DIET

read the sticky.
read up on basic nutrition.

>>42706649
>sticky
I read it, it is as if a retard made copy/pasted it together.

>Eat big, get big`. Mheme

Eat what? If you eat shit, you won't get big, you'll get fat. The sticky is retarded as fuck.

>>42706643
It's not required, but it makes it easier. If you are already fat you can do both as you have a ton of energy in your fat until you get leaner then it becomes harder.

>>42706724
Are you trolling, or are you actually this stupid?

>Eat what?
It tells you. Did you read the sticky?

>If you eat shit, you won't get big, you'll get fat.
It's almost like the sticky tells you to not eat shit ("cut out fast food and soda; icecream, processed food, et c")

>Eat big, get big`. Mheme
Feel free to explain how your body is going to be able to magically create muscle mass without a caloric surplus.

File: Sweet spot.jpg (24KB, 735x188px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 735x188px

>>42706643
>Is caloric surplus necessry to gain muscle?

Calories [PROTEIN + FAT + CARBS] = BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) + ACTIVIES

If this is equal you are in maintenance, however since PROTEIN is also counted to calories and used as fuel as well, there will be none left for your body to build muscles since it is all used up.

Therefore you need a caloric surplus so that the PROTEIN you digest is left over for muscle repair thus muscle gain.

Simple as that.

If you go in a caloric deficit, your body will burn EVERYTHING you digested including the scoops of PROTEIN, and go straight for the fat reserves in your body, a miniscule amount of PROTEIN you digested will be used for muscle repairment, so you will see gains, but the majority of your PROTEIN is going to get digested.

That is the reason of the neccesity of a caloric surplus in gaining muscle mass. If you want to gain muscle but not gain fat, you have to be in caloric surplus with FAT + CARB to equal your BMR + ACTIVITIES, but not more than that. (see picrelated)

if you wanna minimize fat gain cycle your bulks and dont bulk too hard

cycle as in bulk for a month and then maintain for a month, repeat

>>42706920
Calories are completely irrelevant actually

File: jay-cutler-fat.jpg (20KB, 309x320px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 309x320px

>>42706920
/this

yes, even in a caloric deficit protein will be used for repairs, but not as much as when in surplus, because body is in starvation mode.

If you want to do a clean bulk, or generally just lose weight. you go lean as you want to through a caloric deficit with excess protein to not lose muscle, and then go in the sweet spot, maintaining that will give you muscle without making you fat.

If you however want to be big fast, but look like a pig for the majority of your time, untill you decide to cut, then go dirty bulk.

>>42706989
>Calories are completely irrelevant actually
irrelevant in what context? in that you do not need food to survive?

>>42706994
jay bulkler

>>42706989
You're retarded. It's physically impossible for you to gain weight if you consistently eat at a deficit.

>>42706920
caloric surplus will only lead to getting fatter (especially considering the caloric surplus suggested by fit are WAY WAY above what you really need)
you have to get slightly less than necessary cal to keep your body on the edge, that way all the cals get used for muscles

>>42707046
that's not how that works, even at a 100 calorie surplus, some of it will be stored as fat, it is a fool's errand to try and avoid fat gain completely in a calorie surplus

the reason we choose surpluses of 250-500 (which is not all going to muscle) is because TDEE is a moving target, if you set a small surplus of 150 or something you may very well erase that surplus on some days by taking the stairs or parking your car further away or mismeasuring something - it's an insurance policy to make sure you are making all possible muscle gains during your massing phase

http://revivestronger.com/2017/07/29/podcast-061-mike-israetel-qa-perfecting-calorie-surplus/

>>42707046
>t. 120 lb dyel

>>42706920
Although the math is right, the digestion is false.

Your body will NOT use PROTEIN for fuel if it still hast fat reserves. It will always go for FAT reserves FIRST. In rare occasions when there is not enough fat in the food and the body has no fat reserves, the body will use digested protein as a fuel, this however leads to rabbit starvation or protein poisoning.

