“We do not rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training.”
A spot-on observation of human nature, I think. Even so, within those of us who think more highly of ourselves, that it should be otherwise. So much so a true observation, in fact, that I use this quote as my email signature, so that I see it daily.
The following is related to a question I fielded recently from a client, and it’s not unlike the multitude of diet-vs-hypertrophy-related questions I field on a regular basis. The answer to this particular question, of course — like just about every every question related to Physical Culture — is analigous to attempting to tame the ol’ State Fair favorite, the Zipper.
There are just so many moving variables to this question that it’s impossible to give a pat answer here without really taking the time to stop and dismantle each of these whirly-gig cars. I think this “problem of complexity” is a big reason why the majority of folks fall for fads and easy-outs (in diet and in training) — getting to the right answers takes due diligence and, in most cases, it means letting go of previously-taken-to-be-iron-clad-correct “knowledge” — not exactly a feel-good position for many.
And, too (and as always), we need to know the goals of the individual asking the question. And, in this case, we need to define what we even mean by “hypertrophy” — because one person’s “lean mass gain” is another’s “bulk”. Just as an example, look at the difference in Brad Pitt’s physique between his appearance in Fight Club…
and then in Troy…
No doubt Brad is bulkier in Troy — but what of the difference in lean mass between the two appearances? Hard to say. And truth be told, few care. Even if that bulk were 95% intramuscular fat, most (guys, at least) would be more than happy with that.
Now I’m certainly not here to say that intra-muscular fat deposition (bulk) is necessarily a bad thing — I just want to make sure we’re all on the same page when it comes to defining lean mass hypertrophy vs. all-encompassing bulk.
But back to my client’s actual question; what he wants to know is this:
what, if any, body recomposition changes occur over time if one engages in sound hypertrophy-focused training BUT were to limit the diet to maintenance-level calories? Let’s also assume we are talking about someone who is more toward the ectomorph side of the body-type continuum.
Oy vey! Where to begin with this one, huh? Well, first off let’s assume “maintenance calories” to mean “eating to satiation”, because, in reality, anything else would simply give credence to the now debunked (at least within normal parameters, i.e., between starvation and wanton gluttony) calories-in/calories-out theory. So, what we’re talking about here is simply eating a decent, Paleo-ish diet, to satiation, and absolutely not obsessing about such things as, oh… maintaining a positive nitrogen balance, or some other such lunacy — i.e., living a real, non-OCD life outside of the gym. Now, that said, what I’ve observed during my 30+ years in the iron game is this: given proper stimulus (and favorable genetic/hormonal underpinning), hypertrophy “happens” even in an environment of less-than-adequate nutritional support.
The kicker, of course, being proper stimulus. To put it another way, busting ass in the gym trumps anything that one does, or does not, shove down the ol’ pie-hole. I would even go further to say that busting ass trumps the use of fine pharmaceuticals, but that’s a discussion for another time.
Taubes gives a great example in Why We Get Fat (though geared toward fat gain — the same applies here) of a teen going through a growth spurt. Assuming decent nutritional support (i.e., no starvation), growth is a function of the hormonal environment within the body, not a function of forced intake of excess calories. In other words, a growing teen eats like he has a friggin’ hollow leg, and/or is (by his parent’s definition), a “lazy”, never-gonna-get-a-job-and-get-out-of-the-frackin’-house bum, *because* he is growing, not so as to *induce* said growth. Hypertrophy is much the same, though on a lesser (caloric requirement wise) scale. Think of it this way: stimulus drives the hypertrophy train, nutrition simply supports, to a very limited degree, the effort. And hey, I’m all for adequate support, but let’s just not forget what the real driver is here.
Now, I do concede a certain credence, if you will, to the other side of the argument (of which, this Dr. Lonnie Lowery/Rob “Fortress” Fortney-penned T-Nation article is the best I’ve come across in a long while) — that is to say, that properly administered overeating will establish a more favorable anabolic environment within the body, and therefore promote (better? Faster?) hypertrophy gains. What we’re talking about here, though, is a matter of degree — and, again, the difference between bulk and lean-mass hypertrophy must be vetted. And, too, we’re speaking again of multiple variables. I don’t think I’ve ever come across and individual who’s gone headlong into a “mass gain” phase, who didn’t also jack his/her gym intensity into the stratusphere concurrent with devouring everything they could get their hands on. Did they put on mass/bulk? You bet they did. But what really drove the train here, the newly-heightened input stimulus or surplus calories? I’ll put my money on the stimulus side of things, every time.
