Why does higher calorie intake lead to muscle gain?

oliverwnc

Hi all,

I think I'm relatively clued up on nutritional matters but this is something I just don't get.

Muscles are made by the breaking down of myofibrils and their rebuilding. They are entirely made of protein (amino acids, whatever) and so adequate protein intake is essential to allow muscles to grow.

Energy comes from carbohydrates first and then fat. Once there is no carbohydrate or fat available, the body uses available protein and then muscle in the worst case scenario.

So here's the bit I don't understand. When people bulk, they add calories. The advice is almost always to keep protein roughly the same, fat a bit higher and carbs a lot higher. You see 400-500 carbs on a regular basis and I just don't get how that equates to muscle gain. The amount of muscle-building protein remains at maybe 1-1.5g per pound, usually. There are exceptional cases but that's what I tend to see.

So what am I missing? Can carbohydrates somehow turn into muscle? I'm fairly sure they can't. Just to pre-empt one possible answer - that is that having higher carbs ensures that your protein won't be used for energy - surely that would only be relevant to someone with almost no body fat, or else that would be used for energy first. I don't think many people have body fat that low. Or do you just gain fat as well?

I really see no logical reason why high calories (mainly from high carbs) should lead to muscle gain any more than, say, 500 calories below maintenance with fewer carbs and the same amount of protein.

Would appreciate any answers!

dieselbyte

The question really is how much protein is truly needed for muscle building. I remember reading studies showing no muscle loss when dietary protein was only .5g/lb, however, the subjects where in a caloric surplus and the study only ran for two weeks, so muscle growth wasn't studied.

What is certain however, is that energy is required for muscle growth (thereby supporting a caloric surplus), and that muscle protein synthesis (MPS) must be greater than muscle protein breakdown (MPB).

What also is certain, but easily overlooked, are many other factors outside of net energy and protein balance. Intensity, duration and frequency of resistance training is one factor. Resistance training damages muscle fibers, which activates cells to repair or replace the damaged muscle - thereby increasing muscle fibers (hypertrophy). Caloric surplus will enable one to train with more intensity, longer and more frequently.

Hormones also play a large role muscle growth. HGH stimulates the uptake of amino acids into muslce, while also metabolizing fat for energy use in the growht process. IGF enhances MPS and drives glucose into skeletal muscle, thereby increasing energy for muscle growth. Testosterone increases muscle hypertrophy by also enhancing amino acid uptake and protein synthesis, as well as increasing skeletal muscle neurotransmitters, increasing tissue growth. HGF and FGF are other important growth factors in addition to IGF.

My take is that with all this occuring (and even more that I didn't mention), if one is in a caloric surplus, protein intake is one factor in many for muscle growth.

3laine75

Coz physics (oh, and biology)

Wait....coz science

autumnblade75

So, my understanding is: you get bigger when you eat at surplus. You can't create something from nothing - you can't put on muscle while you're losing mass. I don't know if composition is [any more] important when you create the surplus, though. I suppose, if you're eating sufficient protein in the first place, that the extra carbs just supply the body with adequate energy so that it doesn't have to start using protein, so all of the protein you consume in a surplus might be available for muscle building. But, from what I understand, when you are in a surplus, not all of the weight you gain will be muscle mass, either.

Just making things up here, but it sounded good in my head.

Edited because I'm an idiot. I missed the part where OP summarily dismissed this theory.

CLM1227

From what I understand about Muscle building is that to USE the muscle enough to break it down effectively in order for it to grow with protein, you need to supply it with energy - and the primary energy muscles use to break down is glycogen... which is converted glucose. So ... carbs.

If you are eating at a deficit, your body is only getting enough to sustain a fraction of yourself - not to create more of yourself. If your eating a ton of protein and not much carbs and fat so you can stay in the deficit, your body starts breaking the protein into glucose to fuel your primary functions. This is why eating at a deficit and building does not work.

If you want more of you, you need to bring in more... and muscles need carbs to work and break down and protein to build back up.

At least, that's my understanding of it.

trojan_bb

Muscle is not something the body adds unless there is tremendous stimulus, energy consumption, or both. The body doesn't add muscle at a decent rate when eating a maintenance level of calories regardless of protein %.

You can add protein, carbs , or fats to create that surplus. It doesn't really matter. Carbs are easier and protein sparing anyways so usually the best way to do it. But you have to have excess consumption for there to be a large stimuli for growth.

