This video just helps me respect you SO much more. I listened to the Nippard debate a few years back and felt more compelled by Eric & Greg’s findings back then as well but it’s nice to hear you reconsidering your points after more findings and consideration!
Awesome video, Menno. This is a prime example how you can stack abstractions based on indirect data and correlatives, have a fairly "obvious" hypothesis, and when directly studied it can be completely against what your intuitions would tell you.
Great video as always. You mostly talked about the upper limit though and not much about the bottom limit. I think it's good to shortly mention there's a lower BF% limit, which (from the head from 10 years ago) seems to be rougly 8-11% for males and 15-18% for females. Below that, we generally start to see significant negative effects on various blood markers.
Sidenote: I had skin calipher measurements (not perfect, but still) done when I was 22 years old and never touched a weight. I was 152lbs @ 6'1" and my bodyfat level showed about 8-9%. I feel way more secure now at a more 'normal' 185lbs at probably 14-15% bodyfat, but I do feel slower, more 'burdened' by all the food I have to eat etc. I constantly have to fight my low appetite. It's become easier over the years, but I still have to push myself to eat. I can easily, easily survive on 2 meals a day, eating like 1600 calories. I've always been skin on bones with low appetite, but full of energy... I guess some people are just made to be marathon runners, but try to fight it and build mass. Advantage for me is that a cut is the easiest part of the year. All I have to do is listen to my body :)
@@Eric3Frog my parents found eachother on the athletics track. They were naturally low bodyfat. My mom only had good calves and my dad had well, a good ass. For the rest just really lean, made for movement and efficiency (narrow hips etc.). My brother and sister were also super lean. We were brought up to stay lean as well and/ or just naturally lower appetite. Probably some nature n nurture.
That's how i have the opposite problem of most people as they fight their body and mind to lose weight, while I have to fight against my low appetite to gain weight :)
Really useful and provided a lot of clarity. I've been training for a few years and only started calorie and BF tracking about a year ago. Started off at 27% and now at 18% - I was at 21% just before Christmas and felt that continuation of another cut after a 2 month maintenance phase was the right choice, but couldn't find anything to actually support this thinking. It did seem like 20% was the upper limit, so it's good to have the smart people back this up too
I can look pretty lean without my abs being very visible. Some guys who store fat more evenly can have abs and not look nearly as lean as myself before mine show. Suggested Body fat percentage ranges would be much easier for to apply this advice
i think using abs as a marker is a bad idea, because 'when you lose your abs' can vary so much between indviduals, who have different fat distributions. some people have abs at 22%, some people don't have abs at 12%.
Fr also the fact that different ppl have different muscle bellie insertions makeing the abdominals muscles either pop out more thru the skin or vice versa then adding in if they actually train them or not
I'd have to disagree if you don't have abs you're probably higher bodyfat than you think. I do agree that some prople can have crazy inserts but the degree of the issue is more like a 1-2% spread rather than a 10% and if you are at the point where you can't see your abdominal muscles at all the people in question are probably at a higher bodyfat than they think.
Wow, to change with new information. That is not a sapiens characteristic. RESPECT! my evidence based brother. Thank you again for bringing me such invaluable information. After taking your course I was able to stabilize my weight and continue to achieve incredible levels of body re-composition. I am starting to feel like a movie star when I dress up for a night out. ANYWAYS, we got some serious stuff to talk about. Not to seize upon you for being wrong. For a Bayesian such as yourself there is no wrong. Just the best possible answer at any given time. From the limited perspective of an individual. So you are not wrong, you are simply applying the Bayesian tactic of continuous adaptative analysis. But for that you would have to be able to change with new information. Research shows we are not good at that. People don't take life saving meds on average 52% of the time. Let alone change their diets, or opinions. So I must commend you for being so humble and self effacing to use the word wrong. Yet, not wrong really. However, most technologically degenerated individuals will see this as weakness FYI. Anyways! Let us adapt toward greater understanding through the process of adversarial debate. If body fat percentages are not changing muscle building as much as believed; then, "PERHAPS", body fat is not responsible for the startling epidemic of testosterone decline. "PERHAPS" there is another confounding factor!!!!! Perhaps the evidence based fitness community is willing to address the very public health issue of the estrogenic, sex hormone receptor agonistic chemical cocktails we ARE subjected to. If its not fat, as we see, then we need to keep looking for the cause. As a paper just came out that concluded obesity is the cause. Without even considering the factors I am making public now. I was already arguing against fat being the primary cause. But I have seen the geographic analysis of testosterone decline, sequentially hermaphroditic amphibian mass extinctions, and agricultural zone overlays. They directly correlate. It was on a very old ~20 years ago PBS documentary. The EU has already banned such chemicals. USA and much of the rest of the world have not. In my humble opinion the USA, where I live, is leading the way in technological degeneration. Possibly due to these chemicals there is an exploding demographic of sexually dysmorphic individuals (I am not talking about Arnold S. . But ,yeah, he is one.). Some of who are given access to surgery to correct a psychological/physical inconsistency. Lets get in the know about estrogenic compounds and start shouting it off the roof tops what you find. Because they have already caused mass extinctions of entire taxonomies in the biosphere, and are likely now have a massive impact on present and future generations of h. de-evolutis. 💩 I dont get paid to deliver information packages to you guys. As a US citizen I must spend most of my time trying to outrun my neighbors or I will be homeless and rejected by my society of Morlocks. But here are a few links to relevant studies on this topic. Please take your own time to delve deeper. You would be very surprised what is "buried" and all that we do know, yet ignore. How tragic, in the age of hyper-complexity we can not make such mistakes and manage what is happening on Earth today. Lastly I need to say that is not just the men. Women in these areas are also being affected in the same manner. It is less noticeable because they are literally just becoming women earlier and faster. They are having reproductive issues. Endocrine problems. Wake up people!!!!!! There is a HUGE problem!!!!! Write letters to your local and state representatives and follow with phone calls. Pesticide exposure: the hormonal function of the female reproductive system disrupted? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1524969/#:~:text=The%20pesticides%20dieldrin%2C%20endosulfan%2C%20methiocarb,and%20androgen%20antagonist%20%5B31%5D. Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Atrazine is the worst of all) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/ Frogs: The thin Green Line (this is only about the fact that they are vanishing much faster than other endangered species. I have not located the one I say so long ago. I was just a kid at that time. Now I have to be The Guy because most people are empty eyed group think zombies now. Demonstrating that this process has played out as I say.) www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/frogs-the-thin-green-line-notes-from-the-director/4873/ I have sent a message to the director of this movie to see if she can find the original documentary that made me aware of this. For now I have not found the smoking gun study. Please help, if you can. If you believe that data generated conscious choice is the holy grail of what we have been trying to achieve here. Take Mennos course! Personally I was sold when I noticed his extensive treatment of the subject of satiety. Just one of a number of subjects other courses barely develop upon. If you are also an evidenced based personality type, then you got to support your own. See you in the gym!
Acknowledging you're wrong publicly and without hesitation exemplifies the highest level of scientific integrity. Wonderful analysis, thank you sir! Do we actually know that recovery capacity and muscle quality are truly affected? Couldn't this be the cumulative result of the added work moving the extra fat around? Also, does body fat influence muscle turnover rate?
Hi Menno, I hear you mention kickboxing in your videos often. I do kickboxing myself. Do you have a tips on how to combine kickboxing with hypertrophy training? I’m training kickboxing for 3times (moday, wensday, friday) a week and next to that I would like to do hypertrophy training for 2/3 times a week. Would be great to hear/read some of your insight about this
Hi Menno - Can you make a video on the best ways to strengthen tendons and ligaments? I think a lot of lifters would have fewer injuries if they focused on making their tendons stronger before putting a heavy load on them.
When I started Bodybuilding in 2011 I was already overweight. Over 20% BF... I wanted to build muscle so badly that I bulked anyways lol But over the years of Bodybuilding while over 20% I was noticing that muscle grows was at a slower rate... It took me longer to gain the mass that leaner individuals gained in less time. I later heard about studies that having BF % a little too high will not stop muscle growth but slow it down. I don't remember the details but with my experience I do believe it. My train volume, intensity, rest and nutrition were good but my BF was 25%+
I recently seen an RP vid where Dr Mike talked about when your abs got blurry it might be time for a mini cut. That along with this vid finally clarified, to me at least, that bulking might just mean a small calorie surplus a week, not a 20-30lb gain over a meso cycle.. Im a long way from abs after years of poor choices but I feel better about eating in a small deficit until i can at least see a hint of abs (unless I misunderstood something).
I agree with him. I consider myself a moderately trained individual. I've sort of trained all my life but have been extremely consistent in the last 2 years due to rehabbing an injury/surgery. For reference, I am 6'2, 205-210 lbs, about 10-12% body fat, have a 6 pack, etc. I do RDLs with 3 plates for 10 reps, 100 lb dumbbells in each hand for 5 reps on an incline bench, on a cable row pull 235-250lbs for 8-10 reps, bulgarian split squats with 100 lb dumbells in each hand. I've lately started cutting hard (i was actually at 230lbs and cut down to 205lbs and am still going as I want a super hard 8 pack maybe). My calories cut to about 1700 day or so on a no carb/low carb diet. Initially I lost a bit of strength but then I increased my protein intake from about 150 g per day to 200-250 g per day. i also started taking protein shakes right before bed. Oddly I got leaner on this low calorie diet (about 500-700 calories per day below maintenance) and got bigger and stronger in all my lifts. I think the key thing is really just keeping super high protein in the diet. Keep your protein 200-300g per day and you'll keep gaining muscle as the body really doesn't efficiently turn protein into fat/fuel and really prefers to use it for building mass.
