Dieting down for more efficient bulking

[rml27v]

Ok that's a post from 2017 mentioning one of the 3 references I posted. The other 2 are from 2018 and 2019.

Not sure in what world that constitutes as almost no data. At least the participants received the same food and the same training.

hmm if now that is the case then every mfer above 20 % should be weaker than guys lower than that... That gotta be true right?? Oh wait not only they are not weaker than guys lower in bf, they are also the strongest people on the planet. Look at all obese those strongmen and powerlifters... I wonder what is moving that weight if they got reduced MPS from eating protein... It's gotta be bones and neural gains. They just practice bench press and viola they increase it from 600 lb to 700 lb. Neural gains bruh in movement they were doing 10 years 3+ times per week.

And from the paper, you linked: Accumulating evidence also suggests that stimulation of muscle protein synthesis rates during the postprandial period is altered in obese individuals as compared to normal-weight controls (defined as a body mass index; BMI < 25 kg/m2) (40–42, 58–60), although this finding is not universal (61, 62). Moreover, the specific alterations to muscle sub-fractions (e.g., mitochondrial, myofibrillar, and/or sarcoplasmic) are also not consistent among studies.

So not even all studies on this topic show that is true. Even if all the studies pointed at that I would still not put much into it because real world examples prove it wrong.

[rml27v]

So we're trying to investigate the question: can people at higher body fat bulk (a.k.a. overfeed) just as well as people at lower body fat? Can they make the same lean gains while doing so? (well in reality the question is more complicated but let's leave it at that for now.)

And this meta analysis is supposed to provide insight on whether bulking at high body fat is just as efficient as bulking on low body fat? You got to be kidding me.

No, they were not. They wanted to know if baseline bf have any kinda relationship with future gains in FFM. Which is different from what you are saying. It's getting annoying talking to you, you keep misrepresenting their views and what they said. Also, I am pretty sure you haven't even read their articles.

[XinXom]

rml how do you know an experiment is testing what it says it is when you dont control for the relevant variables? The dudes not hating on you this is basic stuff. In fact most the accepted information in this feild doesn't meet what I would consider a good enough standard for me to take with anything but a grain of salt these are literally as good as nothing. Half the stuff you say doesn't even make sense. To be a successful power lifter you do need a large frame to hold all the muscles you have to be juicing and they don't care about how fat they are how is this relevant? I think you missed the point of the entire thread. We want to know what's more efficient for reaching a goal. IE I have a 200 pound guy in 3 years I want him to still be 200 pounds but with lower bF and higher FFM is it more efficient to bulk and cut cut then bulk recomp? Everyone understands that bulking and never cutting gives the most FFM as well as fat that is common knowledge and no one cares. WE "this thread" I specify since you tried to misquote mr pb above when hes clearly referencing this same "we" WE care about figuring out if its better to cut to a low BF% before bulking or not.

[Mrpb]

hmm if now that is the case then every mfer above 20 % should be weaker than guys lower than that... That gotta be true right??

Nope that's not the implication. It means that, all things equal, they would build muscle a bit slower on the same amount of protein.

Oh wait not only they are not weaker than guys lower in bf, they are also the strongest people on the planet. Look at all obese those strongmen and powerlifters..

This is not what those studies mean. Just because muscle building would be a bit slower doesn't mean you can get great results after bulking and training for years.

And for muscle growth myofibrillar hypertrophy is most relevant, by far. You can check Jorn on that: https://www.nutritiontactics.com/mea...ein-synthesis/

[Mrpb]

No, they were not. They wanted to know if baseline bf have any kinda relationship with future gains in FFM. Which is different from what you are saying. It's getting annoying talking to you, you keep misrepresenting their views and what they said. Also, I am pretty sure you haven't even read their articles.

I don't mean be annoying for you but I'm afraid I can't really help with that.