Look at Sumo wrestlers in Japan. They have higher lean body mass than top level bodybuilders. They certainly don't train as optimally for muscle growth and I highly doubt their steroid use is as effective as the cycles run by bodybuilders. BUT, they eat A LOT more. Just eating and optimizing insulin response is anabolic, it creates muscle growth. Insulin is the most anabolic hormone in the body and with a huge surplus....growth is highest.

I really see no logical reason why high calories (mainly from high carbs) should lead to muscle gain any more than, say, 500 calories below maintenance with fewer carbs and the same amount of protein.

Would appreciate any answers!

Why would the body prioritize muscle growth over most other functions when eating below maintenance? That would be an evolutionary disaster.

oliverwnc

Good answers, thanks. As for that last point - that isn't what I said. We all have fat to burn first. When we're short of carbs, fat gives us the energy, protein gives us the muscle building potential.

manualbreathingactivated

Energy comes from carbohydrates first and then fat. Once there is no carbohydrate or fat available, the body uses available protein and then muscle in the worst case scenario.

Not technically accurate. Bear in mind that to move on to using protein for 'energy', you would first have to run out of blood sugar, muscle glycogen, and liver glycogen.

So here's the bit I don't understand. When people bulk, they add calories. The advice is almost always to keep protein roughly the same, fat a bit higher and carbs a lot higher. You see 400-500 carbs on a regular basis and I just don't get how that equates to muscle gain. The amount of muscle-building protein remains at maybe 1-1.5g per pound, usually. There are exceptional cases but that's what I tend to see.

In order to stimulate the body to use available protein to build muscle, you have to seriously work those muscles (which causes microtears), and then the body rebuilds them bigger and better able to handle the load that just caused microtears (that's why muscle-building programmes are always about adding weight as you go). Without carbs (to turn to glycogen, to give to the muscles, to give them the 'energy' to do the work, you're not going to be able to work the muscles to the extent you need to. So in the ~18 hours leading up to your workout, you need to have a good supply of carbs

So what am I missing? Can carbohydrates somehow turn into muscle? I'm fairly sure they can't. Just to pre-empt one possible answer - that is that having higher carbs ensures that your protein won't be used for energy - surely that would only be relevant to someone with almost no body fat, or else that would be used for energy first. I don't think many people have body fat that low. Or do you just gain fat as well?

You do gain fat while you're building muscle - it's almost unavoidable. That's why bodybuilders have to go through 'bulk' and 'cut' phases to first pack on the muscle and then get rid of the fat that came with it. If you're just looking to lift to get in better shape, then you employ other tricks, like carb cycling (high carbs on your gym days, low carbs on your non-gym days), refeeding (low carbs throughout, refeeding carbs at 1.5g/kg body weight on a non-gym day). You'd never see a bodybuilding doing that, because low-carb gym days compromise their ultimate goal, and they're in it for the long-haul so they have the time to go through bulk and cut cycles.

I really see no logical reason why high calories (mainly from high carbs) should lead to muscle gain any more than, say, 500 calories below maintenance with fewer carbs and the same amount of protein.

Would appreciate any answers!

The method is not the result. Being high on carbs just makes sure you can complete your exercise. If you're 500 below maintenance you're probably about 200 shy of the recommended minimum for a productive muscle-building workout. I eat at my maintenance on gym days (macro split: 50% carbs, 25% protein, 25% fat), and on the other days I eat 1000 shy, and I cut mainly carbs and some fat to get down to that. What I don't cut on my non-gym days is my protein - constant supply of good-quality protein is the key to muscle growth.

tl;dr - calories don't lead to muscle gain; carbs give you energy to complete the workout to the best of your muscles' ability, so you only need to be high on carbs on your gym days; protein is a constant requirement and is used on your gym days and your rest days to rebuild your muscles bigger and better after you tear them up in the gym.

