Are small caloric changes a waste?

[trtchin]

By small I mean 100 cals or less.

Im on cruise right now and really trying to figure my maintenance calories. My activity remains the same week to week. Currently cals at 3,100 and that seems high for my size but my weight isnt changing much.

I heard something on the J3 podcast that a small change of 100 calories in either direction wont do much because your body will adapt to that small change before it starts growing or shrinking.

Does that make sense or not?

 

[Avarice911]

Doesn’t make sense because you could slowly add 100 calories again and again and then be eating 10,000 calories with that theory lol. Not like you’re gonna go from eating 3000 calories to 5000 calories and not gain weight because you did it slowly over time

When you say “weight isn’t changing much”, how much is not much?

 

[trtchin]

Doesn’t make sense because you could slowly add 100 calories again and again and then be eating 10,000 calories with that theory lol. Not like you’re gonna go from eating 3000 calories to 5000 calories and not gain weight because you did it slowly over time

When you say “weight isn’t changing much”, how much is not much?

I was on blast at 3500 cals. I got off blast and dropped cals to 3300 but I was still tired of eating so went to 3100. But because I stopped I stopped blast I also dropped a quick 2 kg. Weight seems stable now but its only been 4 weeks post blast so im not quite sure. Im not a big guy 6 foot/183 and 78 kg/170 lbs and it seems a lot bigger guys are maintaining on less cals.

 

[IndividualMan]

upping cals means upping cals. weight gain will be negligible, maybe because of increased BMR, maybe because of weight gain/tissue accrual taking a good while. Maybe you just move more throughout your day when eating more.

100cals take a while to make themselves noticeable, but the thing they said on the J3 podcast soudned ridiculous to me. you thyroid takes a good while to actually upregulate/ downregulate 8with small changes in caloric intake), or does so only with significant changes in caloric intake.

I think this is a case of: my scale only measures in .1 lb increments, waaaah i cant see the weight change there must be some strange other factors at play, let me blame the thyroid. Just because your instruments used for taking measurements are inaccurate does not mean there is nothing happening. A spyglass wont let you see the debris making up saturns rings. A scale measuring in .1lb increments wont let you see 4-10grams of new muscle/day.

Obviously you wont see significant weight changes on a 100 cal surplus. 1kg of muscle takes like 6.5k cals- 7.2k cals to put on iirc, so no shit the scale will make it look like natural weight fluctuations week to week. Thats a minimum of 2-3 months of a surplus for your KG of muscle, and thats if all of it is going towards accrual of new muscle tissue.

 

[trtchin]

I may have misstated what they said. Perhaps it's more what you are getting at. The change from 100 cals will be so slow it's almost as if nothing is happening

Anyways im looking for reasons to lower cals and not lose weight lol

 

[IndividualMan]

I may have misstated what they said. Perhaps it's more what you are getting at. The change from 100 cals will be so slow it's almost as if nothing is happening

Anyways im looking for reasons to lower cals and not lose weight lol

you only know what happens if you tried. but generally, lower cals over time means lower weight. Thats all I can tell you. taking a bit of an eating break is rarely a bad thing, a cut can do wonders for your well being and appetite, letting you come back stronger next time.

 

[trtchin]

you only know what happens if you tried. but generally, lower cals over time means lower weight. Thats all I can tell you. taking a bit of an eating break is rarely a bad thing, a cut can do wonders for your well being and appetite, letting you come back stronger next time.

Thanks man. Ya I've got a 6 week mini cut lined up in a couple weeks before my next blast. Looking forward to it lol.

 

[macmac]

upping cals means upping cals. weight gain will be negligible, maybe because of increased BMR, maybe because of weight gain/tissue accrual taking a good while. Maybe you just move more throughout your day when eating more.

100cals take a while to make themselves noticeable, but the thing they said on the J3 podcast soudned ridiculous to me. you thyroid takes a good while to actually upregulate/ downregulate 8with small changes in caloric intake), or does so only with significant changes in caloric intake.

I think this is a case of: my scale only measures in .1 lb increments, waaaah i cant see the weight change there must be some strange other factors at play, let me blame the thyroid. Just because your instruments used for taking measurements are inaccurate does not mean there is nothing happening. A spyglass wont let you see the debris making up saturns rings. A scale measuring in .1lb increments wont let you see 4-10grams of new muscle/day.

Obviously you wont see significant weight changes on a 100 cal surplus. 1kg of muscle takes like 6.5k cals- 7.2k cals to put on iirc, so no shit the scale will make it look like natural weight fluctuations week to week. Thats a minimum of 2-3 months of a surplus for your KG of muscle, and thats if all of it is going towards accrual of new muscle tissue.

Fat is 7700 cals. One kg of muscle is only 1300 kcals. In theory a very small surplus maximises gains. But it's hard to gain muscle and easier to lose fat so that's why a bigger surplus makes sense.

I think Justin Harris said it in a podcasts recently: 5kg of muscle a year is 18 grams of protein synthesized for muscle gain per dag. Pretty crazy numbers if you ask me and that's why big surplusses and dreamer bulks are a thing of the past.

 

[IndividualMan]

Fat is 7700 cals. One kg of muscle is only 1300 kcals. In theory a very small surplus maximises gains. But it's hard to gain muscle and easier to lose fat so that's why a bigger surplus makes sense.

I think Justin Harris said it in a podcasts recently: 5kg of muscle a year is 18 grams of protein synthesized for muscle gain per dag. Pretty crazy numbers if you ask me and that's why big surplusses and dreamer bulks are a thing of the past.

stored energy vs energy needed to build. 1kg of muscle is indeed around 1300cals stored, but the energy needed to build is much higher.

 

[Avarice911]

I was on blast at 3500 cals. I got off blast and dropped cals to 3300 but I was still tired of eating so went to 3100. But because I stopped I stopped blast I also dropped a quick 2 kg. Weight seems stable now but its only been 4 weeks post blast so im not quite sure. Im not a big guy 6 foot/183 and 78 kg/170 lbs and it seems a lot bigger guys are maintaining on less cals.

That’s about the calories I maintain on at 5’11” 205-210lbs. Doesn’t necessarily mean that’s not what you need tho just because you weigh less. Just gotta tweak cals slowly and watch the scale if you really wanna nail down maintenance calories

 

[macmac]

stored energy vs energy needed to build. 1kg of muscle is indeed around 1300cals stored, but the energy needed to build is much higher.

Ow, sorry for the misinterpretation. Out of interest: do you have an article about it? Would love to ready more about it

 

[Elektrobot]

This bodyweight planner has worked well for me

NIH Bodyweight Planner Link

When I change my calories, I only change the carbs.

My protein intake stays at 220, my fat stays at 30, carbs are what's variable.