Is 3300 calories enough

Tonto86

Us 3300 calories enough for someone who is 95kg, 23% body fat to build muscle?

Inspector Coptoor

Tonto86 wrote: »

Us 3300 calories enough for someone who is 95kg, 23% body fat to build muscle?

95kg is 209lbs.

209lbs x 12 = 2508kcals per day for maintenance.

A slow steady bulk would require a 10% surplus so add 251 kcals to that & that gives you ~2760kcals for gaining.

You would need to increase that further on training days to account for calorific expenditure from training etc.

paulmclaughlin

Make sure you're getting those calories from healthy food sources and not 3300 calories from ice cream.

Spunge

paulmclaughlin wrote: »

Make sure you're getting those calories from healthy food sources and not 3300 calories from ice cream.

now you tell me

rocky

23% is quite high, I'd go for a cut first, be in the 10-12% bf before a bulk.

Duck's hoop

Tonto86 wrote: »

Us 3300 calories enough for someone who is 95kg, 23% body fat to build muscle?

If it is enough, I'll need to review why, at 79-80 kgs, I'm cramming 3000 kcs down my neck every day.

Inspector Coptoor

I'm 100kg and Im eating about 3000kcals per day.......................

Hanley

Duck's hoop wrote: »

If it is enough, I'll need to review why, at 79-80 kgs, I'm cramming 3000 kcs down my neck every day.

Probably because you're more active than him.

Hanley

Also - people need to read lyle's "the energy balance equation" to see what's going for those woh "can't gain weight".

Duck's hoop

I'm putting it on alright. Not piling it on though. Gained 5 kilos since beginning September.

All muscle.*







*Me bollix. I'd say 60/40. But am happy enough.

NotExactly

I'm 77kg, 6 foot, 19 years old, BF around 16%. I'm starting a bulk in about two weeks time. Around how many calories should I be consuming a day? BTW I train about 4 times a week between Gaelic and Soccer.

J-Fit

Hanley wrote: »

Also - people need to read lyle's "the energy balance equation" to see what's going for those woh "can't gain weight".

Good article that and I learned things I never knew as well as remembered things I had forgotten, but it's very pompous, I mean look at the following comment:

wrote:

People have this weird tendency to assume that if their maintenance caloric intake is exactly 2500 calories (at calorie balance); therefore if they start eating 2000 calories (or increase activity to burn 500 calories/day) they should lose exactly 1 pound of fat per week.

Weird tendency? It's a perfectly logical tendency if you ask me and from a practical point of weight gain or weight loss, is a perfectly acceptable place to start from. The simplistic approach will work for people just fine and in any case none of us really know what our true BMR/RMR is so I just can't understand why he's getting his knickers in a twist. The average trainee who wants to gain weight or lose it will be well served by following the simplistic method and if things are standing still, it only takes a little trial and error in terms of caloric intake to get things mobilised again. To me he's overcomplicating the process of fat loss and weight gain, a process that is far simpler than the method he seems to think defines his superiority. Not having a go at you Hanley by the way, it's a good find.

Tonto86

Guess ill start with my 3300kcal plan and see how I go. I'm gonna measure my body fat aswell to make sure I'm not drastically overeating.

I'd be happy at 18% body fat. Tbh I don't get the obsession with being superlean

Inspector Coptoor

NotExactly wrote: »

I'm 77kg, 6 foot, 19 years old, BF around 16%. I'm starting a bulk in about two weeks time. Around how many calories should I be consuming a day? BTW I train about 4 times a week between Gaelic and Soccer.

2555 kcals on non training days
2850kcals on non training days.

J-Fit wrote: »

Weird tendency? It's a perfectly logical tendency if you ask me and from a practical point of weight gain or weight loss, is a perfectly acceptable place to start from. The simplistic approach will work for people just fine and in any case none of us really know what our true BMR/RMR is so I just can't understand why he's getting his knickers in a twist. The average trainee who wants to gain weight or lose it will be well served by following the simplistic method and if things are standing still, it only takes a little trial and error in terms of caloric intake to get things mobilised again. To me he's overcomplicating the process of fat loss and weight gain, a process that is far simpler than the method he seems to think defines his superiority. Not having a go at you Hanley by the way, it's a good find.

It would be a perfectly logical tendency in a perfectly enclosed system at standard temperatures and pressures etc.

A human being isnt a perfectly enclosed system and isnt at standard temperatures and pressures.

The whole thing about women neededing 2000kcals per day and men needing 2500kcals per day is a rough guide for the avergae male or average female.

There arent many people in Ireland that fit this "average" band.
Not many men are exactly 5'7" and around 74kg.

Not many people would have average activity levels either
and not many people would do an average workout at the gym and even if two people did the exact same workout moving the exact same weights and running the same distances in the same times or whatever type of training they were doing, their calorific expenditure would be slightly different.

All these things combine to make weight gain and weight loss slightly more complex than the kcals in, kclals out scenario you desribe when you are putting caveats on the type of weight you want to lose or gain.

Inspector Coptoor

Tonto86 wrote: »

Guess ill start with my 3300kcal plan and see how I go. I'm gonna measure my body fat aswell to make sure I'm not drastically overeating.

I'd be happy at 18% body fat. Tbh I don't get the obsession with being superlean

so you want to put on muscle while losing fat at the same time?
extremely hard thing to do.

Just make sure you;re getting around 2g or protein for every kg you weigh so try to hit 200g of protein per day in your case, that would give you 900kcals there and after that try to get in healthy fats

Tonto86

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

NotExactly wrote: »

I'm 77kg, 6 foot, 19 years old, BF around 16%. I'm starting a bulk in about two weeks time. Around how many calories should I be consuming a day? BTW I train about 4 times a week between Gaelic and Soccer.

2555 kcals on non training days
2850kcals on non training days.

How'd ya work this out?? Some sort of calculator?

Inspector Coptoor

Tonto86 wrote: »

How'd ya work this out?? Some sort of calculator?

yeah.

take your bodyweight in pounds and
mulitply by 12 for maintenance weight (reduce by 10% for weight loss or add 10% for weight gain)
or just multiply for 14or 15 for gaining weight.
increase by a further 10 - 15% on training days.

I calculated your one for you at the start of the post

J-Fit

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

2555 kcals on non training days
2850kcals on non training days.




It would be a perfectly logical tendency in a perfectly enclosed system at standard temperatures and pressures etc.

A human being isnt a perfectly enclosed system and isnt at standard temperatures and pressures.

The whole thing about women neededing 2000kcals per day and men needing 2500kcals per day is a rough guide for the avergae male or average female.

There arent many people in Ireland that fit this "average" band.
Not many men are exactly 5'7" and around 74kg.

Not many people would have average activity levels either
and not many people would do an average workout at the gym and even if two people did the exact same workout moving the exact same weights and running the same distances in the same times or whatever type of training they were doing, their calorific expenditure would be slightly different.

All these things combine to make weight gain and weight loss slightly more complex than the kcals in, kclals out scenario you desribe when you are putting caveats on the type of weight you want to lose or gain.

Of course, you're correct and how could anyone disagree, but that is all background noise to the basic premise of "eat less, move more" etc. The average and not so average trainee does not need to know any of the cited info/evidence and none of it is a prerequisite to attaining the optimal physique whether that be less fat, more muscle or both. That level of precision is totally unnecessary and despite being privy to most of that info I've never, ever had to go there with a client. It's totally academic in my own view.

Inspector Coptoor

J-Fit wrote: »

Of course, you're correct and how could anyone disagree, but that is all background noise to the basic premise of "eat less, move more" etc. The average and not so average trainee does not need to know any of the cited info/evidence and none of it is a prerequisite to attaining the optimal physique whether that be less fat, more muscle or both. That level of precision is totally unnecessary and despite being privy to most of that info I've never, ever had to go there with a client. It's totally academic in my own view.

how many of your customers are under 10% bodyfat?
or have aspirations of getting to that level of leanness?

Id agree with you in principal but once you get below 15% in men and below 18-20% in women, its not as black and white as you claim it to be im afraid

J-Fit

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

how many of your customers are under 10% bodyfat?
or have aspirations of getting to that level of leanness?

Id agree with you in principal but once you get below 15% in men and below 18-20% in women, its not as black and white as you claim it to be im afraid

None on the first count (that's why they come to me!:D) and probably none on the second. I suppose I'm talking about the average trainee and you are talking about people who certainly aren't average at that level of body fat so we're not really comparing like with like.

Inspector Coptoor

As I said in my previous post.
If a person is overweight, the mantra Of eat less & move more works & it works well.

When a person is looking to get bigger than average or get leaner than average, it's not as simple as that.

That's what Lyle is talking about and that's why it gets more complex.

rubadub

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

so you want to put on muscle while losing fat at the same time?
extremely hard thing to do.

Is it though? I know some spout nonsense about it being 100% impossible about it defying laws of thermodynamics. But I have seen it done in several studies and there was no real mention of surprise at it.

This was the latest one I saw, guys eating "80% of predicted needs" but putting on muscle.

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&ProduktNr=223977&Ausgabe=224619&ArtikelNr=12817

They were overweight, but so is the OP and "the average irish man".

This was another
http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/build-muscle-calorie-deficit.htm

Lost 7.41kg of fat while gaining 4.33kg of muscle

Scuba Ste

rubadub wrote: »

Is it though? I know some spout nonsense about it being 100% impossible about it defying laws of thermodynamics. But I have seen it done in several studies and there was no real mention of surprise at it.

This was the latest one I saw, guys eating "80% of predicted needs" but putting on muscle.

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&ProduktNr=223977&Ausgabe=224619&ArtikelNr=12817

They were overweight, but so is the OP and "the average irish man".

This was another
http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/build-muscle-calorie-deficit.htm

Lost 7.41kg of fat while gaining 4.33kg of muscle

I'll see your studies and a raise you a Lyle McD.

Using overweight beginner's isn't really representative of the type of person actually trying to lose fat and gain muslce at the same time though. I think most overweight beginner's just want to lose weight and those who do want to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time are usually past either phase in their training. So I think yeah, extremely difficult to do.

Also the OP seems to be trying to lose fat while on a calorie surplus. Don't know how that's going to work at all.

Inspector Coptoor

Rubadub, you're correct in certain scenarios - when an overweight beginner with little lbm begins to train for example.

When the trainee has a decent amount of muscle mass and a couple of years training under their belts, it becomes more difficult.

My own take on the laws of thermodynamics is that outside of a closed system, ie, in a human, they don't apply 100% accurately as there are so many variables in a biological system

Vomit

So we're back to the discussion about losing fat and gaining muscle and the laws of thermodynamics. Yes, it's possible- I've done it, rubadub has (I'm guessing), as have many others.

The reason most skeptics have a problem is because a) they don't realise that you only need a small amount of extra energy per day to build muscle (any more than this will be stored as fat), and b) the human body can't build muscle as quickly as the corporate-driven internet and magazine industry wants you to believe. It's slow and difficult, no matter how you slice it. If you want to get big fast, there's only one way: steroids.

rubadub

Scuba Ste wrote: »

I'll see your studies and a raise you a Lyle McD.

Thats a good read (he says it is possible). I think people overcomplicate things by using calories (a unit of heat, not calculated using humans), and terms like calorie deficit/ maintenance/surplus. In basic terms the question most really want to know is can you build muscle and lose fat in a short time ("at the same time"), say a week/fortnight/month, going down to questioning if you can gain and lose fat in a day or a split second is pushing the practicality & accuracy of measuring it.

Lyle says

can the body use calories stored in fat cells to support muscle growth,

which I think is complicating things again adding fuel to the fire, I would presume people are still eating so I guess the energy for muscle growth could come from food.

I remember seeing a documentary showing when people were starved their body gave energy priority to essential functions, like the heart beating. So less energy was given to other functions, hair grew less, fingernails stopped growing. I would imagine muscle growth is pretty similar. A muscular bodybuilder's body must be saying "you have enough muscle so I am going to need some really good sign if you want to grow more", while I would think an untrained individual shocking his body with high weights could have his body think making muscle is going to be vital to survival. Peoples cuts heal in a "calorie deficit" so I could understand the body building other tissue if it thinks it is essential.

Sort of similar was the study on prisoners where guys were eating over 10,000kcal a day and unable to put on any more fat after a while -their body no doubt saying they have enough already.

Scuba Ste wrote: »

Using overweight beginner's isn't really representative of the type of person actually trying to lose fat and gain muslce at the same time though.

I think it might be 50/50. As I said before the average joe on the street is overweight and untrained. Muscular people will probably be well aware of the difficulty of doing it, just like they know BMI does not apply to them. I have seen quite a few threads here with overwieght beginners asking if they should diet first to drop fat before doing weights, and you nearly always get people saying the "impossible to do both at the same time" thing, (or almost impossible).

The whole concept of Educogym seems to be about losing fat and gaining muscle at the same time, although they do use some outrageous forumla so a 2lb weight loss is deemed 12lb fat loss and 10lb muscle gain.

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

When the trainee has a decent amount of muscle mass and a couple of years training under their belts, it becomes more difficult.

I fully accept this, I don't think bodybuilders do it for the laugh. I wonder if any studies have been done comparing different methods, i.e. extended bulk & cut protocols, and at what level of muscularity does it become very difficult. Even if it is more efficent it might be preferable and easier for people to do it the longer way. Not everybody has an "off season" or wants to gorge or go hungry, I am not sure if many gymnasts would go on bulk/cuts as the weight would probably effect their training so much.

Mellor

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

yeah.
take your bodyweight in pounds and
mulitply by 12 for maintenance weight (reduce by 10% for weight loss or add 10% for weight gain)

That looks too low to me Liam.
I'm a fan of the handy calc, but I use 15 for maintenance and adjust up or down from there. 12/lb would be for weight loss imo. It puts an 80kg guy at 2100, that's too low for maintenance.
I'm pretty sure I originally got 15/lb from Lyle.

Hanley

Mellor wrote: »

That looks too low to me Liam.
I'm a fan of the handy calc, but I use 15 for maintenance and adjust up or down from there. 12/lb would be for weight loss imo. It puts an 80kg guy at 2100, that's too low for maintenance.
I'm pretty sure I originally got 15/lb from Lyle.

Lyle's baseline figures, which I funnily enough arrived at myself using the HB equation years ago are:

12kcal/lb - weight loss
14kcal/lb - maintenance
16kcal/lb - weight gain