Caloric Surplus

AlexPowell

AlexPowell

Well-known member
Do you think that you need to be in a caloric surplus in order to grow? Or do you think you just need to have adequate calories?

I see a lot of examples of people that get big and ripped and none of them pay attention to diet. However they are all people that eat an astonishing amount of food and follow it up with an astonishing amount of activity. People like rock climbers, cross fitters and other athletes

If you eat 6000kcal a day and burn off 6100kcal a day do you think you could grow while getting leaner? Do you think the answer is something else?
 
What is the difference between surplus calories and "adequate" calories?
 
bwdill said:
What is the difference between surplus calories and "adequate" calories?
Click to expand...

Adequate would be enough calories to grow but to not to gain fat or even lose fat
 
AlexPowell said:
Adequate would be enough calories to grow but to not to gain fat or even lose fat
Click to expand...
Yeah but I think that is the answer. Anything over maintenance (whether its 1kcal or 1000kcal) is a surplus, which is the adequate amount of calories to grow.
 
bwdill said:
Yeah but I think that is the answer. Anything over maintenance (whether its 1kcal or 1000kcal) is a surplus, which is the adequate amount of calories to grow.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's sort of jumping around the question though, which was, can you eat sufficient calories to grow while expending sufficient calories to lose fat
 
AlexPowell said:
Yeah it's sort of jumping around the question though, which was, can you eat sufficient calories to grow while expending sufficient calories to lose fat
Click to expand...
Yeah but...

sufficient calories to grow = caloric surplus
 
stupid question tbh. if you're in a surplus, you're in an anabolic state and vice versa. unless its newbie gains or youre on PEDS, regardless of the total calories, if you're in a deficit, you're depriving your body from growth and vice versa.
 
Pinggolfee96 said:
stupid question tbh. if you're in a surplus, you're in an anabolic state and vice versa. unless its newbie gains or youre on PEDS, regardless of the total calories, if you're in a deficit, you're depriving your body from growth and vice versa.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if s caloric surplus is inherently anabolic. What’s more anabolic, being in a slight caloric deficit with high/optimal protein intake or being in a caloric surplus with literally zero protein (hypothetically just eating nothing but sugar or something).
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I don’t know if s caloric surplus is inherently anabolic. What’s more anabolic, being in a slight caloric deficit with high/optimal protein intake or being in a caloric surplus with literally zero protein (hypothetically just eating nothing but sugar or something).
Click to expand...

Broadly speaking, I’d say yes it is, as anabolism can occur in fat as well. But colloquially, (and I assume OP means this as well) when people say “anabolism”, they’re referring to muscle anabolism.

Personally, I don’t see any reason why a caloric surplus would be required for muscle growth. Like you said here, if you only ate sugar, regardless of how much, you won’t get much growth outside of fat storage and maybe some glycogen retention. While I have to believe there are limits, I don’t see any reason why someone wouldn’t be able to build a little muscle while in a slight calorie deficit.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I don’t know if s caloric surplus is inherently anabolic. What’s more anabolic, being in a slight caloric deficit with high/optimal protein intake or being in a caloric surplus with literally zero protein (hypothetically just eating nothing but sugar or something).
Click to expand...

You’re technically not in an optimal anabolic state here though, and for the second part regarding a surplus derived from carbs/ sugar is just common sense stupid. Of course a zero/ negligible protein diet isn’t anabolic, but it’s also stupid considering protein is used for wayyyy more than building muscle in human physiology
 
Pinggolfee96 said:
You’re technically not in an optimal anabolic state here though, and for the second part regarding a surplus derived from carbs/ sugar is just common sense stupid. Of course a zero/ negligible protein diet isn’t anabolic, but it’s also stupid considering protein is used for wayyyy more than building muscle in human physiology
Click to expand...
You said, and I quote, "if you're in a surplus, you're in an anabolic state and vice versa." I argued, using an admittedly extreme but hypothetically possible example, that it is possible to be more "anabolic" (in regards to muscle growth) in a caloric deficit than in a caloric surplus. Of course optimal anabolism requires a caloric surplus, and a surplus is generally more anabolic than a deficit, but I was simply arguing against your sweeping generalization that a caloric surplus is inherently anabolic. I never suggested doing this all-carb-no-protein diet, but merely used it to show the flaw in your absolute statement. You may not be in an "optimal" anabolic state in a deficit, but that's not what your statement said either, you said a deficit is inherently catabolic. That's the problem with absolute statements; if they're wrong even 0.0000000000000001% of the time, they're wrong.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
You said, and I quote, "if you're in a surplus, you're in an anabolic state and vice versa." I argued, using an admittedly extreme but hypothetically possible example, that it is possible to be more "anabolic" (in regards to muscle growth) in a caloric deficit than in a caloric surplus. Of course optimal anabolism requires a caloric surplus, and a surplus is generally more anabolic than a deficit, but I was simply arguing against your sweeping generalization that a caloric surplus is inherently anabolic. I never suggested doing this all-carb-no-protein diet, but merely used it to show the flaw in your absolute statement. You may not be in an "optimal" anabolic state in a deficit, but that's not what your statement said either, you said a deficit is inherently catabolic. That's the problem with absolute statements; if they're wrong even 0.0000000000000001% of the time, they're wrong.
Click to expand...

You showed a “flaw” or atleast tried to exaggerate my statement by a completely “obsolute statement yourself. Obviously neither is optimal but technically, in a physiologically state, unless you can outrule science, a deficit is still a deficit. So aside from strength which I believe can be increased in a slight deficit, it’s hard to build optimal muscle in a deficit unless on gear. It’s like trying to build a 10 story building then not having enough bricks once you get to the ninth floor. Fuel/ product creates outcome. A deficit is a deficit, you’ll still be catabolic over time.
 
