The secret to building muscle
Replies
-
Be me, a body composition expert (on paper & in practice with experience through myself & clients for over 13 years) give free advice MFP forum to be nice & get told how you're wrong. lolI did a strength program during my bulk and added no lean mass, just fat mass, during that period. In the hypertrophy periods before and after the strength program I added lean mass.
You can follow a traditional bodybuilding program and still add weight to the bar. You can also follow a powerlifting program and make little to no progress.
The secret to building muscle is adequate calories and progressive overload, which doesn't necessarily come from adding strength.
yep, progressive overload = getting sronger either through sheer amount of volume which add's to the tonnage and/or go direct to the actual tonnage.. whichever your prefer.
But when comparing the two, all the current data shows that directly adding tonnage via weight over tonnage via volume is vastly superior to adding new tissue, that's now factual on the training science world.
Not suggesting a power lifting routine, just saying that without getting stronger, you will not get bigger as a natural.
EG: if you've progressed from 100kg x 5reps on a squat to 100kg x 7 reps on a squat, that's still classed as getting stronger & adds to the overall tonnage
The other way is going directly via the weight such as from 100kg x5 to 130kg x5
Both are increases in strength, but the latter is now proven to be superior for gaining new lean tissue.
You have a link to this data?
There's litterally 100's of papers & studies on this conducted by the worlds leading exercise scientists. It's all free & in the open/public domain.
But you do realize, that if you consider yourself an expert, you should be able to address the specific questions of the end user. Telling them to research the likes of Alan Aragon, Eric Helms and Lyle, means you are just regurgitating information.
But to be clear, your advice is, if you get stronger you can increase size?
Completely agree and I did link one of the most refered to studies that has been replicated time and time again...
Im all for providing as much info/data as possible when theres intetest... but when data requests come under the conditional "you're wrong, prove it" mentality... history and experience tells me im only wasting time for the sake of engaging in a futile back and forth in which anything I say or present will not be considered as this person has already made up their mind and closed the door behind them... so I usually leave the "prove it" requests alone.
So, depending on the person asking and the reason I'll then decide if its worth my time digging deeper into things with that person so not to waste my time on a pointless argument..(this is all based on my personal historical experience)
Not necessarily. There are going to be (including my self) newbies or those that are post newbie and definitely beginner lifters, that really want to learn more and not here just for arguments sake and want to debate.
When you started this thread, it caught my attention and I WAS interested.. You clearly state that there's 100's of papers and studies, provide some links. No harm there..
I am definitely not one of those that is wanting you to forward data on only to prove a point, but since you went there, @psulemon and @ninerbuff has a point. Oh yeah, I am definitely not close minded and I can probably speak for a lot o MPF'ers that will skim the threads and read this one.
5 -
Personally I've learned more from people forwarding me links and studies. But that's me and I can't speak for anyone else. Hard to question conclusions if they are supported by enough peer reviewed clinical study.
If you make a claim, it's not unusual for people who question it to ask for a link. Correct response would be to provide it for them since it's you making the claim and the burden of proof is on you to provide it. And most open minded people will read it. For many, it helps educationally.Be me, a body composition expert (on paper & in practice with experience through myself & clients for over 13 years) give free advice MFP forum to be nice & get told how you're wrong. lolI did a strength program during my bulk and added no lean mass, just fat mass, during that period. In the hypertrophy periods before and after the strength program I added lean mass.
You can follow a traditional bodybuilding program and still add weight to the bar. You can also follow a powerlifting program and make little to no progress.
The secret to building muscle is adequate calories and progressive overload, which doesn't necessarily come from adding strength.
yep, progressive overload = getting sronger either through sheer amount of volume which add's to the tonnage and/or go direct to the actual tonnage.. whichever your prefer.
But when comparing the two, all the current data shows that directly adding tonnage via weight over tonnage via volume is vastly superior to adding new tissue, that's now factual on the training science world.
Not suggesting a power lifting routine, just saying that without getting stronger, you will not get bigger as a natural.
EG: if you've progressed from 100kg x 5reps on a squat to 100kg x 7 reps on a squat, that's still classed as getting stronger & adds to the overall tonnage
The other way is going directly via the weight such as from 100kg x5 to 130kg x5
Both are increases in strength, but the latter is now proven to be superior for gaining new lean tissue.
You have a link to this data?
sounds like it would be pointless directing you to the 100's of papers & studies on this conducted by the worlds leading exercise scientists. It's all free & in the open/public domain.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's all in the public domain so anyone who's serious about learning and not just digging out info that fits their preferred bias can easily find the data. Historically I've found forwarding data on only to prove a point when already met with resistance is futile as the data still usually won't sway the minds of people who already have their minds made up... I've just found it to be an exercise in futility and a waste of time. But if people are open to concepts that are currently foreign to them, they will do the research... just my experience over a long time in this field.
But hold on 2 mins & I'll dig one of the most commonly referred to studies out.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You would think as a trainer, you'd learn more from being in the field itself.
