optimal. Although the evidence isn't conclusive, there's quite a few studies supporting this.

And the sumo wrestlers that they're talking about are actually a good example. They don't care about gaining more fat.

Also LBM =/= muscle tissue.

[SuffolkPunch]

I don't think the suggestion here is that you have to bulk to gain muscle mass - (that is a study we are still waiting for) but that can still gain muscle tissue at your maximum possible rate even when your BF% is high. It's not reliant on the presumed link between being overweight and insulin sensitivity. They do go on to say that overfat novices should start by running a deficit.

[Mrpb]

but that can still gain muscle tissue at your maximum possible rate even when your BF% is high.

I remain skeptical of that claim. Decreased insulin sensitivity is only one of the several reasons. I'm not sure at what exact body fat percentage this becomes a problem but obviously when your carb tolerance goes down it's a disadvantage to train at your best.

Besides insulin sensitivity there's also the hormonal aspects (free testosterone for example), inflammation and of course MPS.


HW: healthy weight OW: overweight OB: obese

While we can have long winded discussions about at what exact body fat percentage it all starts to go down south, I just don't see any reason for anyone with body comp goals to be over 20%.

And that's the 'problem' with a lot of Greg Nuckols' materials, he cares most about getting stronger. You'll see very different messages coming from guys like Menno Henselmans who cares more about optimising body comp.

Inflammation: the major regulator of muscle growth nobody talks about

Chronic inflammation levels are strongly linked to your body fat percentage: the more fat you have, the more inflammation you have [2]. Fat tissue itself secretes pro-inflammatory cytokines. Because blood sugar is inherently inflammatory, insulin resistance caused by a high fat level, especially high visceral fat storage around the liver, further contributes to the effect of body fat percentage on chronic inflammation. The increase in IL-6 levels at higher body fat percentages can be 2-4 fold, which is right around the elevation caused normally by strength training. The chronic inflammation will then thus almost completely mask the signal for muscle repair.

As a result, trying to put on muscle when you’re above your ideal body fat percentage range is highly ineffective and results in the notorious dreamerbulk. At the end of the subsequent cut, you find out you haven’t gained much net muscle mass at all. In my experience, this is one of the major reasons so many natural trainees are unsuccessful at bulking.

https://mennohenselmans.com/inflammation-muscle-growth/

Edit: oh before someone points out MPS =/= muscle growth consider that the long term difference between MPS and MPB is highly indicative for changes in muscle mass.

[snailsrus]

I remain skeptical of that claim. Decreased insulin sensitivity is only one of the several reasons. I'm not sure at what exact body fat percentage this becomes a problem but obviously when your carb tolerance goes down it's a disadvantage to train at your best.

Besides insulin sensitivity there's also the hormonal aspects (free testosterone for example), inflammation and of course MPS.


HW: healthy weight OW: overweight OB: obese

While we can have long winded discussions about at what exact body fat percentage it all starts to go down south, I just don't see any reason for anyone with body comp goals to be over 20%.

And that's the 'problem' with a lot of Greg Nuckols' materials, he cares most about getting stronger. You'll see very different messages coming from guys like Menno Henselmans who cares more about optimising body comp.

Inflammation: the major regulator of muscle growth nobody talks about


https://mennohenselmans.com/inflammation-muscle-growth/

Edit: oh before someone points out MPS =/= muscle growth consider that the long term difference between MPS and MPB is highly indicative for changes in muscle mass.

did you watch the video 1:30-2:00
There’s a part about insulin sensitivity. 1. Sumo wresters have better insulin’s sensitivity than say someone who’s currently inactive. Thus a surplus can cause muscle but it’s not a crazy difference
2. Someone inactive can see benefits with losing 5-10 lbs when they first start working out and it might be better because a small weight loss can help with insulin sensitivity
3. Some of the people / many with the most muscle mass are not a low body fat but they exercise a chit ton so depending on their goals a deficit may not help much because being a low body fat doesn’t mean it’s easier to gain muscle. Nor if your already active will have much affect metabolically

I found the cns part interesting. That cns fatigue only last a few hours and correlates with calcium. Which made me think about phosphorus because its similar to calcium. This makes sense on the weakness part because because when I’ve had Hypophosphatemia in the past I was so dreadfully weak I couldn’t stand with our help

[Mrpb]

did you watch the video 1:30-2:00

Yes I listened to it before I posted.

