Anything Off Limits w/ All Out Bulk?

Training Bodybuilding
61

Bricknyce, you said “when you were really into this”…are you not anymore?

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

Mr A. bulks for 8 months eating 5000 cals/day, he gains 60lbs (20lbs muscle, 40lbs fat). He then diets the fat off for 4 months. This takes one year. End result = 20lbs more solid muscle after a year.

Mr B. bulks for 2 months eating 5000 cals/day, he gains 15lbs (5lbs muscle, 10lbs fat). He then diets the fat off for 1 month. He repeats this cycle 4 times, this takes one year. End result = 20lbs more solid muscle after a year

BOTH guys at some point or another ate THE SAME amount of calories (i.e. enough to gain muscle)…

BUT, Mr B.'s waist measurements didn’t gain more than 2 or 3 inches higher than what he started with…unlike Mr A.'s waist which went up to 8+ inches inches for the months while bulking until eventually the cutting phase came.
[/quote]

Unfortunately that’s not how it works in the real world

62

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

What’s the difference between these two examples? -

Mr A. bulks for 8 months eating 5000 cals/day, he gains 60lbs (20lbs muscle, 40lbs fat). He then diets the fat off for 4 months. This takes one year. End result = 20lbs more solid muscle after a year.

Mr B. bulks for 2 months eating 5000 cals/day, he gains 15lbs (5lbs muscle, 10lbs fat). He then diets the fat off for 1 month. He repeats this cycle 4 times, this takes one year. End result = 20lbs more solid muscle after a year[/quote]

LOL!!!

The difference is this isn’t how it works in real life. First, you can’t even fucking PREDICT gains before you actually make them. Second, why the hell would you assume that the guy who gains more weight simply adds more body fat and not more muscle?

Do some of you even look around you? Even on this site, who are the biggest guys? the ones gaining “slowly” or the ones putting everything they have into it?

Further, why would someone gain 60lbs if they weren’t gaining enough muscle to justify it?
Also, those who don’t give their bodies enough time to adapt to gains made might as well say good bye to whatever muscle they just built.

Good luck holding onto muscle if you are dieting down every 2 months.

63

[quote]pumped340 wrote:
Bricknyce, you said “when you were really into this”…are you not anymore?

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

Mr A. bulks for 8 months eating 5000 cals/day, he gains 60lbs (20lbs muscle, 40lbs fat). He then diets the fat off for 4 months. This takes one year. End result = 20lbs more solid muscle after a year.

Mr B. bulks for 2 months eating 5000 cals/day, he gains 15lbs (5lbs muscle, 10lbs fat). He then diets the fat off for 1 month. He repeats this cycle 4 times, this takes one year. End result = 20lbs more solid muscle after a year

BOTH guys at some point or another ate THE SAME amount of calories (i.e. enough to gain muscle)…

BUT, Mr B.'s waist measurements didn’t gain more than 2 or 3 inches higher than what he started with…unlike Mr A.'s waist which went up to 8+ inches inches for the months while bulking until eventually the cutting phase came.
[/quote]

Unfortunately that’s not how it works in the real world[/quote]

The whole hardcore thing doesn’t go with my lifestyle now. As I explained in my thread titled Bogus About Prisoners, I still lift regularly, but don’t use a bodybuilding routine. I lift three times per week and do other activities on off days with a routine that’s kind of similar to what Eric Cressey, Joe Defranco, and Jim Wendler would put together for a regular guy that wants to keep in shape, gain SOME size and strength, and have good conditioning.

So I guess, in regards to true, hardcore bodybuilding, NO, I’m not so into it anymore. I still love talking about bodybuilding (all forms of lifting for this matter) and watching and following it to a degree, albeit less than I used to.

I don’t eat 5,000 calories anymore. I eat 3,500 to 4,000 now.

64

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
I think people get the wrong impression sometimes when reading the “just lift and eat” lines.

Of course you need to eat lots to gain muscle, but only if everything else is in line too. Like Prof x said, there’s something wrong if you’re only gaining a tiny fraction of muscle compared to fat…that’s not what’s being advocated.

