Are excess calorie requirements a myth?

[JKeller81]

I really question the whole idea of the body requiring more calories than you burn to build muscle. I'm NOT claiming to be right on this, I have no idea, it's just an intuition which could be wrong but I want to see if anyone else follows it

The way I see it is as follows:
1. The body has certain processes it needs calories/nutrients in order to carry out.... from brain function and circulation to that 405 you just benched.
2. In a caloric deficit, the body will utilize it's resources in order of priority, and building muscle/recovering from a 405 bench is not a priority.
3. To build muscle/strength, you need to have your enough calories to cover all of your bodies priority requirements as well as the extra requirements you are throwing at it.

Now, shouldn't this really put you at maintenance calories rather than a surplus? If the body is gaining fat, is that not a sign that the energy is not being used as it is clearly spilling over into fat cells?

Let's say you maintain 190lbs, around 10% body fat.... and you just maintain that weight indefinitely for the next decade, but you progressively increase your squat from say 315 for reps to 450 for reps...... your body has enough calories to cover all its essential functions, assuming you are getting all your micronutrients, how could you not grow? I don't understand why fat spillover seems to be a requirement..... I totally get that it will happen from the occasional cheat meals etc., but from my perspective, unless you are upping your hormone doses, are coming out of contest prep or are an absolute beginner, there really should be no need to try to "gain weight"

 

[little slice]

so you are saying that..




wait, nvm don't care lol.

 

[JKeller81]

LOL well not that anyone should care, just an idea that doesn't make sense to me yet a lot of people still seem to stick with

I remember hearing Dr. Joe say something to the likes that in the first year you put on around 95% of the size you are ever going to gain and I think people lose sight of this. Yeah you'll gain an extra two inches in your chest and quads over the years but how much of a difference in weight is that going to make? If you really busted your balls and did things right, I think by the end of the first year you have a pretty good idea of what size you are destined to be. The other 20 years are just fine tuning, adding small amounts of muscle, skin getting thinner, capillary network growing etc. which makes you look more impressive but shouldn't be showing on the scale.

Hence why, after the newbie gains, I don't exactly see the point in forcing yourself to gain weight. I don't know many drug free guys who jump weight classes. What I have seen, is guys ballooning up to 220 and coming right back down to a shredded 180-183 year after year for decades..... the fuck is the point of carrying around 20-40 pounds most of the year, if you're capped at 180, short of upping hormones, you're gonna be around 180, that's the amount of muscle your body can carry.

Don't get me wrong, if you do it because you enjoy eating, have at it.... what I don't get is the guys that practically torture themselves stuffing their face as if force-feeding is somehow going to change their genetics.

 

[Dezzy]

For me I have to increase calories to put on size and maintain it. I don't need tons over maintenance just like 300-500. I have a very fast metabolism.

 

[cnriagu]

Your argument makes sense...But just for reference, could we see a pic of you to show what's considered 95% of all the gains one can get in the first year?

 

[finxster]

I really question the whole idea of the body requiring more calories than you burn to build muscle. I'm NOT claiming to be right on this, I have no idea, it's just an intuition which could be wrong but I want to see if anyone else follows it

The way I see it is as follows:
1. The body has certain processes it needs calories/nutrients in order to carry out.... from brain function and circulation to that 405 you just benched.
2. In a caloric deficit, the body will utilize it's resources in order of priority, and building muscle/recovering from a 405 bench is not a priority.
3. To build muscle/strength, you need to have your enough calories to cover all of your bodies priority requirements as well as the extra requirements you are throwing at it.

Now, shouldn't this really put you at maintenance calories rather than a surplus? If the body is gaining fat, is that not a sign that the energy is not being used as it is clearly spilling over into fat cells?

