What's the difference in strength gains on a program like 5x5 or SS on a 100, 300, 1,000, or 3,000 caloric surplus?

Assuming all macros are correct (.8-.9P/lbbw) .35-.4F/lbbw rest C

I'm just wondering if there's a difference for plifters and bbers in terms of surplus'

Jw if there's a higher threshold for mtofibillar hypertrophy above sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in terms of strength growth, not size

This post was edited by turtol on Jun 19 2015 07:25am

As long you are in a surplus it does matter that much. You can't force muscle gain by overeating your way to the fat train.

Strength gain is what? CNS adaptation, technique efficiency, muscle adaptation... Fat won't increase this.

obviously if you eat 3000 surplus you will get fatter => stronger because you weigh more, not because you actually got "stronger" well you did but not in the way you want to.

why stop at the 3k cal surplus? Professional Sumo's have more muscle than elite bodybuilders, and they don't even lift; they just eat. Food is anabolic brah, eat your way to the top

300-500

As aube said its a physiological and nervous adaption. Depending on your current level of fitness and what specific movement you're trying to increase strength in sometimes a surplus isn't even needed.

This guy for example



He has never gone up a weight class.

This post was edited by HyphyIll on Jun 19 2015 10:42am

Awesome thx guys! Was just wondering if strength gains had less restraints than size gains

this makes no sense at all

e: so if i add 2 lbs of fat to my arm i can all of a sudden curl more weight because my arm weighs more? do you see the flaw in your logic?

This post was edited by cloudkicker on Jun 19 2015 02:02pm

caloric surplus means ur eating more, and have more fuel for ur muscles

among other stuff

there is a reason you can bench more at 220 with 20% bodyfat than you can after a SOLID cut to 190 with 10% bodyfat, and thats not due to "muscle loss" while cutting, show me the flaw sherlock.

Lmao