PDA

View Full Version : How does More Calories translate into mass gains?



John04Civic
01-07-2007, 10:37 AM
I know, the question is stupid, but I have been trying to think about the details and technically how this is done.


I'm putting down nearly 4,000 calories a day and I'm gaining more around my stomach than anywhere else IMO.

WildJames
01-07-2007, 10:41 AM
Basically you're putting your body in a caloric surplus (consuming more calories than you're burning) and those extra calories turn into extra LBM and fat. The percentages of the previous two are partially dependent on your workout routine and what kind of macros you're getting from those 4000 calories.

Holto
01-07-2007, 11:27 AM
Building muscle requires more energy (calories) than any other process your body partakes in.

That said I do find when bulking that the fat I gain is primarily around the midsection. The nice part about that is when you cut it goes away quickly also.

WBBIRL
01-07-2007, 11:32 AM
Thats a great indicator that your eating too much. Cut back the calories and lift heavy.

John04Civic
01-07-2007, 03:09 PM
Building muscle requires more energy (calories) than any other process your body partakes in.

That said I do find when bulking that the fat I gain is primarily around the midsection. The nice part about that is when you cut it goes away quickly also.

That is what I have heard, the more LBM you have, the easier it is to lose to weight.


Thats a great indicator that your eating too much. Cut back the calories and lift heavy.

My Macros are looking like this:

Cal = 3,900 - 4,000
Fat = 100 - 150 g
Carb = 390 - 450
Protein = 200 - 225

I have heard from some people I have trained with, you should eat lots of carbs and just eat as much as you can while lifting for size.

Is there any truth to this?

Holto
01-07-2007, 06:20 PM
What I meant is that you gut increases but your not putting fat all over your body in the same manner as a couch potatoe would.

When you switch to cutting the majority of "new" fat is around your gut. For this reason the gut itself goes away quickly.

The increase in LBM should allow you to cut on higher cals later on, also a definite bonus.

Unholy
01-07-2007, 06:27 PM
Lower your carbs significantly

Stumprrp
01-07-2007, 06:27 PM
holto gave you good info, although i dont know the science of this, i love when bulking to DESTRUCT my body every workout, and i mean kill it, and then eat the hell out of everything, it worked very well!

malkore
01-08-2007, 10:59 AM
Lower your carbs significantly

but, he's trying to bulk. he needs those carbs.

total calories might be too high, or the training routine doesn't lend itself to hypertrophy, so muscle isn't being built up.

John04Civic
01-08-2007, 11:59 AM
but, he's trying to bulk. he needs those carbs.

total calories might be too high, or the training routine doesn't lend itself to hypertrophy, so muscle isn't being built up.


Well, that is about to change.

I am running WBB1 right now (A little modified, but not much), and my g/f actually is doing it too! So we lift together.

Now I may be putting in 4 days a week instead of 3, and I also have more time in the gym now too. So this aspect should be improved upon.

Davidelmo
01-08-2007, 01:22 PM
If you're getting fat, just cut the calories back a little... but still to a point where you're gaining muscle.

To be honest the protein is probably a little high for your bodyweight, so you could dial the carbs or protein back a little bit.

Also, the reason you need excess calories to get mass gains is that the process of protein synthesis takes energy itself.

I know it's childish but try to think of it like builders making a house. Protein is the bricks, total calories are the workers salary.

Lots of bricks but low salary = very slow progress
Lots of bricks and high salary = optimal progress
However, once you increase the salary to a certain point the workers can't go any faster - the excess salary is wasted and you get fat.

Few bricks, high salary = fat gain because there aren't enough bricks to build the house. The salary is meaningless.
Few bricks, low salary = craptastic - losing weight and losing muscle

Holto
01-08-2007, 03:08 PM
Love it Dave.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
01-08-2007, 04:44 PM
Nice analogy there, hehe.

whiteman90909
01-08-2007, 08:49 PM
+rep for that. I think I might tell my friends I made it up...:D

John04Civic
01-09-2007, 05:30 PM
If you're getting fat, just cut the calories back a little... but still to a point where you're gaining muscle.

To be honest the protein is probably a little high for your bodyweight, so you could dial the carbs or protein back a little bit.

Also, the reason you need excess calories to get mass gains is that the process of protein synthesis takes energy itself.

I know it's childish but try to think of it like builders making a house. Protein is the bricks, total calories are the workers salary.

Lots of bricks but low salary = very slow progress
Lots of bricks and high salary = optimal progress
However, once you increase the salary to a certain point the workers can't go any faster - the excess salary is wasted and you get fat.

Few bricks, high salary = fat gain because there aren't enough bricks to build the house. The salary is meaningless.
Few bricks, low salary = craptastic - losing weight and losing muscle
Dude that is a badass analogy.. Thanks.

Slim Schaedle
01-09-2007, 06:50 PM
If you're getting fat, just cut the calories back a little... but still to a point where you're gaining muscle.

To be honest the protein is probably a little high for your bodyweight, so you could dial the carbs or protein back a little bit.

Also, the reason you need excess calories to get mass gains is that the process of protein synthesis takes energy itself.

I know it's childish but try to think of it like builders making a house. Protein is the bricks, total calories are the workers salary.

Lots of bricks but low salary = very slow progress
Lots of bricks and high salary = optimal progress
However, once you increase the salary to a certain point the workers can't go any faster - the excess salary is wasted and you get fat.

