How to 'Bulk' For Naturals

Training
181

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?

182

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Well, so far, the only benefit I see to “intentionally carrying extra weight for a period of time, before losing it”, is that theory of greater bodyweight → increased bone density → greater muscular growth.

If one person takes a lean gains approach to their diet and ends up at 12% bodyfat in the end, and another takes a “bulk and cut” (i.e, bulk and diet back down) approach to end up at 12% bodyfat in the end… that bone density theory is the only explanation I have for the 2nd person having more muscle than the first.[/quote]

The other major benefit you are missing out there is that a more aggressive approach to eating leads to faster strength and rep gains in the gym, and more productive workouts. As a natural you have very few cards to play that will increase strength and make that happen.
[/quote]

Yep…and time is a HUGE factor. You do not have forever to play with “optimal gains”.[/quote]

Agree totally. Those golden years you will never get back. Why waste them?

183

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.

184

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Well, so far, the only benefit I see to “intentionally carrying extra weight for a period of time, before losing it”, is that theory of greater bodyweight → increased bone density → greater muscular growth.

If one person takes a lean gains approach to their diet and ends up at 12% bodyfat in the end, and another takes a “bulk and cut” (i.e, bulk and diet back down) approach to end up at 12% bodyfat in the end… that bone density theory is the only explanation I have for the 2nd person having more muscle than the first.[/quote]

The other major benefit you are missing out there is that a more aggressive approach to eating leads to faster strength and rep gains in the gym, and more productive workouts. As a natural you have very few cards to play that will increase strength and make that happen.
[/quote]

Yep…and time is a HUGE factor. You do not have forever to play with “optimal gains”.[/quote]

Agree totally. Those golden years you will never get back. Why waste them?
[/quote]

Good news for you PX. There is still room for you to make gains in your late 30s. If a schmuck like me can make any gains at all, then anyone who can fog a mirror should be able to, too.

185

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
I’ve seen you ask several times for actual evidence for faster muscle gain at a lower percentage, claiming there isn’t any (even though those who discuss it have given anecdotal evidence). Therefore in your mind it’s a silly notion. [/quote]

At the present time the only individual that has stated that they built any significant amount of LBM (>30lbs) after their 23rd birthday while remaining in ‘all abs in’ condition is Utah Lama. Everyone else are people that did actually add more fat than they were comfortable with during their bulk periods; dieted it off; and now are of the opinion that they should not have done that; and don’t recommend it to others or are people that have yet to reach the point of significant development and claim they are going to be able to reach the desired level while lean gaining.
FTR…in over 25 years of training I have never personally known any natural lifter that built any significant LBM while lean gaining…I’m not saying they don’t exist; but like big lotto winners, I’ve never met one. [/quote]

I guess more than anything is the claim that as BF% climbs it will hinder muscle gains incrementally as well as a preference to store fat instead of build muscle. I don’t recall what thread or threads it was in (most likely some of the first in this new forum) some posters had given anecdotal evidence and discussed the hormonal balance in regards to this.

ryanbCXG seems to be saying something similar on page 7 here.

186

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I don’t think he would gain much mass doing that; if he did get to 330 a lot of it would be fat.

I mean, once he weighs 225 or more, his workout is going to feel pretty light

187

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.

188

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
I don’t know if old school bulkers counted their macros, but I think the general trend was they trained as hard as possible and ate as much as they needed to recover, as opposed to maintaining a slight caloric excess and regulating training to match recovery capacity
[/quote]

Yes…the ‘old school’ approach involves calculating macros.
[/quote]
I get that the “old school approach” involves counting macros when people use it now… I should’ve specified I was talking about the lifters from way back in the 1940’s - 50’s. Did they really have accurate nutrition information available to count macros? Or did they just train their asses off and make sure they ate more than enough?

189

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.[/quote]

The math might be sound, I wouldn’t argue against it as much as I would argue that he won’t gain 160 lbs just squatting 225 for reps like that, his progress would stall at a much lower bw

190

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
I don’t know if old school bulkers counted their macros, but I think the general trend was they trained as hard as possible and ate as much as they needed to recover, as opposed to maintaining a slight caloric excess and regulating training to match recovery capacity
[/quote]

Yes…the ‘old school’ approach involves calculating macros.
[/quote]
I get that the “old school approach” involves counting macros when people use it now… I should’ve specified I was talking about the lifters from way back in the 1940’s - 50’s. Did they really have accurate nutrition information available to count macros? Or did they just train their asses off and make sure they ate more than enough?[/quote]

I’m finishing up reading McCallum’s Complete Keys to Progress these days.

Some of the ideas he proposes:

  • train as hard as you can, for every rep, for every set
  • take as much rest as you need; if you don’t need at least 10 minutes to recover after a 20 rep squat set, you probably weren’t working hard enough
  • again on the “hard work”: with the 20 rep squats, you should be working to well over 300lbs/2x bodyweight
  • you need a major caloric surplus while doing this; he has a number of recipes and he’s very clear about counting protein content. He puts a lot less emphasis on counting macros as a whole, but he definitely counts grams of protein and total calories.
  • when you’re trying to bulk up faster, it’s ok to get a bit soft and do minimal conditioning
  • for all other cases, he recommends running a couple times per week
  • for weight loss, he recommends what basically seem to be barbell complexes

Plenty of other stuff, but those are the relevant points I can think of off the top of my head.