Let's say you maintain 190lbs, around 10% body fat.... and you just maintain that weight indefinitely for the next decade, but you progressively increase your squat from say 315 for reps to 450 for reps...... your body has enough calories to cover all its essential functions, assuming you are getting all your micronutrients, how could you not grow? I don't understand why fat spillover seems to be a requirement..... I totally get that it will happen from the occasional cheat meals etc., but from my perspective, unless you are upping your hormone doses, are coming out of contest prep or are an absolute beginner, there really should be no need to try to "gain weight"

Your example is maintaining 190 lbs for a decade...enough said...:banghead:

 

[Alias]

Looks good on paper but I'm betting its been tried many times by many pros and they found it just doesn't work. There's a reason just about every bodybuilder takes in extra calories, it's because they grow better when they do.
Not just bodybuilders, Olympic athletes consume excess calories to ensure they have enough. It's like driving a car without a spare tire.. Your fine until you need it.

I personally wouldn't feel right knowing that there's not plenty of extra calories being taken in. I wouldn't want to work so hard if I thought some of the gains wouldn't stick because I didnt eat enough food. And who's to say what the right amount of calories is?

 

[GimmeCombs]

Its pretty much impossible to grow strictly muscle tissue. There is always some sort of fat that tags along with it. So if you gain 85% muscle, you will also gain 15% fat.


Thats why theres bulking season and cutting season. We are not computers. We are humans. Physically impossible to completely dissect how many calories you need at the exact minute. Thats why you "overshoot" with excess, just in case.

Bulking = Add 25lbs of muscle along with 10lbs of fat.

Cutting = Remove 10lbs of fat while sustaining 25lbs of new muscle tissue.

End result = 25 pounds of muscle.

 

[epoxy]

Maybe you are talking about the average joe. In this sense, average guy, not on AAS, yeah you're right.

Now let's talk about people are who are serious, and using serious amounts of drugs, and doing SERIOUS amounts of work in the gym.

No doubt in my mind under many circumstances the extra food will result in extra growth. There will always be some associated fat gain with eating well over your daily needs, but I think most of us in the process of muscle acquisition are OK with this fact because we can lose the fat later whilst maintaining the muscle.

You are most welcome to the "slow and steady" wins the race way of doing things. I think for the average person yes it will result in leaner long term yields. When you add in other factors, it goes out the window.


Oh and as far as eating goes, I really enjoy eating. I would like to be able to maintain a heavier weight as long as it looks good so I can have a higher # of maintenance calories.

 

[REDDOGG1]

Have a hard time with the calories and the weight management


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pitbull1]

Literally all little slice's posts that made him a Kilo club member are one liner zinger posts...

 

[Damios]

There are a lot of Guys who say that when they are on Tren, they can drop fat and build some muscle tissues... For example they are going down with body fat but stay with same weight, "recomp" or something like that. Myth? Bullsit?

 

[pantherhare]

I remember hearing Dr. Joe say something to the likes that in the first year you put on around 95% of the size you are ever going to gain and I think people lose sight of this.

Who is Dr. Joe and where did he come up with this figure? He's claiming that if you put on 20 pounds of muscle after your first year of training, you're not going to put on more than 1 pound of muscle forever thereafter? Seriously? And you believe that? Are you someone who has only progressed 5% since your first year of training?

 

[jamescb77]

There are a lot of Guys who say that when they are on Tren, they can drop fat and build some muscle tissues... For example they are going down with body fat but stay with same weight, "recomp" or something like that. Myth? Bullsit?

I believe this completely because i am currently doing it. I was 265 added tren in and have stayed 265 while getting leaner. Actually i am having to up my calories in order to maintain 265 while im actually trying to grow to more like 280 i would rather end i lean 272 then a softer 280.

I hope you get the point. If the hormones are there(and im not on a lot) and the diet is pretty tight it can be done for sure.

 

[JKeller81]

Who is Dr. Joe and where did he come up with this figure? He's claiming that if you put on 20 pounds of muscle after your first year of training, you're not going to put on more than 1 pound of muscle forever thereafter? Seriously? And you believe that? Are you someone who has only progressed 5% since your first year of training?

Well, to a certain degree, yes. I mean I'm about 5'7, I started around 13 years ago and was about 150, skinny fat, no abs. Now I'm about 185-190 with abs year round.... BUT I've never really gone past 200 or so and I hit that 190lbs within my first year to two. The only real difference over the past decade has been that i've really, really slowly gotten leaner at that same weight.... first time i bulked to 190 my waist was like 36, now it's about 31.


