Натуральная рекомпозиция - жир в мышцы - 3 правила

I remember back about seven years ago, I put out videos about body recomposition, and everyone in the comments was telling me, "Sanya, you're talking nonsense, it's impossible, you're breaking the laws of physics with recomposition." "Well, it can't be that in a calorie deficit, muscles grow." That's just some kind of mysticism, right? Yeah. And then, as it turned out, a bunch of studies came out on this topic that further confirmed my information. Yes, later many people picked up on it, and everyone changed their tune a little bit. Well, I'm not saying it came directly from me, but in general, everyone caught up on the information and, let's say, updated their knowledge, because some study came out in 2016, and people started perceiving it a bit differently. And then the information that followed was: "Yeah, recomposition is possible, but only in very rare cases: when you have very little muscle mass, a lot of fat, and only for beginners, and you really have to set everything up perfectly, so it's basically difficult, meaning, well, not for everyone." Right. But now, new studies from 2025-2026 have been released, studies on trained individuals with a year and a half, or five years of experience. And it turned out that recomposition works for everyone, always. And even now, as I stand before you, I am currently undergoing recomposition. Why? You'll say: "Sanya, you've withered away." "What kind of hellish recomposition are you having?" Yes, indeed, I withered away because I stopped eating, stopped training, well, as usually happens with me, and I regressed. So, in short, I lost my shape. But recomposition works not only for growing new muscle fibers, but it also works for regrowing old muscle fibers that were already built at some point. That is, let's say, returning to form, yeah, reversing the regression. So that's why I did a strength workout yesterday, and today I, let's say, ate a bunch of protein and have, accordingly, started to get my muscles back bit by bit. If you look, of course, I haven't regained all my muscles, but I've already started to get them back little by little. In any case, the main factors that the studies tell us about—we'll take a look at these studies now, analyze everything, and find out exactly what factors are needed for recomposition to occur. Because, as it turns out, recomposition can happen not only for beginners, but also for experienced athletes. Even for those with a lot of experience, even for those with a lot of muscle, recomposition still occurs. And there are certain factors that need to be followed. We will break down these factors now. So, one of the important factors, in my opinion, came from a study. We’re just going to start piecing this all together bit by bit, because, you know, there aren't any exact studies that say clearly, point by point, what needs to be done for recomposition. No, there are tons of studies that examine different formats. For example, one study might look at protein intake. At what protein level was recomposition better, right, with what kind of training, what deficit was needed, or what surplus. And as it turns out, for recomposition, in principle, a calorie deficit isn't even necessary. There are studies that prove a deficit is not needed. People at maintenance calories, just maintenance, still experienced recomposition—fat was lost and muscle was gained. How is that possible? Yeah. And now we’re going to look into all of this. Look, I liked these studies. We’re going to assemble this piece by piece. They compared a diet without strength training to a diet with strength training. Weight loss in both groups was the same, but in the strength training group, people lost more fat and kept more muscle. So, what conclusion can we draw? Strength training is important. I mean, essentially, you see, total weight lost was minus eight in both cases. But when a person trains, goes to the gym, and does strength training, they end up preserving more muscle, and it turns out that those who don't train lose their muscle. So from these studies, we can conclude that you need to train. Moving on, let’s go further. Regarding protein, look, there were studies comparing a group that took 1.2 grams of protein to a group that took 2.4 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. In the high-protein group, muscle mass grew by about 1.2 kg, while fat mass decreased by 4.8 kg. In the other group, respectively, plus 0.1 kg and minus 3.5 kg. They lost about the same amount of weight, plus or minus 3.5 kg, but the high-protein group gained muscle mass at the same time. It turned out that the changes in weight were the same. So, one guy became skinnier, while the other guy achieved recomposition and became more muscular. This is how it happens when the scale weight stays the same. I often post on Telegram and write that the best recomp, in my opinion, is when your weight stays the same, but your physique changes. Meaning, it seems like nothing happened, you're at 72 kg, or 72–73. But we can see that the person has become muscular, whereas they were previously fatty. That is the very essence of body recomposition. Basically, you've traded your fat for muscle, so to speak. That's exactly how it happens. Of course, we don't literally turn fat into muscle, but we oxidize fat. We take the energy released from that fat and use it for muscle growth. There you go. And, in principle, you see, it's a very important factor. The second one. We established the first one is strength training. The second is a sufficient amount of protein. As you can see, without protein, nothing much happened, but with an increased amount of protein, recomposition went great. The conditions were as follows: 40 men, with 20 in each group. Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention, the calorie deficit was 40%, which is very high. You know, many people say that for recomp, you only need a small deficit. This study shows a 40% calorie deficit, which is a massive, damn big deficit. Yes. And, of course, if you aren't eating enough protein with such a brutal deficit, your muscles most likely won't grow. And as we can see, in principle, yeah, while they didn't waste away, they didn't grow either, because 1.2 grams of protein is basically just for maintenance, as you've gathered. Whereas 2.4 grams of protein is specifically needed for growth. There you go. And they were all following the exact same program. Protein was increased by reducing fats, by the way, right? So, the calorie count in both groups was the same, but the group with 1.2 grams of protein had more fat in their diet. And those with 2.4 grams of protein, they reduced their fat intake. And because of that, the calorie count remained the same. Well, there’s a hell of a lot of protein there, and plenty of fats too. You see, as it turns out, you don't really need that much fat. Let me tell you guys, all these studies were conducted on natural athletes. Many people think that you need fat in your diet for natural progress. I've already repeated this a hundred times. I don't know who came up with that story. Please, give me these studies that say a natural athlete needs that one damn gram of fat per kilogram of body weight just to survive. I’ve lowered fat levels for my clients during recomposition to minimum values a hundred times, roughly speaking, 0.2-0.3 grams per kilogram. No drops in testosterone, no loss of energy, no problems whatsoever. No skin breakouts, no hair loss, and no brittle nails. This doesn't mean that everyone should lower their fat intake forever. Well, fat is definitely necessary. But when it comes to recomposition, let's say you need to get in shape, you want to get in shape, you’re not going to spend your whole life doing it. To lose weight, you’ll spend, well, roughly three or four months on it. And basically, when you’re on low fats for a short period, our body isn't stupid; it stores fat for a reason, you see. And the most interesting thing is that it stores different types of fats. I mean, it has a bit o