Appreciate this comment. I’m currently trying to cut down my body fat, I’m roughly around the same height as you but have less gym experience. My lifts are standard strong but I’m trying to cut down to 10% body fat, I’m currently around 15-17%, and I’ll look into increasing my protein levels to 200g since I’m currently consuming around 150-170.
Excellent and concise info. I will say, some of us get abs much easier than others (obviously) independent of training knowledge. Ive got veins in my calves, but still battle chest and stomach fat.. Im also not in my twenties though. So there's that...
Great to see your reliance on empericism rather than rationalism. Rationalism is great when working in the realm of the strictly - or mostly - theoretical. But even a lot of evidence-based fitness personalities have long systematized, or narrativized as you put it, a whole lot of mechanistic data and seem to derive all of their fitness advice from it, often stating it as fact. Regardless of what direct empirical data has to say about it. It's annoying and it really just makes things more confusing for me as a layman, since I know that what they're saying is not empirically backed, and yet they're clearly still more well-read on the science than I am.
Seeing abs or not seeing abs in the regions between 10-20% Body fats, doesn't necessarily have something to do with being overweight or not fit. It is individual. Ofcourse fitness has it standards, but then there is the body itself, which has a genetic place of where to store fat first. I have been at that region and my abs weren't visible, but more faded. On the otherhand my abs aren't as strong as other muscle groups. My issue though is and some information on that would be nice, that it is hard for me to keep at that point. I gain weight easy, fat at that too, but it is hard for me to shed it off again.
Carnivore diet is the easiest way to lose weight without even trying. I lost 7 kgs in 14 days eating nothing but meat, eggs, small amounts of cheese, milk kefir and chicken livers (and that's eating til i'm full and perfectly satisfied - no 'starving' yourself) If you cut out all carbohydrates and prioritize protein and fats you'll be lean and mean
Hi. I would like to point out that body fat may not directly influence recovery levels. It is worth considering that most overweight people have poor cardiovascular health, and therefore may not perform or recover as well. This makes sense considering people who are already in ok cardio condition don’t really se recovery time increase when putting on weight for a strength competition for example
Hey Menno, thanks for this video. I am only able to read the abstracts for most of these newly found studies, but it seems like some of them were done on untrained individuals. I am wondering if body fat percentage would have an effect on gains in more trained individuals. I also wonder if developing obstructive sleep apnea through weight gain (or at least having poorer quality sleep) would affect gains in the long run. Also, when I hear anecdotes about bodybuilders with obstructive sleep apnea I want to know if its the increase in muscle mass that is causing the sleep disordered breathing or perhaps it is only when the bodybuilder is bulking that he suffers from the condition?
Has anabolic resistance ever been shown in actual longitudinal studies or just acute studies? Citing acute studies when they don't always translate to actual outcomes is speculative at best and manipulating at worst.
8:34 do you think this also counts for people that have a kind of fucked up fat distribution? Cause I have striations on my legs,biceps and shoulders and my forearms hold no fat but my belly has (at least compared to the rest of my body) a lot of fat
Really good video, some great points with the "new" research which was in the deep depths of Google scholar and this new study. I was just wondering since I am studying Nutrition science and just wanted to see what you consider overweight and/or Obese if it is based solely on BMI and not necessarily having excess adipoisity, generally speaking, yes the average person with a BMI of over 25 or 30 are most likely to have a high BF%. All I am saying is it would be helpful to come with specifics of the terms "overweight" and "obese" while your subscribers and people interested in this topic would like the specifics since most of us are probably training and have been doing so for multiple years.
A waist circumference to height ratio measurement is far better than BMI and also predicts insulin resistance. Use a tape measure to take a reading directly at the bellybutton going all the way round back to the bellybutton (with abdomen fully relaxed), then a height measurement. Divide the waist measurement by height to get ratio. Example : 81cm (waist) / 176cm (height) = 0.46 Below 0.5 is ideal, anything drastically over 0.5 is overweight/obese/insulin resistant
I’ve been fascinating by this idea ever since I started CrossFit. How fat should I be to make the most gains? I find that slightly blurry abs leave me performing my best, but it would be nice to keep that performance while looking a bit more shredded. Thanks for the video, Menno. This makes me think it’s best to oscillate between 9-12% or so.
I don't grok this. So, on the one hand Menno is saying that having higher BF% does not impair muscle growth, but on the other hand, higher BF% may impair recovery capacity, which impairs muscle growth. Isn't this a contradiction? Also, if there is no positive benefit from having a higher BF% for muscle growth, then what's the point of bulking at all?? Indeed, I recall that in another video a while back Menno argued that even relatively lean individuals will have enough body fat which can be mobilized to provide sufficient calories to fuel muscle anabolic processes. No need to bulk then!
@@Backsquatenthusiast Thank you for your insightful and constructive comment. Unlike me, it's clear that you are a 'very smart person'. Would you please share your wisdom and enlighten us all?
@@copernicus99 the body does not want to add muscles as it burns calories, evolutionary this is bad. Therefore if the body is not in a surplus, it does not add significant muscle mass. This is not true for untrained people or obese people. A lean and Well trained person will not put on significant muscle mass if not in a caloric surplus( a bulk). Yes bulking is a necessity if you want to be Even remotely close to building muscle as fast as possible
@@Backsquatenthusiast Thanks for that respectful and constructive reply! Your reasoning sounds right to me. I could be wrong, but I believe that Menno claimed in one of his earlier videos that one can indeed tap into bodyfat to fuel muscle growth even when lean. I'll see if I can track it down. Of course, like the rest of us, he is allowed to change his views over time.
@@Backsquatenthusiast How does the body "know" it's in a surplus? Like if it spent the whole day building muscle and then you went to bed 200 calories short of maintenance does it say, "Oh shucks, I guess we'll just get rid of that muscle we built!"?
how would you approach the mesocycle for hypertrophy? unlike mike israetel way (adding sets as increasing the RIR and then the traditional deload week).
While interesting, it feels like the question at the beginning remained unanswered. What is the optimal body fat percentage? Is there one that i can stay at to efficiently gain muscle without the bed for bulking and cutting, while being healthy? I don't care about my abs to be seen.
I thought the argument for bulking/cutting is it's easier to build muscle on a large calorie surplus, the bf% is an unwanted side effect that you then cut away?
bodyfat not impairing the ability to build muscle has been anecdotally demonstrated in sumo-wrestlers who are basically IFBB pros in a fat-man suit. but it's good that we have this also as a scientific study
There is no sweet spot when it comes to building muscle, apparently. But obviously, bodybuilding competition level leanness will definitely impair and probably stop your ability altogether to make gains. Your level of advancement will mediate how much or little that affects you. But in terms of metabolic health, it's probably not ideal to be higher than, say 18-20% for a male for extended periods
@@OoLenny40oO Thanks a lot. That helped. I was not referring to bulking with my question. At roughly which percentage - in your opinion - do you get visible abs? Or what percentage is esthetically pleasing AND maintainable long term?
@@sapereaude1483 Thank you for your answer. I didn't miss that part. I was asking in general and not in regard to bulking. I could have made that clearer.
@@tom_hengst my apologies for only replying now. I don't get notifications for the email linked to this account. You can probably start to see some abs around 13-15% depending on the development of your abs. I generally see some abs without flexing around that. I don't want to tell you what aesthetically pleasing is in terms of body fat percentage, as it's highly subjective and individual. But for me, I like being between 10% (leanest I've been) and 14%. But, some individuals might not have abs showing at 14. Plus, it's hard to assess exactly what % you are. A principal I stick with, to roughly estimate my own BF% is to use a calculator, and add on 3-4% to the number it spits out.
I think your argument could be improved with some threshold values. For the content of the video I heard "not overweight" and "see your abs" without any target bodyfat percentages. If you are assuming overweight to be referencing the medical definition then there is a lot of space between "Seeing your abs" and being overweight, so the two terms do not reflect the entire spectrum of options. Additionally hypertrophy of the RA can result in "visible abs" at or above 17% BF where another less developed lifter would stop "seeing their abs" prior to that, so it is a bit of an arbitrary target. Additionally I think that not mentioning the downsides of amenorrhea on the long-term health for women was a misstep in this video. Encouraging women to maintain a bodyfat below that threshold does not have their best interest in mind, and should have been at least noted.
The point of this video is precisely that there are no hard threshold values. I think you missed the part where I explicitly recommended women should not diet to excessively low body fat levels.
Does this mean that you can build the same amount of muscle even at very lean bodyfat percentages under 10% in comparison to 15% bodyfat or more or do you refer to a more "moderate leanness"?
There's most likely also a lower bound. For women, you don't want to get to the point of menstrual irregularities and men similarly shouldn't stay long-term at BF% that disrupt sex hormone health, as a rule of thumb.