Likewise, the slow bulk method, people get confused there too. Personally, I don’t see the need to get a 42+ inch waist line in order to bulk (well, not someone with a small frame who maybe at one point centred around 32 inch waist). To illustrate:

What’s the difference between these two examples? -

Mr A. bulks for 8 months eating 5000 cals/day, he gains 60lbs (20lbs muscle, 40lbs fat). He then diets the fat off for 4 months. This takes one year. End result = 20lbs more solid muscle after a year.

Mr B. bulks for 2 months eating 5000 cals/day, he gains 15lbs (5lbs muscle, 10lbs fat). He then diets the fat off for 1 month. He repeats this cycle 4 times, this takes one year. End result = 20lbs more solid muscle after a year

BOTH guys at some point or another ate THE SAME amount of calories (i.e. enough to gain muscle)…

BUT, Mr B.'s waist measurements didn’t gain more than 2 or 3 inches higher than what he started with…unlike Mr A.'s waist which went up to 8+ inches inches for the months while bulking until eventually the cutting phase came.

This is what I mean by a heavy bulk, but, in a sense, it’s slow…

In my opinion, the only time a Mr A. type bulking comes in handy is if you cannot, for one reason or another, put 100% focus into your training and you need something simple to focus on. Sometimes, when life gets complicated, it’s hard to give your training 100% attention, and switching things around pretty often (like Mr B.'s training) can become stressfull…or, if you’re like me, it can be a welcome change from feeling stuffed 24/7 (so I actually preffer Mr B.'s type bulking).[/quote]

I agree with X. How can one predict how much or what (muscle or fat) they’re going to gain. Your two examples are inconsistent and therefore can’t be compared.

In my opinion, and probably most others, example B, is clearly eating too much. 10 pounds of fat gain in 2 months? That’s a lot; that’s over 1 pound of fat gain per week! I don’t know anyone who’s aiming or who’d want to live with that.

I also think example B’s approach would be mentally exhausting!

65

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
I think people get the wrong impression sometimes when reading the “just lift and eat” lines.

Of course you need to eat lots to gain muscle, but only if everything else is in line too. Like Prof x said, there’s something wrong if you’re only gaining a tiny fraction of muscle compared to fat…that’s not what’s being advocated.

Likewise, the slow bulk method, people get confused there too. Personally, I don’t see the need to get a 42+ inch waist line in order to bulk (well, not someone with a small frame who maybe at one point centred around 32 inch waist). To illustrate:

What’s the difference between these two examples? -

Mr A. bulks for 8 months eating 5000 cals/day, he gains 60lbs (20lbs muscle, 40lbs fat). He then diets the fat off for 4 months. This takes one year. End result = 20lbs more solid muscle after a year.

Mr B. bulks for 2 months eating 5000 cals/day, he gains 15lbs (5lbs muscle, 10lbs fat). He then diets the fat off for 1 month. He repeats this cycle 4 times, this takes one year. End result = 20lbs more solid muscle after a year

BOTH guys at some point or another ate THE SAME amount of calories (i.e. enough to gain muscle)…

BUT, Mr B.'s waist measurements didn’t gain more than 2 or 3 inches higher than what he started with…unlike Mr A.'s waist which went up to 8+ inches inches for the months while bulking until eventually the cutting phase came.

This is what I mean by a heavy bulk, but, in a sense, it’s slow…

In my opinion, the only time a Mr A. type bulking comes in handy is if you cannot, for one reason or another, put 100% focus into your training and you need something simple to focus on. Sometimes, when life gets complicated, it’s hard to give your training 100% attention, and switching things around pretty often (like Mr B.'s training) can become stressfull…or, if you’re like me, it can be a welcome change from feeling stuffed 24/7 (so I actually preffer Mr B.'s type bulking).[/quote]

That seems pretty ridiculous. If anything you would gain MORE muscle in relation to fat following approach A. Being constantly in calorie surplus would mean you would get stronger on your lifts all the time(thus gaining more muscle) than you would following the second approach where its likely you would stall or your strength gains would at least slow down during the “dieting” phase. Its also pretty ridiculous as on most people 15lbs wouldnt even make them visibly much larger, especially so for taller lifters.

