How to put on muscle mass without getting fat?

[rocketskates]

Meat, vegetables, protein seem to work

 

[rocketskates]

I watched "Fat Head" this morning and it's a counter to that documentary Supersize Me. Basically Spurlock's claim that he ate 5,000 calories a day at McD''s in three meals and without supersizing was at minimum an 1,000 calorie exaggeration. Becoming fat takes a lot of work.

You are correct. The highest calorie item on a mickey d's menu is the big breakfast with hot cakes last I checked at 1,000 and change. So basically even if he ate that three times a day he wouldn't be anywhere near 5,000

 

[Seriously-Dead]

Kcal estimates are exactly that...estimates. You can reassess and make adjustments as needed. And if you're going to put almost all your eggs in the training basket, by what metric are you going to use to predict what effect the training will have on body composition? Because if you answer "kcal expenditure", then it would be impossible to not factor in kcal consumption to get any kind of reasonable answer.

When your caloric surplus is non-existent, like in a body recomposition scenario, you have to tailor your training to maximize hypertrophy because your body isn't just going to automatically grow like it would if you were actually bulking. It's not going to get the growth signal from diet, so you have to maximize the signal you'd get from training. This means training more frequently and with more volume.

It's not about burning calories, and even if it were, hypertrophy-oriented workouts will burn more energy in less time than their strength-oriented counterparts. Burning more energy gives you a little bit of space to relax your diet.

 

[ocean size]

It's not about burning calories, and even if it were, hypertrophy-oriented workouts will burn more energy in less time than their strength-oriented counterparts.

Is this empirically verified

 

[Tiger]

Is this empirically verified

I have come to the conclusion (according to research) that the difference is so tiny it doesnt even matter.

Also, good luck not bulking and gaining muscle. I did that for a long time and I regret the moment I believed it would work properly.

Gaining muscle with minimum amounts of fat means training with proper intensity and volume, and eating in a slight surplus. If you gain 1 pound per week theres no way its all muscle (unless you just started lifting).

If you have been lifting for some time , gaining 1-2 pounds per month should be your goal. Anything above that is probably more fat than muscle. Each person differs though so check yourself in the mirror also instead of just using a scale.

It's a slow slow process.

PS : Most of your calories should be proteins obviously

 

[fbmmofo]

If you have been lifting for some time , gaining 1-2 pounds per month
PS : Most of your calories should be proteins obviously

I think protein is less important when bulking. Yes you need protein but you could get away with .8grams per Ib of body weight. People generally over estimate the importance of protein while bulking.

As long as your getting a decent amount of protein and your calories are in a surplus you'll gain weight.

 

[ocean size]

I think protein is less important when bulking. Yes you need protein but you could get away with .8grams per Ib of body weight. People generally over estimate the importance of protein while bulking.

As long as your getting a decent amount of protein and your calories are in a surplus you'll gain weight.

Should be required reading for anyone that hasn't yet:
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

 

[Seriously-Dead]

Is this empirically verified

More or less, yes. It's also obvious to anyone with training experience in both forms. You can lift way more tonnage in less time (which requires more energy overall) doing hypertrophy work outs.

Lots of Brad Schoenfeld's research has answered some related questions: short rest intervals are better for maximizing hypertrophy, and volume equated hypertrophy training takes about 25% the time compared to strength training and leads to less burnout and injury with identical results in hypertrophy (albeit less gains in strength). He often publishes more off-the-cuff reflections on his blog

Adel Moussa has also written about studies on this topic as well, showing that short rest intervals lead to higher energy expenditure.

Taking into account both practical considerations and current evidence, I have no problem saying that training for hypertrophy (multi-set, high rep, less rest) results in more energy expenditure vs. more traditional strength training (especially if equated for time).

 

[JRT6]

I wonder if binge and purge would work. Train hard, eat to get into anabolic mode, then puke it up but keep riding the anabolic train to gainz.

 

[ironwolf]

Try it.

 

[JRT6]

On a serious note. In regards to the high rep is good for hypertrophy for the last two years (up to last September) I was doing a shit load of stuff in the very high rep range and I don't think I gained an ounce of muscle. However my diet and over frequency of the workouts may have been detrimental. The high reps can get as monotonous as hell but they are easier on my joints. I just can't get myself to man up enough to do high rep deep squatting.

 

[JRT6]

Try it.

I already have an eating disorder.

 

[Tosa]

High reps being good for hypertrophy is a bit of an oversimplification. There's three supposed mechanisms for stimulating hypertrophy, although there is some scientific debate over them. The most well established is mechanical stress, that is the muscles are put under enough load, enough times, and they grow - in other words, accumulate enough total volume at sufficient intensity, regardless of how many reps per set, and hypertrophy will occur.

Second, there's the idea of metabolic stress, that in response to sufficient anaerobic stimulus, hypertrophy occurs - here reps per set, or more accurately duration of the set, and rest times are important. This idea is included in a number of respectable texts, and mentioned by respectable people, but I haven't been able to find strong studies supporting this. And in some cases, some studies even suggest that if it is a factor, it's not a significant one.

Third, there's the idea the hypertrophy will occur in response to actual muscle damage - which means slow, heavy eccentrics can be used to stimulate more hypertrophy. There is some scientific support to this, although the practical implications are somewhat limited.