Pinggolfee96 said:
You showed a “flaw” or atleast tried to exaggerate my statement by a completely “obsolute statement yourself. Obviously neither is optimal but technically, in a physiologically state, unless you can outrule science, a deficit is still a deficit. So aside from strength which I believe can be increased in a slight deficit, it’s hard to build optimal muscle in a deficit unless on gear. It’s like trying to build a 10 story building then not having enough bricks once you get to the ninth floor. Fuel/ product creates outcome. A deficit is a deficit, you’ll still be catabolic over time.
Click to expand...
You keep mentioning OPTIMAL muscle growth. I never said it's possible to achieve OPTIMAL muscle growth or anabolism in a deficit. I said that your claim that "if you're in a surplus, you're in an anabolic state and vice versa" is not always inherently correct. I didn't make an absolute statement, I used an EXAMPLE to disprove your absolute statement. If you don't know the difference between these things, I don't know what to tell you. I "can't outrule science?" What are you on about man?
 
Pinggolfee96 said:
You showed a “flaw” or atleast tried to exaggerate my statement by a completely “obsolute statement yourself. Obviously neither is optimal but technically, in a physiologically state, unless you can outrule science, a deficit is still a deficit. So aside from strength which I believe can be increased in a slight deficit, it’s hard to build optimal muscle in a deficit unless on gear. It’s like trying to build a 10 story building then not having enough bricks once you get to the ninth floor. Fuel/ product creates outcome. A deficit is a deficit, you’ll still be catabolic over time.
Click to expand...
Here's some science for ya:
Invalid Link Removed
A randomized, prospective 12-week study was performed comparing the changes in body composition produced by three different treatment modalities in three study groups. One group (n = 10) was placed on a nonlipogenic, hypocaloric diet alone (80% of predicted needs). A second group (n = 14) was placed on the hypocaloric diet plus resistance exercise plus a high-protein intake (1.5 g/kg/day) using a casein protein hydrolysate. In the third group (n = 14) treatment was identical to the second, except for the use of a whey protein hydrolysate...

Lean mass gains in the three groups did not change for diet alone, versus gains of 4 +/- 1.4 and 2 +/- 0.7 kg in the casein and whey groups, respectively.
Click to expand...
 
I can argue saying that if you dont train at all you wont gain muscles either in slightly caloric deficit diet with high protein or in a surplus diet.

I think we should all take some facts given(training, high protein) since we are in a very specific forum, otherwise we wont learn anything from this discussion..
 
One way of thinking that’s always interested me is the timescales over which we view a calorie surplus or deficit. A day is standard but it’s not like our bodies get to bedtime and calculate where we are at. The process of protein synthesis and glycogen/fat use for energy is constantly occurring. I’ve seen theories that if you optimise times in the day when the body is most receptive to growth with calories whilst limiting muscle loss at lower calorie periods it’s feasible to do both, gain muscle and lose fat during the same period.

However

Do I think that’s optimal - probably not

Do I think it would crazy hard - absolutely, unless you had a team of nutritionists working with you I’m not sure anyone can be that precise all day every day.
 
Between adipose tissue, stored glycogen and gluconeogenesis...possibly.
Cant see it being easy without some awesome timing of diet, training, sleeping and hormones though.
 
Well we know that calories equals weight and weight equals growth. Obviously one can build muscle as a beginner with a normal diet but at some point you'd need to change things because you get bigger. I think it's possible for a person to build on a deficit, that person is not me though.. Since I've been training for years and even implemented gear I think my body wouldn't handle a deficit without gear, I could look better and maybe not lose so much, heck maybe it's possible to keep the muscle but I sure as hell won't gain anything. Now if this was me as a beginner I'm sure I'd build regardless
 
Chados said:
Well we know that calories equals weight and weight equals growth. Obviously one can build muscle as a beginner with a normal diet but at some point you'd need to change things because you get bigger. I think it's possible for a person to build on a deficit, that person is not me though.. Since I've been training for years and even implemented gear I think my body wouldn't handle a deficit without gear, I could look better and maybe not lose so much, heck maybe it's possible to keep the muscle but I sure as hell won't gain anything. Now if this was me as a beginner I'm sure I'd build regardless
Click to expand...

U saying you wouldn’t gain with gear in a deficit ? Or with out gear mate ?
 
Ryan303 said:
U saying you wouldn’t gain with gear in a deficit ? Or with out gear mate ?
Click to expand...

You can build muscles with gear on a deficit but without gear it's hard. It's still a whole different ballgame rating a lot than eating too little, gear is just an enhancement and even using that it'll be hard to gain during a deficit.
 
Chados said:
You can build muscles with gear on a deficit but without gear it's hard. It's still a whole different ballgame rating a lot than eating too little, gear is just an enhancement and even using that it'll be hard to gain during a deficit.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you could do it if it was a minor deficit.
 
It depends on different factors

if its a minor calorie deficit
how intense training is
supplements and hormones

Ive gained natural before on a two month cut and lost a little body-fat, back before I started on trt. Ive been on trt five years, ive been bodybuilding for seventeen years.
 
Well, grow size... need more calories than you burn off.

Grow muscle, just need to do the work. If you’re fat, you’ll grow muscles even in a deep caloric deficit.
 
Old Witch said:
Well, grow size... need more calories than you burn off.

Grow muscle, just need to do the work. If you’re fat, you’ll grow muscles even in a deep caloric deficit.
Click to expand...
He may be a hardgainer (like me) where sometimes calorie surplus seems to never be enough surplus..Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top