in a calorie deficit, muscles grow." That's just some kind of mysticism, right? Yeah. And then, as it turned out , a bunch of studies came out on this topic that further confirmed my information. Yes, later many people picked up on it, and everyone changed

their tune a little bit. Well, I'm not saying it came directly from me, but in general, everyone caught up on the information and, let's say, updated their knowledge, because some study came out in 2016, and people started perceiving it a bit differently. And

then the information that followed was: "Yeah, recomposition is possible, but only in very rare cases: when you have very little muscle mass, a lot of fat, and only for beginners, and you really have to set everything up perfectly, so

it's, uh, basically difficult, meaning, well, not for everyone." Right. But now , new studies from 2025-2026 have been released, studies on trained individuals with a year and a half, or 5 years of experience. And it turned out that recomposition works for

everyone, always. And even now, as I stand before you, I am currently undergoing recomposition. Why? You'll say: "Sanya, you've withered away."" What kind of hellish recomposition are you having?" Yes, indeed, I withered away because I stopped eating, stopped

training, well, as usually happens with me, and I regressed. So, in short, I lost my shape. But recomposition works not only for growing new muscle fibers, but it also works for regrowing old muscle fibers that were already built

at some point. That is, let's say, returning to form, yeah, reversing the regression. So that's why I did a strength workout yesterday, and today I , let's say, ate a bunch of protein and have, accordingly, started to get my

muscles back bit by bit. If you look, of course, I haven't regained all my muscles, but I've already started to get them back little by little. In any case, the main factors that the studies tell us about—we'll take a look at

these studies now, analyze everything, and find out exactly what factors are needed for recomposition to occur.

