Does excess fat decrease the need for caloric surplus?

[Markype]

Incorrect.

What do you think stored bodyfat is? It's energy....

Fat is not enough to entirely supply Gluconeogenesis. It requires amino acids from hydrolized protein muscle.
That's why we inevitably lose muscle during a caloric deficit.

Studies showed muscle gains in fat beginners doing resistance training. Indeed he can build muscle but it will not be optimal because of the muscle protein hydrolysis

[AdamWW]

Fat is not enough to entirely supply Gluconeogenesis. It requires amino acids from hydrolized protein muscle.

Or you could just, ya know, eat a high protein diet.

[Markype]

Or you could just, ya know, eat a high protein diet.

I wish it could be this simple..
Read again : That's why we inevitably lose muscle during a caloric deficit.
if what you say was true anyone could do a diet without losing muscle

[AdamWW]

I wish it could be this simple..
Read again : That's why we inevitably lose muscle during a caloric deficit.
if what you say was true anyone could do a diet without losing muscle

Well, you can, until you reach a certain bodyfat level.

Unless, like I said, you’re just not eating enough protein

[Markype]

Well, you can, until you reach a certain bodyfat level.

Unless, like I said, you’re just not eating enough protein

Hope this could help you understanding :

"Both muscle and liver use fatty acids as fuel when the blood-glucose level drops. Thus, the blood-glucose level is kept at or above 80 mg/dl by three major factors: (1) the mobilization of glycogen and the release of glucose by the liver, (2) the release of fatty acids by adipose tissue, and (3) the shift in the fuel used from glucose to fatty acids by muscle and the liver.

What is the result of depletion of the liver's glycogen stores? Gluconeogenesis from lactate and alanine continues, but this process merely replaces glucose that had already been converted into lactate and alanine by the peripheral tissues. Moreover, the brain oxidizes glucose completely to CO2 and H2O. Thus, for the net synthesis of glucose to occur, another source of carbons is required. Glycerol released from adipose tissue on lipolysis provides some of the carbons, with the remaining carbons coming from the hydrolysis of muscle proteins."
Berg JM/ Tymoczko JL/ Stryer L., New York: W H Freeman; 2002. Biochemistry. 5th edition.,

No matter what you eat or what bodyfat you have, glucose production during gloconeogenesis always need fat + protein. Even if you are 500pounds you will lose muscle.

[AdamWW]

Hope this could help you understanding :

"Both muscle and liver use fatty acids as fuel when the blood-glucose level drops. Thus, the blood-glucose level is kept at or above 80 mg/dl by three major factors: (1) the mobilization of glycogen and the release of glucose by the liver, (2) the release of fatty acids by adipose tissue, and (3) the shift in the fuel used from glucose to fatty acids by muscle and the liver.

What is the result of depletion of the liver's glycogen stores? Gluconeogenesis from lactate and alanine continues, but this process merely replaces glucose that had already been converted into lactate and alanine by the peripheral tissues. Moreover, the brain oxidizes glucose completely to CO2 and H2O. Thus, for the net synthesis of glucose to occur, another source of carbons is required. Glycerol released from adipose tissue on lipolysis provides some of the carbons, with the remaining carbons coming from the hydrolysis of muscle proteins."
Berg JM/ Tymoczko JL/ Stryer L., New York: W H Freeman; 2002. Biochemistry. 5th edition.,

No matter what you eat or what bodyfat you have, glucose production during gloconeogenesis always need fat + protein. Even if you are 500pounds you will lose muscle.

Then I guess all the studies out there showing that high protein diets + weight training while cutting can actually result in muscle GAIN when the dieter has adequate stored fat are just nonsense?

Sorry but you’re wrong.

[Markype]

Then I guess all the studies out there showing that high protein diets + weight training while cutting can actually result in muscle GAIN when the dieter has adequate stored fat are just nonsense?

Sorry but you’re wrong.

Please stop being dishonest just to win an argument. I never said you can't build muscle, I said he could but it was not optiminal for him.
Those studies were meant to prove you can actually gain muscle during a caloric deficit, not to see if those gains were better than those obtained from a normal diet.