Another “eat your way big” argument that has some merit (in my observation, at least), is the “improved lever” argument. That is to say, increased bulk provides for better about-the-joint lever advantages, which allows one to push heavier weights, which promotes additional hypertrophy. I also believe there’s some merit to the point-of-origin energy supply argument. All fine and well. Until, that is, Johnny Bulk-Up decides that he’s now ready to diet-down to reach his original goal of being lean and muscular. Rut-Ro…
As the Dalia Lama says, many paths lead to the same destination 🙂
And I won’t even begin to delve into the fool’s errand of even attempting to second-guess the body’s caloric requirements with any measure of accuracy. Weigh and measure? Meh. Let us, instead, focus on the things that are, at least somewhat, within our control. Things like consuming a proper Paleo diet, a diet of a favorable macro-nutrient disposition dependent upon our own (smartly conducted) n=1 determination. Things like busting ass in the gym in an intelligently programmed way (which includes being mindful of spinning into the overtraining pit). Things like eating when you’re truly hungry, getting adequate ZZzzzzz’s, ditching chronic stress where possible — and not stressing about the chronic stresses that you can’t avoid.
So does proper diet matter in the hunt for hypertrophy? Sure it does. It just pales in comparison, though, to those gut-wrenching gym sessions. Look at it this way: if eating one’s way big had merit, Arnold’s physique would be the norm. My take is that time spent obsessing over caloric intake would be much better spent learning meditative/awareness practices that allow one to push past the mind’s “shutdown” threshold. Become a student of focus, intensity and self awareness, and let the body mind it’s own caloric needs. It does so brilliantly, thank you very much — and much better than you (your mind, ego) could ever hope to, so long as you provide it access to the proper raw staples.
So there you have it. Is your goal to attain (in accordance with your genetic limitations) 70s Big status, or the raw, lean and muscular look? The truth of the matter is, my friend, that you can’t have it both ways.
A muse for Physical Culture?
Let’s just say she’s doin’ the best she can with the block-head muse she has to work with 🙂 Seriously, though, Jeanne is an exceptional Austin-area artist — and a kind, kind soul to boot. Check out her work; you’ll be glad you did. Very cool stuff indeed. And the process is simply amazing. I had no idea of the complexity…
Want to begin your PhD in Physical Culture? Start with this lecture from my good friend Ken O’Neill. Brilliant insights from an erudite champion of Physical Culture. Pull up a chair, put on a pot of Joe, and dive deep into the very essence of the “new” Physical Culture movement. Well done, Ken.
Workouts for the last couple of weeks. Now you may have noticed that my blogging has been a bit sporadic since my move here to Austin. And it’s for good reason — I’m busy as all hell! Seriously, though, many of the “quick hit” topics I generally now cover over at the Efficient Exercise Facebook page. Topics I choose to flesh-out a bit more will find their way here. And so it goes. Anyway, so friend us up over at our Facebook page, where Skyler, Mark Alexander and I go “around the horn” with many current health, fitness, and all-encompassing topics related to our favorite subject — Physical Culture.
OK, so a couple of short clips are worth a thousand words 🙂 A little 21st century technology paired with a smattering of old school favorites add up to a total upper-body thrashing. Sweet!
(A1) CZT/ARX Leg press: 3, 3, 3, 3
(A2) trap bar DL: (black bands, speed emphasis) – 155/5, 245/5, 5; 295/3
(A1) Nautilus pec dec: 110/12, 12 (working the later reps…partials, rest-pause, etc.)
(A2) XC incline press: (-90, mid 25)/7, 6 rest-pause
(A3) Nautilus pull-over: stack/13, 12+(3, 2 rest pause)
(A1) power snatch (close grip): 115/5, 5, 5, 135/4
(A2) hanging L-raise: 15, 15, 15, 15
(B1) hip press: (setting @ H2), 200lbs+ 1 grey and 1 black band, 8 sets of 3
(A1) trap bar DL (low grip): 265/7, 355/7, 405/5, 5
(A2) chins: 45/7, 55/5, 5, 4+
(A3) dips: 45/7, 70/5, 6, 7
Here’s a look at how the final round went down…
…dude! What happened to your hair?? Yeah, so I went all Duke Nukem. Summers are friggin’ hot here in the ATX, gimme a break. And I’m down with the minimalist upkeep. Metro-sexual man I am not 🙂 Gimme chalk on my hands, a fixed-speed bike, and a doo I don’t have to f&%# with, thank you very much!
Sprints! And climbing ropes, parallel bars, a 40-rung, super-wide set of monkey bars, a scaling wall and a waist to chest-high retaining wall for jumps. Big, big fun!
2 rounds of the following:
(A1) hip press (H2 setting): 400/12, 500/6, 600/3 (hierarchical sets)
(A2) standing roll-outs: 15
2 rounds of the following:
(A1) Naut pec dec: 95/12, 105/6, 115/3 (hierarchical sets)
(A2) XC flat press: (+50) 4, 3+ ( 80X0 tempo; X=fast as possible)
(A1) front squats: 135/7, 185/5, 205/5, 225/3, 245/2, 2, 2, 2
(A2) Power cleans (high catch): 135/8, 155/6, 175/3, 3, 3
(A1) BTN push-press: 135/7, 155/7, 175/5, 195/3, 3, 2, 2, 2
And by the way, a big shout-out to Kris, who sent me the most killer “Manimal” T’s — hit me with an email, brother — I’ve lost your addy!