[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
I didn’t claim to gain lots of muscle and I don’t think there is anything magical about it. People only think things are magical when they don’t understand them.[/quote]
BTW, same in cycling no magic programs going to make you ride like Lance. Just good old fashioned hard work and time.
Probably not magical but this g-flux sounds good at first reading.
Thanks again for all the posts.
-js
[quote]jsirabella wrote:
So does the term putting on “lean muscle” incorrect?
[/quote]
You can change your body composition. If you gain weight and reduce your waistline you are probably meeting your energy short-fall from fat stores. It is not quite that simple, though.
With your bf% it is unlikely to happen.
With the specific demands that you impose on your body through endurance exercise it is even less likely to happen. Your body needs a reason to carry extra muscle, and you are giving it a reason to carry the minimum amount required to cycle long distances efficiently.
[quote]hexx wrote:
Somewhat off topic: I always laugh a little bit when people who are not total beginners claim to gain lots of muscle when dieting.
If you are in negative calorie balance, please enlighten me to how new tissue magically gets synthesized. [/quote]
The human body contains trillions of cells interacting in extremely complex ways. There’s nothing magic about the process 
Yes, building muscle in a calorie deficit will affect some other tissue, but not necessarily in a harmful manner (like losing fat tissue).
(And no, fat tissue can’t directly turn into muscle - lots of other things going on physiologically).
[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
hexx wrote:
Somewhat off topic: I always laugh a little bit when people who are not total beginners claim to gain lots of muscle when dieting.
If you are in negative calorie balance, please enlighten me to how new tissue magically gets synthesized.
The human body contains trillions of cells interacting in extremely complex ways. There’s nothing magic about the process Yes, building muscle in a calorie deficit will affect some other tissue, but not necessarily in a harmful manner (like losing fat tissue). (And no, fat tissue can’t directly turn into muscle - lots of other things going on physiologically).
[/quote]
Don’t feed me that garbage about the human body being so intricately detailed we can’t possibly pin down what’s happening. The fact is building muscle is ENERGY DEPENDENT. You can’t synthesize new tissue from nothing.
It’s really that simple. The energy from food needs to be in place to build muscle. That’s why I DO find it magical when muscle becomes synthesized from nothing, because you are violating basic thermodynamic principles.
You seem to forget that your body is capable of storing excess energy in the form of fat.
(It can also break down muscle in one part of your body and turn it into muscle in another part of your body.)
So who said anything about building muscle from ‘nothing’?
If I lift weights at 3:00pm, then drink a ‘weight gainer’ shake, then eat nothing for 2 hours what has happened?
Did all that ‘weight gainer’ shake get sucked straight into my muscles in the form of new tissue? No.
When I then fasted for the next two hours did I put my body into a state where it couldn’t build new muscle tissue? No.
Am I going to build slabs of muscle for long periods of time relying solely on fat stores and only infrequently going into a positive energy balance? Also no. The body isn’t that stupid.
I’m not debating that muscle gaining while dieting can’t happen. I am saying that you will not gain much, if any muscle on a diet if you are fairly experienced.
Regarding to creation of muscle from fat: if the body is in a mode where it feels liberating fat for energy is necessary, it feels you ARE STARVING, and it NEEDS TO USE fat to keep you ALIVE. WHY ON EARTH would it use that energy to build muscle tissue, a costly energy robbing mass? This makes ZERO evolutionary sense.
This does not happen, and if you can show me any type of scientific literature showing its occurrence (i never have), I will be floored.
What you’re saying here makes sense. No argument with the basic principle that you need an overall energy surplus to build reasonable amounts of muscle, especially over a longer time period.
Saying stuff like “[your body] feels you are starving” is very absolute. Going through periods of negative and positive energy balance is normal and I don’t think your body responds with an all-out attempt to preserve energy in the form of fat preferentially over muscle every time it dips into a negative energy balance.
If you’re arguing about what happens over a few months, as opposed to what happens over a few weeks then that is a different story.
Of course, the picture changes yet again when the individual is forcing himself to require muscle, as most of us do. Your body sits up and takes notice when you have a heavy barbell on your back.
Everyone is unique. I’m guessing at some point in my evolutionary history my ancestors needed to throw heavy shit around to survive, regardless of their energy balance.
[quote]hexx wrote:
HoratioSandoval wrote:
hexx wrote:
Somewhat off topic: I always laugh a little bit when people who are not total beginners claim to gain lots of muscle when dieting.
If you are in negative calorie balance, please enlighten me to how new tissue magically gets synthesized.
The human body contains trillions of cells interacting in extremely complex ways. There’s nothing magic about the process Yes, building muscle in a calorie deficit will affect some other tissue, but not necessarily in a harmful manner (like losing fat tissue). (And no, fat tissue can’t directly turn into muscle - lots of other things going on physiologically).
