# Can you lose bf% while in a cal surplus on cycle?



## Deads (Feb 4, 2011)

As above peeps.

With some fat burn cardio, is it possible?


----------



## Deads (Feb 4, 2011)

Anyone?


----------



## Matt090 (Oct 19, 2007)

Yes if what you are eating is clean good cals


----------



## moe273 (Apr 13, 2010)

matokane said:


> Yes if what you are eating is clean good cals


aren't calories just calories though at the end of the day? if someone has 3000cals a day 40/40/20 ratio does it matter if its from grilled chicken/oats/healthy fats rather than some fast food?

i have heard both sides of this argument and im still not totally convinced.

in regards to the question i would like to know aswell


----------



## Matt090 (Oct 19, 2007)

Iv not read up enough to back everything i say well enough on this board lol

but clean bulking is possible you need to give your body exactly what it wants there are many people on this board that seem to stay quite lean and put on some very good size.

as for fast food and healthy food nope fast food is high in saturated fats, salts and fast digesting sugary carbs...

it also depends on what his diet is like befor the bulk etc

Im currently bulking on a clean diet, well alot cleaner than about 3months ago and am putting on size aswell as loosing fat. ( iv cut out sauces bacon etc )

and only eating chicken, fish, rice, potatos and veg really

alot of other stuff but nothing major these are my main foods for the day.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

Well, as muscle mass increases, thus does your BMR, so effectivley you can. This is very difficult, what it comes down to is getting your body into a surplus and a negative at different times in the day, to both lose fat when in negative, but gain and repair in surplus.

For all intents and purposes its very difficult.


----------



## Ninja (Apr 28, 2010)

it's a holy grail of BB..  for me it's unreal.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

if you are eating a calorie surplus then no you won't get lean as you are eating more calories than you are using......

a few things help burn fat...

metabolism

cardio

meal frequency

drugs

but when ll these are applied and you are still in a calorie surplus state then you will get fat.....


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Pscarb said:


> if you are eating a calorie surplus then no you won't get lean as you are eating more calories than you are using......
> 
> a few things help burn fat...
> 
> ...


I'd agree, apart from the meal frequency aspect - this has no impact on metabolism or fat gain / loss, calories being the same of course.

I suppose you could decrease your overall BF % if not the absolute amount of fat mass mass you were carrying whilst on cycle - if all your excess calories went to lean tissue growth only, and sure, drugs help massively in this regard. But in reality I imagine this is extremely difficult to do, as you'd need to have your excess dialled in exactly in light of other factors like daily actitivy etc, which is never the same.

As has been said - the holy grail of BB.


----------



## Mars (Aug 25, 2007)

bayman said:


> I'd agree, apart from the meal frequency aspect - *this has no impact on metabolism or fat gain* /* loss*, calories being the same of course.
> 
> I suppose you could decrease your overall BF % if not the absolute amount of fat mass mass you were carrying whilst on cycle - if all your excess calories went to lean tissue growth only, and sure, drugs help massively in this regard. But in reality I imagine this is extremely difficult to do, as you'd need to have your excess dialled in exactly in light of other factors like daily actitivy etc, which is never the same.
> 
> As has been said - the holy grail of BB.


Really,all clinical studies show that increasing the frequency of meals increases your metabolism, reduces total cholesterol, reduces LDL and reduces cortisol excretion.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

mars1960 said:


> Really,all clinical studies show that increasing the frequency of meals increases your metabolism, reduces total cholesterol, reduces LDL and reduces cortisol excretion.


They really don't.



bayman said:


> If you want to prove to me that a higher meal frequency is "better" than a lower meal frequncy explain the findings of this review to me:
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
> 
> ...


And really, calories being equal, why would more meal increase metabolism? The TEF (thermal effect of feeding) would be smaller and more often from a multi-meal approch, TEF larger and less often from say 3 square meals, but ultimately the same net value.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2011)

lol bayman we should just give up..

tren is really the only way to burn fat in a caloric surplus, I could sit in a pie factory eating pies all day and i'd still get leaner on tren it's ridiculous what it does to me


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

ALR said:


> lol bayman we should just give up..
> 
> tren is really the only way to burn fat in a caloric surplus, I could sit in a pie factory eating pies all day and i'd still get leaner on tren it's ridiculous what it does to me


I know, funny how myths like "more meals speed the metabolism" will never die in BB'ing. Keep rolling out the tupperwear boys...

