You are most anabolic when your

[rooney111]

bodyfat is around 10-12%. it's counterproductive to go too low in BF% off-season, your body is most anabolic between 10-12% BF. Go below that, and your body will use any extra energy to put on fat rather than to grow muscle. Therefore, you will rarely see a bobybuilder maintain in-season BF% in the offseason unless there's something like a photo shoot happening" "

Any comments? Is there such a thing as an ideal body fat % for being most anabolic?

[ThePman]

Pretty much. Too lean and you're fighting adipostatic regulation (in lay-speak, that means your anabolic hormones are screwed and partitioning tends to favor fat gains over muscle gains) and too fat, you get the inverse effect - the body tries to fight adding extra mass (via increased insulin resistance).

There definitely does seem to be an optimal gaining range from 12-15% or so (assuming real non-internet BF% numbers).

[Nik Antunovich]

You are saying ones body is in a less than an ideal anabolic state above 15% BF? I am someone who struggles to gain mass as my metabolism is fairly fast and this with my body shape really means I have to work hard at noticeable muscle gain (not confused with strength gain though related). I have had good strength gains in the last few months and body weight is up 16kg but I'm unsure on my lean mass; I need a decent reading.

I must be sitting around 16% BF but could be a little higher ~18%. You suggest I go easier on those calories? I feel I gain better if I'm eating like a pig with sufficiently good protein sources . Plus I like this diet!!! I never say no to McD's.

[agent86]

Rooney111 said

bodyfat is around 10-12%. it's counterproductive to go too low in BF% off-season, your body is most anabolic between 10-12% BF. Go below that, and your body will use any extra energy to put on fat rather than to grow muscle. Therefore, you will rarely see a bobybuilder maintain in-season BF% in the offseason unless there's something like a photo shoot happening" "

Too simplistic. Anabolism depends on many factors. What study is this from?

[steak]

20% and train your arse off with a few days off each week

but looking forward to the science

[rocco4440]

For sure it depends on our own body type i think there are three main body types off memory witch would mean there isnt one simple formular

if we pay attention we get to no what works for ourselves.

our body cycles test just like woman cycle.

[rooney111]

Talked to an ex huge bodybuilder/powerlifter he reckons i'm a small meso with some endo characteristics. Or vise versa putting on weight is not a problem but no way to check what proportion of gained weight is fat/lean mass.

I really cant remember which study it was from, just stumbled across a random article on internet.

Keen to know more about an ideal body fat % for being most anabolic.

[ThePman]

It's not from "a" study, it's inferred from the accumulated body of work done on adipostatic regulation (or, how the body works to maintain a healthy weight). There's a lot more to it than just hormones; most of it is regulated up in the brain with a lot of feedback signals that ultimately regulate hormones.

Your body doesn't like to be too lean or too fat, and it will fight against both extremes. If you're in the mid-point, it's easier to add lean tissue w/o fat gains because you don't have that resistance.

[Nik Antunovich]

Obviously you can gain strength while at a high body fat. So any strength gains with high BF won't lead to lean muscle gain? This seems unreasonable.

I can understand what regulatory process' are going on. Having not read the studies referred to, can these studies be applied to the strength sports such as PL and BB? Being many studies are carried out on 'normal' Joe public I am really not sure how well you can apply these to a sport where the body is under different stresses and inputs.

[ThePman]

This is why I hate the internet.

[weener lad]

You can read all the studies you want and come up with a million answers to this topic.

At the end of the day don't get lost in the science, you have to find what works best for your body by experimenting.

Personally I use to get chunky in the off season (15-20% BF) and found that all the gains I may have got were lost while dieting down to compete. The last 18 months I have stayed around 10% BF and within 10% of my ideal comp weight and I think I am in the best off season condition of my life. I have also found the gains in size and definition have been well above what I would normally see.

[rose]

I find I'm at my most anabolic when I take a shit :shifty:

You can really feel the transverse abs doing their thing :grin: Filling the belt FTW!

[weener lad]

Brilliant Rose I needed a laugh

[rose]

This is why I hate the internet.

Awww, but the innuhnet loves you :cry: Have another coffee. Or something :shifty:

It's up to you to save us Pman! "One skinny prick at a time" :grin: You can't bail :snooty:

[jonafat]

Happy pooing Rose.Youv'e got some reall talent there :pfft:

[Nik Antunovich]

Nice one Rose.

I thought anabolism was more about insulin than anything else. I also suggest that most people lose lean mass when cutting because they neglect to keep their insulin sufficiently high leading the body into catabolism. Carbs are to heavily cut in favour of proteins. With low carbs you lose fat fast but you lose lean mass to. When coming from a high BF% you lose more lean mass along the way; when low in BF% you lose less lean mass to the desired BF%.

Bodybuilders are probably always fighting adipostat regulation with the amount of food that is consumed with the sport anyway; the 'feeling of appetite' is mainly neglected in favour of a strict diet (whether for gain or cut). It's one of the parts of the sport that goes against the how the body wishes to be; you must fight it to become bigger as BB puts the body in an unnatural state.

Can someone tell me if I'm way off track?

[ThePman]

I thought anabolism was more about insulin than anything else.

Can someone tell me if I'm way off track?

Yes

[Nik Antunovich]

I thought anabolism was more about insulin than anything else.

Can someone tell me if I'm way off track?

Yes

I always thought insulin was the main hormone that can be most naturally manipulated to increase anabolism.

Enlighten or send me a forward. Whatever. I'm all about learning. Have you got a link to an article on your site or something? I have nothing to be ignorant about as some others might.

[ThePman]

I might have written a very long book about it

[jimjim83]

I dont think there is any magic bodyfat % to make your body any more anabolic.

Who cares what your body fat is if your eating well and training hard then you are bound to make gains.

If you want to get big inject insulin.

[rose]

I thought anabolism was more about insulin than anything else.

Can someone tell me if I'm way off track?

Yes

I always thought insulin was the main hormone that can be most naturally manipulated to increase anabolism.

Enlighten or send me a forward. Whatever. I'm all about learning. Have you got a link to an article on your site or something? I have nothing to be ignorant about as some others might.

My highly unscientific conclusion is that the whole natural insulin spike thing is a crock of shit - conflicting results from studies, more research required etc. From ThePman's book:

My suspicion is that all this obsession over hormone spikes comes out of the performance enhancing drug culture. These guys all see that taking large amounts of these compounds has an amazing effect on their bodies, so they extrapolate this to the idea that comparatively small, natural pulses of these same hormones will create the same effect. They point at steroid users and say "see, they have increased levels of anabolic hormones and look what it does for them!". We can’t do that.

For any studies that prove a natural insulin spike increases protein synthesis, anabolism or whatever, there are others that disprove it.

While I can't completely rule out the idea of free testosterone levels having an impact on strength and muscle gains, when you consider that the elevation is so brief - we're talking 30 to at most 60 minutes here - it's a bit of a stretch to assume that post-workout hormone response is any predictor of strength or muscle mass gains.

While there are some studies that indicate a link, they all have some weaknesses that leads me to believe it's very unlikely.

Pman - one word answers aren't very helpful :roll: If you're nice to people on the innuhnet and tell them about your book they might actually read it, and they might also come to your squat workshops etc.

Nik - I'm still at my most anabolic when I take a shit. Bite me

[Nik Antunovich]

I have read it, some time ago now. It's a good first book. It thought there might be more philosophy after reading the intro but still good otherwise.

There are many conflicting results in all sorts of studies so I don't think you can stand on either side without having some form of bias. I'm writing a paper at the mo on yeast autolysis in champagne and there is a mass of conflicting research on some aspects of it. I don't sit on either side but can only report my own view and experience. Obviously that doesn't make me right however. We should try to add to discussion rather than force upon others our bias bigoted opinions.

But I'm not sure on a magic BF%.

I think I'm most anabolic then to Rose! :clap:

[rose]

There are many conflicting results in all sorts of studies so I don't think you can stand on either side without having some form of bias.

I fully agree with the keeping an open mind concept. However, for me personally, the insulin resistance/diabetes factor is something that will make me err on the side of caution when it comes to "science" not backed by conclusive studies.

Even if spiking insulin naturally is "proven" to "increase anabolism", the studies would likely be carried out on men, not women, thereby nulling any usefulness to me.

It's through keeping an open mind that you find a lot of info out there is unproven and not necessarily going to net the best results?

I prefer to think of it as both sides getting airplay. All too often you only hear the one side, which of course helps lead to a possible bias, as you noted.

[ThePman]

The issue isn't even that. It's that insulin (like most other hormones) is more symptomatic than causal, but everybody's hung up on the sneeze instead of treating the infection.

By the by, insulin's effects on muscle protein synthesis rates is...more akin to limiting losses than triggering gains. Amino acids + weight training is far more anabolic. The model of insulin spike -> glucose uptake -> anabolic magic! is overly simplistic.

[rose]

The issue isn't even that. It's that insulin (like most other hormones) is more symptomatic than causal, but everybody's hung up on the sneeze instead of treating the infection.

By the by, insulin's effects on muscle protein synthesis rates is...more akin to limiting losses than triggering gains. Amino acids + weight training is far more anabolic. The model of insulin spike -> glucose uptake -> anabolic magic! is overly simplistic.

Finally, he takes the time to type an actual answer :clap: Was that so hard?