There’s a part about insulin sensitivity. 1. Sumo wresters have better insulin’s sensitivity than say someone who’s currently inactive. Thus a surplus can cause muscle but it’s not a crazy difference

Sure, but they would have better insulin sensitivity if they were leaner. They'd also have a higher MPS response to protein feedings, less chronic inflammation and likely higher free testosterone levels.

And of course this does not mean they can't gain muscle. It's just likely that it'll be less efficient. But sumo wrestlers don't care about that. Bodybuilders usually do. Greg is a powerlifter. This is the first picture that came up at Google. No disrespect meant of course but it's obvious he doesn't care about gaining muscle as efficient as possible (with the least amount of fat). And it makes sense too if you're a powerlifter that's not concerned with body fat.

2. Someone inactive can see benefits with losing 5-10 lbs when they first start working out and it might be better because a small weight loss can help with insulin sensitivity

Yes I agree with that part.

3. Some of the people / many with the most muscle mass are not a low body fat

Sure, but this does not mean that someone at say 22% body fat can gain muscle tissue as efficiently as he would at 15%. Look at the study I cited above for example of read Menno's article.

[astrocoyote]

I remain skeptical of that claim. Decreased insulin sensitivity is only one of the several reasons. I'm not sure at what exact body fat percentage this becomes a problem but obviously when your carb tolerance goes down it's a disadvantage to train at your best.

Besides insulin sensitivity there's also the hormonal aspects (free testosterone for example), inflammation and of course MPS.

Edit: oh before someone points out MPS =/= muscle growth consider that the long term difference between MPS and MPB is highly indicative for changes in muscle mass.

I am a little confused by what you said: I was under the impression that the idea that you need to be at a lower BF% before gaining in order to have better insulin sensitivity was debunked/broscience. (All of that within a reasonable weight range (not obese etc))
Is this not true? Btw I don't claim to know better, I'm honestly curious about the true answer, as a beginner, as you seem to be aware of the relevant research.

[Strawng]

I am a little confused by what you said: I was under the impression that the idea that you need to be at a lower BF% before gaining in order to have better insulin sensitivity was debunked/broscience. (All of that within a reasonable weight range (not obese etc))
Is this not true? Btw I don't claim to know better, I'm honestly curious about the true answer, as a beginner, as you seem to be aware of the relevant research.

It's actually one of those things that sounds like broscience, but is completely legitimate.

Also, I legit LOL'd at bringing his physique into the argument, but I completely agree with Mrpb. I remember Greg making this case awhile back and I didn't quite see his logic. Sure for people trying to move the biggest weight possible and maximize leverages above all else with zero regards to fat gain, perhaps they can get away with gaining muscle despite being higher in body fat if they're sufficiently active and have a high enough base of muscle to begin with. This is a very unique subset of the population though (PLers/sumo wrestlers), and they certainly aren't gaining as optimally as they could be if they had any regard for maximizing gains while staying relatively lean like 99+% of people would. It's not necessarily healthy, either.

There's also of course, like Mrpb pointed out, a constellation of factors that limit muscle growth from being overfat that go beyond just insulin resistance. Sure, the same could be said for being too lean (muscle loss will occur for a number of reasons), but that's why people who aren't competitive bodybuilders would never be advised to cut to 7% body fat (aside from it being extremely hard and unhealthy). There's a sweet spot between these two extremes.

Being obese is associated with far less strength relative to body mass due to a number of reasons from increased intramuscular fat mass to reduced IGF-1 to an overabundance of pro-inflammatory cytokines that hamper the hormone's impact on muscle tissue: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889641/.

[Mrpb]

I am a little confused by what you said: I was under the impression that the idea that you need to be at a lower BF% before gaining in order to have better insulin sensitivity was debunked/broscience. (All of that within a reasonable weight range (not obese etc))
Is this not true? Btw I don't claim to know better, I'm honestly curious about the true answer, as a beginner, as you seem to be aware of the relevant research.