I followed the commonly preached “eat clean, shoot for 500 calories above maintenance” spiel and found that for me, and I would guess the vast majority of others, that just DOES NOT work when it comes to adding the massive size that you would assume people would want who post in a bodybuilding forum. Fair enough recommending that to those that want to “gain a bit of muscle, lose fat and feel better about themselves” but I would guess most people posting here would not fall into that category. Just my .02

66

2048×1536 637 KB

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Further, why would someone gain 60lbs if they weren’t gaining enough muscle to justify it?
Also, those who don’t give their bodies enough time to adapt to gains made might as well say good bye to whatever muscle they just built.
[/quote]

I put on 60lbs from my join date until today, even though I look like 220 in pictures, I am 240.

When I first got to 240-245 I was really soft, like time to do damage control soft. So I slowly lowered cals every couple of weeks. I was staying the same weight, and slowly looking better and better in the mirror.(I was getting stronger too, albeit slower, but I was.)

Then I got the flu, lost 10lbs (have sense got it all back) and FML did that suck. I felt so small and lost like 6-8 weeks of strength gains.

I can’t imagine constantly take one step forward and then one step back would A) be prodcutive or B) not make you feel like a retart.

Pic is from yesterday, date on the mirror is mah anniversary

67

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Further, why would someone gain 60lbs if they weren’t gaining enough muscle to justify it?
Also, those who don’t give their bodies enough time to adapt to gains made might as well say good bye to whatever muscle they just built.
[/quote]

I put on 60lbs from my join date until today, even though I look like 220 in pictures, I am 240.

When I first got to 240-245 I was really soft, like time to do damage control soft. So I slowly lowered cals every couple of weeks. I was staying the same weight, and slowly looking better and better in the mirror.(I was getting stronger too, albeit slower, but I was.)

Then I got the flu, lost 10lbs (have sense got it all back) and FML did that suck. I felt so small and lost like 6-8 weeks of strength gains.

I can’t imagine constantly take one step forward and then one step back would A) be prodcutive or B) not make you feel like a retart.

Pic is from yesterday, date on the mirror is mah anniversary
[/quote]

You must be tall like Waylander. You are starting to look filled out more, but someone as tall as you is going to need to be over 250-270lbs to actually look as impressive as someone of average height around 220lbs.

That doesn’t erase the work it took to add 60lbs and have most of it be muscle mass. Keep it up.

68

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
I think people get the wrong impression sometimes when reading the “just lift and eat” lines.

Of course you need to eat lots to gain muscle, but only if everything else is in line too. Like Prof x said, there’s something wrong if you’re only gaining a tiny fraction of muscle compared to fat…that’s not what’s being advocated.

Likewise, the slow bulk method, people get confused there too. Personally, I don’t see the need to get a 42+ inch waist line in order to bulk (well, not someone with a small frame who maybe at one point centred around 32 inch waist). To illustrate:

What’s the difference between these two examples? -

Mr A. bulks for 8 months eating 5000 cals/day, he gains 60lbs (20lbs muscle, 40lbs fat). He then diets the fat off for 4 months. This takes one year. End result = 20lbs more solid muscle after a year.

Mr B. bulks for 2 months eating 5000 cals/day, he gains 15lbs (5lbs muscle, 10lbs fat). He then diets the fat off for 1 month. He repeats this cycle 4 times, this takes one year. End result = 20lbs more solid muscle after a year

BOTH guys at some point or another ate THE SAME amount of calories (i.e. enough to gain muscle)…

BUT, Mr B.'s waist measurements didn’t gain more than 2 or 3 inches higher than what he started with…unlike Mr A.'s waist which went up to 8+ inches inches for the months while bulking until eventually the cutting phase came.

This is what I mean by a heavy bulk, but, in a sense, it’s slow…

In my opinion, the only time a Mr A. type bulking comes in handy is if you cannot, for one reason or another, put 100% focus into your training and you need something simple to focus on. Sometimes, when life gets complicated, it’s hard to give your training 100% attention, and switching things around pretty often (like Mr B.'s training) can become stressfull…or, if you’re like me, it can be a welcome change from feeling stuffed 24/7 (so I actually preffer Mr B.'s type bulking).[/quote]

You’re completely ignoring strength gains etc here… Constantly going up and down in calories drastically to bulk/cut, especially for natties, is not going to do you any favors there.

