The secret to building muscle
Replies
-
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.
I am contributing by pointing out that people should read the most helpful posts...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...
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.
I am contributing by pointing out that people should read the most helpful posts...
you are the one resorting to name calling, not me.
It is an open forum and I can comment anywhere I choose/see fit...
sorry, captain obvious...0 -
mate seriously, have a word with yourself, you're making yourself look silly.
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.
I am contributing by pointing out that people should read the most helpful posts...
no, you're just being a dick. This topic is active, it's created discussion & many people have inboxed me thanking for the information & wanting to talk more about the subject... go away.
you are the one resorting to name calling, not me.
It is an open forum and I can comment anywhere I choose/see fit...
sorry, captain obvious...2 -
Can you can it with the "mates" you sound like a cockney crawled up your *armadillo* and died
That said...I think if you want to reach those who don't know this stuff, you should spread your wisdom around the threads when people ask for help or advice ...jump in and add to the chorus
But I'd work on making my posts shorter too...cos people don't read walls of text generally6 -
Another study as of last week regarding this issue, Pumping iron: Lighter weights just as effective as heavier weights to gain muscle, build strength:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160712094259.htm
(Read the peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Applied Physiology here if you have access: http://jap.physiology.org/content/121/1/129)
This study dealt specifically with men but I've (female) had the best results with lighter weights/many reps. This is probably due more to body type and genetics than we currently have an understanding of. What works for one person may not for another.
(me = just wishing to tone and not add bulk)
2 -
mate seriously, have a word with yourself, you're making yourself look silly.
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.
I am contributing by pointing out that people should read the most helpful posts...
no, you're just being a dick. This topic is active, it's created discussion & many people have inboxed me thanking for the information & wanting to talk more about the subject... go away.
you are the one resorting to name calling, not me.
It is an open forum and I can comment anywhere I choose/see fit...
sorry, captain obvious...
the only silliness I see is, is repeating obvious statements that are common knowledge and acting like you are doing everyone a favor...
3 -
artichokes4algernon wrote: »Another study as of last week regarding this issue, Pumping iron: Lighter weights just as effective as heavier weights to gain muscle, build strength:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160712094259.htm
(Read the peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Applied Physiology here if you have access: http://jap.physiology.org/content/121/1/129)
This study dealt specifically with men but I've (female) had the best results with lighter weights/many reps. This is probably due more to body type and genetics than we currently have an understanding of. What works for one person may not for another.
(me = just wishing to tone and not add bulk)
Hey, yep great study!
Im not saying 'heavier weights are better' im saying you have to get stronger... regardless of the rep range you're using... even if thats a 12-15 rep range.
Hope that makes sense? ☺0 -
Can you can it with the "mates" you sound like a cockney crawled up your *armadillo* and died
That said...I think if you want to reach those who don't know this stuff, you should spread your wisdom around the threads when people ask for help or advice ...jump in and add to the chorus
But I'd work on making my posts shorter too...cos people don't read walls of text generally
Nope not cockney, just British lol ☺0 -
Can you can it with the "mates" you sound like a cockney crawled up your *armadillo* and died
That said...I think if you want to reach those who don't know this stuff, you should spread your wisdom around the threads when people ask for help or advice ...jump in and add to the chorus
But I'd work on making my posts shorter too...cos people don't read walls of text generally
Nope not cockney, just British lol ☺
thats no excuse for talking like a bad Michael Caine script 5 -
Can you can it with the "mates" you sound like a cockney crawled up your *armadillo* and died
That said...I think if you want to reach those who don't know this stuff, you should spread your wisdom around the threads when people ask for help or advice ...jump in and add to the chorus
But I'd work on making my posts shorter too...cos people don't read walls of text generally
Nope not cockney, just British lol ☺
thats no excuse for talking like a bad Michael Caine script
LMAO!
1 -
mate seriously, have a word with yourself, you're making yourself look silly.
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.
I am contributing by pointing out that people should read the most helpful posts...
no, you're just being a dick. This topic is active, it's created discussion & many people have inboxed me thanking for the information & wanting to talk more about the subject... go away.
you are the one resorting to name calling, not me.
It is an open forum and I can comment anywhere I choose/see fit...
sorry, captain obvious...
the only silliness I see is, is repeating obvious statements that are common knowledge and acting like you are doing everyone a favor...
If you think this is common knowledge you obviously havent read through this thread, as its mostly uncommon to the majority of people conversing in here.. anyway, im not interested in a pointless argument. Bye x1 -
piperdown44 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.
Not exactly what you're after but a good read of itself.
http://classic.jap.physiology.org/content/121/1/129piperdown44 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.
