Relationship between height and weekly potential muscle growth

[jackeroni]

Hi, I'm interested in the physiology behind bodybuilding. It's a fairly standard practice to consume a surplus of 500 calories per day or 3500 per week in order to gain a pound of muscle. But it's obvious that a dwarf isn't going to be able to gain that much lean mass, and a genetic giant like Hafthor Bjornsson (with newbie gains and even without steroids) would be able to gain more than that.

I'm amazed at how many conflicting 'expert' opinions there are on this physiological science. We're pretty much in the dark ages still :/ but anyway, my point is assuming every male had the genetic potential to gain 1lb per week and the only limiting factor would be height, how could we go about measuring such a thing?

I'd assume that if everyone had the same genetic potential, our ability to body comp would be based on our natural proportions therefore 1lb per week is a very generalized goal and it's strange that everyone thinks shorties have an advantage because 1lb covers more of their bodies- but I think that taller people should gain a proportionately similar amount of muscle. Specifically I'd like to figure out how lean mass potential differs per inch of height. Like would a 6'0 man be able to build 0.1 or 0.05 lbs per week more than a 5'11 man? Something like that.

[SuffolkPunch]

Nobody really gains 1lb a week of muscle from eating a 500 calorie surplus. At least half will be fat. That is outdated advice. In reality muscle gain is slower than that for most people and there is no evidence that piling on fat helps the process.

You need to find a level that works for you. Yes, your overall size will influence both how much you eat and how much muscle mass you gain in absolute terms. Many other things will influence this too especially level of advancement - experienced lifter can only expect a small trickle of new tissue which eventually becomes unmeasurably small as they approach their genetic limit.

[jackeroni]

Nobody really gains 1lb a week of muscle from eating a 500 calorie surplus. At least half will be fat. That is outdated advice. In reality muscle gain is slower than that for most people and there is no evidence that piling on fat helps the process.

You need to find a level that works for you. Yes, your overall size will influence both how much you eat and how much muscle mass you gain in absolute terms. Many other things will influence this too especially level of advancement - experienced lifter can only expect a small trickle of new tissue which eventually becomes unmeasurably small as they approach their genetic limit.

Do you only eat at a surplus of <250 calories then? Or is your muscle:fat gain always going to be half-ish regardless of how small your surplus is.

[SuffolkPunch]

Do you only eat at a surplus of <250 calories then? Or is your muscle:fat gain always going to be half-ish regardless of how small your surplus is.

You may not even have to eat a surplus. You can supply some of the energy needed for muscle growth from stored fat - but there are hormonal effects that mean a large and/or sustained calorie deficit inhibit muscle growth.

This is still the subject of research and there is a study which should be out this year which seeks to establish if a caloric surplus is required for optimal muscle gain or not.

[jackeroni]

You may not even have to eat a surplus. You can supply some of the energy needed for muscle growth from stored fat - but there are hormonal effects that mean a large and/or sustained calorie deficit inhibit muscle growth.

This is still the subject of research and there is a study which should be out this year which seeks to establish if a caloric surplus is required for optimal muscle gain or not.

Interesting. I'll keep an eye out, thanks for the info.