Dude, 4,000 clean calories is a joke! If you’re referring to a diet being boring, then fine, you’re right. I’d get bored eating chicken breasts every meal, which is why I don’t. I’m not eating chicken for breakfast and usually will never eat it before I go to bed.
Why do you eat chicken at every meal when there are so many more choices to be had: pork, beef, turkey, tuna, salmon, so many kinds of other fishes, cheese, eggs, egg whites, protein powder, and cottage cheese?
My example was just an illustration (a very bad one at that LOL)…the sense I was trying to put across was just to do a bit of “damage control” (cut down a bit of fat where you over-did it…as and when needed). I’ve never done that cycle exactly like that before (Mr B.s).
Since an example is just an example, there’s no need to take the results literally (like someone were to make exact predictions)…THAT’S the whole point of “damage control”, you only do it when you actually need to and can’t predict when you’ll need to.
I think people get scared when they see “diet/cut”…it doesn’t mean loosing strength/muscle (or at least, extremely LITTLE muscle). If you are loosing strength badly (especially in only 2-4 weeks), you’re doing something very wrong.
I was a top level distance runner for 15 years. 5’5.5" and 140-45lbs, 8.8% via 7-site. Put away the running shoes a year ago and started lifting hard 4-5 days week trying and doing as much as I can. Stayed pretty clean with the diet, even went low carb but high calories (3500-4000 for me at the time). Got up to 165lb in 5 months, 9.5% via 7-site. I cut down for a show and came in at 146 after carb-up/dehydrate, and 5.5%. It was fun, got a sword…but dropped 3-4lbs of lean mass (145 down to 141)
Now here’s the important part. After the show I just started eating whatever. The first time I’ve done so for an extended period of time. Guess what happened. Post-comp rebound and then some, but I also put back the lean mass I lost pretty quickly and then some. Currently 170lb, 14.3% via 7-site, 146lb lean mass…highest it’s ever been.
Unless you’re already pretty big, or think you’re just gaining fat…f’n eat. I’ve always been pretty lean, always maintained that 8-10% range and when you’re used to being lean your whole life it’s quite the mental obstacle to get over. I think most of thos questioning the type of bulk are in the same boat. Meat, potatoes, rice, etc. Try to eat a lot of natural foods, but don’t get all uptight if you’re downing a pizza.
[quote]Eielson wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
big equals being unhealthy[/quote]
Is this NOW A POSITIVE?!?![/quote]
What are you, 12? I quoted his exact thought…that the results would be slow. I didn’t simply go grab PART of a sentence and misrepresent it. He didn’t mean anything else other than THE RESULTS WOULD BE SLOW based on a “clean bulk”…which, again for your retarded ass, is not what bodybuilding is about.
Next time, quit trying to defend someone else’s post when it is pretty damn clear what they were trying to say.
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
My example was just an illustration (a very bad one at that LOL)…the sense I was trying to put across was just to do a bit of “damage control” (cut down a bit of fat where you over-did it…as and when needed). I’ve never done that cycle exactly like that before (Mr B.s).
Since an example is just an example, there’s no need to take the results literally (like someone were to make exact predictions)…THAT’S the whole point of “damage control”, you only do it when you actually need to and can’t predict when you’ll need to.
I think people get scared when they see “diet/cut”…it doesn’t mean loosing strength/muscle (or at least, extremely LITTLE muscle). If you are loosing strength badly (especially in only 2-4 weeks), you’re doing something very wrong.
[/quote]
Is it just not getting through that you are just wrong? You can’t come in here, make up some specific example like you did and then claim that your example doesn’t mean anything when people point out how much bullshit is in it. We can only debate what YOU wrote so either get your thoughts together better or quit trying to school the rest of us.
If you even NEED to diet down every 2 months then you are not eating OR training right. This is a pursuit that takes TIME. If you actually have a goal of getting big but are starting out small and think you won’t have to simply work on size ALONE for a few years, then you need to find a new hobby.
