Gaining muscle while at a calorie deficit
Replies
-
If you are noticing your TDEE rise, and believe it is because of muscle mass gain...
Chances are it is because of what you are doing to gain the muscle mass. Strength training. As you get stronger and stronger the calorie cost of recovery from strength training goes up and up.
The effect can get very large, up to a 10-15% rise in TDEE (mine goes up 10%, I've noted this multiple times in my data) . It isn't the muscle mass gain, it is the strength gain and fatigue it brings.
Once you get reasonably strong, if you are working primairly compound movements and not doing a bro split, chances are any estimate for the calorie burn of strength training that you will find is laughably low. Even if the estimate is good for the burn in the gym (a la the circuit training entry), there is still no accounting for the 10-15% rise in your non-exercise TDEE due to recovery.
I do a bro split...*sad face*
This thread is overly complicated. You need more caloric income to support more intense activity and the recovery and repair after. Especially the leaner you are.
If you just have enough straw to just repair the existing house the big bad wolf blew down there will be no making of bricks to reinforce it the next time he comes around.0 -
If you are noticing your TDEE rise, and believe it is because of muscle mass gain...
Chances are it is because of what you are doing to gain the muscle mass. Strength training. As you get stronger and stronger the calorie cost of recovery from strength training goes up and up.
The effect can get very large, up to a 10-15% rise in TDEE (mine goes up 10%, I've noted this multiple times in my data) . It isn't the muscle mass gain, it is the strength gain and fatigue it brings.
Once you get reasonably strong, if you are working primairly compound movements and not doing a bro split, chances are any estimate for the calorie burn of strength training that you will find is laughably low. Even if the estimate is good for the burn in the gym (a la the circuit training entry), there is still no accounting for the 10-15% rise in your non-exercise TDEE due to recovery.
I do a bro split...*sad face*
This thread is overly complicated. You need more caloric income to support more intense activity and the recovery and repair after. Especially the leaner you are.
If you just have enough straw to just repair the existing house the big bad wolf blew down there will be no making of bricks to reinforce it the next time he comes around.
For the record I agree with the above, but I still find the discussion interesting. From an application standpoint I think "observe results, adjust" is sufficient.0 -
Also, 6 cal/kg shouldn't be compared to 11 cal/lb or whatever the value really is. Conversion, ugh.
^ Can you explain what you're getting at with the above?
I thought it was 6cal/lb as the commonly accepted value in terms of LBM. Just trying to understand further.
Oh, only that someone threw out 6 cal / kg, but the table for comparison says 11-12 cal / lb.
Merely wanted to point on difference in values is kg vs lbs.
If not heard the 6 value anyway, so not even in that discussion, just noticed possible communication issue with conversion not being done.
But since you said 6 cal / lb, perhaps the kg was wrong?0 -
Also, 6 cal/kg shouldn't be compared to 11 cal/lb or whatever the value really is. Conversion, ugh.
^ Can you explain what you're getting at with the above?
I thought it was 6cal/lb as the commonly accepted value in terms of LBM. Just trying to understand further.
Oh, only that someone threw out 6 cal / kg, but the table for comparison says 11-12 cal / lb.
Merely wanted to point on difference in values is kg vs lbs.
If not heard the 6 value anyway, so not even in that discussion, just noticed possible communication issue with conversion not being done.
But since you said 6 cal / lb, perhaps the kg was wrong?
This is an appeal to authority on my part, but since the authority is Lyle McDonald, I'm good with that
See below, it's a good read.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html0 -
Also, 6 cal/kg shouldn't be compared to 11 cal/lb or whatever the value really is. Conversion, ugh.
^ Can you explain what you're getting at with the above?
I thought it was 6cal/lb as the commonly accepted value in terms of LBM. Just trying to understand further.But since you said 6 cal / lb, perhaps the kg was wrong?
Yes, my typo as I wrote 6 cal / kg but meant 6 cal / lb from SS post.
What is being compared in the table is the same units.
and should be 11-13 cal / lbs (results from theoretical Katch McArdle) vs 6 cal / lbs (which I have also seen on several web sites but do not know the scientific ref.)0 -
That's an excellent question - I just ran that in the worksheet and create the following table (if the formatting does not work, I'll post an image)
For the person with the same weight but different LBM the calories per lb of LBM seem to be around 11-13 when calculated from the Katch-McArdle formula. Why might these be if 6 cals per pound is the accepted value? I would gues that part of it *might* be that the 6 cals per pound are at basal metabolism and the remaining are from the the activity multiplier (1.2 in my example) which does not cover the other 4-5 cals. Could this be NEAT?
