[quote]roybot wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
The OP made me laugh. Good intro Roybot.
Thanks Aragorn! I started this discussion partly as a response to claims made on another thread that muscle mass can be achieved in a caloric deficit regardless of your level of bodyfat. Which obviously is disasterous advice to a newbie that doesn’t know any better.
[/quote]
What do you expect roybot? It was advice from dankid and some other random fucker.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
roybot wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
The OP made me laugh. Good intro Roybot.
Thanks Aragorn! I started this discussion partly as a response to claims made on another thread that muscle mass can be achieved in a caloric deficit regardless of your level of bodyfat. Which obviously is disasterous advice to a newbie that doesn’t know any better.
What do you expect roybot? It was advice from dankid and some other random fucker.[/quote]
LOL @ “other random fucker”! Trust me, that particular debate is still going strong. Will-of -iron seems to have vanished, but Dankid is still trying to decide on one point of view (last time I checked, he had whittled his opinions down to five). I swear that if we left him alone long enough he’d start to argue with himself…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If you aren’t big, why does it matter what you disagree with?
[/quote]
Nothing that gets said here matters, it’s just an internet forum full of opinions, and that’s what I was doing, sharing my opinion.
[quote]
No one ever went from rail thin to massive by being overly restrictive with their food intake. That attitude is what creates big muscular bodies. [/quote]
Who said anything about overly restrictive? Surely a 1000-1500 calorie surplus would suffice to build muscle? Or does more calories literally mean more muscle, because if this is the case I’ll start eating packets of sugar again (jk I’ve never eaten packets of sugar).
When people suggest eating everything, it’s just insane. Since when does having a high calorie intake have to mean eating everything? It’s like some shitty excuse to eat shit, and people actually do it. I think that is a bulk fail just as bad as someone being restrictive with calories. Realistically, people will look big, but they’ll look big in the sense that they’re a fatty, and I’m guessing that’s not what most people want when building muscle.
[quote]lloydk wrote:
Who said anything about overly restrictive? Surely a 1000-1500 calorie surplus would suffice to build muscle? Or does more calories literally mean more muscle, because if this is the case I’ll start eating packets of sugar again (jk I’ve never eaten packets of sugar).
When people suggest eating everything, it’s just insane. Since when does having a high calorie intake have to mean eating everything? It’s like some shitty excuse to eat shit, and people actually do it. I think that is a bulk fail just as bad as someone being restrictive with calories. Realistically, people will look big, but they’ll look big in the sense that they’re a fatty, and I’m guessing that’s not what most people want when building muscle.
[/quote]
Have you tried it?
Bulking in my mind, to be done successfully and to have something to show for at the end should be done under the principle of “eat everything”, with some exceptions.
“Junk” foods should not be included in there, twinkies, cokes, etc should be avoided.
I stayed the same size for a while because I tried to do what you are explaining, it wasn’t enough to force my body to change. Once I started “eating everything” my body responded by putting on loads of muscle (and yes, some fat).
[quote]lloydk wrote:
Nothing that gets said here matters, it’s just an internet forum full of opinions, and that’s what I was doing, sharing my opinion.
Who said anything about overly restrictive? Surely a 1000-1500 calorie surplus would suffice to build muscle? Or does more calories literally mean more muscle, because if this is the case I’ll start eating packets of sugar again (jk I’ve never eaten packets of sugar).
When people suggest eating everything, it’s just insane. Since when does having a high calorie intake have to mean eating everything? It’s like some shitty excuse to eat shit, and people actually do it. I think that is a bulk fail just as bad as someone being restrictive with calories. Realistically, people will look big, but they’ll look big in the sense that they’re a fatty, and I’m guessing that’s not what most people want when building muscle.
[/quote]
Sigh here we go again…
I’m totally seeing the words in mouth syndrome that PX deals with constantly.
A bulk is consuming calories over maintenance and coupling it with intense weight training in the goal of gaining weight mainly through lean muscle mass and minimal fat gain.
Don’t just eat everything. I was retarded and ate a lot of pure crap - I’d get my 300g protein, protein each meal, and supplement my diet with on average 100g of carbs from things like coca-cola, starbucks, etc each day.
I gained a lot of muscle but I also feel like I put on a lot more fat than I should have because I was lazy in the kitchen.
Lesson learned though. Haven’t had any of that stuff in forever.
Eating enough calories so fully support muscle growth from lifting progressively heavier weights.
Trure story, it took me a few tries to get the “bulking” thing right. Just shoot for 500-1000 cals over maintenance. Maintenance meaning the amount of calories required to not gain weight.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Have you tried it?
Bulking in my mind, to be done successfully and to have something to show for at the end should be done under the principle of “eat everything”, with some exceptions.
“Junk” foods should not be included in there, twinkies, cokes, etc should be avoided.
I stayed the same size for a while because I tried to do what you are explaining, it wasn’t enough to force my body to change. Once I started “eating everything” my body responded by putting on loads of muscle (and yes, some fat).[/quote]
I have to admit, when I eat with a surplus around 1000-1500 I make gains, and generally speaking any gains I make any time are either lean, or with fat loss. I’ve always put it down to the fact that I’m exercising, because of the notion that suggests exercise will help lose fat.
There was a 8 month period where I literally ate everything. I’m talking about oats, full English, fruit, and chocolate bar for breakfast, and three other similarly large meals throughout the day. Throw in protein shakes, snacks, and small meals between that too. I couldn’t give you the exact calorie figure. I was in the gym most days, and I’ll admit my training wasn’t as good as it should of been with weights, and all other training was military stuff. I actually got myself up to around 200lb this way, but I have to say it wasn’t my best look.
I find that when I train, a large surplus doesn’t give me any extra benefits when it comes to lean muscle, and the only thing that is certain, is an increase in body fat, regardless of how minor. I’ve never struggled to put weight on, as such, and if I had the time, money and freedom, I know I could comfortably work my way up to 200+.
By all means, if this guy isn’t making gains in size, and he thinks he is doing everything right, then maybe he should try a 3,000 calorie surplus a day, see how that goes for him.
[quote]lloydk wrote:
There was a 8 month period where I literally ate everything.
and I’ll admit my training wasn’t as good as it should of been with weights,
a large surplus doesn’t give me any extra benefits when it comes to lean muscle,
[/quote]
How can you argue that eating a significant surplus won’t work for you (or others) if you admit up front that when you did, your training “wasn’t as good as it should have been”?.
cueball
[quote]lloydk wrote:
Professor X wrote:
If you aren’t big, why does it matter what you disagree with?
Nothing that gets said here matters, it’s just an internet forum full of opinions, and that’s what I was doing, sharing my opinion.
No one ever went from rail thin to massive by being overly restrictive with their food intake. That attitude is what creates big muscular bodies.
Who said anything about overly restrictive? Surely a 1000-1500 calorie surplus would suffice to build muscle? Or does more calories literally mean more muscle, because if this is the case I’ll start eating packets of sugar again (jk I’ve never eaten packets of sugar).
When people suggest eating everything, it’s just insane. Since when does having a high calorie intake have to mean eating everything? It’s like some shitty excuse to eat shit, and people actually do it. I think that is a bulk fail just as bad as someone being restrictive with calories. Realistically, people will look big, but they’ll look big in the sense that they’re a fatty, and I’m guessing that’s not what most people want when building muscle.
[/quote]
You know what…if someone is so clueless and void of common sense that they actually need someone to guide them by hand and swat Twinkies out of their mouth, they need to find a new hobby and stay the hell out of the gym.
End up bigger and stronger than you started. Full stop/period/end/caput.
When I was a skinny teen beginner, I gained 20 lbs my first month by eating EVERYTHING in sight… and a lot of it. Funny thing was, after I put on that initial 20 lbs, I was still ripped. Six pack, pec striations…etc. Yet I weighed only 100 lbs in 9th grade! It’s funny because suddenly I was singled out by friends and gym teachers as someone who was muscular! lol
My point is that sometimes beginners are in such a drastic calorie deficit to begin with, that even eating 3 or 4 times their normal daily intake sometimes only makes them look normal and healthy.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
When I was a skinny teen beginner, I gained 20 lbs my first month by eating EVERYTHING in sight… and a lot of it. Funny thing was, after I put on that initial 20 lbs, I was still ripped. Six pack, pec striations…etc. Yet I weighed only 100 lbs in 9th grade! It’s funny because suddenly I was singled out by friends and gym teachers as someone who was muscular! lol
My point is that sometimes beginners are in such a drastic calorie deficit to begin with, that even eating 3 or 4 times their normal daily intake sometimes only makes them look normal and healthy. [/quote]
I’ve said that too many times to count and it is always the little guys acting like that’s not possible.
My diet in college was mostly hamburgers, chicken wings and milk. That’s how I got to over 220lbs back then after starting weighing 150. No lie.
Would I eat like that now? Of course not. I can afford to eat better than the dollar menu at Micky D’s and I actually have transportation of my own now.
That doesn’t mean the recommendation is to eat nothing but junk food, however, lifting with HIGH intensity (the very one thing most of these bastards are missing like that’s not important) and eating lots of food is how big guys got big.
If you train like a 5 year old, don’t expect to gain much muscle just because you ate more.
[quote]inkaddict wrote:
“What the hell is a bulk?” = 6 words.
I know, I know, everyone hates the internet grammer teacher, sorry. Just one of those things that caught my eye. [/quote]
“1-What 2-the 3-hell 4-is 5-a 6-bulk?” Grammer should be Grammar. Sorry, one of those things that caught my eye… After all, it will be underlined in red.
What is a shoe?
[quote]DJS wrote:
What is a shoe?[/quote]
The most accurate tool for bodyfat measurement.
[quote]Mad_Duck wrote:
I’d like to add to this question.
For guys in the 220-270 range, is there a good body fat range to be in for “easier” muscle gain? ie: not trying to maintain 4.25357%BF, or using ‘A Bulk’ as an all-encompassing excuse for going back to being a fatass.
(Assuming the lifting is heavy & the eating is relatively clean)[/quote]
Everyone is different and you must learn yourself; however…
The ‘guideline’ I was given many years ago for lifters in the 200lb range (+ or - 25lbs) is take your bodyweight at 10% BF and add a minimum of 10% and a max 20%.
Example: 200lbs at 10%BF…bulk to between 220 - 240lbs BW.
Using that as a guide you make adjustments based on how you respond. It gives a lifter a place to start.