While the boss is away............Thread
- Thread starter xjsynx
- Start date
- Status
thewilman
Well-known member
LOL...you are pretty young for saggy nuts! :toofunny:
Try the nut bra! Invalid Link Removed
xjsynx
Member
Energy cost of building muscle
How much energy is needed to build one pound of muscle? This is a very
important question because it will help us design a plan that will allow us to
provide our body with what it needs to build muscle without risking gaining
too much fat. Some people have tried to answer that by simply taking into
consideration the composition of a pound of muscle. Muscle tissue is around
22% protein, 5% fat, 3% carbs and the rest is water, minerals and trace
elements.
Since one pound = 0.455kg, it’s sometimes believed that one pound of
muscle is composed of:
per gram of fat they assume that one thus needs around 660kcals to build
one pound of muscle. According to that (erroneous) logic if one wanted to
gain 10lbs of muscle he would need to consume 6600kcals more than his
maintenance level over a certain period of time. For example if he wanted to
gain 10lbs over 3 months he’d have to consume 70 calories above
maintenance per day.
This is a mistake. The actual process of building muscle tissue requires a lot
more energy beyond its simple composition. The body must take the
nutrients absorbed and synthesize muscle tissue. This is a very energy-costly
process! Basically when you are building muscle it’s like when you are
building a house: not only do you have to pay for the raw material needed,
but you also have to pay the construction workers.
Studies have found that for each gram of protein synthesized into new
muscle tissue, 220 calories are needed to turn the raw protein into new
muscle mass. Since one pound of muscle contains approximately 100g of
protein it is thus clear that to build one pound of muscle we actually need
more than 20 000kcals. Quite a bit more than the earlier estimated 660!
So if we want to build 10lbs of muscle we need to ingest around 22 000
calories above our maintenance level over a certain period of time. If we
wanted to gain that 10lbs over a 5 months period of time this would mean
consuming around 1400 calories above maintenance per day. So if you need
to consume 3000kcals per day to maintain your current weight, you’d need
to ingest around 4400kcals per day to gain 10lbs of muscle tissue over a 5
months period.
How much muscle can we build?
Now that we know how much calories are needed to build one pound of
muscle, it becomes important to know exactly how many pounds of muscle
we can build in a certain period of time. Obviously our body has a limited
growth potential. If it could use all the nutrients ingested to build muscle we
would only have to consume 15 000kcals/day and we’d all be 300lbs muscle
freaks!
Well, the average natural body (non chemically-enhanced) can synthesize
between 0.25 and 0.5lbs of muscle tissue per week. So it can build 1-2lbs of
muscle per month of training on average (on some months you might gain 3-
4lbs while on others zilch).
Now keep in mind that I’m talking about dry muscle weight. Every gain in
muscle size will also lead to increases in glycogen storage among other
things. It is possible to store up to 40g of glycogen per 100g of muscle
(around 15g in an untrained muscle, up to 40g for a well-trained individual).
So for 10lbs of new muscle, you’d also gain up to 4lbs of added glycogen
storage. So you can gain around 14lbs of scale weight, not just the 10lbs.
So if we want to gain 10lbs of muscle we’d need 5-10 months to do so
(unless the individual is a genetic freak or a total beginner). As a result it
becomes necessary to increase caloric intake anywhere from 700kcals (10
months) and up to 1400kcals (5 months) per day to attain the desired muscle
gain. Eating more than that will not stimulate more muscle growth. This is
because the body simply cannot use more nutrients than that to build muscle
due to its limited capacity to synthesize muscle tissue. So if you need
3000kcals daily to maintain your body weight/muscle mass you’d need to
consume 3700 to 4400kcals per day to build the desired amount of muscle.
More than that and you’ll risk gaining fat, without actually increasing
potential muscle growth.
Your body cannot be "forced" into adding muscle mass. Understand that
regardless of how good your training program is and how much good food
you ingest, your muscle growth potential is ultimately limited by the
physiological rate at which you body can fabric muscle tissue. This is one of
the reasons why using performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids, hGH,
IGF-1 and insulin can lead to greater gains: they bypass your natural
physiological limit by basically changing your internal biochemistry. So
individuals venturing into the darkside of body transformation can (and
should) eat more food during their mass gaining phase to take full advantage
of their enhanced biochemistry. In fact, I’ll go as far as too say that ingesting
insufficient calories while “chemically-enhanced” will not provide much
more muscle growth than if you were training naturally.
