Sigh. Corn - I've been around here long enough to not be impressed by cliches like that. If I were still doing the same thing I had always done, I'd be smoking a whole lotta weed and slowly going brain-dead in a twilight zone job in Tokyo ...
Let's talk about science, not habits.
Here, I believe this is the study MS originally referred to:
1: Ann N Y Acad Sci 2000 May;904:359-65 Related Articles, Links
Body fat content influences the body composition response to nutrition and exercise.
Forbes GB.
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, New York 14642, USA.
In most situations involving a significant change in body weight, both fat-free body mass (FFM) and body fat participate, but the relative contribution of FFM and fat to the total weight change is influenced by the initial body fat content. Overfeeding: In experiments of at least 3-weeks' duration, the weight gain of thin people comprises 60-70% lean tissues, whereas in the obese it is 30-40%. Underfeeding: In humans, there is an inverse curvilinear relationship between initial body fat content and the proportion of weight loss consisting of lean tissue. The same trend holds for animals and birds, including loss during hibernation. Another factor is the magnitude of the energy deficit: as energy intake is reduced, lean tissue makes up an increasing fraction of the total weight loss. Exercise: If individuals lose much weight with exercise, the result is usually some loss of lean tissue as well as fat, and once again the proportion of lean loss to total weight loss is greater in thin people than in those who have larger body fat burdens. Members of twin pairs often differ in weight. In thin individuals, lean accounts for about half of the intrapair weight difference, whereas in the obese it accounts for only one quarter. Body fat content must be taken into account in evaluating body composition changes induced by nutrition and exercise.
Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial
PMID: 10865771 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10865771&dopt=Abstract
Here's another one:
1: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1996 May;20(5):393-405 Related Articles, Links
Autoregulation of body composition during weight recovery in human: the Minnesota Experiment revisited.
Dulloo AG, Jacquet J, Girardier L.
Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
OBJECTIVES: To gain insights into the control systems underlying human variability in the regulation of body composition during weight recovery, as well as the disproportionate recovery of fat relative to lean tissue, the classical Minnesota Experiment conducted on 32 men subjected to long-term semi-starvation and refeeding was revisited with the following objectives: (1) to determine whether the control of energy-partitioning between lean and fat tissues during weight loss and weight recovery is an individual characteristic, and if a predictor can be statistically identified, (2) to determine whether the reduction in thermogenesis during weight loss persists during weight recovery, and underlies the disproportionate recovery of fat tissue and (3) to integrate the control of energy-partitioning and that of thermogenesis in order to explain the pattern of lean and fat tissue mobilisation and deposition during weight loss and weight recovery. METHODS: Individual data on body weight, body fat, fat-free-mass (FFM), and basal metabolic rate (BMR), assessed during the control baseline period (i.e. prior to weight loss), at the end of 24 weeks of semi-starvation, and at the end of a 12 week period of restricted refeeding, were used to calculate the following parameters: (i) a quantitative index of energy-partitioning, the P-ratio, defined as the proportion of body energy mobilised as protein during weight loss, or as the proportion of body energy deposited as protein during weight recovery, (ii) a quantitative index of changes in thermogenesis, defined as the change in BMR adjusted for FFM (or for both FFM and fat mass) and (iii) the degree of replenishment of fat and FFM compartments, defined as the recovery of body fat and FFM (during refeeding) as a percentage of that lost during semi-starvation. RESULTS: This re-analysis indicates the following: (i) a large inter-individual variability in P-ratio during both weight loss and weight recovery, but for a given individual, the P-ratio during refeeding is strongly correlated with the P-ratio during semi-starvation, (ii) body composition during the control period is the most important predictor of variability in P-ratio, such that the higher the initial % body fat, the lower the proportion of energy mobilised as protein, and hence the greater the propensity to mobilise fat during semi-starvation and to subsequently deposit fat during refeeding and (iii) at week 12 of refeeding, the change in adjusted BMR is found to be reduced by a magnitude which is inversely proportional to the degree of fat recovery, but is unrelated to the degree of FFM recovery. A quantitative relationship is derived between the P-ratio during refeeding, the % fat recovery, and the P-ratio during semi-starvation. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is presented here suggesting that (i) human variability in the pattern of lean and fat tissue deposition during weight recovery is to a large extent determined by individual variations in the control of energy-partitioning, for which the initial % body fat is the most important predictor and (ii) the disproportionate gain in fat relative to lean tissue during weight recovery is contributed by a reduction in thermogenesis (i.e. increased efficiency of food utilization) for accelerating specifically the replenishment of the fat stores. These control systems, operating via energy-partitioning and thermogenesis, have been integrated into a compartmental model for the regulation of body composition during underfeeding/refeeding, and can be used to explain the individual pattern of lean and fat tissue deposition during weight recovery in situations ranging from the rehabilitation after malnutrition to the relapse of obesity.
PMID: 8696417 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8696417&dopt=Abstract
Mmm - that's all I can find for now, but I'm not particularly good with the Pub Med search engine. Anyway, the first study is the one I was referring to. I realise the second one deals with starving people, but nonetheless, it is interesting - "the higher the initial % body fat, the lower the proportion of energy mobilised as protein".
Obviously I realise the idea is not to get fatter, but what I'm trying to say here is that for the average chick with average bf % going on a gaining plan, she WILL gain a greater % of fat if she starts fatter, than if she diets down a bit first. Your 12% girl is unusually lean for a girl - most of us would have to diet for a long time to get that lean, and some of us simply won't ever be able to get that lean.
As for higher protein diets keeping fat off when gaining, true, probably, but .... from what I've heard, if calories are kept about 10% lower than otherwise, higher carb is just as adequate, since carbs are protein-sparing, and the energy and insulin responses from carbs promote growth very efficiently.
This probably isn't VERY to the point, but does somewhat illustrate it ... another study I came across at PubMed looked at lean body mass gain and protein requirements in recovering anorexics - they were fed either a 20% or 10% protein diet. The weight gained in both groups was two thirds lean mass - no difference despite one group eating double the amount of protein ....
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
To risk a few more kilos of fat in the name of LBM gain, or to try dieting down first (but very very sick of dieting after last year) ...
