Clean/Dirty Bulking?

Training Bodybuilding
101

It has been said time and again that no one here is telling anybody to take a license to eat whatever they want whenever they want.

We said relax a little, basically, no one ever suggested you throw discretion out the window.

This is getting confused because I really see the hardcore “clean bulk” activists as defending their point of view by assuming/claiming that their opposers’ are suggesting everybody eat a bunch of junk to get big. No one has ever suggested that, so to base your argument on that is nothing but a fallacy. This has really just turned into people swinging their dicks around using whatever BS they can to “win” an arguement.

Stop claiming your health reasons and all that other bullshit because NO ONE SAID EAT SHIT FOOD ALL DAY WHILE BULKING.

Eating garbage ALL THE TIME like the average American will effect your help. Eating a couple burgers or some pizza every week during the maybe 6 months out of a year that you are spending really trying to put on mass WILL NOT KILL YOU OR CLOG YOUR ARTERIES.

Think about it, no one is saying to eat shit all day, all year, for as long as it takes you to get big…so stop defending “clean bulks” from said point of view.

102

[quote]chutec wrote:
no one should advocate a plan to eat fast food to put on muscle weight. >>>[/quote]

Why? WHY?!?!?!?!?

Cannot anybody think in balanced terms any more? Who has EVER laid out a plan of fast food to gain muscle weight? A few of us have been advocating eating big to get big for a long time around here of which the Professor is the most known and credible for that matter. All anybody has ever said is using less optimal sources to supplement an overall sound diet for calories sake will not harm an otherwise healthy person and will promote their goals.

I do not touch fast/junk food ever, but that doesn’t mean a 20 year old kid in the prime of life who is active AND trains with weights should worry about dropping dead if he grabs a pizza with his friends or or has a whopper on the way home from the gym. Geez, this can’t be this tough. Of course whole unprocessed food is better, but as long as you’re not living on it some junk has social and convenience advantages that are worth considering.

103

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
chutec wrote:
no one should advocate a plan to eat fast food to put on muscle weight. >>>

Why? WHY?!?!?!?!?

Cannot anybody think in balanced terms any more? Who has EVER laid out a plan of fast food to gain muscle weight? A few of us have been advocating eating big to get big for a long time around here of which the Professor is the most known and credible for that matter. All anybody has ever said is using less optimal sources to supplement an overall sound diet for calories sake will not harm an otherwise healthy person and will promote their goals.

I do not touch fast/junk food ever, but that doesn’t mean a 20 year old kid in the prime of life who is active AND trains with weights should worry about dropping dead if he grabs a pizza with his friends or or has a whopper on the way home from the gym. Geez, this can’t be this tough. Of course whole unprocessed food is better, but as long as you’re not living on it some junk has social and convenience advantages that are worth considering.[/quote]

did you not read the rest of my post? I pretty much said everything you just said, and then concluded that the only issue with dirty bulking is that it is not stressed often enough how clean dirty bulking actually is.

The two sides in the above argument are essentially arguing over what to do with the remaining 20% of your calories after your nutritional needs are met.

most plans recommend a minimum of 90% compliance to loss fat for example, so even in those weight LOSS lifestyles you are allowed 4 dirty meals a week, hence, on a bulk, a daily double whopper would not be a stretch of clean principles if all else was in check.

104 
I think people are looking at this the wrong way. There's no one right answer. I put on muscle pretty easy. Yet, getting lean is a struggle. I have a very big appetite and enjoy clean, unprocessed food. I have no difficulty whatsoever eating the amount I need to add mass. Junkier, processed food does tend to promote more fat gain in me. If I want fast food or processed food, I won't deny myself compeletely when not dieting. I'll have something. But I do minimize it heavily because I am concerned with my health, and I get little to no physique benefit from eating that way.
HOWEVER, other people are a compeletely different story. Some people have small appetites combined with very high metabolisms. Not a good recipe for gaining. It's very hard for them to eat the amount of clean calories they need to grow without being perpetually stuffed and miserable. And the impact on fat gain is minimal for some people. So, it would be silly for them to not supplement their diet with some junk. Lucky bastards. Just not to a a degree that it becomes a health concern. That said, getting big and being healthy are not necessarily always aligned. The kind of person I just described may well be able to get to the same place in a healthier way by eating almost completely clean. But it'd take them longer and be much more of an unpleasant grind on the way. It's a personal decision.
105

