Eating for Lean Mass Gain / Help Needed

Diet and Nutrition
1

This thing has been on my mind for some time now, n so I figured no other place could provide me with a better answer than the T-Nation members.

Some experts like Coach Rip believe that bulking (consuming about 4k a day) will in the long run help you build way more muscle than lean gains, because fat is “relatively easy to burn for an active athlete.” Others argue that the muscular gains made with bulks will actually lead to having less muscle mass in the end after dieting down. Now assuming all other variables are kept constant, which approach is superior to the other in terms of final increase in lean muscle after dieting down to, say, 12% bf ?

2

Gaining as much as you can while minimzing fat gains.

lol :slight_smile:

3

Excess fat will do nothing good for you. Except make you look fat

4

^^ that. Use the mirror, a tape measure, and workout log to track progress instead of lbs gained. If tape measure goes up for everything but your waist/hips, you’re doing it right.

5

I think bulking is brilliant. But I will also say getting near or over 20% bodyfat is in no way good.

6

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:
I think bulking is brilliant. But I will also say getting near or over 20% bodyfat is in no way good.[/quote]

It is, if you’re aiming for scale weight. Ive done this before in the end it doesnt give any greater results than slower and steadier approach. IME

7

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:
I think bulking is brilliant. But I will also say getting near or over 20% bodyfat is in no way good.[/quote]

It is, if you’re aiming for scale weight. Ive done this before in the end it doesnt give any greater results than slower and steadier approach. IME[/quote]

^this. These “bulks” that people go on and get sloppy and nasty is beyond me. If you were to ask Shelby or JM about their “Bulks” they would tell you that they almost never go over 12-14% BF. In some cases they keep abs showing almost always. LMFAO at easy to strip off fat. That is a false statement for (according to a statistic that I made up for this post) about 98% of the population.

8

All sounds like great advice … thnx guys

9

719×592 83.4 KB

[quote]Mateus wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:
I think bulking is brilliant. But I will also say getting near or over 20% bodyfat is in no way good.[/quote]

It is, if you’re aiming for scale weight. Ive done this before in the end it doesnt give any greater results than slower and steadier approach. IME[/quote]

^this. These “bulks” that people go on and get sloppy and nasty is beyond me. If you were to ask Shelby or JM about their “Bulks” they would tell you that they almost never go over 12-14% BF. In some cases they keep abs showing almost always. LMFAO at easy to strip off fat. That is a false statement for (according to a statistic that I made up for this post) about 98% of the population.[/quote]

Permabulk 4 LIFE!

nah but seriously I said getting near or over 20% is retarded
This would imply that under 15% isn’t a bad place to be (refering to your statement of 12-14%)

I think im 18-20% right now and honestly I don’t look all that bad haha Most people with a decent amount of mass won’t look too sloppy or or too bad at 20% I’m just dealing with bad Estradiol issues that I think are caused from excess bodyfat this is the only reason I feel getting so high in BF is so bad, has nothing to do with aesthetics IMO.

but yeah the pic i posted the right is me around 20ish percent (232ish)(now im 228.2) (note i haven’t gotten my bf read i just remember when i was 18% and was slightly skinnier around the waist) i have no idea what my bf was in the pic on the left(246ish)

Not saying im proud of being 20% I am working towards getting closer to single digit I think ill be happy under 15% though

10

Been under 10% for a long time now… if you’re like me at all then I can pack in 3.5k /day and still not gain anything fat wise, so I say for the hard-gainers always EAT MORE. Whatever it takes.

11

[quote]NVRGIVEUP wrote:
This thing has been on my mind for some time now, n so I figured no other place could provide me with a better answer than the T-Nation members.

Some experts like Coach Rip believe that bulking (consuming about 4k a day) will in the long run help you build way more muscle than lean gains, because fat is “relatively easy to burn for an active athlete.” Others argue that the muscular gains made with bulks will actually lead to having less muscle mass in the end after dieting down. Now assuming all other variables are kept constant, which approach is superior to the other in terms of final increase in lean muscle after dieting down to, say, 12% bf ? [/quote]

First off, 4k/calories a day is not bulking for everyone. It’s a bulk for a 170lbs guy, it’s a diet for a 260lbs guy. My personal experience is that putting on slabs of muscle requires a lot of extra calories. Like an obscene amount. If you aspire to look like Ryan Rynolds, then go for lean gains. If your goal is to be as big and lean as possible, eating everything in sight and busting your ass in the gym will take care of itself. People get fat by fooling themselves in the gym. If you can be consistently intense, getting “sloppy fat” isn’t a huge concern.