First article by Eric Trexler:

Should You Cut Before You Bulk?: How Body-Fat Levels Affect Your P-Ratio

Many people believe that if you get lean before you start a bulk, you'll gain muscle more efficiently. Their reasoning often relates to concerns about insulin sensitivity: if you have more body fat, your insulin sensitivity will be lower, so you'll gain more fat and less muscle in a calorie surplus.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/p-ratios/

Response by Menno:

Cut or bulk? Many people see this simply as a question of personal preference, and of course to a large extent it is. However, there is also evidence that nutrient partitioning – how your body uses the nutrients you consume – is affected by your body fat level. Specifically, higher body fat levels may induce anabolic resistance and impair muscle growth. An energy surplus may thereby result in a more favorable ratio of muscle to fat gain in leaner individuals, whereas obese individuals may be prone to store most of their energy surplus as fat. In other words, if you want to make lean gains, you may need to stay lean.

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

You can then carry out a meta analysis that shows that overweight people can recomp well in energy deficit or maintenance but that will not answer the question. Which is my point.

[EiFit91]

No, they were not. They wanted to know if baseline bf have any kinda relationship with future gains in FFM. Which is different from what you are saying. It's getting annoying talking to you, you keep misrepresenting their views and what they said. Also, I am pretty sure you haven't even read their articles.

Are you aware that their "lean gains" metric will be affected by changes in fat mass, not just lean mass? From their blog post:

"So, we made up our own “lean gains” metric, which is simply the change in fat-free mass minus the change in fat mass. If someone gained a ton of lean mass in addition to a little bit of fat mass, their “lean gains” value would be positive. If someone gained a ton of lean mass without gaining fat, it would be higher, and it would be even higher if they managed to gain a bunch of lean mass while losing fat in the process. The result is an outcome metric that rewards gains in lean mass while numerically penalizing gains in fat mass, resulting in a number that goes up when you’re making lean gains, and fails to go up if you’re struggling to add lean mass or gaining a high degree of fat mass relative to your gains in lean mass."

So if fat mass goes down, their "lean gains" metric goes up for constant fat-free mass.

So one possible interpretation of their meta-analysis is just that the higher body fat you are, the more fat you can lose while maintaining or even gaining lean mass, i.e. a body recomposition is possible. But we already know this! To claim any kind of novelty, they need to argue that the actual change in lean mass is unaffected by body fat percentage. We don't know this because their "lean gains" metric will pick up changes in both fat-free mass and fat mass.

mrpb documented by going through the studies that the above problem is not just theoretical - fat loss was very common in the data material.

[rml27v]

Nope that's not the implication. It means that, all things equal, they would build muscle a bit slower on the same amount of protein.

So all those guys Ray Williams, Madox, all of them achieved what they achieved with one huge downside: they built muscle slower. Then why we are not seeing more lean guys hitting those numbers? If they are gonna build muscle faster than obese guys? If you take 1 000 guys who are obese and will build muscle slower and take 1 000 normal guys, who is gonna build muscle faster? More muscle>stronger guys> higher numbers on squat, bench, deadlifts... Also by that logic, we would expect to see survivor bias: if someone isn't seeing the results the higher the chance he will quit and stop working out. So then why are not seeing lean guys dominating strongman and powerlifting scene? The reality is that not only they are not dominating the scene, but they are also rare.

[rml27v]

To claim any kind of novelty, they need to argue that the actual change in lean mass is unaffected by body fat percentage. We don't know this because their "lean gains" metric will pick up changes in both fat-free mass and fat mass.

But they found exactly that... Are u guys even reading the stuff they wrote?

From article: " We really ought to consider lean mass accretion and fat gain as two independent processes, with different stimuli and different regulatory mechanisms. When we use linear mixed models to look at gains in fat-free mass, we see that baseline body-fat has virtually no effect on fat-free mass increases in this data set (slope = 0.0045, p = 0.797).