To me its not mutually exclusive but rather a feedback loop. Studies should be a basis for application and test the applicability to real world conditions. But i learn from both working with people and research. This way you stay on top of the newest research and not making blanket statements that everyone should follow thr same plan.3 -
While I've already seen this link, it's great for others who lurk on the boards to see it. Thanks.For example, one of the most commonly referred to studies published back in 2013 ago separated 33 physically active, resistance-trained men into two groups: (which has been replicated tons & tons of times)
(link to study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562558/)
A high-volume, moderate-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 10 to 12 rep range (70% of 1RM).
A moderate-volume, high-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 3 to 5 rep range (90% of 1RM).
Both groups did the same exercises (which included the bench press, back squat, deadlift, and seated shoulder press), and both were instructed to maintain their normal eating habits (which was monitored with food diaries).
The result:
After 8 weeks of training, scientists found that the high-intensity group gained significantly more muscle and strength than the high-volume group.
It’s no surprise that the high-intensity group gained more strength, but many people wouldn’t have expected them to gain more muscle as well.
Researchers cite two main reasons for why the heavier training beat out the lighter:
1. Higher amounts of mechanical stress imposed on the muscles.
2. Greater activation of muscle fibers.
And this, in turn, results in a greater adaptation across a larger percentage of the muscle tissue.
My point is, you have to get STRONGER in whatever rep range you'e using. Be it 3-5, 8-10, 12-15 etc etc in order to get bigger.
Lifting the same weight year in year out whilst only increasing your caloric intake will not yield the continuous building of new muscle tissue.. physical progression has to occur (Strength in various different terms, but strength none the less)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I lurk here and like links!
I plan to start a bulk soon so I always hope there is an interesting conversation going on!
I really prefer volume over intensity. While I am adding weight to the bar it is really slow going. I am in my 40's and injury is a big fear of mine - I would rather have a slower rate of change in muscle mass and not get hurt vs pushing myself to hard and getting hurt.2 -
While I've already seen this link, it's great for others who lurk on the boards to see it. Thanks.For example, one of the most commonly referred to studies published back in 2013 ago separated 33 physically active, resistance-trained men into two groups: (which has been replicated tons & tons of times)
(link to study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562558/)
A high-volume, moderate-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 10 to 12 rep range (70% of 1RM).
A moderate-volume, high-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 3 to 5 rep range (90% of 1RM).
Both groups did the same exercises (which included the bench press, back squat, deadlift, and seated shoulder press), and both were instructed to maintain their normal eating habits (which was monitored with food diaries).
The result:
After 8 weeks of training, scientists found that the high-intensity group gained significantly more muscle and strength than the high-volume group.
It’s no surprise that the high-intensity group gained more strength, but many people wouldn’t have expected them to gain more muscle as well.
Researchers cite two main reasons for why the heavier training beat out the lighter:
1. Higher amounts of mechanical stress imposed on the muscles.
2. Greater activation of muscle fibers.
And this, in turn, results in a greater adaptation across a larger percentage of the muscle tissue.
My point is, you have to get STRONGER in whatever rep range you'e using. Be it 3-5, 8-10, 12-15 etc etc in order to get bigger.
Lifting the same weight year in year out whilst only increasing your caloric intake will not yield the continuous building of new muscle tissue.. physical progression has to occur (Strength in various different terms, but strength none the less)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I lurk here and like links! I plan to start a bulk soon so I always hope there is an interesting conversation going on!
I really prefer volume over intensity. While I am adding weight to the bar it is really slow going. I am in my 40's and injury is a big fear of mine - I would rather have a slower rate of change in muscle mass and not get hurt vs pushing myself to hard and getting hurt.
Dont stress it too much. While its not too much of a surprise that you wont gain as much strength there could still be equal benefit. You might find the below interesting.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/effects-of-low-versus-high-load-resistance-training-research-review.html/
0 -
This isn't that controversial, folks.
To get bigger, you have to get stronger. It's inevitable. People are reading to much into this I think.3 -
Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.0 -
While I've already seen this link, it's great for others who lurk on the boards to see it. Thanks.For example, one of the most commonly referred to studies published back in 2013 ago separated 33 physically active, resistance-trained men into two groups: (which has been replicated tons & tons of times)
(link to study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562558/)
A high-volume, moderate-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 10 to 12 rep range (70% of 1RM).
A moderate-volume, high-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 3 to 5 rep range (90% of 1RM).
Both groups did the same exercises (which included the bench press, back squat, deadlift, and seated shoulder press), and both were instructed to maintain their normal eating habits (which was monitored with food diaries).
The result:
After 8 weeks of training, scientists found that the high-intensity group gained significantly more muscle and strength than the high-volume group.
It’s no surprise that the high-intensity group gained more strength, but many people wouldn’t have expected them to gain more muscle as well.
Researchers cite two main reasons for why the heavier training beat out the lighter:
1. Higher amounts of mechanical stress imposed on the muscles.
2. Greater activation of muscle fibers.
And this, in turn, results in a greater adaptation across a larger percentage of the muscle tissue.
My point is, you have to get STRONGER in whatever rep range you'e using. Be it 3-5, 8-10, 12-15 etc etc in order to get bigger.