Because, as it turns out, recomposition can happen not only for beginners, but also for experienced athletes. Even for those with a lot of experience, even for those with a lot of muscle, recomposition still occurs. And there are certain factors that need to be

followed. We will break down these factors now. So, one of the important factors, in my opinion, came from a study. We’re just going to start piecing this all together bit by bit, because, you know, there aren't any exact studies that say clearly, point

by point, what needs to be done for recomposition. No, there are tons of studies that examine different formats.

For example, one study might look at protein intake. At what protein level was recomposition better, right, with what kind of training, what deficit was needed, or what surplus. And as it turns out, for recomposition, in principle, a calorie deficit isn't even

necessary. There are studies that prove a deficit is not needed. People at maintenance calories, just maintenance, still experienced recomposition—fat was lost and muscle was gained. How is that possible? Yeah. And now we’re going to look into all of this. Look, I

liked these studies. We’re going to assemble this piece by piece. They compared a diet without strength training to a diet with strength training. Weight loss in both groups was the same, but in the strength training group, people lost more fat

and kept more muscle. So, what conclusion can we draw? Strength training is important. I mean, essentially, you see, total weight lost was -8 in both cases. But when a person trains, goes to the gym, and does strength training, they end up

preserving more muscle, and it turns out that those who don't train lose their muscle. So from these studies, we can conclude that you need to train.

Moving on, let’s go further. Regarding protein, look, there were studies comparing a group that took 1.2 grams of protein to a group that took 2.4 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. In the high-protein group, muscle mass grew by about 1.2 kg, while

fat mass decreased by 4.8 kg. In the other group, respectively, +0.1 kg and -3.5 kg. They lost about the same amount of weight, plus or minus 3.5 kg, but the high-protein group gained muscle mass at the same time. It turned

out that the changes in weight were the same. So, one guy became skinnier, while the other guy achieved recomposition and became more muscular.

This is how it happens when the scale weight stays the same. I often post on Telegram and write that the best recomp , in my opinion, is when your weight stays the same, but your physique changes. Meaning, it seems like nothing

happened, you're at 72 kg, or 72–73. But we can see that the person has become muscular, whereas they were previously fatty. That is the very essence of body recomposition.

Basically, you've traded your fat for muscle, so to speak. That's exactly how it happens. Of course, we don't literally turn fat into muscle, but we oxidize fat. We take the energy released from that fat and use it for

muscle growth. There you go. And, in principle, you see, it's a very important factor. The second one. We established the first one is strength training. The second is a sufficient amount of protein. As you can see, without protein, nothing much happened,

but with an increased amount of protein , recomposition went great. The conditions were as follows: 40 men, with 20 in each group. Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention, the calorie deficit was 40%. Which is very high.

You know, many people say that for recomp, you only need a small deficit. This study shows a 40%calorie deficit.

Which is a massive, damn big deficit. Yes. And, of course, if you aren't eating enough protein with such a brutal deficit, your muscles most likely won't grow. And as we can see, in principle, yeah, while they didn't waste away, they didn't grow either,

because 1.2 g of protein is basically just for maintenance, as you've gathered. Whereas 2.4 g of protein is specifically needed for growth. There you go. And they were all following the exact same program. Protein was increased by reducing fats, by the way,

right? So, the calorie count in both groups was the same, but the group with 1.2 g of protein had more fat in their diet. And those with 2.4 g of protein, they reduced their fat intake. And because of that, the calorie count

remained the same. Well, there’s a hell of a lot of protein there, and plenty of fats too. You see, as it turns out, you don't really need that much fat. Let me tell you guys, all these studies were conducted on natural

athletes. Many people think that you need fat in your diet for natural progress. I've already repeated this a hundred times. I don't know who came up with that story. Please, give me these studies that say a natural athlete

needs that one damn gram of fat per kilogram of body weight just to survive . I’ve lowered fat levels for my clients during recomposition to minimum values a hundred times, roughly speaking, 0.2-0.3 g/kg. No drops in testosterone, no loss of energy, no

problems whatsoever. No skin breakouts, no hair loss, and no brittle nails. This doesn't mean that everyone should lower their fat intake. Forever. Well, fat is definitely necessary. But when it comes to recomposition, let's say you need to get in shape, you want to

get in shape, you’re not going to spend your whole life doing it. To lose weight, you’ll spend, well, roughly three or four months on it. And basically, when you’re on low fats for a short period, our body isn't

stupid; it stores fat for a reason, you see. And the most interesting thing is that it stores different types of fats.

I mean, it has a bit of lard here, a bit of omega-3 fats there. There’s a little bit of fat from D3 here. And when it needs something, it breaks down exactly the fat it requires and extracts what it needs from it. Do you

understand? So it turns out we have deposits of vegetable fats, deposits of non-vegetable, meat-based, well, what are they called, damn, saturated fats, right? I mean, various fats. We have a full, damn buffet of fats in our bellies. The body isn't a fool. It will

take what it needs at any given moment. If there is fat, of course; if you have no fat at all, then there will definitely be problems. But otherwise, as long as it has reserves, believe me, if you aren't consuming any, it didn't

store all that for nothing. And it will use it calmly. So don't think you'll die without fat, even as a natural lifter. And these studies, you see, showed that it is possible to perform recomposition naturally. And the most

interesting thing is that these guys aren't beginners. They already had experience, as far as I remember, a year and a half or more. Meaning people who already have training experience.

And now the most interesting part: is a deficit even necessary for recomposition to happen? And here are new studies from 2026. Fresh off the press, still hot, roughly speaking, which perhaps no one has even seen yet.

We are going to find out about all these interesting things now. Look, 300 participants, mostly men with an average of one and a half years of strength training experience. The study lasted 10 weeks. Four strength sessions per week. In both groups, they were

prescribed 2.5 grams of protein, so a sufficient amount of protein. And We had one group at a maintenance calorie level, and the second group had a 250- calorie deficit. What does maintenance mean? It means, let's say, the norm;

there is no deficit and no surplus. When you are at a maintenance level, your weight always stays the same and nothing changes. That is, body fat doesn't increase or decrease. That is what maintenance is. How do you find

your maintenance? Uh, there are formulas, there are formulas that say you need to multiply your weight by 24, and you'll get your basal metabolic rate. To that, you add your activity.

Roughly speaking, you walk, say, 15,000 steps a day. You can also calculate that using a formula, how many calories steps give you, say, roughly, 10,000 steps, for example, is 200 calories, 15 , maybe 400, or 300 calories. And you

add cardio to that, say, another 400 calories, a strength workout another 300 calories. So you calculate your total activity plus your basal metabolism, how much your body consumes at rest, doing nothing, and you find your calorie norm, so to speak. So, for

example, 3,000, right? That's what you need to neither lose nor gain weight. That is considered your calorie norm.

Just so you understand. Well, also look , using this formula, multiplying by 24 , you still won't know for sure, because this is an averaged formula for the average person. So it won't work for me, because I don't have fat. I

mainly have muscle, and muscles consume more at rest. Therefore, for people who have a lot of muscle, the formula, the coefficient shifts a little, meaning the expenditure is higher. It turns out that for people who have more muscle,

it's easier to lose weight, because at 100 kg, I will burn more at rest. If according to this formula my basal metabolism should be 2,400, then most likely, due to the fact that I have a lot of muscle, and on top of that I'm

on a cycle, my basal metabolism is closer to 3,000. Do you see? So you have to take everything into account.

Anyway, I've strayed a bit from the topic. Look, two groups. One had a deficit, the other didn't have a deficit. And look, the group that was on maintenance, their body fat decreased by 1.4 kg. The group that had

a deficit, over 10 weeks, they dropped 2.9 kg. So, roughly speaking, those who had a deficit lost twice as much fat.

And those who were at maintenance also lost fat. How is that possible? Come on , that’s just nonsense, right? How could they not be in a deficit, but it turns out fat was burned? Exactly. But there are some details here. Let me

tell you why. Look, the group at maintenance saw their fat-free— meaning muscle—mass increase by 0.97 kg, and the group in a deficit increased by 0.14. Well, roughly speaking, by a kilogram. In both cases, over 10 weeks, whether at maintenance

or in a deficit, muscle mass grew by 1 kg. So, this very kilogram is exactly what accounts for the fat loss you had while at maintenance. Meaning, if you weren't training and weren't trying to build muscle, your fat wouldn't have

really burned off, and nothing would have changed. But people were training, and when you train, you come to the gym and provide a stimulus. How do muscles react to that stimulus? They react by growing. When they react with growth,

because you are doing strength training , the body says: "Aha, so I need to grow.""What do I need in order to grow?