[rml27v]

I don't mean be annoying for you but I'm afraid I can't really help with that.

First article by Eric Trexler:


https://www.strongerbyscience.com/p-ratios/

Response by Menno:


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

You can then carry out a meta analysis that shows that overweight people can recomp well in energy deficit or maintenance but that will not answer the question. Which is my point.

Bro, I don't know if you can read or not I will copy paste it again: Our original question was whether or not baseline body-fat influences one’s ability to make lean gains (or, in other words, influences their p-ratio).

[XinXom]

So all those guys Ray Williams, Madox, all of them achieved what they achieved with one huge downside: they built muscle slower. Then why we are not seeing more lean guys hitting those numbers? If they are gonna build muscle faster than obese guys? If you take 1 000 guys who are obese and will build muscle slower and take 1 000 normal guys, who is gonna build muscle faster? More muscle>stronger guys> higher numbers on squat, bench, deadlifts... Also by that logic, we would expect to see survivor bias: if someone isn't seeing the results the higher the chance he will quit and stop working out. So then why are not seeing lean guys dominating strongman and powerlifting scene? The reality is that not only they are not dominating the scene, but they are also rare.

because your looking at total peek muscle being higher and that has nothing to do with rate at which they grow at all everyone has a max their frame can hold. That max is inflated again by PED use in the people you mention and if they come off the sauce they are losing tons of that strength. They are advanced lifters its not about speed anymore its how much can I get on my frame physically before my body cant hold any more and that max amount comes with some fat. What your talking about has zero relevance to the speed at which any one person builds muscle. You also forget we are going for aesthetic here we would want to compare Maddox to Maddox at the same total weight. So universe A Maddox gets lean and trains for 5 years slowly gaining weight. Universe B Maddox eats as much as he wants with the same training but now he has to cut to the same weight as universe A Maddox and we see who has a lower body fat % at the same weight. That is the comparison we want. Telling us big guys lift more isn't news in fact the extra fat even helps with bench-press as you move the bar less distance. Look at what the mountain lifts now off the sauce and leaned out now compare it to this guy ( https://www.instagram.com/huntpowerlifting/?hl=en ) stayed relatively lean his entire bulk and I've never seen someone make gains so fast. Best part? that guys not going to have to cut tons of pounds off he looks amazing at full strength already.

[EiFit91]

But they found exactly that... Are u guys even reading the stuff they wrote?

From article: " We really ought to consider lean mass accretion and fat gain as two independent processes, with different stimuli and different regulatory mechanisms. When we use linear mixed models to look at gains in fat-free mass, we see that baseline body-fat has virtually no effect on fat-free mass increases in this data set (slope = 0.0045, p = 0.797).

Thanks, I didn't notice that part.

That is definitely interesting. I don't understand why they didn't just make this relationship their main result, as that would be much (!) more compelling. If the scatterplot for that measure looks the same as for the main graph in that blog post (so that you get similar results if you fit a regression in the different body fat ranges for the isolated lean mass measure) I would personally find that quite convincing as it would deal with mrpb's concern about genetics (one would probably expect less variation in genetics in each isolated BF range than across ranges). I would like to see results for a standardized lean mass measure as they may be pooling measures of lean mass here that aren't really comparable.

I still think that Mike's position in the podcast would make more sense than the position taken by Greg & Eric as I find it implausible for other reasons to think that you can really bulk just as well at a very, very high body fat (all else equal) as they seem to argue.

As I wrote in a previous post, that position amounts to basically updating Menno's prior in response to new information so that the new position in light of the meta-analysis is somewhere between Menno and Greg/Eric. Probably you can gain just as well up to a certain point (maybe in the 20s somewhere), and then a slight decline after that which gets steeper as BF increases.

[Mrpb]

Bro, I don't know if you can read or not I will copy paste it again: Our original question was whether or not baseline body-fat influences one’s ability to make lean gains (or, in other words, influences their p-ratio).