neandermagnon

protein is built in the cells from amino acids, the cells need energy to build it up. (calories are a unit of energy, just as centimetres are a unit of length, insufficient calories = not enough energy)

to use an analogy, it's like you want to build a house. you need bricks (protein) of course, but you also need builders.... well without a high enough calorie intake, the cells simply don't have enough energy to put the proteins together. It's like having all the bricks to build a house but no builders. (or if you want to be even more specific with the analogy, if you don't feed (give energy to) the builders (cells) then they won't have the energy to build the house)

cells can't do anything without energy. They will slowly die without it... for cells to produce something that the body needs, they need even more energy. Eating at maintenance = keeping your cells alive and your organs functioning + the energy you need for your daily activity. To do extra things like grow more muscle cells, you need to supply your body with both the energy and the protein to do this (AND the exercise stimulus, because without that the excess is just stored as fat), which means eating a high protein diet and a surplus of calories.

ghurl7

i think it is not really the high calorie intake that build muscle .... instead it is the amount of "exercise" or "resistance" that actually turns calorie or fat into muscle ....

MityMax96

You need the excess calories, because your body does far more things than just build muscle.
So if your energy intake is less than you need, or on par with what you need....than the body will not grow.
Even if you don't lift, those two things still hold true. You will not get fatter.
If you have excess calories, and lift then the body sees the need for growth, and will grow / get bigger.
Again, the same holds true if you don't lift.....but instead of getting bigger with muscle, you get bigger with fat.

I sent a question to Alan Aragon regarding protein or carbs and muscle growth, relating to one of his write ups he did in a recent AARR

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Seth Dunn <seth@******.com> wrote:
Hey Alan,
Read your AARR that came out for May.

Question on the High Protein write up….
In it you noted how the increased protein intake didn’t increase BF all that much…due to Thermic Effect.

I am wondering, if someone were looking to bulk and put on mass, while minimizing BF increase.
Would this be a viable option??
Or are carbs still the better option when trying to increase muscle mass…along with a calories surplus?

Thanks
Seth

His reply:

Carbs will be the best thing to raise - assuming protein was already high (which it should be).

liftnlove_

You can NOT grow muscle mass on a calorie deficit. It's damn hard enough to do on a calorie surplus!! Plus, carbs are yummy. Oh and everything that MityMax said...

oliverwnc

Ok, now I understand the need for energy to actually allow you to a) get a good workout with enough intensity and b) to allow your body to actually undergo the process of muscle repair and building with the protein you have.

At risk of being stupid, what I still don't quite get is why your body can't use energy from fat stores for those purposes. That's perfectly good energy. Usually plenty of it. Not as immediately available as carbs but it is still available. In short, the energy you eat isn't the only energy you have. You do need energy, it seems, so why not from there?

MityMax96

At risk of being stupid, what I still don't quite get is why your body can't use energy from fat stores for those purposes. That's perfectly good energy. Usually plenty of it. Not as immediately available as carbs but it is still available. In short, the energy you eat isn't the only energy you have. You do need energy, it seems, so why not from there?

Your body will use fat for energy....
It is just not optimal.....
And lets be honest, when in a caloric surplus and lifting, the desire should be to put on muscle in the most optimal and efficient way possible, because it is hard to put on muscle....I mean if all conditions are right, you MAY be able to put on about 2 lbs of lean muscle / month.....

And plus your body is just more geared towards storing excess fat as fat in a caloric surplus....
where as with carbs, it takes some time to get to the point where the body will store it as fat......

And one other thing I will note.
When a person is doing a bulk, trying to put on muscle....
They are usually starting from a point where BF% is <10%
So there is not really a lot of fat to use for energy

So if you are starting from ground 0 and building....better to go the route that studies have shown to be the most beneficial, optimum and efficient to get the most from all the hard work you are gonna be putting in.

manualbreathingactivated

At risk of being stupid, what I still don't quite get is why your body can't use energy from fat stores for those purposes. That's perfectly good energy. Usually plenty of it. Not as immediately available as carbs but it is still available. In short, the energy you eat isn't the only energy you have. You do need energy, it seems, so why not from there?

The problem is exactly what you said: not as immediately available as carbs. When you work out, whether it's running, lifting, swimming, or whathaveyou, you burn off blood sugar, muscle glycogen, and liver glycogen. Only blood sugar and muscle glycogen can be recruited fast enough to sustain activity. The rest must be replenished from liver glycogen and from stored fat.

You can't recruit the energy in stored fat fast enough to support an activity you're currently undertaking. If you could, then a fat guy could finish a marathon just by burning off his fat. That's obviously not true, and so what we're left with is the fact that bodyfat is useless as fuel for a current activity.