Lifting the same weight year in year out whilst only increasing your caloric intake will not yield the continuous building of new muscle tissue.. physical progression has to occur (Strength in various different terms, but strength none the less)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I lurk here and like links! I plan to start a bulk soon so I always hope there is an interesting conversation going on!
I really prefer volume over intensity. While I am adding weight to the bar it is really slow going. I am in my 40's and injury is a big fear of mine - I would rather have a slower rate of change in muscle mass and not get hurt vs pushing myself to hard and getting hurt.
Dont stress it too much. While its not too much of a surprise that you wont gain as much strength there could still be equal benefit. You might find the below interesting.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/effects-of-low-versus-high-load-resistance-training-research-review.html/
That is interesting!
"But there are some other considerations: it’s interesting that the low-load group did nearly three times as many repetitions as the heavy-load group. They both did 3 sets so that’s 75-105 repetitions for the low-load group versus 24-36 for the heavy load group. You do a ton more work for the same results.
Adding to that is the fact that very high rep training is miserable and painful. It’s like doing UD2 depletion at every workout. At 3 seconds per repetitions, the set times are 24-36 seconds per set for the heavy load group and 75-105 seconds (1:15-1:45) per set.
75-105 seconds is smack in the middle of anaerobic glycolysis and the amount of acidosis generated makes these types of sets just painful as all hell (in private correspondence Brad told me that about half of the subjects in the low-load condition threw up and that’s common with this type of work)."
I probably fall somewhere in the middle. I am not lifting heavy or light - except my squat is pretty pathetic. I spend most of my working day on my feet and my knees will only take so much weight! For fun I might have to try a few sets of low-load in a surplus to see if it is that taxing!1 -
Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.
Not exactly what you're after but a good read of itself.
http://classic.jap.physiology.org/content/121/1/129
0 -
Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.
Hi mate,
I think the majority of people are misunderstanding my point... even a hypertrophy based routine is based on strength increase/progression via either volume (total tonnage) or direct tonnage (weight on the bar).. both of these are progression in strength.
I'm not saying you have to powerlift to get bigger, I'm saying you HAVE to get stronger regardless of whatever training routine you're using. Hope that makes sense? 0 -
Be me, a body composition expert (on paper & in practice with experience through myself & clients for over 13 years) give free advice MFP forum to be nice & get told how you're wrong. lolI did a strength program during my bulk and added no lean mass, just fat mass, during that period. In the hypertrophy periods before and after the strength program I added lean mass.
You can follow a traditional bodybuilding program and still add weight to the bar. You can also follow a powerlifting program and make little to no progress.
The secret to building muscle is adequate calories and progressive overload, which doesn't necessarily come from adding strength.
yep, progressive overload = getting sronger either through sheer amount of volume which add's to the tonnage and/or go direct to the actual tonnage.. whichever your prefer.
But when comparing the two, all the current data shows that directly adding tonnage via weight over tonnage via volume is vastly superior to adding new tissue, that's now factual on the training science world.
Not suggesting a power lifting routine, just saying that without getting stronger, you will not get bigger as a natural.
EG: if you've progressed from 100kg x 5reps on a squat to 100kg x 7 reps on a squat, that's still classed as getting stronger & adds to the overall tonnage
The other way is going directly via the weight such as from 100kg x5 to 130kg x5
Both are increases in strength, but the latter is now proven to be superior for gaining new lean tissue.
You have a link to this data?
There's litterally 100's of papers & studies on this conducted by the worlds leading exercise scientists. It's all free & in the open/public domain.
But you do realize, that if you consider yourself an expert, you should be able to address the specific questions of the end user. Telling them to research the likes of Alan Aragon, Eric Helms and Lyle, means you are just regurgitating information.
But to be clear, your advice is, if you get stronger you can increase size?
Completely agree and I did link one of the most refered to studies that has been replicated time and time again...
Im all for providing as much info/data as possible when theres intetest... but when data requests come under the conditional "you're wrong, prove it" mentality... history and experience tells me im only wasting time for the sake of engaging in a futile back and forth in which anything I say or present will not be considered as this person has already made up their mind and closed the door behind them... so I usually leave the "prove it" requests alone.
So, depending on the person asking and the reason I'll then decide if its worth my time digging deeper into things with that person so not to waste my time on a pointless argument..(this is all based on my personal historical experience)
Not necessarily. There are going to be (including my self) newbies or those that are post newbie and definitely beginner lifters, that really want to learn more and not here just for arguments sake and want to debate.
When you started this thread, it caught my attention and I WAS interested.. You clearly state that there's 100's of papers and studies, provide some links. No harm there..
I am definitely not one of those that is wanting you to forward data on only to prove a point, but since you went there, @psulemon and @ninerbuff has a point. Oh yeah, I am definitely not close minded and I can probably speak for a lot o MPF'ers that will skim the threads and read this one.
Yep, like I said... happy to help people who are wanting to know more 0 -
Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.
Hi mate,
I think the majority of people are misunderstanding my point... even a hypertrophy based routine is based on strength increase/progression via either volume (total tonnage) or direct tonnage (weight on the bar).. both of these are progression in strength.
I'm not saying you have to powerlift to get bigger, I'm saying you HAVE to get stronger regardless of whatever training routine you're using. Hope that makes sense?
