Is lifting weights pointless if I don't bulk?

colossus-x

I think it's really sad that the ball team sports players think it's just a matter of how strong you are.

In rugby I can understand it ( to a degree ) but in GAA? Does skill, aptitude and passion not count anymore or had it been reduced to all brawn.

UnitedWeStand

deadybai wrote: »

I am currently going to the gym on week four of a 12 week weight lifting program. I am confused as what to do.

First off I'm 6ft 2in 22 male and weigh about 185 pounds. My goal is to do weights for next years GAA season in order to get stronger. In January I am going to work on my cardio before the season gets underway.

I have read loads of things on cutting and bulking and still dont fully understand it. I understand you have to eat roughly 3000+ calories in order to put on muscle and at the same time fat.

Now as I am 13'2 stone I am an ideal weight but I probably have too much fat and not enough muscle.

I currently have MYfitnessPal tracking my food and I eat roughly around 2500 calories a day while having a 40/30/30 split for my macros.

Is the gym a waste of time if I dont bulk and then cut later?

Any help would be really appreciated as I dont understand what I should be eating.

Some advice here is relevant. All you need to eat to get big is protein. That's what makes muscles grow when you rip them during a workout. If you aim for around 150g of protein a day for your age you'll grow. Ignore people mentioning carbs or fats they do not have anything to do with muscle growth. Especially carbohydrates they are only used for energy. Fat does play a role in certain cellular processes but for muscle growth? Simply, eat around 150g of protein. You will see results, that's what's needed for repairing muscle tissue providing your workout was sufficient.

Blacktie.

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Some advice here is relevant. All you need to eat to get big is protein. That's what makes muscles grow when you rip them during a workout. If you aim for around 150g of protein a day for your age you'll grow. Ignore people mentioning carbs or fats they do not have anything to do with muscle growth. Especially carbohydrates they are only used for energy. Fat does play a role in certain cellular processes but for muscle growth? Simply, eat around 150g of protein. You will see results, that's what's needed for repairing muscle tissue providing your workout was sufficient.

Lol.

Do you not need these useless carbs for energy and glycogen stores? Or the useless fat for maintaining testosterone levels? And calorie surplus? Sure who cares about that it's all just broscience really isn't it :rolleyes:

Tar.Aldarion

"What age are you"
"oh thats about 150g of protein so!"

UnitedWeStand

Blacktie. wrote: »

Lol.

Do you not need these useless carbs for energy and glycogen stores? Or the useless fat for maintaining testosterone levels? And calorie surplus? Sure who cares about that it's all just broscience really isn't it :rolleyes:

Carbohydrates are the most natural energy source for the body. They are the primary energy source for muscle tissue as it is broken down so easily for glycolysis.

However, both protein and fats can enter the muscles and be used for energy. Carbohydrates are not the only source. The better thing about consuming fats for energy is that excess fat isn't necessarily going to be stored as body fat due to fats role in so many cellular processes. Carbohydrate however if taken in excess will only be stored as fat.

Cheers for the condescending reply by the way.

MightyMandarin

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Some advice here is relevant. All you need to eat to get big is protein. That's what makes muscles grow when you rip them during a workout. If you aim for around 150g of protein a day for your age you'll grow. Ignore people mentioning carbs or fats they do not have anything to do with muscle growth. Especially carbohydrates they are only used for energy. Fat does play a role in certain cellular processes but for muscle growth? Simply, eat around 150g of protein. You will see results, that's what's needed for repairing muscle tissue providing your workout was sufficient.

This is nonsense. Protein is incredibly important for building muscle, but it's meaningless if your caloric intake is minimal. I can eat 150g of protein a day if I eat about 5 chicken breasts, but I sure as hell won't build muscle doing that. Why? Because instead of the protein being used to repair my muscle fibres, it'll be used as a source of energy and burned just like 150g of carbs or fats would.

Personally, I don't pay too much attention to how much fats or carbs I eat, as long as my calories are high, but I most certainly cannot eat 2500calories worth of chicken breasts each day.

Also, what has age got to do with calculating his optimal protein intake? A a silly point to make imo.

Zillah

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Cheers for the condescending reply by the way.

You kind of earned it, friend.
(see post immediately above mine)

ThinkProgress

Mellor wrote: »

That doesn't really answer the questions. Saying BW is more functional is fine. But it doesn't explain what you think "functional strength" actually is.
As I said above, it's been bastardised endlessly and to me the phrase is virtually meaningless.

I'm a big fan of BW exercises but I don't think you are any more likely to encounter Pull-ups, handstands...etc in a match compared to presses, deadlifts etc

I wouldn't say its meaningless. It just perhaps means something slightly different to different people. If you've ever climbed a rock wall, you'll be familiar with the idea of functional strength. (bulkiness is not an advantage in that scenario)

Useful strength... that's the simplest way I could describe it. Which of course means something different to everyone.

