Magnitude and
Composition of the
Energy Surplus for
Maximizing Muscle
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKbH4TTImqenVI1NGeaZoDmOlWAzeLocZNBhgA8KUNsPsD4ola6Xh8I87Go1S1loCak= on 02/28/2020
Hypertrophy: Implications
for Bodybuilding and
Physique Athletes
Alan A. Aragon, MS1 and Brad J. Schoenfeld, PhD, CSCS, CSPS, FNSCA2
1
California State University, Northridge, California; and 2Department of Health Science, Lehman College, Bronx, New
York
ABSTRACT
This review aimed to explore the nature
of energy consumption for optimizing
muscle growth in the presence of
a resistance training program with
a specific focus on implications for
bodybuilders and physique athletes.
Although gains in muscle mass can be
achieved when resistance training is
performed under hypocaloric condi-
tions, research indicates that maximiz-
ing exercise-induced muscle
hypertrophy requires an energy sur-
plus. Herein, we discuss the interplay
between total dietary energy intake
and macronutrient ratios, and provide
evidence-based guidelines as to how
they should be manipulated to optimize
muscular adaptations.
Address correspondence to Dr. Brad J.
Schoenfeld, brad@workout911.com
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
INTRODUCTION (carbohydrate and fat) contribute in
keletal muscle hypertrophy in a multitude of metabolic roles to support
S adults occurs through a complex
set of processes governed primar-
ily by the interaction of exercise and
muscle growth, but their importance
regarding muscle growth is secondary
to dietary protein.
nutrition. Progressive resistance training
Understanding the interplay between
is well-established as the most potent
total energy intake and macronutrient
type of exercise for maximizing the
ratios is important for those seeking to
long-term accretion of muscle mass
increase muscle mass. Therefore, the
(22). The total consumption of energy
purpose of this review is to explore
(sum of all macronutrients ingested)
the nature of an energy surplus for
plays a primary role in muscular devel-
optimizing muscle growth in the pres-
opment, with evidence suggesting that
ence of a resistance training program
a caloric surplus is needed to maximize
with a specific focus on implications
hypertrophic adaptations. Dietary con-
for bodybuilders and physique ath-
sumption of protein is crucial for the
letes. Practical applications are pre-
repair, structural remodeling, synthesis,
sented based on theoretical
and growth of muscle tissue. It therefore
frameworks drawn from the evidence
is the most extensively studied macronu-
in the current literature.
trient in supporting resistance training
adaptations. The collective evidence in-
KEY WORDS:
dicates that a daily protein intake of 1.6–
energy intake; calories; macronutrients;
2.2 g/kg maximizes muscle growth in
muscle hypertrophy; bodybuilding;
drug-free, nondieting, resistance trainees
physique athlete
(7,37,40). The other macronutrients
1
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
 Energy Surplus and Muscle Hypertrophy
HYPOCALORIC CONDITIONS
Sustained hypocaloric conditions pose
an inherent challenge to muscle
growth. Compromised nutrient and
energy availability lead to metabolic
and transcriptional adaptations, which
ultimately favor a catabolic state. Per-
haps most overtly, muscle proteins can
be catabolized for use in energy metab-
olism and a range of homeostatic de-
mands, including gluconeogenesis
(13). Moderately hypocaloric condi-
tions (20% below maintenance require-
ments) for a short time period (10 days)
have been shown to decrease muscle
protein synthesis (MPS) by 19%,
potentially mediated at least in part
by a decreased phosphorylation of pro-
tein kinase B (Akt) and eIF4E-BP1
(38). Moreover, energy restriction has
been shown to downregulate
mTORC1 signaling independently of
dietary protein intake (32).
The antianabolic effects of caloric
restriction are purportedly mediated
by AMP-activated protein kinase
(AMPK), which functions as a cellular
energy sensor. Specifically, AMPK im-
pedes intracellular anabolic signaling
pathways under conditions of low
ATP levels, as observed during periods
of energy deficit (12). AMPK also is
sensitive to glycogen status (34), with
low levels of glycogen tending to
increase activation of the AMPK path-
way. The net effects of heightened
AMPK-induced signaling favor cata-
bolic processes over anabolism, ulti-
mately blunting the skeletal muscle
protein synthetic response to mechan-
ical stimuli.
In overweight and obese individuals,
approximately 20–30% of the total
bodyweight lost in dieting has been
reported to be lean mass (14). How-
ever, these findings are typical in trials
that do not involve an exercise compo-
nent—let alone, a structured resistance
training program. The anabolic effect
of resistance training can offset the cat-
abolic nature of an energy deficit. Fur-
thermore, in a hypocaloric state, the
combination of resistance training
and optimized protein intake can oper-
ate synergistically to preserve, and in
2 VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | FEBRUARY 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
some cases increase, skeletal muscle
mass. Several studies have reported
lean mass gains in the face of hypo-
caloric conditions, particularly when
higher protein intakes (1.2–2.5 g/kg)
are concurrent with resistance training
alone (11,16,29,36), and resistance
training combined with high-intensity
interval training (29). Even under
severely hypocaloric conditions, mus-
cle hypertrophy has been observed in
conjunction with regimented resis-
tance training. For example, a 12-
week trial by Donnelly et al. (18) re-
ported a significant increase in cross-
sectional area of the muscle fibers of
the vastus lateralis in untrained, obese
subjects on an 800 kcal diet combined
with a total-body, multi-set resistance
training program. This “recomposi-
tion” phenomenon (simultaneous fat
loss and muscle gain) is most pro-
nounced in untrained subjects with
high amounts of body fat.