I just don't buy the idea that I could force feed my way up to 230lbs, and when I cut back down I would suddenly have 19 inch arms instead of 18....I've had 18 inch arms for about 7 years, I think that's genetically as far as I can go (natty) and being far for a year wouldn't change that. Hell, maybe I'm wrong, but it just doesn't seem plausible to me.

 

[showstopper83]

All of our bodies are different and break things down differently...

I think there could be some truth to what the OP is saying. Calories, are, in essence "energy", so ya, you do need "energy" for your body to build muscle.

But who is to say that as long as you're taking in enough protein, that "energy" can't be pull from stored bodyfat? The method OP is talking about is probably far fetched for somebody who is crazy lean, but I've personally manipulated calories and carb intake on cuts in a way that helps me build muscle while burning fat.

Now, I didn't gain muscle the same way you would on a bulk, it was more steady... but to me,I see no point in blowing up 30 lbs only to look like shit because you gained a bunch of fat and then have to do extra cardio to bring it back down.

Also fair to point out that I'm not a pro bodybuilder, nor am I on raging amounts of HGH and slin for my diet effects to be like theirs.

 

[murain]

never understood guys who turn into hogs when off-season. being off-season doesn't mean gaining tons of fat, as for me - i prefer to maintain around 12-15% of bf. yes, it definitely needs some efforts but i like it.

 

[JKeller81]

There are a lot of Guys who say that when they are on Tren, they can drop fat and build some muscle tissues... For example they are going down with body fat but stay with same weight, "recomp" or something like that. Myth? Bullsit?

Well even without AAS, it's basically what I've done over the past ten years.... I've consistently been around 190 give or take 5-10 pounds and my waist has just gotten smaller and smaller. It's not something I even set out to do, in fact a large part of the reason I made this post is because I just recently sat back and looked at my progress and realized I've never really progressed in weight after my first year, but I have in inches and muscle/waist ratio. Then I looked at guys like Dave Goodin, Rob Riches, Tuan Tran, Jim Cordova etc. who have basically been at the same weight for the bulk of their career.

 

[JKeller81]

All of our bodies are different and break things down differently...

I think there could be some truth to what the OP is saying. Calories, are, in essence "energy", so ya, you do need "energy" for your body to build muscle.

But who is to say that as long as you're taking in enough protein, that "energy" can't be pull from stored bodyfat? The method OP is talking about is probably far fetched for somebody who is crazy lean, but I've personally manipulated calories and carb intake on cuts in a way that helps me build muscle while burning fat.

Now, I didn't gain muscle the same way you would on a bulk, it was more steady... but to me,I see no point in blowing up 30 lbs only to look like shit because you gained a bunch of fat and then have to do extra cardio to bring it back down.

Also fair to point out that I'm not a pro bodybuilder, nor am I on raging amounts of HGH and slin for my diet effects to be like theirs.

YES, in fact as crazy as it sounds I think it makes more sense to cut calories lower in order to build muscle when you are on the softer side and only add them in when you are running low (aka. getting really lean). In a way this would kind of describe the idea of "growing into a show" so I guess it's nothing new, but it's rare.

I know Scooby1961 subscribes to this idea of eating just slightly under your caloric maintenance and using your own fat reserves for fuel. Right or wrong? I don't know, I just find it interesting.

 

[ricky23]

its a correlative process, building muscle requires energy to do. not something the body would do well without the raw materials (hormones and food)

but i think its important to know what state your body is in. simply being in a calorie surplus for months on end probably isn't needed.
but knowing when your body is at its most insulin sensitive and primed for growing i.e. after a phase of low calories and improved glucose metabolism then that would be the best time to be in a calorie surplus and take advantage.

but its in correlation with your muscle, just maintaining x amount of muscle would need x amount of calories and protein (calories to spare the protein so it can preserve muscle) so to build more muscle would mean an increase of calories and/or protein to that amount, being in a positive net balance so we can use the sparred protein to take advantage of higher protein synthesis rates = more growth

i do agree though that people take this and go crazy with it, increase calories way beyond whats needed.