Yeah. I don't think he meant it in that way but thats the bulk of his clientele and audience. You can probably get a decent bit past abs before the downsides of excess adipose tissue show up but the bulk (pun intended) of this video still applies.
Yes, that's the space where we don't have much research on, so it's hard to know when the negative effects start occurring. However, if you're a muscular guy and you have zero ab visibility, you're actually probably not far off from overweight, which is often defined as 21% BF. Most guys still have some abs, like a four-pack when flexed, around 15%.
@@menno.henselmans It's not a great metric to go by lots of guys have trouble seeing abs even in low body fat levels of that's where they carry most of their fat.
@@menno.henselmansI think flat stomach is a good way to say it because when people hear abs they usually think 6-8 pack abs. Flat stomach also tends to apply better to women as well since they often have to get unhealthily low in bodyfat to get “instagram abs”.
great information. however what about those super strong competitors that are undoubtely very fat. they seem to get extra fat so that they can keep up their extreme strength. like sumo wrestlers
How is that strongmen get decently fat for competition events? Lasha Talakhadze also got the best lifts when weight restriction was taken off? It looks like certain amount of body fat (way above abs visibilitt) lets to keep more muscle and to peak strengh…
Well, inhumane amounts of steroids help to counteract a lot of these bad effects of fat. And fat itself works like a lifting suit for them, allowing for more strength literally just from being fat.
I’ve heard people say that if someone is super lean, like recently competed in a bodybuilding show, they should quickly get back to a higher body fat in order to gain muscle more optimally. Would you say that this research refutes that? Like someone one week after competition who is still sub 5% body fat can gain muscle at the same rate as they could at 10% or 15%.
OK, I understand your point of why someone *needn't* bulk beyond just 'losing their abs', but, then how do you explain all the many, many high level strongmen who are, well, strong AF, but also almost always, well, fat...? Surely, not all of them *want* to bulk up till they have a paunch?! I think, beyond a certain level of strength, if one wants to increase pure/raw strength - esp. to elite levels - then one needs to bulk up, and thus eat to that extent, and after some point (which, I suspect will be different for every individual) the total calories vs protein proportion just doesn't add up only to pure muscle but also gets stored as body fat. In other words, if one wishes to gain elite level strength, then they need to really up their protein and total calories, but at some point more percentage of total calories will not aid in muscle building but will then get deposited more & more as fat. There will be some plateau reached & there may even be an asymptotic relationship there...
Calisthenics are optimised at a quite low bodyfat and strength. Calisthenics is a spectrum, from rings gymnast at one end and strongman competitor at the other end. With calisthenics, climbing, cycling, squash, boxing, bodybuilding, powerlifting in between. A normal rings gymnast is 130lbs and 5' tall and 6% bodyfat. A normal strongman is 420lbs and 6'5" tall and 25% bodyfat. To say that 'seeing abs matters" is to already pigeonhole yourself out of being big and strong.
@@deltalima6703 "Calisthenics is a spectrum, from rings gymnast at one end and strongman competitor at the other end." --- No it isn't. Yet to see a strongman athlete with a callisthenics background/training... The rest of your 'argument' is just irrelevant verbosity... "With calisthenics, climbing, cycling, squash, boxing, bodybuilding, powerlifting in between." --- So which is it? Is callisthenics a spectrum or an in-between stage...?? I think you need a few classes in logic & better/coherent analysis...🤣🤣🤣
I am surprised you could not understand. Any strongman could try an iron cross, but every strongman would fail miserably. Mitch hooper is a pretty great all around athlete but cannot even do a handstand pushup which is easy for a rings gymnast. Thats because strongman is as far from calisthenics as you can get. Andrey strong is a calisthenics athlete, can do a handstand pushup with ease, planche, no problem, iron cross too no doubt. Magnus mitbø is a climber, can do a handstand pushup barely, can do an iron cross barely as well. A sport played in a court, basketball, tennis, squash, whatever? You will see medium sized guys, bigger than climbers, less fat than a powerlifter, pretty useless at calisthenics beyond and including a planche. Okay, hopefully that makes sense what I mean by its a spectrum.
The point is that calisthenics is about strength density, how much can you do for your your bodyweight. Its the reason there are weight classes in numerous sports. Strength is about what can you move while *ignoring* bodyweight. Powelifting is a great example, you are laying on a bench and pushing on a bar harder than other guys can push on it. To say either of these types of athletes is "stronger" or "fitter" or "better" is silly. Each is optimised for something different, thats it. The one least likely to die is healthier, sure, but athletes do not train to be healthy, they train to be strong. This is super wordy, I thought it was fine the way I originally wrote it. If it still doesnt make sense I will just give up, it doesnt matter anyways. :-/
I will propose the contrarian view that you also have to be very careful about what is deduced from studies. In a way you have to read a study the way a lawyer reads the law -- you can only draw conclusions in a very narrow way based on the study's parameters. So for example, the study about hypertrophy in elderly women isn't enough information, IMO, to override the ideas deduced from the "mechanistic data". We know that testosterone is the major anabolic hormone and so elderly women are going to be majorly hamstrung in that department. So I don't think that type of study should have much sway over, e.g., young male athletes. For the latter group I believe the mechanistic theories are more convincing. This doesn't even begin to address the difficulties with how studies measure LBM, which include water, glycogen, etc. which could be lower in leaner individuals, which completely skews the data. I do think that overall, knowledge of how the body works is more convincing than a study here and there.
You say body fat has no effect on the amount of muscle that can be gained. Can that be said for sub 5% body fat or have these studies only focused on healthy vs obese individuals? I've battled with anorexia and being below 5% body fat for years. Due to the effects of this on my hormones and inflammatory markers, I am unsure if this would apply in my situation. Is the body not pro storage in starvation?
I feel like everytime i get super lean more food just means i return back to my previous size/strength. I dont actually get stronger because im lean and now eat more , no i just return to my base level of strength/muscle fullness faster
Would you say that body composition, and weigh history play a role in this? Would ex obese person (335 pounds) that lost 100+ pounds during diet, be ok to bulk even when at lets say 20-25% BF? For regular foe, that BF would be a lot, but for somone who never beed that lean, the gains and recovery could skyrocket (due to diet fatique and "new" stimulus of surplus). Or maby its just false hopes, and there is never a good reason to bulk starting ad 20-25%BF? :)
At the end of 2021, I've gained about 12kg or 26lbs (went from 72kg to 84kg) in 3-4months(bulked way too aggressively). But instead of cutting down again, I took it as an opportunity to recomp. Now a little bit more than 2 years later, I'm up to 86kg, so only 2kg/5lbs more. What would you have recommended this case? Would a minicut have been the more efficient idea? Or is recomping viable at higher bf% levels(20-24%)
Generally I think dedicated muscle building or fat loss phases are more efficient, yes. Slight surplus around 250 cals aiming to gain .5lb per week in a bulk, to avoid too much unwanted fat gain. Calorie deficit big enough to lose .5-1% of body weight per week in a cut, limit cutting phases to around 12 weeks then maintain or start bulking again.
That's a very fair question. Some research and at least mechanistic evidence do point towards greater growth in energy surplus vs deficit, but the research is surprisingly shaky, all things considered. Anecdotally though, people do seem to gain size considerably quicker when bulking, even after correction for fat gain, assuming they lean-bulked.
Surely there is somewhere, I feel like it's a pretty solid assumption - more fuel for the body to use for recovery and adaptation should mean that hypertrophy is more than likely. Eating at maintenance calories or a deficit will, eventually, cause neutral or catabolic results if you're training to gain muscle, because you won't have enough fuel to recover and at some point your body will choose to stop using stored fat.
there absolutely needs to be a surplus in order to build new muscle. The only rare occassion is that for untrained individuals, the surplus can come from existing excessive body fat, for all other occassions you physically need a surplus, because physics.
Hi Menno! I was wondering if you're using some specific databases for you studies. You mentionned google scholar at some point but I assume it's not your main one 😂
All the standard databases: Pubmed and Scholar mostly. You can check my review articles' methods section for which databases we used for comprehensive searches.
They are also pushing like 1000mg of anabolic steroids, which your regular fat people won't ever see. Also they are in terrible health anyway. If your only goal is maximum strength, steroids + 10k calorie diet is definitely the best.
So if someone who were obese and dieting down they could take a maintenance or slight surplus phase to bulk up muscle to potentially tamp down diet fatigue? Or would the better option be to cut down to their desired weight, run a maintenance phase, and then begin a bulking phase?
I think it’s recommended to take a small break every 10% reductions in body weight. I don’t think they should bulk at all. Just eat a lot of protein and train.
Is it a difference in approach as a new lifter? I've only been lifting for about three months and my bodyfat is around 20% at the moment but I'm still gaining and lift heavier every single workout. My abs are of course nowhere to be seen at this point.
Assuming you’re skinny fat like I was when I started I can say with 100% confidence keep gaining on a small surplus for a while before trying to lose fat. You’ll end up putting on a lot of muscle thanks to newbie gains (easier adaptation) without too much extra fat and as you gain lean mass your body fat percentage will go down even if you have the same or slightly more actual fat because it’s a ratio. Once you lift for a year or so and have put on some visible muscle then decide if you want to lose fat or keep gaining for a while. Don’t make the mistake I did and try to lose fat right at the start, you’ll just get skinny instead of lean and muscular looking if you don’t have enough muscle yet.
