IronLion2
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2017
- Messages
- 1,788
This is a concept i've wondered/studied for a few years now in the context of bodybuilding. If you've ever taken a nutrition class or been in the game long enough you know you're body composition changes in both absolute and relative terms. Meaning the total amount of macro's you take in during a period but also the relative change during a set amount of time.
When I started to become serious and do more research I noticed elite level body builders don't eat that much and are very methodical about their macros and total caloric intake, that's surprising to most as the media would lead you to believe all mass monsters eat MASSIVE amounts of food to gain and hold that size but this is simply not true for everyone (there are exceptions of course.) We know that when dieting down it's best to do it slow and use relative changes to hold size, this is hardly debated. But when we're talking about gaining size and being in a surplus there's debate.
Some of the larger and more upcoming athletes in the sport like Regan Grimes, Nick Walker, and Derek Lunsford are very precise in their caloric intake measuring everything out in exact grams. In my mind that allows for slow accumulation of calories over time. All of them are much larger than you would expect for how much they eat.
Others like Dusty, Phil Viz, the late Matt Porter (RIP) were believers that when growing you need big jumps, they all stated the jumps should be done in stages but were much less gradual.
What's your experience and belief? I've never really done well calculated and gradual increases, i've never wanted to be that OCD about my food but if it's going to work i'm all for it.
When I started to become serious and do more research I noticed elite level body builders don't eat that much and are very methodical about their macros and total caloric intake, that's surprising to most as the media would lead you to believe all mass monsters eat MASSIVE amounts of food to gain and hold that size but this is simply not true for everyone (there are exceptions of course.) We know that when dieting down it's best to do it slow and use relative changes to hold size, this is hardly debated. But when we're talking about gaining size and being in a surplus there's debate.
Some of the larger and more upcoming athletes in the sport like Regan Grimes, Nick Walker, and Derek Lunsford are very precise in their caloric intake measuring everything out in exact grams. In my mind that allows for slow accumulation of calories over time. All of them are much larger than you would expect for how much they eat.
Others like Dusty, Phil Viz, the late Matt Porter (RIP) were believers that when growing you need big jumps, they all stated the jumps should be done in stages but were much less gradual.
What's your experience and belief? I've never really done well calculated and gradual increases, i've never wanted to be that OCD about my food but if it's going to work i'm all for it.
Last edited: