16 replies to this topic

[superhuman]

Hello

I do strenght training 3 times a week and i want to maintain my muscles or maybe build some. How low calorie can you go before it starts to effect this?
I have heard of very very low calorie diets that maintained muscles in men, like 800 calories?

[The Immortalist]

Read this:
Calculating Calorie & Macronutrient Needs - Bodybuilding.com Forums

If you eat less than your total daily energy needs then you will start to lose connective tissue. To answer your question you have to eat at exactly your total energy expenditure to maintain your current biomass. If you want to gain muscle without gaining much fat increase your caloric intake to like 100-200 calories above your total energy expenditure.

When people who go on lower calorie diets to lose fat they always lose some muscle/connective tissue while on those diets. Dieting is not for long term when it comes to maintaining muscle. The only point in dieting is to obtain lower bodyfat levels so the fat on your body is not covering the muscle mass you've gained.

Edited by The Immortalist, 29 December 2011 - 01:11 AM.

[Mind]

Can you build muscle while on a very low calorie diet?


No.

If you are going for lifespan extension then there is evidence that low calorie (and eventually very low weight, lower fat, lower muscle mass) will benefit you. If you want to build muscle, you might be sacrificing a bit of healthspan. There are trade-offs. A lot of people don't want to look as skinny as CR people, and there are probably still some advantages in society to being a bit more muscular.

You just can't have both.....yet (the benefits of CR and gain muscle mass). I strike a balance that I am comfortable with. I eat a paleo-ish low-carb diet and probably just balance out my daily energy expenditure. I work out to maintain muscle mass. People say I look skinny but I feel ok. Once in a while I up my calories in order to build some muscle mass, but nowadays I do it a bit smarter. I don't load up on the carbs. That way I can maintain a more "cut" look.

If you want to build huge muscles fast, you have to stuff carbs and protein in your face and do steroids, generally speaking. I don't recommend it, just stating the facts.

[TheKidInside]

what are YOUR GOALS...why do you (think) need more muscles?

[ramon25]

NO you cannot build more muscle and frankly will waste away at 800 calories a day.

[hivemind]

Men on a CR diet are not only very thin but they also have low testosterone levels and a reduced sex drive.
I dont think that is a very good trade-off.

[The Immortalist]

Men on a CR diet are not only very thin but they also have low testosterone levels and a reduced sex drive.
I dont think that is a very good trade-off.

I've heard that at low bodyfat percentages men produce less estrogen.

[hivemind]

Men on a CR diet are not only very thin but they also have low testosterone levels and a reduced sex drive.
I dont think that is a very good trade-off.

I've heard that at low bodyfat percentages men produce less estrogen.

Yes, but you don't need to be on a CR diet to have low body fat.

[maggieW]

Hello

I do strenght training 3 times a week and i want to maintain my muscles or maybe build some. How low calorie can you go before it starts to effect this?
I have heard of very very low calorie diets that maintained muscles in men, like 800 calories?

isn't protein supposed to be really important for maintaining muscle? i remember reading somewhere that keeping up your protein intake is important when dieting... you might want to look into that

[nowayout]

If you are going for lifespan extension then there is evidence that low calorie (and eventually very low weight, lower fat, lower muscle mass) will benefit you. If you want to build muscle, you might be sacrificing a bit of healthspan. There are trade-offs.

There is no evidence that CR will increase either lifespan or healthspan more than being muscular (as from weight training) in humans. If anything, anecdotal evidence in humans suggests CR humans age faster than muscular humans, if looking like death warmed over by the age of 40 is any indication. If you disagree, show me the studies comparing CR mice with weight training mice, never mind humans.

Edited by viveutvivas, 22 February 2012 - 01:22 PM.

[scottknl]

Lotsa real crap being said here. Some people have low T problems on CR and others (like myself) are just brought down to a normal level or have a negligible change. It's very individual. I've maintained an excellent lean physique for 2.5 years on CR at 1750 calories per day for 6'2" frame. I'm not odd in being able to do that either. I saw 5 or 6 other CR practitioners that also had good looking athletic bodies and who were active in sports and I ran about 5 miles with a couple of them just to see how functional they were. For most people CR at about 70% of adlib eating calories can produce a very nice looking, thin but athletic figure when combined with moderate exercise such as weight lifting, running and rowing 3x per week. Of course if you cut your calories down to 50%, of adlib eating you're going to look like a concentration camp survivor.

What's the point of being able to bench 200 lbs if you can only run for 5 minutes before you're wheezing like a smoker? Been there - finished with that!
Lean, fast, agile and muscular is better than fat, slow, clumsy, strong.

[mikeinnaples]

What's the point of being able to bench 200 lbs if you can only run for 5 minutes before you're wheezing like a smoker? Been there - finished with that!
Lean, fast, agile and muscular is better than fat, slow, clumsy, strong.

That is a silly example. You can easily be lean and still have the strength to bench 200 lbs and run for miles without wheezing like a smoker.

