# optimal rate of weight gain



## trueukg (Oct 22, 2011)

Hi Guys,

What do you guys think is the optimal rate of weight gain, looking to stay as lean as possible?

Thanks


----------



## RickMiller (Aug 21, 2009)

0.25-0.5lb per week if keeping bodyfat low is of major concern.


----------



## trueukg (Oct 22, 2011)

hi rick,

yeah it is, i would like to do my frst show this year (for the experience, i dont expect to place), but i want to keep the gains as quality as possible to avoid a lengthy cut which the mrs beats me for lol

When you up your cal intake how many do you tend to increase it by?


----------



## maxie (Jan 31, 2011)

Is it possible to build muscle naturally when trying to keep bodyfat below its natural level?

What im trying to say is i seem to have a certain bodyfat which is natural to me,and everyone else will have as well,some are higher than others.

So to build muscle without gear we surely need to be at this natural bodyfat level or above,feeding the body with a surplus to grow as quickly as possible?


----------



## RickMiller (Aug 21, 2009)

trueukg said:


> hi rick,
> 
> yeah it is, i would like to do my frst show this year (for the experience, i dont expect to place), but i want to keep the gains as quality as possible to avoid a lengthy cut which the mrs beats me for lol
> 
> When you up your cal intake how many do you tend to increase it by?


What federation?

I tend to increase according to changes in scale weight and body caliper measurements, but generally it's anywhere between 300-500kcal surplus to achieve that rate of weight gain. Others might need more or less depending on lifestyle activity level and training volume (mine tends to be pretty high volume, 6 days a week and I clock up at least 3 miles walking per day).


----------



## RickMiller (Aug 21, 2009)

maxie said:


> Is it possible to build muscle naturally when trying to keep bodyfat below its natural level?
> 
> What im trying to say is i seem to have a certain bodyfat which is natural to me,and everyone else will have as well,some are higher than others.
> 
> So to build muscle without gear we surely need to be at this natural bodyfat level or above,feeding the body with a surplus to grow as quickly as possible?


Everyone will have a level of bodyfat that they seem to achieve optimal rates of progression at. This is essentially the rationale for 'set point' theory, which is centred around Leptin secretion and sensitivity. In a nutshell, leptin is secreted from bodyfat (adipocytes) and has multiple downstream effects on hormones that control hunger, stress response and androgen (e.g. testosterone) release.

As you reduce calories and get further away from your body fat 'set point' (whatever this is) leptin levels will crash typically causing individuals to overeat and reduce their activity to bring their bodyweight/bodyfat back to baseline again, this is part of the reason dieting and more importantly maintenance of a low body fat is so difficult in the long term as your body 'fights' to bring you back to set point again.

There are theories as to how one can lower their set point, most involve drug use. However, I believe (and others) that it can be manipulated over time through adaptation of diet, training and daily activity levels with some individualised treatment to make it possible.


----------



## Greenspin (Dec 27, 2010)

RickMiller said:


> Everyone will have a level of bodyfat that they seem to achieve optimal rates of progression at. This is essentially the rationale for 'set point' theory, which is centred around Leptin secretion and sensitivity. In a nutshell, leptin is secreted from bodyfat (adipocytes) and has multiple downstream effects on hormones that control hunger, stress response and androgen (e.g. testosterone) release.
> 
> As you reduce calories and get further away from your body fat 'set point' (whatever this is) leptin levels will crash typically causing individuals to overeat and reduce their activity to bring their bodyweight/bodyfat back to baseline again, this is part of the reason dieting and more importantly maintenance of a low body fat is so difficult in the long term as your body 'fights' to bring you back to set point again.
> 
> There are theories as to how one can lower their set point, most involve drug use. However, I believe (and others) that it can be manipulated over time through adaptation of diet, training and daily activity levels with some individualised treatment to make it possible.


Nice post mate!


----------



## RickMiller (Aug 21, 2009)

Greenspin said:


> Nice post mate!


Cheers  I don't comply to the whole theory (as eating behaviours go far beyond leptin) hence why you see the odd few circumstances of individuals who 'crack' their eating behaviours and manage to successfully reset their set point over time.

It's just such as shame it takes a long time to do so


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

RickMiller said:


> 0.25-0.5lb per week if keeping bodyfat low is of major concern.


I'd agree with this, as a natural it's very difficult to avoid fat gain when increasing bodyweight beyond 0.5lb per week.

I'd say that a realistic lean bulking weight gain (where bodyfat percentage either remains static or even decreases as bodyweight goes up) is probably closer even to 0.25lb per week than 0.5lbs.

I know 0.25lbs a week doesn't sound like a lot, but it's still around a stone of solid muscle a year, and that's enough to transform a physique a lot more radically than it sounds.


----------



## maxie (Jan 31, 2011)

Would you advise the trainee who has still a bit of growing to do, to try and get bigger quicker by eating big and putting a bit of excess bodyfat on,or to take their time and try to do it while keeping bodyfat low?

Id go for the first option if i had to do it again.


----------



## RickMiller (Aug 21, 2009)

maxie said:


> Would you advise the trainee who has still a bit of growing to do, to try and get bigger quicker by eating big and putting a bit of excess bodyfat on,or to take their time and try to do it while keeping bodyfat low?
> 
> Id go for the first option if i had to do it again.