Let’s get back to our house-building analogy for a second.
Your muscles are like a house made of bricks. The bricks are the protein
necessary to build the house and the carbs/fat represent the money you give
to your employees.
Now, each man on your staff can only work as fast as his physical capacities
will allow it. Even if you give him a lot more bricks or even a lot more
money, there comes a point where he just cannot work any faster.
Now, if you do not give the employees enough bricks or cash, they won’t
work as fast (that's why it's harder to gain size while dieting down). So at
some point, it's beneficial to increase food intake. But once the optimal
intake is reached, there is no sense in eating more.
Anabolic performance-enhancing drugs basically allow you to hire more
employees. So in that regard if you supply more bricks (protein) your
production rate will be able to increase above what it was before the new
workers came on board. However understand that more employees means a
higher payroll (more carbs/fats) if we want the employees to work at an
optimal rate. It’s the same way with your body: to take full advantage of
your use of PED, protein and caloric intake must be increased (by around
20%). However this is not a reason to visit all the fast-food joints in your
town! The cleaner you eat while getting the necessary protein and calories it,
the greater will be your success at the end of the line.
In conclusion …
The advice to “eat everything in sight” is not necessarily a good one. It’s
true that food is the most anabolic substance known to man, and that undereating
is the simplest way to limit your muscle gains. However past a certain
point, eating more food will only lead to increased fat gain especially if you
are natural. Fat is not muscle. Gaining fat doesn’t facilitate muscle gain.
Additional nutrients increase muscle building, additional fat doesn’t! So if
you want to add muscle you will need to jack up your caloric intake.
However doing it so blindly by eating everything in sight is certainly not the
best way to go.
How much energy is needed to build one pound of muscle? This is a very
important question because it will help us design a plan that will allow us to
provide our body with what it needs to build muscle without risking gaining
too much fat. Some people have tried to answer that by simply taking into
consideration the composition of a pound of muscle. Muscle tissue is around
22% protein, 5% fat, 3% carbs and the rest is water, minerals and trace
elements.
Since one pound = 0.455kg, it’s sometimes believed that one pound of
muscle is composed of:
100g of protein (455g x 22%)
23g of fat (455g x 5%)
14g of carbs (455g x 3%)
Since there are 4 calories in one gram of protein and carbs, and 9 calories23g of fat (455g x 5%)
14g of carbs (455g x 3%)
per gram of fat they assume that one thus needs around 660kcals to build
one pound of muscle. According to that (erroneous) logic if one wanted to
gain 10lbs of muscle he would need to consume 6600kcals more than his
maintenance level over a certain period of time. For example if he wanted to
gain 10lbs over 3 months he’d have to consume 70 calories above
maintenance per day.
This is a mistake. The actual process of building muscle tissue requires a lot
more energy beyond its simple composition. The body must take the
nutrients absorbed and synthesize muscle tissue. This is a very energy-costly
process! Basically when you are building muscle it’s like when you are
building a house: not only do you have to pay for the raw material needed,
but you also have to pay the construction workers.
Studies have found that for each gram of protein synthesized into new
muscle tissue, 220 calories are needed to turn the raw protein into new
muscle mass. Since one pound of muscle contains approximately 100g of
protein it is thus clear that to build one pound of muscle we actually need
more than 20 000kcals. Quite a bit more than the earlier estimated 660!
So if we want to build 10lbs of muscle we need to ingest around 22 000
calories above our maintenance level over a certain period of time. If we
wanted to gain that 10lbs over a 5 months period of time this would mean
consuming around 1400 calories above maintenance per day. So if you need
to consume 3000kcals per day to maintain your current weight, you’d need
to ingest around 4400kcals per day to gain 10lbs of muscle tissue over a 5
months period.
How much muscle can we build?