I think the first step to talk about this subject would be to EXACTLY define what we're talking about. Are we talking about being able to gain muscle at a maximal rate or at a decent rate? Are we talking about bulking (a.k.a. overfeeding which technically means gaining some muscle & fat) or are we talking about recomping or cutting? About what body fat percentages are we talking? Beginners, intermediates or advanced? Powerlifting goals or bodybuilding goals? Gaining LBM or muscle tissue?

If we're talking about maximising muscle tissue gain while overfeeding, it's likely that a person at 14% will be in a better position than someone at 24%. Insulin sensitivity is just one of the reasons. The person at 14% will likely have better carb tolerance than the person at 24%, meaning they'll likely respond better to a diet with say 300-400 gram carbs, resulting in better training.

For MPS it's even easier to say. The person at 14% will likely get a higher MPS response than the person at 24%.



MPS response after eating 36 gram protein from pork.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/articl...4/1014/4557119

And then there's the inflammation and free testosterone which I expect will also be more conducive to muscle gain at 14%.

[astrocoyote]

I see, thanks to both for the responses!

There's so many contradictory views floating around, that it's honestly hard to keep track.

Does it make a big difference if one compares a lean individual (let's say 10-12%BF) against a less extreme case, eg someone at ~17%BF. Let's assume they both have 2-3 yrs experience, to exclude newbie gain effects etc. Both of these examples would easily fall within the 'healthy weight' category defined in that paper.

[Mrpb]

I see, thanks to both for the responses!

There's so many contradictory views floating around, that it's honestly hard to keep track.

Does it make a big difference if one compares a lean individual (let's say 10-12%BF) against a less extreme case, eg someone at ~17%BF. Let's assume they both have 2-3 yrs experience, to exclude newbie gain effects etc. Both of these examples would easily fall within the 'healthy weight' category defined in that paper.

Keep in mind that what we call 17% on the forums often comes out as ~20% on a DXA scan.

Whether there's a significant difference in MPS response, inflammation, insulin sensitivity or hormones between 12% and 17% I'm not sure. I've not seen a study that looked at it.

I don't expect much difference between 12% and 17% except that the person starting their bulk at 17% will get too fat too quickly. They'll have to stop bulking sooner. Then they'll have to cut for a long time to reach 12% which usually goes with some muscle loss. So there's the practical argument too.

And there's another practical argument: it's easier to see muscle gain at 12% than at 17-20%. So it's easier to gauge whether your approach is working.

[Mrpb]

I think the more interesting question to ask is: if someone's at ~18% are they better off getting lean first and then bulking or would it be just as efficient to just recomp: calories relatively high, maintaining weight and gaining muscle while slowly reducing body fat.

I think the latter option would be advantageous to at least some people.

Unfortunately the necessary study to answer this question hasn't been done (afaik) and might never be done.

[xuerebx]

I think the more interesting question to ask is: if someone's at ~18% are they better off getting lean first and then bulking or would it be just as efficient to just recomp: calories relatively high, maintaining weight and gaining muscle while slowly reducing body fat.

What would a recomp entail? Just eating at around maintenance?

[Mrpb]

What would a recomp entail? Just eating at around maintenance?

The term maintenance can be ambiguous. That's why I specified what I meant with recomp: "calories relatively high, maintaining weight and gaining muscle while slowly reducing body fat."

So basically having calories as high as possible without gaining significant scale weight.

This is basically the discussion that drove the other recent thread. When there's no clear answer, it's controversial.

[astrocoyote]

Keep in mind that what we call 17% on the forums often comes out as ~20% on a DXA scan.

Whether there's a significant difference in MPS response, inflammation, insulin sensitivity or hormones between 12% and 17% I'm not sure. I've not seen a study that looked at it.

I don't expect much difference between 12% and 17% except that the person starting their bulk at 17% will get too fat too quickly. They'll have to stop bulking sooner. Then they'll have to cut for a long time to reach 12% which usually goes with some muscle loss. So there's the practical argument too.