The original articles were published in the 60s, so this shows some macros were counted at least by then. Oh, and as you said, the work wasn’t downregulated based on whether you were properly recovered. Vitamins, minerals, germ oil, more food and more sleep were how you dealt with inadequate recovery. But you still worked just as hard.

191

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
I’ve seen you ask several times for actual evidence for faster muscle gain at a lower percentage, claiming there isn’t any (even though those who discuss it have given anecdotal evidence). Therefore in your mind it’s a silly notion. [/quote]

At the present time the only individual that has stated that they built any significant amount of LBM (>30lbs) after their 23rd birthday while remaining in ‘all abs in’ condition is Utah Lama. Everyone else are people that did actually add more fat than they were comfortable with during their bulk periods; dieted it off; and now are of the opinion that they should not have done that; and don’t recommend it to others or are people that have yet to reach the point of significant development and claim they are going to be able to reach the desired level while lean gaining.
FTR…in over 25 years of training I have never personally known any natural lifter that built any significant LBM while lean gaining…I’m not saying they don’t exist; but like big lotto winners, I’ve never met one. [/quote]

I guess more than anything is the claim that as BF% climbs it will hinder muscle gains incrementally as well as a preference to store fat instead of build muscle. I don’t recall what thread or threads it was in (most likely some of the first in this new forum) some posters had given anecdotal evidence and discussed the hormonal balance in regards to this.

ryanbCXG seems to be saying something similar on page 7 here.
[/quote]

There a ton of different factors. How significant they are can be argued and as you seen they are. But there are countless studies done that show fat is an endocrine organ and starts causing a lot of problems as it builds up. Plenty of people that are smarter than me and train many many people have shown both the studies and anecdotal evidence of this. But again it always comes back to personal preference and long term personal goals. Those will trump everything.

192

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
I’ve seen you ask several times for actual evidence for faster muscle gain at a lower percentage, claiming there isn’t any (even though those who discuss it have given anecdotal evidence). Therefore in your mind it’s a silly notion. [/quote]

At the present time the only individual that has stated that they built any significant amount of LBM (>30lbs) after their 23rd birthday while remaining in ‘all abs in’ condition is Utah Lama. Everyone else are people that did actually add more fat than they were comfortable with during their bulk periods; dieted it off; and now are of the opinion that they should not have done that; and don’t recommend it to others or are people that have yet to reach the point of significant development and claim they are going to be able to reach the desired level while lean gaining.
FTR…in over 25 years of training I have never personally known any natural lifter that built any significant LBM while lean gaining…I’m not saying they don’t exist; but like big lotto winners, I’ve never met one. [/quote]

I guess more than anything is the claim that as BF% climbs it will hinder muscle gains incrementally as well as a preference to store fat instead of build muscle. I don’t recall what thread or threads it was in (most likely some of the first in this new forum) some posters had given anecdotal evidence and discussed the hormonal balance in regards to this.

ryanbCXG seems to be saying something similar on page 7 here.
[/quote]

There a ton of different factors. How significant they are can be argued and as you seen they are. But there are countless studies done that show fat is an endocrine organ and starts causing a lot of problems as it builds up. Plenty of people that are smarter than me and train many many people have shown both the studies and anecdotal evidence of this. But again it always comes back to personal preference and long term personal goals. Those will trump everything. [/quote]

Thanks. I am curious as to why there seems to be a flat out disregard to this by some while other somewhat anecdotal-only scenarios are thrown out as truth without need to back it up with evidence of the same caliber asked for in regards to things they disagree with.

I would be surprised if any REAL evidence could be brought forth to hold up BW set point theory. And to be clear, this doesn’t mean I actually disagree with that theory.

193

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.[/quote]

The math might be sound, I wouldn’t argue against it as much as I would argue that he won’t gain 160 lbs just squatting 225 for reps like that, his progress would stall at a much lower bw[/quote]

Forget about whether the mass he gains is all fat or all muscle.

Does his workout intensity and total tonnage not change at all as his weight increases? Even if all the weight is fat which we all agree on if you overeat you will gain?

194

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
I’ve seen you ask several times for actual evidence for faster muscle gain at a lower percentage, claiming there isn’t any (even though those who discuss it have given anecdotal evidence). Therefore in your mind it’s a silly notion. [/quote]

At the present time the only individual that has stated that they built any significant amount of LBM (>30lbs) after their 23rd birthday while remaining in ‘all abs in’ condition is Utah Lama. Everyone else are people that did actually add more fat than they were comfortable with during their bulk periods; dieted it off; and now are of the opinion that they should not have done that; and don’t recommend it to others or are people that have yet to reach the point of significant development and claim they are going to be able to reach the desired level while lean gaining.
FTR…in over 25 years of training I have never personally known any natural lifter that built any significant LBM while lean gaining…I’m not saying they don’t exist; but like big lotto winners, I’ve never met one. [/quote]

I’ve noticed that myself. Many of the people saying “don’t do it” are the same ones who took that approach themselves to build an initial foundation of strength and size.

Another question.

How do personally you decide when to switch between your surplus and deficit periods? I know some do the “lean during the summer, bulk during the winter”, but you seemed to use longer periods than that.

195

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.[/quote]

To me that makes perfect sense. In reality it wouldnt be exact because not all bodyweight is moved through the squat, but its most of it.

Can we all agree that bodyweight squats for someone weighing 330lbs are harder and require more work than someone who weighs 170?

196

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.[/quote]

To me that makes perfect sense. In reality it wouldnt be exact because not all bodyweight is moved through the squat, but its most of it.

Can we all agree that bodyweight squats for someone weighing 330lbs are harder and require more work than someone who weighs 170?
[/quote]

How would the results differ here from someone who, over the same period of time, adds 140lbs to the bar while gaining another 20lbs bodyweight (still 160lbs net increase of weight lifted)?

197

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
I don’t know if old school bulkers counted their macros, but I think the general trend was they trained as hard as possible and ate as much as they needed to recover, as opposed to maintaining a slight caloric excess and regulating training to match recovery capacity
[/quote]

Yes…the ‘old school’ approach involves calculating macros.
[/quote]
I get that the “old school approach” involves counting macros when people use it now… I should’ve specified I was talking about the lifters from way back in the 1940’s - 50’s. Did they really have accurate nutrition information available to count macros? Or did they just train their asses off and make sure they ate more than enough?[/quote]

I’m finishing up reading McCallum’s Complete Keys to Progress these days.

Some of the ideas he proposes:

  • train as hard as you can, for every rep, for every set
  • take as much rest as you need; if you don’t need at least 10 minutes to recover after a 20 rep squat set, you probably weren’t working hard enough
  • again on the “hard work”: with the 20 rep squats, you should be working to well over 300lbs/2x bodyweight
  • you need a major caloric surplus while doing this; he has a number of recipes and he’s very clear about counting protein content. He puts a lot less emphasis on counting macros as a whole, but he definitely counts grams of protein and total calories.
  • when you’re trying to bulk up faster, it’s ok to get a bit soft and do minimal conditioning
  • for all other cases, he recommends running a couple times per week
  • for weight loss, he recommends what basically seem to be barbell complexes

Plenty of other stuff, but those are the relevant points I can think of off the top of my head.

The original articles were published in the 60s, so this shows some macros were counted at least by then. Oh, and as you said, the work wasn’t downregulated based on whether you were properly recovered. Vitamins, minerals, germ oil, more food and more sleep were how you dealt with inadequate recovery. But you still worked just as hard.[/quote]

198

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
I don’t know if old school bulkers counted their macros, but I think the general trend was they trained as hard as possible and ate as much as they needed to recover, as opposed to maintaining a slight caloric excess and regulating training to match recovery capacity
[/quote]

Yes…the ‘old school’ approach involves calculating macros.
[/quote]
I get that the “old school approach” involves counting macros when people use it now… I should’ve specified I was talking about the lifters from way back in the 1940’s - 50’s. Did they really have accurate nutrition information available to count macros? Or did they just train their asses off and make sure they ate more than enough?[/quote]

I’m finishing up reading McCallum’s Complete Keys to Progress these days.

Some of the ideas he proposes:

  • train as hard as you can, for every rep, for every set
  • take as much rest as you need; if you don’t need at least 10 minutes to recover after a 20 rep squat set, you probably weren’t working hard enough
  • again on the “hard work”: with the 20 rep squats, you should be working to well over 300lbs/2x bodyweight
  • you need a major caloric surplus while doing this; he has a number of recipes and he’s very clear about counting protein content. He puts a lot less emphasis on counting macros as a whole, but he definitely counts grams of protein and total calories.
  • when you’re trying to bulk up faster, it’s ok to get a bit soft and do minimal conditioning
  • for all other cases, he recommends running a couple times per week
  • for weight loss, he recommends what basically seem to be barbell complexes

Plenty of other stuff, but those are the relevant points I can think of off the top of my head.

The original articles were published in the 60s, so this shows some macros were counted at least by then. Oh, and as you said, the work wasn’t downregulated based on whether you were properly recovered. Vitamins, minerals, germ oil, more food and more sleep were how you dealt with inadequate recovery. But you still worked just as hard.[/quote]
[/quote]

What’s the calculation for the 20 rep squat?

199

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
What’s the calculation for the 20 rep squat?[/quote]

What do you mean by “calculation”?

200

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
What’s the calculation for the 20 rep squat?[/quote]

What do you mean by “calculation”?[/quote]
I guess just what you based the weight off of and how