It is important to note that the poten-
tial for muscle gain under hypocaloric
conditions seems to be diminished in
lean, trained individuals. Illustrating
this point, Garthe et al. (19) compared
a weekly bodyweight reduction of 0.7
versus 1.4% (19 versus 30% reduction
from maintenance needs) in elite ath-
letes placed on a 4-d/wk resistance
exercise program in addition to their
usual sport-related training. Both
groups significantly lost fat mass, but
a significant increase in lean mass
occurred via the lesser energy deficit,
whereas the greater deficit yielded no
significant change in lean mass. Never-
theless, there remains a lack of research
directly investigating muscle hypertro-
phy in hypocaloric conditions of differ-
ent severities in lean bodybuilders;
thus, generalizing these findings to
the latter population should be done
with circumspection.
EUCALORIC CONDITIONS
In contrast to the growth-suppressive
environment of a caloric deficit, eu-
caloric conditions (equal daily energy
expenditure and intake for weight
maintenance) are more permissive of
muscle hypertrophy by facilitating
processes involved in MPS and ana-
bolic signaling. These processes are
further amplified in combination with
a properly structured resistance train-
ing program. A recent trial by Crew-
ther et al. (17) provides evidence of
recomposition occurring under eu-
caloric conditions in lean, trained indi-
viduals. Note that the assumption of
eucaloric conditions is based on sub-
jects’ maintenance of their habitual di-
ets. Rugby athletes with at least 2 years
of resistance training experience were
randomized to perform either a full-
body versus a split-body program;
habitual diets were not altered. Over
a 4-week study period, bodyweight re-
mained stable in both groups, whereas
lean mass increased (full-body: 0.9 kg,
split-body: 0.3 kg), and fat mass
decreased (full-body: 1.0 kg, split-
body: 0.5 kg).
A recent meta-analysis by Morton
et al. (37) that examined the combined
effect of protein supplementation and
resistance training provides intriguing
insights into the present topic. This is
the largest meta-analysis to date on the
topic, involving 49 studies with 1863
subjects. Total daily energy intake
was collected from 23 of the studies.
Despite a mean protein supplementa-
tion dose of ;35 g, total energy intake
remained static throughout the length
of the trials. It should be noted that
eucaloric balance was not a purposeful
aim of the conditions of the analysis,
which included studies with subjects
that were at or above their energy
requirements. Studies involving hypo-
caloric conditions were excluded. Nev-
ertheless, an overall lack of meaningful
increase in energy intake from baseline,
as well as the relatively minor gains in
fat-free mass (FFM), indicate eucaloric
conditions despite this not being
a specific target of investigation. Mean
increases in energy intake were too
slight to reach statistical significance
(protein group: 50 kcal/d, control
group: 70 kcal/d). Thus, by default,
this was an analysis of increased
protein intake (;1.4 g/kg at baseline,
;1.8 g/kg via supplementation) at
eucaloric balance. FFM increased
 by resistance training alone (1.1 kg).
However, despite reaching statistical
significance, the additional gains in
FFM via protein supplementation were
small (0.30 kg overall, resistance-
trained subjects gained 0.75 kg, older
subjects lost 0.01 kg). These relatively
unremarkable gains indicate the impor-
tance of a purposeful caloric surplus
combined with progressive resistance
training when maximizing muscle
hypertrophy is the primary goal.
HYPERCALORIC CONDITIONS
Hypercaloric conditions can potenti-
ate muscle growth beyond eucaloric
conditions by supporting the escalat-
ing energy demands of progressive
resistance training volume. This in-
cludes exercise performance and post-
exercise elevations in energy
expenditure (primarily related to in-
creases in bodily protein turnover),
and the energetic cost of maintaining
newly acquired lean tissue mass itself.
Protein turnover (sum total of protein
synthesis and breakdown) is an
energy-intensive process, estimated to
have a caloric cost of ;2.4–3.0 kcal per
gram (8). Whole-body protein turn-
over represents approximately 20% of
the resting metabolic rate in adults (46),
whereas resting energy expenditure of
muscle tissue is 13 kcal/kg/d (35).
Increased inherent energy expenditure,
progressive increases in training vol-
ume, and in some cases, increasing
energetic cost of nonexercise move-
ment of greater net body mass, collec-
tively raise the caloric needs for
muscle-building beyond eucaloric lev-
els. Even in the absence of resistance
training, concurrent lean mass and fat
mass gains can occur at similar rates
during a sustained caloric surplus with
sufficient protein intake, as observed by
Bray et al. (9), using dual energy X-ray
absorptiometry (DXA) to assess body
composition.
Going forward, it is important to high-
light the technical incorrectness of
conflating the terms lean mass and mus-
cle mass, despite the impracticality of
attempting to delineate them. Lean
mass encompasses water, glycogen,
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
contractile tissues, and noncontractile
tissues. Despite the fact that DXA is
widely regarded as a reference standard
for assessing muscle mass, it neverthe-
less is limited by confounding varia-
tions in hydration level, tissue
thickness, and an inability to precisely
distinguish between the different com-
ponents of lean soft tissue (42). Other
methods such as ultrasound, magnetic
resonance imaging, and computed
tomography are capable of providing
more sensitive estimates of muscle
architecture, but each of those meth-
ods have limitations that do not neces-
sarily render them superior for
assessing body composition compared
with DXA (10). That said, the closer
trainees progress toward their maximal
potential for muscular size, the less of
a given energy surplus is partitioned
toward lean tissue—as discussed in the
ensuing section.