These calculations are prior to any calorie restriction so downregulation should not be occurring. But you bring up an import point - for someone dieting for extended periods the AT/NEAT down regulation might impact or kill the TDEE increase. Perhaps that is why we get the 6 cal/kg measurement versus the 11-12 from the equation. I don't know if the data evaluation from Katch-McArdle was done with a static population or a over a changing period.
Starters, on that table, I get different calories TDEE / lb LBM. Now even though the TDEE values have been rounded slightly it appears, the math is still off, I'm getting around 14.x calories/LBM lb.
On this point: I'm using your spreadsheet as check (weight 81 kg, sedentary and then those values for %BF) and coming up with the same.
If you are getting 14 cal/LBM lb is this at a higher activity rate (which would be accounted by the multiplier?)
And the funny thing is that this 6 vs 11 vs 14 is that one is for muscle and the other are for LBM which is not only muscle...
Throws hands up in the air.0 -
How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?
Most of the people with the most muscle mass didn't do it naturally.
Those that are suposedly all natural spent 10 - 15 years plus stuffing themselves with food and training as hard as possible and have the best genetics for this.
The natural way is a long slow process.
So building muscle eating at a surplus is slow in comparison to building muscle eating maintenance or below?
No. Building muscle naturally is slower then when your on drugs.
Yes I know that. The point of my first post was, how did the guys who have built the most muscle naturally do it? By bulking and cutting or by eating maintenance or below with some dietary timing tricks?
Ahhh I see... I would assume bulking and cutting but doesn't mean that it's the most effective way;
What people are realising now through studies etc. may prove a lot of these long held body building beliefs to be less than effective.
6 - 8 meals a day has been debunked a fair few times now and oats every morning is looking to be just as futile.0 -
How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?
Most of the people with the most muscle mass didn't do it naturally.
Those that are suposedly all natural spent 10 - 15 years plus stuffing themselves with food and training as hard as possible and have the best genetics for this.
The natural way is a long slow process.
So building muscle eating at a surplus is slow in comparison to building muscle eating maintenance or below?
No. Building muscle naturally is slower then when your on drugs.
Yes I know that. The point of my first post was, how did the guys who have built the most muscle naturally do it? By bulking and cutting or by eating maintenance or below with some dietary timing tricks?
Ahhh I see... I would assume bulking and cutting but doesn't mean that it's the most effective way;
What people are realising now through studies etc. may prove a lot of these long held body building beliefs to be less than effective.
6 - 8 meals a day has been debunked a fair few times now and oats every morning is looking to be just as futile.
There have certainly been a lot of myths debunked, but I don't think "mass can't be created out of thin air" is going to be one of them. I don't see how one could possibly add mass to their body without putting more mass into it than it burns off.0 -
I went from
SW: 97kg BF:30% or so
CW: 86kg BF:20% or so
which sugests that I kept all my LBM or gained a kg or so over 3 months. (high protein, weight training x 3, reduced cardio from very high to med/low activity)
I'm not yet convinced about carb back-loading.
What are your questions about CBL? It works.
What I've seen for the most part about timing of food does not suggest that there is a significant impact to eating carbs late. And I'm frankly concerned that it is too restrictive (mentally) in my lifestyle so that CBL might only give me small value versus a more normal diet but really screw up the rest of my life/work style.
It is something I am not sufficiently read up on to be sure one way or the other.
Well, keep reading. It works. Nutrient timing works. Insulin manipulation works. How would it be mentally restricting in your lifestyle?0 -
How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?
Most of the people with the most muscle mass didn't do it naturally.
Those that are suposedly all natural spent 10 - 15 years plus stuffing themselves with food and training as hard as possible and have the best genetics for this.
The natural way is a long slow process.
So building muscle eating at a surplus is slow in comparison to building muscle eating maintenance or below?
No. Building muscle naturally is slower then when your on drugs.
Yes I know that. The point of my first post was, how did the guys who have built the most muscle naturally do it? By bulking and cutting or by eating maintenance or below with some dietary timing tricks?
Ahhh I see... I would assume bulking and cutting but doesn't mean that it's the most effective way;
What people are realising now through studies etc. may prove a lot of these long held body building beliefs to be less than effective.
