[quote]zraw wrote:
[quote]karite36 wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
Let me know how that 2700cal works for you in 2 years[/quote]
I don’t remember giving you that number.[/quote]
250g carbs : 1000cals
70g fat : 630cals
“enough protein to repair muscle”
250g : 1000cals
2630 cals[/quote]
Oh alright, at least you got it from somewhere.
John Meadows has routinely gained muscle mass during his cuts the last several years, as do many body builders now a days. Granted steroids play a large role in this, but this shows that there at least does have to be something more to the equation than JUST calories in/out. This may be a bit more complicated for natty lifters, but the examples still stand in terms of the overall picture.
When I dieted for my show I have pics that show my shoulders experienced noticeable growth, all while in a deficit for months on end.
Long term I think a slight caloric surplus is the BEST way to ENSURE consistent muscular gains, but I don’t think its necessary to be in a calorie surplus to build tissue. Although I also do not think that you can “diet” full time (be in a deficit) and expect to gain large amounts of mass.
I would say, in the short run it is very well possible to gain muscle tissue at a caloric deficit.
I have gained up to one third of an inch in preperation of a contest. Secondly, most bodybuilders know the muscle memory phenomenon. So if you are coming off a long lay off and got out of shape, you might be able to rebuild muscle easily, even why losing fat on very low calories.
I don’t like the calorie concept anyways. It is useful because calories correlate with the amount of food you ingest and this will help you find your baseline levels of food you need to grow, get ripped, etc.
But actually, we do not burn anything in our bodies. We eat foods and they are eventually broken down into diffrent kinds of moecules which will then enter diffrent biochemical pathways. There is a metabolic reaction to everything we eat and there is also such a thing like a metabolic burden that comes with certain foods.
I used to eat tons of pasta and bread in my early years as a bodybuilder and just didn’t gain quality muscle mass. Only after eliminating gluten from my diet the ratio of muscle/fat gains improved. I have no scientific explanation at hand, but I could imaginge that I am sensitive to gluten proteins and they led to either inflammed gut and malabsorbion of essential nutrients or to somehow altered blood or cell chemistry.
I used to eat 5500+ calories then and didn’t gain weight, or if I gained weight it was mostly fat.
Nowadays I eat between 2800-3200 calories - or the equivalent of quality foods - and am much stronger and heavier than back then.
While being on a diet with 5k calories I would have considered 3k calories a caloric deficit. Which it obviously is not.
Further, I think that it has been shown that the recruitment of satellite cells in the muscle lamnia is not energy (food intake) dependent.
All in all I believe it’s musch more important to think “nutrients” rather than calories. Which makes it difficult to define the term decicit.
Hypothetically, if someone eats “the perfect foods” only, the ones he/she can eat with no adverse reaction, etc. (no gluten for me, e.g.), I believe he/she could still make gains on a deficit in the short run. Either due to new stimuli for the recruitment of satellite cells or due to muscle memory effect.
However, in the long run, I don’t see a chance of making gains on a nutrient deficit (which correlates with calories - so: not possible on caloric deficit on the long run).
Just my 0.02
Cheers,
P
[quote]karite36 wrote:
[quote]238 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Your legs grew that much in a month because you never trained them.
I literally just typed out a good 4 paragraphs against all of this and I deleted it all, the only thing left was that ^^^^.
All in all I thought the exact same thing about 2 years ago, you’ll learn that eventually to grow you have to eat. You can TECH. stay in a good 250-500 calorie ( or more TO A CERTAIN EXTENT) defecit and still grow but it is VERY SLOW. Not to mention every time your weight moves in either direction you have to redo your macros, to most people its just not worth it.
Its a whole different ball game if your on any kind of anabolic though, Also your stupid if you think thermodynamics doesn’t play a role.
[quote]ParagonA wrote:
I would say, in the short run it is very well possible to gain muscle tissue at a caloric deficit.
I have gained up to one third of an inch in preperation of a contest. Secondly, most bodybuilders know the muscle memory phenomenon. So if you are coming off a long lay off and got out of shape, you might be able to rebuild muscle easily, even why losing fat on very low calories.
I don’t like the calorie concept anyways. It is useful because calories correlate with the amount of food you ingest and this will help you find your baseline levels of food you need to grow, get ripped, etc.