In calorie surplus. You left out that tiny detail. Check the original article. You can of course keep denying it but the facts are clear. I've added some red lines to make it even clearer.



Source: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/p-ratios/

[Mrpb]

So all those guys Ray Williams, Madox, all of them achieved what they achieved with one huge downside: they built muscle slower.

Nope that's not necessarily the right implication. They would build muscle slightly slower on the same amount of protein per meal and calories, that's what those studies suggest. And only 36 gram protein from pork was tested, I've already mentioned this up thread.

Now guess what.... they likely ate way more protein and calories, which could probably easily make up for the blunted MPS response.

And they didn't care about gaining more fat, obviously. They're not interested in making the leanest gains. They are powerlifters. They want to bench more.

So really all the examples of overfat powerlifters, sumo wrestlers and line backers miss the mark. They don't care about being lean. High body mass is usually an advantage to them. Many of them apparently also don't care that their insulin sensitivity is reduced. For bodybuilder or for people who want to stay lean it's likely a different story.

[Mrpb]

Here's another important fact to consider. Training has a much larger and more prolonged effect on MPS than feeding.

So even if the MPS response to protein feeding is blunted somewhat by being at high body fat it's likely easy to make up for it by training more and heavier. High calorie intake helps powerlifters to train more and with heavier weights, so it makes sense they won't be held back much (or at all) by a slightly lower MPS response to feeding.

And I haven't even begun to talk about the use of special "supplements".

[EiFit91]

Nope that's not necessarily the right implication. They would build muscle slightly slower on the same amount of protein per meal and calories, that's what those studies suggest. And only 36 gram protein from pork was tested, I've already mentioned this up thread.

Now guess what.... they likely ate way more protein and calories, which could probably easily make up for the blunted MPS response.

And they didn't care about gaining more fat, obviously. They're not interested in making the leanest gains. They are powerlifters. They want to bench more.

So really all the examples of overfat powerlifters, sumo wrestlers and line backers miss the mark. They don't care about being lean. High body mass is usually an advantage to them. Many of them apparently also don't care that their insulin sensitivity is reduced. For bodybuilder or for people who want to stay lean it's likely a different story.

One additional point that I don't think has been mentioned yet. It could be simultaneously true that powerlifters can gain more lean mass, but that p-ratios are still better when you cut before you bulk.

The key variable here is "time spent bulking". Even if p-ratios are slightly worse > 20% BF, if you keep permanently bulking you will probably add more lean mass over a total of many years than someone alternating cut/bulk cycles. So powerlifters will be bulking over a much longer period of time thus adding more lean mass, even if it is true that p-ratios are "optimal" at a lower body fat percentage. The average lean mass over a permanent bulking period is probably larger than the average over a lot of cut/bulk cycles.

[Mrpb]

One additional point that I don't think has been mentioned yet. It could be simultaneously true that powerlifters can gain more lean mass, but that p-ratios are still better when you cut before you bulk.

The key variable here is "time spent bulking". Even if p-ratios are slightly worse > 20% BF, if you keep permanently bulking you will probably add more lean mass over a total of many years than someone alternating cut/bulk cycles. So powerlifters will be bulking over a much longer period of time thus adding more lean mass, even if it is true that p-ratios are "optimal" at a lower body fat percentage. The average lean mass over a permanent bulking period is probably larger than the average over a lot of cut/bulk cycles.

Yup good point.

And another point: there's also individual variability. Even when people on average have a blunted anabolic response at higher body fat, the successful powerlifters may be the outliers that aren't affected by it. The studies only reported averages, not individual data.

[rml27v]

Nope that's not necessarily the right implication. They would build muscle slightly slower on the same amount of protein per meal and calories, that's what those studies suggest. And only 36 gram protein from pork was tested, I've already mentioned this up thread.

Now guess what.... they likely ate way more protein and calories, which could probably easily make up for the blunted MPS response.