And Tren it is then!


----------



## Mars (Aug 25, 2007)

They really do LOL, thats an abstract and is not relevant to the question, it's about meal frequency and avoidance of obesity (it says so ffs) i wish ppl wouldn't post abstracts that are irrelevant to the argument they posted.

What i posted is correct and relevant. Google may be your friend but it can also be many ppl's enemy, try reading relevant articles that you have to pay for rather quoting irrelevant abstracts from google.

It's not a myth, it beggars belief the passion ppl have for knowledge yet at the same time aren't prepared to pay to learn, ot interpret what they read incorrectly.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

mars1960 said:


> They really do LOL, thats an abstract and is not relevant to the question, it's about meal frequency and avoidance of obesity (it says so ffs) i wish ppl wouldn't post abstracts that are irrelevant to the argument they posted.
> 
> What i posted is correct and relevant. Google may be your friend but it can also be many ppl's enemy, try reading relevant articles that you have to pay for rather quoting irrelevant abstracts from google.
> 
> It's not a myth, it beggars belief the passion ppl have for knowledge yet at the same time aren't prepared to pay to learn, ot interpret what they read incorrectly.


It's WHOLLY relevant. You may do well taking your own advice.

*"Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation"*

So if there's no impact on metabolism in a weightloss scenario, why would there be in a weightgain scenario?

And I posted it in relation to Paul's post, which stated:



PScarb said:


> Things that help burn fat...
> 
> Meal frequency


Which the above study clearly shows that meal frequency does not.


----------



## Mars (Aug 25, 2007)

bayman said:


> It's WHOLLY relevant. You may do well taking your own advice.
> 
> *"Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation"*
> 
> ...


It's not a study, it's an abstract, i think you should go back to basics, start with what metabolism actually means, then subscribe to the Lancet or similar and see what metabolic actions are increased by increasing the amount of meals you eat.

Also you said this and i quote "I'd agree, apart from the meal frequency aspect - *this has no impact on metabolism* or fat gain / loss, calories being the same of course". And that statement is medically, scientifically and factually incorrect.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

It's an abstract from a study? I don't get your point? I've attached the full review for your reference anyway.

Mars, seriously, explain to me how a multi-meal approach would speed up metabolism compared to a 3 square meal approach Calories and Macro's being equal between either? I feel either you've misunderstood my point, or you're wrong here.

The study I posted has also been reviewed here:

Meal Frequency and Energy Balance.

S0007114597000093a.pdf


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2011)

I eat one large meal a day and the thermic effect is so pronounced I get food sweats every time, it cracks my friends up watching me sweat off a meal.

It would be interesting to see a study done on how many calories are burnt eating this way versus 3 meals and 6 smalls


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

ALR said:


> lol bayman we should just give up..
> 
> tren is really the only way to burn fat in a caloric surplus, I could sit in a pie factory eating pies all day and i'd still get leaner on tren it's ridiculous what it does to me


so what you are saying is that Tren burns calories no matter what?? please can you show how this happens especially in a diet that is surplus in calories as if this was true no cardio would be needed nor clen, ECA all you would have to do is take Tren....so please show me how this happens....



bayman said:


> I know, funny how myths like "more meals speed the metabolism" will never die in BB'ing. Keep rolling out the tupperwear boys...
> 
> And Tren it is then!


this may have an effect on you although i would like to see a before and after picture after you have sat in a pie factory and eat all the pies whilst staying lean on tren.... 

Guys can you show some evidence that frequent meals do not raise the metabolism be this from studies or personel experiance before you dismiss the opinions of others please?....Bayman i come to that conclusion through 22yrs of being in this sport and dieting for many shows and also prepping other.....in my experiance multiple meals raise the metabolism more than in frequent meals.....