Not exactly what you're after but a good read of itself.
http://classic.jap.physiology.org/content/121/1/129
Seems to be testing endurance training vs Hypertrophy, no?0 -
piperdown44 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.
Not exactly what you're after but a good read of itself.
http://classic.jap.physiology.org/content/121/1/129piperdown44 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.
Not exactly what you're after but a good read of itself.
http://classic.jap.physiology.org/content/121/1/129
Seems to be testing endurance training vs Hypertrophy, no?
Not really. From the discussion it doesn't seem to matter whether the weight was heavy or lighter as long as it went to failure. Saw increases in both hypertrophy and strength (with one exception, bench).
I bolded the quote below from the study discussion.
Interestingly, they picked a larger sample group that had at least 2 years worth of training with weights more than 2x per week.
"Twelve weeks of supervised, higher- and lower-load per
repetition RT programs were similarly effective at inducing
skeletal muscle hypertrophy in resistance-trained participants
when RT was performed to volitional failure. Additionally,
when participants were tested periodically for maximal
strength (i.e., essentially being allowed to practice their 1RM),
the increases in muscular strength were not significantly different
between groups. The exception was bench press 1RM, which
increased to a greater extent in the LR group. Additionally,
postexercise levels of circulating hormones did not change as a
result of the RT intervention and were unrelated to changes in
muscle mass and strength."0 -
Genetics matter too. I'm not that strong compared to a lot of guys my height and weight, but physique wise a lot of times my muscle size is bigger than theirs. They may bench more (my highest bench ever was 275lbs in my 20's), but my pec size would make it seem I'm just as strong. Granted, to get bigger I did have my bench go up, but I really never benched more than 225lbs for reps because I was going more for volume training to build size and not just by progressively increasing my bench numbers.
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
2 -
you all got me confused. I was told yesterday you can gain muscle in a deficit if the conditions are right,but when I first joined and over time most people on here who have lifted and built muscle says NO you cant and thats what I thought so as well, so which one is it? (aside from newbie gains,getting back to lifting and so on)0
-
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »you all got me confused. I was told yesterday you can gain muscle in a deficit if the conditions are right,but when I first joined and over time most people on here who have lifted and built muscle says NO you cant and thats what I thought so as well, so which one is it? (aside from newbie gains,getting back to lifting and so on)
You will gain muscle at a faster rate being in an energy surplus.
It is still possible to gain muscle in a net deficit over time but the success of that happening (and amount of muscle gained) will be influenced by a number of different factors such as genetics (responsiveness to exercise and nutrient partitioning/p-ratio), how much body fat you have, how large of a deficit, how well structured your training program is, protein intake, etc.
And I list out all this context because it matters.
There's a very big difference between an overweight teenage male with 6 months to a year of experience (not a complete noob) eating in a small deficit and training intelligently vs a female contest level physique athlete in her 40's in the last 3 weeks of a contest prep diet.
One of those people will very likely gain muscle and the other will very likely lose it, but both are in a deficit.1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »you all got me confused. I was told yesterday you can gain muscle in a deficit if the conditions are right,but when I first joined and over time most people on here who have lifted and built muscle says NO you cant and thats what I thought so as well, so which one is it? (aside from newbie gains,getting back to lifting and so on)
You will gain muscle at a faster rate being in an energy surplus.
It is still possible to gain muscle in a net deficit over time but the success of that happening (and amount of muscle gained) will be influenced by a number of different factors such as genetics (responsiveness to exercise and nutrient partitioning/p-ratio), how much body fat you have, how large of a deficit, how well structured your training program is, protein intake, etc.
And I list out all this context because it matters.
There's a very big difference between an overweight teenage male with 6 months to a year of experience (not a complete noob) eating in a small deficit and training intelligently vs a female contest level physique athlete in her 40's in the last 3 weeks of a contest prep diet.
One of those people will very likely gain muscle and the other will very likely lose it, but both are in a deficit.
100% this, great answer!0 -
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.
So my point that this is not a "secret" has been made, and this is really about just giving basic advice to anyone that wants assistance with setting up their goals, or just has a basic question to help them further their goals.
edited to add: their seems to be a little bit of boasting going on about how much knowledge OP has, etc... When a topic of discussion has been written in the forums, it is always up for debate or interpretation by all that wish to join in the conversation. I watched this thread form for the past couple of days and some possible ego is in here as well.
1 -
I agree completely w/the basic principles stated by the OP that "calorie deficit" = "weight loss" and that "getting stronger" = "gaining muscle."
What is often not understood (especially here on MFP) is that, while one can lose weight and get stronger to a certain level of stasis, ultimately you cannot get stronger and gain muscle (if that is your primary goal) w/o also gaining weight, which is contrary to what so many people on MFP say they want to do, which is lose weight and get stronger.