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
@TonyC:
What’re you doin here man?
Don’t take that the wrong way, but I’m curious why somebody who by his own declaration has no interest in size goals shows up in a bodybuilding forum to joust, longhand, with people who do. At least in threads like this. I don’t know I’ve just never had the urge to jump into a discussion about something I have no interest in or experience with.
[/quote]

I joined T-Nation to improve my knowledge of lifting. Yes, I don’t want to be 250+ lbs of lean body mass. I don’t have anything against people who do either. But I do have size goals sir. I currently weigh approximately 190 and I will continue to gain as I have been. I’m just not trying to be as big as I possibly can, whatever that weight is. I do know that if i were 250+ lbs, I wouldn’t like how I look. I know it seems a bit stupid that I say I have a size goal but it’s not even defined, but it’s not like I’m not trying to gain size. I am. Maybe I’m not even capable of being that big, but at the same time I can’t say I want to be as big as I possibly can because I don’t know how big that could be. Then again, using the same reasoning, I shouldn’t say either that I don’t want to be as big as I possibly can. Maybe I do.

I’m not the type of person to just say fuck it, I’ll just lift and see what happens. If I do something, I do it properly. I originally posted to post my viewpoint, but along the way, the flaming of people who do clean bulk rubbed me the wrong way. Sadly, I got too involved in it. Now if someone had a logical reasoning for why “dirty” bulking is so much better than “Clean” bulking and it made sense to me, then I come out with a better perspective. Honestly though, as of yet, no one has really made a logically assertive argument as to the benefits of dirty bulking over clean bulking. People have said you’re more likely to be sure you’re getting enough to eat. But there’s limits to that. On top of that, a lot of people make sure they get enough to eat while they’re clean bulking. To the people who apparently don’t have the drive to do so, there’s no need to bash clean bulking because you can’t put in the effort to properly do it. There are principles and concepts behind the idea that people don’t seem to grasp. It makes perfect sense if people took a second to think about it, but apparently that’s too much to ask. This post isn’t directed at anyone in particular but it’s a bit annoying when people can’t use some common sense and start twisting words, etc just so they do have something to argue about. I believe I made some decent points, mainly because people couldn’t refute many of the points I made. I’m here to improve my knowledge. That’s it. I’m not here to flame anyone. And to the people who say its amazingly hard to get big, use some common sense. It’ll take time to get big but the concept behind it all is simple. Lift and eat.

I might also add that I’m not saying people who eat some “dirty” foods to make sure they get enough calories are idiots. I was trying to make an honest comparison between clean and dirty bulking, assuming the person doing it has the drive to do what is necessary to do it properly.

106

[quote]tonyc wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
@TonyC:
What’re you doin here man?
Don’t take that the wrong way, but I’m curious why somebody who by his own declaration has no interest in size goals shows up in a bodybuilding forum to joust, longhand, with people who do. At least in threads like this. I don’t know I’ve just never had the urge to jump into a discussion about something I have no interest in or experience with.

I joined T-Nation to improve my knowledge of lifting. Yes, I don’t want to be 250+ lbs of lean body mass. I don’t have anything against people who do either. But I do have size goals sir. I currently weigh approximately 190 and I will continue to gain as I have been. I’m just not trying to be as big as I possibly can, whatever that weight is. I do know that if i were 250+ lbs, I wouldn’t like how I look. I’m not the type of person to just say fuck it, I’ll just lift and see what happens. If I do something, I do it properly. I originally posted to post my viewpoint, but along the way, the flaming of people who do clean bulk rubbed me the wrong way. Sadly, I got too involved in it. Now if someone had a logical reasoning for why “dirty” bulking is so much better than “Clean” bulking and it made sense to me, then I come out with a better perspective. Honestly though, as of yet, no one has really made a logically assertive argument as to the benefits of dirty bulking over clean bulking. People have said you’re more likely to be sure you’re getting enough to eat. But there’s limits to that. On top of that, a lot of people make sure they get enough to eat while they’re clean bulking. To the people who apparently don’t have the drive to do so, there’s no need to bash clean bulking because you can’t put in the effort to properly do it. There are principles and concepts behind the idea that people don’t seem to grasp. It makes perfect sense if people took a second to think about it, but apparently that’s too much to ask. This post isn’t directed at anyone in particular but it’s a bit annoying when people can’t use some common sense and start twisting words, etc just so they do have something to argue about. I believe I made some decent points, mainly because people couldn’t refute many of the points I made. I’m here to improve my knowledge. That’s it. I’m not here to flame anyone. And to the people who say its amazingly hard to get big, use some common sense. It’ll take time to get big but the concept behind it all is simple. Lift and eat.