6 - 8 meals a day has been debunked a fair few times now and oats every morning is looking to be just as futile.
There is not a lot science in most of what goes on in bodybuilding in terms of spreads around, mostly anectodal. However, the hubris of science is that if it can't proven now it does not exist. You have to rely on a balance both. Both have indicated that under certain circumstances building muscle on a deficit is possibe but at a rate which is not substainable. Both would also indicate that along with progressive overload a person not within the range of a higher bodyfat level and/or physiologically unfamiliar with experienced overload, will need extra building blocks to support any muscle growth and the energy required to overload the muscle.
A body recomp is a slower process than a natural "bulk" cycle is slower than using chemical enhancements applying any of the other methods. Cutting only serves a vehicle to get rid of bodyfat, a recomp minimizes the need for this.
And lacking knowledge of these basics is why you see so many people, especially women, in the gym spinning their wheels.0 -
There have certainly been a lot of myths debunked, but I don't think "mass can't be created out of thin air" is going to be one of them. I don't see how one could possibly add mass to their body without putting more mass into it than it burns off.
Mass, as in overall or of the muscle?
Because just looking at eating at a deficit in general to lose weight. And make this a decent deficit, not extreme. No exercise in the equation.
Your body is using the nutrients you eat for all the required things it needs it for first. Muscle is repaired, rebuilt we know even if not more of it. Hair and skin are grown (well, energy needs of my hair are less anyway). Glucose stores in muscle and liver are refilled. Bunch of other stuff is done, with less being taken in than is really needed.
And at a deficit, the body is using fat stores for remaining energy needs. Perhaps simplified, but even if some surplus at a meal is stored as fat, same basic effect. If decent deficit, fat is used to meet other energy needs.
So skip the deficit, just create the same need for all those nutrients, repairing and building stronger more muscles, and the extra energy that is needed is taken from fat still.
No the over all mass can't go up (outside extra glucose stores with water), but the muscle mass and LBM can go up while the fat mass drops.
So if a 10% deficit to TDEE is perhaps decent and not extreme, and say is 250 calories, how do you figure out how much lifting to do that would require that 250 calories and don't really take a deficit.?
But now your muscle building is going to use that 250 calories instead of a deficit.
The extra energy needed is still going to come from fat.
Mass won't go up (outside water weight), but muscle mass outside of that could go up, right, according to a few studies.
Of course, early in the weight loss journey, perhaps 500 cal deficit is decent, but you only take a 250 deficit and try to figure out how to get the muscle building to get the other 250 cal's.
And at this fatter stage, enough fat to still supply other energy needs.
So this would be a case of total mass going down 1/2 lb weekly, and muscle going up ..... ?
So I know I've seen estimates all over the place as to how many calories it takes to build a lb of muscle. I know if converted to glucose that it's about 600 calories worth there, but much more for building.
So what would 250 calories a day, 1750 a week, 7000 a month get you for building muscle?0 -
There have certainly been a lot of myths debunked, but I don't think "mass can't be created out of thin air" is going to be one of them. I don't see how one could possibly add mass to their body without putting more mass into it than it burns off.
Mass, as in overall or of the muscle?
Because just looking at eating at a deficit in general to lose weight. And make this a decent deficit, not extreme. No exercise in the equation.
Your body is using the nutrients you eat for all the required things it needs it for first. Muscle is repaired, rebuilt we know even if not more of it. Hair and skin are grown (well, energy needs of my hair are less anyway). Glucose stores in muscle and liver are refilled. Bunch of other stuff is done, with less being taken in than is really needed.
And at a deficit, the body is using fat stores for remaining energy needs. Perhaps simplified, but even if some surplus at a meal is stored as fat, same basic effect. If decent deficit, fat is used to meet other energy needs.
So skip the deficit, just create the same need for all those nutrients, repairing and building stronger more muscles, and the extra energy that is needed is taken from fat still.
No the over all mass can't go up (outside extra glucose stores with water), but the muscle mass and LBM can go up while the fat mass drops.
So if a 10% deficit to TDEE is perhaps decent and not extreme, and say is 250 calories, how do you figure out how much lifting to do that would require that 250 calories and don't really take a deficit.?
But now your muscle building is going to use that 250 calories instead of a deficit.
The extra energy needed is still going to come from fat.
Mass won't go up (outside water weight), but muscle mass outside of that could go up, right, according to a few studies.