That hits me as obvious3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I just Googled that, and read the abstract of the paper that comes up.
I've seen a lot of different recommendations for protein intake, it's hard to know which one to follow. Depending which one I go with, I should get anywhere from 150g to 350g per day. I feel like the top end is exaggerated, but again as a cyclist for many years, I just have no idea. I've probably been getting 75g per day while I've been lifting for the past two months, and I feel like I've gained very little muscle during that time. Seems like the best explanation is that I'm not getting enough protein to build muscle with. Does that sound right? I'm getting plenty of carbs.
What are you stats if you don't mind me asking?
sex
weight
esitmated body fat
how long have you been lifting
what other exercise are you doing
whats your specific goal
all the good stuff & I'll be happy to help out with recommendations
I'm a 38 year old male, 6'1" tall and about 225 lbs. Estimated body fat is 20 % and lean body mass 42 %, according to my smart scale. I know that's not the best way to calculate, but it's the best I have available to me right now. I started lifting (moderate weight, high reps) on May 26 and started lifting heavy (low reps) July 1. I lift every other day for about an hour, always focusing on arm and chest. My goal is to build upper body muscle. I ride a road bike about 100 miles per week on average.
Ok, so the very first thing is to understand energy balance...
if you're wanting to lose weight you need to create a caloric deficit,
if you're wanting to gain weight you need to create a caloriec surplus
if you're wanting to lose FAT rather than overall weight, you'll need to manage your nutrition in a way that supports your lean body mass to ensure that the weight loss is mostly from fat mass
if you're wanting the weight gain to be mostly new muscle tissue, you'll need to adopt a slight calorie surplus that is enough to support the building of new muscle tissue, but not too much to avoid a significant amount of fat gain during the process
Now, I would recommend that you aim for building an overall well rounded physique rather than just trying to build your upper body exclusively as that will lead to muscular imbalances than can show up in the form of injury, pains, aches etc
If you're adamant on cycling that 100 miles each week, just understand that you're expending a very lage amount of calories to do so, thus meaning that you'll need even more calories going in to ensure that you're in an overall calorie surplus (although as a newbie, you can build muscle while in a deficit for a short period of time, maybe 3-6 months... so you could target fat loss & build new muscle at the same time before having to choose one goal exclusively)
If you're main goal right now is to put on lean mass tissue,
I'd recommend starting a solid plan which focuses on getting stronger with the compound lifts & then adding in accessories for any bodyparts that you feel need extra work
(starting strength, stronglifts 5x5 & ICF 5x5 are all great options for your current level)
now, as far as the nutrition.. you'll need to calculate you're TDEE (you can use an online calorie calculator to get a rough starting point) & then add a moderate surplus to support the building on new muscle tissue, my recommendation would be to add 200-300 calories to your TDEE or to add 10% of the total calories of your TDEE to you daily calories
Then it's a case of testing & tracking results
You should be able to shoot for a nice half a lbs per week at your current level, but if you find fat gain happening too fast, lower your goal to around 0.25lb per week
Hope this helps!!!?? 2 -
Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.
Hi mate,
I think the majority of people are misunderstanding my point... even a hypertrophy based routine is based on strength increase/progression via either volume (total tonnage) or direct tonnage (weight on the bar).. both of these are progression in strength.
I'm not saying you have to powerlift to get bigger, I'm saying you HAVE to get stronger regardless of whatever training routine you're using. Hope that makes sense?
Exactly, and not be some paper trainer. Trainers have to actually train people with results, relying on trial and error, using a idea as a guide not the say all..1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I just Googled that, and read the abstract of the paper that comes up.
I've seen a lot of different recommendations for protein intake, it's hard to know which one to follow. Depending which one I go with, I should get anywhere from 150g to 350g per day. I feel like the top end is exaggerated, but again as a cyclist for many years, I just have no idea. I've probably been getting 75g per day while I've been lifting for the past two months, and I feel like I've gained very little muscle during that time. Seems like the best explanation is that I'm not getting enough protein to build muscle with. Does that sound right? I'm getting plenty of carbs.
What are you stats if you don't mind me asking?
sex
weight
esitmated body fat
how long have you been lifting
what other exercise are you doing
whats your specific goal
all the good stuff & I'll be happy to help out with recommendations
I'm a 38 year old male, 6'1" tall and about 225 lbs. Estimated body fat is 20 % and lean body mass 42 %, according to my smart scale. I know that's not the best way to calculate, but it's the best I have available to me right now. I started lifting (moderate weight, high reps) on May 26 and started lifting heavy (low reps) July 1. I lift every other day for about an hour, always focusing on arm and chest. My goal is to build upper body muscle. I ride a road bike about 100 miles per week on average.
