3 Tasty Nutrition Tips for More Muscle Mass
December 3rd, 2009
·
by Mike T Nelson · Filed Under: Mike T Nelson · athletic performance · nutrition
3 Tasty Tips for More Muscle Mass
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
In this video
-
Find out my 3 favorite foods to gain muscle (the answer may surprise you)
-
Can you eat “bad” foods and gain muscle?
-
Do calories matter? (a hint, YES!)
Let me know what you think by posting a comment. Let me know if you like video format or more written format too. I love comments!!
Rock on
PS
If you are looking for high quality protein at rock bottom prices, check out Protein Factory HERE (note, I do make 4% on each sale, but this is the same protein I have personally used for the past 5+ years).
17 Responses to “3 Tasty Nutrition Tips for More Muscle Mass”
Leave a Reply
Comments RSS 
Mike:
Assuming sufficient protein, any thought of carb/fat ratio’s when trying to gain mass?
Great question Chris.
I wish I had a better answer for you other than “it depends” but I will give you a staring point
1) Calories matter most. If you are calories are not correct, fix that first
2) The more active and leaner you are, the more carbs you can generally get away with once your base level of dietary fat is covered.
For gaining mass I actually like to increase the carbs since most really like them better. Since I am trying to add more mass now I will keep protein around 30-50 gm per meal (6 meals a day normally), fat is lower (fish oil, whole eggs for breakfast, chicken etc) and fill in the rest with carbs (get lots of fruits and veggies).
You can get fancy and add 1-4 higher kcal/carbs days too. For me, Wed and Sat are my higher carb/kcal days and look like this
High protein pancakes with maple syrp–mmmmmm
Yogurt and protein powder, 3-4 kiwi, 1-2 dates
Grilled chicken, veggies, 2 sheets of lefsa
Train – pre/ during train pro/cho drink.
Post train Super shake –protein and fruit, creatine
Grilled chicken or fish, sweet potatoes, veggies
If up late, protein shake or grill chicken and veggies
If your body fat is going up too fast, drop kcals a bit (if you were on 3 high cho/kcal days, dropped to 2 a week) and this will also shift you to more fats in place of carbs.
I hope that helps a bit and if you have a more specific question, let me know
Rock on
Mike T Nelson
I feel calories are a broad but imprecise measure.
On a fixed amount of protein, I suspect a 3:2 or 3:1 fat:carbs intake produces more desirable body composition changes (lean mass, low bodyfat) than 1:1 or 1:2.
I have nothing to back up specific ratios, I just mean to compare fat dominant vs carb dominant.
I use to try to eat 5-6 meals a day, I’ve switched up towards Martin’s advice at leangains.net to a 8 hour feeding window after workouts when i basically make 2-3 meals and continuously eat.
I like fasting a lot, eating 5-6 meals a day seems arduous compared to a small feeding window. Also, the mental clarity retained through the work day is great, no digestion mental cloudiness.
I find more fat = longer fasts without any thoughts of hunger or desire to eat.
Hi there Chris!
Thanks for the comment! Why do you feel calories is not a good measure? What else would you use?
I think your ratio of more fat that carbs would be correct for someone who has a harder time dealing with carbs. Now if calories are held constant, this does not seem to be as true (calories are king). It seems that people who can’t tolerate carbs are in my experience ironically the ones who crave them the most!
Meal frequency does not seem to serve a huge metabolic advantage. It does seems to help when calories are lower to prevent people from eating everything in sight though (the old See-Food diet).
I will have a blog on fasting, so stay tuned! I would agree with fats seeming to help keep you full longer.
Rock on
Mike N
A bunch of things make me skeptical of calories.
Keys semi-starvation vs. Yudkin low carb is a great example.
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/02/25/the-science-of-fat-loss-why-a-calorie-isnt-always-a-calorie/
Weighing food is probably better than eating calories. I think most people, including those looking to loose weight, should be eating ad libitum. Satiety is a tremendous reinforcer for dietary adherence.
Great insight about carb cravers. Wheat gets you high.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6099562
Hi there Chris! Thanks for the comments and adding actual evidence! Much appreciated!
The study on gluten is very interesting and I hope that it will later be done in-vivo (in someone not in-vitro on tissue in a dish) and on humans. I understand that may be hard. Anyone want to donate brain tissue? Heck, it is hard enough to get human subjects as it is!
The starvation study was a great one and I actually am here at the U of MN where Keys did his research. We still have some of the old equipment on display.
I love Dr. Eades and Tim Ferris is awesome (I have the second ed of the 4HWW on order already), but I think the confusion is between 1) free living people and 2) lab people in a metabolic ward.
I agree with your comment that satiety is the main issue. The longer I do nutrition work with clients/athletes the more I am convinced I should have been a physchologist and not a physiologist!
I agree that for most, a lower carb plan is the way to go, esp for keeping you full longer. I’ve noticed this with myself also. The opposite works too, if you are trying to add muscle, cover your protein, get enough healthy fats and then pack in the carbs. 5 grain pancakes with maple syrup and egg whites anyone? Tasty!
I do think that calories DO matter. I would like to see what types of proteins used in the studies above (perhaps you know?) as the higher quality protein should = more retention of lean mass. I don’t believe the amount of exercise was equal between the groups; and I am pretty sure the Starvation study had them working since the natural tendency is to stop moving as much when calories are decreased. For the study, they wanted to make sure they kept moving so activity was required.
If you lock people in a metabolic ward and look at calories in a CONTROLLED environment, you see that they do matter.
People need to eat better by picking some proteins, fruits, veggies and healthy fats. The cool part about doing this is they will almost always AUTOMATICALLY take in fewer calories because of a whole host of reasons.
Thoughts?
rock on
Mike T Nelson
I think the most overlooked aspect is the body’s response which is more like a calculus equation than simple surplus/defiency. The body’s metabolism is constantly in flux depending activity level and what is being consumed (a mix of calories and types of calories). All that being said the easiest way to achieve goals is to just model the type of end result. If you want a dancers body do what they do, you want to look like a bodybuilder–follow that protocol. Unless a person has a specific metabolic disease the body will adapt pretty nicely to whatever input you give. Also you can talk about calories all you want but no ever talks about how many calories we absorb thusly excrete. If you are diabetic and pissing sugar you need to take that into account and subtract those calories if you want to be accurate…bowels included…(gross I know but in terms of accuracy important)
Thanks for the comment Mase! Awesome to see you here. How is the clinic going? Tell your wife hello too.
Yes, I would agree that it is exceedingly complicate process if we really want to understand HOW. I would agree 100% that almost ALL of the body is non-linear and I often joke that it is associated with every “bad” engineering word – non-linear, anisotropic, multivariate, etc.
Yes, the body is ALWAYS adapting; so be careful of what you are adapting to.
Agreed, the fastest way to success is to model someone who is successful in your area. Everyone needs a coach.
True, you are what you absorb.
Rock on!
Mike T Nelson
Mike,
I am skeptical of carbohydrate intake, I contend for most people eating > 20% of total calories as carbohydrates, adding protein/fat (particularly saturated & adequate omega-3 to balance 6/3) is superior to carbohydrates for the purpose of gaining mass.
Have any thoughts on a mechanism by which increasing carbohydrate intake would blunt muscle catabolism and increase protein synthesis? Reduction of glutamine/alanine used in gluconeogensis?
Also, skimming this article was interesting
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/82/1/49
Table 3. Correlation coefficients between preexercise testosterone concentration and selected nutritional variables
Energy, kJ -0.18
Protein, % -0.71*
CHO, % -0.30
Fat, % 0.72*
….
Thanks for the cool study Chris! Dr. Volek has some great work published for sure!
While I find that study fascinating, I am not convinced that hormone levels within a NORMAL range matter much at all for adding muscle. Again if you are too low (hypogonadal) or too high (using steroids) then, yes it does matter. If you are normal, I don’t think so.
I will have a whole blog post coming out on this soon and the research on it too, so stay tuned. Hope to have it up and done within a week.
Thanks again!
rock on
Mike T Nelson
Mike,
Looking at the graphs in Volek’s study there are a high and low groupings, 12-16 and 20-24 nmol/L (346-461 and 577-692 ng/dl respectively).
Bhasin et al. coadministered a GnRH agonist and testosterone ethanate at varying levels (25, 50, 125, 300, 600 mg) weekly for 20 weeks.
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/6/E1172
50mg injections produced levels similar to the low group (306 ng/dl), 125mg injections produces levels similar to the high group (570 ng/dl).
At 20 weeks, 125mg group gained > 2.5x fat free mass (2.9 vs 1.1 kg), 50mg group gained all the fat mass.
“The changes in fat-free mass were highly dependent on testosterone dose (P = 0.0001) and correlated with log testosterone concentrations (r = 0.73, P = 0.0001).”
Wow, thanks for the indepth looking Chris. Very cool! Great well controlled study!
I should have been a bit more clear, that I don’t think trying to time your training sessions to get a temporary boost in hormones is all that important.
If you are using EXOGENOUS hormones, I think it may be different since the CHRONIC levels are going to be high(er) all the time, vs the up and down peaks. Also, HDL here did start to drop off (again, probably reversible once they come off the drugs)
In the future, I think we will find (some data to show this) that we can get by with a smaller dose if we match the variability of release (most system are quite variable); but dose will always matter with higher doses seeing smaller returns (dose response curve).
I am really excited to get your feedback on the article I will have up next week on this topic for sure!
More soon and thanks again
Rock on
Mike T Nelson
PS
Do you know if a once a month dose of a long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist would suppress testosterone levels for the whole month?
PPS
Did you see this one?
Castration differentially alters basal and leucine-stimulated tissue protein synthesis in skeletal muscle and adipose tissue
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5/E1222
Hrm probably, I haven’t seen any data on the duration that Lupron Depot (or any other long acting GnRH agonist) suppresses testosterone levels, but I know it’s used as a monthly injectable for men with prostate cancer.
Wikipedia page says all GnRH agonists have amino acid substitutions in positions 6 and 10 to inhibit degregation.
Great paper on castration, I had not come across it, just printed it out to read, thanks!
Cool–thanks for the info!
Rock on
Mike T Nelson
Like your view point on how meal frequency can prevent people from eating everything in sight though. For me it was a matter of having to push more food through my system, couldn’t fit it into one meal… tried that in the past, like increasing amount of chicken to 1.5 what I’m used to in a meal. Didn’t work.
In terms of your take on carbs, been experimenting with carb/protein/fat ratios in the past for a months… overall think carbs had the most impact (as long as I didn’t go overboard and smoothen out)… most days I was sticking to 40% carbs, 30% protein, 30% fats.
Then again, you add another perspective on having high-carb days where you load up. Haven’t tried that. Works for hard gainers you’d say?
Mark Martinez
your creatine powder test lab
Thanks for the comment! Glad you have found what works for you–awesome!
For athletes that just need to eat more and their basic nutrition is in order (I use the Precision Nutrition system) I will have them add 1-4 high carb days in and then monitor results.
On these days, protein is around 1 gm/lb of bodyweight but if it is a bit lower that is fine, carbs are very high and fat is low. I am not as concerned about food combining, but I find that it just makes it easier to get in enough calories.
Hope that helps!
rock on
Mike T Nelson