12

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:

[quote]NVRGIVEUP wrote:
This thing has been on my mind for some time now, n so I figured no other place could provide me with a better answer than the T-Nation members.

Some experts like Coach Rip believe that bulking (consuming about 4k a day) will in the long run help you build way more muscle than lean gains, because fat is “relatively easy to burn for an active athlete.” Others argue that the muscular gains made with bulks will actually lead to having less muscle mass in the end after dieting down. Now assuming all other variables are kept constant, which approach is superior to the other in terms of final increase in lean muscle after dieting down to, say, 12% bf ? [/quote]

First off, 4k/calories a day is not bulking for everyone. It’s a bulk for a 170lbs guy, it’s a diet for a 260lbs guy. My personal experience is that putting on slabs of muscle requires a lot of extra calories. Like an obscene amount. If you aspire to look like Ryan Rynolds, then go for lean gains. If your goal is to be as big and lean as possible, eating everything in sight and busting your ass in the gym will take care of itself. People get fat by fooling themselves in the gym. If you can be consistently intense, getting “sloppy fat” isn’t a huge concern.
[/quote]

So if I’m eating 5000 calories but I only need 3500 to grow I’m not going to get sloppy?

oh wait so to counter balance that I should just try to burn an extra 1000 calories in the gym.

I think you’re mistaken. Muscle building does take extra calories but that’s highly dependant on the individual. I gained a lot of fat eating 4000-4500 calories. Do I look like someone who slacks in the gym? eating everything in sight isn’t the answer for some people.

13

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:

[quote]NVRGIVEUP wrote:
This thing has been on my mind for some time now, n so I figured no other place could provide me with a better answer than the T-Nation members.

Some experts like Coach Rip believe that bulking (consuming about 4k a day) will in the long run help you build way more muscle than lean gains, because fat is “relatively easy to burn for an active athlete.” Others argue that the muscular gains made with bulks will actually lead to having less muscle mass in the end after dieting down. Now assuming all other variables are kept constant, which approach is superior to the other in terms of final increase in lean muscle after dieting down to, say, 12% bf ? [/quote]

First off, 4k/calories a day is not bulking for everyone. It’s a bulk for a 170lbs guy, it’s a diet for a 260lbs guy. My personal experience is that putting on slabs of muscle requires a lot of extra calories. Like an obscene amount. If you aspire to look like Ryan Rynolds, then go for lean gains. If your goal is to be as big and lean as possible, eating everything in sight and busting your ass in the gym will take care of itself. People get fat by fooling themselves in the gym. If you can be consistently intense, getting “sloppy fat” isn’t a huge concern.
[/quote]

So if I’m eating 5000 calories but I only need 3500 to grow I’m not going to get sloppy?

oh wait so to counter balance that I should just try to burn an extra 1000 calories in the gym.

I think you’re mistaken. Muscle building does take extra calories but that’s highly dependant on the individual. I gained a lot of fat eating 4000-4500 calories. Do I look like someone who slacks in the gym? eating everything in sight isn’t the answer for some people.[/quote]

If you ate 500-1000 calories too many and “gained a lot of fat”, yeah, I’d say you probably don’t have a ton of intensity in your workouts. That really shouldn’t happen, 500-1000 additionally daily calories is a conservative buffer in my opinion. I don’t think most people would put on much muscle with that little of a caloric surplus, unless aas are involved. At the very least they are selling their gains short a good deal.

Really though, it’s two different plans for two different goals. IF you just want to look good naked, then yeah, eat 1000 extra calories a day and adjust accordingly. If you want to be a fucking monster, eat whatever isn’t nailed down. Like I said, as long as you lift weights like at some point a dick grew between your legs, you aren’t going to get fat and nasty.

14

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:

[quote]NVRGIVEUP wrote:
This thing has been on my mind for some time now, n so I figured no other place could provide me with a better answer than the T-Nation members.