" This is assuming they were eating 2.5 g of protein. So, there is enough protein. We won't be breaking down muscle. Yes. It thinks: "Aha, I have the stimulus, I have the protein, now I need energy for muscle growth." The

body easily takes the energy for muscle growth from fat. So what does it do at calorie maintenance? It breaks down your fat and exchanges it for muscle mass. It turns out that at calorie maintenance, you burn fat and gain

muscle. Yes. Statistically, your weight won't change, but your shape will. That's why I always tell natural athletes: guys, don't go into a surplus , where you'll most likely just gain fat. Work at calorie maintenance. As you can see from the study data, for a

normal person with decent experience— I consider a year and a half to be past the beginner stage, this is someone who has trained—they can still build muscle and lose fat simultaneously at maintenance calories, without using steroids. Enough protein is enough to

provide the stimulus. What is a stimulus? It is progressive overload. Today you benched 110, tomorrow you bench 120. If that is happening, then the muscle has its stimulus. And then it finds a way to get everything it needs. As long as you have fat, well,

fat, growth will happen provided there is stimulus, provided there is protein, provided there is fat. Of course, when there’s no fat left at all, yeah, it’s getting, damn, the dogs started mowing the grass. Well, I hope it won't

be audible. I'll try to muffle this whole situation. I hope you don't hear it. And it turns out that naturally, you see, it’s not necessary to go into a surplus. And the most interesting thing is that when you’ve

been training naturally for a very long time, you no longer have the potential for muscle growth. That is, muscles, in principle, are no longer really capable of growing, but you think that, damn, I need to eat more to grow these muscles.

And what happens? The only thing you’re doing is just increasing your fat layer. There. And there are also studies that say that, in principle, at calorie maintenance, or at a surplus of 5%, 10%, or 15%, there was no real

difference for muscle growth. Naturally . Don’t go into a huge surplus, work at calorie maintenance. What is calorie maintenance? It's when your weight stays the same, when your body fat doesn't really go away, or if it does, it's very slight. But the most

important factor is the progression of loads in your working weights. Meaning you come in and your working weights grow by 4-6 repetitions systematically and constantly. Then muscle growth will happen. Damn, these damn lawnmowers started buzzing right, damn it, into

the camera. I think I'll go home. I’ll get home now and we’ll continue the video. I got home, because the most interesting thing was they were mowing the grass there, I got home , the power went out, turned on the

generator. Now I have a generator here, in short, running. In short, it’s some kind of Day X today, the day when everyone decided to do some work. Okay, in short, the next study. Look at experienced people who have 5 years of

training, look, 48 men and women finished 8 weeks of strength training. In the high-protein group, training experience averaged 4-9 years. So, well , these are, roughly speaking, experienced, yeah, athletes. Uh, at 3.4 g of protein, that is 3.4 g of protein,

uh, they lost 1.6-1.7 kg of fat over 8 weeks, it turns out, and gained plus 1.5 kg of muscle in the process. So, well, the weight remained in place, it turns out, for high-level [athletes] the weight stays in place, yes, we

don't see any major upheavals there. Well, which confirms that recomposition occurs in people with a high level of training. In the same study, one group of experienced lifters used 2.3 grams of protein, and a second group of experienced lifters used 3–4 grams of

protein. And there was no statistical difference at all. Whether you eat more protein or less, you won't build more muscle from it, nor will you lose weight significantly faster. So, in principle, as we've realized, the protein figure we need for

recomposition is definitely more than two and definitely less than three. So, somewhere around 2.5 on average; I think this figure will suit everyone per kilogram of lean body mass. I want to say right away: don't calculate based on total body weight, because

obese people have a very high total body mass, but protein is for maintenance, growth, and recovery. It is not needed by fat mass. Fat mass is like ballast; it doesn't really consume anything—yes, it burns a few calories , but nothing more. And to at least

keep our muscles from wasting away, just to hold things together, we need at least 1 gram of protein per kilogram of weight, even if you don't train, you know? If you train, then a little more, maybe 1.2. If you train and want to

build muscle, well, you definitely need to eat more because you break down during workouts. We primarily need protein first and foremost to repair muscles after training. And for growth itself, it only takes a tiny amount.

