Is so called "caloric surplus" even matters for muscle growth when you consume a lot of protein, or is it just another fitness myth (like CICO) with no actual evidence? Interested in opinions of high-iq anons understanding biochemistry.
Bulking has been debunked. You can build the same amount of muscle in a deficit as long as you have the required protein and applied adequate stimulus to the muscle while training.
>>77353491In as few steps as possible:In a deficit the amount of adenosine monophosphate to adenosine triphosphate increases. This makes amp-activated protein kinase inhibit mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin ) signaling. No mTOR, No growth.
>>77353535mTOR is overrated for muscle growth.
>>77353563It's unfortunately nessisary part for the kind myoprotein synthesis that leads to growth. You maintain mass with abysmal mTOR signaling (as a trained natty) but you're talking probably less than 20g of new lean mass synthesized for a fullbody.
>>77353566>It's unfortunately nessisary part for the kind myoprotein synthesis that leads to growth.mTOR is upregulated in sarcopenia. Also some studies on rapamycin (mTOR inhibitor) showed it leads to enhanced muscle growth.
>>77353498No it hasn't.
>>77353563>>77353566The mTORC1/FoxO transcription factor/E3 ubiquitin ligase axis is really the main gainz goblin in the mTOR pathway, disrupting that generally fixes the problem. >>77353570 But rapamycin sucks and gave Bryan Johnson infections, smarter to target the axis with a lot of less toxic compounds.
>>77353570It is the pivotal signaling molecule, which sets off S6K1, which in turn sets off 4E-BP1 which then boots up eIF4E and eIF4F and a bunch of other genetic shit. You can't bypass it any meaningful way without steroids.
>>77353491Things like this is so easy to experiment for yourself. Try increasing the weight on a weekly basis while being on maintenance. Then after a while, try doing it while on a surplus. You can easily tell the difference why surplus helps when it comes to progression in the gym.
>>77353579>But rapamycin sucks and gave Bryan Johnson infectionsIt's literally the best drug ever, you just need to calculate doses right to inhibit mTORC1 and not mTORC2. Also Bryan has compromised energetic state because he practices caloric restriction instead of carbmaxxing, check his body temperature.
>>77353588>It is the pivotal signaling moleculeCheck this out. >Rapamycin Does Not Compromise Exercise-Induced Muscular Adaptations in Female Micehttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acel.70183
>>77353579that meme picture feels like it came out straight from 2011s 9gag. I feel old.
>>77353498chat is this true?I dont wanna fall for the meme of becoming fat for 5% strength increase.
>>77353650>chat is this true?Yes. >Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trialhttps://sci-hub.ru/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26817506/
>>77353656This is not a rebuttal, I'm just curious:Then why have people been recommended to just do bulk-cut periods over the past like 50 years in fitness/bodybuilding for hypertrophy?Is it just "people didn't know better and keep doing it?"
>>77353685>Then why have people been recommended to just do bulk-cut periods over the past like 50 years in fitness/bodybuilding for hypertrophy?Probably a steroid thing.
>>77353491>>77353498yes you dont need extra calories to grow muscle.It just materializes in your body out of thin air.
>>77353693Humans store extra calories in bodyfat.
>>77353498>You can build the same amount of muscle in a deficit as long as you have the required protein and applied adequate stimulus to the muscle while training.this doesnt even work with steroids, retard.>>77353656lmao a study by dyel eggheadsIf this work to any meaningful degree nobody would ever bulk and cut. They'd just diet down getting lean and huge and the same time.But whatever, post body.
>>77353691idiot
>>77353696your body isnt going to burn body fat and put that energy into hypertrophy.It just doesnt happen.>but muh studypost body
>>77353698>If this work to any meaningful degree nobody would ever bulk and cut.Rational agent fallacy.
>>77353708not its called REAL LIFE.You should try it sometime instead of reading egghead bullshit by queers who never stepped foot in a gym.You cant even build muscle in a deficit on steroids and you think you can do it natty?you still havent posted body.
>>77353700>>77353701You sound upset.