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

bayman said:


> And I posted it in relation to Paul's post, which stated:
> 
> Which the above study clearly shows that meal frequency does not.


i have said this many times how does this study relate to guys with above average muscle? as we know the body will be more efficient at burning fat through a higher resting metabolism the more muscle you have so in this study where the subjects people who train and have above average levels of muscle?

if not then to be fair it is not worth that much in this debate....

on a weekend i sometimes only get to eat 2-3 meals and my metabolism does not raise as much as it does through the day when i eat 6-7 meals spread through the day, i certainly sweat and get hotter more with multiple meals....exactly as the one meal does for ALR so which is best?


----------



## engllishboy (Nov 1, 2007)

Have you actually measured your temperature, or going by the act of sweating (or not) which I would of thought would have many variables as to why you do/don't...?


----------



## danny1871436114701 (May 2, 2010)

Surely eating more often keeps blood sugar levels more stable therefore no wanting to crave sugar / shut food there therefore burning more fat  also another factor energy levels will better with smaller meals IMO, I am not one to quote journals I go from what I have tried myself


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Pscarb said:


> Guys can you show some evidence that frequent meals do not raise the metabolism be this from studies or personel experiance before you dismiss the opinions of others please?....


I've already provided a great review on the available research above, also a breakdown of the review for the layman (not that I'm saying you're a layman Paul), from that:



> While TEF (Thermic effect of feeding) differs for the different nutrients, on average it constitutes about 10% of a typical mixed diet (this varies between nutrients and slight differences may be seen with extreme variations in macronutrient intake). So every time you eat, your metabolic rate goes up a little bit due to TEF
> 
> Aha! Eat more frequently and metabolic rate goes up more, right? Because you're stimulating TEF more often. Well, no. Here's why:
> 
> ...


The mistake people make here is they do not compare equ-energetic, equ-macro diets. FOr one reason or another some do better on a higher meal frequency, others do better on a lower one. So if you had one guy 100% compliant with their diet on 7 meals a day, and the other 50% compliant but on less meals, then of course the multi meal approach is going to be superior in this instance in it's effect on results and metabolism - but the same can be said if the situation is reversed.



Pscarb said:


> Bayman i come to that conclusion through 22yrs of being in this sport and dieting for many shows and also prepping other.....in my experiance multiple meals raise the metabolism more than in frequent meals.....


In terms of results, fair enough, see above. But how do you know more meals raises metabolism just from experience? Have you tracked you total daily energy expenditure? Had clients in a metabolic ward eat 6 or 3 meals per day? If more meals works better from a compliance point of view that does not validate it being better for metabolism.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Pscarb said:


> on a weekend i sometimes only get to eat 2-3 meals and my metabolism does not raise as much as it does through the day when i eat 6-7 meals spread through the day, i certainly sweat and get hotter more with multiple meals....exactly as the one meal does for ALR *so which is best?*


Neither.

It comes down to the individual.


----------



## Deads (Feb 4, 2011)

Interesting.

Cheers for replys. So the answer to my question is no, u can't lose fat in a surplus even on cycle.

Is it possible to do 8 weeks of a 12 week cycle in a surplus and 4 weeks in a deficit? Put abit of mass on and strip a little fat?

On the other hand, I've read its possible to still put a little lbm on while in a deficit on cycle. Is this another myth?


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> so what you are saying is that Tren burns calories no matter what?? please can you show how this happens especially in a diet that is surplus in calories as if this was true no cardio would be needed nor clen, ECA all you would have to do is take Tren....so please show me how this happens....
> 
> this may have an effect on you although i would like to see a before and after picture after you have sat in a pie factory and eat all the pies whilst staying lean on tren....
> 
> .


What a question, I say something which is clearly from personal experience and you ask for proof? Oh I'l just ask the doctors who happened to be studying me.

In my PERSONAL experience, despite being in a caloric surplus I lost considerable fat on tren. And I'm not the only person I know who's anecdotally reported the same. Obviously with a veterinary drug finding proof of this isn't going to be possible.

I've heard theories linking prostaglandins with trens fat burning effect (and also cough) but obviously without a ridiculously rich and curious juicer to pay for studies we'll probably never find out the exact mechanism of action.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2011)

Deads said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Cheers for replys. So the answer to my question is no, u can't lose fat in a surplus even on cycle.
> 
> ...