That does not mean that people should avoid dieting. It means accept the fact that the people who suck it up and choose a fucking goal will make the most progress in the end.
Your example above was ridiculous no matter how you spin it. 60lbs gained but only 20 of that being muscle? Do you think anyone here is recommending that or anything like it to people?
There is a reason the biggest guys here seem to follow the same basic concepts and why the smallest here do the same.
My only question is why this isn’t obvious to the rest of you.
My first year and a half of training, I was in college at the time and had a meal plan consisting of 19 meals / wk (dinner was buffet style). I had very little money for extra food otherwise - just enough to get whole chocolate milk (more cals per dollar) and enough buy enough whey to use 40g on workout days.
Since I only got 3 meals per day during the week, I really had to make the most of it. For breakfast I drank 16 oz of whole chocolate milk. For lunch I generally ate a footlong roastbeef sub.
For dinner I loaded up two plates with meat and some vegetables, then went back and got as much fried food (tater tots, french fries, whatever) as I could stand to eat. I drank 32 oz + of whole chocolate milk at every meal and finished it off with whatever dessert I could. I probably ate 1500-2000 cals for dinner every night.
At around 10 or 11, every night mon-fri I ate a pizza from the dining hall and drank chocolate milk.
On weekends, I only had 2 meals per day in the dining hall, so I got up for breakfast and ate as much eggs as I could (honestly 8-12, depending on appetite) and loaded up a plate with a mountain of tater tots (they always had the same thing for breakfast). If I could force it down, I’d also get some waffles or something of the like. I then drank the standard 32 oz of whole chocolate milk. Ate the same dinner - ate around 1500-2000 cals at each meal.
I went from 135-180 lbs and didn’t gain that much fat. My max bench went from around 175 to 315 lbs.
In short, people look at you and don’t even know you work out, making minimum protein reqs and eating tons of junk is better than trying to make ends meet with chicken breast and vegetables for every meal.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I quoted his exact thought…that the results would be slow. I didn’t simply go grab PART of a sentence and misrepresent it. He didn’t mean anything else other than THE RESULTS WOULD BE SLOW based on a “clean bulk”…which, again for your retarded ass, is not what bodybuilding is about.
Next time, quit trying to defend someone else’s post when it is pretty damn clear what they were trying to say.[/quote]
Yes, you did misrepresented it. I’m not going to get in a big argument over this with you, because even if I did feel this was something worth arguing over (which I don’t), you’d likely start refuting claims I never made. In fact, you’ve already started to do that.
Thanks for the kind words, it’s been nice talking to you.
Set a goal. Achieve said goal. AT ANY COST.
I think most of the people that are continuously “bulking/cutting” do not have goals. They just do whatever just because.
Also, read the “mass phase” thread in the T-cell. Some very interesting views for all those in here. Which basically repeats what the big boys have been saying for time. That this takes time. Bulking and cutting every other week will get you nowhere.
It’s funny because in the T-Cell this shit stays calm and people actually present logical reasoning, but here it goes crazy. Even if none of the bigger guys on the forum decided to post in here, this thread would still be full of a bunch of dudes arguing, not getting anywhere.
I’ll give you a hint. Go to the T-Cell and look at the latest “round table” discussion. It will help you out more than sticking around here.
Edit:[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Set a goal. Achieve said goal. AT ANY COST.
I think most of the people that are continuously “bulking/cutting” do not have goals. They just do whatever just because.
Also, read the “mass phase” thread in the T-cell. Some very interesting views for all those in here. Which basically repeats what the big boys have been saying for time. That this takes time. Bulking and cutting every other week will get you nowhere. [/quote]
you beat me!
Prof X:
I’m just discussing, and criticism is welcome since I’d rather learn than carry on in ignorance. Yes, I’ll admit, that example was ridiculous, and I’m glad that people (including yourself) pointed that out before I ever tried doing anything remotely similar (again lol). It was VERY helpful to have pointed out the strength part (i.e. strength/muscle gains are more consistent and permanent on a long term bulk) - I couldn’t see those dangers in that “zig zag” method that I suggested.
