The 'Bulking' Philosophy

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
1

I just read an article in bb.com that blew my mind. It was related to bulking and the general philosophy therein.

The article–from a certified trainer, no less–advocated bulking with a goal of putting 1-2 lbs. of muscle on your frame every week. Now I understand the benefits of caloric excess (not the right term, my brain just won’t work right now), you have to eat more than maintainence to grow, but to the point of 1-2 lbs a week? A little basic math (sorry, it’s a necessary evil some times):

If you’re putting on 1-2 lbs. a week, that will give you approximately 18 lbs. over a three month bulk. In that same time frame, you can expect (non-beginner, of course) approximately 4.5 lbs. of muscle if you’re eating good proteins 5-7 times a day and training hard (I go by about 1.5 lbs. of muscle a month, which is consistent with what I’ve seen for the average non-beginner trainer). So he’s advocating 13.5 lbs. of fat gain in a three month bulk, which would require–at minimum–2+ months to lose if you want to maintain the muscle you worked hard to build up.

So in the end–after 3 months of bulking and about 2.5 months of cutting–you can expect about 4.5 lbs. of muscle growth with almost no change to b.f. and 5 and a half months of hard work.

In the same time, if you monitor your weight and only consume what would be required for growth without the excess fat, you could probably expect closer to 8 lbs. of mucle added to a frame without adding much, if any, fat. What am I missing here? Or is this ‘expert’ just spouting off what lazy trainers like to hear (i.e. eat a ton, don’t worry about the scale). Disgusting.

2

I treat bb.com just like soy, stay the fuck away from it.

Simple, the trainer instructs the trainee to aim for 1-2 pounds of muscle a week. It won’t happen so the trainee will eat big so he’s gaining 1-2 pounds of weight(muscle and fat) a week. After a few months the trainee will have to drop fat, so he keeps the trainer employed and making money. Bulk, cut, bulk, cut.

If the trainer told him to aim for 1-2 pounds of muscle a month minimal fat gain, the trainee wouldn’t see any difference in his physique, get discouraged and soon fire the trainer.

3

I’ve been wanting to make a bulk/cut rant for awhile, but I’m too damn lazy haha. People that go in those cycles time after time making little progress either way drive me nuts some times. If people learned how to eat properly and take necesasry precautions when they are in a muscle building mode(for years not weeks-months) we’d have a lot more happy muscular people on this site.

4

[quote]thrasher wrote:
I treat bb.com just like soy, stay the fuck away from it.

[/quote]

Completely agree with you there. I order some of my supplements from there (pretty good prices for a number of smaller products like multi’s and fish oil), that’s about all it’s good for imo. I just noticed this article and thought I’d see what their ‘guru’ had to say about bulking.

5

I agee with you that the recommendation of 1-2 lbs of a muscle a week is too aggressive(mainly the 2 part), but at the same time I feel your own guideline of 1.5 lbs a month is too low. Perhaps if you were to average it out for a year but if somebody wants to gain 10 lbs of muscle the idea that that it would take 6 1/2 months to do that is too slow in my opinion even for a non beginner.

To use myself as an example I am moving up from the 198 lb weight class to the 220 lb weight class and I expect that to take less than 6 months. Generally .5 - 1 lb of muscle gain a week is a little more realistic.

6

Bodybuilding.com is not a bad place. It is like any other collection of huge amounts of people… most of them are stupid, and a small percentage are great.

I don’t consider T-Nation any different in that respect, it’s all a matter of finding that smaller group of excellent minds amongst the masses of morons.

7

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
I agee with you that the recommendation of 1-2 lbs of a muscle a week is too aggressive(mainly the 2 part), but at the same time I feel your own guideline of 1.5 lbs a month is too low. Perhaps if you were to average it out for a year but if somebody wants to gain 10 lbs of muscle the idea that that it would take 6 1/2 months to do that is too slow in my opinion even for a non beginner. To use myself as an example I am moving up from the 198 lb weight class to the 220 lb weight class and I expect that to take less than 6 months. Generally .5 - 1 lb of muscle gain a week is a little more realistic. [/quote]

You really feel that you average ~.75 of muscle a week (3 lb. a month, 36 lb a year)? I realize you’re saying ‘don’t look at the entire year’, but you have to. If you’re training consistently, properly and year-round you will put on muscle rather consistently. And I simply don’t see 3 lb. a month.