Therefore, in principle, I found some more studies that were conducted. So, in people with 15–17%body fat, everything works perfectly. And even at 10%body fat, it was also happening. So, what conclusion can we draw? That recomposition happens for everyone,

always. The mechanism of action is one and the same. It just works that way in a human being. The only question is whether you are observing all the factors required for recomposition. As I already said, the first is resistance

training. The second is a sufficient amount of protein. And what is the third? It is our potential for muscle growth. This is very important. Look, for instance, why am I currently recomposing? Yes, I don't have much fat , and even with that tiny bit of fat—

because I eat very little food, my current intake is under 1,500 calories —I still manage, just by starting training, to increase in size. Why does this happen? Even though there are no carbohydrates, and I'm not "filled out, " I still increase in size because I

had detrained. And that return to form happens during that recovery phase. Perhaps for the body, it’s the same as muscle growth, yes, but returning to form happens much more easily. For this , I need a sufficient amount of protein

and a sufficient stimulus specifically for those muscles. So I come in and provide that stimulus. There. And the potential for growth. The potential is there because I shed my muscles, yes, I regressed. It’s muscle memory. I’ve had these muscles before, and getting

them back is very easy. And during recomposition, I always advise everyone who has regressed not to start a bulk.

You don’t need that bulk when you have excess fat; you will perfectly regain your form even while in a calorie deficit. That fat will simply go toward restoring your form, and you will simultaneously improve and get bigger. That’s why there are such

cases—I have them too, by the way— that seem cosmic, because there are truly people who had a return of their form. If I can find them, I’ll attach the photos here. I mean, of course, you cannot grow better on a recomp than you

can on a calorie surplus. Definitely. In a surplus, you have more energy, you provide a better stimulus, and accordingly, growth is better, you see?

And when you are in a deficit, you can’t become super huge, right? You were fat, and then you just became muscular. If you once lost your muscle mass and gained a lot of fat, you can easily transform all that fat back into

the muscles you once had. And it turns out that reversing a regression is done very easily during a recomp. And I have such cases with guys with whom we, in principle, achieved this. I’ll attach the photos now. Therefore, a very

important factor is the potential for muscle growth. Who has this potential? Definitely, beginners have the highest potential, so beginners will, in principle, grow very well on a calorie deficit. Those who are in a regression, like me, for instance, in a regression,

other people will also grow muscles perfectly. Also, those people who have not yet reached their genetic ceiling, or those people who have added sufficiently good dosages and supplements, have gained growth potential—so to speak, you’ve built up that potential. But if the body is,

in principle, no longer capable of changing much, then I wouldn't count on being able to recomp. Because there's no way you can provide enough stimulus for growth while in a calorie deficit, especially when you've been at the same

weight for a long time, you've done cycles, you're already big, and you want to grow further while cutting, but you need a stimulus to grow. It turns out your muscle growth potential is weak, and you still need to provide a

stimulus; to provide a good one and show what you're capable of, you have to increase your strength. But to increase your strength, you need energy , and you're not eating anything, you're in a deficit, so you can't provide that kind of intensity.

Similarly, you won't be able to handle the training volume. You can't perform a high volume of work when you're glycogen-depleted. And this creates limitations—not that it’s impossible, it is possible. You can find some loopholes, right? There are various pre-workouts and substances

that can give you that strength to provide the stimulus. That's exactly why enhanced lifters see better recomposition, because they don't have to rely so much on food. They have drugs, and those drugs provide strength , right, and they boost your work

capacity. So, you can create a greater stimulus, and consequently, grow better by using your own fat stores. But for someone who has been training naturally for a long time and isn't changing anymore, I wouldn't count on achieving great growth through recomposition.