Of course, early in the weight loss journey, perhaps 500 cal deficit is decent, but you only take a 250 deficit and try to figure out how to get the muscle building to get the other 250 cal's.
And at this fatter stage, enough fat to still supply other energy needs.
So this would be a case of total mass going down 1/2 lb weekly, and muscle going up ..... ?
So I know I've seen estimates all over the place as to how many calories it takes to build a lb of muscle. I know if converted to glucose that it's about 600 calories worth there, but much more for building.
So what would 250 calories a day, 1750 a week, 7000 a month get you for building muscle?
I lifted for 7 months eating at maintenance. The first 3 i dropped fat and gained muscle. The last 4 I did neither. I did a proper cut and dropped 25 more lbs. Started a proper bulk and have gained 14 (some fat of course) What has your fat loss and muscle building journey looked like? How many people have you seen who truely built SIGNIFICANT amounts of muscle over a sustained time period while not eating a surplus? What would someone without a lot of fat do in your scenario?0 -
So if a 10% deficit to TDEE is perhaps decent and not extreme, and say is 250 calories, how do you figure out how much lifting to do that would require that 250 calories and don't really take a deficit.?
But now your muscle building is going to use that 250 calories instead of a deficit.
The extra energy needed is still going to come from fat.
Mass won't go up (outside water weight), but muscle mass outside of that could go up, right, according to a few studies.
You can find studies that say whatever you want them to say in the wide world of fitness/nutrition/exercise.
You will be hard pressed to find anybody that has built a significant amount of muscle mass that beleives you can gain anything greater than a trivial amount during a deficit. Almost everyone that argues that it can be done has no idea of what its like to actually gain muscle mass.
I used to believe I was gaining muscle mass during my initial weight loss. After switching to a surplus and actually gaining 15 lbs, I LOL @ myself during my initial cut on this matter.0 -
bump0
-
So if a 10% deficit to TDEE is perhaps decent and not extreme, and say is 250 calories, how do you figure out how much lifting to do that would require that 250 calories and don't really take a deficit.?
But now your muscle building is going to use that 250 calories instead of a deficit.
The extra energy needed is still going to come from fat.
Mass won't go up (outside water weight), but muscle mass outside of that could go up, right, according to a few studies.
You can find studies that say whatever you want them to say in the wide world of fitness/nutrition/exercise.
You will be hard pressed to find anybody that has built a significant amount of muscle mass that beleives you can gain anything greater than a trivial amount during a deficit. Almost everyone that argues that it can be done has no idea of what its like to actually gain muscle mass.
Well, hence the question.
The above snippet is with NO deficit, eating at maintenance. But compared to eating at deficit 250 cal would have been realistic.
Question is how much muscle could 7000 calories build in a month?0 -
I lifted for 7 months eating at maintenance. The first 3 i dropped fat and gained muscle. The last 4 I did neither. I did a proper cut and dropped 25 more lbs. Started a proper bulk and have gained 14 (some fat of course) What has your fat loss and muscle building journey looked like? How many people have you seen who truely built SIGNIFICANT amounts of muscle over a sustained time period while not eating a surplus? What would someone without a lot of fat do in your scenario?
So interesting effect that you and I've heard others comment on.
Any idea of where the bodyfat% was at that stop point, and what the energy needs of the lifting were when it seemed to stop being possible?
That's what others didn't record at the time, just that there was a change in circumstances.
Also, the suggestion that I or others are always talking significant amounts of muscle in these conversations I think misses the broader audience of those trying to lose weight in the first place on MFP.
Those still trying to lose 25-50 lbs probably don't have focus on building significant amounts of muscle. But any extra real muscle besides just making it stronger would help the situation of increasing their RMR and weight loss.
Obviously, that conversation is even a level above the typical "been losing 2 lbs weekly and nothing last week despite daily cardio" - and responses of "you probably gained muscle and burned fat, because muscle weighs more than fat".0 -
I lifted for 7 months eating at maintenance. The first 3 i dropped fat and gained muscle. The last 4 I did neither. I did a proper cut and dropped 25 more lbs. Started a proper bulk and have gained 14 (some fat of course) What has your fat loss and muscle building journey looked like? How many people have you seen who truely built SIGNIFICANT amounts of muscle over a sustained time period while not eating a surplus? What would someone without a lot of fat do in your scenario?
So interesting effect that you and I've heard others comment on.
Any idea of where the bodyfat% was at that stop point, and what the energy needs of the lifting were when it seemed to stop being possible?