A GAA player (imo) would benefit more from dynamic strength training with a higher intensity than your average gym weight training program would provide.

That's not to say lifting weights is useless. I just consider BW training superior for producing lean well balanced strength without the bulkiness.

colossus-x wrote: »

I think it's really sad that the ball team sports players think it's just a matter of how strong you are.

In rugby I can understand it ( to a degree ) but in GAA? Does skill, aptitude and passion not count anymore or had it been reduced to all brawn.

Skill and high level cardio fitness will still always be paramount in a sport such as GAA. The role of upper body strength is overplayed quite a bit. (although not irrelevant obviously)

Blacktie. wrote: »

Lol.

Do you not need these useless carbs for energy and glycogen stores? Or the useless fat for maintaining testosterone levels? And calorie surplus? Sure who cares about that it's all just broscience really isn't it :rolleyes:

People go a bit mad with the whole calorie surplus idea. Even doing crazy stuff like forcing themselves to eat extra calories when they're not hungry! Calorie surplus advice really only applies to high level bodybuilders looking to gain massive amounts of body mass.

The average guy in the gym looking to add a bit of muscle shouldn't be eating a huge calorie surplus or doing crazy stuff like drinking weight gainers etc...

Eat good quality food (don't overeat), train intelligently, rest well... your body will look great.

Alf Veedersane

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Calorie surplus advice really only applies to high level bodybuilders looking to gain massive amounts of body mass.

The average guy in the gym looking to add a bit of muscle shouldn't be eating a huge calorie surplus or doing crazy stuff like drinking weight gainers etc...

You can be in a surplus without being in a huge surplus.

Calorie surplus advice applies to anyone looking to add muscle.

deadlybuzzman

ThinkProgress wrote: »

People go a bit mad with the whole calorie surplus idea. Even doing crazy stuff like forcing themselves to eat extra calories when they're not hungry!

If I didn't force myself to eat or do tricks like eat really fast so my body doesn't get time to register when I'm full, I would be at least 6 to 9 kg lighter than I am now and I'm a long way from being big.
There's a lot of things being talked about as if theyre absolutes that are set in stone when really people vary too much for that to be so.
Some sports coach's that know their stuff are hesitant to use heavy weights but will use light weights explosively. But I've played football against GAA players that were bigger than me but that I could hold off, turn and bully quite easily because I was stronger.
In short I exploited their weakness. Would they be better GAA players if they weren't so easy to push around? Absolutely

ThinkProgress

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You can be in a surplus without being in a huge surplus.

Calorie surplus advice applies to anyone looking to add muscle.

You can, but in a gym culture that encourages that "lift big - eat big" mantra... it's difficult for people to have discipline and self control. Besides I would consider calorie surplus advice to be a highly debatable practice in general for gaining strength.

I have very good strength levels without any bulk. I've never intentionally consumed surplus calories - I just eat according to my appetite.

Many of the guys I follow in the world of BW training, rock climbing etc don't follow any kind of calorie surplus. The example I gave earlier of frank medrano - I've never read anything about him eating surplus calories to gain strength.

This guy: Denis Minin. (famous ukrainian BW calisthenics trainer)



I've never read anything about him eating a calorie surplus. He's also against using supplements and only consumes real whole foods.

He also doesn't believe in counting reps or sets. He trains for volume and strength endurance too. (very similar to the training style of many rock climbers). He has also mentioned doing some gymnastics and boxing training... and is a big proponent of cardio training in general too.

The idea that you must consciously consume surplus calories on a regular basis in order to gain strength and muscles is a bit of a myth imo. (I see too many examples that contradict that advice for it just to be a coincidence)

Eating big will give you strength, but not the type of useful strength that's needed in something like GAA which also requires high mobility.

deadlybuzzman wrote: »

If I didn't force myself to eat or do tricks like eat really fast so my body doesn't get time to register when I'm full, I would be at least 6 to 9 kg lighter than I am now and I'm a long way from being big.
There's a lot of things being talked about as if theyre absolutes that are set in stone when really people vary too much for that to be so.
Some sports coach's that know their stuff are hesitant to use heavy weights but will use light weights explosively. But I've played football against GAA players that were bigger than me but that I could hold off, turn and bully quite easily because I was stronger.
In short I exploited their weakness. Would they be better GAA players if they weren't so easy to push around? Absolutely

Exactly. It's about strength not necessarily size or bulk.

But there are many other factors that come into play when you talk about functional strength. Not just merely the size of the muscles.

Most situations on a GAA pitch won't require static strength movements. They will require dynamic movements.

This is where all-round fitness and conditioning comes in. And the style of strength work you do. Do you have the fitness, mobility, agility, flexibility etc to use what strength you have during a game?