.

We have data that eating more protein makes up for blunted MPS response? Where are the studies showing that? Why do you think that would be the case? What makes you so sure about that?
And how likely is that someone will be obese if he eats high amounts of high-quality protein?

[rml27v]

In calorie surplus. You left out that tiny detail. Check the original article. You can of course keep denying it but the facts are clear. I've added some red lines to make it even clearer.



Source: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/p-ratios/

They are not talking about meta there. They are talking about Menno evidence (or lack of), that you will gain more muscle and less fat if you cut down before because of the inflammation, insulin sensitivity, or hormones. "The evidence for this concept is surprisingly thin and shaky". That is pretty obvious. Stop saying what they aren't saying.

[rml27v]

One additional point that I don't think has been mentioned yet. It could be simultaneously true that powerlifters can gain more lean mass, but that p-ratios are still better when you cut before you bulk.

The key variable here is "time spent bulking". Even if p-ratios are slightly worse > 20% BF, if you keep permanently bulking you will probably add more lean mass over a total of many years than someone alternating cut/bulk cycles. So powerlifters will be bulking over a much longer period of time thus adding more lean mass, even if it is true that p-ratios are "optimal" at a lower body fat percentage. The average lean mass over a permanent bulking period is probably larger than the average over a lot of cut/bulk cycles.

That is a good point. But also kinda strengthens what are Eric and Greg saying, because if the effect of the p ratio exists and it's strong then we would see them figuring that out, and they aren't doing that which implies the effect of the p ratio either does not exist or it's very tiny and not relevant in the real world.

[EiFit91]

That is a good point. But also kinda strengthens what are Eric and Greg saying, because if the effect of the p ratio exists and it's strong then we would see them figuring that out, and they aren't doing that which implies the effect of the p ratio either does not exist or it's very tiny and not relevant in the real world.

I am not sure I understand your point here? Do you mean that if what I wrote was true then we should see that mechanism in the meta-analysis?

[rml27v]

I am not sure I understand your point here? Do you mean that if what I wrote was true then we should see that mechanism in the meta-analysis?

I am saying that if were true that cutting makes p ratio better, powerlifters would figure that out and they would be using cut and bulk cycles to get result faster. If the p ratio is better when you cut that means that for every kilogram you gain in bulk you would gain more muscle than if you just continued to bulk at a higher weight. For example, let' say that the p ratio would change from 0.25 (at higher bw) to 0.5 (when you cut down). So that means if you gain 10 kg of mass you would gain 5 kg of muscle and 5 kg of fat vs 2.5 kg of muscle and 7.5 kg of fat if you just continued to bulk and didn't cut.
So the point is if the effect of the p ratio exists and is strong, powerlifters would figure that out, and would be on average much leaner than they are.

[EiFit91]

I am saying that if were true that cutting makes p ratio better, powerlifters would figure that out and they would be using cut and bulk cycles to get result faster. If the p ratio is better when you cut that means that for every kilogram you gain in bulk you would gain more muscle than if you just continued to bulk at a higher weight. For example, let' say that the p ratio would change from 0.25 (at higher bw) to 0.5 (when you cut down). So that means if you gain 10 kg of mass you would gain 5 kg of muscle and 5 kg of fat vs 2.5 kg of muscle and 7.5 kg of fat if you just continued to bulk and didn't cut.
So the point is if the effect of the p ratio exists and is strong, powerlifters would figure that out, and would be on average much leaner than they are.

You used an extreme example here. I don't think anyone believes the effect to be this large. In the crude figure I made earlier in the thread representing each position, for the position I personally believe in you would need to compare a guy bulking at above 45% to a guy bulking in the optimal range for the p-ratio effect to be that large. Powerlifters and strongmen are often fat judged by bodybuilding standards, but how often are they more than 45% body fat?

