How to 'Bulk' For Naturals

Training
721

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
This thread has added nothing useful to this site. I wish there was a magical place where I could get advice from helpful posters such as SmashingWeights, Stu, Utah, CC, SteelyD, Bauber, etc. without all the baby-back bullshit. Seriously, there is more bickering and nitpicking in this forum than one would see on a children’s playground.[/quote]

Seriously? A magical place?

Stu has a competition log.
Smashingweights has a ‘how do you train’ thread.
Bauber has a log.
Alpha has old logs.
MauraderMeat has old logs.
Kingbeef has a long thread about training that everyone refers to.
The other guys you mentioned may or may not have logs, but certainly could if they wanted to. None of the above logs are filled with BS.

Did I just make magic?

722

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]

Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.

The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]

What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?

What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]

You’ve reached the heart of the meal frequency debate.

Today, many say it doesn’t matter, as long as your daily macros meets your needs.

However, old school guys bring up things like nitrogen retention and the need for a steady stream of amino acids to prevent catabolism.

I’ve read all the arguments and tried both ways, and in my opinion – and this is N=1, as they say – if trying to add mass you will get better results by eating more frequently.

Furthermore, if trying to lose fat, I would still sip on something like MAG-10 if during fasting periods.

Ducks for cover[/quote]

Have you read layne norton’s phd research ? Just curious

723

[quote]LoRez wrote:

Other than that, I learned that X is a master at trolling.[/quote]

Yeah, taking the time to answer your questions is “trolling”. Trust me, I won’t waste that time in the future.

724

I know that those logs exist. And, yes, I do frequently visit them. I was just making note of how sad it is that I can’t go for five minutes reading through this forum without seeing this same shit. Every other thread in here lately seems to be a shit-storm thread. I just think it’s sad that this site has become little more than a way to blow off steam for guys than an actual site for discussion.

725

I’ll throw in my 2 pennies on macro counting, and while this certainly won’t apply to everyone, it probably applies to a lot of people in similar situations.

I have a fairly rigid, repeating work schedule. And my time away from work is generally scheduled out too. As a result, even though I don’t count my macros, my meals are very similar, and there are certain everyday staples. I think a lot of people eat the same breakfast everyday, and I personally snack the same everyday, and drink a half gallon of whole milk every day. Most lunches are the same. Workout nutrition is the same each workout. My only variety is dinner. I know I’m not the only guy who eats like this.

So, without having ever counted the macros in my diet (if you asked me I doubt I could guess within 500 of my actual number), it’s easy enough to manipulate them with a reasonable degree of precision. If I stop gaining weight, I can just add a shake. Or double up on a serving at one meal. Or something along those lines. I can do this until I start gaining weight. If I’m gaining too much fat, I can adjust as needed. I’ve gained a decent amount of muscle without getting fat doing this for years.

Obviously this doesn’t work if you don’t have regularity in your schedule, like if you travel a lot, or work crazy shifts. But there are plenty of 9-5’ers on here.

726

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I’ll throw in my 2 pennies on macro counting, and while this certainly won’t apply to everyone, it probably applies to a lot of people in similar situations.

I have a fairly rigid, repeating work schedule. And my time away from work is generally scheduled out too. As a result, even though I don’t count my macros, my meals are very similar, and there are certain everyday staples. I think a lot of people eat the same breakfast everyday, and I personally snack the same everyday, and drink a half gallon of whole milk every day. Most lunches are the same. Workout nutrition is the same each workout. My only variety is dinner. I know I’m not the only guy who eats like this.

So, without having ever counted the macros in my diet (if you asked me I doubt I could guess within 500 of my actual number), it’s easy enough to manipulate them with a reasonable degree of precision. If I stop gaining weight, I can just add a shake. Or double up on a serving at one meal. Or something along those lines. I can do this until I start gaining weight. If I’m gaining too much fat, I can adjust as needed. I’ve gained a decent amount of muscle without getting fat doing this for years.

Obviously this doesn’t work if you don’t have regularity in your schedule, like if you travel a lot, or work crazy shifts. But there are plenty of 9-5’ers on here.[/quote]

That is how it was for me in the military. It was very easy to track if I needed to add more or take away some due to my eating schedule being so regular. I didn’t have to take out a calculator to do it.

