Is it? I mean it makes absolutely zero scientific sense that it IS. When was it explicitly stated in a biology textbook that there was a need for excess non-protein calories in order to repair/hypertrophy a tissue? It never has. If you’re mandating your body undergo a given adaptation, it will, given the required resources are available (protein and lipids for the cell membrane etc). I’m beginning to think people think people only bulk because they want an excuse to EAT, especially since testosterone (especially on gear) reduces circulating leptin, making you hungrier.
Furthermore, wouldn’t this mean you could, in theory, build muscle just fine on a calorie deficit that provides anything more than the minimum fat for health, and minimum carbs to avoid protein degradation (or just add more protein, about 10-30g/day to account for protein breakdown for glucose)? The minimum fat being, say 70g, and carbs being, say 250g for someone strength training hard/heavy 4xWeek. It makes no sense that it wouldn’t work. Numbers, beside protein breakdown numbers, are theoretical of course.
Yes, it’s necessary. Because you have no way of correctly estimating your requirements. That doesn’t mean you need to over eat and go full house fat ass. You can remain pretty lean with a decent surplus.
Building muscle in a deficit? It happens, technically. But is short-lived and has no realistic application for a guy wanting to get jacked. Why the flying f would you want to live on a deficit anyway?
[quote]karite36 wrote:
Is it? I mean it makes absolutely zero scientific sense that it IS. When was it explicitly stated in a biology textbook that there was a need for excess non-protein calories in order to repair/hypertrophy a tissue? It never has. If you’re mandating your body undergo a given adaptation, it will, given the required resources are available (protein and lipids for the cell membrane etc). I’m beginning to think people think people only bulk because they want an excuse to EAT, especially since testosterone (especially on gear) reduces circulating leptin, making you hungrier. Furthermore, wouldn’t this mean you could, in theory, build muscle just fine on a calorie deficit that provides anything more than the minimum fat for health, and minimum carbs to avoid protein degradation (or just add more protein, about 10-30g/day to account for protein breakdown for glucose)? The minimum fat being, say 70g, and carbs being, say 250g for someone strength training hard/heavy 4xWeek. It makes no sense that it wouldn’t work. Numbers, beside protein breakdown numbers, are theoretical of course.
Thoughts?[/quote]
It does make sense, and it is mandatory, in the general sense. All the little details aside (macro breakdown, etc.), it’s thermodynamics - eat more than you burn. If you want the body to produce more muscle tissue, actual hypertrophy, not just maintain homeostasis by fixing whatever you broke down, you need to give it more than it already has. You can even see this in mice in a very short amount of time (weeks).
Also, don’t reference biology books when it comes to building muscle. Medical physiology books may have a better grasp on the subject, but the science is still lacking. Look at primary literature - every study says something different about post-workout feedings, fasting vs. fed, intensity vs. volume.
But, if you really think it makes zero sense, why don’t you do exactly what you said, and see how much muscle you gain?
Don’t talk thermodynamics here, we aren’t talking about energy transfer, we’re talking about assembling proteins to form tissue structures. People seem to not get that. Use that logic all you want for fat loss, that’s an energy systems issue.
Tissue hypertrophy is not a TD issue, unless the hypertrophy is a result of energy storage (e.g. adipocyte hypertrophy). So my question is, given that, how does it make sense?
Also, when I say “biology” it’s all encompassing, not just intro to bio textbooks for freshman bio. I’m talking everything from that to Rubin’s Pathology or anything of the sort. Also, don’t anybody think I’m being a troll of asking a dumb question, I want gould, clean, scientific-style inquiry. I say scientific-style because I doubt anyone will find any conclusive research on the topic. By the way, I added a quarter inch to my legs squatting 4xWeek eating like 1000-2000kcal below maintenance a DAY.
Where talking going from 34 to a 32 pants (31s can’t fit my legs well enough to bend over) in 2 weeks, as a example of it happening to an “advanced” lifter (I’d say a 605 deadlift at 18 and 224 is advanced, but I really have no definition of advanced).
Research schmesearch. Man, do what you’re doing for a couple months and tell me how much weight you gained. When I first started I had no grasp of diet and I barely gained anything. When I actually started eating to gain weight, that’s when my muscles started growing.
Also, you say people say that just because they want to eat… Man, sometimes I hate eating big portions every 2 and a half hours but that’s what works for me when it comes to putting on muscle mass. And tuna, eggs, oatmeal, and stuff like that isn’t exactly something you eat for enjoyment.
