Gaining muscle without fat?

stronger would be better, I have been lifting more and not doing as much cardio, I will bulk after the summer is over.


Oh and another question do I need to buy protein to add extra or can I get enough in just my regular daily meat?

No difference where the protein comes from, but I would say that protein is even more important in a deficit than it is in a surplus. Assuming you are getting enough, you would not need to add more just because you are bulking.

Early on gains are largely neuro-muscular adaptation but as a lifter progresses it does become more muscular adaptation, though your CNS is still always being challenged to adapt to new loads so it's not like that stops completely. That's often why people plateau and never move past that are eating at a calorie-deficit. You see it all the time on MFP.

However, with that being said a lifter will need to eat more to put on some muscle and really improve strength and putting on some fat is inevitable. What CAN be tried is know your maintenance calories, and slowly increase calories. Start with maintenance plus 10% and see how it goes; if you get improvement in strength, size, or both. If that doesn't work or things slow down then add another 10% and keep going until you reach your goals or tolerance for fat gained. If you're not in a hurry to put it on, then maybe taking your time with it will minimize fat gain.

In trained individuals, the act of gaining strength will also gain size. Bodybuilders and powerlifters are both strong...they train differently, one trains for aesthetics, the other for moving weight. The power lifters do mainly compound lifts so their entire bodies are a big undefined lump of awesomeness....the aesthetic guys do specific curls to shape their biceps correctly.

Pro Body Builders are definitely strong and anybody who says otherwise is stupid. You're not gonna be that big and be weak. However, if you take a 225lb Pro BB compared to a 225lb Pro PL, the PL is most likely going to be stronger and possibly considerably stronger. The training for the two individuals is quite different and the loads a PL uses will make their CNS more efficient. Now, that is a general statement as you have BB's and PL's that cross-over into both sports so there's that 2% to 5% of those athletes that it probably doesn't apply to.

Strength is size is strength. Show me a super strong guy who isn't large.

Strength does not equal size. Those 170 lb Olympic lifters? Quite strong. Very little muscle mass.



Strength = size ONLY when PROGRESSIVE overload (strength gains OVER TIME) are made WITH caloric surplus or maintenance IN an optimal hormonal environment.

Strength is size is strength. Show me a super strong guy who isn't large.

Strength does not equal size. Those 170 lb Olympic lifters? Quite strong. Very little muscle mass.



Strength = size ONLY when PROGRESSIVE overload (strength gains OVER TIME) are made WITH caloric surplus or maintenance IN an optimal hormonal environment.

You don't need huge biceps to do the olympic lifts...those olympic lifters have plenty of muscle mass for their weight. It might be hidden in their core and upper legs but trust me...lifting what they lift, requires muscle...how can you seriously think otherwise?

Strength is size is strength. Show me a super strong guy who isn't large.

Strength does not equal size. Those 170 lb Olympic lifters? Quite strong. Very little muscle mass.



Strength = size ONLY when PROGRESSIVE overload (strength gains OVER TIME) are made WITH caloric surplus or maintenance IN an optimal hormonal environment.

You don't need huge biceps to do the olympic lifts...those olympic lifters have plenty of muscle mass for their weight. It might be hidden in their core and upper legs but trust me...lifting what they lift, requires muscle...how can you seriously think otherwise?

I think the better way of saying that is that a 170lb PL or OLY lifter is very strong relative to their weight class.

No. Nope. and No. Relatively easy to gain considerable strength while staying in the same weight class at same body composition. Also quite easy to gain muscle mass with no gain in maximal strength.

You are talking about leaning out the muscle, making it harder, making it stronger but by shedding the fat it doesnt appear bigger.

And how the hell do you expect to gain muscle mass with strength gains? How do you do this?

This argument will never end.

It take muscle to move your limbs...put weight on those limbs and you need more muscle to move it.

I'm not saying strength and size are linear...but you are not going to lift for a year and get stronger without gaining muscle mass...and you can't gain muscle mass without the need for it and the only way your body will "need" it is if you lift heavy...and if you lift heavy, you will get better at it...therefore stronger...therefore gain muscle mass.

Two equally sized guys, one being a power lifter and one being a bodybuilder is not a good argument. The powerlifter trains for powerlifts requiring coordination, CNS developement, and power. The bodybuilder uses ultra specific concentrated motions to build a certain muscle for aesthetics.

Sure the powerlifter can clean and jerk more than the bodybuilder...but i bet the bodybuilder could backwards reverse incline pronated grip curl a ****load more than the powerlifter...

Again, strength and size are not linear but you cannot be strong without muscle and you cannot have muscle without strength. If you wanna get stronger, you're going to get bigger and if you want to get bigger you're going to get stronger.

The bolded proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

BTW - how do you define "super strong?" I'll hold any further answers, because I want you to answer that before I show you.

I didn't bring up bodybuilders vs powerlifters

Hey, i'm open minded. If you guys say something that makes me change my mind I'll admit defeat and shut up. My original argument was that significant strength requires significant muscle. Someone said you can get strong without gaining muscle.

The fact that you can train an untrained muscle to work better, get leaner, and therefore lift more weight without gaining size is true. After the initial strength gains...you have a well trained muscle and the only way to get it stronger is to grow it. Is this not true? If not, why not?

OP: what you're describing is absolutely doable. You'll just have to be more methodical about it than the people who bulk by eating tons of food and then cut later.

0.8g protein per pound of body weight is about the right amount to build muscle. There's no need to overdo protein intake. You'll also need to ensure you are consuming enough fat and carbohydrates to fuel your workouts.

I have a short list of things I tend to consume when my goal is to gain muscle:
- Avocado
- Salmon/tuna
- Eggs/powdered egg whites
- Broccoli/spinach/kale
- Beef/venison/bison
- Bananas
- Milk
- Chicken/turkey
- Whey protein/casein

I don't eat a lot of desserts, bread or pasta, but I eat pizza once every 2 weeks or so. I typically don't gain a lot of fat while building muscle and I lift 6 days a week for about 45 minutes and at least do at least 20 minutes of cardio on "rest" days -- that said, sometimes my rest days are all day hikes or mountain climbing. Right now I'm around 17-18% body fat. The most important thing for me has been not overeating to build muscle. Too many people start out gorging themselves on day 1, and your body can't use all the excess calories. IMO, it's much better to eat normally and gradually increase your calorie/protein intake as you need it.

I thought about it in the bathroom, and figured out where the argument came from...you guys are talking short term, i'm talking long term.

In the short term i'd agree that you can train for strength or size and get one OR the other. LONG TERM...no matter which one you train for, you will inevitably gain the other as well. How's that sound? Less wrong? Same amount of wrong? Teach me!