Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fu...rmance.27.aspx
The ACSM is the gold standard in the States for fitness guidelines. You'd think if this "hypercaloric diet = more muscle" was true, news would have reached them.
I would love to find studies that compare hypercaloric vs maintenance diets for fat free mass (muscle) gains, but I can't. As far as I know, there is absolutely no physiology backing up this stance and it is therefore not worth it to study.
|
In page 1 of the article you link, the second "Key Point" is
Quote:
|
* Athletes need to consume adequate energy during periods of high-intensity and/or long-duration training to maintain body weight and health and maximize training effects. Low energy intakes can result in loss of muscle mass; menstrual dysfunction; loss of or failure to gain bone density; an increased risk of fatigue, injury, and illness; and a prolonged recovery process.
|
And in case anyone wants to jump on the fact that this key point doesn't say "during and after" exercise, the article does mention in the contents that:
Quote:
|
It is unnecessary for athletes who rest one or more days between intense training sessions to practice nutrient timing about glycogen replenishment provided sufficient carbohydrates are consumed during the 24-h period after the exercise bout
|
So, given all of this, if I said that in order to gain muscle a person needs to
a) Train muscles to the point of breakdown and repair and
b) eat enough extra calories to maintain their body mass given the extra energy requirements of training.
Would you disagree?
If not, then I think this may be a semantic argument about whether "eating more calories to support muscle growth" does or does not mean the same thing as "eating maintenance calories to support activity level". Does it really matter?
At the end of the day, both involve eating more food.