Ok, so the very first thing is to understand energy balance...
if you're wanting to lose weight you need to create a caloric deficit,
if you're wanting to gain weight you need to create a caloriec surplus
if you're wanting to lose FAT rather than overall weight, you'll need to manage your nutrition in a way that supports your lean body mass to ensure that the weight loss is mostly from fat mass
if you're wanting the weight gain to be mostly new muscle tissue, you'll need to adopt a slight calorie surplus that is enough to support the building of new muscle tissue, but not too much to avoid a significant amount of fat gain during the process
Now, I would recommend that you aim for building an overall well rounded physique rather than just trying to build your upper body exclusively as that will lead to muscular imbalances than can show up in the form of injury, pains, aches etc
If you're adamant on cycling that 100 miles each week, just understand that you're expending a very lage amount of calories to do so, thus meaning that you'll need even more calories going in to ensure that you're in an overall calorie surplus (although as a newbie, you can build muscle while in a deficit for a short period of time, maybe 3-6 months... so you could target fat loss & build new muscle at the same time before having to choose one goal exclusively)
If you're main goal right now is to put on lean mass tissue,
I'd recommend starting a solid plan which focuses on getting stronger with the compound lifts & then adding in accessories for any bodyparts that you feel need extra work
(starting strength, stronglifts 5x5 & ICF 5x5 are all great options for your current level)
now, as far as the nutrition.. you'll need to calculate you're TDEE (you can use an online calorie calculator to get a rough starting point) & then add a moderate surplus to support the building on new muscle tissue, my recommendation would be to add 200-300 calories to your TDEE or to add 10% of the total calories of your TDEE to you daily calories
Then it's a case of testing & tracking results
You should be able to shoot for a nice half a lbs per week at your current level, but if you find fat gain happening too fast, lower your goal to around 0.25lb per week
Hope this helps!!!??
This information that you are providing is not any NEW news to us. We all give out this exact same advice, daily to all MFPers that wish to encounter the next step in their weight loss journey, maintenance journey or better yet get some ripped abs per se.
Just curious if I missed the punch line here and not being snarky at all, but I am confused that there is actually this "secret".. its not.. its all in just what you wrote for this poster.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I just Googled that, and read the abstract of the paper that comes up.
I've seen a lot of different recommendations for protein intake, it's hard to know which one to follow. Depending which one I go with, I should get anywhere from 150g to 350g per day. I feel like the top end is exaggerated, but again as a cyclist for many years, I just have no idea. I've probably been getting 75g per day while I've been lifting for the past two months, and I feel like I've gained very little muscle during that time. Seems like the best explanation is that I'm not getting enough protein to build muscle with. Does that sound right? I'm getting plenty of carbs.
What are you stats if you don't mind me asking?
sex
weight
esitmated body fat
how long have you been lifting
what other exercise are you doing
whats your specific goal
all the good stuff & I'll be happy to help out with recommendations
I'm a 38 year old male, 6'1" tall and about 225 lbs. Estimated body fat is 20 % and lean body mass 42 %, according to my smart scale. I know that's not the best way to calculate, but it's the best I have available to me right now. I started lifting (moderate weight, high reps) on May 26 and started lifting heavy (low reps) July 1. I lift every other day for about an hour, always focusing on arm and chest. My goal is to build upper body muscle. I ride a road bike about 100 miles per week on average.
Ok, so the very first thing is to understand energy balance...
if you're wanting to lose weight you need to create a caloric deficit,
if you're wanting to gain weight you need to create a caloriec surplus
if you're wanting to lose FAT rather than overall weight, you'll need to manage your nutrition in a way that supports your lean body mass to ensure that the weight loss is mostly from fat mass
if you're wanting the weight gain to be mostly new muscle tissue, you'll need to adopt a slight calorie surplus that is enough to support the building of new muscle tissue, but not too much to avoid a significant amount of fat gain during the process
Now, I would recommend that you aim for building an overall well rounded physique rather than just trying to build your upper body exclusively as that will lead to muscular imbalances than can show up in the form of injury, pains, aches etc
If you're adamant on cycling that 100 miles each week, just understand that you're expending a very lage amount of calories to do so, thus meaning that you'll need even more calories going in to ensure that you're in an overall calorie surplus (although as a newbie, you can build muscle while in a deficit for a short period of time, maybe 3-6 months... so you could target fat loss & build new muscle at the same time before having to choose one goal exclusively)
If you're main goal right now is to put on lean mass tissue,
I'd recommend starting a solid plan which focuses on getting stronger with the compound lifts & then adding in accessories for any bodyparts that you feel need extra work
(starting strength, stronglifts 5x5 & ICF 5x5 are all great options for your current level)
now, as far as the nutrition.. you'll need to calculate you're TDEE (you can use an online calorie calculator to get a rough starting point) & then add a moderate surplus to support the building on new muscle tissue, my recommendation would be to add 200-300 calories to your TDEE or to add 10% of the total calories of your TDEE to you daily calories
Then it's a case of testing & tracking results
You should be able to shoot for a nice half a lbs per week at your current level, but if you find fat gain happening too fast, lower your goal to around 0.25lb per week
Hope this helps!!!??
This information that you are providing is not any NEW news to us. We all give out this exact same advice, daily to all MFPers that wish to encounter the next step in their weight loss journey, maintenance journey or better yet get some ripped abs per se.