Some experts like Coach Rip believe that bulking (consuming about 4k a day) will in the long run help you build way more muscle than lean gains, because fat is “relatively easy to burn for an active athlete.” Others argue that the muscular gains made with bulks will actually lead to having less muscle mass in the end after dieting down. Now assuming all other variables are kept constant, which approach is superior to the other in terms of final increase in lean muscle after dieting down to, say, 12% bf ? [/quote]

First off, 4k/calories a day is not bulking for everyone. It’s a bulk for a 170lbs guy, it’s a diet for a 260lbs guy. My personal experience is that putting on slabs of muscle requires a lot of extra calories. Like an obscene amount. If you aspire to look like Ryan Rynolds, then go for lean gains. If your goal is to be as big and lean as possible, eating everything in sight and busting your ass in the gym will take care of itself. People get fat by fooling themselves in the gym. If you can be consistently intense, getting “sloppy fat” isn’t a huge concern.
[/quote]

So if I’m eating 5000 calories but I only need 3500 to grow I’m not going to get sloppy?

oh wait so to counter balance that I should just try to burn an extra 1000 calories in the gym.

I think you’re mistaken. Muscle building does take extra calories but that’s highly dependant on the individual. I gained a lot of fat eating 4000-4500 calories. Do I look like someone who slacks in the gym? eating everything in sight isn’t the answer for some people.[/quote]

If you ate 500-1000 calories too many and “gained a lot of fat”, yeah, I’d say you probably don’t have a ton of intensity in your workouts. That really shouldn’t happen, 500-1000 additionally daily calories is a conservative buffer in my opinion. I don’t think most people would put on much muscle with that little of a caloric surplus, unless aas are involved. At the very least they are selling their gains short a good deal.

Really though, it’s two different plans for two different goals. IF you just want to look good naked, then yeah, eat 1000 extra calories a day and adjust accordingly. If you want to be a fucking monster, eat whatever isn’t nailed down. Like I said, as long as you lift weights like at some point a dick grew between your legs, you aren’t going to get fat and nasty.

[/quote]

LOL

So why would gains not come just as fast to a natty who eats in a 300-500 kcal surplus as opposed to a 1000 kcal? I’ll admit actual WEIGHT gain will be slower, but LBM gains? Unlikely all that different, if both are giving same intensity, have same genetics, yada yada.

You can’t ‘Force Feed’ gains. That’s a fact. Only so much muscle can be put on in a certain amount of time naturally, though that amount varies depending on a lot of factors (inb4 some random claim of someone you know who is ‘natty’ or a newb putting on lots of mass fast). I’m not sure how many calories you think you burn in a workout, but unless you’re an Oly Athlete training hours and hours, doubt you need a legit 1500+ kcsl surplus OVER maintenance.

15

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:

[quote]NVRGIVEUP wrote:
This thing has been on my mind for some time now, n so I figured no other place could provide me with a better answer than the T-Nation members.

Some experts like Coach Rip believe that bulking (consuming about 4k a day) will in the long run help you build way more muscle than lean gains, because fat is “relatively easy to burn for an active athlete.” Others argue that the muscular gains made with bulks will actually lead to having less muscle mass in the end after dieting down. Now assuming all other variables are kept constant, which approach is superior to the other in terms of final increase in lean muscle after dieting down to, say, 12% bf ? [/quote]

First off, 4k/calories a day is not bulking for everyone. It’s a bulk for a 170lbs guy, it’s a diet for a 260lbs guy. My personal experience is that putting on slabs of muscle requires a lot of extra calories. Like an obscene amount. If you aspire to look like Ryan Rynolds, then go for lean gains. If your goal is to be as big and lean as possible, eating everything in sight and busting your ass in the gym will take care of itself. People get fat by fooling themselves in the gym. If you can be consistently intense, getting “sloppy fat” isn’t a huge concern.
[/quote]

So if I’m eating 5000 calories but I only need 3500 to grow I’m not going to get sloppy?

oh wait so to counter balance that I should just try to burn an extra 1000 calories in the gym.