>Eating a diet too high in protein can, after several weeks, result in death. According to the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Institute of Medicine, "rabbit starvation" can occur when you get 45 percent of your calories from protein. Such protein-rich diets can lead to symptoms that include nausea, weakness and diarrhea, those these symptoms abate when the protein content of your diet is reduced by increasing the amount of fats or carbohydrates.

So YES you can gain mass in a caloric deficit, however from general experience not as fast as in a bulk.

The problem behind the whole [calories in = calories out] is that it counts protein as a fuel source, which technically is correct, but as described above is misleading.

>>42707075
>that's not how that works, even at a 100 calorie surplus, some of it will be stored as fat, it is a fool's errand to try and avoid fat gain completely in a calorie surplus

You can have a calorie surplus by just eating 100% protein as well, but will not gain fat. How you achieve that surplus is the point, if you eat an extensive protein diet with fat and carbs just fueling your BMR, you'll not store fat since only protein will be left.

>>42707046
no, that's not how it works. there isn't a magic muscle/fat caloric intake limit. see above comments.

Haven't lifted much, but when I tried (stopped due to extreme back pain from improper squat form) I probably ate 400-600 above TDEE and became skinnyfat rather quick. Def. ate too many carbs.

I have two questions though since I want to begin again after I get rid of some fat so I don't become fat fat -

Is eating 200-300 above TDEE good enough and do you eat that amount every day or only on lifting days?

>>42707143
>Is eating 200-300 above TDEE good enough and do you eat that amount every day or only on lifting days?

Depends what you eat?

>If you eat only carbs and fat, but no protein, you'll get fat but will gain no muscle.

>If you eat only protein but no fat and carbs, you'll die from poisoning.

>If you eat protein and fat, but no carbs, you'll have a hard time in the gym, but will go into ketosis and will burn fat like a motherfucker when in caloric deficit.

>If you eat protein and carbs, but no fat, you'll have a great time in the gym, but will get fat as a pig in no time.

>>42707118
>You can have a calorie surplus by just eating 100% protein as well, but will not gain fat
Do you not know what gluconeogenesis is?

>>42707209
I do know, but a caloric surplus in protein WILL NOT BE STORED AS FAT since PROTEIN in a caloric surplus is not going to get broken down into glucose, but pissed out, because the body does not need it.

>>42707222
>since PROTEIN in a caloric surplus is not going to get broken down into glucose, but pissed out,
thats a meme

theres just one or two amino acids that get turned into urea in excess, the rest does get used in one way why would your body throw that out lmao

>>42707222
Your brain alone runs on about 100g of glucose per day, dipshit. If you're not providing a more readily available source of glucose, your body makes it from where it can get it, in this case dietary protein since there's a fuck huge surplus of it. Your massive insulin spikes from all the protein encourage this.

>>42707242
>the rest does get used in one way why would your body throw that out lmao

it will be used in muscle repair, the talk is about fat storage however. protein will be pissed out (or used as muscle repair), not stored as fat.

>>42707260
try it retard, go in a caloric surplus with 100% protein diet. I fucking dare you. Tell me if you will gain fat.

>>42707273
I won't because I'm not a fucking idiot. You're either conflating weight loss due to reduced water to not gaining fat, you genuinely believe in your unproven bullshit, or you're a shit troll. Just because you want some dumb shit kid browsing this place for the first time to die from kidney failure doesn't mean I'm going to fall for it

>>42707263
i believe that is false. Mostly because protein in itself does get broken down and the body used the amino acids

they generally have different uses, leucine gets used for muscle repair for example and some other get pissed out in excess. Look up the metabolic pathways

So what the fuck should I eat to have a clean bulk?

high protein/fat, low carbs? below maintenance level

>>42707100
>body will NOT use PROTEIN for fuel if it still hast fat reserves. It will always go for FAT reserves FIRST.

Factually untrue, your body will hold onto fat reserves until it is FORCED to use them ie. not enough glycogen reserves.

File: how-to-look-like-jeff-seid.jpg (97KB, 496x626px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 496x626px

>>42706643
NO! don't listen to the fat faggots, mostly dyels anyway

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN A CALORIC SURPLUS TO GAIN MUSCLE!