MAGNITUDE OF THE SURPLUS
Similar to hypocaloric conditions,
training status and body composition
can affect the responses to hypercalor-
ic conditions. Untrained (or detrained)
subjects have a greater margin of
potential to fulfill in lean mass gain.
Therefore, it is possible that lean,
trained subjects are more prone to fat
mass gains with larger versus smaller
caloric surpluses. Illustrating this phe-
nomenon, Garthe et al. (20) random-
ized elite athletes to either receive
nutritional counseling or to consume
food ad libitum while performing their
customary sport-specific training and
a structured resistance training pro-
gram. Those in the nutritional counsel-
ing group reported a 544 kcal increase
from baseline, whereas the ad libitum
control group reported a 128 kcal
decrease. The nutritional counseling
group realized a slightly greater
increase in lean mass compared with
control (1.7 versus 1.2 kg), but also
showed a significantly greater fat gain
(1.1 versus 0.2 kg). In a similar vein, a 4-
week trial by Ribeiro et al. (39) com-
pared the effects of moderate-energy
(4,501 kcal/d) and higher-energy
(6,087 kcal/d) diets in elite male body-
builders. The higher-energy diet
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
resulted in modestly greater lean mass
gains (1.0 versus 0.4 kg), but also sub-
stantially and disproportionally greater
fat mass gains (7.4 versus 0.8%).
An 8-week trial by Rozenek et al. (41)
explored the effect of a substantial calo-
ric surplus combined with resistance
training in untrained subjects. Three
conditions were compared: a 2010 kcal
food supplement containing 356 of g
carbohydrate, 106 g of protein, and
18 g of fat (CHO-PRO), an isocaloric
higher-carbohydrate supplement con-
taining 450 g of carbohydrate, 24 g of
protein, and 14 g of fat (CHO), and
a control group that did not receive
any supplementation. All groups
engaged in a progressive resistance
training protocol. Total daily energy
intake in CHO-PRO, CHO, and the
control group was 4,348, 4,339, and
2,597 kcal/d, respectively. All groups
gained significant amounts of lean mass
(2.9, 3.4, and 1.4 kg, respectively). The
lack of significant difference in lean
mass gain between the CHO-PRO
and CHO groups despite the higher
protein content of CHO-PRO was
attributed to a sufficient baseline pro-
tein intake (1.6 g/kg) for maximally
supporting muscle growth. Neither
group significantly increased fat mass
despite the substantial caloric surplus.
This favorable partitioning of energy
toward lean mass rather than fat mass
is potentially because of subjects that
were described as “beginning weight
trainers and mildly physically active.”
Again, it is important to consider the
limitations of body composition assess-
ment. Caution is advised against con-
flating gains in lean mass with muscle
mass. It is possible that a greater pro-
portion of the lean mass gained in the
CHO-PRO was muscle mass via the
provision of protein, whereas the
CHO group could have stored more
glycogen and associated fluid, resulting
in similar net gains in lean mass. In
contrast to Rozenek et al. (41), Garthe
et al. (20) and Ribeiro et al. (39)
described their subjects as “elite”
athletes, indicating much greater
proximity to their physical potential.
Intriguingly, participants in all 3 studies
3
 Energy Surplus and Muscle Hypertrophy
were relatively lean (body fat ,20%),
highlighting the importance of training
status on the matter.
MACRONUTRIENT COMPOSITION
In addition to the magnitude of the
caloric surplus, macronutrient compo-
sition can potentially affect nutrient
and energy partitioning. Longstanding
lore of athletes consuming prodigious
amounts of protein for muscle gain is
not entirely mythical. The preponder-
ance of the current evidence supports
an intake that is approximately
double-to-triple the current RDA of
0.8 g/kg (7). So, when formulating a hy-
percaloric diet, the importance of ade-
quate protein intake cannot be
understated. However, a ceiling of pro-
tein’s capability to drive lean tissue
growth in a caloric surplus has been
revealed in several recent protein over-
feeding trials from the laboratory of
Jose Antonio (2–5). The common
thread among these trials was a lack
of significant change in body composi-
tion despite significant increases in
total daily calories from protein, rang-
ing ;400–800 kcal above baseline in-
takes. High-protein conditions in these
trials ranged from 3.3 to 4.4 g/kg, and
their lower-protein comparators
ranged 1.8–2.6 g/kg. Trial lengths
ranged 2–6 months, providing ample
opportunity for different effects on
body composition to materialize; this
was not demonstrated. Despite not
reaching statistical significance, lean
mass gains tended to favor the
higher-protein conditions. It is also
noteworthy that a study by Antonio
et al. (3) showed significant fat mass
decreases in a high-versus normal-pro-
tein group (1.6 and 0.3 kg, respec-
tively), despite the high-protein group
reporting a significant increase caloric
intake compared with baseline
(374 kcal).