That's what others didn't record at the time, just that there was a change in circumstances.
Also, the suggestion that I or others are always talking significant amounts of muscle in these conversations I think misses the broader audience of those trying to lose weight in the first place on MFP.
Those still trying to lose 25-50 lbs probably don't have focus on building significant amounts of muscle. But any extra real muscle besides just making it stronger would help the situation of increasing their RMR and weight loss.
Obviously, that conversation is even a level above the typical "been losing 2 lbs weekly and nothing last week despite daily cardio" - and responses of "you probably gained muscle and burned fat, because muscle weighs more than fat".
If my math is correct I was around 23% When I stalled. At that time I weighed 188. At the end of cutting I was 166 at ~12% When I started cutting I had actually gone up to 192 by eating a bit more in a lat ditch effort to gain a bit before cutting.
I don't really know what the energy expenditure of lifting was at the time, but it was probably pretty high since I was doing an overly high volume 5 day bro split through the 4 months of no progress.0 -
Those still trying to lose 25-50 lbs probably don't have focus on building significant amounts of muscle. But any extra real muscle besides just making it stronger would help the situation of increasing their RMR and weight loss.
The effects of actual muscle gain on metabolism are absolutely trivial unless you've gained a lot of muscle mass.
Most estimates put the calorie burn of 1 lb of muscle at 4-6 cal/day. Start stacking quite a bit of bulk, 20-30-40 lbs, and this adds up.
To someone who might gain a pound or two while cutting, this is borderline irrelevant.0 -
The effects of actual muscle gain on metabolism are absolutely trivial unless you've gained a lot of muscle mass.
Most estimates put the calorie burn of 1 lb of muscle at 4-6 cal/day. Start stacking quite a bit of bulk, 20-30-40 lbs, and this adds up.
To someone who might gain a pound or two while cutting, this is borderline irrelevant.
Well, those are the BMR figures for LBM, so while sleeping and sitting at your desk, very true. Actually, it's calculated to be 10 cal/lb of LBM.
But the half the day of actually using the muscle in the slightest actually means a bigger effect.
There's normally one misquoted stat from a study about how much extra calories muscle burns, but that was only during normal usage, not lifting, but just movement through the day. But it's always misapplied to the idea that it means all day and night.
That is exaggerated.
As you state, probably half the day is resting at minimal increase. But there's still another half of the day where if you have some movement you are likely using it all to some degree.
Shoot, 7% increase in RMR (just resting, not all day increase) is nothing to sneeze at for 3.5 lb increase in LBM, same drop in body fat, and all in 16 weeks. Almost a lb a month. And this is older folks even, who true, probably had far to go. But still.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/76/1/133.short
Just from that example, it would appear they had a net deficit of 109 calories a day used by the lifting, so I don't mean a deficit for weight loss, but if they were eating above maintenance, they would have actually gained weight.
So instead of a deficit, the lifting appears to have used that much.
So I guess to my question of what could 250 cal a day not taken in deficit but applied to the lifting give ya, looks like someone might obtain almost a couple lbs a month.
Or more close, looks like in these examples, 3.5 lbs gained in 16 weeks is 0.875 a month, which the exchange would appear to mean 3063 cals of fat were burned in 4 wks to provide that 0.875 lb of LBM.
I know, I know, LBM isn't muscle, but they seem to go hand in hand, so at least try to increase the LBM.
So just thinking 250 instead of the 109 they got would be double the results?
Or you start hitting the roadblock you described.
And probably like deficit, more to lose bigger is possible, less to lose it's not.0 -
The effects of actual muscle gain on metabolism are absolutely trivial unless you've gained a lot of muscle mass.
Most estimates put the calorie burn of 1 lb of muscle at 4-6 cal/day. Start stacking quite a bit of bulk, 20-30-40 lbs, and this adds up.
To someone who might gain a pound or two while cutting, this is borderline irrelevant.
Well, those are the BMR figures for LBM, so while sleeping and sitting at your desk, very true. Actually, it's calculated to be 10 cal/lb of LBM.
But the half the day of actually using the muscle in the slightest actually means a bigger effect.
There's normally one misquoted stat from a study about how much extra calories muscle burns, but that was only during normal usage, not lifting, but just movement through the day. But it's always misapplied to the idea that it means all day and night.
That is exaggerated.