 

[Flash_Monsta]

High reps being good for hypertrophy is a bit of an oversimplification. There's three supposed mechanisms for stimulating hypertrophy, although there is some scientific debate over them. The most well established is mechanical stress, that is the muscles are put under enough load, enough times, and they grow - in other words, accumulate enough total volume at sufficient intensity, regardless of how many reps per set, and hypertrophy will occur.

Second, there's the idea of metabolic stress, that in response to sufficient anaerobic stimulus, hypertrophy occurs - here reps per set, or more accurately duration of the set, and rest times are important. This idea is included in a number of respectable texts, and mentioned by respectable people, but I haven't been able to find strong studies supporting this. And in some cases, some studies even suggest that if it is a factor, it's not a significant one.

Third, there's the idea the hypertrophy will occur in response to actual muscle damage - which means slow, heavy eccentrics can be used to stimulate more hypertrophy. There is some scientific support to this, although the practical implications are somewhat limited.

That's interesting, so for best results why not just implement all three methods and figure out which works best?
It also seems to me that these professionals are tip toeing around a definitive answer, would this be because every individual is different and what works well for Joe Blogs won't necessarily work well you.

 

[Tosa]

That's interesting, so for best results why not just implement all three methods and figure out which works best?
It also seems to me that these professionals are tip toeing around a definitive answer, would this be because every individual is different and what works well for Joe Blogs won't necessarily work well you.

If the end goal is hypertrophy, you would expect to see all three at some point, in a well planned program.

I'd say the tip toeing around a definitive answer has more to do with the difficulty in narrowing down very specific causes and effects in human beings in real world environments. Which is related to individual variation, although it probably has as much, or more, to do with training history than anything else.

 

[Seriously-Dead]

High reps being good for hypertrophy is a bit of an oversimplification. There's three supposed mechanisms for stimulating hypertrophy, although there is some scientific debate over them. The most well established is mechanical stress, that is the muscles are put under enough load, enough times, and they grow - in other words, accumulate enough total volume at sufficient intensity, regardless of how many reps per set, and hypertrophy will occur.

Second, there's the idea of metabolic stress, that in response to sufficient anaerobic stimulus, hypertrophy occurs - here reps per set, or more accurately duration of the set, and rest times are important. This idea is included in a number of respectable texts, and mentioned by respectable people, but I haven't been able to find strong studies supporting this. And in some cases, some studies even suggest that if it is a factor, it's not a significant one.

Third, there's the idea the hypertrophy will occur in response to actual muscle damage - which means slow, heavy eccentrics can be used to stimulate more hypertrophy. There is some scientific support to this, although the practical implications are somewhat limited.

No one is debating any of this. Mixed rep range (again, Schoenfeld did it...) is obviously the ideal training modality for hypertrophy alone. But in real life there are issues with time, energy expenditure, etc.

We're talking about a specific context - body recomposition. Expending more energy via more frequency/volume is protective of dietary excess and facilitates fat loss, which is beneficial for body recomposition. The other factor is time. Time being equal, high rep/high volume "bodybuilding" style training is more time efficient. Just look at what strength programs like Smolov do to people: they can barely do the program, workouts take a long time, and people often don't have the energy or recovery capability for any supplementary training. Whereas with less strength oriented workouts of high frequency/volume, I can (and regularly do) hit higher volumes and tonnage than Smolov in less time with less recovery issues.

 

[Lustercross]

Find out what your maintenance calories are with a calorie calculator. Add 200-300 to it and voila. Make sure to get enough protein. Do a good weightlifting program for gaining muscle. I recommend michael mathew's program, bigger leaner stronger. Weigh yourself weekly. If you gain between .25 to .5 pounds then keep eating the same way. If over or under that then readjust your calories.

 

[Tosa]

We're talking about a specific context - body recomposition. Expending more energy via more frequency/volume is protective of dietary excess and facilitates fat loss, which is beneficial for body recomposition. The other factor is time. Time being equal, high rep/high volume "bodybuilding" style training is more time efficient. Just look at what strength programs like Smolov do to people: they can barely do the program, workouts take a long time, and people often don't have the energy or recovery capability for any supplementary training. Whereas with less strength oriented workouts of high frequency/volume, I can (and regularly do) hit higher volumes and tonnage than Smolov in less time with less recovery issues.

With Smolov, you're using a very extreme example, and even then, what you describe isn't everyone's experience. Someone would probably have little trouble digging up an extreme counter example of some crazy bodybuilding workout. If you compared some of the more traditional western style programs (Eg. 5/3/1) or something like an RTS program, things would stack up pretty differently.

In reality, good programs are rarely strictly one thing, or another, and vary over time. "Bodybuilding" style training is only more time efficient so long as it fits with someone's goals. I'd argue that trying to compensate for dietary excess by doing more volume in the gym is a pretty poor goal. Even if hypertrophy, or body recomposition, is the end goal, rather than any kind of athletic quality, there still is a benefit to dedicated strength work, at least some of the time.

 

[The Wrecker]

first lose the fat then get the mass

 

[The Wrecker]

no way dude thats a lie.

just eat whatever you want. lots of ice cream and go easy on the training u'll be ripped in no time.

actually if you go harder on the training and eat whatever you want it will make you fatter because working out increasing your apeptite... cardio and losing weight have no correlation if you are eating shit food

its not like brushing your teeth if you brush a lot your teeth will stay cavity free regardless of the foods you eat

with excersize its the opposite working out is good for the heart and lungs but it will make you fatter if you have no will power in your diet