Rather pick the right kind of diet for you, then take whatever measures are needed to prevent excessive fat gain (certain forms of cardio, and in that case I’d skip HIIT if your recovery sucks or if you’re already big… Then green tea extract and fat-burners or whatever… Cutoff times… Diet-inbuilt things like Carb-cycling… Nutrient-timing… Whatever) and go for maximum gains.

That’s just my opinion, of course. And the fat-to-muscle-gains ratios in both examples suck…

69

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If you notice that much of a change in only 4 days, that means you were doing something drastically different previously.

I may notice I am more filled out after 4 days…IF I spent the weeks previous eating little to no carbs and have lost about 8-10lbs as a result of water weight lost.

Otherwise, the changes made take time and most people don’t seem to notice much in the way of VISIBLE progress made for muscle gains unless you have added more than 10lbs of body weight.

I can tell you this though with absolute honesty…the types of people who truly stand out in the long run…are the ones who have the mentality that they are going to get that food down and force a body weight gain no matter what.

They are generally NOT the people worried about “slow bulks” or so worried about abs that they hardly gain a pound.

I mean, I like that people stare now like I might be in the NFL…but I doubt most of them staring actually have it in them to do what I did to make that much progress. They aren’t willing to not see their abs perfectly all year. They aren’t willing to get all of that food down…or force their body to gain more weight than they may initially be comfortable with.

Oh, and yes, unless you are near advanced, the scale is a tool you should be using. If you are a beginner and are gaining no body weight and no large strength increases, why would you think you made much progress?[/quote]

yes previously i have just been trying to maintain and stay decently lean at around 215lbs… putting on a decent 30-40lbs in a 7-8 months shouldnt be that much of a chore for me as long as i make a little time to cook… trying to ingest this much food thats of “decent quality” (home cooked steak, fish, or chicken)is like a 2nd job.

70

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Nards wrote:
I’d been 225lbs for the longest time and saw the “Bodybuilding My Way” thread by I believe it’s FattyFat and decided “Screw it…I’m 36 years old and want to be even bigger, like I wanted to be when I started this lifting 18 years ago!”

The funny thing is growing up with 4 older brothers in a Catholic household there was the idea that eating a lot was bad. That it was gluttony. I always liked meat a lot, even when young and my mom and dad would seem to frown upon eating too much. Not like weird Beverly Hills parents but like something out of the 30s, when my parents were born.

So I gave myself the freedom to eat what I wanted. It’s been 2 months and I’m up to 255. Somtimes my gut is sticking out, making me think I’m getting too fat, but other times, like in the morning, or after using the facilities, it’s flatter, so that let’s me know that if it’s not always sticking out, I’m likely OK.

The funny thing is it feels like Christmas every day because I like to eat and for years I was always HOLDING MYSELF BACK from eating. Telling me it’s OK to eat more steak and potatoes sounds like a joke! It’s no problem! I still think I don’t need potato chips and cookies or hard candy to somehow get up to 6,000kclas, I can do it no problem with hearty fare I enjoy anyway.

And of course my lifts have finally been going up and going up with a feeling of ease and power. I won’t post numbers as I’m one of those bigger guys that isn’t as strong as he looks (Im 6 feet tall and 255 now)My proudest one that I’ll mention is my standing over-head BB press is 155 for 5X5 now, with 135 for 3x3 my previous best, but I’m looking forward to seeing great gains.

I’d like to thank Professor X as well as others for letting me know it’s good to eat.Not to sound like an idiot, but you took away the guilt of eating big. Many thanks.[/quote]

I know a forum with like-minded individual that share the same goal as you. Here you will find web support that is more suited for you
http://www.bigguts.com/.

no needs to thank me[/quote]

I should have known you were a prick when I saw where you’re located.

71

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Further, why would someone gain 60lbs if they weren’t gaining enough muscle to justify it?
Also, those who don’t give their bodies enough time to adapt to gains made might as well say good bye to whatever muscle they just built.
[/quote]

I put on 60lbs from my join date until today, even though I look like 220 in pictures, I am 240.