WATCH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3AG-oCXTE

in a caloric deficit your body will always utilise carbs and fats first (be it stored or otherwise) and protein will be used for muscle repair. protein is the least favorable energy fuel for the body, that is the fucking scientific fact.

Eat a lot of protein and fat, not so much carbs and be in a caloric deficit.

The bulk'n'cut shit is made up by lazy idiots with pseudo-science.

>>42707492
>muh k-keto!

File: 1504107676355.png (30KB, 700x965px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 700x965px

>>42707118
what a fucking stupid response

>>42707492
Athlean-X is not a credible source of information. I'm going to listen to Lyle McDonald, Mike Israetel, Alan Aragon, Eric Helms, etc. who have actual credentials in the field, and I'm also going to listen to my own personal experience over a few years of lifting which has shown me repeatedly that lifting hard + maintenance calories = dogshit slow progress.

You can gain muscle in a caloric deficit from a physiological standpoint, but the odds of you doing this unless you are untrained, detrained, or on some gear are pretty low. You can also gain muscle and lose fat at the same time at maintenance calories ("recomp"), but this also isn't very effective once you've been training for a few years.

>>42706643
technically no, there are situations where it's possible to gain muscle and eat below your TDEE, for example if you're a 600 pound man who recently had a gastric bypass.

HOWEVER it's not the case for the average man. if you want to gain muscle you should be eating 500-1000 calories extra per day.

>>42707829
500-1000 is a little too much, I can't think of any situation outside of novice LP where 1000 would give you an edge over 500, I would say 250-500 is a better range for most

File: IMG_9243.jpg (31KB, 335x335px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 335x335px

>>42706989
fuck off faggot, quit poisoning the well with shit like this

File: Rich.jpg (20KB, 325x325px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 325x325px

>>42706863
>cut out ice cream

Sure I guess... if you don't want to leave humanity behind.

>>42707181
>if you eat protein and carbs you will get fat as a pig in no time
I'm gonna need an explaination on this

>>42707827
>Athlean-X is not a credible source of information.
>but an anon on a indonesian plumbing forum is

OP if you want to gain muscle eat a lot of protein 2g per lb at least, if you want to lose fat eat below caloric maintenance. simple as that.

there are fatsos thinking they gained more muscle because they bulked like pigs, the thing is most of that circumference was fat not muscle gain.

so... if i've just started lifting, and i'm carrying around a little extra body fat that i want to lose, should i be eating above or below maintenance? making sure i'm eating a lot of protein

>>42708219
Below.

>>42708249
will the noob gains be affected?

>>42708035
>I'm going to listen to Lyle McDonald, Mike Israetel, Alan Aragon, Eric Helms

literally gave you four credible sources you can go and investigate

anyway whenever i see anons on here suggesting that being in a calorie surplus for gaining muscle is a meme or only for people on steroids i seriously question whether they've been lifting for longer than a few months to a year

>>42708219
cut to 10-12%
>>42708276
yes

>>42708342
isn't it a bit silly to lessen my noob gains?

>>42708376
isn't it a bit silly to get even fucking fatter and then have to cut forever and possibly lose a little size and strength?

i made that mistake, learn from me

File: 214o124012421.png (25KB, 669x514px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 669x514px

holy fug man I literally cannot make a decision on how many calories to eat. stats are 19 5'11'' 173lbs (not mega fat but clearly flab-bitch) how many should I eat for muscle gain if I'm doing MWF with light exercise on rest days PLEASE HELP (do I subtract from bmr or tdee the fug?)

>>42708429
>how should I eat for muscle gain when I'm already fat

see

>>42708342
>>42708400

>>42708429
just took a dump now at 172 feels good mate :)

>>42708400
y-yes

i shall cut

how many calories deficit from my TDEE is a reasonable amount?

should i be factoring in lifting to my TDEE?

File: IMG_6207.jpg (33KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x400px

>>42707882
>mfw wealthy harpsichord actually left humanity behind

Think about it this way.

