Video Blog: Skype Q&A with Brad Schoenfeld about Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy

Like my last post, this one will also be in the form of a video. This time, Brad Schoenfeld is the featured guest and he answers a series of questions from the fitness community regarding muscle hypertrophy.

For those of you who don't know him, Brad Schoenfeld, MSc, CSCS, CSPS, CPT is an internationally renowned fitness expert and widely regarded as one of the leading authorities on body composition training (muscle development and fat loss). The 2011 NSCA Personal Trainer of the Year is a lifetime drug-free bodybuilder who has won numerous natural bodybuilding titles, including the All Natural Physique and Power Conference (ANPPC) Tri-State Naturals and USA Mixed Pairs crowns. As a trainer, he has worked with numerous elite-level physique athletes including many top pros.

Brad is a best-selling author of eight fitness books including his latest “The M.A.X. Muscle Plan.” He has been published or featured in virtually every major fitness magazine (including Muscle and Fitness, MuscleMag, Ironman, Oxygen, and Shape) and has appeared on hundreds of television shows and radio programs across the United States. Certified as a strength and conditioning specialist by the NSCA and as a personal trainer by the ACSM, ACE, and CanFitPro, Brad was awarded the distinction of master trainer by IDEA Health and Fitness Association.

Brad is a lecturer in exercise science at Lehman College in the Bronx, NY, is the director of their human performance lab. As a scholar, Brad has published over 40 peer-reviewed journal articles in exercise and sports nutrition and serves as the Assistant Editor-in-Chief to the Strength and Conditioning Journal. He is currently pursuing his PhD in health science at Rocky Mountain University where his research focuses on the mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training.

In addition to his impressive CV, Brad will be coming to the UK early next year to deliver two seminars (one in Bath and one in London). See here for more information and to purchase a ticket!


Science vs. Broscience: a matter of economy?

Science vs. Broscience: a matter of economy?

Many of you will have heard the term broscience thrown around over social media and have a gist of what the term stands for. Everyone who has been involved in the pursuit of muscle gain and/or fat loss would have been guilty of broscience at least once in their lives; I certainly have. As such, the purpose of this article is to try and sum up the differences between science and broscience. In doing so, it will hopefully convince you that some of the things you’re currently doing in order to reach your body composition goals are pointless or ‘bro’. The elimination of these unnecessary practices will therefore make your life easier with respect to attaining whatever goal(s) you may have. To keep this article short, and because I’m a nutritionist, this article will focus primarily on aspects of nutrition, as opposed to the training side of things.

Read More

An Objective Review of John Kiefer’s Carb Back-Loading (Part 2)

An Objective Review of John Kiefer’s Carb Back-Loading (Part 2)

The Limitations of CBL

Some general concerns with CBL

Firstly, I don’t think that eliminating carbs all day is needed for most people, and is potentially detrimental to some, especially those who generally don’t feel good on low carbs, or athletes with high carb requirements. Given the requirement to train in the late afternoon/early evening, CBL is also not practical for those who train in the morning or afternoon. However, Kiefer does address this issue and adapts CBL for people who have work/family commitments that would clash with early evening training. To me, this somehow contradicts all what is said in the rest of the book with regards to physiology and circadian rhythms.

Read More

An Objective Review of John Kiefer’s Carb Back-Loading (Part 1)

An Objective Review of John Kiefer’s Carb Back-Loading (Part 1)

For those that don’t know anything about the author or the book, John Kiefer holds a bachelor’s degree in Physics and Mathematics as well as a master’s degree in Physics, and is the owner of the Dangerously Hardcorewebsite. In addition to Carb Back-Loading(CBL), Kiefer has written a previous book titled The Carb Nite Solution. From his credentials and by listening to him on various podcasts and YouTube videos, Kiefer comes across as an intelligent and genuinely nice guy, so that’s where the personal judgments stop. As such, in this review, I’ll take a reasonably in depth look at CBL and examine whether the claims behind it withstand scientific scrutiny.