I sometimes get confused when people like yourselves say don’t slow bulk because then you go on to criticize an example where someone in the real world heavy bulked and gained more fat than muscle (in this example this was the equivalent of 2lbs weight gain/week). Is this not what happens very often when people heavy bulk? LOL.
You said:
“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.”
But now, you are saying what the “slow bulk” people say, that unless most of the gains are muscle, then gaining anymore weight is pointless and you’re doing something wrong…do you see what I mean (you seem to be contradicting yourself)? I don’t think that someone natural who’s already gone from say 140lbs to 200lbs is doing something drastically wrong if he’s “only” gaining 40% muscle when he bulks (e.g. 3 or 4 lbs of muscle for every 9lbs weight gain). But then you’ll say, well, if he’s gaining THAT much fat, then he needs to lower his calories or whatever…which again, is what the slow bulk people have been trying to hammer in all along.
I’ve probably created a straw-man argument against you there…which is why earlier (page 2), I asked you specifically - what IS your example of a good bulk? Any illustrations/real world examples? For example, what’s the average amount of time a good bulk lasts and how big does the stomach get before worrying?
It seems that there shouldn’t even be two types of bulking, only good bulking and bad bulking. You are either gaining muscle, or you’re not. If you aren’t gaining any weight, “bulk” more. You are either gaining more fat than is reasonable or you’re not. There shouldn’t be two “classes”.
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Prof X:
I’m just discussing, and criticism is welcome since I’d rather learn than carry on in ignorance. Yes, I’ll admit, that example was ridiculous, and I’m glad that people (including yourself) pointed that out before I ever tried doing anything remotely similar (again lol). It was VERY helpful to have pointed out the strength part (i.e. strength/muscle gains are more consistent and permanent on a long term bulk) - I couldn’t see those dangers in that “zig zag” method that I suggested.
I sometimes get confused when people like yourselves say don’t slow bulk because then you go on to criticize an example where someone in the real world heavy bulked and gained more fat than muscle (in this example this was the equivalent of 2lbs weight gain/week). Is this not what happens very often when people heavy bulk? LOL.
You said:
“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.”
But now, you are saying what the “slow bulk” people say, that unless most of the gains are muscle, then gaining anymore weight is pointless and you’re doing something wrong…do you see what I mean (you seem to be contradicting yourself)? I don’t think that someone natural who’s already gone from say 140lbs to 200lbs is doing something drastically wrong if he’s “only” gaining 40% muscle when he bulks (e.g. 3 or 4 lbs of muscle for every 9lbs weight gain). But then you’ll say, well, if he’s gaining THAT much fat, then he needs to lower his calories or whatever…which again, is what the slow bulk people have been trying to hammer in all along.
I’ve probably created a straw-man argument against you there…which is why earlier (page 2), I asked you specifically - what IS your example of a good bulk? Any illustrations/real world examples? For example, what’s the average amount of time a good bulk lasts and how big does the stomach get before worrying?
It seems that there shouldn’t even be two types of bulking, only good bulking and bad bulking. You are either gaining muscle, or you’re not. If you aren’t gaining any weight, “bulk” more. You are either gaining more fat than is reasonable or you’re not. There shouldn’t be two “classes”.[/quote]
Im not prof X, so i’ll let him answer those points you were asking him about.
But IMO, after the “newbie gains” have been accomplished (the said 140 to 200) if you are adding half muslcle and half fat in any APPRECIABLE amounts, you are doing a good job. If you can add 20lbs of bodyweight in a 1-6 month period, and 10lbs of that is muscle, then you are doing GOOD.
The point though is, that MOST people aren’t going to add an appreciable amount of bodyweight with the “slow bulk” or “clean bulk” mentality. Sure there are some that can get a ton of “clean” food and do it, but most people (especially us younger guys) have too fast of metabolisms and not enough appetite or discipline to do this.