Do you have strength endurance? No good having big muscles if they weigh you down too much and reduce your stamina during a game! How do you get strength endurance...?

Doing heavy static compound lifts in the gym and eating big is NOT a good way of achieving the type of strength required for something like GAA.

Alf Veedersane

ThinkProgress wrote: »

You can, but in a gym culture that encourages that "lift big - eat big" mantra... it's difficult for people to have discipline and self control. Besides I would consider calorie surplus advice to be a highly debatable practice in general for gaining strength.

I have very good strength levels without any bulk. I've never intentionally consumed surplus calories - I just eat according to my appetite.

Many of the guys I follow in the world of BW training, rock climbing etc don't follow any kind of calorie surplus. The example I gave earlier of frank medrano - I've never read anything about him eating surplus calories to gain strength.

This guy: Denis Minin. (famous ukrainian BW calisthenics trainer)



I've never read anything about him eating a calorie surplus. He's also against using supplements and only consumes real whole foods.

He also doesn't believe in counting reps or sets. He trains for volume and strength endurance too. (very similar to the training style of many rock climbers). He has also mentioned doing some gymnastics and boxing training... and is a big proponent of cardio training in general too.

The idea that you must consciously consume surplus calories on a regular basis in order to gain strength and muscles is a bit of a myth imo. (I see too many examples that contradict that advice for it just to be a coincidence)

Eating big will give you strength, but not the type of useful strength that's needed in something like GAA which also requires high mobility.

Frank Medrano would have to eat a surplus to build muscle. You don't need to eat at a surplus to increase strength. Building muscle and increasing strength aren't the same thing.

Building muscle and increasing strength don't have to have result in reduced mobility.

Mellor

ThinkProgress wrote: »

You can, but in a gym culture that encourages that "lift big - eat big" mantra... it's difficult for people to have discipline and self control.

I think the issue is that you are arguing against the above mantra, when it doesn't really exist here. Sure its probably the norm on BB.com, but it's not really wheel out here.
The only people here that eat big are those where it's directly condicive to their goals.
And virtually the only time a person is recommend to eat more, when the specifically want to put on weight (the same thread pops up regularly, the skinny guy who can't put on weight)

Besides I would consider calorie surplus advice to be a highly debatable practice in general for gaining strength.

I have very good strength levels without any bulk. I've never intentionally consumed surplus calories - I just eat according to my appetite.

... I've never read anything about him eating surplus calories to gain strength.

The idea that you must consciously consume surplus calories on a regular basis in order to gain strength and muscles is a bit of a myth imo.

Has anybody said you need to eat surplus calories to gain strength? I don't certainly don't think that you do.

Surplus calories for gaining mass (fat mass or lean mass)
Strength training for getting stronger.

It all depends on the goals. If you want to get stronger, but not bigger (say for sports) then you'd probably wouldn't bulk.
On the other hand, if the goal was to get as strong as possible, regardless of size. Then the obvious choice is to bulk and get bigger and even stronger.

power pants

well that's just confirmed it, it is my work colleague.

Zillah

power pants wrote: »

well that's just confirmed it, it is my work colleague.

Flash the gunz the next time you walk past him.

power pants

he's always eyeing them up tbf, think he feels inadequate but he is adamant, 10 cals, lots of protein zero carbs will get you huge.

the other gem is never train to failure when doing reps, puts too much pressure on your CNS. best to avoid

ThinkProgress

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Frank Medrano would have to eat a surplus to build muscle. You don't need to eat at a surplus to increase strength. Building muscle and increasing strength aren't the same thing.

Building muscle and increasing strength don't have to have result in reduced mobility.

He doesn't though. (or at least he doesn't make a conscious effort to do so from what I've read)

If you're looking to gain decent strength levels and a degree of muscularity, while maintaining all-round fitness... eating big is neither necessary or useful. (yet it seems to be given out by many people as general one-size-fits-all type advice)

Strength training is a delicate balancing act. If you abuse it, and also eat surplus calories... you'll start to develop unbalanced fitness/physique and among other things, yes, reduce your mobility.

It depends what you mean by mobility though. A gymnast has great mobility within a certain range of motions for a short duration. But their size and body type would restrict them in some other movements. I've seen this first hand with a friend of mine, and tbh I never really would have believed it until I seen it.

I would have always considered gymnasts to be agile and mobile enough not to struggle at any movements, but in my experience it's really not the case.

To have really great mobility, it's better to be light. Having large heavy muscles (particularly upper body) is going to reduce mobility to some degree. (and hence stamina too)

Mellor wrote: »

I think the issue is that you are arguing against the above mantra, when it doesn't really exist here. Sure its probably the norm on BB.com, but it's not really wheel out here.
The only people here that eat big are those where it's directly condicive to their goals.
And virtually the only time a person is recommend to eat more, when the specifically want to put on weight (the same thread pops up regularly, the skinny guy who can't put on weight)

I think it does exist here. But it's not the only thing I've taken issue with... there are other things closely linked with that too.