Read More

How to create a diet: part 2

Continued from part I

2. Setting protein intake

With the more complicated stuff out of the way, the next step of filling the calories with the macronutrients is really simple.

I discussed the issue of protein requirements here so I won’t go into any great detail in this article. The RDA for protein is set at 0.8 grams per kilogram of bodyweight (g/kgBW), while research typically recommends intakes of 1.2-2.2 g/kgBW for athletic populations (i.e. from endurance to strength athletes). As I mentioned in the protein requirements article, I tend to err on the side of too much than too little protein and typically recommend intakes between 1.7-3 g/kg.BW for most individuals. Such intakes are realistically achievable by most and wouldn’t seem to impede on carbohydrate requirements of athletes for a given energy budget.


3. Setting fat intake

Unlike protein there isn’t really an evidenced-based dosing range to cite when talking about fat intake. As long as essential fatty acid intake is met, which is virtually impossible not to with a typical diet, fat intake technically doesn’t have to be any higher. Having said that, calories have to come from somewhere. Furthermore, in order for a diet not to be bland, in addition to there being enough fat to optimise the absorption of fat soluble vitamins, I like to use intakes of 1-1.5 g/kg as a starting point, which suit both non-athletes and athletes (due to the contribution of intramuscular triglycerides [IMTG] as a fuel source during exercise) alike.


4. Setting carbohydrate intake

Now that we’ve set total kcal, protein and fat, carbohydrates simply fill the remaining calorie allotment. Using myself again as an example, I’ll run through steps 1-4 based on my stats and training/activity.

  • REE/BMR = 24.2 x 78 kg = 1888 kcal. Since the “moderately active” activity factor most accurately represents my current activity I’ll multiply my REE/BMR by 1.55 (1888 x 1.55) giving a TEE of 2925 kcal per day.
  • Since my athletic goals include maximising muscle hypertrophy and strength, I’ll set protein intake at the upper end (3g/kg of BW) of my recommendations. This equates to a daily protein intake of (78 x 3) 234g. As each gram of protein contains roughly 4 kcal, daily protein intake equates to 936 kcal.
  • As I don’t deplete a great deal of IMTG through training, I’ll set fat intake at the lower end of my recommendation (1g/kg). This equates to a daily fat intake of (78 x 1) 78 g. As each gram of fat contains roughly 9 kcal, daily fat intake equates to 702 kcal.
  • To calculate carbohydrate intake in grams, all we need to do is subtract the sum of protein and fat kcal from total kcal, then divide by 4 (the amount of kcal per gram of carbohydrate).
  1. Protein = 234 x 4 kcal/g = 936 kcal
  2. Fat = 78 x 9 kcal/g = 702 kcal
  3. TEE (2925 kcal) – 1638 (936 + 702) = 1287 kcal from carbohydrate.
  4. 1287 / 4 (number of kcal per gram of carbohydrate) = 321 g


Energy: 2925 kcal

Protein: 236 g (32%)

Fat: 78 g (24%)

Carbs: 321 g (44%)

This whole process is pretty straightforward and should take a few minutes at most since all you need to know is your current body weight and training volume/frequency.

From the totals, you will also notice I listed the percentage of total energy that each macronutrient makes up. While knowing this percentage breakdown isn’t all that useful for most purposes, it gives you an idea of how your diet compares to ones that are set up as percentages. In reality, these percentages are not too dissimilar from the Zone Diet. However this won’t be the case for everyone as made in the earlier example.

As a final point on this matter, diet percentages are secondary to meeting a person’s individual macronutrient requirements. In other words, once you’ve worked out how much protein and fat you require, allow carbs fill the remaining calorie budget and let the percentages be what they are. Attempting to do things the other way round is confusing and doesn’t address individual needs.

From the current example, my real-world experience tells me that my maintenance energy need has been overestimated by roughly 200-300 kcal. In this case, I’d leave protein and fat intake the same and decrease the suggested carbohydrate intake from 321 g to roughly 246-271 g per day.