When I first got to 240-245 I was really soft, like time to do damage control soft. So I slowly lowered cals every couple of weeks. I was staying the same weight, and slowly looking better and better in the mirror.(I was getting stronger too, albeit slower, but I was.)

Then I got the flu, lost 10lbs (have sense got it all back) and FML did that suck. I felt so small and lost like 6-8 weeks of strength gains.

I can’t imagine constantly take one step forward and then one step back would A) be prodcutive or B) not make you feel like a retart.

Pic is from yesterday, date on the mirror is mah anniversary
[/quote]

You must be tall like Waylander. You are starting to look filled out more, but someone as tall as you is going to need to be over 250-270lbs to actually look as impressive as someone of average height around 220lbs.

That doesn’t erase the work it took to add 60lbs and have most of it be muscle mass. Keep it up.[/quote]

Thanks Big Fella.

Yeah I’m the same height as Way… I got a lot more eating and lifting to do for sure.

72

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Results = Slow [/quote]

This is now a good thing? [/quote]

That’s not what he said. In fact, he said the opposite.

73

[quote]Eielson wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Results = Slow [/quote]

This is now a good thing? [/quote]

That’s not what he said. In fact, he said the opposite.[/quote]

No, he didn’t say the opposite. He was speaking about ‘slow bulks’ and mentioned slow results. How the hell would the opposite be true? You think people worried about “slow bulks” are gaining more muscle than people who make sure their muscles are fed at all times?

Edit: In fact, he used the word “clean bulk”…which has no real meaning in the first place. Food is food. You eat the type that helps you grow bigger the fastest. That is what bodybuilding is…even if some of you guys keep trying to change that.

If you are going to bulk up, the entire goal is to make sure your muscles are fed at all times and that you are gaining more muscle than body fat. You eat as “clean” as you need to in order to see the greatest results.

That means if you have a fast metabolism that allows you to gain maximum muscle while eating tacos once a night, then so fucking be it.

Why would someone want to make slow progress? You don’t have forever for this.

74

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Eielson wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Results = Slow [/quote]

This is now a good thing? [/quote]

That’s not what he said. In fact, he said the opposite.[/quote]

No, he didn’t say the opposite. He was speaking about ‘slow bulks’ and mentioned slow results. How the hell would the opposite be true?[/quote]

He mentioned it. He didn’t glorify it. I would think most people would be able to conclude that he wanted the two things that were positive, and simply had to deal with the other. If that weren’t something you saw, then I would think that the :frowning: (frown) would do it.

I’m not saying all your ideas are wrong. I’m not even saying that any of them are wrong. I just simply don’t like when people attack a small part of an argument, make it look different than it truly is, and then criticize them for “saying” something that they never even said.

75

Though im a newb (been training for ALMOSt a year now), i wanted to trow in my 2 cents…

I initally tried to do a ‘clean bulk’ when i started out(pre-Tnation). I tried this while being 6’3", and a whopping 140lbs. so for the first 3-4 monts of training, i may have gained 10 lbs. Then i got on this website and decided i needed to change all this shit. I started to loosen up on my diet just a bit (still wasn’t eating enough. Then after the summer, i started school. so then with 8 hours of school 5 days a week, then 6-8 hours of work 5 days a week, i decided to just say fuck it, and i realized i had to get in my protein however i could.

Now i eat 3-6 fastfood burgers a day, and ive finally shot up to about 190lbs in like half the time it took to get to 160! while this i light for my height, its a big move for me. ANd i managed to keep my abs defined and keep a 30-31 inch waist. SO getting a little “dirty” with my bulk has really helped. Now ive ALWAYS had a crazy meatabolism, and it could just be newbie gains, but all im trying to say is you can not eat 100% healthy, make gains, and still stay ‘lean’. ( at least i did)

76

[quote]Eielson wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Eielson wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Results = Slow [/quote]

This is now a good thing? [/quote]

That’s not what he said. In fact, he said the opposite.[/quote]

No, he didn’t say the opposite. He was speaking about ‘slow bulks’ and mentioned slow results. How the hell would the opposite be true?[/quote]

He mentioned it. He didn’t glorify it. I would think most people would be able to conclude that he wanted the two things that were positive, and simply had to deal with the other. If that weren’t something you saw, then I would think that the :frowning: (frown) would do it.

