quote:

ORIGINAL: Nigeepoo

A Calorie surplus of 2000kcals/day will result in a weight gain of 4lbs/week. As muscle gain is limited to ~0.5lb/week*, there will be a fat gain of ~3.5lb/week.
A Calorie surplus of 500kcals/day will result in a weight gain of 1lb/week. As muscle gain is limited to ~0.5lb/week*, there will be a fat gain of ~0.5lb/week.

*Your Mileage May Vary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: don marcos

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nigeepoo

A Calorie surplus of 2000kcals/day will result in a weight gain of 4lbs/week. As muscle gain is limited to ~0.5lb/week*, there will be a fat gain of ~3.5lb/week.
A Calorie surplus of 500kcals/day will result in a weight gain of 1lb/week. As muscle gain is limited to ~0.5lb/week*, there will be a fat gain of ~0.5lb/week.

*Your Mileage May Vary.

Very interesting so with regards to lean mass gain are you saying theres no point ramming all those extra carbs down our necks as we're limited to approx 0.5lbs muscle gain per week?

Another thing im trying to get my head round is that eg the 2000 cal surplus made someone increase to 36" waist would cutting down to 500 cal surplus potentially reduce this 36" waist because its not such an excessive consumption or would the 500cal surplus simply add to the 36" waist?

quote:

ORIGINAL: richsINS

quote:

ORIGINAL: don marcos

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nigeepoo
A Calorie surplus of 2000kcals/day will result in a weight gain of 4lbs/week. As muscle gain is limited to ~0.5lb/week*, there will be a fat gain of ~3.5lb/week.
A Calorie surplus of 500kcals/day will result in a weight gain of 1lb/week. As muscle gain is limited to ~0.5lb/week*, there will be a fat gain of ~0.5lb/week.

*Your Mileage May Vary.

Very interesting so with regards to lean mass gain are you saying theres no point ramming all those extra carbs down our necks as we're limited to approx 0.5lbs muscle gain per week?

Another thing im trying to get my head round is that eg the 2000 cal surplus made someone increase to 36" waist would cutting down to 500 cal surplus potentially reduce this 36" waist because its not such an excessive consumption or would the 500cal surplus simply add to the 36" waist?

Your waist will still grow on 500 calorie surplus, because its a surplus of calories to be stored as fat.
your body won't say "well hes cut down 1500 so lets burn some fat".

The only question i had with 2000kcal surplus vs 500kcal would be that with the 500, we may have days where we actually burn ALL of those calories so hinder growth.
Where as the 2000 suprlus would be, very very hard to ever use.

I use "the day" here because its easy for us to arrange time into days, but what i essentially mean is if we accidently had a 4-5hour period where we was active and missed a meal i.e. looking for shoes with your girlfriend being dragged around the mall

Or would the 500kcal surplus of filled out glycogen stores to cover this painfull shopping experience

quote:

ORIGINAL: theiopener

Got any proof of that?

Nutrient timing IMO is far more important than a surplus of excess cals constantly

quote:

ORIGINAL: richsINS

quote:

ORIGINAL: theiopener
Got any proof of that?

Nutrient timing IMO is far more important than a surplus of excess cals constantly

Any proof of storing fat on a calorie surplus? Give me your address and ill bring a few fat people over for cream cakes and tea

Toxic toffee once said "Cut your cloth to small and you won't grow" this is essentially what i mean when comparing a 500kcal surplus toa 2000kcal one. I think the 2000kcal one will ensure we've always got glycogen stores topped up, where as the 500kcal one may sometimes leave some active people in a catabolic state hindering potential growth. This is assuming we split this 500 and 2000kcal surplus in meals throughout the day.

I'd say thats a very rare occurance, but sums up why we should be eating more when active and less when not.

Right amounts, right time etc etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: theiopener

quote:

ORIGINAL: richsINS
Right amounts, right time etc etc.

One thing Steve had very very right was the bit i have bolded. Its the right times to be in a surplus, not just eating blindly a surplus of calories spread throughout the day. Nutrient timing is more important than total caloric values

Definatly, which is one of many reasons why i dont personallyfollow a rigid diet plan that so many others seem to. I believe they are flawed, based on that...but i guess they're easier and easy is what humans like.


