prudent bulking vs. pigging out

"Davide" <> If 850 calories above maintenance is all one needs to builk
muscle what
> 6.000 to 10.000 calories (3.000 to 7.000 calories above maintenance)
> will build more other than fat deposits?
>

If you are reading the incredibly lame bullshit that is published in the
bodybuilding magazines (where some steroid monster claims to eat 12,000
calories a day--20 chicken breasts per meal, 10 protein shakes, 50 raw eggs,
etc.); keep in mind that most of those steroid freaks are taking so many
drugs that they can work out several hours at a time and they burn up a lot
of calories (plus the drugs burn up calories too).

Additionally, half of their claims are total bullshit invented by the slob
that is ghost-writing the story or "interviewing" the bodybuilder.

Don't check out my blog at http://ironman63.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: prudent bulking vs. pigging out 

Andrzej Rosa ha scritto:

> Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
> > Spammers_Should_Be_Shot ha scritto:
> >
> >> Are you asking this seriously? How many calories are burned working out?
> >> As you gain muscle you start to burn more calories with everything you do.
> >> Not all caloric surplus is used solely for muscle gains (some fat is usually
> >> gained too).
> >>
> >> 7000 calories/day is reasonable for a large bodybuilder. A 140lb guy
> >> doesn't need that much but someone at 250+lbs. certainly would.
> >>
> >> And I haven't addressed the 2000 calories = 1 lb of muscle part.....
> >>
> >> That answer your question?
> >
> > Yes, but they claim that the surplus is to build muscle alone ... they
> > don't say that they need extra calories for the extra activity but that
> > the amount of calories is proportional to the amount of muscles built.
>
> Not linearly, but it is sort of "proportional".
>
> > That's what is really weird
> > In other words they claim that no matter what if you consume more
> > calories you will end up with more muscles even at the expense of
> > gaining fat
>
> True.
>
> > as if the only limiting factor in muscle building was how
> > many calories you can gorge on ...
>
> There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
> high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
> LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn't read
> the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
> interested in more details.

But scientifically this doesn't make any sense
If the amount of muscle mass you can build in a week/month is limited
and not limitless and we store excess calories as fat because of
survival advantages how could even more calories than those required to
build the limited amount of muscle mass one can build in a week/month
be used to build muscle tissue?

Also lean body mass doesn't mean muscle. A good percentage of LBM is
connective tissue which is often a good percentage of the whole LBM in
fat people. That's why fat people can afford to lose LBM with the fat,
because most of it is connective tissue

Besides wrestling when you weight 500 pounds must be a weight bearing
resistance workout similar to barbel squat

But still how can be physiologically explained that indiscriminate
over-excessive calories are going to be used to build more muscles even
if the threshold of muscle tissue built per week has been already
reached? Logically and scientifically all extra calories from that
point on should be stored as fat ...

Anyone?

Thanks
Davide
 >> Stay informed about: prudent bulking vs. pigging out 

"Davide" <davideb_music.RemoveThis@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:1163718976.154637.93980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I have a question
> Can you explain any reason as to why one would need 6.000 to 10.000
> calories to bulk?
> I was reading this article and it said "7.000 calories is not
> unreasonable, to get big one has to eat a lot"
>
> But since based on 50% efficiency to grow a pound of muscle the body
> needs 2.000 calories; how many pounds of muscle a week one can build?
>
> Let's even say that one can build 3 pounds of muscle a week
> One would need 6.000 extra calories to do this
> Daily it would be 850 calories
>
> So how could one justify 7.000 calories to bulk when he needs just 850
> calories above maintenance?
> Some people say that someone who bulk of massive amount of calories
> 6.000 to 10.000 a day and diet down is going to build more muscles tha
> someone who does a prudent bulking?
>
> How is that possible?
> If 850 calories above maintenance is all one needs to builk muscle what
> 6.000 to 10.000 calories (3.000 to 7.000 calories above maintenance)
> will build more other than fat deposits?
>
> Thanks
> Davide
>

Are you asking this seriously? How many calories are burned working out?
As you gain muscle you start to burn more calories with everything you do.
Not all caloric surplus is used solely for muscle gains (some fat is usually
gained too).

7000 calories/day is reasonable for a large bodybuilder. A 140lb guy
doesn't need that much but someone at 250+lbs. certainly would.

And I haven't addressed the 2000 calories = 1 lb of muscle part.....