Therefore, for a natural, it's definitely better to just stick to maintenance calories; you'll still have some growth, or at least you won't lose muscle, and you won't gain fat either.

And why would you want to? You've built your physique, you're not going to get any bigger. Just be satisfied with that form and stay lean. And to stay lean, maintaining your calories is enough. It all seems simple enough. Yet all

natural lifters are always fat. Why? Because all natural lifters want to keep bulking, not realizing that they aren't going to grow anymore. That's all there is to it. You just have to accept that there is a genetic potential that you cannot exceed.

It’s not for nothing that you were gaining, gaining, then it was 10 kg, then five, then one, and then it stopped. Why? Because you're training incorrectly. No, honestly, you're putting in the work. It's just that you already have your muscles, a certain

level of testosterone, and recovery capacity—that's what fuels your growth. In other words, you should ideally just maintain your shape now, because as we know, bodybuilding and having a nice, aesthetic body isn't something where you just get fit, bulk

up, and that’s it, you’re just permanently built. No, you have to maintain it your whole life. So, since you’ve bulked up, be a good sport and keep it up. And all these workouts, when people say, you know, "he’s been

training for 10 years and hasn't changed"—damn, he’s not going to change anymore, he’s already reached his limit. He just goes to the gym to keep his pants on. He wants to keep walking around looking the same; if he

stops going, he’ll deflate. Well, that’s logical. So, yes. Now, I’ll give some advice to the guys on recomposition, based personally on my experience and confirmed by research data. Look, ideally, during recomposition, you should increase your calorie intake through protein. See,

you’ll feel fuller and eat more, because when you have your diet, well, as guys tell me, "I’d rather eat the tasty stuff I’m used to." Calories are what matter most, right? Well, that's true to an extent. But look,

calories from protein are a completely different kind of calorie than those from fat. Why? Look, there's a study, I'll read it to you now. Calories from carbs are not equal to calories from protein. The energy expenditure for digestion, absorption, and further

nutrient metabolism differs significantly. Look, for every 100 kcal of a nutrient, protein uses 20–30 calories to process, carbs 5–10 calories, and fat 1 calorie. So, just by processing the protein we’ve eaten , we’re already burning energy. This means, in total, we get fewer calories

from the food. Consequently, we’ll lose weight better and be able to eat more food. But fat doesn't cost us anything to process. Once fat from food enters your system, where does it go?

It goes straight to your belly. Because we live—well, our brain runs on glycogen—no, I said glycogen, I meant our brain runs on glucose. There. And the rest of the body runs on fat. And the fat isn't from the belly, like we

think. Fat. It’s intramuscular fat. Triglycerides that are inside the muscle; so, I'm walking around, I have a certain amount of fat, and it lasts for a certain amount of time. You also need to understand that when we eat fat

, don't think that it immediately goes toward our energy needs. Yes, some of the fat will still enter the bloodstream and provide a little energy , but most of the fat you eat will likely be stored. That is why it’s

not a strategy for weight loss. So, if you want to lose weight, increase your protein intake. This will give you an increased energy expenditure. Look, if you replace, say, 1,000 calories that you were getting from carbohydrates with 1,000 calories from protein, you

will increase your deficit by an average of 200 calories per day, because our body spends less energy processing carbohydrates. And, roughly speaking, if you calculate your diet with 1,000 from protein and 1,000 from carbs, the protein won't effectively be

1,000, but rather 800. Just so you understand. And if you replace fats, the number changes even more. If you swap fats for proteins, that would be 250-300 calories. So it is very beneficial to eat protein when losing weight. You should make a note of this

somewhere. And here are some more studies, look, there were other studies too. The next study estimated the cost of glucose formation at 33%of the energy value of the glucose produced.

That is, roughly speaking, producing glucose with an energy value of 100 kcal cost 33 calories. What does this mean? It means that, look, our brain feeds on glucose, but we often eat only protein, for example. And there is

nowhere else to get energy from, right? Where can our glucose come from? It can come from the liver, right? We can have gluconeogenesis, which is the conversion of proteins into glucose.