I might also add that I’m not saying people who eat some “dirty” foods to make sure they get enough calories are idiots. I was trying to make an honest comparison between clean and dirty bulking, assuming the person doing it has the drive to do what is necessary to do it properly. [/quote]

Yes. Many did. You just weren’t paying attention. many individuals find it exceedingly diffult to gain mass eating all clean foods due to the fact that they are filling and those people have small appetities and high metabolisms. Adding some ‘dirty’ food makes it MUCH easier for people to progress. If it’s not quite as healthy, that is a tradeoff and a personal choice.

107

[quote]GetSwole wrote:
This is getting confused because I really see the hardcore “clean bulk” activists as defending their point of view by assuming/claiming that their opposers’ are suggesting everybody eat a bunch of junk to get big. No one has ever suggested that, so to base your argument on that is nothing but a fallacy. This has really just turned into people swinging their dicks around using whatever BS they can to “win” an arguement.
[/quote]

I don’t think any of the advocates of “clean” bulking have claimed “Dirty” bulkers eat junk all day. However there is no denying that “dirty” bulkers do get some empty calories, meaning no nutritional content. Like the whopper provides some nutrition, but at the same time, there’s a lot of empty calories along with it.

Replace those empty calories with calories that do have more nutritional content. Now you take those empty calories over an extended period of time and the difference builds up. I realize just simply eating foods with nutritional content won’t exactly equate to better muscle gains, but at the same time, who really knows just how much nutrition is more than enough. Who knows when a said amount of protein isn’t going to help? No one really. This is part of the idea behind clean bulking.

108

[quote]tonyc wrote:
who really knows just how much nutrition is more than enough. [/quote]

No one. That is why approaching this as if you can calculate the EXACT amount of nutrients your body always needs to ONLY gain muscle mass would largely be an exercise in futility. My goal when gaining is to make sure my body definitely has enough to grow on. If I gain too much body fat, I reduce my intake slightly. What sense would it make to overcomplicate things beyond that? My goal is gains in muscle mass. I am also fully aware that those gains don’t just happen and have to be FORCED. You seem to think you could even get to 250lbs relatively lean if you wanted to. The chances of that happening are highly unlikely unless you have genetics better than most of the population. That means taking the “slow” approach to getting there makes little sense when the goal is that hard to reach in the first place.

We get it, you don’t want to gain much size. Why don’t you understand that everyone doesn’t have your own same goal?

109

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Yes. Many did. You just weren’t paying attention. [/quote]

What are you referring to?

110

[quote]Professor X wrote:
No one. That is why approaching this as if you can calculate the EXACT amount of nutrients your body always needs to ONLY gain muscle mass would largely be an exercise in futility. My goal when gaining is to make sure my body definitely has enough to grow on. If I gain too much body fat, I reduce my intake slightly. What sense would it make to overcomplicate things beyond that? My goal is gains in muscle mass. I am also fully aware that those gains don’t just happen and have to be FORCED. You seem to think you could even get to 250lbs relatively lean if you wanted to. The chances of that happening are highly unlikely unless you have genetics better than most of the population. That means taking the “slow” approach to getting there makes little sense when the goal is that hard to reach in the first place.

We get it, you don’t want to gain much size. Why don’t you understand that everyone doesn’t have your own same goal?[/quote]

Oh I completely understand that sir. Let’s say you reduce your intake slightly. What exactly is slightly if you aren’t counting calories? How do you gauge what slightly is unless you’re eating the same things everyday. I see calories as making sure I’m getting enough to eat. If I’m gaining too much weight too fast, I have a proper way of gauging how much less I should eat. But I wouldn’t necessarily call clean bulking the slow approach. Everyone needs to make sure they’re getting enough to eat regardless of what they’re eating, or else they aren’t going to gain.

I know I probably can’t get to 250 even if I wanted to, which is why I tried to edit my post but apparently it didn’t update fast enough and still hasn’t updated. Most people would consider someone to be big when they get over 200 lbs of lean body mass. Now I know on this forum, that’s nowhere close to big, but my statement about being easy to get big was based off of that. My bad on that one. Seeing as how I’m 190 and haven’t had any trouble putting on gains, I made a bad statement. A lot of people I know now already consider me pretty big for some reason. Once again I apologize for making that statement.