That answer your question?
 >> Stay informed about: prudent bulking vs. pigging out 

Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
> Spammers_Should_Be_Shot ha scritto:
>
>> Are you asking this seriously? How many calories are burned working out?
>> As you gain muscle you start to burn more calories with everything you do.
>> Not all caloric surplus is used solely for muscle gains (some fat is usually
>> gained too).
>>
>> 7000 calories/day is reasonable for a large bodybuilder. A 140lb guy
>> doesn't need that much but someone at 250+lbs. certainly would.
>>
>> And I haven't addressed the 2000 calories = 1 lb of muscle part.....
>>
>> That answer your question?
>
> Yes, but they claim that the surplus is to build muscle alone ... they
> don't say that they need extra calories for the extra activity but that
> the amount of calories is proportional to the amount of muscles built.

Not linearly, but it is sort of "proportional".

> That's what is really weird
> In other words they claim that no matter what if you consume more
> calories you will end up with more muscles even at the expense of
> gaining fat

True.

> as if the only limiting factor in muscle building was how
> many calories you can gorge on ...

There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn't read
the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
interested in more details.

> What about the 2.000 calories = 1 lb of muscle part?
> I thought that was a scientific proven fact like 3500 calories = 1 lb
> of fat

Since when calorie is a unit of mass? You need to multiply mass by
speed of light squared to make this kind of equation a "scientific
proven fact".

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: prudent bulking vs. pigging out 

DZ ha scritto:

> Andrzej Rosa <bakters DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
> >> Andrzej Rosa ha scritto:
> >>
> >>> There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
> >>> high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
> >>> LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn't read
> >>> the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
> >>> interested in more details.
> >>
> >> But scientifically this doesn't make any sense
> >
> > Which rules of nature it violates?
>
> As I recall, half a year ago Davide was arguing the other way around,
> saying that the intermittent fasting and resistance training is an
> impossible combination, because you can't get enugh calories to
> provide for muscle growth. Go figure.

Yes I was
But we were arguing about diets in which it was not easy to get 3.000
calories without feeling bloated and almost throwing up. The spokesman
for this diet was a very emaciated, wasted and skinny individual
Just because I said that there's an amount of calories that is too low
for muscle building it doesn't mean that I can't believe there's an
amount that is too much. The two aren't exclusive

I have always known that it works like this: stimulus that damage the
muscle --- > body healing the damaged tissue needing calories --- >
muscle growth

So it is something new for me that just gaining 2 lbs of fat would
result in building 1 lb of muscle even without stimulus. Interesting
.... I will check the studies

But what's the physiological process behind this? What leads to muscle
growth just because of fat storage? The body making itself stronger to
support the fat weight?

While it make sense that if the limiting factor is how much you can
damage your muscles with weight then the amount of calories that will
go into repairing the muscle tissue is limited hence the growth
possible in a week/month is limited. Of course if the mere act of
gaining fat weight lead to muscle building ... it changes everything

Thanks
Davide
 >> Stay informed about: prudent bulking vs. pigging out 

"Davide" <davideb_music.TakeThisOut@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:1163718976.154637.93980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> Can you explain any reason as to why one would need 6.000 to 10.000
> calories to bulk?

Yes, if by eating fewer calories they are not gaining weight, and they
wish to gain weight, it makes sense to eat more. Likewise, if someone
is gaining weight and doesn't wish to, it makes sense to eat fewer
calories. It's just common sense.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
 >> Stay informed about: prudent bulking vs. pigging out 

Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
>
> Andrzej Rosa ha scritto:
>
>> There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
>> high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
>> LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn't read
>> the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
>> interested in more details.
>
> But scientifically this doesn't make any sense

Which rules of nature it violates?

> If the amount of muscle mass you can build in a week/month is limited
> and not limitless and we store excess calories as fat because of
> survival advantages how could even more calories than those required to
> build the limited amount of muscle mass one can build in a week/month
> be used to build muscle tissue?

If your model closely described reality, then simply pigging out
without any exercise would mean pure fat gain. However, it's not true.
While simply pigging out you'll gain 1lb of muscle (or LBM, I don't
remember) per 2 lbs of fat. There was a study I also didn't read, so
check me out if you are truly interested.

> Also lean body mass doesn't mean muscle. A good percentage of LBM is
> connective tissue which is often a good percentage of the whole LBM in
> fat people. That's why fat people can afford to lose LBM with the fat,
> because most of it is connective tissue

Through weight training you also build connective tissue and bone
density.

> Besides wrestling when you weight 500 pounds must be a weight bearing
> resistance workout similar to barbel squat

Yes. Fat people have strong legs.

> But still how can be physiologically explained that indiscriminate
> over-excessive calories are going to be used to build more muscles even
> if the threshold of muscle tissue built per week has been already
> reached?

I don't believe in this threshold.

> Logically and scientifically all extra calories from that
> point on should be stored as fat ...