[AdamWW]

Please stop being dishonest just to win an argument. I never said you can't build muscle, I said he could but it was not optiminal for him.
Those studies were meant to prove you can actually gain muscle during a caloric deficit, not to see if those gains were better than those obtained from a normal diet.

You literally said you cannot be in a deficit without losing muscle...

Post #36, last sentence

That is 100% not true

[Markype]

You literally said you cannot be in a deficit without losing muscle...

Post #36, last sentence

That is 100% not true

mb was meaning muscle protein. The difference I'm trying to explain is that while training with a normal diet you will gain for exemple +10 muscle, with a coloric deficit diet you will gain for exemple +8.

If you can show me a study that found that people with a caloric deficit build more muscle that people with no caloric deficit I would be very interested

[AdamWW]

mb was meaning muscle protein. The difference I'm trying to explain is that while training with a normal diet you will gain for exemple +10 muscle, with a coloric deficit diet you will gain for exemple +8.

If you can show me a study that found that people with a caloric deficit build more muscle that people with no caloric deficit I would be very interested

That’s not my argument...

However, if insulin sensitivity and testosterone/estrogen improved with fat loss, i could see it happening.

[Markype]

That’s not my argument

Lmao you are so dishonest

[AdamWW]

Lmao you are so dishonest

You are a moron. Hence why you’re in the red.

[Markype]

You are a moron. Hence why you’re in the red.

Well tbh its hard to talk about biochemistry on a forum full of boomers and bro science guys. You guys acting like kids and can't discuss like grown up. People literaly lack the capacity of debating without getting angry.

Really sad

[AdamWW]

Well tbh its hard to talk about biochemistry on a forum full a boomers and bro science guys. You guys acting like kids and can't discuss like grown up. People litteraly lack the capacity of debating without getting angry.

Really sad

You must have some kind of gift to be able to feel anger through a web page.

[Strawng]

You must have some kind of gift to be able to feel anger through a web page.

He's a forumpath.

[Duplicitous]

Well tbh its hard to talk about biochemistry on a forum full a boomers and bro science guys. You guys acting like kids and can't discuss like grown up. People litteraly lack the capacity of debating without getting angry.

Really sad

It's difficult to view someone as an adult when they're writing things like "full a" and "litteraly."

[Markype]

It's difficult to view someone as an adult when they're writing things like "full a" and "litteraly."

english is not my mother tongue
When you have nothing to say, attack on the form.

[Mrpb]

That's why we inevitably lose muscle during a caloric deficit.

But that's just wrong. It's not inevitable at all.

[darrowaf]

Fat is not enough to entirely supply Gluconeogenesis. It requires amino acids from hydrolized protein muscle.
That's why we inevitably lose muscle during a caloric deficit.

Studies showed muscle gains in fat beginners doing resistance training. Indeed he can build muscle but it will not be optimal because of the muscle protein hydrolysis

Thanks. But does the stored fat provide *something* for the gluconeogenesis? So with stored fat I might not need as much of a caloric surplus? Hope that makes sense.

Also, I'm curious, what is your background? Do you have a biochemistry degree?

[Mrpb]

So with stored fat I might not need as much of a caloric surplus?

You don't actually need a surplus at all unless you're very lean, which you're not. Check this: https://mennohenselmans.com/gain-mus...the-same-time/

But instead of all this mind f-ing over the theory, try to answer this question: how many calories do YOU need to eat to make gradual progress on your main lifts in the medium rep ranges?

Because that's the amount of calories you need to eat.

[AdamWW]

But that's just wrong. It's not inevitable at all.

I tried, he won’t listen

[blue9steel]

Recomp is possible and in some cases even practical, but it's rarely optimal. If you're carrying extra fat you have less to worry about from an energy availability standpoint since fat can be metabolized to make up the difference, however there are homonal differences between hypo-, iso-, and hyper-caloric states that can significantly impact your results. There are lots of other reasons like training quality, systemic fatigue, etc. that make a hyper-caloric state more optimal (but not absolutely required).

[cmacken]

Call me crazy, but that seems unusual even for a total newbie....