No its not a myth, you can def gain LBM while in a deficit. Esp on tren...again, Lol.


----------



## Mars (Aug 25, 2007)

bayman said:


> It's an abstract from a study? I don't get your point? I've attached the full review for your reference anyway.
> 
> *Mars, seriously, explain to me how a multi-meal approach would speed up metabolism compared to a 3 square meal approach Calories and Macro's being equal between either? I feel either you've misunderstood my point, or you're wrong here.*
> 
> ...


I cannot explain because you don't seem to be able to grasp what metabolism actually means.

Iv'e read that study, it doesn't explain anything of relevance and i believe thats another reason why you are challenging what is science fact.

I'm not being deliberatly obtuse or offensive but please read up on the fundamentals of what metabolism actually is before telling me i'm wrong and disregarding scientific evidence contrary to your opinion.


----------



## Trenzyme (May 4, 2008)

ALR said:


> lol bayman we should just give up..
> 
> tren is really the only way to burn fat in a caloric surplus, I could sit in a pie factory eating pies all day and i'd still get leaner on tren it's ridiculous what it does to me


same hare mate, i dont know the science behind it but a good dose of tren keeps me lean and can even get leaner when bulking


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

mars1960 said:


> I cannot explain because you don't seem to be able to grasp what metabolism actually means.
> 
> Iv'e read that study, it doesn't explain anything of relevance and i believe thats another reason why you are challenging what is science fact.
> 
> I'm not being deliberatly obtuse or offensive but please read up on the fundamentals of what metabolism actually is before telling me i'm wrong and disregarding scientific evidence contrary to your opinion.


Well you've provided no evidence to the contrary? You just keep telling me to go look up what metabolism is? I certainly don't feel you've vindicated you stance any by stating it's "fact" without any evidence.

The quotes and study I posted appear to me to be perfectly relevant as they discuss energy balance, thermic effect of feeding and the effects of these on bodyweight. If this isn't relevant to meal frequency and metabolism? What is?


----------



## Mars (Aug 25, 2007)

bayman said:


> Well you've provided no evidence to the contrary? You just keep telling me to go look up what metabolism is? I certainly don't feel you've vindicated you stance any by stating it's "fact" without any evidence.
> 
> The quotes and study I posted appear to me to be perfectly relevant as they discuss energy balance, thermic effect of feeding and the effects of these on bodyweight. If this isn't relevant to meal frequency and metabolism? What is?


FFS, why do you even want evidence, (but if you do, then at the risk of repeating myself as this is bloody schoolboy science, read the science of metabolism) just use your brain, what happens when you eat a meal? now work it out from there ffs, i do not suffer fools gladly.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

mars1960 said:


> FFS, why do you even want evidence, (but if you do, then at the risk of repeating myself as this is bloody schoolboy science, read the science of metabolism) just use your brain, what happens when you eat a meal? now work it out from there ffs, i do not suffer fools gladly.


Great! I don't suffer fools gladly either. Suffice to say I think you're completely wrong on this one, and at present the weight of evidence is in my corner.

So I'll state it again: *Cals and Macros being identical between either, the effect on metabolism between say 3 meals compared to 6 meals will be identical.*

More info on this:



Martin Berkhan said:


> You've probably heard that eating smalls meals throughout the day 'stokes the metabolic fire' or is the ideal way to eat in order to control cravings and blood sugar; as consequence, this should also be the ideal way to eat for fat burning purposes. This belief is partly based on a gross and blatantly incorrect interpretation of research concerning TEF (Thermic Effect of Food).
> 
> Besides body weight, activity patterns and genetics, TEF is part of the equation that determines your metabolic rate for each given day. Paradoxically, ingesting energy costs energy and TEF is the increase in metabolic rate above basal conditions due to the cost of processing food for storage and use (ref). Simply put, every time you eat, the body expends a certain percentage of energy just to process the food you just ate. TEF varies between the macronutrients; protein is given a value of 20-25%, carbs 5% and fat 2-3% (ref). In a mixed diet, TEF is usually estimated to 10% of the calorie intake.
> 
> ...


----------