Why do you say "scientifically"? Is there some well established
knowledge which is overthrown by gaining lean tissue while pigging out?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: prudent bulking vs. pigging out 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: prudent bulking vs. pigging out 

Dnia 2006-11-17 DZ napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa <bakters.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
>>> Andrzej Rosa ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
>>>> high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
>>>> LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn't read
>>>> the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
>>>> interested in more details.
>>>
>>> But scientifically this doesn't make any sense
>>
>> Which rules of nature it violates?
>
> As I recall, half a year ago Davide was arguing the other way around,
> saying that the intermittent fasting and resistance training is an
> impossible combination, because you can't get enugh calories to
> provide for muscle growth. Go figure.

Ah, now I understand. If you provide just right amount of calorie
surplus, a body is obliged to build pure muscles. Now it makes sense.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: prudent bulking vs. pigging out 

"Bully" <bully1.RemoveThis@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
news:4s6scaFug3bcU1@mid.individual.net...
>> <snip> Surprisingly the sumo wrestlers
>> came out well ahead of the powerlifters (2nd) and the bodybuilders
>> (very close 3rd). This is a group who did no weight training
>
> They might not have done any lifting of "iron" but they sure spend a lot
> of time wrestling with very heavyweights.

That's what I was thinking. So maybe it's evidence of the efficacy of a
low-rep/heavy-weight lifting routine?

ep
 >> Stay informed about: prudent bulking vs. pigging out 

Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
>
> But what's the physiological process behind this? What leads to muscle
> growth just because of fat storage? The body making itself stronger to
> support the fat weight?

Probably not. I think that body builds lean tissue, because it can do
it safely. Plenty of food, plenty of fat to sustain you in case food
will be scarce, so why not build some muscles? They are useful, after
all.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: prudent bulking vs. pigging out 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110504362/ABSTRACT...ETRY=1&

And also this link.
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1308011

#v+
"There was a study some years back which included 3 groups--elite sumo
wrestlers who did no weight training whatsoever, advanced bodybuilders
and advanced powerlifters--about 20 in each group. Now there is a lot
of variables here but they took the lean muscle mass of each group and
divided it by their height in inches. Surprisingly the sumo wrestlers
came out well ahead of the powerlifters (2nd) and the bodybuilders
(very close 3rd). This is a group who did no weight training at all
but engorged themselves with food trying to bring their bodyweight up
to dramatic levels. How is a group that is doing no weight training
having more muscle mass per inch of height than powerlifters and
bodybuilders? For anyone that doubts food is the greatest anabolic in
your arsenal, you better get up to speed and on the same page as what
my trainees have found out. Gee now what would happen if you actually
ate to get dramatically larger like a sumo, but actually weight
trained like a powerbuilder (which is what we train like), and also
did enough cardio/carb cuttoffs etc to keep bodyfat at bay while doing
all this? Are you guys coming around to how I think yet....in how to
become the biggest bodybuilder at the quickest rate but keeping
leaness on that journey?"
#v-

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: prudent bulking vs. pigging out 

DZ ha scritto:

> Davide <davideb_music.DeleteThis@yahoo.it> wrote:
> > DZ ha scritto:
> >> Andrzej Rosa <bakters.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
> >> >> Andrzej Rosa ha scritto:
> >> >>
> >> >>> There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
> >> >>> high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
> >> >>> LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn't read
> >> >>> the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
> >> >>> interested in more details.
> >> >>
> >> >> But scientifically this doesn't make any sense
> >> >
> >> > Which rules of nature it violates?
> >>
> >> As I recall, half a year ago Davide was arguing the other way around,
> >> saying that the intermittent fasting and resistance training is an
> >> impossible combination, because you can't get enugh calories to
> >> provide for muscle growth. Go figure.
> >
> > Yes I was
> > But we were arguing about diets in which it was not easy to get 3.000
> > calories without feeling bloated and almost throwing up. The spokesman
> > for this diet was a very emaciated, wasted and skinny individual
>
> I practice intermittent fasting but I don't know of any spokesman for
> it. Perhaps that spokesman should try some bodybuilding style training.
> One lead author of publications from the Nat Inst of Aging does look
> very thin but I think he actually eats only every other day and
> perhaps doesn't do resistance training either. The regimen surely
> doesn't adversely affect his productivity.

If intermitted fasting means two whole days of eating alternated with
one day of fasting or something like that then I don't see the problems
of not consuming enough calories
But eating every day and just at night makes it very hard to get 3.000
or 4.000 or more calories without having a bloated stomach and feeling
too full, not to mention that there are only health disadvantages in
consuming too much food at one sitting: increased lipemia, increased
glucose intolerance. Ori Ofmekler is emaciated and skinny looking IMO
 >> Stay informed about: prudent bulking vs. pigging out