@@einsteinx2 Thank you for the response. I definitely think I'll keep trying to put on weight. I'm at a surplus and I've gained about 4 kilograms during these three months. Subjectively it feels like most of its muscle and my stomach is still pretty flat though I've undoubtedly also gained fat of course. I'll keep at it!
I started there too 3 years ago. I have a lot of training experience, so I did not need to fumble like a typical beginner. The choice I made, which in hindsight was obviously correct, was not to lose weight at all and simply recomp. It worked so well that 6 months ago my bodyfat was too low and I bulked up. Even if your goal is to lose fat, the way to do it is to increase metabolism first.
@@deltalima6703 my number one priority is to gain muscle, I lost a lot of weight about 7-8 months ago and got kind of skinny so now I'm all about adding muscle.
This is more of a problem of reasoning and intelligence 1. Of course it’s lower, fatter people are closer to their natural limit compared to a dieted untrained version of themselves 2. High insulin resistance causes insulin to be constant. It’s a natural anabolic replacement to injecting insulin as a PED like many bodybuilders. 4. Yes a 300 lbs Olympia bodybuilder causes more fatigue than a 112 lbs marathoner version of you hitting legs. Because there’s a higher raw stimulus magnitude. Likewise a 40 bmi version of you can use bigger weights than a 20 bmi version of you and get a higher raw stimulus magnitude. 5. Estrogen is anabolic, especially when paired with testosterone. See any bodybuilder that takes anti-estrogens The health point is the most absurd point, they’re elite athletes, their blood is fine. Empirical: no detriments to being bigger implies being bigger is anabolic, because there should be a drop off. “We like to create stories in our mind” yeah like the abs point. If you hypertrophied abs, properly for ten years and went up to 40 bmi, you could probably see your 3 pack abs through your clothes. Does that count as abs? If not, spin me the tale of why it doesn’t
So if one is to do a bulk/cur cycle, the maximum bulk would be up to a 20% bodyfat (which is usually where abs begin to dissapear)?. Also flexed or relaxed to judge on abs?
I guess you have to default too common sense if a physique athlete. Yes, apparently, you can gain the same if at 15+ % BF. But how much actually gets sacrificed during the cut/prep? How much additional suffering do you endure?😊
As long as you have some source of calorie surplus to fuel lean tissue growth, it seems that your actual %BF is irrelevant to hypertrophy outside of recovery ability. If you can maingain at 15%, why not.
Menno is biased because he places value on aesthetics and lets that cloud his judgement to some extent. He is scientific enough to change his mind based on studies and such though, I do not mean to be critical.
I would say that you're definitely too lean if you start getting menstrual irregularities or amenorrhea due to the BF%. That usually starts in the 15-20% range.
@@amygulliver9039 I think that BF% would impair recovery capacity at least based on the research. It also typically correlates with low anabolic hormone levels. So I think long-term there may very well be a negative effect on your gains. Anecdotally too, not many people are successful with their bulks if they always stay super shredded.
If it messes up your hormones, sure. A good thing to know would be how to optimize hormones while being very lean? Sugar for thyroid maybe? Not sure. It's not talked about much because everyone assumes it's impossible.
Additionally people have their own unique body fat range that they feel best in. I never felt good at 10-14% body fat, usually hang around the range of 15-21% body fat, I feel stronger and I have more energy!
The biggest lean legs I have ever seen was a homeless guy who was 550 lb heavy. He lived in his van, so he had to go up and down the van steps in one leg several times a day. It was a solid,steel hard thighs that barely fit in a large chair. My point is that excess caloric intake and active obesity have the potential to create more muscle than steroids. You can see that in historical figures who were obese and could lift insane numbers. Paul Anderson holds the Guinness World Record for lifting the heaviest weight by a human, at 6,270 lbs (2,850 kg) Louis Cyr, a French Canadian strongman, is said to have been able to lift 500 pounds (227 kg) with one finger, using only his index finger. Other feats of Cyr's include backlifting 4,337 pounds
Stretch marks ✔️ high blood pressure ✔️ high cholesterol ✔️ borderline diabetes ✔️ I’m never bulking again, not even a small excess of calories. I’d rather be healthy than lift heavier.
There is nothing wrong with gaining 10-15Lbs on a bulk. Let's not get carried away with things. Now someone who goes on a 30lb bulk may get health issues. They would probably have more issues with running out of money to continue that bulk. If you have health issues then of course see a Doc. You are bulking to gain strength, when you become stronger your bones become stronger as well. Using progressive overload is going to take care of those strength goals. When you mini cut from a 10-15lb bulk you will keep a lot of that new acquired strength. 👍🏾
Lean does not mean healthy. Being strong means being healthy. The more mass you have the more buffer your body has to fight with everything that comes by. It does not mean you have to be obese ofc. But visible abs do not mean you are more healthy than with 20% bf.
@@tiitjuhei For me it isn’t about ‘visible AB’s’ it’s about those markers of health in my blood tests and how I feel. I’ve dropped almost 30lbs and lost around 15% of my numbers on each lift. My blood results are much better, I’m no longer hypertensive and overall I feel so much better. I’m not starving either, I’m nicely satisfied. Maybe if I was younger it wouldn’t matter so much, but in my mid sixties it clearly does.
@@72Dexter72Manley72 I wasn’t really actively bulking, but still wound up 30lbs heavier a year ago than I am today. I had maintained that weight for several years. I’m an advanced master lifter at this point and so manipulating programming is more about holding onto strength rather than making any significant new gains. This might be completely different for a younger lifter, but this is my personal experience of added weight. Losing weight meant my numbers went down 15% or so, but the trade off to me is worth it even if I hate seeing those numbers fall.
@@nockianlifter661 Man I'm 58. I get it. I dropped down to 190lbs before just to see if I could do it. I now keep my weight between 207-215lbs. I played football at 225-230 lbs. I have no need to weigh that much anymore. Since I didn't need to carry that weight, I just dropped 5lbs a year and kept working on hitting the numbers I did at the heavier body weight. I find that motivating as hell. I just work on getting stronger it gives me the ability to still physically do whatever I want. 💪🏾
Changing your opinion based on new information? Valuing empirical data over theories derived from mechanisms? I think we just found 2024's Sexiest Man Alive, folks!
![MISSING: SLIM SHADY [Expanded Mourner’s Edition Trailer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xh8qgHrOO1g/mqdefault.jpg)
The subscriber count is criminal.. guy deserves his own million followers atleast.
He'll get there.
No doubt he'll get there.
Menno, you are a true scientist. I respect and appreciate your integrity and emphasis on accuracy.
This video just helps me respect you SO much more. I listened to the Nippard debate a few years back and felt more compelled by Eric & Greg’s findings back then as well but it’s nice to hear you reconsidering your points after more findings and consideration!
Awesome video, Menno. This is a prime example how you can stack abstractions based on indirect data and correlatives, have a fairly "obvious" hypothesis, and when directly studied it can be completely against what your intuitions would tell you.
Great video as always. You mostly talked about the upper limit though and not much about the bottom limit. I think it's good to shortly mention there's a lower BF% limit, which (from the head from 10 years ago) seems to be rougly 8-11% for males and 15-18% for females. Below that, we generally start to see significant negative effects on various blood markers.
Sidenote: I had skin calipher measurements (not perfect, but still) done when I was 22 years old and never touched a weight. I was 152lbs @ 6'1" and my bodyfat level showed about 8-9%. I feel way more secure now at a more 'normal' 185lbs at probably 14-15% bodyfat, but I do feel slower, more 'burdened' by all the food I have to eat etc. I constantly have to fight my low appetite. It's become easier over the years, but I still have to push myself to eat. I can easily, easily survive on 2 meals a day, eating like 1600 calories. I've always been skin on bones with low appetite, but full of energy... I guess some people are just made to be marathon runners, but try to fight it and build mass. Advantage for me is that a cut is the easiest part of the year. All I have to do is listen to my body :)
Very interesting. I wonder why your set point is naturally on the leaner side.
@@Eric3Frog my parents found eachother on the athletics track. They were naturally low bodyfat. My mom only had good calves and my dad had well, a good ass. For the rest just really lean, made for movement and efficiency (narrow hips etc.). My brother and sister were also super lean. We were brought up to stay lean as well and/ or just naturally lower appetite. Probably some nature n nurture.
That's how i have the opposite problem of most people as they fight their body and mind to lose weight, while I have to fight against my low appetite to gain weight :)
The reason I trust you so much is because of your objectivity. You are amazing! Thank you.
Really useful and provided a lot of clarity. I've been training for a few years and only started calorie and BF tracking about a year ago. Started off at 27% and now at 18% - I was at 21% just before Christmas and felt that continuation of another cut after a 2 month maintenance phase was the right choice, but couldn't find anything to actually support this thinking. It did seem like 20% was the upper limit, so it's good to have the smart people back this up too
I can look pretty lean without my abs being very visible. Some guys who store fat more evenly can have abs and not look nearly as lean as myself before mine show. Suggested Body fat percentage ranges would be much easier for to apply this advice
i think using abs as a marker is a bad idea, because 'when you lose your abs' can vary so much between indviduals, who have different fat distributions. some people have abs at 22%, some people don't have abs at 12%.