Just curious if I missed the punch line here and not being snarky at all, but I am confused that there is actually this "secret".. its not.. its all in just what you wrote for this poster.
well quite obviously it is indeed very new information to alot of people who are unaware of this concept (read through the comments)
Also, If you read what I wrote.. I did state that it isn't really a secret, it's just that most people are never told or informed of this information, just like how most people are usually never informed that they need to create a caloric deficit to lose weight.0 -
Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.
Hi mate,
I think the majority of people are misunderstanding my point... even a hypertrophy based routine is based on strength increase/progression via either volume (total tonnage) or direct tonnage (weight on the bar).. both of these are progression in strength.
I'm not saying you have to powerlift to get bigger, I'm saying you HAVE to get stronger regardless of whatever training routine you're using. Hope that makes sense?
I get what you are saying. You are advocating the 3-5 rep range rather than the hypertrophic rep range basically, no? The "your muscles have to get stronger to get bigger" kinda falls in the "no *kitten*" category and your contention seems to be debating that the 3-5 rep range is a better way to accomplish this based on the study you posted.
That's how I'm reading it all anyway. So my point remains that I am guessing that a combination would be most effective.0 -
Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.
Hi mate,
I think the majority of people are misunderstanding my point... even a hypertrophy based routine is based on strength increase/progression via either volume (total tonnage) or direct tonnage (weight on the bar).. both of these are progression in strength.
I'm not saying you have to powerlift to get bigger, I'm saying you HAVE to get stronger regardless of whatever training routine you're using. Hope that makes sense?
I get what you are saying. You are advocating the 3-5 rep range rather than the hypertrophic rep range basically, no? The "your muscles have to get stronger to get bigger" kinda falls in the "no *kitten*" category and your contention seems to be debating that the 3-5 rep range is a better way to accomplish this based on the study you posted.
That's how I'm reading it all anyway. So my point remains that I am guessing that a combination would be most effective.
Hi again mate, sorry I didnt explain myself properly...
So, I'm not saying that any particular rep range is 'better', I'm just pointing out the same fact that you've also pointed out... you need to get stronger regardless of the rep range in order to get bigger. That's all
You can work with any rep range, but if you're not getting stronger, you won't get (much) bigger.
The lower rep range v's the higher rep range stuff is also a really good topic, but a separate one..
Hope that makes sense mate?
This is all stuff that you quite obviously already know though 0 -
Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.
Hi mate,
I think the majority of people are misunderstanding my point... even a hypertrophy based routine is based on strength increase/progression via either volume (total tonnage) or direct tonnage (weight on the bar).. both of these are progression in strength.
I'm not saying you have to powerlift to get bigger, I'm saying you HAVE to get stronger regardless of whatever training routine you're using. Hope that makes sense?
I get what you are saying. You are advocating the 3-5 rep range rather than the hypertrophic rep range basically, no? The "your muscles have to get stronger to get bigger" kinda falls in the "no *kitten*" category and your contention seems to be debating that the 3-5 rep range is a better way to accomplish this based on the study you posted.
That's how I'm reading it all anyway. So my point remains that I am guessing that a combination would be most effective.
Hi again mate, sorry I didnt explain myself properly...
So, I'm not saying that any particular rep range is 'better', I'm just pointing out the same fact that you've also pointed out... you need to get stronger regardless of the rep range in order to get bigger. That's all
You can work with any rep range, but if you're not getting stronger, you won't get (much) bigger.
The lower rep range v's the higher rep range stuff is also a really good topic, but a separate one..
Hope that makes sense mate?
This is all stuff that you quite obviously already know though
We are all reading the same group of experts, i.e., Aragon, Helms, et al. I'm sure I'm not alone in subscribing to the AARR. What you're saying also seems to form much of the philosophical basis for Norton's PHAT program.1 -
Yeah, strength and muscle size are highly correlated to each other, that's not really a secret.
There's wiggleroom for size without extra strength and vice versa but the link is the reason you don't see someone whose thighs you can grip around with one hand outsquatting a strongman.2 -
Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.
Hi mate,
I think the majority of people are misunderstanding my point... even a hypertrophy based routine is based on strength increase/progression via either volume (total tonnage) or direct tonnage (weight on the bar).. both of these are progression in strength.
I'm not saying you have to powerlift to get bigger, I'm saying you HAVE to get stronger regardless of whatever training routine you're using. Hope that makes sense?
I get what you are saying. You are advocating the 3-5 rep range rather than the hypertrophic rep range basically, no? The "your muscles have to get stronger to get bigger" kinda falls in the "no *kitten*" category and your contention seems to be debating that the 3-5 rep range is a better way to accomplish this based on the study you posted.
That's how I'm reading it all anyway. So my point remains that I am guessing that a combination would be most effective.
Hi again mate, sorry I didnt explain myself properly...
So, I'm not saying that any particular rep range is 'better', I'm just pointing out the same fact that you've also pointed out... you need to get stronger regardless of the rep range in order to get bigger. That's all
You can work with any rep range, but if you're not getting stronger, you won't get (much) bigger.
The lower rep range v's the higher rep range stuff is also a really good topic, but a separate one..
Hope that makes sense mate?
This is all stuff that you quite obviously already know though
Gotcha. We are on the same page. :Shake:1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I just Googled that, and read the abstract of the paper that comes up.
