Is A Caloric Surplus REALLY Mandatory?

Training
41

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
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]

I always liked his and Layne Norton’s stuff. Very thorough/scientific in many of their articles. This still, however, supports my point that it’d be possible, but likely harder as you get leaner. And by leaner I’d probably say below the midpoint of “most attractive” (12%, sited earlier.)

42

[quote]karite36 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
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]

I always liked his and Layne Norton’s stuff. Very thorough/scientific in many of their articles. This still, however, supports my point that it’d be possible, but likely harder as you get leaner. And by leaner I’d probably say below the midpoint of “most attractive” (12%, sited earlier.)[/quote]

Agreed. Also, how close to your genetic potential you are would also play a factor.

43

Yay…so to sum up

And answer thread question :

It depends

Lol.

44

[quote]zraw wrote:
Yay…so to sum up

And answer thread question :

It depends

Lol.[/quote]

Damnit man, don’t get so technical! -lol

I remember when I first started cutting down with any idea what I was doing. Not only did I expect all this loss of strength, but muscle loss as well. It didn’t really occur though. At the time, I was emailing with Cordova quite a bit, and I remember him telling me that he always seemed to make noticeable gains when prepping for a contest.

Obviously the goal of any successful plan is muscle retention, but whether your body truly is getting sufficient nutrients round the clock to support growth of new muscle tissue is probably a matter of just how far you’re dropping your #s. I would GUESS that someone on a less extreme cut might be more prone to actually meeting their body’s demands for growth, while still be reserved enough to allow for some adipose to be whittled away. Also, if you tank your metabolic rate pretty badly, I imagine you’re body won’t really care to much to be concerned about synthesizing new tissue.

S

45

You all people forgetting anabolic hormones …insulin will be normally lowered as well as testosterone and other hormones responsile for anabolism during a prolonged diet or fast. Not to mention water volume and metabolism and the effects branching from it.

46

So hey OP, how is your below-maintenance-calories bulk going?