And 33%is spent just on converting proteins into glucose. And the most interesting thing is that this will happen in any case. Therefore, the protein we eat in large quantities—a smaller portion goes to muscle growth, while the larger part goes to energy

needs, the brain, vital functions, and digestion. It all goes into the furnace , you see? And it turns out that if you eat little protein, part of it is lost, and you don't have enough for muscle recovery, so the muscle won't grow.

That's why even at 1 or 2 grams of protein, the muscles didn't really grow , because it's being used for energy needs during a calorie deficit. And you also need to understand here that the greater the deficit, the more protein

will be used. And if you aren't eating enough protein, believe me, your own muscle protein will start to break down . That is, as we say, the muscles burn.

You can also burn through muscle if you do everything completely wrong. So, what conclusion can we draw from this, that you need to eat quite a lot of protein? Well, at least 2.5, and in some cases 3 grams per kilogram of body

weight. And sometimes I even give my guys more. Why? Because, as I’ve said before, it’s about muscle growth potential. If, let's say, a beginner has good growth potential, and on top of that they start a cycle, and they’re also in a surplus, do you

realize how much protein they need to grow? The muscle has good potential, meaning it grows very rapidly. In order for a muscle to grow very rapidly, it needs a lot of protein. And for that, in principle, you have to understand

that different people need different amounts of protein. There’s this study on mice. Look, the mice were fed until they were fat, then slimmed down, and later, when given fatty food again, the ones that had been fat before regained their fat mass very easily.

The ones that had never been fat, sure, they gained some weight, but not like that, you understand? So, what conclusion can we draw from this? That fat has a memory, just like muscle.

Muscles have muscle memory, and fat has fat memory. It turns out it’s bad to get obese because it will be easier for you to return to your fat form later.

If you were once very obese, most likely you will very easily return to that form if you simply go back to your crappy diet. Of course, if you don't go back, it won't happen. But life will be harder for you, because every bun you

eat will hint at how fast it just goes straight to your belly. Get it? A guy who has been skinny his whole life, he’ll eat those buns, yeah, he’ll gain a little, but it won't be like, you know, falling into your pocket

right away, it won't go straight to your gut. Therefore, in favor of a calorie norm, I would advise everyone not to get too fat, not to do those prolonged bulking phases, you know, thinking "I'll gain more if I put on

some fat." Well, perhaps you might gain a bit more, just because you’ll become stronger, yeah, provide a better stimulus, because, after all, when you have more mass, more energy, more fat, it is generally easier to handle heavy weights. There is some logic to that.

But I'm telling you, all that fat you gain will likely weigh on you for the rest of your life, because it stays in your "fat memory" that you were once overweight. And believe me, as soon as you let your guard down, you'll gain it

all back immediately. I think you've seen people like that in real life— they seem to lose weight, but then you see them two months later, and they're just like they were before. That's because people think, "I'll do a cycle,

get ripped, and stay ripped for the rest of my life.""I'll just lose weight now, then go back to my old diet, and I'll stay thin forever." Well, that's not how it works. If you've lost weight , you must change your lifestyle,

change your life—you have to eat differently, and then you can maintain it. It's exactly the same with building muscle. You have to keep training, you have to always......always be disciplined and eat correctly. By " eating correctly," I mean hitting the

right macros, because many people think that calories are what make us grow. No , there are studies showing we don't grow from calories; we grow from stimulus. And that stimulus can be provided even in a caloric deficit. So

those extra calories people stuff themselves with—well, they are completely useless. They only produce fat. A calorie is energy. Where does excess energy go? Where does it end up?

Not in the muscles. It gets stored as fat. Therefore, it's not true that if you eat more, you'll grow more. If you eat more, you just gain more fat.

Studies also show that whether you're at maintenance or a 15%surplus, there was no difference in muscle growth. But for fat gain, it worked perfectly—it added fat to your frame. I think I've shared some interesting information today; we've realized that it is

possible to recomp at a high level, and you don't need to be a beginner to do it. In principle, body recomposition is a very useful and cool thing for everyone who trains. o