I read an article where some guy was saying that the body will

>>37685430

>wat

If you caloric intake is "insufficient" you will not be building muscle in the first place

>>37685527
There's an article on bodybuilding.com that says that if you're eating sufficient protein, you will convert fat to energy to build the muscle if you're not eating at a caloric surplus.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/fat_loss_muscle_gain_trick.htm

Muscle building is an endothermic process you need to be on a calorific surplus to build it. Only people bulking shouldn't be done is advanced lifters, very low weight classes sports and guys that are fat.

>>37685545
>bodybuilding.com
>ever
>lmao

Dude, stick to reading actual scientific studies with the proper parameters. That website is full of shit, the only good thing to come out of there was & probably still is, the nutrition section of the forums

>>37685430
well yeah, that's the point of fat: a backup energy source

your body isn't meant to burn ONLY that so you want to be at a small deficit, not a huge one.

>>37685527
Not if you're severely overweight. A fat body has enough energy to build muscle on a low caloric diet.

>bodybuilding.com
Seems plausible to me friendo

>>37685563
To be honest most sports studies currently are of very very poor quality whether it's stupid exercise Rom method of measurement sample size (saw a recent study about low bar squat with a sample size of fucking five)

>>37685599
Your body doesn't use "fat energy" to build muscle, it uses protein through a process called protein synthesis moron

>>37685599
But if you have fat to burn at all, if the body actually is converting it to energy to fuel muscle growth wouldn't it use any fat available regardless of your weight?

>>37685602
I'll take a sample of 5 over "anecdotal evidence" gathered by the fucking geniuses that write the articles for the front page of bb.com

>>37685613
see>>37685611

>>37685623
They both aren't worth the megabytes they're written on since they both have the same level of credibility. That's my point anyway.

>>37685611
Your body can synthesise 11/20 of the amino acids it needs to build muscle tissue. If you're overweight and you're getting enough of the other 9, your body will make up the difference in a calorie deficit by using anything else it can get - i.e. fat.

>>37685637
A controlled study using the scientific method has the same level of credibility as something someone fucking made up?

>lol try harder pls

>>37685645
*Citation needed*

>>37685664
But that's the problem the studies are flawed to the highest degree. A sample size of 5 (this isn't the first time either) shows a clear lack of understanding of the scientific methods and statistical significance if this was any other field of science you wouldn't even get that published in an Indian journal. However this is very prevalent amongst the sports journals which is they don't get taken seriously by any coaches. Just so you know not the guy that posted the article.

>>37685706
No matter the sample size, a study using the scientific method is competently relevant to the subject at hand. If a study of five on the topic is all we have, it's results are to be taken as fact.

The great thing about the scientific method is that it was invented so that if you disagree with the results of someones study, you can test out the theory yourself. The scientific method was invented so that results may be reproduced to prove other studies either correct or wrong.

Saying that you don't believe a study because it has a small sample size really just tells me that YOU do not understand the scientific method yourself. If you would like to disprove the results of the study, conduct your own test. Until you refute the results of that test with those of your own I will have to rely on the low bar squat study as fact and your opinion as irrelevant.