Calculating your caloric needs

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by blindhollander

I break everyrule in this formula >.>

If what you're saying is your body somehow gets energy from a source that isn't the food you're eating, then it's going to get that energy from somewhere -- your fat stores, your muscle stores, whatever. If you "eat a granola bar a day" and nothing else while working manual labor from 8-5 and that's your meal for the day, you will not be 210lb for long.

It makes sense, you're just probably not accurately reporting what you're eating.

[blindhollander]

Today I ate a toasted piece of bread (no butter it anything)
And a chocolate "cliff" bar and that's it. Worked 8-4 and went on a run today :p

[~kitty~]

Originally Posted by Reach

Absolutely. If anything it's easier, since they have less muscle, which means they will build muscle faster.

'hard gainers' are just people that don't eat enough food to bulk. They usually overestimate how much they eat because they often have small appetites.

Actually you're oversimplifying the matter. There are limits to these things, and your genetics play an important role on your muscle growth. Myostatin levels differs from person to person, so how much your muscles can grow really depends on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myostatin

edit:

Originally Posted by blindhollander

I break everyrule in this formula >.> i barely eat a gorenola bar a day and im never hungry, and im 6'2,male,210,and do carpentry from 8am - 5 pm everyday :P

so it makes noooo sense xD

my calorie intake is to low :P

Depending on how long you have been doing this, I believe you're either lying or you have a serious case of malnutrition. It's not just about the calorie formula, but also getting the essential nutrition your body needs to function. You can last many days without food, but if you do something like this long enough you'll essentially be killing your own body (literally).

[SCWolf]

I highly doubt anyone on this forum has Myostatin levels that would seriously inhibit muscular hypertrophy.

[~kitty~]

Originally Posted by SCWolf

I highly doubt anyone on this forum has Myostatin levels that would seriously inhibit muscular hypertrophy.

It's not about anyone on this forum or having levels that would seriously inhibit muscle growth, but the fact is that some people naturally have lower levels of Myostatin than others, and therefore have an easier time building muscles than others. It's not so simple for everyone. That's my point.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by ~kitty~

Actually you're oversimplifying the matter. There are limits to these things, and your genetics play an important role on your muscle growth. Myostatin levels differs from person to person, so how much your muscles can grow really depends on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myostatin

I don't think any of the fitness regulars here don't know what myostatin is. Saying "myostatin levels differ from person to person" does not specify the amount of variation, so in itself this does not impact much.

[~kitty~]

Originally Posted by kmay

ah yea, thats what i thinking... so its bullshit when people say that its harder for skinny people to build muscle

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

I don't think any of the fitness regulars here don't know what myostatin is. Saying "myostatin levels differ from person to person" does not specify the amount of variation, so in itself this does not impact much.

Reach was replying to this guy saying "absolutely." It's not about the people here, but about the idea that it's BS that it's harder for skinny people to build muscle. Some people are skinny because their myostatin levels are much higher than normal. There will clearly be people who say it's harder to build muscle because they're skinny but not really understand, but that assumption cannot just be made right off the bat.

[SCWolf]

I'm loling

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by ~kitty~

Some people are skinny because their myostatin levels are much higher than normal. There will clearly be people who say it's harder to build muscle because they're skinny but not really understand, but that assumption cannot just be made right off the bat.

You've made this clear, but the significance of what you're saying is wholly dependent on the degree to which myostatin varies in most people. If people with excess or deficient myostatin are extreme abnormalities, it makes little practical purpose to say that Reach's advice isn't applicable to them, since advice like this tends to be made with most or possibly even the vast majority of cases in mind.

[~kitty~]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

You've made this clear, but the significance of what you're saying is wholly dependent on the degree to which myostatin varies in most people. If people with excess or deficient myostatin are extreme abnormalities, it makes little practical purpose to say that Reach's advice isn't applicable to them, since advice like this tends to be made with most or possibly even the vast majority of cases in mind.

They don't really need to be extreme abnormalities, given the wording. All that was said was that it was "harder" and not necessarily impossible. Everyone has varying levels, and the levels don't actually have to be extreme to have noticeable effects on your muscle growth.

