Quantity of calories on weight gain. The more food, the more muscles?
You need to be in a calorie surplus to get effective. You probably know that. But does it pay off in the phase of volumetric preparation or, if you want, in a phase where you want to eat a lot (ideally the muscle) to eat a lot, or just a little more? Will you get more calories and more muscles? And how much can you gain pure muscle mass? And… what about fat?
Logically, the more calories you have, the more you stick to your mass and hence your muscles. But is it really so and does this austere thinking have the roots of truth? This was also the focus of the pilot research of this year. Its aim was to investigate the impact of higher and lower energy surplus combined with strength training on the body composition of amateur bodybuilders. There were 11 with an average age of 27, a weight of 90 kilos and a height of 177 cm. They divided them into two groups. The first had a higher energy surplus, the second lower. They all trained 6 times a week. They were also required not to use anabolic agents for three months prior to investigation.
Their diet a little more detailed
The first group had an average RMR of 2025 calories and ate 4063 calories more than their RMR. The second group had an average RMR of 1990 calories and ate 2512 calories more than their RMR. Thus, the values are 67.5 kcal / kg / day and 50.1 kcal / kg / day. They ate every 3-4 hours, which is fine, as we know from our article on the frequency of meals that when trying to maximize muscle growth, it is recommended to divide meals (or protein portions) into at least three parts. The layout of the macronutrients was as follows.
The first group had an intake of brutal 6088 calories (protein: 162 g, carbohydrate: 1170 g, fat: 84 g). The second group had a 4501 calorie intake (protein: 185 g, carbohydrate: 726 g, fat: 95 g).
Their training a little bit in detail
As we mentioned, they practiced 6 times a week. They trained pyramid (4 series, first 12 reps, then 10, 8, 6). They had 15-20 reps on their calves and practiced a total of 150-300 reps. They took 1-2 minutes between sets and 2-3 minutes between exercises. They were instructed to do controlled repetitions with an eccentric phase of 2 seconds and a concentric of about 1 second. If possible, they gradually increased the load by 2-4 kg for each series within the top of the body and 4-10 kg for the lower body exercises. The training was divided as follows.
Monday: Chest, shoulders, triceps, abdomen
Tuesday: Back, biceps, forearms
Wednesday: Legs
Thursday: Chest, shoulders, triceps, abdomen
Friday: Back, biceps, forearms
Saturday: Legs
Sunday: Free time
It was basically a classic Push, Pull, Legs training program.
 |
| workout |
How did their character composition turn out?
Both groups gained mass. Sure thing. The first group (the one with the higher intake) gained more body fat but also muscle mass compared to the second group. From this, it may seem that more calories are worth it. After all, you lose some fat in the future, but what, while gaining more muscle. But let's discuss it in more detail.
The first group increased muscle mass by 3% (2.4 kg) and fat by 12.4% (1.8 kg). The second group increased net muscle mass by 1.5% (1.2 kg) and fat mass by 2.5% (0.3 kg). The recruitment was 4: 3 (muscles vs. fat) in the first group and 4: 1 in the second group. When we combine the results with other force research, we can confirm similar conclusions regarding the composition of the character and, as a bonus, the research did not show higher strength gains in the group that also had a higher calorie surplus.
What does it mean, how many calories you set and how many muscles do you have a chance to gain?
Those with a higher calorie surplus have gained more muscle but a lot of fat. The ratios above and the graph clearly show that being in huge surplus is not worthwhile in terms of efficiency, because you have the potential to gain a little more mass, but at the cost of an enormous increase in fat.
It should also be noted that muscle growth is not directly proportional to increased calories and the body has limits. Check out Lyle McDonald's model below. All of a sudden, those ads for products that promise to increase 5 kg of muscle a month come even more funny than usual, don't they? The model is masculine, so if you female, put the numbers in the second part of the table in half.
If you prefer percentages, for beginners 1-1.5% weight per month, for moderately advanced 0.5-1% weight per month and for advanced 0.25-0.5% weight per month. Women put the values in half again.
You see that if you have had at least 5 years of quality training with an emphasis on progressive workload increase and those 5 years have had an overview of the volume, intensity, frequency of training and actually played with details, the power of space for additional muscle growth behind You don't have a month left. Well, that's the sad life in kind. Something is still sticking to us, but they are ridiculous and a bit demotivating. But you can always make progress, so head up!
Now you know that a huge calorie surplus is not the way to go. You take too much fat and the subsequent diet will have to be very long or harder. And who knows how it will be with the minimum muscles you can theoretically gain extra. In a long and hard diet, it is likely that you will lose that after all.
Žiadne komentáre:
Zverejnenie komentára