I think you’re mistaken. Muscle building does take extra calories but that’s highly dependant on the individual. I gained a lot of fat eating 4000-4500 calories. Do I look like someone who slacks in the gym? eating everything in sight isn’t the answer for some people.[/quote]

If you ate 500-1000 calories too many and “gained a lot of fat”, yeah, I’d say you probably don’t have a ton of intensity in your workouts. That really shouldn’t happen, 500-1000 additionally daily calories is a conservative buffer in my opinion. I don’t think most people would put on much muscle with that little of a caloric surplus, unless aas are involved. At the very least they are selling their gains short a good deal.

Really though, it’s two different plans for two different goals. IF you just want to look good naked, then yeah, eat 1000 extra calories a day and adjust accordingly. If you want to be a fucking monster, eat whatever isn’t nailed down. Like I said, as long as you lift weights like at some point a dick grew between your legs, you aren’t going to get fat and nasty.

[/quote]
btw I said lets assume I only needed 3500 to grow. Implying that my maintenance was probably around 3000ish

my issue with what you are saying is that let’s say I didn’t workout hard enough to burn 4000-4500 cals. Which i obviously didn’t.

Why couldn’t I have just ate maybe 500-800 calories less, gained less fat and most likely the exact same amount of muscle?

it’s obvious I trained hard enough to gain muscle. because well I definitely improved my muscle mass so how would have raising my workout intensity have benefited me?

we will never know for sure because I’m not repeating that experiment but most experienced lifters here would probably vouch on my side that eating less would have yielded the same lbm gains with less fat gains.

16

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:

[quote]NVRGIVEUP wrote:
This thing has been on my mind for some time now, n so I figured no other place could provide me with a better answer than the T-Nation members.

Some experts like Coach Rip believe that bulking (consuming about 4k a day) will in the long run help you build way more muscle than lean gains, because fat is “relatively easy to burn for an active athlete.” Others argue that the muscular gains made with bulks will actually lead to having less muscle mass in the end after dieting down. Now assuming all other variables are kept constant, which approach is superior to the other in terms of final increase in lean muscle after dieting down to, say, 12% bf ? [/quote]

First off, 4k/calories a day is not bulking for everyone. It’s a bulk for a 170lbs guy, it’s a diet for a 260lbs guy. My personal experience is that putting on slabs of muscle requires a lot of extra calories. Like an obscene amount. If you aspire to look like Ryan Rynolds, then go for lean gains. If your goal is to be as big and lean as possible, eating everything in sight and busting your ass in the gym will take care of itself. People get fat by fooling themselves in the gym. If you can be consistently intense, getting “sloppy fat” isn’t a huge concern.
[/quote]

So if I’m eating 5000 calories but I only need 3500 to grow I’m not going to get sloppy?

oh wait so to counter balance that I should just try to burn an extra 1000 calories in the gym.

I think you’re mistaken. Muscle building does take extra calories but that’s highly dependant on the individual. I gained a lot of fat eating 4000-4500 calories. Do I look like someone who slacks in the gym? eating everything in sight isn’t the answer for some people.[/quote]

If you ate 500-1000 calories too many and “gained a lot of fat”, yeah, I’d say you probably don’t have a ton of intensity in your workouts. That really shouldn’t happen, 500-1000 additionally daily calories is a conservative buffer in my opinion. I don’t think most people would put on much muscle with that little of a caloric surplus, unless aas are involved. At the very least they are selling their gains short a good deal.

Really though, it’s two different plans for two different goals. IF you just want to look good naked, then yeah, eat 1000 extra calories a day and adjust accordingly. If you want to be a fucking monster, eat whatever isn’t nailed down. Like I said, as long as you lift weights like at some point a dick grew between your legs, you aren’t going to get fat and nasty.

[/quote]

LOL

So why would gains not come just as fast to a natty who eats in a 300-500 kcal surplus as opposed to a 1000 kcal? I’ll admit actual WEIGHT gain will be slower, but LBM gains? Unlikely all that different, if both are giving same intensity, have same genetics, yada yada.