Don’t feed me that garbage about the human body being so intricately detailed we can’t possibly pin down what’s happening. The fact is building muscle is ENERGY DEPENDENT. You can’t synthesize new tissue from nothing.
It’s really that simple. The energy from food needs to be in place to build muscle. That’s why I DO find it magical when muscle becomes synthesized from nothing, because you are violating basic thermodynamic principles. [/quote]
Then why does this happen to almost everybody who starts training? When i started I lost a lot of fat, and in that same period I also got stretch marks in my armpits and on my biceps…
[quote]molnes wrote:
hexx wrote:
HoratioSandoval wrote:
hexx wrote:
Somewhat off topic: I always laugh a little bit when people who are not total beginners claim to gain lots of muscle when dieting.
If you are in negative calorie balance, please enlighten me to how new tissue magically gets synthesized.
The human body contains trillions of cells interacting in extremely complex ways. There’s nothing magic about the process Yes, building muscle in a calorie deficit will affect some other tissue, but not necessarily in a harmful manner (like losing fat tissue). (And no, fat tissue can’t directly turn into muscle - lots of other things going on physiologically).
Don’t feed me that garbage about the human body being so intricately detailed we can’t possibly pin down what’s happening. The fact is building muscle is ENERGY DEPENDENT. You can’t synthesize new tissue from nothing.
It’s really that simple. The energy from food needs to be in place to build muscle. That’s why I DO find it magical when muscle becomes synthesized from nothing, because you are violating basic thermodynamic principles.
Then why does this happen to almost everybody who starts training? When i started I lost a lot of fat, and in that same period I also got stretch marks in my armpits and on my biceps…
[/quote]
Why absolute beginners can gain muscle while lose a bit of fat is ambiguous at best, but probably due to hormone signaling. Assuming the stress brought on by muscle gain is completely new, and frequent and powerful, the body feels that gaining muscle is necessary for survival.
But you wouldn’t conceded that this could happen in someone who has been training for more than a couple of years from time to time?
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
But you wouldn’t conceded that this could happen in someone who has been training for more than a couple of years from time to time?[/quote]
Yes but the key is maybe; expecting it would be an exercise in futility. Dieting is about minimizing loss.
[quote]hexx wrote:
DragnCarry wrote:
But you wouldn’t conceded that this could happen in someone who has been training for more than a couple of years from time to time?
Yes but the key is maybe; expecting it would be an exercise in futility. Dieting is about minimizing loss. [/quote]
I think you are right in most cases. Especially for intermediate to advanced athletes. But if you are really fat, or if you’re still a beginner I don’t think it’s a problem to both loose fat and gain some muscle, at least initially, as you get leaner it will ofc become harder and harder and in the end impossible.
May I ask you something about the g-flux I find a bit confusing. I have read the articles and understand about the workout more and eat more with the caveat that you have a mixed program combined with clean eating. This is actually up my alley as I am a calorie counter and use my HR monitor to check out how many calories I am burning.
My issues are the maintain calories meaning if I burn 1,500 calories during my workout, how many calories should I eat to net 0. Do I add in the maintain calories which in the article is somewhere between 12-18 calories per body pound which means I should eat atleast
burn 1500 + maintain 2100 = 3600 calories ??
I can than look at netting less than 0 and above 0 for either fat loss or mass gain. Ofcourse again the make up of the calories and the gym work will be big factors also.
-js
[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
Ok, I finally see what you’re talking about.
There are formulas to figure out the amount of calories you burn just by living, but they don’t really apply to an athlete like you. I assume you’ve had your VO2max tested; using that data could give you a better idea of where you’re at.
But, I’d just read this article and eat like an Olympic athlete.
[/quote]
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
jsirabella wrote:
I guess my background makes me always think in terms of formulas and numbers and thought some general rule of thumb as I always heard about how you need to eat 1.5 - 2 grams of protein for every pound of bodyweight but not much more.
-js
That is the generally accepted rule of thumb.
[/quote]
It is 1.5-2 grams for every KILO of LEAN bodyweight in numerous non-american sources.
[quote]Alffi wrote:
It is 1.5-2 grams for every KILO of LEAN bodyweight in numerous non-american sources.
[/quote]
How did I miss that? Sorry! Yes, 1.5-2gm per kg. I never worried about the “lean bodyweight” myself and I know a lot of others don’t either, unless the trainee is obese.
YES you can build muscle in a calorie deficit. 1400 is too low though. I dont know why you would go with 1400. Also, you dont need that much protein.
Look into nutrient timing. If you take in a good amount of carbs and protein during your workout, and after your workout, and then taper your meals as time passes, it is very possible.
I hate it when people say you cant build muscle and burn fat at the same time, or you cant build muscle while in a deficit. Sure its not the best way to go about things, but saying it wont happen is just plain wrong.
The main thing, is that if at 1400 calories you aren’t gaining then you need to do something different, and that is likely going to be increasing the calories.