Few bricks, high salary = fat gain because there aren't enough bricks to build the house. The salary is meaningless.
Few bricks, low salary = craptastic - losing weight and losing muscle

What if they go on strike?

ddegroff
01-09-2007, 06:56 PM
Nice work dave, cool analogy.

RedSpikeyThing
01-09-2007, 08:26 PM
What if they go on strike?

Muscular dystrophy?

EDIT: PS nice one dave. I haven't heard it with bricks and salaries before ;)

Holto
01-09-2007, 08:59 PM
So if we give the workers some meth with lunch does that = anabolics?

Vapour Trails
01-10-2007, 12:16 PM
Try a program will more frequency, so you can use all that energy to build muscle.
Training only elevates mRNA copy number and ribosome activity for 36 hours or so. This is your window of opportunity for growth. Once a week splits do a lousy job of capitalizing on this.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
01-10-2007, 01:29 PM
^^

Where are you pulling all this information from? :scratch: Despite the fact that once a week splits have worked a great deal for beginners, that's negated by your constant bashing of them?

galileo
01-10-2007, 01:54 PM
You weigh under 200lbs. Are you certain your maintenance is high enough to justify 4000 calories? If you're "normal" 3000 is maintenance at 200lbs. 1000 extra calories a day is a whole lot. Way more than you could possibly use towards LBM per week. I've seen varied quotes from varied sources, but the general consensus is that on a trained, drug-free individual you're looking at about 0.5lb of lbm gain per week if everything is going well. So, to compensate for inefficiencies, we aim for 1lb a week gained.

1lb fat = 3500 calories, so let's say 1750 excess for 0.5lb and 1lb of muscle is between 500-1500 calories (much broader range), so WCS is 750 for 0.5. So, per week you should be aiming for 2500 more than maintenance at best, throwing about 350~ calories more per day. So, let's say you're eating 1000 more per day. Where do you think the extra 4500+ calories end up?

Huge eating is reasonable for an assisted individual, but for a natural trainee, I'd focus on a fixed, modest increase and evaluate on a 2-4 week basis.

Slim Schaedle
01-10-2007, 02:29 PM
Try a program will more frequency, so you can use all that energy to build muscle.
Training only elevates mRNA copy number and ribosome activity for 36 hours or so. This is your window of opportunity for growth. Once a week splits do a lousy job of capitalizing on this.


^^

Where are you pulling all this information from? :scratch: Despite the fact that once a week splits have worked a great deal for beginners, that's negated by your constant bashing of them?

Hypertrophy Specific Training

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
01-10-2007, 06:42 PM
That doesn't mean much to me, unless you have an explanation or an article. But he's been bashing WBB1 in various threads regarding different topics. Was just curious where the hate is stemming from.

Slim Schaedle
01-10-2007, 07:10 PM
That doesn't mean much to me, unless you have an explanation or an article. But he's been bashing WBB1 in various threads regarding different topics. Was just curious where the hate is stemming from.

Short a tiny blurb from Lyle M

"a. Exercise increases ribosome activity. After any single exercise
bout, the ribosomes in the trained muscle will increase their activity.
This increase is short term. Based on the data by McDougall (looking at
protein synthesis via tracer research), maybe 36 hours or so. So at 36
hours, ribosome activity in that muscle is back to normal.

b. Exercise elevates mRNA levels coding for wahtever protein the muscle
wants to make. As above, this is short term. Any physiology book will
show that as soon as mRNA levels are elevated, the cell will start
degrading them. So increases in mRNA are also transient."

There's a **** ton more to this.

Can also be found in other sources.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
01-10-2007, 07:12 PM
Sounds confusing. *goes to squat and drink milk*

Slim Schaedle
01-10-2007, 07:15 PM
Sounds confusing. *goes to squat and drink milk*

Have you gotten to protein synthesis yet in any of your classes?

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
01-10-2007, 07:17 PM
Yes I have, but not in any significant detail. I won't quite get there until I transfer schools for my Bachelor of Science degree. I suppose I could just get off my lazy bum and study it in the textbooks myself, but it wasn't outlined much in the courses I've taken thus far. But like you said, you got to knowing what you do from reading beyond what the teachers taught. I should start doing that.

DiViN
01-11-2007, 06:01 AM
Short a tiny blurb from Lyle M

"a. Exercise increases ribosome activity. After any single exercise
bout, the ribosomes in the trained muscle will increase their activity.
This increase is short term. Based on the data by McDougall (looking at
protein synthesis via tracer research), maybe 36 hours or so. So at 36
hours, ribosome activity in that muscle is back to normal.

b. Exercise elevates mRNA levels coding for wahtever protein the muscle
wants to make. As above, this is short term. Any physiology book will
show that as soon as mRNA levels are elevated, the cell will start
degrading them. So increases in mRNA are also transient."

There's a **** ton more to this.

Can also be found in other sources.


What does that suggest? That we should train a muscle every 2 days?

galileo
01-11-2007, 06:40 AM
What does that suggest? That we should train a muscle every 2 days?

Not really, but once a week is not optimal for a natural trainee. You need to find a balance between frequency, intensity, volume, and your own recovery (joints and so forth). I'd say that doing an upper/lower/upper/lower split across 8 days would work well, just shifting focus on each day to a different major part. So, one day you do upper and focus on your chest (but do some back work in a different rep-range or intensity level) then on the second focus on back and reverse it. Some people prefer full-body 3x a week.

Just mix it up and find out what your "rhythm" is.