Also, I think after the newbie gains are taken care of, for MOST people a bulk will naturally result in a decent amount of fat gain. 50/50 muscle to fat sounds really bad, but in reality is pretty darn good. (Because when cutting, the odds of maintaining muscle are much better than 50/50). People get too scared about adding 50% fat, and thus try to go in search of the infamous “clean bulk” In theory, if you do it slowly and “clean” you’ll be able to add .5-1lbs of muscle per week while adding minimal amounts of fat. BUT, it almost never works out this way. Eight weeks will pass and you’ll be 2-3 lbs heavier and you wont really know how much of this is actually “lean muscle”.
So thats my take on the “clean bulk”
Also, with my previous dirty bulk, I had a theory. My goal was just to gain BODY WEIGHT. I know the differences between bodyweight and body composition, but my goal was just to take in the amount of food needed to get me above 200lbs (since that was a milestone for me) I got up to 210. And initially, I was a little pudgy and bloated. But after just a few weeks of maintanence (not really changing anything) my body weight stayed the same and I was noticeably leaner. So in my opinion, its better to do a “dirty bulk” (or whatever you gotta do to put on appreciable BW) and then take a little extra time to “trim” down at the end, rather than try to take the slow road and not add any fat in the first place.
As for length of bulk. I really think this will depend on the person. I’d much rather do a short 1-3 month “all out bulk” than a long 3-6+ month “clean bulk”, but your results will probably determine how long you continue.
^^ Good post.
One thing I read somewhere was that a study was done where sedentary people were given 1000 kcals above their daily needs ( I don’t if this was just BMR or including active) but of the weight they gained it said 1/3 was lean tissue.
So if you’re lifting hard, you should be able to get it above 50%.
I am a firm believer in getting around 1000cals above maintenance to gain (this seems to be the right amount for most)…but, if you are doing it trial and error way… X = Y - Z (formulas) don’t matter. If the scale isn’t budging, eat more than you are currently eating.
If you are doing it the trial and error way, a so called “slow bulk” should work too because if you aren’t gaining, you’d simply add another 2-500 cals extra per day (if you were THAT meticulous). A slow bulk’s worth isn’t measured by formulas; it’s the principles.
There’s no such thing as slow gains, or no gains, in a “slow bulk”…because, if you aren’t eating enough to make the scale go up, then it isn’t a bulk LOL. It’s no use saying:
“oh, I added 500 cals to my maintenance level and didn’t see any results…therefore, a slow bulk doesn’t work”
No, it’s not the method that’s wrong, it’s how you used it. It didn’t work either because you under-estimated the amount of calories for maintenance, or you just needed to add more LOL. I can’t say that 3800 cals is a “slow bulk”, if it’s giving me ok gains in muscle. I also can’t say that 3800 is a slow bulk if the scale didn’t move up - that is a none existent bulk LOL.
I started lifting again about 6 months ago. Weighing 198 pounds then. I was able to loose 12 pounds of fat in the first 2-3 months, and now weigh around 196 putting 10 lbs of muscle. Im 5’ 11". I want to bulk up more now, yes a lot of people probably havent read past the first sentence but for those of you who have thank you! I did lift all through high school. Im 25.
Anyways I am juggling my senior year in college, playing the field(girls), a full time job that pays pennies, and blah blah blah. But to bulk up while going to the gym 4 nights a week and playing hockey on wednesdays seems very expensive ("2lb of checken a day??, 10 eggs??, fuck I barely can afford a dozen eggs a week!) BUt I hate fast food it gives me the shitssss.
All that sodium and cholesterol is not what I want to subject my body to (I could care the fuck less if i never eat fast food again). BUt is it really necessary to eat 4000 calories a day to put another 10 pounds on or so. I would like to be 210-215 by August of 2010, and once i graduate and get a real job then I can send a train to the supermarket and buy tons of food.
