Bulking Question

[IJ26]

Ok if one pound of fat is 3500 calories and fat is more calorie dense than any of the other macros and muscle is protein, is one pound of muscle 35000 cals as well? The reason I ask is bc when u are dieting u are aiming for a 500 deficit each day, now when bulking if a pound of muscle isnt equivalent to 3500 cals then why do we increase our caloric intake so drastically. Isnt it impossible for 1 pound of muscle which is basically protein to be worth 3500 cals if fat is the most energy dense nutrient. I know muscle weighs 3 times more than fat so Im guessing thats where the difference comes from. Does anyone know the answer to this

 

[Stryc-9]

There's some info on this matter in the following thread:

Calories in a Pound of Muscle, etc.,

 

[CCMV]

You SHOULDN'T increase your caloric intake so drastically. This is why you see so many guys with 20% bodyfat walking around the gym, saying they're "offseason". Granted, not all of the extra calories you take in are going to be used exclusively for muscle-building purposes, so you still need a reasonable excess, which is why 500 cals over maintenance is a decent starting point.

 

[sawastea]

I'm a bit confused in your question...In terms of cutting, I tend to go 20% below maintenence and when bulking, I try and shoot for 20% above. I know this isn't directly correlated with your question

 

[IJ26]

thats what I typically do but a lot of guys just go nuts. My point is if a pound of muscle is actually only worth 700 calories and a pound of fat is worth 3500 then why would u increase your cals the same percentage if u r bulking vs. cutting. I know your body needs the extra nutrients to add that muscle but I think a lot of people go overboard