A 6-week trial by Haun et al. (23) fur-
ther supports the combination of opti-
mal daily protein intake and
progressive resistance training in hy-
percaloric conditions. Three treat-
ments in resistance-trained subjects
were compared: (a) daily single 25 g
4 VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | FEBRUARY 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
dose of whey protein (WP), (b) daily
single 30 g dose of maltodextrin
(MALTO), or (c) graded dose of WP,
25–150 g, from weeks 1–6 (GWP). A
500 kcal surplus was targeted. Graded
increases in training volume (10–32
sets per exercise) were concurrently
used with the supplementation proto-
cols. No significant between-group dif-
ferences in DXA-determined body
composition change were seen after
post-hoc tests were performed, but
the absolute differences are worth not-
ing. Lean mass increases in WP, MAL-
TO, and GWP were 1.22, 2.35, and
2.93 kg, respectively. Regarding fat
mass, WP and GWP lost 0.65 and
1.00 kg, respectively, whereas MALTO
gained 0.20 kg. Increases in type 2 mus-
cle fiber cross-sectional area were sim-
ilar between MALTO and GWP.
Overall, GWP showed the greatest
fat loss, but definitive superiority for
muscle hypertrophy compared with
MALTO could not be ascertained.
The results of this study are perplexing,
because no significant between-group
differences in energy or macronutrient
intake were reported, leaving the au-
thors to speculate a potential lipolytic
advantage of WP.
In contrast to the previous free-living
studies, Bray et al. (9) confined subjects
to a metabolic ward and controlled all
aspects of energy balance for 8 weeks
under 1 of 3 levels of protein intake: 5%
(low-protein: 0.7 g/kg), 15% (normal-
protein: 1.8 g/kg), and 25% of total
energy (high-protein: 3.0 g/kg). The esca-
lating protein intakes were at the expense
of dietary fat. A caloric surplus was set at
40% above maintenance needs. Although
all groups gained net body mass, the
composition of changes varied markedly
between conditions: The low-protein
group lost 0.7 kg of lean mass, whereas
the normal- and high-protein groups
gained 2.87 and 3.98 kg of lean mass,
respectively. All 3 groups gained similar
amounts of body fat (;3.5 kg).
Methodological differences may explain
discrepancies between the findings of
Bray et al. (9) and Antonio et al. (2–5)
For one, Bray et al.’s subjects were
untrained and did not participate in
formal resistance exercise, whereas An-
tonio et al.’s subjects were trained and
underwent a periodized resistance train-
ing program. This alone could have ener-
getically offset a substantial portion of
the assigned energy surplus, which in
most studies was approximately half of
the surplus imposed by Bray et al. Fur-
thermore, under free-living conditions,
the satiating effect of high protein intakes
could have resulted in a spontaneous
reduction of energy intake from the
other dietary macronutrients. Finally,
the subjects in the lowest protein condi-
tion in Bray et al. consumed an amount
of protein below the RDA (;0.68 g/kg/
d). Alternatively, the lowest protein in-
takes in the studies by Antonio et al. were
at or above the level needed to maximize
muscle protein accretion in resistance-
trained individuals (.1.6 g/kg/d).
In contrast to the results of Antonio et al.
and Bray et al., Spillane and Willoughby
(48) compared the effects of a high-
carbohydrate supplement (HC: 312 g/
d of maltodextrin) versus an isocaloric
high-protein–carbohydrate supplement
(HPC: 94 g of protein, 196 g of carbo-
hydrate, and 22 g of fat) in trained men
undergoing a periodized resistance
training program. Both groups con-
sumed a large energy surplus (1,248
kcal). After 8 weeks, neither treatment
had a significant effect on lean mass,
myogenic markers, total muscle protein,
or myosin heavy chain content. Both
groups gained fat mass, but it was only
significant in the high-carbohydrate con-
dition. These findings seem somewhat
surprising, because baseline protein
intake of group consuming the higher
protein supplement was suboptimal
(1.4 g/kg), and the supplement increased
daily intake to 2.5 g/kg within abun-
dantly hypercaloric conditions. Never-
theless, it bears mentioning that
although the lean mass gain in the higher
protein group was not statistically signif-
icant (p 5 0.068), this may be the result
of a Type II error because of the study’s
small sample size; the absolute gain (2.2
kg & 0.25 in HPC & HC, respectively)
may have practical significance. Further-
more, although effect sizes were small
(0.38 & 0.06 in HPC and HC,
 respectively), a potential advantage of
the higher protein condition was appar-
ent. This is potentially meaningful in
bodybuilding, where relatively small dif-
ferences in muscle mass can be the dif-
ference in winning or losing
a competition. The effect of fat overfeed-
ing on the body composition of exercise-
trained individuals has been previously
examined (1). In a 4-week, single-arm
pilot study, trained subjects consumed
an average of 6.4 jars of peanut butter,
yielding an additional 526 kcal/d (79%
fat, 6% carbohydrate, and 15% protein).
Total energy and fat intake increased sig-
nificantly, but protein intake did not.
Subjects gained a significant amount of
body fat (0.8 kg), with no other signifi-
cant changes in body composition or
bodyweight. These results are somewhat
expected, given the lower oxidative pri-
ority and higher efficiency of storage of
dietary fat compared with other macro-
nutrients (25).
DISCUSSION
The available data on the energy and
nutrient intakes of bodybuilders are
largely observational. However, the find-
ings provide a useful perspective of the
larger picture when forming practical
recommendations. A systematic review
by Spendlove et al. (47) examined the
dietary intake of competitive bodybuild-
ers. In men, energy intake averaged
3,818.7 kcal (43.9 kcal/kg) in the non-
competition phase, and 3,289.8 kcal (37.7
kcal/kg) in the contest preparation
phase. Protein and carbohydrate ranged
1.9–4.3 and 3.8–5.3 g/kg, respectively.
Fat ranged 14–28% of total energy.