111

[quote]tonyc wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No one. That is why approaching this as if you can calculate the EXACT amount of nutrients your body always needs to ONLY gain muscle mass would largely be an exercise in futility. My goal when gaining is to make sure my body definitely has enough to grow on. If I gain too much body fat, I reduce my intake slightly. What sense would it make to overcomplicate things beyond that? My goal is gains in muscle mass. I am also fully aware that those gains don’t just happen and have to be FORCED. You seem to think you could even get to 250lbs relatively lean if you wanted to. The chances of that happening are highly unlikely unless you have genetics better than most of the population. That means taking the “slow” approach to getting there makes little sense when the goal is that hard to reach in the first place.

We get it, you don’t want to gain much size. Why don’t you understand that everyone doesn’t have your own same goal?

Oh I completely understand that sir. Let’s say you reduce your intake slightly. What exactly is slightly if you aren’t counting calories? How do you gauge what slightly is unless you’re eating the same things everyday. I see calories as making sure I’m getting enough to eat. If I’m gaining too much weight too fast, I have a proper way of gauging how much less I should eat. But I wouldn’t necessarily call clean bulking the slow approach. Everyone needs to make sure they’re getting enough to eat regardless of what they’re eating, or else they aren’t going to gain.
I know I probably can’t get to 250 even if I wanted to, which is why I tried to edit my post but apparently it didn’t update fast enough and still hasn’t updated. Most people would consider someone to be big when they get over 200 lbs of lean body mass. Now I know on this forum, that’s nowhere close to big, but my statement about being easy to get big was based off of that. My bad on that one. Seeing as how I’m 190 and haven’t had any trouble putting on gains, I made a bad statement. A lot of people I know now already consider me pretty big for some reason. Once again I apologize for making that statement. [/quote]

I don’t need to specifically count all calories to make sure I am eating enough. The scale can tell me that and I am not clueless about having a general idea of my food intake. You seem to think anyone not using graphs and calculators is simply taking blind shots in the dark. If I eat generally the same for a week and gain no weight, obviously I need to eat more if the goal is a gain in muscle mass and body weight.

How is this that confusing to you?

You are just starting at this. You haven’t experienced the huge reduction in gains that you will notice in short time. Without forcing body weight gains, once those initial gains are past, it will be very difficult to see further progress. That is why there are millions of guys who weigh around 190-200lbs and so very few who weigh over 220lbs relatively lean at average height.

I currently weigh about 265lbs as I am dropping weight. I have no doubt that I would not be this size if I had approached things the way you are now. I have a fast metabolism even though I am not currently “ripped”. It takes a lot of food for me to see further weight gain and the chances of me getting those calories from chicken breasts alone given my schedule would be a pointless exercise. Even now most of my diet is steak (nearly one-half to one pound each), rice and potatoes. I need the steaks just so I don’t drop weight too fast and lose muscle mass. Everyone does not have the same metabolism. Those who actually have the genetics to gain large amounts of muscle mass will eventually need more calories than you have even considered.

112

[quote]tonyc wrote:
Replace those empty calories with calories that do have more nutritional content. Now you take those empty calories over an extended period of time and the difference builds up. [/quote]

Just a slight correction. There is no such thing as a ‘‘calorie with more nutritional content’’ or even such things as ‘‘empty calories’’.

Both are terms that are often used by mainstream nutritionists to illustrate that food devoid of much nutritional content will not have much health benefits.

You see a calorie is a unit measure. Specifically it is a measure of energy. Just like a centimeter or an inch is a unit of measure of length/distance.

So a calorie is actually not a ‘‘real’’ thing. It’s just a unit. The body doesn’t recognize ‘‘calories’’ it recognize nutrients (macro and micronutrients).

The proper concept that you are talking about should be phrase ‘‘foods with more nutritional content’’. An ‘‘empty food’’ doesn’t exist either. Empty food (or as you said empty calorie) means that the food you are eating is devoid of nutrients.

We have two ‘‘main’’ types of nutrients: macronutrients (proteins, carbs, fats) and micronutrients (vitamins, minerals and other ‘‘good’’ stuff).