From there, you would split the macronutrients up over a realistic number of meals (3-5) over the course of the day and aim to meet these individual macronutrient goals. It is worth remembering that the total macronutrients consumed is far more important (at least in terms of body composition) than the macronutrient subtype (i.e. type of protein, type of fat, glycaemic index etc.), meal frequency, or any specific timing of the ingested nutrients etc. (with the possible exception of outlandish extremes that are very rarely encountered in the real-world).


Is this for everyone?

As with everything in relation to nutrition, the answer is almost always, “it depends”. These values aren’t set in stone I just use them as a good staring point. I don’t mind going lower than the bottom end of my protein recommendations (e.g. for people who already have achieved their desired amount of lean body mass and are eating at maintenance). However, rarely do I suggest much more than 3 g/kg, even when dieting (a possible exception being drug-fuelled bodybuilders). After accounting for protein, I typically let fat intake determine carbohydrate intake (as it makes up the remaining calories). However, for type II diabetics or insulin resistant individuals, or just people who don’t tolerate carbs very well in general, I like to opt for a lower carbohydrate intake. Because of this, fat intake has to increase in order to make up the calories.

For people who don’t really engage in a great deal of high-intensity exercise, fat intake can also be set a bit higher than recommended above (if preferred), with a relatively lower carbohydrate intake. Contrary to what the insulin-phobic “gurus” would like to convince you, calories do count, and after adequate protein is set, skewing fat or carbohydrate either way will have little overall impact on body composition in healthy individuals as long as total calories remain the same. Anyone who says that you can eat as much as you want as long as you avoid carbs has either completely ignored the available evidence on the matter or/and is trying to sell something.


What about fat loss or muscle gain?

While these recommendations are fine for people who wish to remain weight stable, most people want to lose weight (fat), and some, gain weight (usually muscle). In the case of losing body fat (speaking exclusively about manipulating diet), I like to increase protein slightly (relative to maintenance levels; see my previous article on protein requirements for details on this) and then create an energy deficit as a percentage of maintenance requirements (by roughly 10-20% as a starting point). The reason being that an often quoted 500 kcal deficit would be quite significant for a small female with a maintenance caloric requirement of 1800 kcal (28%), and less so for a large male with a maintenance requirement of 3500 kcal (14%). Calories would be cut from either fat, carbs or both and would depend on several factors (e.g. level of hunger, type of training, food preference etc.). It should also be mentioned that individuals might wish to eat the same and just increase activity, or use a combination of both dieting and increased exercise to bring about fat loss.

In terms of gaining muscle mass, I’d go with the exact opposite (i.e. increase carbs and/or fat) except for keeping protein the same as maintenance levels. Though these recommendations aren't a bad starting point, I should point out that I am grossly oversimplifying matters, and to go in any great detail would take many more articles.


Final point

Though total macronutrient intake would seem to have the greatest overall impact compared with any single dietary modification, other variables such as: nutrient timing, meal frequency, macronutrient subtype, nutrient density (vitamin and mineral content per calorie), non-nutritive dietary components and supplementation, would have a measureable impact on body composition, sporting performance and health. That is assuming the ability of an individual to successfully implement a desired macronutrient intake on a daily basis in the first place.


Summary & application

Hopefully these two articles have shed some light on how to properly construct the backbone of a diet (i.e. the macronutrient content) in a simple and individualised manner. Estimating total maintenance macronutrient intake is briefly summarised below and requires knowledge of only current body weight and training load:

  1. Multiply bodyweight (in kg) by 24.2 (males) or 22 (females) to determine resting energy expenditure.
  2. Multiply this value by an appropriate activity factor.
  3. Set protein intake between 1.7-3 g kg of bodyweight.
  4. Set fat intake between 1-1.5 g kg of bodyweight.
  5. Let carbohydrate fill the remaining calorie budget.

This totals would then be roughly divided among a realistic number of meals and modified in accordance with real world observations (i.e. changes in body composition) or body composition goals (e.g. fat loss or muscle gain).