u dont need extra calories 2 build muscle

[matua0710]

The conventional wisdom for building muscle is that you need a calorie surplus to build new muscle mass. This simple logic has fueled a huge industry of "gainer" drinks and supplements that supply these extra calories. But are extra calories really necessary to build muscle?

You often see an association where someone who is muscular eats a lot of food. For example, bodybuilders do consume more calories than the average person. Seeing this, it's easy to think that eating more equals more muscle growth. But what I really think is happening is that they are eating more after the fact, that is, after they've already gained the muscle.

The body balances its intake of food through hunger and satiety. Given natural (Paleo) foods, the body will seek to maintain a certain weight based on a variety of factors. If a person gains muscle, this raises their basal metabolic rate, which the body should then compensate for by increasing hunger. Therefore, a person who has added muscle will naturally eat more, as the body attempts to maintain this new muscle (given continued training).

How about the actual process of building new muscle tissue, does this require extra calories? First off, no one really knows how many calories it takes to create new muscle tissue. Second, if building new muscle tissue does require "extra" calories, then the body would naturally compensate again by increasing hunger during this process.

For example, if a person increases their activity level, their appetite will tend to increase as well. So if the body requires a certain number of additional calories to create muscle tissue, this need should be covered by increased hunger and the resultant increased intake of food.

In conclusion, I don't think there's any reason to force-feed extra calories in order to build muscle. The hunger mechanism is strong enough to make sure a person consumes enough calories to fuel all bodily processes, including muscle growth. Sufficient fat and protein are needed for muscle growth, but as for the total number of calories, hunger should be the ultimate arbitrator.

 

[lucifuge]

how's that working out for ya?

 

[KelJu]

The conventional wisdom for building muscle is that you need a calorie surplus to build new muscle mass. This simple logic has fueled a huge industry of "gainer" drinks and supplements that supply these extra calories. But are extra calories really necessary to build muscle?

You often see an association where someone who is muscular eats a lot of food. For example, bodybuilders do consume more calories than the average person. Seeing this, it's easy to think that eating more equals more muscle growth. But what I really think is happening is that they are eating more after the fact, that is, after they've already gained the muscle.

The body balances its intake of food through hunger and satiety. Given natural (Paleo) foods, the body will seek to maintain a certain weight based on a variety of factors. If a person gains muscle, this raises their basal metabolic rate, which the body should then compensate for by increasing hunger. Therefore, a person who has added muscle will naturally eat more, as the body attempts to maintain this new muscle (given continued training).

How about the actual process of building new muscle tissue, does this require extra calories? First off, no one really knows how many calories it takes to create new muscle tissue. Second, if building new muscle tissue does require "extra" calories, then the body would naturally compensate again by increasing hunger during this process.

For example, if a person increases their activity level, their appetite will tend to increase as well. So if the body requires a certain number of additional calories to create muscle tissue, this need should be covered by increased hunger and the resultant increased intake of food.

In conclusion, I don't think there's any reason to force-feed extra calories in order to build muscle. The hunger mechanism is strong enough to make sure a person consumes enough calories to fuel all bodily processes, including muscle growth. Sufficient fat and protein are needed for muscle growth, but as for the total number of calories, hunger should be the ultimate arbitrator.

4 years of consistent training and kicking ass in the gym says you are wrong.

 

[Gazhole]

The body also likes homeostasis and would sooner stay exactly as it is than make huge changes like say, growing a lot of new muscle tissue.

Do you have ny research that backs up this theory?

We have a whole forum of members who are a testament to the opposing view

 

[ArnoldsProtege]

YouTube - you're wrong

 

[Perdido]

...and in 5000 years you WILL attain your goals of adding that mass you've always wanted.

 

[r00kie]

I agree with the OP(Note that he doesn`t suggest eating less, but the exact required cals). But there is a reason why we eat more. Building mass has 3 important factors- training, diet and rest.

We eat more so that "diet" part is well covered, and worry about other things. But eating the exact amount of food is tough. And depending on hunger is not a good idea, since hunger depends on various other factors.

 

[KelJu]

I agree with the OP

We eat more so that "diet" part is well covered, and worry about other things. But eating the exact amount of food is tough. And depending on hunger is not a good idea, since hunger depends on various other factors.

You are not agreeing with the OP. The OP said that hunger is how we should determine our caloric intake. I can't think of a more unscientific way to control your diet than using hunger.

Also, 50 years of exercise science and nutritional sciences disagrees with you and the OP.

 

[r00kie]

You are not agreeing with the OP. The OP said that hunger is how we should determine our caloric intake. I can't think of a more unscientific way to control your diet than using hunger.

Also, 50 years of exercise science and nutritional sciences disagrees with you and the OP.

You didn't get my point at all. He is theoretically correct, but the idea is not practical to follow in real.

Maybe I was not clear, my answer was yes and no

 

[KelJu]

You didn't get my point at all. He is theoretically correct, but the idea is not practical to follow in real.