Women’s energy intake averaged
1,635.1 kcal (27.9 kcal/kg) in the non-
competition phase, and 1,213.6 kcal
(21.7 kcal/kg) in the contest preparation
phase. Protein and carbohydrate ranged
0.8–2.8 and 2.8–7.5 g/kg, respectively. Fat
ranged 9–34.5% of total energy. A recent
study by Chappell et al. (15) examined
the dietary intake of high-level drug-free
bodybuilders. An interesting and useful
facet of the paper was the specification of
dietary intakes of competitors who
placed in the top-5, which are as follows.
Men’s energy intake at the start and end
of contest preparation was 3,214.8 kcal
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
(39.0 kcal/kg) and 2,660.6 kcal
(36.4 kcal/kg), respectively. Protein, car-
bohydrate, and fat at the start and end of
contest preparation ranged 3.0–3.3 g/kg,
5.1–4.6 g/kg, and 0.8–0.6 g/kg, respec-
tively. Women’s energy intake at the
start and end of contest preparation
was 2000.8 kcal (30.9 kcal/kg) and
1,598.9 kcal (29.2 kcal/kg), respectively.
Protein, carbohydrate, and fat at the
start and end of contest preparation
ranged 2.7–2.8 g/kg, 3.7–3.5 g/kg, and
0.7–0.5 g/kg, respectively.
It bears repeating that the findings of the
aforementioned reviews are observa-
tional, and thus should not be presumed
to be universally optimal. The dietary fat
intakes stand out as unsustainably low.
Nevertheless, the findings of Chappell,
et al. (15) provide useful reference data
for high-level, drug-free bodybuilding
competitors seeking a baseline model
to which personalized adjustments can
be made. For the goal of muscle growth,
the starting values would be most appro-
priate, because the ending values repre-
sent precontest/hypocaloric conditions.
A sustained energy deficit compromises
growth rate and muscular potential by
inhibiting MPS and molecular anabolic
signaling. Although it is possible for mus-
cle gain to occur under hypocaloric con-
ditions, the capacity for this
phenomenon diminishes alongside in-
creases in training status and proximity
to hypertrophic potential. Eucaloric con-
ditions present a better hypertrophic
environment, but they are compromised
by a lack of available energy to suffi-
ciently drive anabolic processes and mit-
igate catabolic processes to robustly
increase net protein balance. Hypercalor-
ic conditions provide the ideal milieu for
promoting muscle growth by supporting
the increasing energetic demands of
training. Moreover, tissue growth itself
involves muscle repair, remodeling, and
maintenance—all of which are energeti-
cally expensive processes that must be
sufficiently fueled.
The magnitude of the daily energy sur-
plus should reflect the training status of
the individual. In addition, it should be
noted that the effect of a caloric surplus
on nonexercise activity thermogenesis
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
(NEAT) can vary widely between indi-
viduals, independent of training status.
An 8-week trial by Levine et al. (28)
examined the effects of a 1,000 kcal sur-
plus on nonobese subjects. Results
showed that 432 kcal were stored in adi-
pose tissue, and 531 kcal was oxidized;
336 kcal of this expenditure was attribut-
able to NEAT. On the high end of the
range, one subject’s NEAT was estimated
at 692 kcal/d. Given the potential for
substantial interindividual variation in
upregulation of NEAT in response to
overfeeding, vigilance is warranted to
adjust caloric requirements based on
individual response.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The lines dividing training status cate-
gories are unavoidably nebulous.
Based on the available evidence, larger
caloric surpluses (;500–1,000 kcal/d)
seem appropriate for novice-level phy-
sique athletes with a wide margin of
available muscular growth potential.
Smaller surpluses (250–500 kcal/d)
seem appropriate for more advanced
physique athletes who possess a nar-
rower margin of potential to fulfill.
The latter population is more prone
to excessive fat gain from aggressive
surpluses, which can precipitate greater
muscle loss when dieting down to
competition body fat levels. In relative
terms, these figures amount to approx-
imately 10–20% above maintenance re-
quirements for trainees past the novice
stage. More aggressive surpluses (20–
40%) should be used judiciously and
limited to beginning trainees, or those
suspected to be prone to increases in
NEAT which could compromise or
even completely neutralize attempts
at sustaining an energy surplus.
Macronutrient composition of the sur-
plus can be individualized according to
preference, tolerance, and goal. The
collective work of Antonio et al. (2–5)
provides grounds for caution against
using protein as the sole macronutrient
when attempting to impose an energy
surplus for the primary goal of muscle
gain. Once total daily protein is opti-
mized at ;1.6–2.2 g/kg (7), additional
consumption beyond this amount
5
 Energy Surplus and Muscle Hypertrophy
seems likely to be unnecessary to max-
imize the hypertrophic response to
training. However, it has been hypoth-
esized that advanced bodybuilders
undergoing high-volume training pro-
grams may benefit from somewhat
higher protein intakes (40). Further-
more, increasing protein intake to as
much as 2.5 g/kg during periods of
increased training volume may potenti-
ate muscle mass gains (23).
Several recent studies using the indicator
amino acid oxidation (IAAO) technique
lend further support for protein require-
ments beyond commonly recommen-
ded values. IAAO is based on the
partitioning of amino acids between
whole-body protein synthesis versus oxi-
dation. The following protein dosing
ranges in resistance-trained men and
women, listed as average estimated re-
quirements and upper confidence limits,
were found to be 2.0–2.38 g/kg (33) and
1.49–1.93 g/kg (31), respectively; male
bodybuilders required 1.7–2.2 g/kg (7).