Also, I was not discrediting Reach's "advice" (if you could really call it that?). I was calling it an oversimplification of muscle growth.

'hard gainers' are just people that don't eat enough food to bulk. They usually overestimate how much they eat because they often have small appetites.

While it may be true in some cases, it's not always going to be the case. You don't need an extreme example of excess myostatin levels for a person to find themselves having a harder time building muscles than others. The "effort" being mentioned here is not measured by anything concrete but by a relative measure.

Even all things considered on the variance levels of myostatin levels, it doesn't matter the number of people. Simply put, the quote doesn't cover it all.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by ~kitty~

All that was said was that it was "harder" and not necessarily impossible.

For whom? If it's hard for 1/1000 people, this doesn't mean much for 999/1000 of the people reading this. But I doubt you meant 1/1000, because you wrote this:

Originally Posted by ~kitty~

the levels don't actually have to be extreme to have noticeable effects on your muscle growth.

Originally Posted by ~kitty~

You don't need an extreme example of excess myostatin levels for a person to find themselves having a harder time building muscles than others.

Saying "it's not the case for everyone" logically implies that for at least one person this is not the case, but that's it. Yet, I doubt you'd clarify these two sentences if you thought only one person (or a handful of people) experienced these differences, so obviously you have some kind of degree of frequency in mind.

"You don't need to have extreme cases of myostatin variation" just shifts the question to the degree of variation of effect instead of degree of variation in levels -- "it may not vary wildly, but you only need a small amount of variation to have an effect."

This still would not specify how much of an effect. It could have an effect, but that effect could be a 1% rate reduction.

[TC_Halogen]

Deviating from the argument: my first few days of caloric monitoring have been going really well. I've been using MyFitnessPal to keep track of my meals, and I've been hovering between 1,300 (on no exercise days) to 1,550 (on days where I exercise). It's been coming surprisingly easy to me; I thought that I would be fighting issues with being hungry all the time. Water has been my best friend, and I've been avoiding sweet drinks in entirety.

[SCWolf]

That's really good to hear! MFP is awesome for meal tracking. It has all the numbers you need and it's super easy to use.

Also the water thing is great. It helps out a ton.

Glad you're making progress!

[Reach]

What the hell.

On average it will be easier for skinny people to build muscle. The less muscle you have, the easier it is to build. If you take two people with the same genetics and one is larger than the other, he will grow slower than skinny guy.

Saying genetics matter for muscle growth is irrelevant to the discussion. On average, skinny people do not lack muscle because they have low testosterone or myostatin problems (mutations in myostatin regulation to the point of it being relevant are extremely rare).

They lack muscle because they don't eat enough. If they fix their diets and train properly, they will grow faster than someone that is larger with the same genetics.


You oversimplify any advice you give because you don't give advice based on 1 in a million exceptions. You're going to confuse people with shit that's irrelevant. Additionally, NONE of the variables pertaining to muscle growth actually change if you have deficiencies. It's just harder. All of the practical advice is identical and given nobody should assume they have some rare genetic disorder inhibiting muscle growth, everyone that wants to gain muscle should practice the same principles.


Anyway, if you want to debate this it would make a great thread. However, in terms of advice it's so off base I'm tempted to delete all of it and move it.

If this was a biology textbook where I had to outline all of the details surrounding muscle growth and their potential influences, there are many more to add to the list. Honestly, it's just so irrelevant and out of place here in the context of what was said, which is why people replied the way that they did, not that what you said is wrong. You might as well have pointed out that eating less than caloric needs doesn't necessarily cause weight loss either because of rare genetic disorders that regulate fat metabolism in the body while you were at it.

I don't see the point of continuing this here, so please don't. Start another thread for discussion if there is honestly anything here to debate.

[popsicle_3000]

Originally Posted by kmay

ah yea, thats what i thinking... so its bullshit when people say that its harder for skinny people to build muscle

who says this?

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by popsicle_3000

who says this?

"hardgainers"

Skinny people who tend to attribute their inability to gain much weight or muscle on genetics / metabolism / etc.

More often than not, they're just not eating enough due to their typically smaller appetites, as Reach said earlier.

