Hypothetical bro science thought

[HammerDownTheNails]

Since you have to be in a caloric surplus to build muscle, what if someone had a high-ish body fat% say around 20%...

Could they keep eating at maintenance with their 20% and build muscle since they're clearly in a surplus?

Or even eat at a deficit to lose fat but still build muscle because of increased body fat?

I understand there's a difference between calories and straight up stored fat, that's why I'm thinking bro science here..

Thoughts?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Carmel cowboy]

This is an interesting question. Are you talking about someone on AAS or natural?

 

[HammerDownTheNails]

This is an interesting question. Are you talking about someone on AAS or natural?

Natty in particular, I'd be curious to know about either way though

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Juicehead88]

If you are eating at maintenance then you arnt in a surplus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Juicehead88]

The other part eating deficit and build muscle and lose fat is recomping so yes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[olderbro]

Since you have to be in a caloric surplus to build muscle, what if someone had a high-ish body fat% say around 20%...

Could they keep eating at maintenance with their 20% and build muscle since they're clearly in a surplus?

Or even eat at a deficit to lose fat but still build muscle because of increased body fat?


I understand there's a difference between calories and straight up stored fat, that's why I'm thinking bro science here..

Thoughts?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

in this scenario I would say yes as at 20% bf the body won't be trying to desperately hang on to fat.

 

[Carmel cowboy]

Here is my opinion let's take the natty guy first. There are a lot of variables that would play a part in this scenario but first I disagree that a person can be eating at maintenance and a surplus in the way you described. It is possible with carb cycling for short period of time to be at maintenance and a surplus but I take it that is not what you meant. Some of the variables that will play a part is age, genetics, and experience level of the individual. If someone is new to lifting they could see some gains with eating at maintenance but that will be short lived. Overall the basic law of nutrition is in order for you to gain you must be in a surplus!! Which would not make sense for someone at 20% body fat.
For a guy on AAS he has a higher chance to make gains at a maintenance level of calories but there are several variables that play a part with that scenario as well. If your at 20% body fat you shouldn't be worried about muscle gain as much as dropping body fat! I guess my final answer stays with the laws of physics in order for you to gain you need to eat at a surplus and how much is individualized!

 

[David9000]

I can’t say too much about any cycling and diet, I’m new to the cycle thing, however diet I am not.
For what it’s worth:
Too much analyzing calories is worthless, your body doesn’t count calories so why should you?.. I would suggest people do this to ensure they are “sufficiently nutritionalizing” their body, and of course this would stand to reason.
But as a deeper issue calorie of bread does not respond the same as a calorie of broccoli.
It would be a far better time when the nutrition industry develops a system that is more in tune with the harmonious values of food to our body vs a generic “calorie”.
Inclosing, I would suggest as others have pasta, breads, starches have about as much value to building muscle as refined sugar does, I see very little point in consuming eliments that convert to glocose when the endeavour is to hypertrophy muscle.
As others have mentioned, complex carbs have a place, simple carbs are not a good source of value especially when you could use that space for a far more productive food.
Cheers,