The silver lining of protein-dominant
energy surpluses—at least in free-living
Training status Magnitude of the energy surplus
Untrained/ Approximately 20–40% above
novice or maintenance needs (;500–
deconditioned 1,000 kcal)
Trained/more Approximately 10–20% above
advanced; maintenance needs (;250–500
closer to kcal)
maximum
potential
6 VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | FEBRUARY 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
conditions—is a tendency to prevent fat
gain. Protein-dominant energy surpluses
in the context of progressive resistance
training have even resulted in fat loss
(3,11,23). Fat-dominant surpluses are
not ideal, because of their greater effi-
ciency for storage as adipose tissue (1).
By default, an energy surplus for mass-
building should center around higher
carbohydrate intakes, which can
include varying proportions of protein
depending on how cautiously one
wants to court the potential for concur-
rent fat gain. In line with this frame-
work are the strikingly favorable
results seen by Rozenek et al. (41). Their
results, caused via a 2010 kcal surplus,
are not likely reproducible in individuals
past the novice stage of training and
muscular development. However, it is
reasonable to hypothesize that this
carbohydrate-dominant model can be
scaled down and applied successfully
in trained individuals. Using the conser-
vative example of a 10–20% energy sur-
plus, an individual with a maintenance
intake of 2,500 kcal would target an
Table 1
Energy surplus guideline summary
Nature of the energy surplus
Greater potential benefit of
a predominance of carbohydrate
due to higher total energy
surplus capacity. Surplus should
include a minimum protein dose
of approximately 20–40 g (or at
least ;0.4 g/kg of total
bodyweight).
Lesser potential benefit of
carbohydrate predominance due
to lower total energy surplus
capacity. Surplus should include
a minimum protein dose of
approximately 20–40 g (or at least
;0.4 g/kg of total bodyweight).
additional 250–500 kcal. There are
a multitude of individual considerations
that warrant flexibility with the macro-
nutrient composition of the surplus. For
example, a 20–40 g protein dose can
serve as a basis for robustly stimulating
acute MPS in case this surplus is imple-
mented as an independent meal. It is
notable that McNaughton et al. (30)
found that MPS was significantly
greater with a 40 g dose of whey com-
pared with 20 g after a high-volume/
whole-body resistance training bout.
The remainder of the meal (340–420
kcal) then can consist predominantly
of carbohydrate. The accompanying
Table summarizes the key points
regarding caloric surplus guidelines for
maximizing increases in muscle mass.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Further research is needed to reach more
definitive answers regarding the optimi-
zation of the timing of the surplus relative
to training. Although the concept of
a narrow postexercise “anabolic window
of opportunity” has been highly scruti-
nized (6,43,44), it remains undetermined
Notes & caveats
First and foremost, a caloric surplus
for muscle gain must be built on
a foundation of sufficient total
daily protein and energy intake. In
general, for optimizing high-
intensity fueling requirements of
progressive resistance training, an
energy surplus should center
around higher carbohydrate
intakes. However, increased
proportions of protein can be
used depending on how
cautiously one wants to court the
potential for concurrent fat gain.
More advanced trainees closer to
their potential have less room for
surplus energy partitioning into
lean tissue, and thus may choose
to use protein-focused surpluses.
Regardless of training status,
individuals cautiously avoiding fat
gain may also benefit from this
tactic.
 whether muscle gain and/or suppression
of fat gain can be maximized by closely
matching energy intake with training out-
put over the course of the week (i.e., linear
intake versus nonlinear intake that corre-
sponds with training and nontrain-
ing days).
An interesting area of speculation is
whether insulin-mediated reduction
of protein breakdown can in some
way increase net muscle protein bal-
ance in the face of sufficient protein
dosing. In whole-body protein metab-
olism, Kim et al. (26) compared 40 ver-
sus 70 g of protein (primarily via beef
patties) and found that although MPS
was similar, net protein balance at the
whole-body level was greater in the 70-
g dose. This showed that protein
beyond that which maximized MPS
was not simply oxidized. Given these
findings, the authors asserted that MPS
alone is an insufficient measure of over-
all anabolic response. They even spec-
ulated that the large proportion of
amino acids retained by the gut can
become available for incorporation
into muscle upon release during pro-
tein breakdown (27).
Several acute studies have failed to
show further MPS via the addition of
carbohydrate to protein dosed at ;20–
25 g (45). Furthermore, Glynn et al.
(21) reported that muscle protein
breakdown plays only a minor role in
the postexercise anabolic response to
essential amino acid and carbohydrate
intake, regardless of carbohydrate dose
or insulin level. In agreement with
these short-term findings, a 12-week
trial by Hulmi et al. (24) found no sig-
nificant difference in muscle hypertro-
phy and strength gains from the
postexercise ingestion of 30 g of whey
compared with consuming the supple-
ment with 34.5 g of maltodextrin.
Another area warranting investigation
is the impact of carbohydrate quality
(i.e., chronic consumption of micro-
and phytonutrient-dense carbohydrate
sources versus micronutrient-sparse
sources) on body composition and
athletic performance, which in turn
has potential implications for success
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
in bodybuilding and other physique-
related competitions. Research has
yet to clearly determine whether the
composition of the surplus should be
composed primarily of carbohydrate
or protein for best results. The diffi-
culty in eliciting the answers here is
that the surplus is inseparable from
the diet as a whole. It is possible that
our current understanding of what
constitutes optimal total daily protein
dosing and nutrient distribution is still
incomplete, and therefore presumptu-
ous, particularly in those involved in
intense resistance-training programs.
