gain muscle, keep fat off

[Ylem]

id say 19 calories per pound of non fat

so if say you 65 kg at 10% bf (just a guess) thats like 144 lbs sooo like 130*19 = eat around 2500 calories a day.

if your losing weight raise the calories alittle, if your gaining too much weight lower the calories, if your too sore increase the ratio of protien, if you dont have enough energy increase the ratio of carbs.

the 2500 calories isnt perfect but its a good starting place.

[furor celtica]

Originally Posted by Ylem

id say 19 calories per pound of non fat

so if say you 65 kg at 10% bf (just a guess) thats like 144 lbs sooo like 130*19 = eat around 2500 calories a day.

if your losing weight raise the calories alittle, if your gaining too much weight lower the calories, if your too sore increase the ratio of protien, if you dont have enough energy increase the ratio of carbs.

the 2500 calories isnt perfect but its a good starting place.

um ok about this guy, his advice often seems sound but everyone else seems to think he's a retard. just wondering, whats up with that? i'm no expert so i have nothing on anybody, i can't contradict anyone who says shit like that.

[furor celtica]

yes june 25th...

[MrSmall]

As I said, just eat a little more GOOD food (PROTEIN and GOOD CARBS, not chocolates and deep fried jack daniels bacon strip cars), and train hard, first fight. You don't have time to bulk up efficiently anyway, don't worry about it BRO.

[furor celtica]

OK thanks y'all for your help!

[Ylem]

Originally Posted by furor celtica

um ok about this guy, his advice often seems sound but everyone else seems to think he's a retard. just wondering, whats up with that? i'm no expert so i have nothing on anybody, i can't contradict anyone who says shit like that.

make your own decisions instead of listening to other people.

though really id say think of me as a retard and continue looking for more information....though even if people were saying im the best trainer in the world id still recommend you continue to look for more information.

google.com is a wonderful resource

[BladeJrs]

Originally Posted by MrSmall

Good luck trying to bulk up a well conditioned, very active endurance athlete on 200 calories a day extra!

a) I said 200-500, so depending on the person 200 may be enough (will take longer but you will gain just about only LBM and not fat), or 500 may be needed if they're looking to do it faster.

b) Being a conditioned/active athlete is irrelevant. A 200cal surplus for an athlete is the same as a 200 cal surplus for anyone else. If person A is a slug and has a maintenance of 1600cals and eats 1800 a day, and person B is active and has a maintenance of 2800 and eats 3000 a day, it's still 200 cal surplus either way, both people will gain weight. A surplus is a surplus, doesn't matter what else you're doing. Your activity level is just going to affect the total cals you should be eating.

Again, if you want to add as little fat as possible, it's gonna take longer and you should only do a 200-500 cal surplus. If you don't care about gaining extra fat then you might as well eat an extra 2000 calories a day.

[viru§™]

Originally Posted by BladeJrs

a) I said 200-500, so depending on the person 200 may be enough (will take longer but you will gain just about only LBM and not fat), or 500 may be needed if they're looking to do it faster.

b) Being a conditioned/active athlete is irrelevant. A 200cal surplus for an athlete is the same as a 200 cal surplus for anyone else. If person A is a slug and has a maintenance of 1600cals and eats 1800 a day, and person B is active and has a maintenance of 2800 and eats 3000 a day, it's still 200 cal surplus either way, both people will gain weight. A surplus is a surplus, doesn't matter what else you're doing. Your activity level is just going to affect the total cals you should be eating.

Again, if you want to add as little fat as possible, it's gonna take longer and you should only do a 200-500 cal surplus. If you don't care about gaining extra fat then you might as well eat an extra 2000 calories a day.

I prefer this gain slow, build muscle and gain little fat way than the whole "bulking" thing.

[MrSmall]

Originally Posted by viru§™

I prefer this gain slow, build muscle and gain little fat way than the whole "bulking" thing.

Bulking, cutting etc unless losing weight for a competition, are temporary solutions to permanent problems, and are in no way the best method of getting bigger or getting leaner. What happens when you finish? You eat like you otherwise would...
But he said how to gain weight, which is eat more.

Originally Posted by BladeJrs

a) I said 200-500, so depending on the person 200 may be enough (will take longer but you will gain just about only LBM and not fat), or 500 may be needed if they're looking to do it faster.

b) Being a conditioned/active athlete is irrelevant. A 200cal surplus for an athlete is the same as a 200 cal surplus for anyone else. If person A is a slug and has a maintenance of 1600cals and eats 1800 a day, and person B is active and has a maintenance of 2800 and eats 3000 a day, it's still 200 cal surplus either way, both people will gain weight. A surplus is a surplus, doesn't matter what else you're doing. Your activity level is just going to affect the total cals you should be eating.

Again, if you want to add as little fat as possible, it's gonna take longer and you should only do a 200-500 cal surplus. If you don't care about gaining extra fat then you might as well eat an extra 2000 calories a day.

Do you train any athletes? do you yourself train? have you tried this 200 calorie surplus? 500 cals I can understand. But 200? I personally don't think it would dent an active boxer's weight at all. Its a lot easier to maintain a weight with a fluctuating caloric intake than it is to make any changes, if anything his body will a lot more prone to burn up the extra calories than it is to try and get heavier simply because of the way a boxer would train. And who counts calories, really? I know I brought them up, but the main thing is where they are from, be it a fat source, protein source, carb source, we can agree that THAT will play a role if the dude gets fat or gets HENCH, small or large excess calorie number. And who knows what their maintenance caloric intake is, really?

[BladeJrs]

Originally Posted by MrSmall

And who counts calories, really?-----And who knows what their maintenance caloric intake is, really?

A ton of people count calories, especially those who have specific weight goals whether gaining/losing/maintaining count calories. There's reasons theres a million resources across the internet, phone apps, books etc. that help you track cals.

And anyone who does this or cares about nutrition should know their maintenance. It's really not hard to figure out if you're tracking calories. They also make thinks now such as the bodybugg, bodymedia fit tracker, etc. to make it even easier.

if anything his body will a lot more prone to burn up the extra calories than it is to try and get heavier simply because of the way a boxer would train.

It doesn't work that way. If the calories are being used or ''burnt up'' for any energy expenditure, then it's not a "surplus" and they're not "extra calories." A surplus are the calories leftover after everything else (BMR, activity, etc.) is said and done.


Unless someone is in a rush, 200 will work for lean gains. I mean it doesn't affect my life either way what anyone does. You can try and gain muscle on whatever plan you want, this kid can try and gain on whatever he wants, to each his own really. The simple fact (actual science, not opinion) is a surplus = gain, calorie deficit = loss. The slower the gain, the more it will be lean gains without fat, which is what he asked for. 800 cal surplus like you said will gain muscle, but you will certainly be putting on fat with that. Like I said, to each his own though.

[MrSmall]

You can track calories, sure! But that doesn't give you your BMR or anything like that, just shows if you do X activity and intake Y calories, you get leaner or fatter.

But overall I think we agree and obviously slower is better, just I didn't think it would work with that amount of calorie increase, as 200 calories could be if he ran an extra mile in a training session, went another 3 rounds in sparring, missed his bus and had to walk home a few miles, helped a friend move house, etc etc. Sure he might gain some fat, but if he has plenty of time he can do it with less too.

[BladeJrs]

Originally Posted by MrSmall

You can track calories, sure! But that doesn't give you your BMR or anything like that, just shows if you do X activity and intake Y calories, you get leaner or fatter.

Right, but you don't need to know your exact BMR as long as you know your maintenance. If you know you eat 2500 a day with your normal activity and don't gain/lose any weight, then that's your maintenance either way, whether it's an 1800/700 split of BMR/activity or 2300/200 split.

Originally Posted by MrSmall

But overall I think we agree and obviously slower is better, just I didn't think it would work with that amount of calorie increase, as 200 calories could be if he ran an extra mile in a training session, went another 3 rounds in sparring, missed his bus and had to walk home a few miles, helped a friend move house, etc etc.

You're correct in a sense (assuming someone does same exact cals every day), but you're forgetting the fact that if this happens you're supposed to compensate for the extra activity by adding cals. For example, if someones maintenance is 2300, and their 200 cal surplus is 2500 cals/day, yet they do some extra walking one day that burns 200 cals, they've now burned 2500 that day and are no longer in a surplus, therefore should compensate by eating 2700 that day.

I mean trust me, I know a small increase is not necessarily the easiest thing to keep track of (especially when it's more accurate to weigh everything you eat than go by tsp, tblsp, cups, etc.) but it's the best way to keep the fat off when gaining.

Again, to the OP, if you're in more of a rush you can increase calories accordingly.