>>77353712>You cant even build muscle in a deficit on steroidsYou can if you have enough protein intake, since all that is needed for it is hormonal signaling, raw material availability and local energy production.
>>77353718Here's another natty telling everyone what steriods do.Post your awesome body that you come from eating in a calories deficit.Oh and guess what? If you grew any measureable amount of muscle, you weren't in a calorie deficit after all.
>>77353698post body
>>77353731I accept your concession.
>>77353729>Here's another natty telling everyone what steriods do.I'm not even natty. >If you grew any measureable amount of muscle, you weren't in a calorie deficit after all.Not in a deficit at local muscle tissue, yes.
and how are you measuring this "local tissue energy production" to determine if you're in a calorie deficit?Oh you're not. You're just repeating something you read somewhere.You never grew muscle in a deficit.Most likely you're one these idiots who mistake the temporary strength increase from steroids caused by increased glycogen, CNS stimulation etc as muscle growth.Or you just think you got more muscular when its just you look better because you got leaner.
>>77353769>and how are you measuring this "local tissue energy production" to determine if you're in a calorie deficit?By strength. Since strength numbers aren't changing during caloric deficit, it means there's no actual energetic deficit at the cellular level of muscles, otherwise you would become immediately and significantly weaker whenever there's any kind of caloric deficit. If you have energy for movement, obviously you have energy for less energetically demanding processes like protein synthesis.
>>77353498Please progress past your first year of lifting mr. Noob Gains.
>>77353535mTOR is stimulated by BCAAs.
>>77353698>lmao a study by dyel eggheadsYou know of caloric deficit only because of eggheads.
>>77353784I already addressed the acute and temporary strength gains from roids. And if I take enough roids during a cut, I lose almost no strength.You're either not in a calorie deficit or you just dont understand what's happening because there's no pubmed study about it.
>>77353791Nobody in the history of mankind needed a pubmed study to figure out that not eating enough makes you loose weight.Even fucking cavemen figured this out.
>>77353801>Nobody in the history of mankind needed a pubmed study to figure out that not eating enough makes you loose weight.If you lose overall bodyweight it does not mean you're losing muscle or inhibit muscle protein synthesis.
>>77353795You haven't even understood what i'm saying. Your position implies that during caloric deficit there's not enough energy in the muscles to support muscle protein synthesis - if that were the case, every caloric deficit would severely inhibit muscle strength, since strong muscle contraction require a lot of energy.
>>77353535>In a deficit the amount of adenosine monophosphate to adenosine triphosphate increases.So you just need to supplement with creatine.
>>77353868>every caloric deficit would severely inhibit muscle strengtheveryone knows you lose muscle on a cut. That's why the bigger you are and/or/ the bigger the calorie deficit the more roids you need to maintain muscle mass.Of course you can win this argument right now and forever by simply post a pic of the awesome physique you got from lifting in a calorie deficit.
>>77353877>everyone knows you lose muscle on a cut. >the bigger you are and/or/ the bigger the calorie deficit the more roids you need to maintain muscle mass.It's a broscience myth. >Of course you can win this argument right now and forever by simply post a pic of the awesome physique you got from lifting in a calorie deficit.You wouldn't know if it were built in a caloric deficit or not.
>>77353886>It's a broscience myth.why is it always dyels who say shit like this?What does a natty dyel like know about using roids during a cut?>I saw a frog meme about it
>>77353915>if you don't believe broscience myths you're a dyelNice argument.
>>77353886You sound mad doing ad hominems though, anon asked a good question, how does your body tell when there's a deficit and when it is not.
>>77353936>how does your body tell when there's a deficit and when it is not.I already said there's no deficit at the level of muscles during general caloric deficit (which leads to total bodyweight loss) unless you are literally starving (have no fat to burn).
>>77353491I managed to grow some muscle on a mild cut and I was relatively well trained back then. It's anecdotal of course, but since then I think it's more complex than surplus = hypertrophy enabled / no surplus = hypertrophy impossible, a lot of guys ignorant of bulking/cutting seem to make some degree of progress no matter how they eat without thinking too much about it