But actually, we do not burn anything in our bodies. We eat foods and they are eventually broken down into diffrent kinds of moecules which will then enter diffrent biochemical pathways. There is a metabolic reaction to everything we eat and there is also such a thing like a metabolic burden that comes with certain foods.
I used to eat tons of pasta and bread in my early years as a bodybuilder and just didn’t gain quality muscle mass. Only after eliminating gluten from my diet the ratio of muscle/fat gains improved. I have no scientific explanation at hand, but I could imaginge that I am sensitive to gluten proteins and they led to either inflammed gut and malabsorbion of essential nutrients or to somehow altered blood or cell chemistry.
I used to eat 5500+ calories then and didn’t gain weight, or if I gained weight it was mostly fat.
Nowadays I eat between 2800-3200 calories - or the equivalent of quality foods - and am much stronger and heavier than back then.
While being on a diet with 5k calories I would have considered 3k calories a caloric deficit. Which it obviously is not.
Further, I think that it has been shown that the recruitment of satellite cells in the muscle lamnia is not energy (food intake) dependent.
All in all I believe it’s musch more important to think “nutrients” rather than calories. Which makes it difficult to define the term decicit.
Hypothetically, if someone eats “the perfect foods” only, the ones he/she can eat with no adverse reaction, etc. (no gluten for me, e.g.), I believe he/she could still make gains on a deficit in the short run. Either due to new stimuli for the recruitment of satellite cells or due to muscle memory effect.
However, in the long run, I don’t see a chance of making gains on a nutrient deficit (which correlates with calories - so: not possible on caloric deficit on the long run).
Just my 0.02
Cheers,
P[/quote]
You made a great point on the malabsorption of certain nutrients, which will completely differ from person to person.
It also depends on the “types” of nutrients being eaten. If you have a complete carb vs a simple carb you will lose calories digesting the more complex carb even though it yields more nutrient value, so I agree calories are not the deciding factor here its the quality of the food + absorption of nutrients ( we lose a certain % of everything we eat) + stimulating muscle tissue.
I think it can ( and I’ve done it) be done in a short time frame but over time it just wont happen.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
John Meadows has routinely gained muscle mass during his cuts the last several years, as do many body builders now a days. Granted steroids play a large role in this, but this shows that there at least does have to be something more to the equation than JUST calories in/out. This may be a bit more complicated for natty lifters, but the examples still stand in terms of the overall picture.
When I dieted for my show I have pics that show my shoulders experienced noticeable growth, all while in a deficit for months on end.
Long term I think a slight caloric surplus is the BEST way to ENSURE consistent muscular gains, but I don’t think its necessary to be in a calorie surplus to build tissue. Although I also do not think that you can “diet” full time (be in a deficit) and expect to gain large amounts of mass.
[/quote]
Thank you. Also, I’d never want to diet forever. That’s just horrible. But I just think it’s folly to think you need a 500-1000kcal surplus just to gain muscle.
[quote]ParagonA wrote:
I would say, in the short run it is very well possible to gain muscle tissue at a caloric deficit.
I have gained up to one third of an inch in preperation of a contest. Secondly, most bodybuilders know the muscle memory phenomenon. So if you are coming off a long lay off and got out of shape, you might be able to rebuild muscle easily, even why losing fat on very low calories.
I don’t like the calorie concept anyways. It is useful because calories correlate with the amount of food you ingest and this will help you find your baseline levels of food you need to grow, get ripped, etc.
But actually, we do not burn anything in our bodies. We eat foods and they are eventually broken down into diffrent kinds of moecules which will then enter diffrent biochemical pathways. There is a metabolic reaction to everything we eat and there is also such a thing like a metabolic burden that comes with certain foods.
I used to eat tons of pasta and bread in my early years as a bodybuilder and just didn’t gain quality muscle mass. Only after eliminating gluten from my diet the ratio of muscle/fat gains improved. I have no scientific explanation at hand, but I could imaginge that I am sensitive to gluten proteins and they led to either inflammed gut and malabsorbion of essential nutrients or to somehow altered blood or cell chemistry.
I used to eat 5500+ calories then and didn’t gain weight, or if I gained weight it was mostly fat.