Fr also the fact that different ppl have different muscle bellie insertions makeing the abdominals muscles either pop out more thru the skin or vice versa then adding in if they actually train them or not
I'd have to disagree if you don't have abs you're probably higher bodyfat than you think. I do agree that some prople can have crazy inserts but the degree of the issue is more like a 1-2% spread rather than a 10% and if you are at the point where you can't see your abdominal muscles at all the people in question are probably at a higher bodyfat than they think.
Wow, to change with new information. That is not a sapiens characteristic. RESPECT! my evidence based brother. Thank you again for bringing me such invaluable information. After taking your course I was able to stabilize my weight and continue to achieve incredible levels of body re-composition. I am starting to feel like a movie star when I dress up for a night out. ANYWAYS, we got some serious stuff to talk about.
Not to seize upon you for being wrong. For a Bayesian such as yourself there is no wrong. Just the best possible answer at any given time. From the limited perspective of an individual. So you are not wrong, you are simply applying the Bayesian tactic of continuous adaptative analysis. But for that you would have to be able to change with new information. Research shows we are not good at that. People don't take life saving meds on average 52% of the time. Let alone change their diets, or opinions. So I must commend you for being so humble and self effacing to use the word wrong. Yet, not wrong really. However, most technologically degenerated individuals will see this as weakness FYI.
Anyways! Let us adapt toward greater understanding through the process of adversarial debate. If body fat percentages are not changing muscle building as much as believed; then, "PERHAPS", body fat is not responsible for the startling epidemic of testosterone decline. "PERHAPS" there is another confounding factor!!!!! Perhaps the evidence based fitness community is willing to address the very public health issue of the estrogenic, sex hormone receptor agonistic chemical cocktails we ARE subjected to. If its not fat, as we see, then we need to keep looking for the cause. As a paper just came out that concluded obesity is the cause. Without even considering the factors I am making public now. I was already arguing against fat being the primary cause. But I have seen the geographic analysis of testosterone decline, sequentially hermaphroditic amphibian mass extinctions, and agricultural zone overlays. They directly correlate. It was on a very old ~20 years ago PBS documentary. The EU has already banned such chemicals. USA and much of the rest of the world have not. In my humble opinion the USA, where I live, is leading the way in technological degeneration. Possibly due to these chemicals there is an exploding demographic of sexually dysmorphic individuals (I am not talking about Arnold S. . But ,yeah, he is one.). Some of who are given access to surgery to correct a psychological/physical inconsistency. Lets get in the know about estrogenic compounds and start shouting it off the roof tops what you find. Because they have already caused mass extinctions of entire taxonomies in the biosphere, and are likely now have a massive impact on present and future generations of h. de-evolutis. 💩
I dont get paid to deliver information packages to you guys. As a US citizen I must spend most of my time trying to outrun my neighbors or I will be homeless and rejected by my society of Morlocks. But here are a few links to relevant studies on this topic. Please take your own time to delve deeper. You would be very surprised what is "buried" and all that we do know, yet ignore. How tragic, in the age of hyper-complexity we can not make such mistakes and manage what is happening on Earth today.
Lastly I need to say that is not just the men. Women in these areas are also being affected in the same manner. It is less noticeable because they are literally just becoming women earlier and faster. They are having reproductive issues. Endocrine problems. Wake up people!!!!!! There is a HUGE problem!!!!! Write letters to your local and state representatives and follow with phone calls.
Pesticide exposure: the hormonal function of the female reproductive system disrupted?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1524969/#:~:text=The%20pesticides%20dieldrin%2C%20endosulfan%2C%20methiocarb,and%20androgen%20antagonist%20%5B31%5D.
Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Atrazine is the worst of all)
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/
Frogs: The thin Green Line (this is only about the fact that they are vanishing much faster than other endangered species. I have not located the one I say so long ago. I was just a kid at that time. Now I have to be The Guy because most people are empty eyed group think zombies now. Demonstrating that this process has played out as I say.)
www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/frogs-the-thin-green-line-notes-from-the-director/4873/
I have sent a message to the director of this movie to see if she can find the original documentary that made me aware of this. For now I have not found the smoking gun study. Please help, if you can.
If you believe that data generated conscious choice is the holy grail of what we have been trying to achieve here. Take Mennos course! Personally I was sold when I noticed his extensive treatment of the subject of satiety. Just one of a number of subjects other courses barely develop upon. If you are also an evidenced based personality type, then you got to support your own. See you in the gym!
Acknowledging you're wrong publicly and without hesitation exemplifies the highest level of scientific integrity.
Wonderful analysis, thank you sir!
Do we actually know that recovery capacity and muscle quality are truly affected?
Couldn't this be the cumulative result of the added work moving the extra fat around?
Also, does body fat influence muscle turnover rate?
Absolutely excellent video. Thank you! Truly outstanding work. 🙏
The study that changed your mind was done on elderly women. That is enough to declare a position?
Hi Menno, I hear you mention kickboxing in your videos often. I do kickboxing myself. Do you have a tips on how to combine kickboxing with hypertrophy training? I’m training kickboxing for 3times (moday, wensday, friday) a week and next to that I would like to do hypertrophy training for 2/3 times a week. Would be great to hear/read some of your insight about this
Hi Menno - Can you make a video on the best ways to strengthen tendons and ligaments? I think a lot of lifters would have fewer injuries if they focused on making their tendons stronger before putting a heavy load on them.
Is one study on 99 old ladies really enough to make you entirely change your view?
When I started Bodybuilding in 2011 I was already overweight. Over 20% BF... I wanted to build muscle so badly that I bulked anyways lol
But over the years of Bodybuilding while over 20% I was noticing that muscle grows was at a slower rate... It took me longer to gain the mass that leaner individuals gained in less time.
I later heard about studies that having BF % a little too high will not stop muscle growth but slow it down. I don't remember the details but with my experience I do believe it.
My train volume, intensity, rest and nutrition were good but my BF was 25%+
I recently seen an RP vid where Dr Mike talked about when your abs got blurry it might be time for a mini cut. That along with this vid finally clarified, to me at least, that bulking might just mean a small calorie surplus a week, not a 20-30lb gain over a meso cycle.. Im a long way from abs after years of poor choices but I feel better about eating in a small deficit until i can at least see a hint of abs (unless I misunderstood something).
They define bulk as 200 kcal surplus a day. That will take a long time to get fat. A pound every three weeks.
Actual science based man here..."I was wrong". Really appreciate that.
I agree with him. I consider myself a moderately trained individual. I've sort of trained all my life but have been extremely consistent in the last 2 years due to rehabbing an injury/surgery. For reference, I am 6'2, 205-210 lbs, about 10-12% body fat, have a 6 pack, etc. I do RDLs with 3 plates for 10 reps, 100 lb dumbbells in each hand for 5 reps on an incline bench, on a cable row pull 235-250lbs for 8-10 reps, bulgarian split squats with 100 lb dumbells in each hand. I've lately started cutting hard (i was actually at 230lbs and cut down to 205lbs and am still going as I want a super hard 8 pack maybe). My calories cut to about 1700 day or so on a no carb/low carb diet. Initially I lost a bit of strength but then I increased my protein intake from about 150 g per day to 200-250 g per day. i also started taking protein shakes right before bed. Oddly I got leaner on this low calorie diet (about 500-700 calories per day below maintenance) and got bigger and stronger in all my lifts. I think the key thing is really just keeping super high protein in the diet. Keep your protein 200-300g per day and you'll keep gaining muscle as the body really doesn't efficiently turn protein into fat/fuel and really prefers to use it for building mass.
Appreciate this comment. I’m currently trying to cut down my body fat, I’m roughly around the same height as you but have less gym experience. My lifts are standard strong but I’m trying to cut down to 10% body fat, I’m currently around 15-17%, and I’ll look into increasing my protein levels to 200g since I’m currently consuming around 150-170.
You are 6'2 95kg split squatting with 200lb eating 1700kcal and got bigger and stronger? Tell me more
So Greg Doucette was correct? Maingaining ftw?
Excellent and concise info. I will say, some of us get abs much easier than others (obviously) independent of training knowledge. Ive got veins in my calves, but still battle chest and stomach fat.. Im also not in my twenties though. So there's that...
Great to see your reliance on empericism rather than rationalism. Rationalism is great when working in the realm of the strictly - or mostly - theoretical. But even a lot of evidence-based fitness personalities have long systematized, or narrativized as you put it, a whole lot of mechanistic data and seem to derive all of their fitness advice from it, often stating it as fact. Regardless of what direct empirical data has to say about it. It's annoying and it really just makes things more confusing for me as a layman, since I know that what they're saying is not empirically backed, and yet they're clearly still more well-read on the science than I am.
Found out about you thanks to Mike Israetel. Subbed!
Seeing abs or not seeing abs in the regions between 10-20% Body fats, doesn't necessarily have something to do with being overweight or not fit. It is individual. Ofcourse fitness has it standards, but then there is the body itself, which has a genetic place of where to store fat first.
