This is be my second time bulking. My goal is to build buscle. I used to be 130 I am now close to 170. Im 20 years old.
so thats the quick background now the last time I bulked I bulked very fast gaining a few lbs a week (like 3-4) Im in my 5th week and Ive gained only about 6 lbs. my last bulk was kind of a dirty bulk and this year Im eating very very very clean. so my question is should I be upping my cals, protein, carbs, or based on the 6 lbs in 5 weeks(ish) am I on the right track?
thanks for any and all help.
p.s. I take in around 300g of protein a day sometimes more sometimes less. I dont know cals or carbs but I eat alot lol
If you are gaining 3-4 pounds a week then you will be gaining more fat than anything else. We can only build about .5 pounds of actual muscle a week. 1 pound with water/glycogen so that leaves 2-3 pounds of fat a week maybe a little bit less if you have good genes.
agree with tykraus7. the most MUSCLE that can be built per week is 1 lb w/ water & glycogen. But, since it was ur first bulk, and maybe ur first time lifting? you could have built more muscle than the norm. But, now dont expect the same kind of gains. Your 6 lbs in 5 weeks seems reasonable and if your composition hasnt gained more fat, then you’re on the right track and keep it up. Only add in more cals wen you see the gains stalling.
p.s. ahh…the first few months on training…such a glorious time haha
lol ive been training for a few years but this is the first time ive dialed it in. Im just making sure i keep eating i dont worry too mcuh about calories yet…
Has anyone ever been able to prove that an individual is only able to build a half pound of muscle a week?
Given that he’s a young dude and is consuming adequate protein and cals- sounds like he is anyway- Who’s to say how much muscle he’s actually gaining. I would personally use the mirror to measure progress. If it looks like you’re gaining fat then adjust carbs and cals accordingly.
[quote]bmar22 wrote:
lol ive been training for a few years but this is the first time ive dialed it in. Im just making sure i keep eating i dont worry too mcuh about calories yet…[/quote]
Well without worrying about calories you very well could end up adding a lot of fat. Say you need 3000 cals to maintain your weight, if you don’t know how many cals you are taking in and eat a ton you could take in 4,000 cals+ and end up adding a bunch of fat when you would get the same amount of muscle and much less fat from eating 3,500 cals a day.
[quote]jit07 wrote:
Has anyone ever been able to prove that an individual is only able to build a half pound of muscle a week?
Given that he’s a young dude and is consuming adequate protein and cals- sounds like he is anyway- Who’s to say how much muscle he’s actually gaining. I would personally use the mirror to measure progress. If it looks like you’re gaining fat then adjust carbs and cals accordingly. [/quote]
tykraus thanks for the article Im going to read it right now! eventhough i dont watch my cals I eat the regular 6-7 meals a day high protein and they’re small proportioned so i dont think Im over doing it but maybe i should start counting cals??
[quote]bmar22 wrote:
tykraus thanks for the article Im going to read it right now! eventhough i dont watch my cals I eat the regular 6-7 meals a day high protein and they’re small proportioned so i dont think Im over doing it but maybe i should start counting cals??[/quote]
Yeah that is what I do too but right now I’m trying to get super lean so I’m eating a bit less.
You don’t have to count them for long just one or 2 days so you get an idea of what the certain amount of cals you want looks like. Once you know how much food the amount of cals you want is then you don’t have to keep counting them.
good article. I agree for the most part what he stated. However, his evidence is anecdotal not scientific. For the most part I’d say he’s right about averaging .5 pounds of muscle per week, but there are obviously going to be people who are more gifted in terms of gaining muscle. Also, I would assume that a guy who is 7 feet tall would gain more muscle in a weeks time than a guy who is 5 feet tall just based on the fact that the 7 footer is so much larger and has a greater growth potential.
That is why I stated to use the mirror or maybe waist measurement to gauge fat gain. We’re basically saying the same thing though; there is a limit to how much muscle mass you can gain in a week. I would assume that this limit is different for every lifter though, some may be able to gain more or less than the average. The op is in a good position to gain muscle considering he’s young and is starting to utilize proper nutrition.
[quote]jit07 wrote:
good article. I agree for the most part what he stated. However, his evidence is anecdotal not scientific. For the most part I’d say he’s right about averaging .5 pounds of muscle per week, but there are obviously going to be people who are more gifted in terms of gaining muscle. Also, I would assume that a guy who is 7 feet tall would gain more muscle in a weeks time than a guy who is 5 feet tall just based on the fact that the 7 footer is so much larger and has a greater growth potential.
That is why I stated to use the mirror or maybe waist measurement to gauge fat gain. We’re basically saying the same thing though; there is a limit to how much muscle mass you can gain in a week. I would assume that this limit is different for every lifter though, some may be able to gain more or less than the average. The op is in a good position to gain muscle considering he’s young and is starting to utilize proper nutrition. [/quote]
Yeah the article states that the average guy can add that much so obviously a guy with better than average genetics can add more than .5 pounds a week. The mirror trick can be very misleading though. From 12-16% body fat the definition looks pretty much the same so you could add 6 or so pounds of fat and not be able to visually tell the difference. I forgot who sid that but it was one of the authors on here (might even be CT in that article). So the mirror might not be the best way to go since the body looks the same during a certain body fat range.
6 lbs in 5 weeks are you kidding me? What do you want to change? Take that over a two years time and you are on pace for 125 lbs gained. If 1/2 or more of that was muscle you’d be a whole new person. Think LONG TERM people. I wish it was in my power to eliminate these 6-12 week bulks and cut phases every goes in round and round all the time, and most making no significant change ever. Just go into muscle gaining mode for as long as it takes to build up the amount of muscle you want to carry. Not bulk, not cut, BUILD THE BODY. If you want to be a lean underwear model type look it might take a few months, if you want to be the neighborhood freak, you better be prepared to spend 3-6 years putting in your time with the iron and especially the dinner table.
Don’t get fat, eat enough to grow(it’s probably more than you think), do cardio and manipulate carbs/fats to keep yourself in shape and freaking pay your dues. The only thing between you and whatever you want to be when it’s all said and done is your own genetics, time, and consistency. This isn’t meant to be a lecture to you, this whole topic gets me a little irked sometimes.
The amount of people that make no significant changes(after initial newbie gains if they even get that) vs the amount of people who transform themselves from average to spectacular has got to be staggering. 100 to 1 at least. Figure out what that 1 side of the ratio is doing, and run like hell from the norm.
[quote]jit07 wrote:
Has anyone ever been able to prove that an individual is only able to build a half pound of muscle a week?
[/quote]
No and anyone who puts these limitations on themselves is setting themselves up for mediocre results in my opinion. An average person? Maybe that’s all they can do. A shit heavy training protein eating machine? Watch out and let’s reevaluate some of these things we believe to be true.
[quote]Scott M wrote:
No and anyone who puts these limitations on themselves is setting themselves up for mediocre results in my opinion. An average person? Maybe that’s all they can do. A shit heavy training protein eating machine? Watch out and let’s reevaluate some of these things we believe to be true.
[/quote]
Thanks professor I had forgotten about this thread. This obviously isn’t directed towards you, just some thoughts I have for the general audience here.
I know I know, most people don’t “want” to look like powerful image Ronnie Coleman, but people could really learn a lesson from him if they want to be large. He’s a guy that stepped onto a pro stage around 230 lbs early in his career and at his peak(2003 O maybe) was closer to 3 bills, on stage.
Now here’s a guy with some top of the line genetics, but it’s hard to say sooo much better than his competition. He made tremendous progress at an advanced level while most of his competition stayed approximately the same year after year. If drugs and genetics are somewhat even(everyone is special there) at that top level why did he go from dead last in the Olympia to Mr. Untouchable for several years? Answer some of those questions and maybe we can figure out what the difference is between him and others.
For a hint, Shawn Ray turned pro at I think 19 at around 198 lbs and ended his career at around 212 lbs on stage. 14 lbs of muscle after all those years give or take a few depending on conditioning. What factors do people think made the difference between Shawn Ray and Ronnie?