Maybe I was not clear, my answer was yes and no

I disagree. Theoretically, we are designed to hunt/gather, and hide in caves. We are not designed to pick up heavy shit for 3 sets at 10 reps. We are not designed to hold onto as much muscle as we do, and we are especially not designed to hold onto as much muscle as we do with such low body fat percentages.

Science, knowledge, and cultural evolution has allowed us to do what we do in the gym. There is nothing natural about it. Therefor, you can not depend on a biological function like hunger to regulate something as important to the cause as caloric intake.

The OP is theoretically wrong, scientifically wrong, technically wrong... lets just saw the OP couldn't be more wrong.

 

[r00kie]

Okay consider this-

Lets say person X weighs 100lbs and works out 4x/week. He is consuming 200g of protein per day. Also assume that eating 300g of protein has no added benefit (there has to be some upper limit).

What I am trying to tell is- if he is a healthy person he will feel hungry enough to eat only 200g of protein (theoretical value). But he consumes 250g to be on safer side(thinking practically).

PS: I weigh 170lbs and I eat excess cals

 

[Built]

If I relied on hunger I'd weigh about eight thousand pounds.

 

[Perdido]

If I relied on hunger I'd be 125.

 

[GOtriSports]

If I relied on hunger I'd weigh about eight thousand pounds.

same with me. I could eat all day based on what my stomach tells me. But I know better. I rely on the research I have done and the what science has shown to be correct.

 

[fufu]

The conventional wisdom for building muscle is that you need a calorie surplus to build new muscle mass. This simple logic has fueled a huge industry of "gainer" drinks and supplements that supply these extra calories. But are extra calories really necessary to build muscle?

You often see an association where someone who is muscular eats a lot of food. For example, bodybuilders do consume more calories than the average person. Seeing this, it's easy to think that eating more equals more muscle growth. But what I really think is happening is that they are eating more after the fact, that is, after they've already gained the muscle.

The body balances its intake of food through hunger and satiety. Given natural (Paleo) foods, the body will seek to maintain a certain weight based on a variety of factors. If a person gains muscle, this raises their basal metabolic rate, which the body should then compensate for by increasing hunger. Therefore, a person who has added muscle will naturally eat more, as the body attempts to maintain this new muscle (given continued training).

How about the actual process of building new muscle tissue, does this require extra calories? First off, no one really knows how many calories it takes to create new muscle tissue. Second, if building new muscle tissue does require "extra" calories, then the body would naturally compensate again by increasing hunger during this process.

For example, if a person increases their activity level, their appetite will tend to increase as well. So if the body requires a certain number of additional calories to create muscle tissue, this need should be covered by increased hunger and the resultant increased intake of food.

In conclusion, I don't think there's any reason to force-feed extra calories in order to build muscle. The hunger mechanism is strong enough to make sure a person consumes enough calories to fuel all bodily processes, including muscle growth. Sufficient fat and protein are needed for muscle growth, but as for the total number of calories, hunger should be the ultimate arbitrator.

Your beliefs are ignorant. You are making quite bold claims for having no credentials in metabolic science.

It really comes to down physics, though. You can't creat mass out of nothing. Even if you provide the ideal nutrients to build muscle, total consumption of energy must exceed the amount of energy that your body expends to maintain itself. You can make your brain swell trying to think of potential metabolic pathways that your body could undergo to gain muscle without eating extra calories, but it really is simple.

 

[camarosuper6]

For an average person not using drugs, most feedback has concluded without a doubt that you need to really push calories in steady amounts over your maintenence level to obtain substantial amounts of muscle mass.

 

[urbanski]

If I relied on hunger I'd weigh about eight thousand pounds.

If I relied on hunger I'd be 125.

i'd be 115, and i proved it by losing down to that in February

i have fought like hell to EAT and jam food down me...and i'm up to 138 now

i am usually not hungry when i eat. in fact with my goal of every 3 hour meals, if i get hungry I probably busted my goal.

 

[CG]

If I relied on hunger I'd weigh about eight thousand pounds.

If I relied on hunger I'd be 125.

i'd be 115, and i proved it by losing down to that in February

i have fought like hell to EAT and jam food down me...and i'm up to 138 now

i am usually not hungry when i eat. in fact with my goal of every 3 hour meals, if i get hungry I probably busted my goal.

YEAHH see for me that's how i ballooned from 190 to 230 in about 8 months.. and what enevitably brought me here to seek help, since my doctor is a complete putz

 

[Perdido]

my doctor is a complete putz

Aren't they all when it come to weight? Mine keeps telling me I should weigh in at 200 (I'm finally pushing 235 now). I say WTF are you nuts? Do you have any idea how hard I've had to work and how much I have to eat just to gain a pound or two a year in LBM?

 

[CG]

Aren't they all when it come to weight? Mine keeps telling me I should weigh in at 200 (I'm finally pushing 235 now). I say WTF are you nuts? Do you have any idea how hard I've had to work and how much I have to eat just to gain a pound or two a year in LBM?

hahah they just don't get it.. its like the hippa laws, something most doctors will NEVER understand (lawsuit ahoy!)