Is maingaining a complete meme?

[Bl0odKn1ght]

Title.

 

[BigBallsLarry]

no its good

 

[Bl0odKn1ght]

no its good

Would it not take forever to gain mass tho?

 

[BigBallsLarry]

Would it not take forever to gain mass tho?

no, you don't need anything more than a slight surplus and minimizing fat gain is meta right now anyway.

 

[ProBono]

If it's invented by looksmaxxers on tiktok: 100% meme
If it's invented by looksmaxxers on org: 80% meme
If it's invented by normies: 50% meme
If it's in BOTB: 30% meme

 

[Bl0odKn1ght]

no, you don't need anything more than a slight surplus and minimizing fat gain is meta right now anyway.

slight surplus is not really maingaining tho, is it?

Also what is "slight" a 100, 200?

This is my main problem with it, really vague definition that changes alot based on who you ask

 

[BigBallsLarry]

slight surplus is not really maingaining tho, is it?

Also what is "slight" a 100, 200?

This is my main problem with it, really vague definition that changes alot based on who you ask

maingaining literally is a slight surplus

enough to increase muscle growth, not enough to cause fat gain.

how many calories it would be IG depends on your maintenance. for example I'm a small guy so my maintenance is around 2500-2600 cals. if i were to maingain id eat at a 125-150 clean surplus.

 

[d0wnpour_]

Title.

no maingaining is literally just the natural way most people gain muscle. going to the gym and just eating decently, not too much or too little, just consistent levels of calories. i did it and it worked

 

[repulse]

Lean bulk.

 

[Linus1888]

Over if you don’t roid. Don’t have to worry about this shit

 

[Bl0odKn1ght]

Over if you don’t roid. Don’t have to worry about this shit

Seriously considering learning more abt it

I dont ever think i'll step a foot in the gym again naturally

 

[luca_.]

Title.

Just eat in a 100 calorie surplus

 

[-=t3rm1n4t0r_2005=-]

no it's not. There is no evidence that increasing calorie intake will directly assist in muscle gain.
Notice the "Directly" part. If you can't get enough nutrients on maintenance diet, then you'd see more gains on bulk.

 

[Bl0odKn1ght]

no it's not. There is no evidence that increasing calorie intake will directly assist in muscle gain.
Notice the "Directly" part. If you can't get enough nutrients on maintenance diet, then you'd see more gains on bulk.

What do you mean by nutrients? Protein or what?

 

[laworg]

Title.

Not at all

 

[-=t3rm1n4t0r_2005=-]

What do you mean by nutrients? Protein or what?

If your maintenance diet is: 150g fat, 60g carbs, 160g protein, and then you go for a bulk and your bulk diet is: 160g fat, 300g carbs, 180g protein - then you will see more gains on the bulk.

But if you can manage your nutrients on maintenance diet then there is no difference in hypertrophy. At least I don't see how that would be the case.

Let's say your maintenance diet is: 90g fat, 250g carbs, 160g protein, then there is no point of bulking (unless you need to gain bodyweight/bodyfat of course) for hypertrophy.

 

[mogtivism]

Title.

Yes. I maingained first year of lifting and made zero gains. If you’re like skinnyfat(slight gut) just cut down all the way and then lean bulk.

If you’re fat do the same as above but with a longer cut. Maingaining only works first 2 months or something in the gym. Youtubers overhype that shit.

 

[mogtivism]

no it's not. There is no evidence that increasing calorie intake will directly assist in muscle gain.
Notice the "Directly" part. If you can't get enough nutrients on maintenance diet, then you'd see more gains on bulk.

You need the fucking calories(energy) to build muscle unless it’s like your first fucking month in the gym and even in that case you’re not building muscle, just learning how to use it.

 

[Bl0odKn1ght]

Yes. I maingained first year of lifting and made zero gains. If you’re like skinnyfat(slight gut) just cut down all the way and then lean bulk.

If you’re fat do the same as above but with a longer cut. Maingaining only works first 2 months or something in the gym. Youtubers overhype that shit.

Thats what i thought aswell

The youtubers also all have their own vague definition of the term

 

[mogtivism]

Thats what i thought aswell

The youtubers also all have their own vague definition of the term

They’ll first say “keep your calories at maintainance to grow muscle and lose fat at the same time!!1!!1”

When the angry skinnyfat/fat guy who bought the maingainer propaganda comes back after having wasted a year with no gains, they say

“Oh maingaining means to eat in a slight DEFICIT to lose fat while building muscle”(highly inefficient bordering impossible, you’d be better served cutting properly instead)

Or

“maingaining is not eating maintainance calories to lose bodyfat and gain muscle, it’s eating in a way that reduces your bodyfat percentage while increasing your lean mass!!111!!!1!”(describing a very lean bulk surplus)

And thus, they confuse everyone with their 7162525 different definitions ascribed to the same fucking word.

Just skip lamegaining all together. Bulk, or cut. That’s all there’s to it. The greatest mistake is failing to choose.

 

[-=t3rm1n4t0r_2005=-]

You need the fucking calories(energy) to build muscle unless it’s like your first fucking month in the gym and even in that case you’re not building muscle, just learning how to use it.

Yeah. You need calories, for example bodyfat.
And there is plenty of evidence when advanced athletes put on muscle mass in a caloric deficit.

 

[keife]

Title.

No your tdee includes the calories needed to gain weight u adding more will only leave u more plump.
U can also gain in a deficit

 

[mogtivism]

Yeah. You need calories, for example bodyfat.
And there is plenty of evidence when advanced athletes put on muscle mass in a caloric deficit.

No your tdee includes the calories needed to gain weight u adding more will only leave u more plump.
U can also gain in a deficit

I value my own experiences that say otherwise and the experiences of countless other gymgoers who’ve told me what happened when they tried “maingaining” over the ramblings of some gurus and scientists.

 

[-=t3rm1n4t0r_2005=-]

I value my own experiences that say otherwise and the experiences of countless other gymgoers who’ve told me what happened when they tried “maingaining” over the ramblings of some gurus and scientists.

"I value my own experience and experiences of countless other gymgoers that I can not measure correctly nor can I gauge other factors like changes in training intensity or program hopping over science where they literally put people in a consistent caloric deficit and put them on the program with consistent tracking and then take reliable measurements"
yeah ok

 

[-=t3rm1n4t0r_2005=-]

I value my own experiences that say otherwise and the experiences of countless other gymgoers who’ve told me what happened when they tried “maingaining” over the ramblings of some gurus and scientists.

Factors that might influence if person does or does not put muscle in a caloric deficit:
a) Too steep caloric deficit, therefore lack of energy and/or motivation
b) Cutting out too much carbs, therefore lack of training performance and recovery
c) Cutting out too much fat, therefore poor hormonal health
d) Missing on sleep because of hunger
e) Missing training sessions due to fatigue/soreness
f) Increasing volume/reps on a cut because "gotta work for them striations brotha"
g) Spamming rice and chicken without any vitamins, could lead to increased fatigue and decreased sleep quality

the list goes on.
You can't say that you checked out every box for every gymgoer's story how they couldn't put on mass in a caloric deficit. Studies can. Studies literally just make sure that every box is checked and it's the same for the entire sample group. And after that they set a clear endpoint of the experiment, and then take reliable measurements instead of eye testing.

 

[mogtivism]

"I value my own experience and experiences of countless other gymgoers that I can not measure correctly nor can I gauge other factors like changes in training intensity or program hopping over science where they literally put people in a consistent caloric deficit and put them on the program with consistent tracking and then take reliable measurements"
yeah ok

Scientists will take 8 untrained sedentary men, put them on an 8 week program, then assume because they put some muscle on and lost fat in those 8 weeks they can do so forever. If intensity, and program hopping were the problems, then how did altering an unrelated variable(calorie intake) seemingly fix said problem? Science glazers will skim through the abstract and take it as gospel but if you ask em what a “p value” is, they blank out.

 

[-=t3rm1n4t0r_2005=-]

Scientists will take 8 untrained sedentary men, put them on an 8 week program, then assume because they put some muscle on and lost fat in those 8 weeks they can do so forever.

Why does everyone assume studies are being done on untrained people and in small sample sizes lol. There are so many great studies done on experienced athletes with big enough sample groups.

If intensity, and program hopping were the problems, then how did altering an unrelated variable(calorie intake) seemingly fix said problem?

Maybe they started to program hop when they started the maintenance/cut diet, or they dropped training intensity because they are retards who can't diet correctly (e.g. they eat 120g of fat and 100g of carbs on maintenance diet) and therefore they lack carbs to perform well on training sessions.