Nowadays I eat between 2800-3200 calories - or the equivalent of quality foods - and am much stronger and heavier than back then.
While being on a diet with 5k calories I would have considered 3k calories a caloric deficit. Which it obviously is not.
Further, I think that it has been shown that the recruitment of satellite cells in the muscle lamnia is not energy (food intake) dependent.
All in all I believe it’s musch more important to think “nutrients” rather than calories. Which makes it difficult to define the term decicit.
Hypothetically, if someone eats “the perfect foods” only, the ones he/she can eat with no adverse reaction, etc. (no gluten for me, e.g.), I believe he/she could still make gains on a deficit in the short run. Either due to new stimuli for the recruitment of satellite cells or due to muscle memory effect.
However, in the long run, I don’t see a chance of making gains on a nutrient deficit (which correlates with calories - so: not possible on caloric deficit on the long run).
Just my 0.02
Cheers,
P[/quote]
Well I mean specifically calories for the sake of chemical energy. I’d assume you’re taking in fruits/veg/dairy/sufficient proteins/fats/etc.
[quote]JACKEDjames123 wrote:
[quote]karite36 wrote:
[quote]238 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Your legs grew that much in a month because you never trained them.
I literally just typed out a good 4 paragraphs against all of this and I deleted it all, the only thing left was that ^^^^.
All in all I thought the exact same thing about 2 years ago, you’ll learn that eventually to grow you have to eat. You can TECH. stay in a good 250-500 calorie ( or more TO A CERTAIN EXTENT) defecit and still grow but it is VERY SLOW. Not to mention every time your weight moves in either direction you have to redo your macros, to most people its just not worth it.
Its a whole different ball game if your on any kind of anabolic though, Also your stupid if you think thermodynamics doesn’t play a role.
[/quote]
Yeah I don’t even squat…
Or clean, or deadlift…
Im not saying it cant be done.
Im saying that over time and for 98% of people it would fail.
We have the same shorts.
It is also VERY different if you are on any type of anabolic.
People say they get bigger when cutting, A: half the time its not them getting bigger its them seeing muscles they’ve never seen or B: they were eating shit when bulking and the cleaner foods have a better nutrient to calorie ratio which gives better hypertrophy.
[quote]karite36 wrote:
Yeah I don’t even squat…
Or clean, or deadlift…
Stay more on your heels, you go on to your toes just a bit too early, and you jump forwads a tad. Very very few lifters will jump forwards but they are forgiven as it’s a crazy amount of weight and they more often then not make the Clean anyway.
The bar was high enough. Your rack position is soft. You need to stay tighter when you rack the bar and get under it a tad more but it’s not bad at all. The 300x2 was good but you shift forwards too early again.
Some good stuff man.
Koing
You just got schooled son.
[quote]Koing wrote:
[quote]karite36 wrote:
Yeah I don’t even squat…
Or clean, or deadlift…
Stay more on your heels, you go on to your toes just a bit too early, and you jump forwads a tad. Very very few lifters will jump forwards but they are forgiven as it’s a crazy amount of weight and they more often then not make the Clean anyway.
The bar was high enough. Your rack position is soft. You need to stay tighter when you rack the bar and get under it a tad more but it’s not bad at all. The 300x2 was good but you shift forwards too early again.
Some good stuff man.
Koing[/quote]
Thanks man, means a lot! And yeah, one thing is my shoes are a half size to big. But I get it, and I noticed my hips shot up in my breakdown. Thanks again though. Worked technique fr 8 weeks. Cleaned like 20 times in those 8 weeks.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
You just got schooled son.[/quote]
Yes I did, I miss having a competitive O lifter at my gym…
[quote]JACKEDjames123 wrote:
Im not saying it cant be done.
Im saying that over time and for 98% of people it would fail.
We have the same shorts.
It is also VERY different if you are on any type of anabolic.
People say they get bigger when cutting, A: half the time its not them getting bigger its them seeing muscles they’ve never seen or B: they were eating shit when bulking and the cleaner foods have a better nutrient to calorie ratio which gives better hypertrophy.
[/quote]
I know, just don’t EVER tell me I don’t train legs, back, or overhead press. ANYTHING else is fair game. But yeah, I figure the adaptation MUST occur if the required nutrients are present, and the stimulus mandates it.