Future work should endeavor to deter-
mine how to best optimize nutritional
protocols for physique competitors
based on individual needs and the
nature of the training stimulus.
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
The authors report no conflicts of interest
and no source of funding.
Alan A. Aragon
is a sports nutri-
tionist and chief
editor of the Alan
Aragon Research
Review.
Brad J.
Schoenfeld is
an associate pro-
fessor and director
of the graduate
program in
Human Perfor-
mance and Fitness
at Lehman College
in the Bronx.
REFERENCES
1. Antonio J, Axelrod C, Ellerbroek A, et al. The
effect of peanut butter overfeeding in
trained men and women: A pilot trial.
J Exerc Nutr 1: 2018.
2. Antonio J, Peacock CA, Ellerbroek A,
Fromhoff B, Silver T. The effects of consuming
a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
composition in resistance-trained individuals.
J Int Soc Sports Nutr 11: 19, 2014.
3. Antonio J, Ellerbroek A, Silver T, et al. A high
protein diet (3.4 g/kg/d) combined with
a heavy resistance training program improves
body composition in healthy trained men and
women—A follow-up investigation. J Int Soc
Sports Nutr 12: 39, 2015.
4. Antonio J, Ellerbroek A, Silver T, Vargas L,
Peacock C. The effects of a high protein
diet on indices of health and body
composition—A crossover trial in
resistance-trained men. J Int Soc Sports
Nutr 13: 3, 2016.
5. Antonio J, Ellerbroek A, Silver T, et al. A high
protein diet has No harmful effects: A one-
year crossover study in resistance-trained
males. J Nutr Metab 2016: 9104792,
2016.
6. Aragon AA, Schoenfeld BJ. Nutrient timing
revisited: Is there a post-exercise anabolic
window? J Int Soc Sports Nutr 10: 5, 2013.
7. Bandegan A, Courtney-Martin G, Rafii M,
Pencharz PB, Lemon PW. Indicator amino
acid-derived estimate of dietary protein
requirement for male bodybuilders on
a nontraining day is several-fold greater
than the current recommended dietary
allowance. J Nutr 147: 850–857, 2017.
8. Boirie Y, Beaufrere B, Ritz P. Energetic
cost of protein turnover in healthy elderly
humans. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 25:
601–605, 2001.
9. Bray GA, Smith SR, de Jonge L, et al.
Effect of dietary protein content on
weight gain, energy expenditure, and
body composition during overeating: A
randomized controlled trial. J Am Med
Assoc 307: 47–55, 2012.
10. Buckinx F, Landi F, Cesari M, et al. Pitfalls in
the measurement of muscle mass: A need
for a reference standard. J Cachexia
Sarcopenia Muscle 9: 269–278, 2018.
11. Campbell BI, Aguilar D, Conlin L, et al. Effects
of high versus low protein intake on body
composition and maximal strength in aspiring
female physique athletes engaging in an 8-
week resistance training program. Int J Sport
Nutr Exerc Metab 28: 580–585, 2018.
12. Carbone JW, McClung JP, Pasiakos SM.
Skeletal muscle responses to negative
energy balance: Effects of dietary protein.
Adv Nutr 3: 119–126, 2012.
13. Carbone JW, McClung JP, Pasiakos SM.
Recent advances in the characterization of
skeletal muscle and whole-body protein
responses to dietary protein and exercise
during negative energy balance. Adv Nutr
10: 70–79, 2019.
7
 Energy Surplus and Muscle Hypertrophy
14. Cava E, Yeat NC, Mittendorfer B.
Preserving healthy muscle during weight
loss. Adv Nutr 8: 511–519, 2017.
15. Chappell AJ, Simper T, Barker ME. Nutritional
strategies of high level natural bodybuilders
during competition preparation. J Int Soc
Sports Nutr 15: 4, 2018.
16. Churchward-Venne TA, Murphy CH,
Longland TM, Phillips SM. Role of protein and
amino acids in promoting lean mass accretion
with resistance exercise and attenuating lean
mass loss during energy deficit in humans.
Amino Acids 45: 231–240, 2013.
17. Crewther BT, Heke T, Keogh J. The
effects of two equal-volume training
protocols upon strength, body
composition and salivary hormones in
male rugby union players. Biol Sport 33:
111–116, 2016.
18. Donnelly JE, Sharp T, Houmard J, et al.
Muscle hypertrophy with large-scale
weight loss and resistance training. Am J
Clin Nutr 58: 561–565, 1993.
19. Garthe I, Raastad T, Refsnes PE, Koivisto A,
Sundgot-Borgen J. Effect of two different
weight-loss rates on body composition and
strength and power-related performance in
elite athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab
21: 97–104, 2011.
20. Garthe I, Raastad T, Refsnes PE, Sundgot-
Borgen J. Effect of nutritional intervention on
body composition and performance in elite
athletes. Eur J Sport Sci 13: 295–303, 2013.
21. Glynn EL, Fry CS, Drummond MJ, et al.
Muscle protein breakdown has a minor role
in the protein anabolic response to
essential amino acid and carbohydrate
intake following resistance exercise. Am J
Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 299:
R533–R540, 2010.
22. Grgic J, Mcllvenna LC, Fyfe JJ, et al. Does
aerobic training promote the same skeletal
muscle hypertrophy as resistance training?
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Sports Med 49: 233–254, 2019.