I’m not saying all your ideas are wrong. I’m not even saying that any of them are wrong. I just simply don’t like when people attack a small part of an argument, make it look different than it truly is, and then criticize them for “saying” something that they never even said.[/quote]

Why are you trying to argue what someone else MEANT to say when that isn’t what they fucking wrote? His entire post was promoting “clean bulks”…as if someone’s primary concern should be whether they eat a chicken breast rather than what results they are actually seeing.

That is not bodybuilding. It seems some of you have confused “fitness training” with bodybuilding…and I doubt I am alone in wishing those of you confused on the matter would just go elsewhere.

No one here is saying that getting big equals being unhealthy, but if you have more interest in what you ate than whether that food is actually providing you with better results in minimal time, you may be in the wrong forum.

Further, how about you let other people speak for themselves instead of trying to fucking make up a counter argument for someone else as if what they wrote isn’t what they meant.

77

[quote]Professor X wrote:
big equals being unhealthy[/quote]

Is this NOW A POSITIVE?!?!

78

Im not exactly sure why you guys are arguing about one guys post, when you can just look back to the first page and CLEARLY see what he said.

I used to be like that poster. I read all the articles here on the “clean bulk”. For my first 2-3 years on T-Nation I gained little if ANY weight. All the articles were telling me to eat chicken breasts and veggies, and occasionally some brown rice etc. I was lucky to maintain weight using these “clean” methods.

Not to mention most of the articles had a lot of short rest breaks, and other techniques that were aimed at keeping the fat off while you add muscle.

In addition to all that, it was “en vogue” to be training 3-4 times a week with weights, and be doing MMA training and/or sprints on the off days.

It was a perfect formula for SLOW results. And NO, slow results are not good, and they are not more healthy. THEY ARE SLOW.

If slow results were a good thing, then the “clean bulk” would have been the way to go. It would be very easy to add less than .1 lbs of “quality lean mass” per month, or maybe even year. Im assuming the slower you put it on, the more quality it is, right?

But one day, I decided its not worth being small and somewhat skinny, and that it was time to put on some size. I cant remember the exact articles I read, I think it was some of “massive eating” articles, and “dirty bulking” ones. But basically my plan during my first REAL bulk was to TRY to get fat. I went from about 190 to 210 in a very short time (about 2-3 months) There was some fat gain, but nothing to cry about.

I had commenting on how much bigger I was getting for the first time in years. One guy said "hey your getting big, what have you been doing? Have you been lifting heavy?

In reality though, my workouts got easier. I cut down the volume, rested longer between sets, and pushed heavier weights. AND I ate, everything in site.

Im just not really sure why this thread is still going on. IF IT IS A TRUE ALL OUT BULK NOTHING IS OFF LIMITS

79

Spidey, I understand what you’re saying, but many people have eaten “clean” (I don’t even know what this and “dirty” exactly mean anymore) and gained. It just depends on how much people need to eat and how much food they can stuff down without feeling like they’re getting sick. (Eating less than 4,000 clean calories is a joke and anyone who can’t do this isn’t a fully grown man, is pretty small, or has a poor appetite.) Most men have to change their eating around and start eating “dirty” foods when they have to eat more than 6,000 calories. For people to eat 6,000 to 10,000 clean calories, they’d have to be eating all god-damned day!

80

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Spidey, I understand what you’re saying, but many people have eaten “clean” (I don’t even know what this and “dirty” exactly mean anymore) and gained. It just depends on how much people need to eat and how much food they can stuff down without feeling like they’re getting sick. (Eating less than 4,000 clean calories is a joke and anyone who can’t do this isn’t a fully grown man, is pretty small, or has a poor appetite.) Most men have to change their eating around and start eating “dirty” foods when they have to eat more than 6,000 calories. For people to eat 6,000 to 10,000 clean calories, they’d have to be eating all god-damned day! [/quote]

4000 calories Can be a challenge depending on what your eating chicken breasts every fucken meal lol