Should I just keep doing what im doing; eating my three squares a day, doing 1.5-2 hours a night at the gym, 4-5 days a week? There is so much confusion in my mind that I dont even know what to ask first and what to do first. Any advise is good at this point keep in mind I have spent an hour reading through this forum for answers.
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Prof X:
I’m just discussing, and criticism is welcome since I’d rather learn than carry on in ignorance. Yes, I’ll admit, that example was ridiculous, and I’m glad that people (including yourself) pointed that out before I ever tried doing anything remotely similar (again lol). It was VERY helpful to have pointed out the strength part (i.e. strength/muscle gains are more consistent and permanent on a long term bulk) - I couldn’t see those dangers in that “zig zag” method that I suggested.[/quote]
That’s fine. It is just that many of us have been there already so to have people acting like experience takes a back seat to blind repetition of what a newb read somewhere is irritating. One of the first diets that proved to me how USELESS dieting and gaining every two weeks is was the ABCDE diet touted years back. Most people will admit now that the results sucked. Why? Because you never gave your body enough time to adapt and truly gain much muscle mass.
[quote]
I sometimes get confused when people like yourselves say don’t slow bulk because then you go on to criticize an example where someone in the real world heavy bulked and gained more fat than muscle (in this example this was the equivalent of 2lbs weight gain/week). Is this not what happens very often when people heavy bulk? LOL. [/quote]
As much as I despise reading Dankid post, he was actually correct above that if your goal is to truly get huge, gaining half muscle and half fat is likely to be expected after you have been at this a few years unless anabolics are used. That means that for the guy looking to have people not recognize them years later, there will LONG periods of gaining followed by a couple of months or more of damage control once you hit whatever personal limit you have set.
However, your example showed a 60lbs gain with only 20lbs of that being muscle. That is simply too much of a gain in body fat fore most people…unless they have a lightening fast metabolism that will help them burn that extra fat off easily.
[quote]
You said:
“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.”
But now, you are saying what the “slow bulk” people say, that unless most of the gains are muscle, then gaining anymore weight is pointless and you’re doing something wrong…do you see what I mean (you seem to be contradicting yourself)?[/quote]
What? First, most of the people who even approach this with a “slow bulk” mentality do so because they afraid of losing an ab. That mentality is NOT conducive to extreme changes in body mass. They will hold themselves back simply because of their fear of fucking up and gaining a little extra body fat.
There is a reason this is usually uttered by newbs or people who don’t exactly stand out. Anyone who has built a ton of muscle knows already that it takes every fucking thing you have in you just to make significant progress. There is no way in hell the guy micro-analyzing his diet to the point of only adding 200cals a week will see the same progress.
These people are not advanced. They are trying to micro-manage their gains at a time when they should be using a shotgun approach.
[quote]
I don’t think that someone natural who’s already gone from say 140lbs to 200lbs is doing something drastically wrong if he’s “only” gaining 40% muscle when he bulks (e.g. 3 or 4 lbs of muscle for every 9lbs weight gain). But then you’ll say, well, if he’s gaining THAT much fat, then he needs to lower his calories or whatever…which again, is what the slow bulk people have been trying to hammer in all along.[/quote]
NO, I wouldn’t say that. It depends on how they are gaining the weight, whether they have the metabolism to make that sort of gain work for them.
There is a huge problem with making blanket recommendations for groups of people. Invariably, the wrong people will listen.
Some fat kid is going to read that and think it is now ok to stuff their face with french fries…even though their metabolism is slow and it will take them forever to get that extra weight off.
They won’t even pay attention to the emphasis on METABOLISM and results seen.
Some initially skinny kid who need damn near 4-5,000cals to gain may do just well approaching things like that. I think I did.
[quote]
I’ve probably created a straw-man argument against you there…which is why earlier (page 2), I asked you specifically - what IS your example of a good bulk? Any illustrations/real world examples? For example, what’s the average amount of time a good bulk lasts and how big does the stomach get before worrying?[/quote]
There is no one right way for this. My idea of a good bulk is the one that produces the most muscle in the long run and allows that person to eventually build themselves up to an extreme degree.