Helms and Christopher Barakat talk about this in a podcast, basically they say that when trained athletes come in to the studies the environment lends itself to next level hard training - ie the structured timeline, clear progressive overload plans, the group environment etc.

Do we see eye popping recomp numbers in deficits maintenances and surpluses, yes. That being said, is it inferior or superior to bulk/cut cycles in an optimal environment? In a sub optimal environment? Maybe some day we will see...

[Mrpb]

Recomp is possible and in some cases even practical, but it's rarely optimal. If you're carrying extra fat you have less to worry about from an energy availability standpoint since fat can be metabolized to make up the difference, however there are homonal differences between hypo-, iso-, and hyper-caloric states that can significantly impact your results. There are lots of other reasons like training quality, systemic fatigue, etc. that make a hyper-caloric state more optimal (but not absolutely required).

I guess what you mean is that overfeeding is more optimal for muscle gain. We don't really know if that's the case but it could well be true. The new study from Helms & Krieger will hopefully answer the question.

But people on this forum tend to be interested in both muscle gain and fat loss. So the question becomes is achieving both goals at the same time more time efficient than only achieving one goal at a time. I think for most beginners and early intermediates with some excess body fat recomp will be the more time efficient choice.

Now obviously the leaner and more advanced one becomes, the less potential one has to recomp. Somewhere down the line dedicated cutting and bulking cycles may become more optimal.

[andy0w]

Hi guys. I am currently trying to put on size and understand the need for a caloric surplus. I've been successful so far, but recently have put on more fat than I would like.

I'm wondering, now that I have extra fat, can my body tap into that to build muscle thereby decreasing my need to maintain a caloric surplus on a daily basis, or do I still need to maintain the same degree of caloric surplus as usual?

Thanks.

If its just calories you need then yes. Theoretically.
Fats are also needed to build cell walls..Now the question is whether the fat removed from elsewhere in the body can be utilized for building cell walls and hormones or whether it can only be broken down and burned for energy.

[Mrpb]

Helms and Christopher Barakat talk about this in a podcast, basically they say that when trained athletes come in to the studies the environment lends itself to next level hard training - ie the structured timeline, clear progressive overload plans, the group environment etc.

Good point. Sometimes I expect some people have actually been slacking before starting their new study routine.

[cmacken]

Technically speaking though, recomping in surplus isn't possible. If fat loss happens it technically means they were in deficit.

I can't remember what study it was now but I remember hearing about a participant who gain ~8lbs of muscle mass while losing ~2lbs of fat over the course of the study. Would this not be considered a recomp in a surplus?

[Tommy W.]

I can't remember what study it was now but I remember hearing about a participant who gain ~8lbs of muscle mass while losing ~2lbs of fat over the course of the study. Would this not be considered a recomp in a surplus?

those tests can’t determine absolute muscle gain and losing a whopping 2 lbs of fat over time is also very hard to prove.

If you have extra fat concentrate on losing that while maintaining existing muscle. Let the mirror and photos and tape measure speak regarding results.

Some “study” that shows some potentially erroneous results can be misleading however the previously mentioned methods don’t lie and are visual and isn’t that we’re after anyway?

[Mrpb]

I can't remember what study it was now but I remember hearing about a participant who gain ~8lbs of muscle mass while losing ~2lbs of fat over the course of the study. Would this not be considered a recomp in a surplus?

To be honest I'm not entirely sure about my earlier comment. I can't find the article where I originally read it. I removed it now.

Anyway, to comment on your question, I think that's one of the participants in the Antonio study. The error margin on individual Bodpod scans is quite high. It's much more accurate for groups.

The second part of this article looks at several recomp studies and calculates energy balance based on the often referenced Hall study.
https://shreddedbyscience.com/can-yo...lorie-deficit/

[AdamWW]

Let the mirror and photos and tape measure speak regarding results.

This.

While all the measurements in the world may make something sound cool, ultimately if you're 12% BF but look amazing and you don't have any desire to be leaner, would it matter if a DEXA, BodPod, etc said you weren't 10% yet?

The BF numbers on all these measurements are kind of pointless in a way in terms of driving individual decisions, because NO study other than an autopsy will ever truly know your BF %....