Now, even junk food contains nutrients (since junk also has proteins, carbs and fats… although the last two are generally higher). In fact, when it comes to macronutrients density (the amount of macronutrients per gram of food) is generally much higher in junk food than in healthy foods.

So it is not so much that ‘‘junk’’ is devoid of nutrients, but rather that the nutrients found in that food are not really optimal for health and getting lean (e.g. too much saturated fat, too much high glycemic carbs, too little protein) and that they are relatively low in micronutrients.

I’m not saying that to say that one should eat a lot of junk to grow. Most peoples know my view on the subject. But I simply wanted to clarify that the concept of ‘‘empty’’ calories is a misnomer.

Every food you eat junk, clean and anything in between will provide at least some of the stuff your body needs to function properly and grow. It’s just that some foods will do so while being healthier and providing added benefits and less chances of increasing fat gain.

And while I do agree that a ‘‘clean bulk’’ (I hate the term bulking BTW), or more precisely a muscle growth phase based on eating only healthy food is the best option IF you can eat enough macronutrients (proteins, carbs, fats) to stimulate growth; I am also aware that some peoples actually require a lot more nutrients/food than others to grow. And also that some peoples don’t have much of an appetite. In those case the occasional use of the ultra-dense junk food (better to eat protein-based junk like burgers, chicken nuggets, etc rather than sugar-based junk) might be the only way to get the required amount of nutrients in.

I’m not saying that to validate ‘‘dirty bulking’’, but just to say that in some instances it is required.

Take Prof X for example he is 265lbs… probably was close to 280 until recently. Have you any idea how much nutrients are required to merely MAINTAIN that amount of mass? A ton!!! So I can understand why he sometimes need to eat very dense foods.

113

Lay off the guy, he wants to gain 10-15 pounds of LBM and look exactly the same in 5 years (yes I know many think they will gain muscle at a CONSTANT rate from year to year, but unless youre a freak like KRoc and gain a consistent 5 pounds LBM each year for 20 years that ain;t happening. Also if you are anything over 5’10" a 15-20 pound LBM gain will NOT make you look much different with clothes on UNLESS you happen to gain it in all the right places.

Kid, you have noble goals but they’re not in line with this site (which originally started as Muscle MEdia 2000) and only in the last few months have we got people who say they don;t want to gain TOO much muscle… and I;m sure you have banged hotter girls than King Kamali, Gunter Schlierkemp, Chris Jalali and JAy Cutler and others have married (they all married fitness models btw) so you just need to either read this site and absorb what information YOU need for your goals and stay hidden until you have made significant visual progress.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
tonyc wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No one. That is why approaching this as if you can calculate the EXACT amount of nutrients your body always needs to ONLY gain muscle mass would largely be an exercise in futility. My goal when gaining is to make sure my body definitely has enough to grow on. If I gain too much body fat, I reduce my intake slightly. What sense would it make to overcomplicate things beyond that? My goal is gains in muscle mass. I am also fully aware that those gains don’t just happen and have to be FORCED. You seem to think you could even get to 250lbs relatively lean if you wanted to. The chances of that happening are highly unlikely unless you have genetics better than most of the population. That means taking the “slow” approach to getting there makes little sense when the goal is that hard to reach in the first place.

We get it, you don’t want to gain much size. Why don’t you understand that everyone doesn’t have your own same goal?

Oh I completely understand that sir. Let’s say you reduce your intake slightly. What exactly is slightly if you aren’t counting calories? How do you gauge what slightly is unless you’re eating the same things everyday. I see calories as making sure I’m getting enough to eat. If I’m gaining too much weight too fast, I have a proper way of gauging how much less I should eat. But I wouldn’t necessarily call clean bulking the slow approach. Everyone needs to make sure they’re getting enough to eat regardless of what they’re eating, or else they aren’t going to gain.
I know I probably can’t get to 250 even if I wanted to, which is why I tried to edit my post but apparently it didn’t update fast enough and still hasn’t updated. Most people would consider someone to be big when they get over 200 lbs of lean body mass. Now I know on this forum, that’s nowhere close to big, but my statement about being easy to get big was based off of that. My bad on that one. Seeing as how I’m 190 and haven’t had any trouble putting on gains, I made a bad statement. A lot of people I know now already consider me pretty big for some reason. Once again I apologize for making that statement.

I don’t need to specifically count all calories to make sure I am eating enough. The scale can tell me that and I am not clueless about having a general idea of my food intake. You seem to think anyone not using graphs and calculators is simply taking blind shots in the dark. If I eat generally the same for a week and gain no weight, obviously I need to eat more if the goal is a gain in muscle mass and body weight.

How is this that confusing to you?

You are just starting at this. You haven’t experienced the huge reduction in gains that you will notice in short time. Without forcing body weight gains, once those initial gains are past, it will be very difficult to see further progress. That is why there are millions of guys who weigh around 190-200lbs and so very few who weigh over 220lbs relatively lean at average height.

I currently weigh about 265lbs as I am dropping weight. I have no doubt that I would not be this size if I had approached things the way you are now. I have a fast metabolism even though I am not currently “ripped”. It takes a lot of food for me to see further weight gain and the chances of me getting those calories from chicken breasts alone given my schedule would be a pointless exercise. Even now most of my diet is steak (nearly one-half to one pound each), rice and potatoes. I need the steaks just so I don’t drop weight too fast and lose muscle mass. Everyone does not have the same metabolism. Those who actually have the genetics to gain large amounts of muscle mass will eventually need more calories than you have even considered.[/quote]

114

[quote]tonyc wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Yes. Many did. You just weren’t paying attention.

What are you referring to?[/quote]

You, buddy. Did you even read the rest of my post summarizing the reasons–many which were already stated–why it’s preferable for some to include more junk food? Are you impaired?

115

Look, Tonynyc, Thib just posted with the exact same reasons I previously did why junk food can be a good idea for SOME people. Some people require extraordinary amounts of nutrients to grow. And may not have much of an appetite. Adding some junk is the best if not the only way for THEM to progress. Good if you are not one of them. I’m not. I have no problem adding mass on almost all clean food. Getting lean is a bigger but manageable challenge for me. What exactly aren’t you understanding about individual differences?

116

[quote]UkpairehMombooto wrote:

Kid, you have noble goals but they’re not in line with this site (which originally started as Muscle MEdia 2000) and only in the last few months have we got people who say they don;t want to gain TOO much muscle

[/quote]

No, there’ve been lots of people posting they don’t want to gain much muscle at all since at least 2005 when I joined.

117

[quote]chutec wrote:
<<< did you not read the rest of my post? >>>[/quote]

No, my fault.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< You haven’t experienced the huge reduction in gains that you will notice in short time. Without forcing body weight gains, once those initial gains are past, it will be very difficult to see further progress. That is why there are millions of guys who weigh around 190-200lbs and so very few who weigh over 220lbs relatively lean at average height. >>>[/quote]

Oh indeed.

[quote]CT wrote:
<<< In those cases the occasional use of the ultra-dense junk food (better to eat protein-based junk like burgers, chicken nuggets, etc rather than sugar-based junk) might be the only way to get the required amount of nutrients in. >>>[/quote]
Emphasis mine

Quite so and that’s a good point. Most people with any idea what they’re doing do not eat twinkies and ice cream in the quest for progress.

[quote]UkpairehMombooto wrote:
<<< and only in the last few months have we got people who say they don;t want to gain TOO much muscle… >>>[/quote]

Surely you jest?

I joined here in August 2006 and one of the first things I saw was a guy who started a thread seriously and actually asking how he could lose muscle, but he was immediately outdone by the guy who wanted to know what program he should follow for his upcoming Frisbee competition. I am not kidding.

118

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Quite so and that’s a good point. Most people with any idea what they’re doing do not eat twinkies and ice cream in the quest for progress.

[/quote]

Exactly.

Notice everyone has been talking about burgers and such. While the “clean bulkers” treat as if their being told to eat donuts and cheetos.

119

[quote]GetSwole wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

Quite so and that’s a good point. Most people with any idea what they’re doing do not eat twinkies and ice cream in the quest for progress.

Exactly.

Notice everyone has been talking about burgers and such. While the “clean bulkers” treat as if their being told to eat donuts and cheetos.[/quote]

Yeah, I love it when someone links to one of Dave Tate’s oreo articles and assumes that’s what we mean by ‘dirtying up’ the diet.

120

Personally, I try to eat clean but if I want to indulge a little I am not going to stop myself. Lately I have been putting on some good weight by employing homemade shakes from arnolds book. I keep it clean but if I want a hamburger I will eat a hamburger. Heavy whipping cream is also an excellent way to get calories.