Lifting weights in itself doesn't grow your muscles. It tears* them / signals them to ramp up synthesis. Then your body uses the food you eat to repair and grow them. To get bigger, you need mass. To get mass, this requires energy. To get energy, you need food.

*I'm oversimplifying because there are other drivers at play here but I'm choosing one that's easy to understand

[~kitty~]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

For whom? If it's hard for 1/1000 people, this doesn't mean much for 999/1000 of the people reading this. But I doubt you meant 1/1000, because you wrote this

It wasn't meant for anyone who might be reading these forums who are looking for advice. It was much less because of Reach and much more because of kmay that I said it (who must be referring to just anyone who he may meet).

Saying "it's not the case for everyone" logically implies that for at least one person this is not the case, but that's it. Yet, I doubt you'd clarify these two sentences if you thought only one person (or a handful of people) experienced these differences, so obviously you have some kind of degree of frequency in mind.

How kmay comes across is that it's just "bullshit" when someone says it when they are skinny. Maybe as a general rule, but you will definitely find some people. I am not going to know the frequency and I am not even sure if there are any studies on it either. I'm not saying that what Reach said is invalid in any way, or that you need to change what needs to be done. But the argument here isn't even can or can't, but difficulty compared to others. It's a very vague statement to begin with.

"You don't need to have extreme cases of myostatin variation" just shifts the question to the degree of variation of effect instead of degree of variation in levels -- "it may not vary wildly, but you only need a small amount of variation to have an effect."

This still would not specify how much of an effect. It could have an effect, but that effect could be a 1% rate reduction.

While the level of effect here isn't being specified, the point isn't that. The point is about the fact that you will come across people where it actually is legitimately more difficult. The advice could still help, but it doesn't mean the results will come at the same rate. Again, what I'm saying is just about this stuff in general about "difficulty" compared to others and how for some people it boils down to more than just their diet.

Originally Posted by Reach

What the hell.

On average it will be easier for skinny people to build muscle. The less muscle you have, the easier it is to build. If you take two people with the same genetics and one is larger than the other, he will grow slower than skinny guy.

Saying genetics matter for muscle growth is irrelevant to the discussion. On average, skinny people do not lack muscle because they have low testosterone or myostatin problems (mutations in myostatin regulation to the point of it being relevant are extremely rare).

They lack muscle because they don't eat enough. If they fix their diets and train properly, they will grow faster than someone that is larger with the same genetics.


You oversimplify any advice you give because you don't give advice based on 1 in a million exceptions. You're going to confuse people with shit that's irrelevant. Additionally, NONE of the variables pertaining to muscle growth actually change if you have deficiencies. It's just harder. All of the practical advice is identical and given nobody should assume they have some rare genetic disorder inhibiting muscle growth, everyone that wants to gain muscle should practice the same principles.

@Bold: With the response to kmay, it didn't seem to be in that context.
The reason I said what I did was mostly because of kmay, but the reason I decided to say it was because what you said didn't seem to address that there will be some people who legitimately have a harder time. In regards with the context of the thread itself, it is pointless to say. In regards to the context I meant to reply to it, I feel like it does.

[flipsta_lombax]

Thanks for posting this, I've been meaning to check this as of late. Because I work out 5-6 times a day with Insanity, dance and a semi-busy server, I'll associate with very active.

BMR = 9.99*81.6 + 6.25*177.8 – 4.92*24 + 5 = 1,803.35
DAE = 0.7(1,803.35) = 1,262.34

TDEE = 3,065.7

I consume only about 1,300-1,500 calories a day, most of the time less because I tend to get distracted. Probably should eat a little more if I wanna maintain the muscle mass. But I've been wanting to lose weight too because stubborn belly fat. Second week into insanity and I've lost 4 pounds. :D

[kommisar]

if i do my bmr + dae it's like 2931 calories


i feel like a fatty

[iCeCuBEz v2]

i weigh 150 lbs my height is 5' 10''

i probably don't eat enough because im very physically active however have a scrawny build.

i need to eat more.

i could care less about my physical build up as long as im strong enough to do my job which i am so its fine.