I obviously realise the amount of activity and rest done throughout the day will affect your energy expenditure BUT is there anyway to eat a SPECIFIC amount of calories above maintenance to achieve a SPECIFIC weight gained per week?
For example:
If my maintence is 3500 calories… how many calories would i need to consume above my maintence level to gain 1 lb per week?
I realise it will have to be adjusted per week as the weight gain comes?
BACKGROUND:
After getting sick and getting down to 85.8kgs 3-4 weeks ago, im back up to 88.4kgs, after being 88.1kgs last thursday. I made a bet to be 95kgs by the end of june and by god, im going to make it.
Cheers in advance.
PS> Im hoping BILL ROBERTS will come into this thread, hes usually good with these sorta things.
Pound of fat = 3,500 calories
Pound of lean mass = 2,200 calories
Or so I’ve read.
[quote]ckallander wrote:
Pound of fat = 3,500 calories
Pound of lean mass = 2,200 calories
Or so I’ve read.[/quote]
There is no way that can be accurate. How would simply consuming different amounts of calories lead to drastically different gain types? There are far more factors that have to be considered.
I do think the original question is interested though, if there is a specific caloric amount over your average daily expenditure that can be consumed in order to gain a certain amount of mass.
I was merely stating how many calories went into each, not that eating a certain way or amount would make you gain muscle over fat or vice versa.
[quote]ckallander wrote:
I was merely stating how many calories went into each, not that eating a certain way or amount would make you gain muscle over fat or vice versa. [/quote]
What do u mean how many went into each?
That doesnt make sense?
EDITED
[quote]ckallander wrote:
I was merely stating how many calories went into each, not that eating a certain way or amount would make you gain muscle over fat or vice versa. [/quote]
I think I get what your saying, but your number are off. One pound is about 450 grams.
For example, for a pound of fat, 450 x 9 cals/gram is 4050 calories not 3500
Hmmmm… fat = 9 calories per gram, there are 453 grams in a lbs, so 1 lbs of fat is created through an excess of 4077 (9*453) calories…? This obviously would not hold true in a real world application but I wonder if it could be used as a rough estimate…
Impossible to calculate b/c there are too many variables to configure. Everyone is different and your rate of buring off calories will be different from the next persons, so you can’t really calculate how many calories you really need to get up to for an individual without some very serious measurement techniques.
The easiest way is just to experiment and keep a good food journal so you know what you’re taking in, and then calculate how many calories you’re consuming on average and start bumping it up gradually. Like maybe 100-200 kcals / day for a week or two. Once the scale starts tipping in your favor you can adjust from their.
Experimentation my friend, experimentation is the only way. I don’t even think there is a certain calculation for this scenario. Not one of any accuraccy at any rate.
v/r
Gremlin
I want to say I read the information in either an NSCA textbook or a nutrition book I have lying around, but those were the figures they posed. It said to eat either a daily 500 calorie deficit to lose one pound a week, or eat a surplus of 315 calories a day to gain a pound of lean mass a week. Obviously these can’t be the ultimate numbers to live your life by as there are far too many variables, but it’s a good starting point.
I would think it would be hard to know exactly how many calories are in a pound of muscle considering a large portion is made up of water and glycogen. Also, for people refuting how many calories it takes to create a pound of fat, your logic seems correct to me but it seems the accepted norm is 3,500 calories across the board. Maybe they factor in the TEF of food when claiming that number.
Fuck that, calorie counting methods are shit anyway. I liked CT’s old approach of mostly ignoring the calorie count, but counting macros.
You already know this will be changing every week as you get bigger, so the actual number doesn’t mean anything. Just keep making weekly adjustments based on results. For me, counting calories (or macros) gets ridiculous. I keep the same basic diet and eat more when my weight stalls.
You need to find a system that you’ll be able to continually update/improve upon without performing all different calculations and driving yourself crazy.
Yeah well thats what ive been doing and its working. I was 88.1kgs on thursday, I was 88.4kgs yesterday so they gains are coming. I just thought it was an interesting topic. And like ckallander said, im pretty sure i heard something about 3500 cals somewhere around the interwebz. Thanks guys ill let ya know
I think it’s inherently unmeasurable for you.
First, you have different amount of calories required to build fat vs protein (3500 vs whatever). Then, your training is going to affect the relative mix of the gains. Plus, when you start overeating, your body’s metabolism is going to speed up an unknown amount. Combine with the fact that it’s pretty easy to be off by a couple hundred calories in your intake for the day, plus the inherent difficulty in measuring your baseline metabolism in the first place.
All you can do is take a good guess, and then monitor it, and then adjust after a week or two if you don’t get the result you want.