Eating Big to Gain Strength

[atypical1]

You cannot compare someone who lifts with someone who does not lift as that is apples to oranges.

So the OP wrote about his experiences with eating more food and getting stronger and now people are saying "no, you don't have to eat more to get stronger because all of that excess will turn to fat" or "you don't have to eat more to get stronger and all you need to do is train your CNS better". Well that goes against his direct experience. No offense to anyone but if you've got proof in your logs that you're right then please link to that. But it goes directly against what the OP wrote down.

My log is also open to all to read. I started 5/3/1 in Sept. The first month my diet wasn't sufficient and you can see my results. In Oct on my diet increased and so did my strength. So now there are two logs that show that if you eat sufficient quantites you will get stronger.

james

[wrenchhands]

That starting strength bit was amazing. It highlights my weight complex I've got.

Anyways, labor and materials and blueprints= how to build something. Medhi gave us the blueprint, the other two seem commonsense.

[JasonLB]

Do Olympic weight lifters and Powerlifters who lift in weight classes eat a calorific excess to get stronger? Surely they don't, otherwise their muscle mass will increase, which is not what they want.

To an extent they do, actually. First of all, every elite level lifter built their strength by putting on muscle, which is how they arrived at their current weight. And let's not forget that many competitive lifters below the super heavyweight division cut to make weight. The goal is to come in at the very top of the weight class. Look at Matt Kroc. He certainly trains and eats for size, but the guy regular cuts something like 30lbs to make weight prior to weigh-in. And look at just about any lifter who competes at an elite level in the lower weight classes (anything beneath superheavy, really) -- what do they all have in common? Most are incredibly lean. They make a certain weight cutoff through low body fat %, not by limiting muscle gain. It makes no sense, whatsoever, to try and stay in a weight class by limiting lean mass gains. Frankly, if you have to actively eat in such a way to limit muscle growth in order to stay in a certain weight class, then you're probably in the wrong weight class to begin with. Everyone has a "natural" weight class at which they have the most potential for strength -- much of it having to do with height. So if you are 6'2," don't think you are ever going to be truly strong remaining under 200 lbs (or even 220), it just ain't gonna happen. You can have the most efficient CNS in the world but without "filling out your frame," you simply won't reach your potential. If you are a tall, lanky kid getting into o-lifting, you don't try and stay in the 77kg class by training for CNS efficiency and eating like a pigeon... you bust your ass in the gym and eat to put on size until you build enough muscle to be competitive in a higher weight class. CNS efficiency can only take you so far; ultimately, your strength will be limited by muscle mass.

[edit] I forgot to add, why do you think there are weight classes in o-lifting and powerlifitng in the first place? If CNS efficiency were sufficient, we wouldn't see such a huge disparity in lifting totals between weight classes. The 105kg class will always poses higher totals than the 77kg class ... why? Muscle mass.

[RobCosimo]

^ very true, but there is a huge variation in strength possible between people the same weight (I would say much higher than between people of different weights). And if a 50kg lifter can out lift me easily, I'd say CNS efficiency goes a long, long way.

[JasonLB]

It does go a long way. But those 50kg lifters do have a shitload of muscle on their frames. Look at the average height of the 56kg class -- they're all very short. They're also very, very lean. So for their frames, they have reached the optimal level of muscle mass. Once you reach that point, then yes, CNS efficiency is the difference between gold and bronze. And sure people of the same weight can have huge differences in strength, especially in the untrained. But much of that has to do with genetics. You can only train CNS efficiency to a degree. Outside of the novice stage, strength gains at a given weight (assuming body comp stays the same) will creep to a halt rather quickly, especially if you are "underweight" for your frame -- just look at how infrequently o-lifting records are broken, and when they are, look at the incremental nature of the record. Or compare an individual lifter's personal records in a given weightclass over a number of years -- the spread isn't much.

[RobCosimo]

Yeah fair enough. I just think people often focus almost solely on muscle when it comes to strength, and forget the other pieces of the puzzle.

I just meant the strength variation between two people at the same weight and BF can potentially be huge.

[Cleave]

Wow, I was gone for a couple of days and the topic took off. Cool.

Ok, so what I'm saying is you shouldn't go out there and dirty up your diet with big mac's; and remember I'm talking about bigger guys. What I am saying is that if your eating pretty clean and pretty low-carb and your lifting 3 days a week and not making gains. You may need more calories. Try throwing in a smoothie or trying to over eat a bit. Throw an extra can of tuna on your salad or try whole milk if your drinking skim. I'm back up to 240lbs but still wearing 36 pants. No I don't have abs that can be seen but my chest and arms and hips are getting bigger.

Remember: fat cannot be converted into protein. It is converted into glucose for energy. But your not going to convert fat into muscle. Muscle can only be built by protein. So if you want to build you have to have the protein available with enough carbs for energy to get the job done.


Cleave

[MikeD]

Here's the official end report on the kid (Zach) in the photos, posted by Rip on the startingstrength.com forums:

Zach Evetts
Age: 20
Bodyweight on 8/27/09: 162
Bodyweight on 11/16/09: 217
Bodyweight gain: 55 lbs.
Seven site skinfold sum: 139mm
Bodyfat: 18.40%
Lean Body Mass: 177 lbs.

Initial bodyfat percentage data not available, but his before-picture is an accurate representation of a male at 10% or below.
Assuming 10% bodyfat on 8/27/09
LBM @ 162: 145.8 lbs.

Gain in LBM in 11 weeks: 31.27 lbs., or 2.84 lbs./week
Gain in bodyfat in 11 weeks: 23.73 lbs.
For an approximate LBM gain of 60%

[JasonLB]

I'm with you on that, Cleave. I definitely prefer the gradual, measured approach to putting on weight, especially if one isn't exactly lean to begin with. (I've cautioned a few people on this site against GOMAD for this reason.) I know when I first started working out I went from ~180 to 240 in fairly short order by eating everything in sight. I put on lots of muscle and got pretty strong in less than a year, but I put on way too much fat (got up to a size 38 pant) and certainly wasn't very strong for my size. But it seems, like with all things, people hear that and go to the other extreme. So instead of eating enough food to actually make progress in the gym, which includes enough to actually gain weight (even a little bit of fat), they end up eating like an anorexic cheerleader and bitching about being a "hardgainer."

[tarun]

- Second, some knowlege about how your body processes the different types of calories is important. There's what's known as the "thermic effect of food" which is simply the cost for processing your food. Protein is hard for the body to process and has a high thermal effect. This has been greatly simplfied of course but that's the general idea. That is one reason why the type of calories that you are eating matter.
james

Just FYI, if you read Eat Stop Eat and some other stuff, its been discovered that the thermic effect of food has been VASTLY over-exaggerated. This is the reason why eating 6 meals a day DOES NOT speed up your metabolism. Just thought I'd clarify it.