Now that we know how much calories are needed to build one pound of
muscle, it becomes important to know exactly how many pounds of muscle
we can build in a certain period of time. Obviously our body has a limited
growth potential. If it could use all the nutrients ingested to build muscle we
would only have to consume 15 000kcals/day and we’d all be 300lbs muscle
freaks!
Well, the average natural body (non chemically-enhanced) can synthesize
between 0.25 and 0.5lbs of muscle tissue per week. So it can build 1-2lbs of
muscle per month of training on average (on some months you might gain 3-
4lbs while on others zilch).
Now keep in mind that I’m talking about dry muscle weight. Every gain in
muscle size will also lead to increases in glycogen storage among other
things. It is possible to store up to 40g of glycogen per 100g of muscle
(around 15g in an untrained muscle, up to 40g for a well-trained individual).
So for 10lbs of new muscle, you’d also gain up to 4lbs of added glycogen
storage. So you can gain around 14lbs of scale weight, not just the 10lbs.
So if we want to gain 10lbs of muscle we’d need 5-10 months to do so
(unless the individual is a genetic freak or a total beginner). As a result it
becomes necessary to increase caloric intake anywhere from 700kcals (10
months) and up to 1400kcals (5 months) per day to attain the desired muscle
gain. Eating more than that will not stimulate more muscle growth. This is
because the body simply cannot use more nutrients than that to build muscle
due to its limited capacity to synthesize muscle tissue. So if you need
3000kcals daily to maintain your body weight/muscle mass you’d need to
consume 3700 to 4400kcals per day to build the desired amount of muscle.
More than that and you’ll risk gaining fat, without actually increasing
potential muscle growth.
Your body cannot be "forced" into adding muscle mass. Understand that
regardless of how good your training program is and how much good food
you ingest, your muscle growth potential is ultimately limited by the
physiological rate at which you body can fabric muscle tissue. This is one of
the reasons why using performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids, hGH,
IGF-1 and insulin can lead to greater gains: they bypass your natural
physiological limit by basically changing your internal biochemistry. So
individuals venturing into the darkside of body transformation can (and
should) eat more food during their mass gaining phase to take full advantage
of their enhanced biochemistry. In fact, I’ll go as far as too say that ingesting
insufficient calories while “chemically-enhanced” will not provide much
more muscle growth than if you were training naturally.
Let’s get back to our house-building analogy for a second.
Your muscles are like a house made of bricks. The bricks are the protein
necessary to build the house and the carbs/fat represent the money you give
to your employees.
Now, each man on your staff can only work as fast as his physical capacities
will allow it. Even if you give him a lot more bricks or even a lot more
money, there comes a point where he just cannot work any faster.
Now, if you do not give the employees enough bricks or cash, they won’t
work as fast (that's why it's harder to gain size while dieting down). So at
some point, it's beneficial to increase food intake. But once the optimal
intake is reached, there is no sense in eating more.
Anabolic performance-enhancing drugs basically allow you to hire more
employees. So in that regard if you supply more bricks (protein) your
production rate will be able to increase above what it was before the new
workers came on board. However understand that more employees means a
higher payroll (more carbs/fats) if we want the employees to work at an
optimal rate. It’s the same way with your body: to take full advantage of
your use of PED, protein and caloric intake must be increased (by around
20%). However this is not a reason to visit all the fast-food joints in your
town! The cleaner you eat while getting the necessary protein and calories it,
the greater will be your success at the end of the line.
In conclusion …
The advice to “eat everything in sight” is not necessarily a good one. It’s
true that food is the most anabolic substance known to man, and that undereating
is the simplest way to limit your muscle gains. However past a certain
point, eating more food will only lead to increased fat gain especially if you
are natural. Fat is not muscle. Gaining fat doesn’t facilitate muscle gain.
Additional nutrients increase muscle building, additional fat doesn’t! So if
you want to add muscle you will need to jack up your caloric intake.
However doing it so blindly by eating everything in sight is certainly not the
best way to go.
xjsynx
Member
He said sit, not step :nono:
thewilman
Well-known member
thewilman
Well-known member
LOL :nutkick:
thewilman
Well-known member
Anytime someone types "Zombie" you show up!
xjsynx
Member
Yes, and now you are going to be the Pediatrician's Inca...