Maintaining a calorie deficit, on the other hand (and that deficit includes calories expended through work), results in fat being used to restore the energy lost through work (both 'living' and 'activity' work). You can demonstrate this with two tests. The first test: maintain a zero deficit for a week, and then run a 5k or 10k (whatever you would ordinarily attempt - if neither, just aim for the 5k, you'll see why). The second test: maintain a deficit of 500 to 1000 (the closer to 1000, the more obvious the test result) and then go for the same distance. You will get much further the first time.

tl;dr - fat is great for storing energy for the long-term, to be burned off at a rate fast enough to keep you alive, but terrible as a reserve used to power a current activity.

3laine75

i think it is not really the high calorie intake that build muscle .... instead it is the amount of "exercise" or "resistance" that actually turns calorie or fat into muscle ....

:ohwell:

Try it and see then.....

earth_echo

There's a BBC documentary on YouTube called "Why Are Thin People Not Fat". In the program, naturally thin people are asked to overeat over a period of time. All of them are monitored. Among the people tested was an Asian guy and he gained a disproportionally high amount of muscle compared to all the other participants. For whatever reason, his body deals with excess calories by converting those calories to muscle and not fat.

Anyway, you might be interested in that vid. It might answer some of your questions.

MityMax96

There's a BBC documentary on YouTube called "Why Are Thin People Not Fat". In the program, naturally thin people are asked to overeat over a period of time. All of them are monitored. Among the people tested was an Asian guy and he gained a disproportionally high amount of muscle compared to all the other participants. For whatever reason, his body deals with excess calories by converting those calories to muscle and not fat.

Anyway, you might be interested in that vid. It might answer some of your questions.

I need to watch that...

Did they say if he did any exercise?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

gothchiq

I'm not sure of the exact science but I can tell you what I have done that has worked. (I get my body composition checked monthly; I'm not just going by the mirror or anything subjective like that.) Get enough carbs to provide the energy for the workout. Get moderate amounts of good fats... and get *lots* of lean proteins. Some days I lift heavy with few reps, for strength, and some days I lift lighter with many reps, because this is supposed to help produce actual muscle bulk. If you are building muscle then try to eat like a gram of protein per pound of your body weight.

Also make sure to take a day off between lifting sessions. If you don't do this you will actually be burning off muscle bulk.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

earth_echo

I don't remember exercise being a part of the study. They may have even as the folks NOT to exercise. I only watched it once and it's been a while. It might be interesting to watch it again though, especially knowing ahead of time the Asian guy gained muscle. I'd be interested to know what he was eating compared to the others (other than just "high calorie"). The reason given for his muscle gain instead of fat gain in the film was "genetics", which when I think about it is a bit lame. He was a real odd-ball in the experiment, that's for sure.

neandermagnon

Ok, now I understand the need for energy to actually allow you to a) get a good workout with enough intensity and b) to allow your body to actually undergo the process of muscle repair and building with the protein you have.

At risk of being stupid, what I still don't quite get is why your body can't use energy from fat stores for those purposes. That's perfectly good energy. Usually plenty of it. Not as immediately available as carbs but it is still available. In short, the energy you eat isn't the only energy you have. You do need energy, it seems, so why not from there?

It's because we evolved to survive food shortages, not to looked ripped while surrounded by an abundance of food.

It could be technically possible for the human body to use fat stores for the energy to build muscle... but this trait makes no sense from a survival/evolutionary point of view.... those who have this trait will die very quickly in a food shortage, because muscle is a costly tissue to maintain, while fat is not. Fat is the energy reserve that enables you to survive a food shortage - to survive you have to make the fat last as long as possible. 0% body fat = dead. Using fat to build muscle is a serious liability in a food shortage - you'll be using valuable energy that could help you to survive building and maintaining something that the body doesn't actually need to survive. Genes that code for this (if they arise by mutation) would not stay in the population long because anyone who has them will be among the first to die in food shortages.

In contrast - those whose bodies conserve fat stores by burning off unused/little used skeletal muscle and in a severe food shortage burning any/all skeletal muscle, while using the fat stores up as slowly as possible, will be the ones that survive the longest and the ones whose genes are left in the population.

