1 year goal

[GSP]

you are looking at a gain of 23.4 pound of PURE MASS AND a drop in BF at the same time.

Knowing that a "pound" is worth abut 3500 calories and that you need to AVERAGE 0.56 pounds of lean mass per week, that requires an additional 1950 calories per week OVER AND ABOVE maintenance.

[/url]

Be careful with this one. A pound of fat has about 3500 Kcal in it, a pound of muscle has much less, more like 600-800 Kcal per pound. It's tough to back into caloric needs this way because of how the body's metabolism will shift in response to a given level of nutrition and training.

 

[SgtSlaughter]

"You must spread some Karma around before giving it to Anthrax Invasion again."

Eat big, train big... be big. You'll get there young padawon.

 

[The Shadow]

Be careful with this one. A pound of fat has about 3500 Kcal in it, a pound of muscle has much less, more like 600-800 Kcal per pound. It's tough to back into caloric needs this way because of how the body's metabolism will shift in response to a given level of nutrition and training.

you are mising my point.

as you stated, a pound of fat ~3500 cals. 454 grams time 9 cals/gram minus the approximate 10% water content yields about 3500 cals.

Under the same calculation....454 grams times 4 cals per gram = ~1800 cals plus a bit of intra-muscular fat, bhla blah blah....most reputable info states that cals in a pound are somewhere between 1700 and 2500. But thats not the point either.

Protein synthesis REQUIRES energy right??

So, beyond the fact that there are x-amount of cals in muscle- there is an energy factor that goes in to making said pound.

It's the same thing as saying that if I bench 315 for 10 reps, then my total amount lifted could be considered 3150 pounds, yes?

...but you forget about the actual work that goes into loading the bar.

Same kinda thing....

If you are looking to gain 24 pounds of LBM in 42 weeks....eating only 600 cals/wk above maintenance aint gonna get it done.

 

[GSP]

you are mising my point.

as you stated, a pound of fat ~3500 cals. 454 grams time 9 cals/gram minus the approximate 10% water content yields about 3500 cals.

Under the same calculation....454 grams times 4 cals per gram = ~1800 cals plus a bit of intra-muscular fat, bhla blah blah....most reputable info states that cals in a pound are somewhere between 1700 and 2500. But thats not the point either.

Protein synthesis REQUIRES energy right??

So, beyond the fact that there are x-amount of cals in muscle- there is an energy factor that goes in to making said pound.

It's the same thing as saying that if I bench 315 for 10 reps, then my total amount lifted could be considered 3150 pounds, yes?

...but you forget about the actual work that goes into loading the bar.

Same kinda thing....

If you are looking to gain 24 pounds of LBM in 42 weeks....eating only 600 cals/wk above maintenance aint gonna get it done.

I think we're on the same page re: the main point, it's definitely going to take some heavy eating to reach that goal!

I'm just not a fan of the use of those calculations for energy requirements. 1800 is still an overestimation. protein contains 4 calories per gram, but lean muscle is about 70% water, therefore of the 454 grams per pound, probably about 100g is actually protein.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to nitpick, the 'loading the bar' portion of building muscle actually shows up in the form of electron and covalent bonds that holds the cells in muscle together, and is therefore part of the 600 Kcal estimate. But on a more abstract level, an excess of energy must be present for the body to be 'comfortable' adding additional muscle.

But since I do agree with the main premise, I am indeed just nitpicking! The man needs to pick up a knife and fork!

 

[The Shadow]

I think we're on the same page re: the main point, it's definitely going to take some heavy eating to reach that goal!

I'm just not a fan of the use of those calculations for energy requirements. 1800 is still an overestimation. protein contains 4 calories per gram, but lean muscle is about 70% water, therefore of the 454 grams per pound, probably about 100g is actually protein.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to nitpick, the 'loading the bar' portion of building muscle actually shows up in the form of electron and covalent bonds that holds the cells in muscle together, and is therefore part of the 600 Kcal estimate. But on a more abstract level, an excess of energy must be present for the body to be 'comfortable' adding additional muscle.

But since I do agree with the main premise, I am indeed just nitpicking! The man needs to pick up a knife and fork!

LMFAO @ at your bond talk(you are talking to a Chemist)...and that is my point - you refer to bonds, I refer to the overal energy of syntheis....same thing.

..and while we are on the subject.....100 grams of protein you mentoned....the protein turnover due to cortisol etc is another reason that you cant simply look at Xcals in a pound and calculate from there.

 

[SgtSlaughter]

i love it, battle of the minds.

In short...

EAT, little guy... E-A-T!

 

[GSP]

LMFAO @ at your bond talk(you are talking to a Chemist)...and that is my point - you refer to bonds, I refer to the overal energy of syntheis....same thing.

..and while we are on the subject.....100 grams of protein you mentoned....the protein turnover due to cortisol etc is another reason that you cant simply look at Xcals in a pound and calculate from there.

Ha. Well, I'm not exactly a practicing, chemist, but my undergrad is animal physiology, which was fairly intensive in Bio Chem and O-chem courseload. In any event, it appears we have little left to argue over.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

Organic Chem looks like a bitch and a half.

 

[fortunatesun]

I use the lazy man's method of calculation : link

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

Berardi is a retard. His caloric "requirements" are way too steep. He's a fucktard.

Dr. John Berardi PhD

You know, because he insists on mentioning his degree twice and rubbing it in your face.