I've seen a lot of different recommendations for protein intake, it's hard to know which one to follow. Depending which one I go with, I should get anywhere from 150g to 350g per day. I feel like the top end is exaggerated, but again as a cyclist for many years, I just have no idea. I've probably been getting 75g per day while I've been lifting for the past two months, and I feel like I've gained very little muscle during that time. Seems like the best explanation is that I'm not getting enough protein to build muscle with. Does that sound right? I'm getting plenty of carbs.
What are you stats if you don't mind me asking?
sex
weight
esitmated body fat
how long have you been lifting
what other exercise are you doing
whats your specific goal
all the good stuff & I'll be happy to help out with recommendations
I'm a 38 year old male, 6'1" tall and about 225 lbs. Estimated body fat is 20 % and lean body mass 42 %, according to my smart scale. I know that's not the best way to calculate, but it's the best I have available to me right now. I started lifting (moderate weight, high reps) on May 26 and started lifting heavy (low reps) July 1. I lift every other day for about an hour, always focusing on arm and chest. My goal is to build upper body muscle. I ride a road bike about 100 miles per week on average.
Ok, so the very first thing is to understand energy balance...
if you're wanting to lose weight you need to create a caloric deficit,
if you're wanting to gain weight you need to create a caloriec surplus
if you're wanting to lose FAT rather than overall weight, you'll need to manage your nutrition in a way that supports your lean body mass to ensure that the weight loss is mostly from fat mass
if you're wanting the weight gain to be mostly new muscle tissue, you'll need to adopt a slight calorie surplus that is enough to support the building of new muscle tissue, but not too much to avoid a significant amount of fat gain during the process
Now, I would recommend that you aim for building an overall well rounded physique rather than just trying to build your upper body exclusively as that will lead to muscular imbalances than can show up in the form of injury, pains, aches etc
If you're adamant on cycling that 100 miles each week, just understand that you're expending a very lage amount of calories to do so, thus meaning that you'll need even more calories going in to ensure that you're in an overall calorie surplus (although as a newbie, you can build muscle while in a deficit for a short period of time, maybe 3-6 months... so you could target fat loss & build new muscle at the same time before having to choose one goal exclusively)
If you're main goal right now is to put on lean mass tissue,
I'd recommend starting a solid plan which focuses on getting stronger with the compound lifts & then adding in accessories for any bodyparts that you feel need extra work
(starting strength, stronglifts 5x5 & ICF 5x5 are all great options for your current level)
now, as far as the nutrition.. you'll need to calculate you're TDEE (you can use an online calorie calculator to get a rough starting point) & then add a moderate surplus to support the building on new muscle tissue, my recommendation would be to add 200-300 calories to your TDEE or to add 10% of the total calories of your TDEE to you daily calories
Then it's a case of testing & tracking results
You should be able to shoot for a nice half a lbs per week at your current level, but if you find fat gain happening too fast, lower your goal to around 0.25lb per week
Hope this helps!!!??
This information that you are providing is not any NEW news to us. We all give out this exact same advice, daily to all MFPers that wish to encounter the next step in their weight loss journey, maintenance journey or better yet get some ripped abs per se.
Just curious if I missed the punch line here and not being snarky at all, but I am confused that there is actually this "secret".. its not.. its all in just what you wrote for this poster.
While it isn't a secret I would say based on some of the questions I see people just don't have the knowledge.2 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.
Hi mate,
I think the majority of people are misunderstanding my point... even a hypertrophy based routine is based on strength increase/progression via either volume (total tonnage) or direct tonnage (weight on the bar).. both of these are progression in strength.
I'm not saying you have to powerlift to get bigger, I'm saying you HAVE to get stronger regardless of whatever training routine you're using. Hope that makes sense?
I get what you are saying. You are advocating the 3-5 rep range rather than the hypertrophic rep range basically, no? The "your muscles have to get stronger to get bigger" kinda falls in the "no *kitten*" category and your contention seems to be debating that the 3-5 rep range is a better way to accomplish this based on the study you posted.
That's how I'm reading it all anyway. So my point remains that I am guessing that a combination would be most effective.
Hi again mate, sorry I didnt explain myself properly...
So, I'm not saying that any particular rep range is 'better', I'm just pointing out the same fact that you've also pointed out... you need to get stronger regardless of the rep range in order to get bigger. That's all
You can work with any rep range, but if you're not getting stronger, you won't get (much) bigger.
The lower rep range v's the higher rep range stuff is also a really good topic, but a separate one..
Hope that makes sense mate?
This is all stuff that you quite obviously already know though
We are all reading the same group of experts, i.e., Aragon, Helms, et al. I'm sure I'm not alone in subscribing to the AARR. What you're saying also seems to form much of the philosophical basis for Norton's PHAT program.
Yep, agreed!
But I'd love this stuff to reach the lay person, rather than only be known in the inner circles of the fitness community... unfortunately the majority of the public get their advice from scam artists peddling crap because they've mastered the art of marketing & spend their time on mostly useless stuff, staying in a continuous cycle of confusion & never getting the results they really want1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.