I do agree with you that lean, fast, agile, and musculare is the best way to go ...even if your example was unrealistic and silly.

[scottknl]

What's the point of being able to bench 200 lbs if you can only run for 5 minutes before you're wheezing like a smoker? Been there - finished with that!
Lean, fast, agile and muscular is better than fat, slow, clumsy, strong.

That is a silly example. You can easily be lean and still have the strength to bench 200 lbs and run for miles without wheezing like a smoker.

I do agree with you that lean, fast, agile, and musculare is the best way to go ...even if your example was unrealistic and silly.

You can do both temporarily. As you get older, the walls of your blood vessels become less compliant when you do more and more strength exercise. Conversely, lots of cardio tends to reduce muscle size. So one type of exercise sabotages the other type. Life and time teaches you lessons if you take a moment to reflect on them. But, hey go ahead and try to prove me wrong if you want, Mike.

[platypus]

Steady-state cardio might reduce muscle-mass but HIIT shoud not do that. Exercise in a smart way.

Edited by platypus, 02 April 2012 - 10:58 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

What's the point of being able to bench 200 lbs if you can only run for 5 minutes before you're wheezing like a smoker? Been there - finished with that!
Lean, fast, agile and muscular is better than fat, slow, clumsy, strong.

That is a silly example. You can easily be lean and still have the strength to bench 200 lbs and run for miles without wheezing like a smoker.

I do agree with you that lean, fast, agile, and musculare is the best way to go ...even if your example was unrealistic and silly.

You can do both temporarily. As you get older, the walls of your blood vessels become less compliant when you do more and more strength exercise. Conversely, lots of cardio tends to reduce muscle size. So one type of exercise sabotages the other type. Life and time teaches you lessons if you take a moment to reflect on them. But, hey go ahead and try to prove me wrong if you want, Mike.

Define older. I consider myself 'older' as would be past the halfway point of an average lifespan.

I can bench press 200lbs with no problem (5 sets of 8 reps @ 205 is my maintenance weight). It doesnt take alot of effort to have the strength to do that, and I am extremely far from being a big bulky guy. In fact, being big and bulky is counter productive to the activities I love to do, like surfing. I am not CR thin, but that lifestyle doesnt fit my fitness and activity needs. I am 6'1, 185lbs and my diet is mostly paleo. I need a belt to keep up 32" inseam pants.... I am lean, flexible, and fast.

I also don't do alot of classic cardio, but I can run for miles. Why? Most of my cardio is HIIT. (my activities such as surfing are HIIT - like in regards to cardio as well)

Most of my lifting involves incorporating as many muscle groups as possible into a movement and not isolation. I also mix in explosive lifts with regular lifts and balancing to try and get all my muscle fibers engaged.

Honestly, its only took me about 4 weeks of going full speed to get back to where I was before my C4/C5 disc replacement in January (trauma related, not exercise related). I think they key to staying in shape as you get older is working smarter, not harder. But sure, you can tell me I am wrong and we can debate some.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 03 April 2012 - 12:35 PM.

[tiffanymary]

Doing significant weight with round the normal eight reps to failure triggers hormones which will increase your muscle mass growth. but with high reps you may not manufacture an equivalent hormones, however as a by-product your muscles do extra service with with polysaccharide (simply hold on carbs within muscle). this can be why you may see bodybuilders doing high reps throughout thier cuts before comps. conjointly why roids square measure therefore prevelent thanks to the secretion issue.

http://www.biocarexl.org/

Attached Files

•  1234276_1391950184367384_709542912_n.jpg   41.23KB   10 downloads

[Absent]

YES, you can. People who say other wise don't know what they're talking about. Though, I can tell you right now you're not going to 'bulk' up unless you're on a somewhat large calorie surplus.

I used to be extremely skinny my whole life, practically 0 body fat. I started working out and sure enough my muscles became very defined and noticeable. I grew some but did not get much 'bigger' per say, other than my muscles being very noticable and defined, and I did not really gain weight, but I DID get stronger.

What people don't realize is you can work out and get stronger WITHOUT your muscles getting bigger. Just as you don't need your brain to get 'bigger' for it to work more effectively. When you do not increase your calorie intake at all but workout with bulking exercises, your muscles will simply become more efficient. They may not get HUGE, you most likely will not have as many gains as somebody who eats a large surplus, but the fact is your muscles WILL become stronger by your muscle fibers becoming more efficient, and on top of that they will be beautifully defined.

There are shaolin monks who train every day of their life on a very low protein diet and are have insanely defined muscles, insane balance, and can demonstrate strength in terms of hit-power enough to shatter bones and organs in single blows.

My guess is the reason people say it is impossible to gain muscle/strength without a calorie surplus is because 1) they have never tried, or 2)they simply read too much body-building dogma. It's just like the people who say you can't bulk up your chest by doing just pushups, you definitely can, it just isn't the most effecient way. I know people in the Military which pushups(albiet a ton) is all they did and they came back home with huge chest muscles.

Edited by Siro, 14 September 2013 - 12:03 PM.