I think of this as follows. Suppose we look at two guys, one alternating cut/bulk cycles within the optimal range and the other (at a higher body fat) permanently bulking. Suppose the first guy does everything perfectly, so he does a lean bulk (gains 0.5 lbs per week) and 50% of that is muscle. In 40 weeks of bulking, he would then have added 20 lbs and 10lbs of that would be fat, and he would need to spend 10 weeks dieting that off. Let us assume no muscle loss during this cut.

In order for the permabulker to add less total lean mass during this time period, we need to assume that he will gain less than 80% of the lean mass the bulk/guy gains during the time spent bulking. If we assume the bulk/cut guy isn’t so perfect and does some dirty bulking (adds more fat) or some cheat meals during the cut (prolonging the cutting period), that percentage will drop even more. So the p-ratio effect can be quite large and it can still make sense to not do cut/bulk cycles if all you care about is adding more total lean mass. Add to this the fact that the squat and bench are positively affected by added body mass in general, fat included, and the case for bulk/cut cycles for a powerlifter seems weak.

[Mrpb]

They are not talking about meta there.

The meta is brought in as evidence in the article that is supposed to look at what happens when you overfeed at higher body fat. The meta is referenced in the video that we're discussing here, the video called "the great bulking debate". The debate focusses on the question whether P ratio is impaired during overfeeding at higher body fat. Jeff Nippard explains it perfectly in the first minute.

The fact that the the majority of the trainees were not overfeeding in the meta is the reason why this meta is considered weak evidence for idea that the P ratio is impaired while overfeeding at higher body fat.

They are talking about Menno evidence (or lack of), that you will gain more muscle and less fat if you cut down before because of the inflammation, insulin sensitivity, or hormones.

In surplus. That part is crucial. Menno argues that if you overfeed at higher body fat inflammation increases, insulin sensitivity decreases and hormonal profile worsens. This together with the impaired muscle protein synthetic response is why he recommends not to bulk at higher body fat.

When people are in deficit or recomping at maintenance their fat mass decreases, insulin sensitivity goes up, inflammation decreases, hormonal profile improves, the muscle protein synthetic response improves.

This is why you can't use evidence from non overfeeding studies to make claims about what happens when overfeeding.

[Mrpb]

I am saying that if were true that cutting makes p ratio better, powerlifters would figure that out and they would be using cut and bulk cycles to get result faster.

There are plenty of bodybuilders that use cut and bulk cycles, especially natural trainees.

And powerlifters generally aren't concerned with bulking as lean as possible. More fat on their back and chest means shorter range of motion for bench press. More fat on their ass means bigger arch. These advantages matter if you're trying to set a new world record.

Also high body mass makes it easier to bench press more.

If the p ratio is better when you cut that means that for every kilogram you gain in bulk you would gain more muscle than if you just continued to bulk at a higher weight. For example, let' say that the p ratio would change from 0.25 (at higher bw) to 0.5 (when you cut down). So that means if you gain 10 kg of mass you would gain 5 kg of muscle and 5 kg of fat vs 2.5 kg of muscle and 7.5 kg of fat if you just continued to bulk and didn't cut.

A lean advanced natural bodybuilder 180 pounds 12% body fat that bulks conservatively for 6 months, might gain 6 pounds in total. He might gain 3 pounds of LBM and 3 pounds of fat.

An advanced natural powerlifter at 220 pounds 24% body fat that bulks conservatively might bulk for 6 months gaining 12 pounds of which 5 pounds of LBM and 7 pounds of fat.

So the bodybuilder had a leaner bulk. Both guys will probably be happy. The powerlifter won't benefit enough to warrant cutting to 12% and slow bulk from there. His lifts will deteriorate.

So the point is if the effect of the p ratio exists and is strong, powerlifters would figure that out, and would be on average much leaner than they are.

Nope because of several reasons that have been mentioned a few times above. Continued overfeeding and training with higher weights is much more advantageous to their goals: improving their 1 RM lifts.