It is a paradox of body recomposition that is a source of much confusion.0 -
I agree completely w/the basic principles stated by the OP that "calorie deficit" = "weight loss" and that "getting stronger" = "gaining muscle."
What is often not understood (especially here on MFP) is that, while one can lose weight and get stronger to a certain level of stasis, ultimately you cannot get stronger and gain muscle (if that is your primary goal) w/o also gaining weight, which is contrary to what so many people on MFP say they want to do, which is lose weight and get stronger.
It is a paradox of body recomposition that is a source of much confusion.
To be sure I understand, you are saying that people cannot gain muscle while losing weight, correct?0 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »I agree completely w/the basic principles stated by the OP that "calorie deficit" = "weight loss" and that "getting stronger" = "gaining muscle."
What is often not understood (especially here on MFP) is that, while one can lose weight and get stronger to a certain level of stasis, ultimately you cannot get stronger and gain muscle (if that is your primary goal) w/o also gaining weight, which is contrary to what so many people on MFP say they want to do, which is lose weight and get stronger.
It is a paradox of body recomposition that is a source of much confusion.
To be sure I understand, you are saying that people cannot gain muscle while losing weight, correct?
Only to a certain/small degree...0 -
Am I being ridiculous to want to be the exception?0
-
Not at all - it's a great goal to have even if it doesn't work out you will have done the best you can.KetoneKaren wrote: »Am I being ridiculous to want to be the exception?
Funny enough nearly the whole debate around gaining muscle in a deficit is around the outcome and not the methods used. So whether you end up gaining some or just preserving the maximum amount of your existing muscle mass is a bit of a moot point.
2 -
0 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »Am I being ridiculous to want to be the exception?
No, but it's kinda like the 'fitness' equivalent of wanting to be a multimillionaire & also wanting to relax everyday and never work
The two things oppose each other (mostly)1 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »Am I being ridiculous to want to be the exception?
Think of it this way - if you preserve the muscle you have while in a deficit, instead of shrinking down to a smaller version of your current self, you significantly change your body composition. You don't need to build new muscle while losing weight to see big benefits. If you're not happy when you get to goal, that's when you can think about recomping or gaining.2 -
The secret to building muscle is adequate calories and progressive overload, which doesn't necessarily come from adding strength.
And that is all!
I swear I was waiting for OP to say caloric surplus lol nope.
I do get stronger in a cut occasionally and I'm def not growing muscle in a cut bc science says I need a caloric surplus.
Now I do get stronger in a bulk yep bc I have more calories and carbs available to me.
1 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »Am I being ridiculous to want to be the exception?
you are basically searching for the "holy grail" of lifting....so good luck ..but you would be better served looking at bulk/cut cycles or recomp ....1 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »Am I being ridiculous to want to be the exception?
Karen, I've personally lost weight and increased my lean body mass by 35lbs in a period of three months. This was driven by a variety of factors ranging from nutrition to how and when I was working out. The fact is that it is possible for you to increase lean body mass while losing weight, you just may not lose the weight as fast as you want to. Another fact is to help you lose weight you need to increase your lean body mass as this will increase your metabolic rate.
Now, as far as the OP. Yes, if you want to gain lean mass you need to get stronger. It is, but it isn't, that simple. If you are going to weight train you need to periodize your training to work your body through phases to put the entire picture together. For the 1st 4 weeks of any "strength" intervention you are making gains through improvements in your neuromuscular system, not and increase in mass. Your body is remembering how to do the movements and recruiting more of the right muscle fibers to do them thus making you more efficient.
After this phase you want to phase in a specific muscular growth phase commonly referred to as your hypertrophic (bulking) phase. This will increase the number of type IIx muscle fibers (think strength/power) in the muscle belly. After this phase is when you focus on the strength phase which will continue to have hypertrophic effects. If you follow your strength phase with a power phase you will be creating more explosive power in the muscle mass you have built and thus making your neuromuscular system more efficient, not necessarily making you stronger or improving lean body mass.
Each of these phases can be structured a variety of ways. I have been studying this for years and have a masters in Kinesiology with a focus on Sports Performance and am and NSCA CSCS certified strength coach. There are an abundant amount of theories and ways to address increasing lean body mass through proper progression and periodization. When I am training people I tell them to train like an athlete and that their sport is life. Whose theory I decide to use for that athlete depends on a wide variety of factors.
So the short answer is...as the OP said, you have to get stronger to increase mass. The long answer is you have to address each system to get stronger without injury and properly build the mass you are looking for.
All the best,
Scott
1
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