Muscle is not made of nothing. Mass cannot be created nor destroyed (true for this case). This being said, how is muscle being created? Well, there are two ways to gain muscle mass.

1. from pre-existing mass, such as body fat or glycogen stores. The body uses calorie containing chemicals such as fats and carbohydrates to promote amino acid/protein synthesis. This is not likely to happen in people who are not overweight to begin with.

2. eating in a caloric surplus. Providing your body with materials to repair and synthesize muscle. This is much more optimal, as you will not plateau as easy in finding the calories required for your body such that protein synthesis can be induced.

TL;DR no you do not NEED a caloric surplus to gain muscle under certain body conditions, but it is much optimal if we are only looking at amount of muscle gain. Gaining muscle in a caloric deficit is mainly only useful for those already overweight/obese.

>>42706643
Just eat 200-300 calories over your maintanice, no need at all to eat 4000 calories

>>42708489
haha yes me fat idiot has built in muscle factories. checkm8 chad x))

>>42706643
depends on diet

>>42707994
well its not true is my explanation, just get enough protein and enough calories thats about it really..

File: 1502931252123.png (10KB, 449x602px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 449x602px

>>42708457
Any TDEE you get from an online calculator is going to be off a little bit, partially because it's impossible to nail down exactly how active you are and partially because TDEE does vary quite a bit between individuals in states of over/underfeeding due to NEAT response.

Your best bet would be to use an online calculator (and yes include your lifting as moderate activity) estimate as a starting point, and then download nSuns TDEE spreadsheet and input your morning weight and calories eaten each day. After 2-3 weeks of this, you will have your accurate TDEE based on changes in your weight with a certain calorie intake. As far as how aggressively you can diet, the stock 500 calorie deficit recommendation is really needlessly conservative and will have you dieting for a long time if you have a lot of fat to lose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhLIsFFsPAA
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html/

For a conservative estimate you can divide your bodyfat percentage by 20, which will give you the percentage of your bodyweight you can lose per week without risking muscle loss, and then you can set your deficit accordingly (if I were you I would cap this at a 1000 calorie deficit if the estimate gives you something in excess of that, no reason to be too miserable and hungry).

Also make sure you get 1g/lb protein at least but that's common sense anyway

>>42706989
(u)

File: Screenshot_185.jpg (220KB, 722x653px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 722x653px

>>42706863
>surplus
Fat stores and protein.

>>42706920
>>42707019
>What is the possibility that muscles are prioritized because of weightlifting, thus pulling fat stores for other energy

It is possible -- there are plenty of studies with fat loss + muscle gain.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571

One group gained muscle on -20% of TDEE, at *104g of protein* .. (the -30% at the same protein gained nothing).

According to examine.com, ~2.3-3.1g/kg protein/LBM (123-167g) is required for some weight loss routines (contest prep), and thus could've benefited the groups.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/42344154/Effect_of_two_different_weight-loss_rate20160207-25098-1gx8098.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1504275920&Signature=PbV2ayHS%2BauMv7SO%2F4zzrt%2Bfpeg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DEffect_of_two_different_weight-loss_rate.pdf)

>>42706863
You don't need a caloric surplus, just a positive nitrogen balance

File: Screenshot_187.jpg (46KB, 658x218px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 658x218px

>>42708563

>>42708429
caloric deficit, ffs bro, it is logical, an muscles will grow if you train and feed them enough proton.

>>42708531
Jesus Christ, you're projecting a little my man.

>>42706920
>but the majority of your PROTEIN is going to get digested.

no it won't, body will first repair itself then use the fat stores and only then go for the protein.

>>42708668
mostly true, but not 100% true. The ratio for each body is a tad different. But it will not 100% go for fat first. It mostly does, but it depends on location, accessibility and a bunch of other factors within the body. If this were true, one could drop to single digit body fat without any muscle loss.