727

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
I know that those logs exist. And, yes, I do frequently visit them. I was just making note of how sad it is that I can’t go for five minutes reading through this forum without seeing this same shit. Every other thread in here lately seems to be a shit-storm thread. I just think it’s sad that this site has become little more than a way to blow off steam for guys than an actual site for discussion.[/quote]

You’re taking what you’re finding in half a dozen BSL threads and applying it to the whole site. Those thread comprise a tiny percentage of the content here. Every other forum is filled with quality information and discussion. If you ignored the threads that are entirely comprised of bitching between those 6 or 7 posters you mentioned, there would be nothing to complain about. Except the PWI forum. That shit is nuts forever.

728

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]

Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.

The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]

What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?

What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]

You’ve reached the heart of the meal frequency debate.

Today, many say it doesn’t matter, as long as your daily macros meets your needs.

However, old school guys bring up things like nitrogen retention and the need for a steady stream of amino acids to prevent catabolism.

I’ve read all the arguments and tried both ways, and in my opinion – and this is N=1, as they say – if trying to add mass you will get better results by eating more frequently.

Furthermore, if trying to lose fat, I would still sip on something like MAG-10 if during fasting periods.

Ducks for cover[/quote]

Have you read layne norton’s phd research ? Just curious
[/quote]

No, though from what I’ve gleaned he isn’t a big fasting guy either.

729

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
I know that those logs exist. And, yes, I do frequently visit them. I was just making note of how sad it is that I can’t go for five minutes reading through this forum without seeing this same shit. Every other thread in here lately seems to be a shit-storm thread. I just think it’s sad that this site has become little more than a way to blow off steam for guys than an actual site for discussion.[/quote]

Except the PWI forum. That shit is nuts forever.[/quote]

A POX on your house…PWI is awesome.

And these threads serve a purpose, they keep the other threads/forums clean of shitstorms.

You will notice that the posters you referenced above do NOT disturb any other threads, I wonder why that is?

730

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]

Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.

The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]

What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?

What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]

You’ve reached the heart of the meal frequency debate.

Today, many say it doesn’t matter, as long as your daily macros meets your needs.

However, old school guys bring up things like nitrogen retention and the need for a steady stream of amino acids to prevent catabolism.

I’ve read all the arguments and tried both ways, and in my opinion – and this is N=1, as they say – if trying to add mass you will get better results by eating more frequently.

Furthermore, if trying to lose fat, I would still sip on something like MAG-10 if during fasting periods.

Ducks for cover[/quote]

Have you read layne norton’s phd research ? Just curious
[/quote]

No, though from what I’ve gleaned he isn’t a big fasting guy either.
[/quote]

But he also isn’t a 6 meals a day guy either from his papers. They show the largest protein synthesis comes from 4 maybe 5 meals. Spread out because of a refractory period

731

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]

Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.

The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]

What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?

What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]

You’ve reached the heart of the meal frequency debate.

Today, many say it doesn’t matter, as long as your daily macros meets your needs.

However, old school guys bring up things like nitrogen retention and the need for a steady stream of amino acids to prevent catabolism.

I’ve read all the arguments and tried both ways, and in my opinion – and this is N=1, as they say – if trying to add mass you will get better results by eating more frequently.

Furthermore, if trying to lose fat, I would still sip on something like MAG-10 if during fasting periods.

Ducks for cover[/quote]

Have you read layne norton’s phd research ? Just curious
[/quote]

No, though from what I’ve gleaned he isn’t a big fasting guy either.
[/quote]

But he also isn’t a 6 meals a day guy either from his papers. They show the largest protein synthesis comes from 4 maybe 5 meals. Spread out because of a refractory period
[/quote]

Please don’t say you think 4-5 meals is the same as fasting…?

Call me crazy, but 4-5 meals a day is reasonably high meal frequency.

732

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I’ll throw in my 2 pennies on macro counting, and while this certainly won’t apply to everyone, it probably applies to a lot of people in similar situations.

I have a fairly rigid, repeating work schedule. And my time away from work is generally scheduled out too. As a result, even though I don’t count my macros, my meals are very similar, and there are certain everyday staples. I think a lot of people eat the same breakfast everyday, and I personally snack the same everyday, and drink a half gallon of whole milk every day. Most lunches are the same. Workout nutrition is the same each workout. My only variety is dinner. I know I’m not the only guy who eats like this.

So, without having ever counted the macros in my diet (if you asked me I doubt I could guess within 500 of my actual number), it’s easy enough to manipulate them with a reasonable degree of precision. If I stop gaining weight, I can just add a shake. Or double up on a serving at one meal. Or something along those lines. I can do this until I start gaining weight. If I’m gaining too much fat, I can adjust as needed. I’ve gained a decent amount of muscle without getting fat doing this for years.

Obviously this doesn’t work if you don’t have regularity in your schedule, like if you travel a lot, or work crazy shifts. But there are plenty of 9-5’ers on here.[/quote]

I’m more of a 10-7’er, but that’s basically the approach I’ve found that works for me.

For lunch, I learned of a few higher-calorie, higher protein options at nearby restaurants and that helped. (e.g., Bob Evan’s Sunshine Skillet, Cracker Barrel’s Grandpa’s Country Fried Steak breakfast) I keep milk in the fridge, and occasionally other protein-drinks.

I’m also tracking bodyweight at the same time every day, recorded on a whiteboard, going back several weeks. This, combined with photos here and there, and constant progression in the training log, are what I’m using to keep everything on track.

I don’t know, anymore, how many calories I’m taking in but I know that the right changes are happening to the scale, my lifts, and in the photos. I did initially count macros though to get a decent familiarity with things, especially for certain recurring meal options from restaurants. If/when this approach stop working – lifts not increasing, not gaining weight, gaining too much fat, proportionately – then I’ll revise the approach and probably become more diligent about tracking macros.

What I got especially out of this thread was the progressive stair-step approach from BlueCollarTr8n for managing surplus/deficit cycles. That provided some clear answers to some of the pending questions like “when do I stop bulking? how long should I do it for?” etc.

733

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]

Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.

The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]

What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?

What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]

You’ve reached the heart of the meal frequency debate.

Today, many say it doesn’t matter, as long as your daily macros meets your needs.

However, old school guys bring up things like nitrogen retention and the need for a steady stream of amino acids to prevent catabolism.

I’ve read all the arguments and tried both ways, and in my opinion – and this is N=1, as they say – if trying to add mass you will get better results by eating more frequently.

Furthermore, if trying to lose fat, I would still sip on something like MAG-10 if during fasting periods.

Ducks for cover[/quote]

Have you read layne norton’s phd research ? Just curious
[/quote]

No, though from what I’ve gleaned he isn’t a big fasting guy either.
[/quote]

But he also isn’t a 6 meals a day guy either from his papers. They show the largest protein synthesis comes from 4 maybe 5 meals. Spread out because of a refractory period
[/quote]

Please don’t say you think 4-5 meals is the same as fasting…?

Call me crazy, but 4-5 meals a day is reasonably high meal frequency. [/quote]

I guess it depends on what you consider meals, is it the spacing? When I have cut I use intermittent fasting and still eat around 5 meals within 6-8 hrs. I could eat 1-2 larger meals but I prefer to eat a variety of foods instead of say 20 oz of steak and 4 sweet potatoes.

734

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I’ll throw in my 2 pennies on macro counting, and while this certainly won’t apply to everyone, it probably applies to a lot of people in similar situations.

I have a fairly rigid, repeating work schedule. And my time away from work is generally scheduled out too. As a result, even though I don’t count my macros, my meals are very similar, and there are certain everyday staples. I think a lot of people eat the same breakfast everyday, and I personally snack the same everyday, and drink a half gallon of whole milk every day. Most lunches are the same. Workout nutrition is the same each workout. My only variety is dinner. I know I’m not the only guy who eats like this.

So, without having ever counted the macros in my diet (if you asked me I doubt I could guess within 500 of my actual number), it’s easy enough to manipulate them with a reasonable degree of precision. If I stop gaining weight, I can just add a shake. Or double up on a serving at one meal. Or something along those lines. I can do this until I start gaining weight. If I’m gaining too much fat, I can adjust as needed. I’ve gained a decent amount of muscle without getting fat doing this for years.

Obviously this doesn’t work if you don’t have regularity in your schedule, like if you travel a lot, or work crazy shifts. But there are plenty of 9-5’ers on here.[/quote]

I’m more of a 10-7’er, but that’s basically the approach I’ve found that works for me.

For lunch, I learned of a few higher-calorie, higher protein options at nearby restaurants and that helped. (e.g., Bob Evan’s Sunshine Skillet, Cracker Barrel’s Grandpa’s Country Fried Steak breakfast) I keep milk in the fridge, and occasionally other protein-drinks.

I’m also tracking bodyweight at the same time every day, recorded on a whiteboard, going back several weeks. This, combined with photos here and there, and constant progression in the training log, are what I’m using to keep everything on track.

I don’t know, anymore, how many calories I’m taking in but I know that the right changes are happening to the scale, my lifts, and in the photos. I did initially count macros though to get a decent familiarity with things, especially for certain meal from restaurants. If/when this approach stop working – lifts not increasing, not gaining weight, gaining too much fat, proportionately – then I’ll revise the approach and probably become more diligent about tracking macros.

What I got especially out of this thread was the progressive stair-step approach from BlueCollarTr8n for managing surplus/deficit cycles. That provided some clear answers to some of the pending questions like “when do I stop bulking? how long should I do it for?” etc.[/quote]

When you fuck a girl doggy style and you can’t see the action, then it’s time to back off.

No food logs?

Guess the calorie counting, track every macro crowd are full of shite. Doesn’t surprise me.

735

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]

Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.

The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]

What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?

What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]

You’ve reached the heart of the meal frequency debate.

Today, many say it doesn’t matter, as long as your daily macros meets your needs.

However, old school guys bring up things like nitrogen retention and the need for a steady stream of amino acids to prevent catabolism.

I’ve read all the arguments and tried both ways, and in my opinion – and this is N=1, as they say – if trying to add mass you will get better results by eating more frequently.

Furthermore, if trying to lose fat, I would still sip on something like MAG-10 if during fasting periods.

Ducks for cover[/quote]

Have you read layne norton’s phd research ? Just curious
[/quote]

No, though from what I’ve gleaned he isn’t a big fasting guy either.
[/quote]

But he also isn’t a 6 meals a day guy either from his papers. They show the largest protein synthesis comes from 4 maybe 5 meals. Spread out because of a refractory period
[/quote]

Please don’t say you think 4-5 meals is the same as fasting…?

Call me crazy, but 4-5 meals a day is reasonably high meal frequency. [/quote]

I guess it depends on what you consider meals, is it the spacing? When I have cut I use intermittent fasting and still eat around 5 meals within 6-8 hrs. I could eat 1-2 larger meals but I prefer to eat a variety of foods instead of say 20 oz of steak and 4 sweet potatoes. [/quote]

4-5 meals assumes every 3 to 4-1/2 hours or so.

Fasting refers more to the spacing, and in my opinion one can get better results with IF by pulsing with MAG-10 during the fasting period.

736

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
I know that those logs exist. And, yes, I do frequently visit them. I was just making note of how sad it is that I can’t go for five minutes reading through this forum without seeing this same shit. Every other thread in here lately seems to be a shit-storm thread. I just think it’s sad that this site has become little more than a way to blow off steam for guys than an actual site for discussion.[/quote]

Except the PWI forum. That shit is nuts forever.[/quote]

A POX on your house…PWI is awesome.

And these threads serve a purpose, they keep the other threads/forums clean of shitstorms.

You will notice that the posters you referenced above do NOT disturb any other threads, I wonder why that is?[/quote]

I agree, that was actually pretty much the point I was making. Pruffrok said that ALL the threads around here were turning to shit, and I said it’s basically contained in half a dozen threads. The log section is still filled with great stuff, as are the competition threads, and many, many others.

I always wonder about some of the guys who post exclusively in PWI. DO THEY EVEN LIFT?

737

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
I know that those logs exist. And, yes, I do frequently visit them. I was just making note of how sad it is that I can’t go for five minutes reading through this forum without seeing this same shit. Every other thread in here lately seems to be a shit-storm thread. I just think it’s sad that this site has become little more than a way to blow off steam for guys than an actual site for discussion.[/quote]

Except the PWI forum. That shit is nuts forever.[/quote]

A POX on your house…PWI is awesome.

And these threads serve a purpose, they keep the other threads/forums clean of shitstorms.

You will notice that the posters you referenced above do NOT disturb any other threads, I wonder why that is?[/quote]

I agree, that was actually pretty much the point I was making. Pruffrok said that ALL the threads around here were turning to shit, and I said it’s basically contained in half a dozen threads. The log section is still filled with great stuff, as are the competition threads, and many, many others.

I always wonder about some of the guys who post exclusively in PWI. DO THEY EVEN LIFT?[/quote]

I have no doubt that some don’t…probably the same percentage that do not as the folks that used to hang out in SAMA.

738


Up a few pounds and noticing more definition. I’m actually getting separation between my upper and lower chest. Pretty cool. Am I doin it right?

739

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Up a few pounds and noticing more definition. I’m actually getting separation between my upper and lower chest. Pretty cool. Am I doin it right?[/quote]

Nice work DD!

740

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Up a few pounds and noticing more definition. I’m actually getting separation between my upper and lower chest. Pretty cool. Am I doin it right?[/quote]
Awesome, man