[quote]zraw wrote:
It would work for fat people though cause they could use the calories in all that fat they got, I think… actually, i know[/quote]
^This
The only people who can naturally build muscle in a deficit are the obese, because they have abundant stores to use for energy while what they eat is used to rebuild muscle and repair connective tissue. Once you get to a certain point, your body eats muscle, because a severe enough caloric deficit can actually cause your body to metabolize muscle and store fat out of desperation.
There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. You’re not the first person to ever work out. If people didn’t need to eat a surplus to gain muscle, THEY FUCKING WOULDN’T.
[quote]zraw wrote:
It would work for fat people though cause they could use the calories in all that fat they got, I think… actually, i know[/quote]
And how would you draw the line between “fat” and not fat? Purely speculative, but I would guess it would fall with the curve of the most attractive mail body fat percentage (12%), getting easier/harder as you go up/down respectively.
(Markus J. Rantala, PhD, adjunct professor, department of biology, University of Turku, Finland. His article was published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences).
I can’t find the study itself, I think it’s pay-walled.
[quote]zraw wrote:
It would work for fat people though cause they could use the calories in all that fat they got, I think… actually, i know[/quote]
^This
The only people who can naturally build muscle in a deficit are the obese, because they have abundant stores to use for energy while what they eat is used to rebuild muscle and repair connective tissue. Once you get to a certain point, your body eats muscle, because a severe enough caloric deficit can actually cause your body to metabolize muscle and store fat out of desperation.
There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. You’re not the first person to ever work out. If people didn’t need to eat a surplus to gain muscle, THEY FUCKING WOULDN’T.
/thread.[/quote]
You’d be very, very wrong. Let’s get talk metabolic cost. The cost to store a carbohydrate as a carbohydrate (glycogen), not counting digestion, is 0g/100g. To store it as fat (de novo lipogenesis), the cost is 25g/100g. The cost to convert proteins to carbs (gluconeogenesis), costs 43g/100g. Do to these, we actually RARELY see denovo lipogenesis in humans who aren’t yet carbed up; subjects have been found to store the carbs as muscle/liver glycogen, and use primarily fat as a fuel source. We also only see protein → glucose metabolism in people who’re below a carbohydrate threshhold (think keto). Of about 10-30g/day.
Now if you’re calling breaking down muscle a sound survival mechanism, again, you’d be wrong. Also remember, if I’m not mistaken, muscle is like 90g of protein by the pound; it’s mostly water and solutes like glycogen. You’re repeating broscience. EVERYONE would love a reason to eat be full, unless you’re a pussy who thinks eating big is hard. Food is rewarding. So is sex, and sleep.
[quote]optheta wrote:
Well lets see u been here since 2011, and you look like that…
[/quote]
Look like what exactly? I SWEAR I said this was a mature conversation among fellow lifters who want to actually know how/why, not just “This is the rule; don’t question it!”
[quote]karite36 wrote:
By the way, I added a quarter inch to my legs squatting 4xWeek eating like 1000-2000kcal below maintenance a DAY.
Where talking going from 34 to a 32 pants (31s can’t fit my legs well enough to bend over) in 2 weeks, as a example of it happening to an “advanced” lifter (I’d say a 605 deadlift at 18 and 224 is advanced, but I really have no definition of advanced). [/quote]
Over what time period? And also, how did you come up with your energy requirements for maintenance? By definition your maintenance requirements are how much is required to keep yourself at the same size for the work you’re doing, so unless you’re obese I don’t see where you can get the energy to build muscle.
And also… wouldn’t size 34 to 32 pants be a decrease in size, or is that number not referring to waist diameter?
[quote]karite36 wrote:
By the way, I added a quarter inch to my legs squatting 4xWeek eating like 1000-2000kcal below maintenance a DAY.
Where talking going from 34 to a 32 pants (31s can’t fit my legs well enough to bend over) in 2 weeks, as a example of it happening to an “advanced” lifter (I’d say a 605 deadlift at 18 and 224 is advanced, but I really have no definition of advanced). [/quote]
Over what time period? And also, how did you come up with your energy requirements for maintenance? By definition your maintenance requirements are how much is required to keep yourself at the same size for the work you’re doing, so unless you’re obese I don’t see where you can get the energy to build muscle.
And also… wouldn’t size 34 to 32 pants be a decrease in size, or is that number not referring to waist diameter?[/quote]
My LEGS got bigger, not my waist…
I dropped a pants size. I’d say that quarter inch took like 3-4 weeks, not training for hypertrophy.