Granted, I have rather poor genetics (not an excuse, just a fact) but even people I’ve seen with a good capacity to add muscle, they simply don’t add that much unless they’re just starting out training.

Maybe this is all my stark realization that my body just isn’t designed to put muscle on that fast, but I don’t think I’ve added more than 2 pounds of muscle to my frame in a month since I started training.

Ok…now that I’m getting pissed off at all of this: for anyone reading this, what would you say your average gain is in a months time? Now really think about it, because if you say 3 lb, realize that if you’ve been training for a year+ then you’re talking about ~36 pounds in a single year.

8

I think what’s screwing you up is the conception that muscle gain is linear. I would say that gains occur in spurts, so the average rate of gain is not as important as the sum of gains in a given time period. Some weeks you may gain nothing, and then others more than a pound, not an exact science.

9

[quote]B-Mac13 wrote:
I think what’s screwing you up is the conception that muscle gain is linear. I would say that gains occur in spurts, so the average rate of gain is not as important as the sum of gains in a given time period. Some weeks you may gain nothing, and then others more than a pound, not an exact science. [/quote]

I was going to be way more blunt, but you basically wrote what I was going to. NO ONE should be looking at “future gains” in terms of what they “MAY” gain in a year if they gain the same amount everyday.

No one gains muscle at a constant rate and no one can predict when your body will supercompensate with greater gains or lag behind. The trainer giving his body what it needs to grow when it does supercompensate for training will make the most progress. That is all “bulking up” refers to.

10

I agree. All of my gains have come in spurts. I will be stuck at the same weight for weeks, even though I’m busting my ass every single time and out of nowhere I’ll go to the gym one day and the weight I did the last session will feel light. My nutrition stays constant as does my intensity. I don’t know why it works that way; intuitively, you would think if you are eating the same, and busting your ass the same, you should make the same constant gains… unfortunately, that’s just not reality. And 3 pounds a month? Please. Maybe if you’re juicing or new to the iron game, but if you’ve been doing it a while then 3 pounds of MUSCLE (not glycogen, wate, ect.) might not even happen in 3 months.

11

Perhaps, Hambone, you don’t actually have “poor genetics”, but you simply don’t give your body all the nutrients it needs when it needs it by only consuming “…what would be required for growth without the excess fat”.

It is true that muscle gains come slowly whether you gain fat with it or not, and there is no sense in getting “fat” while gaining muscle.

However, it is typically futile to try to add muscle while containing all fat gains completely. The body isn’t good at being pulled in two different directions like that.

12

You’re all 100% right, and I realize that gains are anything but linear. I have some weeks when I feel as though I could deadlift a full bar, others when I’m not sure I could even lift the bar–and my weight responds in kind. That said, my question is what, as a bodybuilder, do you expect to put on your frame in a year?

Having done it for a number of years you guys must have 1) past results that you can go by, and 2) goals for the year that are relatively achievable. Me, I had the goal of hitting 200 lbs. at a reasonably low b.f. %…for two years in a row. In the past 2 years I’ve gone from 170 at ~10% b.f. to where I’m at now, about 200 with around 14% b.f.

Now when I see someone saying they expect to gain 22 lbs. of lean muscle in 6 months (as Tim posted in this thread) I think he’s frigging insane. Am I wrong, or do I just suck at this whole lifting thing?

This is starting to depress me.

Oh, and to mr popular, I just wanted to say that I’m currently doing DC training and as the training philosophy calls for I consume ~400g of protein a day, and cycle my carbs (250-300g on training days, 90-140g on non-training) and fats depending on the day. I could be wrong, but I think my nutrition is about as in-check as it’ll ever be.

13

Hambone as you know big D has shown time and time again that what is “possible” for size gains just flat out didn’t take into account a protein inhaling frequent training and stretching machine. Give DC training and eating some time(you are doing great according to your updates) and I think that 200(and then some if you so choose) at a low bodyfat is going to be yours faster then you think. This is a quote(from guess who ha) that I have memorized, it’s running through my head all the time when I need a kick in the ass

"If you take genetics and drugs out of the equation, how would you ? the trainer ? answer the following question?

Im 180 LBS and I want to be 280 LBS. I want to gain muscular size at the quickest, fastest rate possible all the while keeping my bodyfat at a satisfactory level. There is a million dollars in it for you it you can do it in 6 years or less.? What would you have to have him do to get him there??!! ME? ? This guy would never miss a meal, get to know a treadmill on a regular basis, and be a rest pausing maniac. And I would have a million in 5 years. not six!"

14

[quote]Hambone1818 wrote:
I just read an article in bb.com that blew my mind. It was related to bulking and the general philosophy therein.

The article–from a certified trainer, no less–advocated bulking with a goal of putting 1-2 lbs. of muscle on your frame every week. Now I understand the benefits of caloric excess (not the right term, my brain just won’t work right now), you have to eat more than maintainence to grow, but to the point of 1-2 lbs a week? A little basic math (sorry, it’s a necessary evil some times):

If you’re putting on 1-2 lbs. a week, that will give you approximately 18 lbs. over a three month bulk. In that same time frame, you can expect (non-beginner, of course) approximately 4.5 lbs. of muscle if you’re eating good proteins 5-7 times a day and training hard (I go by about 1.5 lbs. of muscle a month, which is consistent with what I’ve seen for the average non-beginner trainer). So he’s advocating 13.5 lbs. of fat gain in a three month bulk, which would require–at minimum–2+ months to lose if you want to maintain the muscle you worked hard to build up.

So in the end–after 3 months of bulking and about 2.5 months of cutting–you can expect about 4.5 lbs. of muscle growth with almost no change to b.f. and 5 and a half months of hard work.

In the same time, if you monitor your weight and only consume what would be required for growth without the excess fat, you could probably expect closer to 8 lbs. of mucle added to a frame without adding much, if any, fat. What am I missing here? Or is this ‘expert’ just spouting off what lazy trainers like to hear (i.e. eat a ton, don’t worry about the scale). Disgusting.[/quote]

Sounds like funny math to me. Look, there are many factors for putting on muscle. There are two rules of bulking that if you follow, you’ll be happier in the end.

The more your daily calorie intake, the cleaner the calories need to be. This means you are eating a shit load of clean food, since clean food tends to be less calorie dense.

For a good bulk, your bf % should go down as you should be putting on muscle to a greater proportion than fat. It doesn’t look as sexy on the scale, but over time the gains are more quality and you won’t have to suffer on some shitty diet to see your gains after.

That’s my $.02

15

As others have said, the gain in weight isn’t linear. It also is significant to know how far away you are from your current or natural weight. I have been 198 for a long time, so getting to 220 will be challenging but I feel it will certainly be doable in 6 months if not less. However, I would not think it would be possible to continue that pattern and get to 242 within a year’s time because 240 is very far away from what my body tends to be. So if you are 200 now and I was training you, I would make it a goal for you to get to 210 or 215 and then stay there for a while to let your body get used to that weight. I would tell you to gain 1 lb a week (also as a side note I would tell you to eat more carbs, even at the expense of some protein, in a gaining phase but that is just my opinion, do whatever you want) so I would shoot for that 15 lb weight gain in about 4 months. But I would not expect you to be able to gain another 30 lbs in 8 more months, just like your bench might go up 20 lbs in 3 months on a certain program doesn’t mean it will for sure go up 80 lbs in a year.

Also just to be clear when I said I wanted to go from 198 to 220 that doesn’t mean I expect to gain 22 lbs of pure muscle, I know some of it will be fat and that is just the way it goes. For example if I am 198 and 12% fat (23 lbs) and I get to 220 at 14% fat (30 lbs) I would be happy, so it would be 7 lbs of fat gain and 15 lbs of muscle. It is tough to get a much better ratio than that naturally and when you are not a beginner.

Also to the person who said your bodyfat will decrease in a bulking cycle this is not correct. If you follow that logic then bodybuilders would just do a bulking cycle and they would be in contest shape as they gained muscle and lost fat. Given that you start out with more muscle than fat, if you stay the same percentage you are still gaining more muscle than fat in terms of total lbs. You are rarely going to lose fat in a bulking cycle because you are eating extra calories, the hope is just that you don’t add too much fat to it.

16

could you link the article?
it’s hard to try and critique something paraphrased in a post.

17

[quote]Kliplemet wrote:

Lou Ferrigno- “The Incredible Hulk” -learned the hard way. He recalls much of the same mistake that Frank Zane warns aspiring athletes of: “For nine months I trained like a madman on all basic exercises and ate everything that wasn’t nailed down. At the end of the nine months, I weighed 303 pounds [138kg] … The next four months were devoted to dieting and training down to reach a peak for the show I’d lost a year before. It was grueling work, but I managed to reach peak shape, only to lose badly again. Unfortunately, I weighed only 202 lbs [101kg], a trivial two pounds [one kilo], more than the previous year, despite all of the work! That experience convinced me that the process of bulking up and training down is worthless for serious bodybuilders.”

but i think u better ask Ghana Girl’s brutha because he is hyooooge LOL[/quote]

I am so tired of seeing this quote from Ferrigno. If you gain 100 damn pounds above your contest weight and end up dieting back down to only 2lbs more than before YOU FUCKED UP YOUR DIETING. Not only that, but for someone to even attempt to LOSE 100lbs in only 4 months is pure insanity unless they happen to be one of those obese people on the Discovery Channel. For anyone to pull “bulking is bad” from that is retarded.

For one, who the hell is telling people to gain 100lbs of body weight before they ever diet down again? Two, Ferrigno is tall as hell which means if he EVER competed at only 200lbs, he must have been competing when he first started getting into this. The man competed in his last contest around 270lbs. I really don’t understand why this retarded quote pops up so often when this topic is discussed.

18

I think if anything this thread shows that muscle gain is all relative to the individual as everyone has different opinions on the matter. ya gotta figure out your own maximal gaining formula by messin with your diet and training over a period of years.

19

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
I think if anything this thread shows that muscle gain is all relative to the individual as everyone has different opinions on the matter. ya gotta figure out your own maximal gaining formula by messin with your diet and training over a period of years.[/quote]

Folks will probably get tired of hearing me say this, but the largest part of this battle is between people’s ears. If you want to get bigger you need to train, eat and THINK that way. Concentrate on getting bigger and let the fat fall where it may. That does not mean simply eating yourself into obesity. It does mean you have to eat enough to gain at a rate your happy with and however much fat comes with that is just the reality of the game. The guy who’s primary concern is being lean while he claims to be trying to get bigger is probably not in too much danger of being either.

20

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
I think if anything this thread shows that muscle gain is all relative to the individual as everyone has different opinions on the matter. ya gotta figure out your own maximal gaining formula by messin with your diet and training over a period of years.

Folks will probably get tired of hearing me say this, but the largest part of this battle is between people’s ears. If you want to get bigger you need to train, eat and THINK that way. Concentrate on getting bigger and let the fat fall where it may. That does not mean simply eating yourself into obesity. It does mean you have to eat enough to gain at a rate your happy with and however much fat comes with that is just the reality of the game. The guy who’s primary concern is being lean while he claims to be trying to get bigger is probably not in too much danger of being either.[/quote]

Just to add to that, very few people have gotten truly muscular to an extreme degree without ever bulking up at all. This has somehow become a bad word lately and I just don’t understand it. If you weigh 145lbs and expect to some day be 220lbs ripped, I seriously doubt you will get there while also being extremely worried about whether all ab muscles are visible at all times.

Genetics would also be a factor, however, those genetics simply won’t be realized. Gaining LARGE amounts of muscle is simply not something your body wants to do. It will fight you to do so. For anyone to think it won’t truly be a fight at the dinner table and at the gym is ridiculous. I have found it is far easier to bulk up to a weight, tighten up my diet to lose a little extra body fat and then get back to that weight leaner than it ever would be for me to somehow ONLY gain pure muscle mass while expecting my body to accept a much larger weight set point.

In the end, to each his own. However, I simply don’t see all of these gigantic bodybuilders walking around the gym who never bulked up before. I really think some of you are living in fantasy…but hey, it sells personal training consultations.