Ive read reports and seen proof that people on a high fat diet consume more calories than if they were on the same on higher carbs and still lost bodyfat, thus obliterating the old theory of cals in vs cals out
Yeah if nutrient ratios didn't matter i'd be cutting on snickers bars and other tasty sweets


The human body isnt as simplistic as some people make out to be. If it was mate i wouldnt have been able to do a body recomp if i religiously stuck to the principles some people preach.
What people, or more importantly what 'preaches' are you going against?

quote:

Yeah if nutrient ratios didn't matter i'd be cutting on snickers bars and other tasty sweets

quote:

What people, or more importantly what 'preaches' are you going against?

quote:

ORIGINAL: theiopener

quote:

Yeah if nutrient ratios didn't matter i'd be cutting on snickers bars and other tasty sweets

Depends if youre a carb burner mate, people can cut on sugars as some grow very well on them, you may just be a fat burner like the vast majority. As i said numbers dont matter much its feeding your body what it needs at any given time.
Much being a very important word, as disregaurding numbers and quantative data would leave everyone clueless.

quote:

What people, or more importantly what 'preaches' are you going against?

Anyone that blindly believes what anyone says because they appear to be some type of Guru. Some peeps followed what Steve said with impunity without actually knowing the reason why they were agreeing with him or any other person that did the same. I ask why certain things work, i research and i dont take much as gospel. I experiment on myself and get most of my knowledge that way and from other peoples experiences is what i rate more highly than a few studies

Agree again to a certain extent. However i also think going with what 'knowledgeable' people say is often wise if one does not have the time to find out themselves and if what these people are saying isn't 100% different to what others preach. I'd happily agree with my doctor and take some medicine, than to research it myself for example.

Still interested to know what 'preaches' your going against though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: theiopener
Some peeps followed what Steve said with impunity without actually knowing the reason why they were agreeing with him or any other person that did the same. I ask why certain things work, i research and i dont take much as gospel. I experiment on myself and get most of my knowledge that way and from other peoples experiences is what i rate more highly than a few studies

quote:

ORIGINAL: don marcos
Very interesting so with regards to lean mass gain are you saying theres no point ramming all those extra carbs down our necks as we're limited to approx 0.5lbs muscle gain per week? Correct.

Another thing im trying to get my head round is that eg the 2000 cal surplus made someone increase to 36" waist would cutting down to 500 cal surplus potentially reduce this 36" waist because its not such an excessive consumption or would the 500cal surplus simply add to the 36" waist?

quote:

ORIGINAL: richsINS
Toxic toffee once said "Cut your cloth to small and you won't grow" this is essentially what i mean when comparing a 500kcal surplus to a 2000kcal one. I think the 2000kcal one will ensure we've always got glycogen stores topped up, where as the 500kcal one may sometimes leave some active people in a catabolic state hindering potential growth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: theiopener
Ive read reports and seen proof that people on a high fat diet consume more calories than if they were on the same on higher carbs and still lost bodyfat, thus obliterating the old theory of cals in vs cals out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nigeepoo

quote:

ORIGINAL: richsINS
Toxic toffee once said "Cut your cloth to small and you won't grow" this is essentially what i mean when comparing a 500kcal surplus to a 2000kcal one. I think the 2000kcal one will ensure we've always got glycogen stores topped up, where as the 500kcal one may sometimes leave some active people in a catabolic state hindering potential growth.

Catabolism would only happen if pre & post-WO nutrition was messed-up. All intense activity must be fuelled. This is the only timing that's important. Active people obviously need more Calories than sedentary people to be in 500kcal/day surplus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: richsINS
"WO" = workout, and considered for example... a long shopping trip? Walking/low-intensity cardio doesn't burn much carbs and the liver can produce enough glucose to fuel that. Or are we categorising it with regaurd to heart rate/intense exercise such as what one may do for cardiovascular fitness? Yes.

Ill be bulking up next on 500kcal surplus maximum, last bulk i went for more thinking i may avoid catabolic states more and would always have energy to fuel the workouts(Although my bulk went sloppy towards the end ). Seems worthless bulking on such a high surplus.

What about steroid users, do they require larger surplus due to higher potential muscle gain? Yes, they can get away with larger surpluses for that very reason.