File: DCIM1870.jpg (52KB, 584x374px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 584x374px

I like this thread

>>42706643
NO. just hit your protein target and get lots of sleep. also make sure you supplement zinc citrate and magnesium citrate and get some bcaa's (whether it's spiked in your whey or as a supplement) for those recovery gains.

>>42708686
the fuck is wrong with his chest

>>42708550
other than eating enough protein do i need to worry about what i'm eating? trying to eat a lot of vegetables and chicken at the moment, should i just carry on as normal

>>42708827
eat protein and fat (good one, like avocados and shit), don't eat much carbs because other than energy they are worthless in a nutrition sense (fiber excluded, you need that for good shits)

>>42708827
you gotta make sure your body is efficiently able to extract nutrients from the food you do eat (i.e. gut/ microbiota health). otherwise you can shovel as much protein into your stomach as you can muster but wind up just passing most of it. if you've had a shitty diet for a long time supplement pre and postbiotics for a while. then after make sure you regularly eat foods containing probiotics and other healthy bacteria (fermented food like kimchi, cheese, yogurts). also ensure you get plenty of vegetable and whole grain fibres as those help maintain the diversity of gut bacteria.

File: BCAAs.jpg (92KB, 873x440px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 873x440px

>>42708692
>citrate
Zinc picolinate and magnesium sulfate, here..

>>42708858
pls give more examples of good fats to eat so i can plan meals

File: Foods-with-healthy-fats-featured.jpg (152KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1000x662px

>>42709093
Avocados, cheese, nuts, eggs, fish, yogurt and dark chocolate.

>>42708642
I was 100% unironic

>>42708757
nothing?

>>42708757
it's muscle, you dyel twink

>>42707456
Nice reading comprehension mate. He's saying that fat storage always has the priority over ingested protein for energy. Didn't say anything about glycogen deposits.

>>42706643

Well, ask yourself: what would your body use to build muscle out of, if not from an excess of food/calories?

>>42709884
>calories build muscles

bro are you retarded?

>>42706643

i know this is a big debate and i always thought a caloric surplus was necessary, however, i lost over 20 pounds this summer despite gaining muscle. The muscle gain was obvious because I'm below 20% BF so it's visible to me.

I had a really tough manual job working up to 10 hours a day but still made sure i got enough protein. But I was definitely at a caloric deficit since I lost at least 20 pounds of fat.

This is just my personal experience.

>>42710211
what did you do to make sure you got more protein? in a similar situation where I'd like to lose ~20 lbs but still gain some muscle hmm

File: 417MXUTBSbL._SL250_.jpg (11KB, 250x139px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x139px

>>42711944
not him, but I eat 200g of protein a day. Sometimes 260g, without any problem.

Eat 400g of chicken with broccoli and cottage cheese and drink a protein shake with 100g of whey in it, then I eat a pack of mixed nuts 150g over the day, and some austrian sausages (picrelated) as a snack.

>>42711944

non-fat milk, chicken, meat, eggs

easy to reach 150 gram of protein, which was sufficient for me to gain muscle

>>42707433
Real foods you make yourself

>>42710187

If you eat at a caloric deficit, even if it was 100% protein, what would your body build muscle out of?

>>42708577
Should I start rolling in soil?

>>42712275
protein

the body will burn your fat reserves first before digesting protein (a miniscule amount will get digested but not the whole amount).

if you have no fat reserves whatsoever and you ate 100% protein, then the body would digest protein fully and give you a poisoning, a condition called rabbit starvation.

>>42712377

So basically what you are saying is recomping is easy, anybody can do it, all you have to do is eat a mostly protein diet at a deficit.

File: CJbNG8LWcAA-k0T.jpg (39KB, 600x462px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x462px

>>42706643
Those crepes look fucking amazing but I'm in the middle of a cut right now. :/

>>42712216
>>42712236
holy fuck dudes I just did the math and I've only had 28 grams so far today (in 772 calories) and I'm fULL? going to gym later so ill be hungry after that but like, fucking 120 grams behind jesus (I've only had two slices of turkey on a sandwhich though so I guess to get /bigger/ I'll have to make some chicken breast)