You can’t ‘Force Feed’ gains. That’s a fact. Only so much muscle can be put on in a certain amount of time naturally, though that amount varies depending on a lot of factors (inb4 some random claim of someone you know who is ‘natty’ or a newb putting on lots of mass fast). I’m not sure how many calories you think you burn in a workout, but unless you’re an Oly Athlete training hours and hours, doubt you need a legit 1500+ kcsl surplus OVER maintenance.[/quote]

I get so tired of this bulking thing.
If you become a fat-ass while bulking, you are doing it wrong.
If you are eating everything and anything without concern for your macros, you are doing it wrong.
If you expect to add any significant amount of muscle while remaining ‘pool’ ready (without drugs), you are fooling yourself.
If you think you can manage your energy debt within a 500 cal window day to day while on a bulk, you are fooling yourself; there are too many variables.
If you are projecting your long term gains on anything that happens before your 23 birthday, you are fooling yourself; most of that is nature not nuture, after that we’ll see how your approach plays out.

I have been training since 1986. I have never seen a male lifter add more than 10-15lbs of LBM after their 23rd birthday without ‘bulking’, or drugs, never! I have never seen a lifter add more than 30-40lbs of LBM over a lifetime without bulking or drugs, never. I’m sure guys like that are out there, just like big lotto winners, but I have never met them personally.

I was taught long ago…once a ‘lean’ weight is established ‘bulking’ means carrying an additional 10-15%. A male lifter that is pool ready at 160 should bulk to about 176-184 and carry that weight for 18-24 months before the next cut, then repeat. If a lifter is lean at 160, it is unlikely they will look like a fat-ass at 180. It is also possible that they will have little abdominal definition (depending on their genetics).

17

Rhetorical Questions:

If you are running a 1000 Kcal per day surplus, what determine what percentage of the excess turns into muscle or turns into fat?

If you are running a 1000 Kcal per day deficit, what determines what percentage of the deficit of body mass burned comes from muscle or comes from fat?

Rhetorical Answers:

Luck? Magic? Randomness?

Calories In / Calories Out may address weight, but this does not necessarily address body composition.

Guys like Keifer and Berardi may not have all the answers, but they are asking the right questions and heading in the right direction. If you are looking to gain muscle without adding fat, or looking to lose fat without losing muscle, there are better and worse ways to go about it, and anyone interested in either owes it to themselves to gain a basic understanding of the way hormones, resistance training, and macro timing affects body composition.

18

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:

[quote]NVRGIVEUP wrote:
This thing has been on my mind for some time now, n so I figured no other place could provide me with a better answer than the T-Nation members.

Some experts like Coach Rip believe that bulking (consuming about 4k a day) will in the long run help you build way more muscle than lean gains, because fat is “relatively easy to burn for an active athlete.” Others argue that the muscular gains made with bulks will actually lead to having less muscle mass in the end after dieting down. Now assuming all other variables are kept constant, which approach is superior to the other in terms of final increase in lean muscle after dieting down to, say, 12% bf ? [/quote]

First off, 4k/calories a day is not bulking for everyone. It’s a bulk for a 170lbs guy, it’s a diet for a 260lbs guy. My personal experience is that putting on slabs of muscle requires a lot of extra calories. Like an obscene amount. If you aspire to look like Ryan Rynolds, then go for lean gains. If your goal is to be as big and lean as possible, eating everything in sight and busting your ass in the gym will take care of itself. People get fat by fooling themselves in the gym. If you can be consistently intense, getting “sloppy fat” isn’t a huge concern.
[/quote]

So if I’m eating 5000 calories but I only need 3500 to grow I’m not going to get sloppy?

oh wait so to counter balance that I should just try to burn an extra 1000 calories in the gym.

I think you’re mistaken. Muscle building does take extra calories but that’s highly dependant on the individual. I gained a lot of fat eating 4000-4500 calories. Do I look like someone who slacks in the gym? eating everything in sight isn’t the answer for some people.[/quote]

If you ate 500-1000 calories too many and “gained a lot of fat”, yeah, I’d say you probably don’t have a ton of intensity in your workouts. That really shouldn’t happen, 500-1000 additionally daily calories is a conservative buffer in my opinion. I don’t think most people would put on much muscle with that little of a caloric surplus, unless aas are involved. At the very least they are selling their gains short a good deal.

Really though, it’s two different plans for two different goals. IF you just want to look good naked, then yeah, eat 1000 extra calories a day and adjust accordingly. If you want to be a fucking monster, eat whatever isn’t nailed down. Like I said, as long as you lift weights like at some point a dick grew between your legs, you aren’t going to get fat and nasty.