Hi mate,
I think the majority of people are misunderstanding my point... even a hypertrophy based routine is based on strength increase/progression via either volume (total tonnage) or direct tonnage (weight on the bar).. both of these are progression in strength.
I'm not saying you have to powerlift to get bigger, I'm saying you HAVE to get stronger regardless of whatever training routine you're using. Hope that makes sense?
I get what you are saying. You are advocating the 3-5 rep range rather than the hypertrophic rep range basically, no? The "your muscles have to get stronger to get bigger" kinda falls in the "no *kitten*" category and your contention seems to be debating that the 3-5 rep range is a better way to accomplish this based on the study you posted.
That's how I'm reading it all anyway. So my point remains that I am guessing that a combination would be most effective.
Hi again mate, sorry I didnt explain myself properly...
So, I'm not saying that any particular rep range is 'better', I'm just pointing out the same fact that you've also pointed out... you need to get stronger regardless of the rep range in order to get bigger. That's all
You can work with any rep range, but if you're not getting stronger, you won't get (much) bigger.
The lower rep range v's the higher rep range stuff is also a really good topic, but a separate one..
Hope that makes sense mate?
This is all stuff that you quite obviously already know though
We are all reading the same group of experts, i.e., Aragon, Helms, et al. I'm sure I'm not alone in subscribing to the AARR. What you're saying also seems to form much of the philosophical basis for Norton's PHAT program.
Yep, agreed!
But I'd love this stuff to reach the lay person, rather than only be known in the inner circles of the fitness community... unfortunately the majority of the public get their advice from scam artists peddling crap because they've mastered the art of marketing & spend their time on mostly useless stuff, staying in a continuous cycle of confusion & never getting the results they really want
I definitely agree with you there. Where the hell were all these good trainers years ago when I started? I was told white rice was horrible, had body part splits and sets of 10 pushed, had to learn to squat from Rippetoe videos, etc. lots of banging my head against a wall there.
Do some good.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.
Hi mate,
I think the majority of people are misunderstanding my point... even a hypertrophy based routine is based on strength increase/progression via either volume (total tonnage) or direct tonnage (weight on the bar).. both of these are progression in strength.
I'm not saying you have to powerlift to get bigger, I'm saying you HAVE to get stronger regardless of whatever training routine you're using. Hope that makes sense?
I get what you are saying. You are advocating the 3-5 rep range rather than the hypertrophic rep range basically, no? The "your muscles have to get stronger to get bigger" kinda falls in the "no *kitten*" category and your contention seems to be debating that the 3-5 rep range is a better way to accomplish this based on the study you posted.
That's how I'm reading it all anyway. So my point remains that I am guessing that a combination would be most effective.
Hi again mate, sorry I didnt explain myself properly...
So, I'm not saying that any particular rep range is 'better', I'm just pointing out the same fact that you've also pointed out... you need to get stronger regardless of the rep range in order to get bigger. That's all
You can work with any rep range, but if you're not getting stronger, you won't get (much) bigger.
The lower rep range v's the higher rep range stuff is also a really good topic, but a separate one..
Hope that makes sense mate?
This is all stuff that you quite obviously already know though
We are all reading the same group of experts, i.e., Aragon, Helms, et al. I'm sure I'm not alone in subscribing to the AARR. What you're saying also seems to form much of the philosophical basis for Norton's PHAT program.
Yep, agreed!
But I'd love this stuff to reach the lay person, rather than only be known in the inner circles of the fitness community... unfortunately the majority of the public get their advice from scam artists peddling crap because they've mastered the art of marketing & spend their time on mostly useless stuff, staying in a continuous cycle of confusion & never getting the results they really want
I definitely agree with you there. Where the hell were all these good trainers years ago when I started? I was told white rice was horrible, had body part splits and sets of 10 pushed, had to learn to squat from Rippetoe videos, etc. lots of banging my head against a wall there.
Do some good.
yep, same here mate.... I live by "doing the right thing, is always the right thing"
I think if you give more than you get, you'll always be ok.
And if I know something, that other people need/want, it's our personal responsibility to help & give that info away to those who need/want it.1 -
shrugs, I don't see a lot of ground breaking stuff here...but have at it OP...
0 -
-
not mocking anything, just pointing out that there is nothing ground breaking here...0 -
not mocking anything, just pointing out that there is nothing ground breaking here...
to you maybe... if you've read through the comments you'll see that alot of people are unaware of this concept.2 -
not mocking anything, just pointing out that there is nothing ground breaking here...
to you maybe... if you've read through the comments you'll see that alot of people are unaware of this concept.
all of that information could of been found in the "most helpful posts" section of this forum, or any other forum for that matter...1 -
not mocking anything, just pointing out that there is nothing ground breaking here...
to you maybe... if you've read through the comments you'll see that alot of people are unaware of this concept.
all of that information could of been found in the "most helpful posts" section of this forum, or any other forum for that matter...
Yet some people are still unaware of this concept (some even argue against it who haven't yet become familiar with the science & application) ...your posts are now pointless and taking away from the topic. This topic is obviously not of any use to you, so there's no point in you commenting anymore unless it's to help contribute.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions