Originally Posted by skeen7908
so we can bulk on 5000 cals as long as its low fat we can't gain fat?
this sounds too good to be true?
Nope, that's not what I said.
Carbs in excess do not get stored as body fat as easily as fat. Fat is readily converted to body fat in a calorie surplus. Carbs are not converted as easily and the body will much rather use carbs as fuel. If you eat a lot of carbs you will get warm and it will mostly convert to heat.
Your maintenence is 3000 calories.
1) You eat 3800 calories with the macros 700g carbs, 50g fat, 150g protein.
2) You eat 4000 calories with the macros 800g carbs, 40g fat, 150g protein.
Although example 2 has 200 more calories a day than 1, you will most likely not get a weight gain proportionate to that increase. The extra 100g of carbs will be burned off as energy and heat. You will not gain the calculated 2 lbs a week from the total weekly 7000 calorie surplus. Note the very low fat intake.
If you bump it up the calories even further from more carbs, the body can eventually no longer handle the huge carb intake. The glycogen stores are full and can't store more carbs, and calorie surplus will not be stored as subcontaneous fat since your fat intake is very low. The huge amounts of carbs have nowhere to go but to be stored as visceral fat through de novo lipogenesis (the hard way for the body to convert carbs to body fat).
A normal macro breakdown while in a calorie surplus, with the same calories as example 1):
3) You eat a surplus of 3800 with the macros of 500g carbs, 120g fat, 200g protein.
You will increase in weight easier on 3) than 1), since the increased fat intake will lead to more subcontaneous fat gain. The less amount of carbs will also lead to that less calories are burned off as fuel.
Example 1 and 2 are extreme diets that hardly anyone is going to try, and you will not get those macros "by accident". They're very hard to reach and they exclude a lot of normal eating and foods. The example does however show that a calorie is not a calorie in extreme dieting.
I think that example 3 is best long term since you eat less calories for the same weight gain (no stuffing yourself), the more sensible macros let you eat normal meals, and the subcontaneous fat that you will get from the higher fat intake is less dangerous than the increase in visceral fat that you get in extreme carb intakes without the activitity to burn it off.
There was a guy on another forum I post on that tried this. The examples and numbers above are taken from him. He found that he did not gain more weight on 3800 than 4000 calories (example 1 and 2). When he bumped it up to 4200 calories through even more carbs he did start to gain weight, and his explanation was that it was visceral fat gain, as explained above.
TLDR; the body burns off calories from carbs more easily than those from fat. Huge carb intakes with low fat intake in calorie surplus can however lead to visceral fat gain which is more dangerous than subcontaneous fat which you gain from a higher fat intake.