I have been at that region and my abs weren't visible, but more faded. On the otherhand my abs aren't as strong as other muscle groups.
My issue though is and some information on that would be nice, that it is hard for me to keep at that point. I gain weight easy, fat at that too, but it is hard for me to shed it off again.
Carnivore diet is the easiest way to lose weight without even trying. I lost 7 kgs in 14 days eating nothing but meat, eggs, small amounts of cheese, milk kefir and chicken livers (and that's eating til i'm full and perfectly satisfied - no 'starving' yourself)
If you cut out all carbohydrates and prioritize protein and fats you'll be lean and mean
good content as always
Why does the Ribeiro study hold much weight in this discussion? The study was done on elderly women who were likely novice lifters.
Why bulk up? Bloat Maxing 💪.
Hi. I would like to point out that body fat may not directly influence recovery levels. It is worth considering that most overweight people have poor cardiovascular health, and therefore may not perform or recover as well. This makes sense considering people who are already in ok cardio condition don’t really se recovery time increase when putting on weight for a strength competition for example
Hey Menno, thanks for this video. I am only able to read the abstracts for most of these newly found studies, but it seems like some of them were done on untrained individuals. I am wondering if body fat percentage would have an effect on gains in more trained individuals.
I also wonder if developing obstructive sleep apnea through weight gain (or at least having poorer quality sleep) would affect gains in the long run.
Also, when I hear anecdotes about bodybuilders with obstructive sleep apnea I want to know if its the increase in muscle mass that is causing the sleep disordered breathing or perhaps it is only when the bodybuilder is bulking that he suffers from the condition?
Has anabolic resistance ever been shown in actual longitudinal studies or just acute studies? Citing acute studies when they don't always translate to actual outcomes is speculative at best and manipulating at worst.
@menno.henselmans when you say "high body fat" what body fat percentage do you mean?
8:34 do you think this also counts for people that have a kind of fucked up fat distribution? Cause I have striations on my legs,biceps and shoulders and my forearms hold no fat but my belly has (at least compared to the rest of my body) a lot of fat
Really good video, some great points with the "new" research which was in the deep depths of Google scholar and this new study. I was just wondering since I am studying Nutrition science and just wanted to see what you consider overweight and/or Obese if it is based solely on BMI and not necessarily having excess adipoisity, generally speaking, yes the average person with a BMI of over 25 or 30 are most likely to have a high BF%. All I am saying is it would be helpful to come with specifics of the terms "overweight" and "obese" while your subscribers and people interested in this topic would like the specifics since most of us are probably training and have been doing so for multiple years.
A waist circumference to height ratio measurement is far better than BMI and also predicts insulin resistance. Use a tape measure to take a reading directly at the bellybutton going all the way round back to the bellybutton (with abdomen fully relaxed), then a height measurement. Divide the waist measurement by height to get ratio.
Example : 81cm (waist) / 176cm (height) = 0.46
Below 0.5 is ideal, anything drastically over 0.5 is overweight/obese/insulin resistant
I’ve been fascinating by this idea ever since I started CrossFit. How fat should I be to make the most gains? I find that slightly blurry abs leave me performing my best, but it would be nice to keep that performance while looking a bit more shredded. Thanks for the video, Menno. This makes me think it’s best to oscillate between 9-12% or so.
I don't grok this. So, on the one hand Menno is saying that having higher BF% does not impair muscle growth, but on the other hand, higher BF% may impair recovery capacity, which impairs muscle growth. Isn't this a contradiction?
Also, if there is no positive benefit from having a higher BF% for muscle growth, then what's the point of bulking at all?? Indeed, I recall that in another video a while back Menno argued that even relatively lean individuals will have enough body fat which can be mobilized to provide sufficient calories to fuel muscle anabolic processes. No need to bulk then!
You Are not a smart person
@@Backsquatenthusiast Thank you for your insightful and constructive comment. Unlike me, it's clear that you are a 'very smart person'. Would you please share your wisdom and enlighten us all?
@@copernicus99 the body does not want to add muscles as it burns calories, evolutionary this is bad. Therefore if the body is not in a surplus, it does not add significant muscle mass. This is not true for untrained people or obese people. A lean and Well trained person will not put on significant muscle mass if not in a caloric surplus( a bulk). Yes bulking is a necessity if you want to be Even remotely close to building muscle as fast as possible
@@Backsquatenthusiast Thanks for that respectful and constructive reply! Your reasoning sounds right to me. I could be wrong, but I believe that Menno claimed in one of his earlier videos that one can indeed tap into bodyfat to fuel muscle growth even when lean. I'll see if I can track it down. Of course, like the rest of us, he is allowed to change his views over time.
@@Backsquatenthusiast How does the body "know" it's in a surplus? Like if it spent the whole day building muscle and then you went to bed 200 calories short of maintenance does it say, "Oh shucks, I guess we'll just get rid of that muscle we built!"?
how would you approach the mesocycle for hypertrophy? unlike mike israetel way (adding sets as increasing the RIR and then the traditional deload week).
Gotto respect the Macho Man reference in the beginning
While interesting, it feels like the question at the beginning remained unanswered.
What is the optimal body fat percentage?
Is there one that i can stay at to efficiently gain muscle without the bed for bulking and cutting, while being healthy?
I don't care about my abs to be seen.
I'm curious about the proportion of muscle to fat gained as a function of body fat percentage.
I thought the argument for bulking/cutting is it's easier to build muscle on a large calorie surplus, the bf% is an unwanted side effect that you then cut away?
bodyfat not impairing the ability to build muscle has been anecdotally demonstrated in sumo-wrestlers who are basically IFBB pros in a fat-man suit. but it's good that we have this also as a scientific study
I was just wondering how low your BF% can be before you lose the ability to grow muscle ?
Maybe an extreme example, but don’t sumo wrestlers carry the most muscle mass and have high strength?
What would the sweet spot be in terms of BF percentage? Did I miss this information?
7:01
There is no sweet spot when it comes to building muscle, apparently. But obviously, bodybuilding competition level leanness will definitely impair and probably stop your ability altogether to make gains. Your level of advancement will mediate how much or little that affects you.
But in terms of metabolic health, it's probably not ideal to be higher than, say 18-20% for a male for extended periods
@@OoLenny40oO Thanks a lot. That helped. I was not referring to bulking with my question. At roughly which percentage - in your opinion - do you get visible abs? Or what percentage is esthetically pleasing AND maintainable long term?
@@sapereaude1483 Thank you for your answer. I didn't miss that part. I was asking in general and not in regard to bulking. I could have made that clearer.
@@tom_hengst my apologies for only replying now. I don't get notifications for the email linked to this account. You can probably start to see some abs around 13-15% depending on the development of your abs. I generally see some abs without flexing around that. I don't want to tell you what aesthetically pleasing is in terms of body fat percentage, as it's highly subjective and individual. But for me, I like being between 10% (leanest I've been) and 14%. But, some individuals might not have abs showing at 14. Plus, it's hard to assess exactly what % you are. A principal I stick with, to roughly estimate my own BF% is to use a calculator, and add on 3-4% to the number it spits out.
I think your argument could be improved with some threshold values. For the content of the video I heard "not overweight" and "see your abs" without any target bodyfat percentages. If you are assuming overweight to be referencing the medical definition then there is a lot of space between "Seeing your abs" and being overweight, so the two terms do not reflect the entire spectrum of options. Additionally hypertrophy of the RA can result in "visible abs" at or above 17% BF where another less developed lifter would stop "seeing their abs" prior to that, so it is a bit of an arbitrary target.
Additionally I think that not mentioning the downsides of amenorrhea on the long-term health for women was a misstep in this video. Encouraging women to maintain a bodyfat below that threshold does not have their best interest in mind, and should have been at least noted.
The point of this video is precisely that there are no hard threshold values.
I think you missed the part where I explicitly recommended women should not diet to excessively low body fat levels.
I need to stop bulking when you can't get full ROM on leg press and squats.
Does this mean that you can build the same amount of muscle even at very lean bodyfat percentages under 10% in comparison to 15% bodyfat or more or do you refer to a more "moderate leanness"?
There's most likely also a lower bound. For women, you don't want to get to the point of menstrual irregularities and men similarly shouldn't stay long-term at BF% that disrupt sex hormone health, as a rule of thumb.
Thank you @@menno.henselmans
Bf levels is not the same as a diet that is anabolic vs catabolic. Anabolic will likely add some fat.
What about strongmen?)
Toward the end I feel like you begin to conflate "can't see your abs" with "overweight/obese." Seems like there's some space between those two...
Yeah. I don't think he meant it in that way but thats the bulk of his clientele and audience. You can probably get a decent bit past abs before the downsides of excess adipose tissue show up but the bulk (pun intended) of this video still applies.
Yes, that's the space where we don't have much research on, so it's hard to know when the negative effects start occurring. However, if you're a muscular guy and you have zero ab visibility, you're actually probably not far off from overweight, which is often defined as 21% BF. Most guys still have some abs, like a four-pack when flexed, around 15%.
@@menno.henselmans It's not a great metric to go by lots of guys have trouble seeing abs even in low body fat levels of that's where they carry most of their fat.