23. Haun CT, Vann CG, Mobley CB, et al.
Effects of graded whey supplementation
during extreme-volume resistance training.
Front Nutr 5: 84, 2018.
24. Hulmi JJ, Laakso M, Mero AA, et al. The effects
of whey protein with or without carbohydrates
on resistance training adaptations. J Int Soc
Sports Nutr 12: 48, 2015.
25. Jequier E. Pathways to obesity. Int J Obes
Relat Metab Disord 26(Suppl 2): S12–
S17, 2002.
26. Kim IY, Schutzler S, Schrader A, et al.
The anabolic response to a meal
containing different amounts of protein is
not limited by the maximal stimulation of
8 VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | FEBRUARY 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
protein synthesis in healthy young adults.
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 310:
E73–E80, 2016.
27. Kim IY, Deutz NEP, Wolfe RR. Update on
maximal anabolic response to dietary
protein. Clin Nutr 37: 411–418, 2018.
28. Levine JA, Eberhardt NL, Jensen MD. Role
of nonexercise activity thermogenesis in
resistance to fat gain in humans. Science
283: 212–214, 1999.
29. Longland TM, Oikawa SY, Mitchell CJ,
Devries MC, Phillips SM. Higher
compared with lower dietary protein
during an energy deficit combined with
intense exercise promotes greater lean
mass gain and fat mass loss: A
randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr 103:
738–746, 2016.
30. Macnaughton LS, Wardle SL, Witard OC,
et al. The response of muscle protein
synthesis following whole-body resistance
exercise is greater following 40 g than 20 g
of ingested whey protein. Physiol Rep 4:
2016. doi: 10.14814/phy2.12893.
31. Malowany JM, West DWD, Williamson E,
et al. Protein to maximize whole-body
anabolism in resistance-trained females
after exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 51:
798–804, 2019.
32. Margolis LM, Rivas DA, Berrone M, et al.
Prolonged calorie restriction
downregulates skeletal muscle
mTORC1 signaling independent of
dietary protein intake and associated
microRNA expression. Front Physiol 7:
445, 2016.
33. Mazzulla M, Sawan SA, Williamson E, et al.
Protein intake to maximize whole-body
anabolism during postexercise recovery in
resistance-trained men with high habitual
intakes is severalfold greater than the current
recommended dietary allowance. J Nutr,
2019 [Epub ahead of print].
34. McBride A, Ghilagaber S, Nikolaev A,
Hardie DG. The glycogen-binding domain
on the AMPK beta subunit allows the
kinase to act as a glycogen sensor. Cell
Metab 9: 23–34, 2009.
35. McClave SA, Snider HL. Dissecting the
energy needs of the body. Curr Opin Clin
Nutr Metab Care 4: 143–147, 2001.
36. Miller T, Mull S, Aragon AA, Krieger J,
Schoenfeld BJ. Resistance training
combined with diet decreases body fat
while preserving lean mass independent
of resting metabolic rate: A randomized
trial. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 28:
46–54, 2018.
37. Morton RW, Murphy KT, McKellar SR, et al.
A systematic review, meta-analysis and
meta-regression of the effect of protein
supplementation on resistance training-
induced gains in muscle mass and strength
in healthy adults. Br J Sports Med 52:
376–384, 2018.
38. Pasiakos SM, Vislocky LM, Carbone JW,
et al. Acute energy deprivation affects
skeletal muscle protein synthesis and
associated intracellular signaling proteins
in physically active adults. J Nutr 140:
745–751, 2010.
39. Ribeiro AS, Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ,
Aguiar AF, Cyrino ES. Effects of different
dietary energy intake following resistance
training on muscle mass and body fat in
bodybuilders: A pilot study. J Hum Kinet
70:125–134, 2019.
40. Ribeiro AS, Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ.
Should competitive bodybuilders ingest
more protein than current evidence-based
recommendations? Sports Med 49: 1481–
1485, 2019.
41. Rozenek R, Ward P, Long S, Garhammer J.
Effects of high-calorie supplements on
body composition and muscular strength
following resistance training. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness 42: 340–347, 2002.
42. Scafoglieri A, Clarys JP. Dual energy X-ray
absorptiometry: Gold standard for muscle
mass? J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 9:
786–787, 2018.
43. Schoenfeld BJ, Aragon AA, Krieger JW. The
effect of protein timing on muscle strength
and hypertrophy: A meta-analysis. J Int Soc
Sports Nutr 10: 53, 2013.
44. Schoenfeld BJ, Aragon A, Wilborn C, et al.
Pre- versus post-exercise protein intake
has similar effects on muscular
adaptations. PeerJ 5: e2825, 2017.
45. Schoenfeld BJ, Aragon AA. Is there
a postworkout anabolic window of
opportunity for nutrient consumption?
Clearing up controversies. J Orthop Sports
Phys Ther 48: 911–914, 2018.
46. Schutz Y. Protein turnover, ureagenesis
and gluconeogenesis. Int J Vitam Nutr Res
81: 101–107, 2011.
47. Spendlove J, Mitchell L, Gifford J, et al.
Dietary intake of competitive bodybuilders.
Sports Med 45: 1041–1063, 2015.
48. Spillane M, Willoughby DS. Daily
overfeeding from protein and/or
carbohydrate supplementation for eight
weeks in conjunction with resistance
training does not improve body
composition and muscle strength or
increase markers indicative of muscle
protein synthesis and myogenesis in
resistance-trained males. J Sports Sci Med
15: 17–25, 2016.