Has anybody said you need to eat surplus calories to gain strength? I don't certainly don't think that you do.

That's part of the problem... many people bundle the two things up together. (in fairness it's usually unintentional)

And many people come on here looking for advice, but not fully understanding what they want/need... which adds to that confusion.

There are people on here that I'm fairly certain train specifically for aesthetics. (muscular aesthetics). But many of those same people are giving strength advice to athletes who need a slightly different type of training.

Mr. CooL ICE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVVUtV5W85I

Alf Veedersane

ThinkProgress wrote: »

He doesn't though. (or at least he doesn't make a conscious effort to do so from what I've read)

If you're looking to gain decent strength levels and a degree of muscularity, while maintaining all-round fitness... eating big is neither necessary or useful. (yet it seems to be given out by many people as general one-size-fits-all type advice)

You talk about bulking as if it's similar to Eric Cartman taking Weight Gain 4000 and waddling around shouting "BEEFCAKE".

You also seem to be assuming that people lump strength and size together.

There's nothing wrong with bulking for the right reasons and to the right extent. There are plenty of people that could improve their performance by adding muscle to their frame for their sport. It doesn't have to reduce mobility or speed.

And if Frank Medrano wants to add muscle he has to eat in a surplus. He's not a snowflake. That doesn't mean he has to necessarily make a conscious effort to track it nor does it mean that because he doesn't state it explicitly he doesn't do it.

Mellor

ThinkProgress wrote: »

He doesn't though. (or at least he doesn't make a conscious effort to do so from what I've read)

If you're looking to gain decent strength levels and a degree of muscularity, while maintaining all-round fitness... eating big is neither necessary or useful. (yet it seems to be given out by many people as general one-size-fits-all type advice)

In order to build muscle, you need an energy surplus, that's a undeniable biological fact.
I suppose its also a fact from a physics point of view. You can't create mass/energy from nothing, only change its form, etc.

You seam to be equating an energy surplus with "eat big to get big". I don't know if this is on purpose to create a strawman, or you genuinely are confusing the two.

If Frank Medrano increased lean mass at some point, he was in energy surplus to do so. Since then, his maintenance calories were also higher.

A gymnast has great mobility within a certain range of motions for a short duration. But their size and body type would restrict them in some other movements. I've seen this first hand with a friend of mine, and tbh I never really would have believed it until I seen it.

I would say I don't believe it, but I don't really know what you are refering to.
Can you describe it?

To have really great mobility, it's better to be light. Having large heavy muscles (particularly upper body) is going to reduce mobility to some degree. (and hence stamina too)

At a certain point, tissue mass can impact mobility, in certain regards. For example, knee flexion is limited by the mass of both the hamstring and calves. I agree there.
But for most joints, mass isn't the limiting factor. For example hip flexion and extension will reach end limit long before quds/glutes/hammers get in the way. Unless you are a contortionist, its not the issue for most people.

That's part of the problem... many people bundle the two things up together. (in fairness it's usually unintentional)

There's nothing wrong with the bundling them together if it suits the goal.
And if check around most beginner thread, bigger and stronger is a common goal.

There are people on here that I'm fairly certain train specifically for aesthetics. (muscular aesthetics).

I'm sure there are too. THere's nothing wrong with that, if thats what they want.

But many of those same people are giving strength advice to athletes who need a slightly different type of training.

Really? Don't think I've seen that often. do you have any examples?

garrixfan

What happens if you lift weights and eat on a deficit?

Dtp1979

garrixfan wrote: »

What happens if you lift weights and eat on a deficit?

You'll lose weight

garrixfan

Dtp1979 wrote: »

You'll lose weight

Effects on body composition?

Dtp1979

garrixfan wrote: »

Effects on body composition?

You won't grow, but you'll probably get stronger. If you build any muscle it wil be minimal

Zillah

If you lift on a deficit you'll at least offset muscle loss, which is very important.

Mellor

garrixfan wrote: »

Effects on body composition?

Completely depends on;

• Existing body fat - BF%
• Existing total lean mass
• Severity of deficit

A big muscular, lean guy (say a natural Bodybuilder), will lose some muscle mass with any sort of deficit.
But an big obese guy, will be able to handle a much more severe deficit as they have ample fat stores to maintain energy balance.

Even in a average person. I' might lose only fat on a 300cal deficit, but on 1500cals I'd be catabolic.

Tar.Aldarion

Dtp1979 wrote: »

You won't grow, but you'll probably get stronger. If you build any muscle it wil be minimal

For the average person that never did any work with this before they can notice a lot of muscle compared to what they were like starting with pipe arms etc. Still beneficial to do either way!