@@menno.henselmansI think flat stomach is a good way to say it because when people hear abs they usually think 6-8 pack abs. Flat stomach also tends to apply better to women as well since they often have to get unhealthily low in bodyfat to get “instagram abs”.
@@geminierica4077 If you don't see your abs as a guy, you're not lean by fitness standards.
SIIM brought me here. Thanks
great information. however what about those super strong competitors that are undoubtely very fat. they seem to get extra fat so that they can keep up their extreme strength. like sumo wrestlers
When you're optimizing for total strength, not relative strength, a heavier weight is almost always net-beneficial.
How is that strongmen get decently fat for competition events? Lasha Talakhadze also got the best lifts when weight restriction was taken off?
It looks like certain amount of body fat (way above abs visibilitt) lets to keep more muscle and to peak strengh…
Well, inhumane amounts of steroids help to counteract a lot of these bad effects of fat. And fat itself works like a lifting suit for them, allowing for more strength literally just from being fat.
Not everyone still has abs at 14% bodyfat but that's still a healthy range for bulking 🔥
I’ve heard people say that if someone is super lean, like recently competed in a bodybuilding show, they should quickly get back to a higher body fat in order to gain muscle more optimally. Would you say that this research refutes that? Like someone one week after competition who is still sub 5% body fat can gain muscle at the same rate as they could at 10% or 15%.
So what number are we looking at for men? 10, 15, 20%?
Glad it doesn't matter. I hate losing my abs and bicep veins in bulks.
OK, I understand your point of why someone *needn't* bulk beyond just 'losing their abs', but, then how do you explain all the many, many high level strongmen who are, well, strong AF, but also almost always, well, fat...?
Surely, not all of them *want* to bulk up till they have a paunch?!
I think, beyond a certain level of strength, if one wants to increase pure/raw strength - esp. to elite levels - then one needs to bulk up, and thus eat to that extent, and after some point (which, I suspect will be different for every individual) the total calories vs protein proportion just doesn't add up only to pure muscle but also gets stored as body fat.
In other words, if one wishes to gain elite level strength, then they need to really up their protein and total calories, but at some point more percentage of total calories will not aid in muscle building but will then get deposited more & more as fat. There will be some plateau reached & there may even be an asymptotic relationship there...
Calisthenics are optimised at a quite low bodyfat and strength.
Calisthenics is a spectrum, from rings gymnast at one end and strongman competitor at the other end. With calisthenics, climbing, cycling, squash, boxing, bodybuilding, powerlifting in between.
A normal rings gymnast is 130lbs and 5' tall and 6% bodyfat. A normal strongman is 420lbs and 6'5" tall and 25% bodyfat.
To say that 'seeing abs matters" is to already pigeonhole yourself out of being big and strong.
@@deltalima6703
"Calisthenics is a spectrum, from rings gymnast at one end and strongman competitor at the other end."
--- No it isn't.
Yet to see a strongman athlete with a callisthenics background/training...
The rest of your 'argument' is just irrelevant verbosity...
"With calisthenics, climbing, cycling, squash, boxing, bodybuilding, powerlifting in between."
--- So which is it? Is callisthenics a spectrum or an in-between stage...??
I think you need a few classes in logic & better/coherent analysis...🤣🤣🤣
I am surprised you could not understand. Any strongman could try an iron cross, but every strongman would fail miserably. Mitch hooper is a pretty great all around athlete but cannot even do a handstand pushup which is easy for a rings gymnast. Thats because strongman is as far from calisthenics as you can get.
Andrey strong is a calisthenics athlete, can do a handstand pushup with ease, planche, no problem, iron cross too no doubt.
Magnus mitbø is a climber, can do a handstand pushup barely, can do an iron cross barely as well.
A sport played in a court, basketball, tennis, squash, whatever? You will see medium sized guys, bigger than climbers, less fat than a powerlifter, pretty useless at calisthenics beyond and including a planche.
Okay, hopefully that makes sense what I mean by its a spectrum.
The point is that calisthenics is about strength density, how much can you do for your your bodyweight. Its the reason there are weight classes in numerous sports.
Strength is about what can you move while *ignoring* bodyweight. Powelifting is a great example, you are laying on a bench and pushing on a bar harder than other guys can push on it.
To say either of these types of athletes is "stronger" or "fitter" or "better" is silly. Each is optimised for something different, thats it.
The one least likely to die is healthier, sure, but athletes do not train to be healthy, they train to be strong.
This is super wordy, I thought it was fine the way I originally wrote it. If it still doesnt make sense I will just give up, it doesnt matter anyways.
:-/
@@shantanusapruit's all about priority.... There are also lean natural powerlifters who are insanely strong!!!!
Great. Now I have no excuse to not have Abs. Thanks alot Menno.😂
I will propose the contrarian view that you also have to be very careful about what is deduced from studies. In a way you have to read a study the way a lawyer reads the law -- you can only draw conclusions in a very narrow way based on the study's parameters. So for example, the study about hypertrophy in elderly women isn't enough information, IMO, to override the ideas deduced from the "mechanistic data". We know that testosterone is the major anabolic hormone and so elderly women are going to be majorly hamstrung in that department. So I don't think that type of study should have much sway over, e.g., young male athletes. For the latter group I believe the mechanistic theories are more convincing. This doesn't even begin to address the difficulties with how studies measure LBM, which include water, glycogen, etc. which could be lower in leaner individuals, which completely skews the data. I do think that overall, knowledge of how the body works is more convincing than a study here and there.
You say body fat has no effect on the amount of muscle that can be gained. Can that be said for sub 5% body fat or have these studies only focused on healthy vs obese individuals? I've battled with anorexia and being below 5% body fat for years. Due to the effects of this on my hormones and inflammatory markers, I am unsure if this would apply in my situation. Is the body not pro storage in starvation?
What about age? How does age affect muscle growth?
can my chronical spine inflammation make me get less gains? i got a reumatic disease, but now i got my diagnos so now i get meds for it
Arnold said he felt the body absorbed nutrients and digested food better when len with relatively low body fat.
well ..... that are feelings. no hard datas even if its true.
sometimes ppl have randomly the right assumption.
I feel like everytime i get super lean more food just means i return back to my previous size/strength. I dont actually get stronger because im lean and now eat more , no i just return to my base level of strength/muscle fullness faster
Would you say that body composition, and weigh history play a role in this? Would ex obese person (335 pounds) that lost 100+ pounds during diet, be ok to bulk even when at lets say 20-25% BF? For regular foe, that BF would be a lot, but for somone who never beed that lean, the gains and recovery could skyrocket (due to diet fatique and "new" stimulus of surplus). Or maby its just false hopes, and there is never a good reason to bulk starting ad 20-25%BF? :)
At the end of 2021, I've gained about 12kg or 26lbs (went from 72kg to 84kg) in 3-4months(bulked way too aggressively). But instead of cutting down again, I took it as an opportunity to recomp. Now a little bit more than 2 years later, I'm up to 86kg, so only 2kg/5lbs more.
What would you have recommended this case? Would a minicut have been the more efficient idea? Or is recomping viable at higher bf% levels(20-24%)
Generally I think dedicated muscle building or fat loss phases are more efficient, yes.
Slight surplus around 250 cals aiming to gain .5lb per week in a bulk, to avoid too much unwanted fat gain.
Calorie deficit big enough to lose .5-1% of body weight per week in a cut, limit cutting phases to around 12 weeks then maintain or start bulking again.
Good video, but should a 19 year old bulk for as long as possible for maximum muscle growth? Or keep abs
The same principles apply for a 19 year old.
Is there any advantage to staying between 15 to 20% body fat, over 10 to 15% in terms of total muscle mass.
You didn’t have to make a whole 11 minute video to call me fat bro 😂😭
Why no mention of progesterone for women?
Did he just say bulking is pointless? Craaaazzzy
Why bulk up AT ALL if, according to that study, there is no difference in gains by doing so?
That's a very fair question. Some research and at least mechanistic evidence do point towards greater growth in energy surplus vs deficit, but the research is surprisingly shaky, all things considered. Anecdotally though, people do seem to gain size considerably quicker when bulking, even after correction for fat gain, assuming they lean-bulked.
Every strongman ever enters the chat ;)
Mariusz Pudzianowski is probably the best ever and lean
@@per.kallberg He was great, and very much an exception. They didn't move the kind of weight back then that they do now either.
@@RakugothDajjal I didn’t know about the weights. Don’t follow the sport just knew about M.
Is there any hard data on calories surplus being beneficial for hypertrophy?
Surely there is somewhere, I feel like it's a pretty solid assumption - more fuel for the body to use for recovery and adaptation should mean that hypertrophy is more than likely. Eating at maintenance calories or a deficit will, eventually, cause neutral or catabolic results if you're training to gain muscle, because you won't have enough fuel to recover and at some point your body will choose to stop using stored fat.
@@RDS_Armwrestling asked this question to many science guys (including Schoenfeld), never had a concrete answer. So it is broscience so far.
surplus will be stored as fat, right? it's probably about never being in a deficit. how to be sure? being on surplus
there absolutely needs to be a surplus in order to build new muscle. The only rare occassion is that for untrained individuals, the surplus can come from existing excessive body fat, for all other occassions you physically need a surplus, because physics.