And there's another practical argument: it's easier to see muscle gain at 12% than at 17-20%. So it's easier to gauge whether your approach is working.

Great, thanks, this is more or less what I also had in mind. The practical side of things also matters.

[astrocoyote]

I think the more interesting question to ask is: if someone's at ~18% are they better off getting lean first and then bulking or would it be just as efficient to just recomp: calories relatively high, maintaining weight and gaining muscle while slowly reducing body fat.

I think the latter option would be advantageous to at least some people.

Unfortunately the necessary study to answer this question hasn't been done (afaik) and might never be done.

Bingo, that's the billion dollar question right here! Every other person has a different question to this, so it's confusing. It kinda make sense as it's a controversial issue, I get it.
I read part of Jeff Nipard's book on recomp, and it seems that it's definitely possible, even for trained individuals. Other people like Greg Douchette or Eric Helms I've come across, also seem to believe it's possible.

Then there's many people, eg in this forum, who believe that attempting to go down the recomp route will have you spin your wheels for ages; so I really don't know what to believe...

[Mrpb]

Bingo, that's the billion dollar question right here! Every other person has a different question to this, so it's confusing. It kinda make sense as it's a controversial issue, I get it.
I read part of Jeff Nipard's book on recomp, and it seems that it's definitely possible, even for trained individuals. Other people like Greg Douchette or Eric Helms I've come across, also seem to believe it's possible.

Then there's many people, eg in this forum, who believe that attempting to go down the recomp route will have you spin your wheels for ages; so I really don't know what to believe...

Very true. There's a very simple way to avoid the whole debate though: it's simply looking at whether you can make progress on your lifts in the medium rep ranges while eating at maintenance. If you can, I think you should do that. If you can only do that while eating a surplus, then you should do that.

Making consistent progress on your lifts in the medium rep ranges over multiple sets is an effective way to avoid wheel spinning.

[WolfRose7]

The term maintenance can be ambiguous. That's why I specified what I meant with recomp: "calories relatively high, maintaining weight and gaining muscle while slowly reducing body fat."

So basically having calories as high as possible without gaining significant scale weight.

This is basically the discussion that drove the other recent thread. When there's no clear answer, it's controversial.

I think the more interesting question to ask is: if someone's at ~18% are they better off getting lean first and then bulking or would it be just as efficient to just recomp: calories relatively high, maintaining weight and gaining muscle while slowly reducing body fat.

I think the latter option would be advantageous to at least some people.

Unfortunately the necessary study to answer this question hasn't been done (afaik) and might never be done.

Done almost exactly this since building a home gym in...may. i think. This year makes it hard to remember lol.

weight 91-86 ish, was as low as 95 at one point, has been 95.5-96 for 2 months now.
Waist down, upper body mass up.

Didn't really do anything for my lower lifts, can't say whether that was calories or training choices for sure.

bf was high for sure, still isn't that low.

Would recommend maintenance recomp for anyone around the 20-25% bf region, give or take a few

[astrocoyote]

Very true. There's a very simple way though to avoid the whole debate though: it's simply looking at whether you can make progress on your lifts in the medium rep ranges while eating at maintenance. If you can, I think you should do that. If you can only do that whole eating a surplus, then you should do that.

Making consistent progress on your lifts in the medium rep ranges over multiple sets is an effective way to avoid wheel spinning.

That makes perfect sense, thanks!

[xuerebx]

The term maintenance can be ambiguous. That's why I specified what I meant with recomp: "calories relatively high, maintaining weight and gaining muscle while slowly reducing body fat."

So basically having calories as high as possible without gaining significant scale weight.

This is basically the discussion that drove the other recent thread. When there's no clear answer, it's controversial.

Well colour me intrigued. It's strange that I don't recall reading about this in the literature I've been studying (e.g. in Eric Helms Muscle & Strength Pyramid - Nutrition). Is Jeff Nippard's The Ultimate Guide to Body Recomposition a good starting point?

I think I'm now around 20% bodyfat, currently on a cut (200-300 calories below maintenance, so nothing aggressive), and strength gains are waning, so if I can effectively recomp it would be great. I need muscle, but I can't bulk as I'm holding too much fat.