Calorie surplus for muscle gain?

notdebby

I guess this is the right place to post this.

Okay, so I've been doing around 1320 give or take a hundred calories at 20% carbs, 30% protein and 50% fat a day for the most part for months now for fat loss and have done a halfway decent job of it as long as I stay on track. This represents an 11% calorie restriction. I've been averaging 0.5 lb of loss per week when I'm on track. So basically I've gone from about 147 in August of last year to 129 as of now.

As far as I can tell, currently I am at 25% body fat which means I have 98 lbs of lean mass and 32 lbs of fat. My goal is to get to 127 lbs with 18% body fat which would mean I'd need to gain about 6 lbs of muscle and lose about 9 lbs of fat at this point. These numbers may not be exact and that's okay. What I really want to be my guide more than anything is what I see in the mirror.

Anyway, I'm thinking that at this point maybe I should stop cutting and go ahead and start gaining. I could be wrong? So apparently 1465 would represent my TDEE without exercise (though MFP has it higher at 1570), and I realize that these online calculators aren't perfect, but it's what I've got to work with.

What I want to know, though, is the percentage of calorie surplus needed to gain muscle. And obviously from what I stated above, I'm not talking a lot of gain here. I'm not looking for ripped. I'm just looking for the very slightest amount of muscle separation. I also don't want any kind of vascularity as I think that just looks nasty.

There is a calculator on Scooby's workshop that I used and the number I got was between 1700 and 1800 calories per day. Does this look reasonable?

TavistockToad

Try 1700 for 4-6 weeks, you want to be gaining about 0.5lb per week, then add or subtract according to the scales.

notdebby

Thank you so much!

omnisis

Ha, ha. Don't worry about he "vascularity" problem. Unless you are an elite athlete or on illegal substances that won't happen ;-) I think 200-300 over is a good place to start. If you aren't getting the results you need then just modulate up 100 cals in another week. Anything less than this is rather hard to measure unless you are weighing everything you eat.

As I'm sure you realize, going into surplus means you will stop losing weight for a while, gain some muscle (and a little fat) and then need to diet down again to reach your goal. A lot of people freak out at this point and go directly back to caloric deficit and therefore don't see the muscle gains they are after -- as long as you aren't gaining 1lb or more in a week you are prolly okay (females will need to discount normal hormonal fluctuations in weight). If you have good discipline, you may want to try modulating your calories on hard workout days. So for instance go 300 cals over 3 days per week and stay 300 cals under the other 4. This leaves you in a net energy deficit for the week (3*300 + 4*-300) = -300 but gives you extra calories on your hard workout days. This works for me but it may not suit your lifestyle.

Also another tip (again it works for me, YMMV) try to skew your macros to be protein heavy (40%+), research has shown that while net calories determine weight loss or gain, high-protein dieters preserved more lean body mass while cutting than those on low to moderate protein diets (see for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23739654).

notdebby

Yeah, I did this high protein diet for a little while at the beginning of the year. I ended up gaining two pounds, which really isn't much, but I lost like 3 inches off both my waist and hips. That should have made me happy, but I freaked about the 2 lb gain. I'm going to try my best to temper myself this time around and not get antsy.

takumaku

.
.
.
... try to skew your macros to be protein heavy (40%+), research has shown that while net calories determine weight loss or gain, high-protein dieters preserved more lean body mass while cutting than those on low to moderate protein diets (see for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23739654).

I believe you ment to imply, make sure your protein is 2.4g per kg of mass (3 x RDA), which may or may not be 40%. This is what the publication is stating.

notdebby

.
.
.
... try to skew your macros to be protein heavy (40%+), research has shown that while net calories determine weight loss or gain, high-protein dieters preserved more lean body mass while cutting than those on low to moderate protein diets (see for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23739654).

I believe you ment to imply, make sure your protein is 2.4g per kg of mass (3 x RDA), which may or may not be 40%. This is what the publication is stating.

That shouldn't be a problem. I've been doing a version of MIchael Eades Protein Power plan, so I already get between 100 and 120 grams a day most days. Even though I have my macros set at 20, 30 and 50, it's not uncommon for me to go over on any one of them. I'm unconcerned about going over on the protein or fat and just kind of use them as a guideline anyway. 2.4 x 58.5 = 140.3 so I think that is doable. It's basically one more protein shake added to my day.