@@lechprotean if you say "because physics"....surplus is defined how? as something that is not needed
Hi Menno! I was wondering if you're using some specific databases for you studies. You mentionned google scholar at some point but I assume it's not your main one 😂
All the standard databases: Pubmed and Scholar mostly. You can check my review articles' methods section for which databases we used for comprehensive searches.
~"Huberman is great" - jeez, didn't realize Menno is an incel + Proud Boy
tell that to stongmen like eddie hall / brian shaw both of them were like pushing 30% body fat yet were still very muscular..............
They are also pushing like 1000mg of anabolic steroids, which your regular fat people won't ever see. Also they are in terrible health anyway. If your only goal is maximum strength, steroids + 10k calorie diet is definitely the best.
Would it be helpful to look at waist circumference compared to height to see if one should end a bulk? If so, any suggestions in percentages?
if your waist is more than your height you should definitely stop eating and start exercising ;)
So if someone who were obese and dieting down they could take a maintenance or slight surplus phase to bulk up muscle to potentially tamp down diet fatigue? Or would the better option be to cut down to their desired weight, run a maintenance phase, and then begin a bulking phase?
I think it’s recommended to take a small break every 10% reductions in body weight.
I don’t think they should bulk at all. Just eat a lot of protein and train.
Is it a difference in approach as a new lifter? I've only been lifting for about three months and my bodyfat is around 20% at the moment but I'm still gaining and lift heavier every single workout. My abs are of course nowhere to be seen at this point.
Assuming you’re skinny fat like I was when I started I can say with 100% confidence keep gaining on a small surplus for a while before trying to lose fat. You’ll end up putting on a lot of muscle thanks to newbie gains (easier adaptation) without too much extra fat and as you gain lean mass your body fat percentage will go down even if you have the same or slightly more actual fat because it’s a ratio.
Once you lift for a year or so and have put on some visible muscle then decide if you want to lose fat or keep gaining for a while.
Don’t make the mistake I did and try to lose fat right at the start, you’ll just get skinny instead of lean and muscular looking if you don’t have enough muscle yet.
@@einsteinx2 Thank you for the response. I definitely think I'll keep trying to put on weight. I'm at a surplus and I've gained about 4 kilograms during these three months. Subjectively it feels like most of its muscle and my stomach is still pretty flat though I've undoubtedly also gained fat of course. I'll keep at it!
I started there too 3 years ago. I have a lot of training experience, so I did not need to fumble like a typical beginner.
The choice I made, which in hindsight was obviously correct, was not to lose weight at all and simply recomp. It worked so well that 6 months ago my bodyfat was too low and I bulked up.
Even if your goal is to lose fat, the way to do it is to increase metabolism first.
@@deltalima6703 my number one priority is to gain muscle, I lost a lot of weight about 7-8 months ago and got kind of skinny so now I'm all about adding muscle.
This is more of a problem of reasoning and intelligence
1. Of course it’s lower, fatter people are closer to their natural limit compared to a dieted untrained version of themselves
2. High insulin resistance causes insulin to be constant. It’s a natural anabolic replacement to injecting insulin as a PED like many bodybuilders.
4. Yes a 300 lbs Olympia bodybuilder causes more fatigue than a 112 lbs marathoner version of you hitting legs. Because there’s a higher raw stimulus magnitude. Likewise a 40 bmi version of you can use bigger weights than a 20 bmi version of you and get a higher raw stimulus magnitude.
5. Estrogen is anabolic, especially when paired with testosterone. See any bodybuilder that takes anti-estrogens
The health point is the most absurd point, they’re elite athletes, their blood is fine.
Empirical: no detriments to being bigger implies being bigger is anabolic, because there should be a drop off.
“We like to create stories in our mind” yeah like the abs point.
If you hypertrophied abs, properly for ten years and went up to 40 bmi, you could probably see your 3 pack abs through your clothes. Does that count as abs? If not, spin me the tale of why it doesn’t
Sorry mate your face is slightly too close to the camera. Just stand back a step and youll look better! I think.
So if one is to do a bulk/cur cycle, the maximum bulk would be up to a 20% bodyfat (which is usually where abs begin to dissapear)?. Also flexed or relaxed to judge on abs?
Did you find an answer to this? Ty
I guess you have to default too common sense if a physique athlete. Yes, apparently, you can gain the same if at 15+ % BF. But how much actually gets sacrificed during the cut/prep? How much additional suffering do you endure?😊
Correct me if I am wrong here, but I can make the same gains staying at 15% body fat, as I would if I keep bulking up to 20% body fat?
Then why in Gods name would I keep bulking😂 I hate this shit
Exactly 🤝
As long as you have some source of calorie surplus to fuel lean tissue growth, it seems that your actual %BF is irrelevant to hypertrophy outside of recovery ability. If you can maingain at 15%, why not.
Keep in mind the strength gains that come with bulking.
@@72Dexter72Manley72 The come anyway
“Johnson and the twins." LOL
That’s interesting because most of the world’s strongest men are higher body fat.
Menno is biased because he places value on aesthetics and lets that cloud his judgement to some extent. He is scientific enough to change his mind based on studies and such though, I do not mean to be critical.
How would you define "low" bf% for females ~ 18 yr
I would say that you're definitely too lean if you start getting menstrual irregularities or amenorrhea due to the BF%. That usually starts in the 15-20% range.
Would the menstrual difficulties affect hypertrophy?
@@amygulliver9039 I think that BF% would impair recovery capacity at least based on the research. It also typically correlates with low anabolic hormone levels. So I think long-term there may very well be a negative effect on your gains. Anecdotally too, not many people are successful with their bulks if they always stay super shredded.
@menno.henselmans thanks so much for the reply and all the work you put out 👍 very good to know and very much appreciated
The link in the description is broken
Which one?
Can you be too lean to gain muscle?
If it messes up your hormones, sure. A good thing to know would be how to optimize hormones while being very lean? Sugar for thyroid maybe? Not sure. It's not talked about much because everyone assumes it's impossible.
Additionally people have their own unique body fat range that they feel best in. I never felt good at 10-14% body fat, usually hang around the range of 15-21% body fat, I feel stronger and I have more energy!
That's a huge consideration, yes.
Please say 60%. 🤞
✝️💪
The biggest lean legs I have ever seen was a homeless guy who was 550 lb heavy. He lived in his van, so he had to go up and down the van steps in one leg several times a day. It was a solid,steel hard thighs that barely fit in a large chair.
My point is that excess caloric intake and active obesity have the potential to create more muscle than steroids.
You can see that in historical figures who were obese and could lift insane numbers.
Paul Anderson holds the Guinness World Record for lifting the heaviest weight by a human, at 6,270 lbs (2,850 kg)
Louis Cyr, a French Canadian strongman, is said to have been able to lift 500 pounds (227 kg) with one finger, using only his index finger. Other feats of Cyr's include backlifting 4,337 pounds
When the abs get soft.
I bulk till I lose my abs. Then I slow my eating down.
My BF is optimal for bulking. That's what we call it, anyway.
Stretch marks ✔️ high blood pressure ✔️ high cholesterol ✔️ borderline diabetes ✔️ I’m never bulking again, not even a small excess of calories. I’d rather be healthy than lift heavier.
There is nothing wrong with gaining 10-15Lbs on a bulk. Let's not get carried away with things. Now someone who goes on a 30lb bulk may get health issues. They would probably have more issues with running out of money to continue that bulk.
If you have health issues then of course see a Doc.
You are bulking to gain strength, when you become stronger your bones become stronger as well. Using progressive overload is going to take care of those strength goals. When you mini cut from a 10-15lb bulk you will keep a lot of that new acquired strength. 👍🏾
Lean does not mean healthy. Being strong means being healthy. The more mass you have the more buffer your body has to fight with everything that comes by. It does not mean you have to be obese ofc. But visible abs do not mean you are more healthy than with 20% bf.
@@tiitjuhei For me it isn’t about ‘visible AB’s’ it’s about those markers of health in my blood tests and how I feel. I’ve dropped almost 30lbs and lost around 15% of my numbers on each lift. My blood results are much better, I’m no longer hypertensive and overall I feel so much better. I’m not starving either, I’m nicely satisfied. Maybe if I was younger it wouldn’t matter so much, but in my mid sixties it clearly does.
@@72Dexter72Manley72 I wasn’t really actively bulking, but still wound up 30lbs heavier a year ago than I am today. I had maintained that weight for several years. I’m an advanced master lifter at this point and so manipulating programming is more about holding onto strength rather than making any significant new gains. This might be completely different for a younger lifter, but this is my personal experience of added weight. Losing weight meant my numbers went down 15% or so, but the trade off to me is worth it even if I hate seeing those numbers fall.
@@nockianlifter661 Man I'm 58.
I get it. I dropped down to 190lbs before just to see if I could do it. I now keep my weight between 207-215lbs. I played football at 225-230 lbs. I have no need to weigh that much anymore. Since I didn't need to carry that weight, I just dropped 5lbs a year and kept working on hitting the numbers I did at the heavier body weight.
I find that motivating as hell.
I just work on getting stronger it gives me the ability to still physically do whatever I want. 💪🏾
Changing your opinion based on new information? Valuing empirical data over theories derived from mechanisms? I think we just found 2024's Sexiest Man Alive, folks!