[/quote]

LOL

So why would gains not come just as fast to a natty who eats in a 300-500 kcal surplus as opposed to a 1000 kcal? I’ll admit actual WEIGHT gain will be slower, but LBM gains? Unlikely all that different, if both are giving same intensity, have same genetics, yada yada.

You can’t ‘Force Feed’ gains. That’s a fact. Only so much muscle can be put on in a certain amount of time naturally, though that amount varies depending on a lot of factors (inb4 some random claim of someone you know who is ‘natty’ or a newb putting on lots of mass fast). I’m not sure how many calories you think you burn in a workout, but unless you’re an Oly Athlete training hours and hours, doubt you need a legit 1500+ kcsl surplus OVER maintenance.[/quote]

I get so tired of this bulking thing.
If you become a fat-ass while bulking, you are doing it wrong.
If you are eating everything and anything without concern for your macros, you are doing it wrong.
If you expect to add any significant amount of muscle while remaining ‘pool’ ready (without drugs), you are fooling yourself.
If you think you can manage your energy debt within a 500 cal window day to day while on a bulk, you are fooling yourself; there are too many variables.
If you are projecting your long term gains on anything that happens before your 23 birthday, you are fooling yourself; most of that is nature not nuture, after that we’ll see how your approach plays out.

I have been training since 1986. I have never seen a male lifter add more than 10-15lbs of LBM after their 23rd birthday without ‘bulking’, or drugs, never! I have never seen a lifter add more than 30-40lbs of LBM over a lifetime without bulking or drugs, never. I’m sure guys like that are out there, just like big lotto winners, but I have never met them personally.

I was taught long ago…once a ‘lean’ weight is established ‘bulking’ means carrying an additional 10-15%. A male lifter that is pool ready at 160 should bulk to about 176-184 and carry that weight for 18-24 months before the next cut, then repeat. If a lifter is lean at 160, it is unlikely they will look like a fat-ass at 180. It is also possible that they will have little abdominal definition (depending on their genetics). [/quote]

I’m not sure if you think what I’m saying is in agreement or disagreement with you. I totally agree with your sentiments, and honestly you are one of the few posters left on here whose opinion I value greatly. So please don’t think anything I say is disrespectful.

I think bulking is necessary, and I’m not sure where you got the idea of being ‘pool ready’ all the time. If that’s the term you’d like to use, that’s fine, but honestly pool ready is what, 15% BF for the average population? Like you said, if you’re getting fat bulking, you are doing it wrong, so I think we are in agreement with that.

My issue comes with the guy above, saying you need to be eating thousands of calories over maintenance. There’s no need too, unless, like I said, you energy output is ridiculous. He implied gaining means 5-6k calories a day. That’s not true for everyone. I feel if you know your body well, eating in a slight surplus will be just as effective as just eating thousands of calories more to hope it leads to more muscle growth. If the dude above finds that he needs 6000 kcal too grow, awesome. But that’s doesn’t mean there aren’t othe lifters here, who are busting ass, that are steadily gaining eating 3-4k calories.

Like I said, I think we are in agreement. But I may have come off ‘anti-bulk’. That’s not me. I’m anti-delusional. lol. Overeating, too me, is just as stupid as undereating. Both sabotage your goals (if they are aesthetically based). Eating tons and tons just to make the scale move, IMO, indicates a lack of knowledge of one’s body and caloric needs (just like undereating indicates the same). That’s all I was trying to say.

19

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Rhetorical Questions:

If you are running a 1000 Kcal per day surplus, what determine what percentage of the excess turns into muscle or turns into fat?

If you are running a 1000 Kcal per day deficit, what determines what percentage of the deficit of body mass burned comes from muscle or comes from fat?
[/quote]

The correct answer is “witchcraft”.

Seriously though, well put and I agree with your entire post. Body composition isn’t a bank account, why some people try to use accounting to address it never made much sense to me, even when I thought it did. Calories in/out also doesn’t take into consideration the psychological effects of intense physical activity at a caloric surplus or deficit, which in turn plays a role in a myriad of other things that effect body composition. Counting calories and resting metabolic rate is the starting point, not the finishing line.

20

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:
Counting calories and resting metabolic rate is the starting point, not the finishing line.
[/quote]

Well said