You look like Tyron Mathieu
You seem to he very hung up on “science” and also seem very confrontational for no reason.
There’s another poster here who I’m sure you would get along great with!
Aaaaaaaanyway, you dropped a pant size and added 2 inches to your legs in 3-4 weeks? Did I read that correctly? Good lifting BTW.
[quote]karite36 wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
You just got schooled son.[/quote]
Yes I did, I miss having a competitive O lifter at my gym…[/quote]
I was critiquing karite36 not schooling him.
[quote]karite36 wrote:
Thanks man, means a lot! And yeah, one thing is my shoes are a half size to big. But I get it, and I noticed my hips shot up in my breakdown. Thanks again though. Worked technique fr 8 weeks. Cleaned like 20 times in those 8 weeks.[/quote]
I have a second pair of Romaleos that I got on the cheap but they are a half size too big as well. I only wear them to squat and I use to leave them at work anyway.
The hips was okay. The issue is your rack position was soft. When it was lighter you had that bit more time to get tight but as it’s heavier you get less hight and time to get ready and be tight. But the difference isn’t a lot.
Just focus on staying tight
Keep puling off your heels
PULL harder the bar
Stay tight and you’ll get the Cn no problems.
But overall much better than 9/10 people I’ve seen easily. You are much stronger and faster than most people.
Koing
The following quip was written by Ryan Andrews, a primary team member of Dr. Berardi of Precision Nutrition. I’ve been working with him for almost a year now and these people know their stuff.
"Muscles respond to calories
Restrict calories and you risk muscle loss and metabolic slowdown.
Studies show that people who restrict their calories (i.e., diet) without also doing resistance training do lose weight, but it?s an even distribution of muscle and fat ? not what you want. Indeed, sometimes calorie restricters who don?t exercise end up fatter (as a %) than when they started!
How many calories to build muscle?
You need roughly 2,800 calories to build a pound of muscle, largely to support protein turnover, which can be elevated with training.
The contractile proteins and fluid (sarcoplasm) in muscle fibres are broken down and rebuilt every 7 ? 15 days. Training alters the turnover by affecting the type and amount of protein produced. Again, muscles respond to the demands placed on them.
However, muscles that are overloaded appropriately can actually grow during starvation (energy from fat stores can be liberated and stored in muscle tissue), although ample nutrients (e.g., protein, carbohydrate, etc.) can greatly enhance the extent of the growth response. Although growth can take place during starvation/restriction, especially for newbies, muscle growth with inadequate calorie consumption is less likely to take place with advanced trainees, as their threshold for growth is elevated.
If you?re more experienced and looking to get big and strong, you?ll probably have to eat more."
Supports the “more fat you have, the less calories you need to take in” approach, but you still need adquate nutrients, which as already pointed out, is so unique it’s nearly impossible to predict.
[quote]gregron wrote:
You seem to he very hung up on “science” and also seem very confrontational for no reason.
There’s another poster here who I’m sure you would get along great with!
Aaaaaaaanyway, you dropped a pant size and added 2 inches to your legs in 3-4 weeks? Did I read that correctly? Good lifting BTW.[/quote]
No, I added a quarter inch.
[quote]Koing wrote:
[quote]karite36 wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
You just got schooled son.[/quote]
Yes I did, I miss having a competitive O lifter at my gym…[/quote]
I was critiquing karite36 not schooling him.
[quote]karite36 wrote:
Thanks man, means a lot! And yeah, one thing is my shoes are a half size to big. But I get it, and I noticed my hips shot up in my breakdown. Thanks again though. Worked technique fr 8 weeks. Cleaned like 20 times in those 8 weeks.[/quote]
I have a second pair of Romaleos that I got on the cheap but they are a half size too big as well. I only wear them to squat and I use to leave them at work anyway.
The hips was okay. The issue is your rack position was soft. When it was lighter you had that bit more time to get tight but as it’s heavier you get less hight and time to get ready and be tight. But the difference isn’t a lot.
Just focus on staying tight
Keep puling off your heels
PULL harder the bar
Stay tight and you’ll get the Cn no problems.
But overall much better than 9/10 people I’ve seen easily. You are much stronger and faster than most people.
Koing[/quote]
Duly noted.