The problem is, few people actually have the drive to go all out for years on end and weeding those people out is difficult on the internet.
YES, there were times I gained more fat than I wanted…but enough muscle came right along with it and dropping a little weight was never much of an issue for me
[quote]
It seems that there shouldn’t even be two types of bulking, only good bulking and bad bulking. You are either gaining muscle, or you’re not. If you aren’t gaining any weight, “bulk” more. You are either gaining more fat than is reasonable or you’re not. There shouldn’t be two “classes”.[/quote]
There WEREN’T two classes until bodybuilding sites got overrun with people who think like Shugart. People like that and those worried about “slow bulks” have tried to turn bodybuilding into fitness training. To people like that, even gaining 80+lbs is unheard of. Most of them believe it can’t even be done without steroids. Those are the people who changed bulking up into a negative and started acting like we were just telling people to become obese.
They are the same types that turned the word “bodybuilding” into a negative…and rant against it at every given opportunity.
No, no self respecting true GYM RAT is going to fuck up their own progress by trying to do this slowly. They already know the odds are stacked against them to begin with so throwing up even more restrictional road blocks will lead to you looking damn near the same this time next year.
you homo’s that keep putting shit in my thread GTFO and start your own thread… i dont want to click through pages of garbage to look at my own thread/topic…
what’s a time frame guide for adding 5% (10 lbs in my case) more pounds to your body weight… should i be able to do this every other week or maybe 2 lbs per week?
now lets assume for a second that i start adding more fat than muscle. do i got back and look at the quality of food or the number of calories?
how would adding more fat than muscle happen while being on a 4-5 days per week training split? i wouldnt think it would happen if your pushing your self hard in the gym.
thanks,
Tyler
[quote]ty_ty13 wrote:
what’s a time frame guide for adding 5% (10 lbs in my case) more pounds to your body weight… should i be able to do this every other week or maybe 2 lbs per week?
[/quote]
How could anyone possibly know this for your particular case?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]ty_ty13 wrote:
what’s a time frame guide for adding 5% (10 lbs in my case) more pounds to your body weight… should i be able to do this every other week or maybe 2 lbs per week?
[/quote]
How could anyone possibly know this for your particular case?
[/quote]
Isn’t is worrisome that some of them actually think the human body can be that predictable?
It shows a complete lack of understand of how they function.
Most of the people here need to go pick up a college level biology book and leave some of these authors alone for a while.
[quote]BantamRunner wrote:
I was a top level distance runner for 15 years. 5’5.5" and 140-45lbs, 8.8% via 7-site. Put away the running shoes a year ago and started lifting hard 4-5 days week trying and doing as much as I can. Stayed pretty clean with the diet, even went low carb but high calories (3500-4000 for me at the time). Got up to 165lb in 5 months, 9.5% via 7-site. I cut down for a show and came in at 146 after carb-up/dehydrate, and 5.5%. It was fun, got a sword…but dropped 3-4lbs of lean mass (145 down to 141)
Now here’s the important part. After the show I just started eating whatever. The first time I’ve done so for an extended period of time. Guess what happened. Post-comp rebound and then some, but I also put back the lean mass I lost pretty quickly and then some. Currently 170lb, 14.3% via 7-site, 146lb lean mass…highest it’s ever been.
Unless you’re already pretty big, or think you’re just gaining fat…f’n eat. I’ve always been pretty lean, always maintained that 8-10% range and when you’re used to being lean your whole life it’s quite the mental obstacle to get over. I think most of thos questioning the type of bulk are in the same boat. Meat, potatoes, rice, etc. Try to eat a lot of natural foods, but don’t get all uptight if you’re downing a pizza.
[/quote]
Not really the best example, you gained 8 more pounds of fat for 1lb. of LBM…and considering how small 1lb. is that may just have well been water/glycogen.
thats all i needed to know… i’m not claiming i know much… thats why i ask…