Somewhere on the intert00bs, she is venting to PrettyPlacebo on PilateMinds asking fo love advice and cursing Cubans...
whatastud08
Active member
ROFLMAO. It was just after a hot shower...so I was busting a sag.
whatastud08
Active member
He said MAX!!!
whatastud08
Active member
Patented ball hoisting technology... Im suprised MuscleTech hasn't used that one.
xjsynx
Member
:woohoo:
xjsynx
Member
I'll let slide this time, but next time :nutkick:
Nabisco
Well-known member
xjsynx
Member
'Tis the time
thewilman
Well-known member
LOL...that is hilarious! I promise I will not mislead her. :thumbsup:
PrettyPlacebo :toofunny:
thewilman
Well-known member
The new Nut Strap by FEYEZOGEN! :head:
thewilman
Well-known member
He is a benevolent and gracious OverLord! :hammer:
xjsynx
Member
xjsynx
Member
I was pondering the whole idea of our female counter parts.
There would be a PrettyPlacebo, Hostess, Whatafox, TheWoman, Dr Packingjugs, etc...
Not cleaver enough to think of a name for me or Zombie
thewilman
Well-known member
EasyEJL
Never enough
xjsynx
Member
Motor Trend has learned that GM's small rear-drive Alpha program will serve Chevrolet, not Pontiac. Alpha is designed mainly to underpin a sub-CTS-size Cadillac, crucial to the brand's European offensive, but GM needs to build a volume car off the platform to make it pay off, and the car will be a Chevy sedan.
This raises the age-old problem for GM: How do you ensure Alpha is a proper Cadillac and not a modern-day Cimarron? GM feels confident it can pull this off, thanks to the differentiation among Lambda models, notably the Buick Enclave, Saturn Outlook, and GMC Acadia.
GM also is considering moving the 2013 Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky from Kappa to Alpha, which will include some Kappa bits, anyway. While GM found it could not stretch the Kappa platform adequately to underpin a compact, rear-drive sedan, it can shorten the Alpha platform to serve a two-seat sports car.
This raises the age-old problem for GM: How do you ensure Alpha is a proper Cadillac and not a modern-day Cimarron? GM feels confident it can pull this off, thanks to the differentiation among Lambda models, notably the Buick Enclave, Saturn Outlook, and GMC Acadia.
GM also is considering moving the 2013 Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky from Kappa to Alpha, which will include some Kappa bits, anyway. While GM found it could not stretch the Kappa platform adequately to underpin a compact, rear-drive sedan, it can shorten the Alpha platform to serve a two-seat sports car.
thewilman
Well-known member
04 Accord Sedan 4cyl EXL
Reliable...efficient...boring as hell!!
My lease is over at the end of the month.
bitterplacebo
Well-known member
amazingly convenient, thanks
Dr Packenwood
Well-known member
bitterplacebo
Well-known member
xjsynx
Member
The new Accords are pretty nice looking...
Zombie
Registered User
Invalid Link Removed
xjsynx
Member
:clap2:
bitterplacebo
Well-known member
bitterplacebo
Well-known member
google says there isn't a PrettyPlacebo
sideways frowny face
sideways frowny face
bitterplacebo
Well-known member
get strapped!
xjsynx
Member
Titulo da Música: Drink You Pretty
Artista
laceboLetra:
Sick of drugs and dancing feet
Sick of bars where people meet
Smell of crotch and sheets not clean
Hairy men in magazines
Every city looks the same
Running from the threat of rain
Pillow talk that's just for one
Saturday get nothing done
Lie to me
It takes less time
To drink you pretty
Lie to me
It takes less time
To drink you pretty
Human seas of apathy
Nuclear catastrophe
Jumbos crash into the ground
Governments sleep safe and sound
Mornings glisten cold and bright
Organs stolen every night
Can of beans and fast boquet
Double jackpot give away
Lie to me
It takes less time
To drink you pretty
Lie to me
It takes less time
To drink you pretty
Hello pretty
Hello
Hello pretty
Hello
Hello pretty
Hello
Hello pretty
Lie to me
It takes less time
To drink you pretty
Lie to me
It takes less time
To drink you pretty
xjsynx
Member
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
- Status