You'll get some 'instant satisfaction' from the first option (quicker scale changes, some faster strength gains) but ultimately it'll be nullified by the fact you'll spend longer cutting off the fat.

The other option (and generally less psychologically unbearable for most), is to eat a surplus for a set number of weeks (I'd suggest no longer than 6-8 weeks) then cut for 2-4 weeks, repeat as needed.

This will give a balance of the two scenarios, you can have a slightly higher rate of weight gain in the knowledge that you'll be cutting for a few weeks soon enough.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

RickMiller said:


> You'll get some 'instant satisfaction' from the first option (quicker scale changes, some faster strength gains) but ultimately it'll be nullified by the fact you'll spend longer cutting off the fat.
> 
> The other option (and generally less psychologically unbearable for most), is to eat a surplus for a set number of weeks (I'd suggest no longer than 6-8 weeks) then cut for 2-4 weeks, repeat as needed.
> 
> This will give a balance of the two scenarios, you can have a slightly higher rate of weight gain in the knowledge that you'll be cutting for a few weeks soon enough.


More love for your posts Rick, intelligent posting and good advice as always.

Am starting to really like calorie cycling approaches, whether over a few weeks like you suggest or even micro cycling from day to day - slight calorie deficit 2-3 days per week, slight calorie surplus 4-5 days a week (or similar).

Doesn't just help people avoid the cut-bulk cycles, which often involves losing gains from the bulk in the cut, but also is generally a healthier approach in respect of insulin and leptin sensitivity and for HDL/LDL cholesterol ratios.


----------



## Greenspin (Dec 27, 2010)

Dtlv74 said:


> More love for your posts Rick, intelligent posting and good advice as always.
> 
> Am starting to really like calorie cycling approaches, whether over a few weeks like you suggest or even micro cycling from day to day - slight calorie deficit 2-3 days per week, slight calorie surplus 4-5 days a week (or similar).
> 
> Doesn't just help people avoid the cut-bulk cycles, which often involves losing gains from the bulk in the cut, but also is generally a healthier approach in respect of insulin and leptin sensitivity and for HDL/LDL cholesterol ratios.


I am on a weight gaining faze with a calories deficit x2 a week.

Edit: I am making good progress to! My deficit is created by means of an extended fast.


----------



## BenderRodriguez (Nov 29, 2010)

the first 6 months of my training i put on 33 lbs without a rise in bf %.Now when you say that it sounds impressive and impossible,however looking at old pictures you realise how much my face had puffed up and broadened.

Water retention is such a false hope of muscle gain:sad:


----------



## Greenspin (Dec 27, 2010)

Greenspin said:


> I am on a weight gaining faze with a calories deficit x2 a week.
> 
> Edit: I am making good progress to! My deficit is created by means of an extended fast.


Just to expand on that, I eat my CHO cyclically to training days where I eat them handsomely and then on my rest days I reduce them, and make sure my surplus is nice and appropriate as apposed to playing it safe with a slightly larger surplus. Fat stays pretty constant.

It has been working very nicely as far as my strength increasing. Im sure thats to do with my training knowledge and practice getting better also. But it keeps me looking full without looking to wet. And I don't think the strength increases are just to do with any kind of rebound from cutting as I have been gaining for a short while now. The parameters Im keeping in check are, weight, strength gains, and just for interests sake, BF caliper readings. Although my main reason for keeping an eye on fat gains is aesthetics, so actual BF comes second to how I feel I look.


----------



## RickMiller (Aug 21, 2009)

Dtlv74 said:


> More love for your posts Rick, intelligent posting and good advice as always.
> 
> Am starting to really like calorie cycling approaches, whether over a few weeks like you suggest or even micro cycling from day to day - slight calorie deficit 2-3 days per week, slight calorie surplus 4-5 days a week (or similar).
> 
> Doesn't just help people avoid the cut-bulk cycles, which often involves losing gains from the bulk in the cut, but also is generally a healthier approach in respect of insulin and leptin sensitivity and for HDL/LDL cholesterol ratios.


Cheers Dt  I would completely agree that the concept has some flexibility and I practice some intra-weekly calorie cycling too (although this does require somewhat more micromanagement).

My overall aim is to reduce protein gradually to a lower level whilst in a calorie surplus (aiming for 1.0-1.4g/kgLBM) in favour of more carbohydrates, then return to the higher reference range (1.8-2.0g/kgLBM) during the deficit phases.


----------



## predatorN (Mar 16, 2009)

Hey Rick - Any studies showing set point lowering over time as I have not seen any?


----------



## RickMiller (Aug 21, 2009)

predatorN said:


> Hey Rick - Any studies showing set point lowering over time as I have not seen any?


Would depend on what markers you're looking at. The latest evidence proposed by Muller and colleagues (2010) supports my own theory that cognitive factors can and do override the inherent hormonal markers for appetite and bodyweight regulation (leptin, ghrelin etc) given enough time. Set point is simply a theory, even the minnessotta starvation study showed that bodyweight can resettle to within 5% of an original weight loss value given sufficient time to adjust to the new bodyweight. If set point was that strong, there would be NO successful dieters, which we know is simply not true.

This is part of the reason why foci for current research is centred on cognitive adaptation and more strategic tools to help individuals manage their weight. Anorectic agents simply cause too many side effects and potential for mortality, given their MOA.


----------