As you state, probably half the day is resting at minimal increase. But there's still another half of the day where if you have some movement you are likely using it all to some degree.
Quick show of hands, what do others note it to be that have gained enough to actually notice the difference.
I estimate its about 4-5 cal/day/lb for me.0 -
How did the guys with the most muscle in the world (natural) do it? Not guaranteed but stands to reason however they did it is the fastest way?
Most of the people with the most muscle mass didn't do it naturally.
Those that are suposedly all natural spent 10 - 15 years plus stuffing themselves with food and training as hard as possible and have the best genetics for this.
The natural way is a long slow process.
So building muscle eating at a surplus is slow in comparison to building muscle eating maintenance or below?
No. Building muscle naturally is slower then when your on drugs.
Yes I know that. The point of my first post was, how did the guys who have built the most muscle naturally do it? By bulking and cutting or by eating maintenance or below with some dietary timing tricks?
Ahhh I see... I would assume bulking and cutting but doesn't mean that it's the most effective way;
What people are realising now through studies etc. may prove a lot of these long held body building beliefs to be less than effective.
6 - 8 meals a day has been debunked a fair few times now and oats every morning is looking to be just as futile.
There have certainly been a lot of myths debunked, but I don't think "mass can't be created out of thin air" is going to be one of them. I don't see how one could possibly add mass to their body without putting more mass into it than it burns off.
Not sure you read my first post.... I'm presently eating at a 500 - 1000 cal EXCESS on training days using a carb backloading protocol which is allowing me to gain muscle and lose fat at around 1% a month.0 -
Not sure you read my first post.... I'm presently eating at a 500 - 1000 cal EXCESS on training days using a carb backloading protocol which is allowing me to gain muscle and lose fat at around 1% a month.
For how long? How much actually gained and lost in lbs in that time?0 -
Not sure you read my first post.... I'm presently eating at a 500 - 1000 cal EXCESS on training days using a carb backloading protocol which is allowing me to gain muscle and lose fat at around 1% a month.
For how long? How much actually gained and lost in lbs in that time?
For the past 7 months and my BW has fluctuated between 87 - 91kg and have lost 7% BF via caliper readings.0 -
And is that faster than if you lost 8lbs\month and then gained 2lbs\month?0
-
And is that faster than if you lost 8lbs\month and then gained 2lbs\month?
I've found this a better solution than cutting and bulking... it's hard to say if it's any faster (possibly over a longer period) but there is more flexibility for eating the things I like, leaning up at the same time and increasing lifts on a weekly basis.0 -
Bump for later0
-
Hey zyntx,
I was curious about your statement that CBL would be hard on your lifestyle. I wasn't being sarcastic. I find it really easy, so I was wondering what would be a boundary for implementation for others.
Thanks,
JD0 -
What I've seen for the most part about timing of food does not suggest that there is a significant impact to eating carbs late. And I'm frankly concerned that it is too restrictive (mentally) in my lifestyle so that CBL might only give me small value versus a more normal diet but really screw up the rest of my life/work style.
It is something I am not sufficiently read up on to be sure one way or the other.
Well, keep reading. It works. Nutrient timing works. Insulin manipulation works. How would it be mentally restricting in your lifestyle?
Sorry i missed your first post.
I will, I'm currently reading up on BMR variability but I'll get to it.
The lifestyle issue is:
1) I prepare a lot of meals for my daughters and both cooking and eating with them is important to me. Complicating that by a different meal plan is not so easy. I'm trying to get them to eat well, eating different things at the table is not were I want to place them/us mentally - there is already too much of that.
2) I'm still figuring out some basics in terms of macros and the effects on me and I want to understand that prior to trying some thing else. My level of effort and time in the gym, my goals (not those of a bodybuilder) more of a multi-sport athlete (think soccer player build) can probably be best served by the focusing on the basics - go to gym 3-4 times, lift heavy, eat at my macros and continue to lose weight -- looking at CBL or other methods will wait until/if I want to bulk up. I am perfectly capable of going into an "analysis/paralysis" loop.
Hell, I've already tried to estimate an observation vs predictive BMR model using variable moving averages and weight loss=f [(fat loss %), (LBM gain%)].
When I read something like this, it doesn't support doing much more than focusing on protein. But obviously, it is just one article.Dietary protein to support muscle hypertrophy.
van Loon LJ, Gibala MJ.
SourceDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, NUTRIM School for Nutrition, Toxicology and Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Intact protein, protein hydrolysates, and free amino acids are popular ingredients in contemporary sports nutrition, and have been suggested to augment post-exercise recovery. Protein and/or amino acid ingestion stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis, inhibits protein breakdown and, as such, stimulates muscle protein accretion following resistance and endurance type exercise. This has been suggested to lead to a greater adaptive response to each successive exercise bout, resulting in more effective muscle reconditioning. Despite limited evidence, some basic guidelines can be defined regarding the preferred type, amount, and timing of dietary protein that should be ingested to maximize post-exercise muscle protein accretion. Whey protein seems most effective in stimulating muscle protein synthesis during acute post-exercise recovery. This is likely attributable to its rapid digestion and absorption kinetics and specific amino acid composition. Ingestion of approximately 20 g protein during and/or immediately after exercise is sufficient to maximize post-exercise muscle protein synthesis rates. Coingestion of a large amount of carbohydrate or free leucine is not warranted to further augment post- exercise muscle protein synthesis when ample protein is already ingested. Future research should focus on the relevance of the acute anabolic response following exercise to optimize the skeletal muscle adaptive response to exercise training.
I will read up.0 -
I'm quoting Brad Pilon here and saying "Dexa or it didnt happen."
Unless you are genetically superior or very fat you probably didnt gain on a deficit.
Now you can cycle calories and have slight gains in LBM while cutting fat but you probably wont see much actual weight change.0 -
What I've seen for the most part about timing of food does not suggest that there is a significant impact to eating carbs late. And I'm frankly concerned that it is too restrictive (mentally) in my lifestyle so that CBL might only give me small value versus a more normal diet but really screw up the rest of my life/work style.
It is something I am not sufficiently read up on to be sure one way or the other.
Well, keep reading. It works. Nutrient timing works. Insulin manipulation works. How would it be mentally restricting in your lifestyle?
Sorry i missed your first post.
I will, I'm currently reading up on BMR variability but I'll get to it.
The lifestyle issue is:
1) I prepare a lot of meals for my daughters and both cooking and eating with them is important to me. Complicating that by a different meal plan is not so easy. I'm trying to get them to eat well, eating different things at the table is not were I want to place them/us mentally - there is already too much of that.
2) I'm still figuring out some basics in terms of macros and the effects on me and I want to understand that prior to trying some thing else. My level of effort and time in the gym, my goals (not those of a bodybuilder) more of a multi-sport athlete (think soccer player build) can probably be best served by the focusing on the basics - go to gym 3-4 times, lift heavy, eat at my macros and continue to lose weight -- looking at CBL or other methods will wait until/if I want to bulk up. I am perfectly capable of going into an "analysis/paralysis" loop.
Hell, I've already tried to estimate an observation vs predictive BMR model using variable moving averages and weight loss=f [(fat loss %), (LBM gain%)].
When I read something like this, it doesn't support doing much more than focusing on protein. But obviously, it is just one article.Dietary protein to support muscle hypertrophy.
van Loon LJ, Gibala MJ.
SourceDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, NUTRIM School for Nutrition, Toxicology and Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Intact protein, protein hydrolysates, and free amino acids are popular ingredients in contemporary sports nutrition, and have been suggested to augment post-exercise recovery. Protein and/or amino acid ingestion stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis, inhibits protein breakdown and, as such, stimulates muscle protein accretion following resistance and endurance type exercise. This has been suggested to lead to a greater adaptive response to each successive exercise bout, resulting in more effective muscle reconditioning. Despite limited evidence, some basic guidelines can be defined regarding the preferred type, amount, and timing of dietary protein that should be ingested to maximize post-exercise muscle protein accretion. Whey protein seems most effective in stimulating muscle protein synthesis during acute post-exercise recovery. This is likely attributable to its rapid digestion and absorption kinetics and specific amino acid composition. Ingestion of approximately 20 g protein during and/or immediately after exercise is sufficient to maximize post-exercise muscle protein synthesis rates. Coingestion of a large amount of carbohydrate or free leucine is not warranted to further augment post- exercise muscle protein synthesis when ample protein is already ingested. Future research should focus on the relevance of the acute anabolic response following exercise to optimize the skeletal muscle adaptive response to exercise training.
I will read up.
Yeah, if you're going for "soccer player," CBL is probably not for you. I admire your vigilance to research so thoroughly. You clearly enjoy it. I'm sure many here would say you're overthinking it, but I say press on and share your findings.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions