Nutrition and working out question

[jacobmccall]

I am newer to this and have been counting my macros but not the best at it. I was wondering if doing my lifting in slower controlled movements for better muscle building is still affective if I do not meet my eating goals. Basically is working out to gain mass pointless if you don't eat enough protien? Will you still gain muscle at a slower rate or does it have a negative affect and trigger your body to not build muscle?

[SuffolkPunch]

It's not a given that slower controlled movements will build more muscle. If anything, the literature supports the idea of pushing as hard as you can. If the weight moves too fast, it's probably too light.

As to the protein question, it's a sliding scale. The maximum shown to make a difference to hypertrophy is 1.6 grams per kg of LEAN body mass which is probably still less than a lot of a lot of people recommend - for most people that will work out at around 130-150g per day which is not hard to get.

If you take less, muscle gain doesn't fall off a cliff - but at some point it will stop if you go too low. Weight training, however, will support muscle retention even if you don't gain new tissue so always do that IMO.

[jacobmccall]

Thanks, I have been doing research and most everywhere mentions for most muscle growth the workout is focused on time under tention so I try to go to failure with a second down and two second up time for each rep. The reason I ask is most everywhere says muscle building is mostly the diet and I am having trouble meeting all of my recommended macros when trying to eat clean. Even though Im eating a lot I am coming up short on most things, including calories, and I was hoping I wasn't hurting the growth so much I might as well lift for strength. I just bought a caliper and measuring tape though because my smart scale seemed to be off so I will monitor that and see how its working.

[SuffolkPunch]

You often see the same dogma repeated - because people copy each other. There is an argument to say that time under maximal tension could be representative of hypertrophy but that's not the same as deliberately slowing reps when you could be pushing faster. Actually, the research is reassuringly simple - it's the number of hard sets you do over time that matters (taken to a point close to true failure but not necessarily reaching failure). This volume level needs to be appropriate to the individual, novices start with relatively low and get progressively higher over time. Numbers can be given (8-12 hard sets per bodypart per week) but you must realise these are averages over a population and individuals have a high degree of variability. For example, I have been lifting for 15 years but don't need to go much over about 6-8 sets per week to get a response.

Macro recommendations can be too prescriptive, I already mentioned protein levels. There is a minimum for fat too - probably around 60g per day for an average male. But they don't need to be exact - just exceeding the minimums. You can then make up your calorie budget from any combination of macros that meet those minimums.

Be aware that BIA scales are terrible and probably best avoided. Even calipers can be very prone to measuring water weight changes, not real body composition changes. I would just keep track of your weight, perhaps do a stomach measurement (first thing in the morning, relaxed and lying on your back, don't breathe in, don't pinch the tape tight). And if you get progressively stronger over a long period of time, you are gaining muscle.

[RosalynNewton]

Diet,time, motivation only