Did all muscular individuals eat a surplus to get there?

Fithealthyforlife

I never thought about it until I got into serious lifting last week and started logging my foods, but this question is eating away at me! I see a good number of muscular people (of varying degree) in my everyday life. Did all of them eat a surplus in concert with their exercise program to get where they are? Or did some of them already have a decent amount muscle and just lost fat so they now are more defined? And it shows?

I've been eating a bit of a surplus (100-300 Cal) and training hard for a week now. Protein is 1-1.5 g/lb with sufficient carbs and slightly less than my daily total of fat. The visible change I've noticed in that short time is my muscles feel (and maybe look) firmer, and are slightly "swollen" or "pumped" now (glycogen/water building up?). The profile picture was taken a couple of months ago before lifting heavy. I don't really consider my arm muscular there, because it only looks like that when I flex, even now. (Of course, I don't expect much after a week.)

To me, the biggest benefit of eating this way has been that DOMS seems to last a shorter amount of time. Of course, there are downsides, too...like feeling full at some points in time. But I'm sticking with it.

ironanimal

I can't word my response without sounding like an uninformed oaf, so ima just bump this to track the responses and hope those more savvy with the science can contribute.

Fithealthyforlife

I'm no expert or dietician, but here's how I'm looking it now (diet experts, correct me if I'm wrong about any of these):

All muscular individuals had to have eaten an adequate surplus at some point in time, whether intentional or unintentional, because muscle tissue requires a certain amount of calories for formation/maintenance.

-If someone intentionally bulked like I'm doing now, they obviously ate a surplus.

-If someone ate just a hair above maintenance for a long time and worked out, they should in theory have very slow muscle gains without bulking or cutting.

-If someone has a very efficient metabolism and an excellent exercise plan, they may be able to eat a surplus and only gain muscle, without fat gain or minimal fat gain that burns off fast. (I'm hoping this is me!)

-Likewise, some individuals may have been overweight due to eating a surpplus but not working out hard enough for maximal muscle growth. But if they were still somewhat active, they would have gained some muscle along with the fat, and then could just burn the fat to reveal what they already have while eating at maintenance or even a slight deficit and/or still gain more muscle through working out (because their fat reserves provided the extra calories above maintenance).

And I'm sure there are other cases too. But really, they're all just multiple sides of the same coin! I think I've answered my own question, lol.

jdm_taco

I ate at 500 calorie surplus during my two bulk cycles.

BostonStrong617

Nope. I know people who ate at or even a little below (no more than 10 or 15 percent) their TDEE when trying to build muscle including a couple of women who did so for competitions. Most did restrict this caeb intake and increase protein. But I don't have personal experience with it but it does work because I've seen it happen but it does take longer and I'm not sure about men

Fithealthyforlife

Nope. I know people who ate at or even a little below (no more than 10 or 15 percent) their TDEE when trying to build muscle including a couple of women who did so for competitions. Most did restrict this caeb intake and increase protein. But I don't have personal experience with it but it does work because I've seen it happen but it does take longer and I'm not sure about men

But did they have a little fat to burn off? Because that would supply the extra calories!

TheDoctor90

It's a contentious one. I doubt anyone eating at a calorie deficit can 'build' muscle but they may lose a bit more BF making them more defined.
My last bulk (before I gave up and went skinny again) I was eating 4k calories per day and went from around 140lb to 160lb with little fat increase. How much surplus that is I don't know because I've never worked out my daily requirement. I just know I need to eat a lot to add muscle/size.

davepearson86

Not ALL but that is what most bodybuilders do, bulk(surplus) and cut(defect),,,

TheDoctor90

Also chicken. Chicken is the key.

Fithealthyforlife

It's a contentious one. I doubt anyone eating at a calorie deficit can 'build' muscle but they may lose a bit more BF making them more defined.
My last bulk (before I gave up and went skinny again) I was eating 4k calories per day and went from around 140lb to 160lb with little fat increase. How much surplus that is I don't know because I've never worked out my daily requirement. I just know I need to eat a lot to add muscle/size.

I'm sorry to hear you gave up. I guess you decided you like your body better thin. I'm at 140 lbs right now, and looking to get to 160, but am not in a rush. I'm only eating slightly over maintenance. I can't imagine having to eat 4000 Cal in a day! So far, the most I've had to eat in a day is around 3400 (on a very active day when I burned a lot off). Then again, i may be shorter than you (5'9). Average for me is around 2700 to 2900 per day. I require 2600 for maintenance on non-workout days.

Fithealthyforlife

Also chicken. Chicken is the key.

I eat that frequently! Thankfully I like it. Hate turkey though!

TheDoctor90

It's a contentious one. I doubt anyone eating at a calorie deficit can 'build' muscle but they may lose a bit more BF making them more defined.
My last bulk (before I gave up and went skinny again) I was eating 4k calories per day and went from around 140lb to 160lb with little fat increase. How much surplus that is I don't know because I've never worked out my daily requirement. I just know I need to eat a lot to add muscle/size.

I'm sorry to hear you gave up. I guess you decided you like your body better thin. I'm at 140 lbs right now, and looking to get to 160, but am not in a rush. I'm only eating slightly over maintenance. I can't imagine having to eat 4000 Cal in a day! So far, the most I've had to eat in a day is around 3400 (on a very active day when I burned a lot off). Then again, i may be shorter than you (5'9). Average for me is around 2700 to 2900 per day.

Unfortunately I started a new job working shifts plus final exams so eating/gym went out of the window. Back on it now. I want to be around 175lb by the time I finish. I'm 5'11 and when eating 3500 the weight would go on extremely slowly and held back my gym progress. At 4k I get a much quicker progression but once I start getting nearer 160+ I'll lower it.

tehzephyrsong

Nope, some of them sacrificed a toddler to Strenua, Roman goddess of physical prowess and strength, and the next morning they woke up jacked.

Fithealthyforlife

It's a contentious one. I doubt anyone eating at a calorie deficit can 'build' muscle but they may lose a bit more BF making them more defined.
My last bulk (before I gave up and went skinny again) I was eating 4k calories per day and went from around 140lb to 160lb with little fat increase. How much surplus that is I don't know because I've never worked out my daily requirement. I just know I need to eat a lot to add muscle/size.

I'm sorry to hear you gave up. I guess you decided you like your body better thin. I'm at 140 lbs right now, and looking to get to 160, but am not in a rush. I'm only eating slightly over maintenance. I can't imagine having to eat 4000 Cal in a day! So far, the most I've had to eat in a day is around 3400 (on a very active day when I burned a lot off). Then again, i may be shorter than you (5'9). Average for me is around 2700 to 2900 per day.

Unfortunately I started a new job working shifts plus final exams so eating/gym went out of the window. Back on it now. I want to be around 175lb by the time I finish. I'm 5'11 and when eating 3500 the weight would go on extremely slowly and held back my gym progress. At 4k I get a much quicker progression but once I start getting nearer 160+ I'll lower it.

That's to be expected. You're a bit taller, so you need a few hundred more calories. The bigger you are, the more you need as I understand it, probably due to more surface area/heat disipation (don't hold me to that).

Geeze, I'm answering too many questions! This thread was supposed to be me *asking* questions!