Weight training has a protective effect when it comes to muscle loss, because in a *mild* food shortage, muscle that's being used (which would be used to hunt/gather food) has a survival benefit, so we've evolved mechanisms that protect muscle that's being used during a food shortage (so long as it's not too severe) - the payoff of protecting this muscle is being a better hunter which means that you get to eat more during the food shortage..... this is why when cutting a small deficit while doing weight training is the way to just lose fat and not lose muscle. Too big a deficit then you lose muscle anyway. With no weight training, your body will jettison unused muscle after a while (i.e. weeks to months) even eating at maintenance (this happens much more quickly in a severe food shortage though). .....To build muscle you need to be in a calorie surplus. From an evolutionary point of view, we evolved to be hunter-gatherers.... if you're working your muscles hard and eating lots of protein and an excess of calories, then that means you're successful at hunting and it's going to give you a survival benefit (and/or better chances of breeding) to build more muscle and get even better at hunting.

Hope that answers the question. TL;DR: blame Homo erectus and all the food shortages they survived for why our bodies don't use excess fat to build muscle.

MityMax96

I don't remember exercise being a part of the study. They may have even as the folks NOT to exercise. I only watched it once and it's been a while. It might be interesting to watch it again though, especially knowing ahead of time the Asian guy gained muscle. I'd be interested to know what he was eating compared to the others (other than just "high calorie"). The reason given for his muscle gain instead of fat gain in the film was "genetics", which when I think about it is a bit lame. He was a real odd-ball in the experiment, that's for sure.

yeah when I watch I will watch for any clues in that area, cause it don't make sense that he has the ability to build muscle just due to surplus, and no activity that encourages muscle growth

eric_sg61

I'm not sure of the exact science but I can tell you what I have done that has worked. (I get my body composition checked monthly; I'm not just going by the mirror or anything subjective like that.) Get enough carbs to provide the energy for the workout. Get moderate amounts of good fats... and get *lots* of lean proteins. Some days I lift heavy with few reps, for strength, and some days I lift lighter with many reps, because this is supposed to help produce actual muscle bulk. If you are building muscle then try to eat like a gram of protein per pound of your body weight.

Also make sure to take a day off between lifting sessions. If you don't do this you will actually be burning off muscle bulk.

No you won't.

LeonXC

My understanding is that in order to build muscle, you have to "damage" it on the cellular level. By exercises like weight lifting. Macronutrients don't just automatically "turn" into muscle.

j75j75

I just watched it. No one in the study was allowed to exercise or walk more then 2 miles a day. One guy increased his BMR by 30% in 4 weeks while doing nothing but eating 2x his TDEE, incredible. Also interesting is a separate experiment in which an overweight man fasted for a year and lost over 200 lbs.

There's a BBC documentary on YouTube called "Why Are Thin People Not Fat". In the program, naturally thin people are asked to overeat over a period of time. All of them are monitored. Among the people tested was an Asian guy and he gained a disproportionally high amount of muscle compared to all the other participants. For whatever reason, his body deals with excess calories by converting those calories to muscle and not fat.

Anyway, you might be interested in that vid. It might answer some of your questions.

I need to watch that...

Did they say if he did any exercise?

MityMax96

Also interesting is a separate experiment in which an overweight man fasted for a year and lost over 200 lbs.

Someone had posted something like that on Reddit with pictures to boot.

Quite amazing, but not healthy......and he lost a lot of muscle cause he didn't lift......

MityMax96

I just watched it. No one in the study was allowed to exercise or walk more then 2 miles a day. One guy increased his BMR by 30% in 4 weeks while doing nothing but eating 2x his TDEE, incredible.

So why isn't that guy in a science lab being probed and stuff.....
Very interesting indeed.

kirkor

I just watched it. No one in the study was allowed to exercise or walk more then 2 miles a day. One guy increased his BMR by 30% in 4 weeks while doing nothing but eating 2x his TDEE, incredible.

So why isn't that guy in a science lab being probed and stuff.....
Very interesting indeed.

Umbrella Corporation would've definitely had him in a sub-basement by now

MityMax96

I just watched it. No one in the study was allowed to exercise or walk more then 2 miles a day. One guy increased his BMR by 30% in 4 weeks while doing nothing but eating 2x his TDEE, incredible.

So why isn't that guy in a science lab being probed and stuff.....
Very interesting indeed.

Umbrella Corporation would've definitely had him in a sub-basement by now

Watching him like a rat in a maze, trying to find his way out and thwart the zombie apocalypse....:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: