Whoops, sorry!
Nutrient partitioning is used to describe a “positive” distribution of the calories we ingest. It’s where your body shuttles more nutrients into lean tissue and away from adipose (fat) tissue. This means that more of the calories you consume go toward supporting lean muscle mass growth and away from fat synthesis. This is how you can to maintain weight while increasing muscle and losing fat.
Insulin, Fish oils and other EFAs, high-intensity cardio, training, and certain supplements like ALA can help promote nutrient partitioning. Also (and most importantly) your meal timing and macronutrient profile of each meal can be used to your advantage . Numerous banned substances can have a huge effect.[/QUOTE]
Excellent thanks. Do you have any links to any specific articles etc on the subject?
I’ve read a lot about high intensity cardio, such as sprint interval training, being the best type of cardio for when you are trying to gain muscle and lose fat. Seems to work for the 100m guys
Broadly speaking i understand that the best timing/macronutrient profile to gain muscle and lose fat is high protein whilst consuming the majority of carbs(low GI) at breakfast then lunch. High GI carbs are only used post workout combined with protein in order to spike insulin which speeds up the protein getting to the muscles.
I would like to learn more of the specifics though
Nutrient partitioning is used to describe a “positive” distribution of the calories we ingest. It’s where your body shuttles more nutrients into lean tissue and away from adipose (fat) tissue
Unfortunately you have fairly limited control over where things go through diet and exercise. Meaning you can influence things through diet and exercise maybe 30% but for the most part your body will do what the hell it wants and the main factor is endocrine status (genetics, age, etc.) and total calorie intake. For example let’s say that you’re already at the low end of your bodyfat setpoint and you want to shed another 10 lbs. Let’s say on average you’d lose 10 lbs of fat and 5 lbs of muscle. Well the best, diet, supplementation and the best training in the world might enable you to lose 10 lbs of fat and only 3.5 lbs of muscle or an improvement of 30%.
Another example. Say you have 2 identical twins who want to build 10 lbs of muscle. Twin A trains heavy and basic and just eats more food and ends up gaining 10 lbs of muscle and 5 lbs of fat. Twin B uses all the latest nutrient partitioning training techniques and highly touted recovery supplements in addition to heavy training and gains 10 lbs of muscle and 3.5 lbs of fat - or a 30% improvement.
Nutrition and training still don’ really change any of the limiting factors when it comes to partitioning. The average male during puberty will gain ~30 pounds of muscle without doing a single thing except playing video games. (positive repartitioning) The average male by the age of 80 will be lucky not to have lost that much lean muscle, even with plenty of activity. (negative repartitioning).
It possible to improve those numbers by more than 30%. ALA alone increases the number of glut-4 transporters on the outside of the myocites by almost 50%.
Also the average guy (Twin A) will have a glycogen storage capacity of about 85 millimoles of glycogen per kilogram of skeletal muscle. Supercompensation glycogen studies have shown that a trained athlete can achieve at least 175 millimoles.
So it is possible to change some of the limiting factors. It’s just not easy (especially if you’re natural).
However, I agree that the amount of calories you can consume before you start to gain fat is largely dependant on genetics. I’ve worked with numerous guys whose abilities to build muscle and lose fat by mearly tweaking their diets, including a few supplements and cycling their carbs were astounding. And conversely there have been others who nearly lose all their muscle gains when they diet, no matter what techniques are applied.
It possible to improve those numbers by more than 30%. ALA alone increases the number of glut-4 transporters on the outside of the myocites by almost 50%.
Also the average guy (Twin A) will have a glycogen storage capacity of about 85 millimoles of glycogen per kilogram of skeletal muscle. Supercompensation glycogen studies have shown that a trained athlete can achieve at least 175 millimoles.
So it is possible to change some of the limiting factors. It’s just not easy (especially if you’re natural).
I’m talking about repartitioning (muscle gain and fat loss) not glycogen storage. Also, according to research insulin sensitivity predicts fat gain not the other way around. That is, a trained and lean athlete will have superior insulin sensitivity but also be more metabolically efficient or tend to store calories easier then a sedentary slob in absence of activity. Put a sedentary slob on an exercise program and they repartition like nobodys business - due in part to poor insulin sensitivity. Insulin doesn’t prevent the muscle from using fat for fuel and this spares glycogen. I’ve yet to see any real world examples where limiting factors can be surpassed by diet and training more then ~30%.
Do a search for Derek Charlesbois and Layne Nortons bulking and cutting logs. They’re easy enough to find. Even though these guys are using all the modern training, dieting and supplementation tactics you still see fat gain when putting on muscle and muscle loss when taking the fat off.
You can’t overlook glycogen storage when talking about nutrient partitioning. If you’re adding extra calories to your diet or if you’re simply maintaining the same number of calories, but increasing calorie expenditure, you can significantly decrease the potential for fat storage and muscle loss by increasing your glycogen storage capacities.
To continue the discussion in the original questions, here’s an interesting diet protocol Author L. Rea has used with numerous athletes that allowed them to build muscle without adding fat.
"In the presence of circulatory insulin elevation gluconeogenesis in the liver and muscle tissue decreases. During periods of circulating supraphysiological levels of amino acid muscle catabolism decreases. In the presence of both protein synthesis occurs.
When this protocol was created its intent was rapid accumulation of lean mass tissue without an increase in adipose tissue deposits. Since the foundation of the diet was structured for efficient gluconeogenic dependant upon a correct ratio and amount of amino acids, a great deal of protein was consumed daily. The most effective protein intake minimum was the equivalent of 3 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight daily divided into at least 6 meals. Using a 200 pound individual as an example it was possible to reduce this slightly by simply eating 4 whole food meals daily providing 50 grams of whole protein each and sipping on whey protein drinks in water throughout the day providing the remaining 400 grams of protein. I preferred whey protein simply because it is one of the only two drinkable products I am aware of that allows for actual hyperaminoacid response in the circulatory system. Casein, egg, and (some people still use it) soy proteins fail to clear the GI track at a rate significant enough to induce the necessary supraphysiological amino acid concentrations for the protocol. The fact that whey protein is easily oxidized by the liver should be the first clue to the reason why results are superior.
So here is the kicker. Though fat intake could be quite high, total daily carbohydrate intake could not exceed 0.5 grams per 25 pounds of bodyweight daily. The reason is simple: The goal was to force the body to employ the gluconeogenic pathway as a means of energy production. Any degree of actual glycogen regeneration resulted in the body returning to the glycosis pathway which allows for adipose tissue accumulation. The reason this worked so well was simplistic in nature. The making of ATP through amino acid gluconeogenesis is very inefficient thus allowing for a huge calorie expenditure similar to what occurs during DNP utilization. During calorie expenditure the body does not store fat but it does undergo protein anabolism. When enough protein was ingested the result was always a net increase in lean body mass of 5-8 pounds by the end of a two week protocol."
Now the only drawback to Author did with his guys was have them use exogenous insulin. “the gluconeogenic energy pathway loves certain amino acids it is easy to realize that the normal ratio of amino acids derived from whey protein and whole foods was not likely adequate. A mixture of 4 parts Alanine, 2 parts Glutamine, 2 parts Arginine and 1 part Taurine was created and capsulated. The dosage ingested was 1 gram of the supplemental mix per I.U. of insulin administered daily divided into 2 post administration dosages.” I’m sure some of them were probably using other goodies too. 
But nonetheless, it shows that 30% number isn’t accurate. I don’t know too many guys who can gain 5-8 pounds of muscle in two weeks, even while gaining fat.
Of course this is only one example of nutrition protocol designed to facilitate the growth and/or maintenance fo muscle while losing fat. However as I’ve said here before it’s not easy and in fact it’s far easier to either add muscle or lose fat in separate smaller cycles. I’m just proving that it is possible. As a side note, it’s the foolish athlete who “bulks” by attempting to build muscle without regards to keeping fat to a minimum because he believe that it’s impossible to gain muscle without fat. The whole offseason, pre-contest diet, offseason yo-yo only works for so long with diminishing returns (just ask Lee Priest).
With regards to Derek and Layne - one of whom was only doing 30 minutes of “moderate intensity walking” as his cardio and was eating only 50 grams of fat along with a nearly a 1 to 1 protein to carbohydrate ratio (not to mention eating two EAS “carb control bars” a day along cheese and popcorn as his evening meal 9 weeks out from a show - in other words his diet was a mess) - neither are examples of guys “using all the modern training, dieting and supplementation tactics”.
Well, I’m off for a few days. For those intrested in some extra reading you can check out thinkmuscle.com, musclemonthly.com or mesomorphosis.com in the meantime.
Rea’s diet sounds a lot like the plans that were highly touted a couple of years ago from Serrano, Poliquin, Beverly Intl. et. al Limiting carbs and consuming a metric ton of protein. Truthfully I don’t know anyone who got really superior results with any of these plans. In fact I’ve heard from a couple of people flat out say they put on just as much fat as they using a normal dietary approach.
Calorie and carb cycling though is totally different, you’re taking 2 steps forward and one step back or something similar. But when it comes to steady state repartitioning or somehow transforming the body through magical supplements or radical training approaches there’s usually a supplement or something similar someones trying to sell.
Ok, is this a bunch of BS, or are they just talking about huge caloric surpluses (over 500 per day)?
MUSCLE MEDIA 2000 EXPOSES
30 OF BODYBUILDING’S BIGGEST LIES
THAT STAND BETWEEN YOU AND SUCCESS!
By T.C. Luoma and Bill Phillips.
2 – In order to get really big, you have to eat a super-high-calorie diet.
Well, that’s true; you’ll get really big if you eat a super high-calorie diet, but you’ll look like the Michelin Man’s fraternal twin. However, if you want to get big, lean-tissue wise, then super-high-calorie diets are probably not for you unless you are one of those very few people with metabolic rates so fast you can burn off these calories instead of depositing them as fat. Unfortunately, studies show that, in most people, about 65% of the new tissue gains brought about by high-calorie diets consists of fat! Of the remaining 35%, approximately 15% consists of increased intracellular fluid volume, leaving a very modest percentage attributable to increased lean muscle mass.
According to Dr Scott Connelly (MM2K, Spring 1992, p. 21), only about 20% to 25% of increased muscle growth stems from increased protein synthesis. The rest of the muscle growth is directly attributable to increased proliferation of the satellite cells in the basal lamina of muscle tissue, and dietary energy (calories) is not a key factor in the differentiation of these cells into new myofibrils (muscle cells).
Of all factors determining muscle growth, prevention of protein breakdown (anti-catabolism) seems to be the most relevant, but adding adipose [fat] tissue through constant overfeeding can actually increase muscle pro- teolysis (breakdown). Furthermore, additional adipose mass can radically alter hormone balances which are responsible for controlling protein breakdown in muscle. Insulin balance, for one, which partially controls anti-catabolism in the body, is impaired by consistent overfeeding. So much for the eat-big-to-get-big philosophy!
Stay away from the super-high calorie diets unless you’re a genetic freak, or you’re woefully lean and don’t mind putting on fat [or you’re using appropriate pharmaceutical supplements].
Ok, is this a bunch of BS, or are they just talking about huge caloric surpluses (over 500 per day)?
What they (TC and Bill Phillips) were trying to do at the time was sell their “lean gainer” weight gain supplement which consisted of a few grams of carbohydrates and creatine. At the time high calorie weight gain drinks were the rage and they were trying to capitalize. Before that in the 80’s (yes I’ve been around this bullshit industry that long) there was Metabolol which was supposed to be a “metabolic optimizer”. They would use charts showing their in house studies and how one group of people eating regular food ate 2500 calories per day and trained and gained a lb of muscle and a lb of fat or something similar. Then they would show how the metabolol group ate 3200 calories per day and supplemented with 3 metabolol shakes per day and supposedly gained 5 lbs of muscle and lost 3 lbs of fat or something similar.
Unfortunately, studies show that, in most people, about 65% of the new tissue gains brought about by high-calorie diets consists of fat! Of the remaining 35%, approximately 15% consists of increased intracellular fluid volume, leaving a very modest percentage attributable to increased lean muscle mass.
Once you’ve got past the newbie gains the average natural person under ideal conditions might be able to get that to 35% fat gain at a steady state but that can best be accomplished through nutrient timing alterations etc. vs supplementation. I’d take 35% any day but like he’s saying, 50-65% fat gain is much more realistic. A zig zag approach where you increase calories and for example gain 1 lb of muscle and .3 lbs of fat followed by a down zag where you reduce calories for a few days and shed the .3 lbs of fat (while keeping the muscle) or a similar cyclical eating and training approach is about as close to this perfect transformation utopia that natural athletes are gonna get.
For someone who read the above and thinks ALA will increase glycogen storage by 30% much less muscle growth by 30% then go ahead and try it and report back. (or just go ahead and save your money)
The same type of bullshit has always prevailed in the bodybuilding and supplement industries and now it’s working it’s way into the athletic performance/nutrition industry. How many people here even know how many calories they eat per day and in what %? If there’s one thing that the bodybuilding industry can offer to athletes it’s the importance of getting your diet right. It may not make a 1000% difference (see Michael Phelps) but even a small difference can be worthwhile.
It is false that you cannot lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, and it is false that you have to consume more calories than you expend in order to gain lean mass. The energy balance formula is relevant only to FAT gain/loss.
It is false that you cannot lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, and it is false that you have to consume more calories than you expend in order to gain lean mass.
Yep you’re right. I see kids going through puberty do that while eating crap and playing nintendo and sedentary people or newbies who start an exercise program do it all the time. But someone who weighs a lean 150 lbs and wants to weigh 200 lbs is going to read that and think that they don’t need to eat to get there.
the #1 reason people don’t grow is because they don’t eat enough. Muscle can’t be manufactured out of thin air it needs raw material and food is that material. But (for most people) it’s not simply a matter of eating maintenance calories and eating an extra 10 grams or whatever arbitrary amount of protein per day. On paper that theory looks OK but for the avg. person it doesn’t work really well in the real world. This is in large part why bodybuilders bulk and cut with effectiveness and why those who attempt to remain super lean all year around stay the same size - regardless of how they train.
In the large majority calorie intake is the limiting factor for muscle hypertrophy. There are a few situations where this process is overridden though.
#1. An overfat individual (+12-15% bodyfat) will be able to use calories derived from the burning of their own bodyfat to fuel muscle growth - at least until they reach a certain level of leanness. Once the body hits ~10% bodyfat you don’t see anything happening simultaneously. The body tries to protect it’s fat stores for survival so sacrificing them to fuel more muscle growth (which just adds more cells to feed) is not very efficient.
#2. Training newbies
#3. Some genetically gifted individuals natural or enhanced endocrine status and nutrient partitioning abilities are so superior that they direct calories to muscle tissue so effectively that they can grow on a maintenance intake. (and yes, I’d say a lot of good sprinters naturally fall into this group) - however, you still won’t see anybody putting on an appreciable amount (~20-30+ lbs over the amount one graduates high school with) of muscle mass who doesn’t also do some serious eating.
The problem is avg people thinking they can emulate what people from the 3rd group can do.
Now with fat loss the limiting factor is caloric intake.
My comments with regard to the 30% figures assume that training is a given have to do with supplementation and “styles” of eating for a given training regimen and caloric intake. Again just to clarify:
Twin A & B are on the same given training regimen and both eat 2000 calories per day. Assuming minimal protein intake in both you won’t see a major difference in their results.
Or another scenario:
Again they train the same but Twin A spends $2000 per month on all the latest supplements while eating 2000 calories and Twin B increases his caloric intake to 3500 calories of steak, eggs, etc. Who’s gonna gain more muscle? The limiting factor (caloric intake) has changed.
Or another scenario:
Twin A & B start from a starting point of 12% bodyfat and decide to diet down to 5% bodyfat. Assuming minimal protein intake and minimal training to maintain muscle, regardless of what they do with diet, supplementation etc. the amount of muscle loss on the way down will be nearly equal.
You’re leaving out one incredibly important factor. TIME.
Twin A is an impatient athlete and tries to go from 150 pounds to 200 pounds really quick because he has to look huge for the ladies at spring break. So he suddenly goes from eating 2000 calories a day one day to 4000 calories a day the next so he can “bulk up”, does this for 3 months and gains 25 pounds of muscle and nearly as much fat. Suddenly Twin A has to not only look big for ladies, he has to look lean too, so he drops his calories from 4000 back down to 2000 calories a day for 12 weeks and ends up losing 10 pounds of muscle while he’s getting his fat back down to a low level. Still he’s pretty big, after all he gained 15 pounds of muscle in about 6 months and he’s still sorta lean afterwards too.
Twin B on the other hand isn’t in a hurry to gain 50 pounds of muscle. He knows that fast weight gain will hamper his athletic performance and his cardiovascular health, so he plans his diet to include slow increases in calories and cycles his carbs, includes a few cheat meals here and there while adding more frequent, but shorter duration/higher intensity workouts and cardio, all the while adding supplements like BCAAs, ALA, fish oils, creatine, glutamine, AAKG and maybe a few other goodies to help increase his body’s ability to store mucle glycogen while increasing his insulin sensitivity and protein snythesis (among other things) . It’s a slow process, but Twin B is patient - keeps his diet strict and clean, trains hard and gains muscle at about 0.9 pounds a week. One year later Twin B has gained nearly 50 pounds of muscle with only a few extra pounds of fat. Dieting the extra fat off is easy and at the end a few weeks of dieting he’s managed a net gain of 45 pounds of muscle while coming in at an even leaner bodyweight than when he started. His body is a machine, with a faster metabolism so he’s finding it easier than ever to stay lean.
Twin A on the other hand is fat again because his eating habits don’t support his being lean for very long periods of time and he is having trouble losing the fat after every cycle because once his body makes new fat cells, they don’t go away, so he has trouble getting lean and staying lean. Not to mention his metabolism is still pretty slow because of the muscle he keeps burning off trying to diet down in a hurry to get lean. His test levels are on a roller coaster ride and his insulin spikes for hours after eating.
I guess my point is, the number #1 reason why people don’t think they can’t gain muscle while staying lean is because they’re in such hurry to “get huge” that they eat the wrong foods in a misguided attempt to put on as much muscle, as fast as possible.
Finally you’re last statment, of “regardless of what they do with diet, supplementation etc. the amount of muscle loss on the way down will be nearly equal” couldn’t be further from the truth. To quote Berardi - a calorie is not a calorie, a protein is not a protien, a carb is not a carb and fat is not a fat.
You’re neglecting to take into account things like the Thermic Effect of Feeding, as well as food choice and timing (tell me your Twin A would make the same progress if his diet consisted of protein derived only from say, soy - it’s still protein in the same amount and same number of calories right?).
To quote Berardi - a calorie is not a calorie, a protein is not a protien, a carb is not a carb and fat is not a fat.
You’re neglecting to take into account things like the Thermic Effect of Feeding, as well as food choice and timing (tell me your Twin A would make the same progress if his diet consisted of protein derived only from say, soy - it’s still protein in the same amount and same number of calories right?).
Given a decent protein intake and all things being equal there won’t be more then a 30% difference and that’s pushing it. I will say 30% is still pretty significant for a lot of people and that’s probably more then most researchers would give you if you ask them about it. What that means is regardless of meal combinations, carbohydrate choices, timing, high carb vs low carb, supplements or whatever other voodoo crap people want to throw out, there is still a caloric deficit and enough protein so where the calories come from is less relevant. In fact if you want to get technical about it I could make a pretty good argument for high glycemic carbs being superior when i a deficit. Not to say that there won’t be differences but just not the kind’ve differences people are banking on.
Believe what you want. There are however numerous examples to show that food choice and timing are more important than total calorie intake. Choosing not to take advantage of that “voodoo crap” probably wouldn’t be the best approach for a serious athlete. If you’re just a weekend warrior or a bodybuilder who doesn’t have any intentions of competing seriously, I’m sure the good old 1970’s style yo-yo bulking and cutting cycles will work just fine.
I still disagree. If building muscle required so many calories, then people who failed to maintain a large caloric intake would experience substantial fat loss. Also, bodybuilders on “bulking” diets wouldn’t gain as much fat as they typically do - remember that fat accumulation is the result of EXCESS caloric intake.
It’s true, obviously, that muscle can’t be manufactured out of thin air - but this shouldn’t be followed to the conclusion that an excess of calories is necessary to build muscle. As long as protien consumption is sufficient to support the synthesis of new tissue, caloric intake is not of particularly great importance.
BTW, it is premature to conclude that caloric intake is the limiting factor for most people. There are a lot of factors other than caloric intake that contribute to the ultimate result, and the fact is that you can’t really tell exactly what kind of difference 500 or 1000 calories per day makes.
Personally, I think the world has been led astray by overzealous bodybuilders who th
Ironhead-
I am not trying to argue with anything specific in your post, but you don’t prove a point by citing hypothetical scenarios with hypothetical results.
I think I only did that for one example and even that was just a generalization of what would happen if two athletes tried to build muscle using two different techniques. It wasn’t meant to prove anything. I’ve shown enough real evidence throughout the course of this discussion.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s not of great importance. You still need a maintenance level of calories - especially if don’t have a lot of existing bodyfat to draw from. As Kelly has pointed out, the amount of body fat that you have (percentage and total pounds of fat) will be a major determinant of how your body responds to over eating or under eating. Fat people will lose less muscle and lose more fat on a hypocaloric diet, while lean people will gain more muscle and gain less fat on a hypercaloric diet. Just by adding exercise to this equation you cna promote a shift toward more muscle gain or more muscle preservation with less fat gain. Why? Because exercise has a nutrient partitioning effect.
By changing nutrient partitioning parameters, using techniques to preserve lean body mass when dieting and techniques for increasing protein synthesis you can alter your body composition while still keeping a decent level of calories. BUT, if you go too high or too low with the calories, you’ll either start losing muscle or start getting fat - regardless of what you do.
You’re right; my statement is a (kind of gross) generalization. My point is, though, that caloric intake should not be considered the primary limiting factor.
As long as protien consumption is sufficient to support the synthesis of new tissue, caloric intake is not of particularly great importance.
BTW, it is premature to conclude that caloric intake is the limiting factor for most people. There are a lot of factors other than caloric intake that contribute to the ultimate result, and the fact is that you can’t really tell exactly what kind of difference 500 or 1000 calories per day makes.
So caloric intake is of no importance as long as one eats enough protein. Gee…here’s what I’ll do. I’m just gonna eat 1000 calories per day of tuna from now on. Since I’ll be getting 250 grams of protein and only 1000 calories per day I oughta “shred up” and “muscle up” right quick eh?
That statement you made is complete bullshit when considering the natural trainee. Show me one guy past the newbie stage who has gained a significant amount of muscle using this approach and I’ll show you 100 who haven’t. I can go into any gym and within minutes find 20 guys spending a minimum of $300 per month on supplements who think they can “repartition” their way to muscle gains and don’t. The reason they don’t get results is because they’re afraid to eat. Excess fat gain isn’t necessary but additional calories are. Those calories can come from the bodies own fat in some people, at least initially, but after that they gotta come from somewhere and if you don’t get them from your diet then what’s gonna happen? You’ll end up like 99% of the scrawny bastards in gyms everywhere who don’t gain because they’re afraid to eat in fear of putting on a few lbs of fat.
Also you state one can’t tell the difference between 500-1000 calories per day. Ok then I challenge you to start keeping a food log (since if you did you would have never made such a stupid comment) and add 1000 calories per day for 1 month and report back with your results.