PDA

View Full Version : Bulk question(s)



scumbag
09-13-2007, 12:24 AM
Ok i am quite new to lifting but i've been trying to eat/lift as much as i can. I started about 4 months ago at 153lbs (6ft) and i'm now at around 180-183lbs. i've visibly gotten bigger but one problem is that i have a freaking belly now. i still want to get a bit (or much) bigger but not liking the belly. Is that a somewhat "normal" by-product of bulking?

i'm eating a lot of chicken breast, beef, turkey, nat pbutter, cottage cheese, whey protein, egg whites, yogurt, soy milk, brown rice, veggies and fruit. I think I eat healthy but my brother says i'm fat haha

is this normal or should i be changing my diet? Using fitday i'm eating around 3500-4000 calories a day.

ps. oh and any tips on adding thickness to my upper back thanks guys

scumbag
09-13-2007, 12:44 AM
oh and how do i find MY maintenance level of calories? is there some calculator or something?? probably a very dumb question

Spartan936
09-13-2007, 12:44 AM
If you want to get bigger/stronger, go ahead. It sounds like you're making good gains. Fat gain is inevitable. You could post some pictures and get estimates on your bodyfat %.

If you want more upper back thickness, do more rowing movements.

Spartan936
09-13-2007, 12:45 AM
oh and how do i find MY maintenance level of calories? is there some calculator or something?? probably a very dumb question

There's all kinds of calculators, but the only true way to do it is to count them for a week, and see if you gain or lose any by the end of the week.

scumbag
09-13-2007, 12:57 AM
i'm sure fat gain is inevitable but i'm talking my belly a little more than slightly sticks out now, i've gained ok size i guess but my stomach is really starting to worry me like i won't be able to lose it later on...and i've always had a 6 pack really lean build...just worrying and hard to look at lol

monkeyarms
09-13-2007, 07:08 AM
There's all kinds of calculators, but the only true way to do it is to count them for a week, and see if you gain or lose any by the end of the week.

Actually a calculator will very likely be a lot more accurate than counting calories for only one week....

You would need to count them for at least a month, and probably 2 to get anywhere near an accurate measure.

It's good to get accustomed to counting calories, but I think a calculator will give a decent beginning estimate (that a person could tweak) much quicker.

RedSpikeyThing
09-13-2007, 10:00 AM
Actually a calculator will very likely be a lot more accurate than counting calories for only one week....

You would need to count them for at least a month, and probably 2 to get anywhere near an accurate measure.

It's good to get accustomed to counting calories, but I think a calculator will give a decent beginning estimate (that a person could tweak) much quicker.

no. Calculators are made to fit the population average. If you eat normally for a week and track it, you will have a very good idea of your average caloric intake. Then check if you gained/lost any weight and you'll know where you stand.

monkeyarms
09-13-2007, 10:38 AM
no. Calculators are made to fit the population average. If you eat normally for a week and track it, you will have a very good idea of your average caloric intake. Then check if you gained/lost any weight and you'll know where you stand.

I disagree, and here is why:

Let's say you eat 2500 calories every day for 1 week, which happens to be exactly your maintenance. At the end of the week you weigh yourself. Because of water-weight and waste flunctuations, your weight could be plus or minus 2 pounds even if you didn't gain or lose an ounce of fat or muscle (weight can shift a lot more than that, but +/- 2 lbs is a very reasonable expectation).

so what does that do to the numbers?

If you've gained 2lbs of water/waste, your maintenance comes out to 3,500 cals/day. If you happen to be a little dehydrated and you've lost 2lbs of water, your maintenance comes out to 1,500 cals/day.

so we're talking about +/- 1,000 calories difference in what your maintenance is calculated to be, which I would hardly call accurate. A calculator will likely get closer than this.

Now if you track for 2 months instead of 1 week, your maintenance calculation will only be +/- 113 cals instead of +/-1,000.

The longer you track, the more accurate it becomes, and after tracking for a certain period of time it truly does become much more accurate than any calculator.

There is just too much room for error in cals that have only been tracked for only 1 week.

Built
09-13-2007, 10:46 AM
Monkey, it's a starting point. Nobody wants to wait two months for a STARTING point.

monkeyarms
09-13-2007, 10:50 AM
Built: I agree that people don't want to wait--that's why I think a calculator is a better starting point (it's the fastest) and will be more accurate than only counting for a week. Just my 2cents...

1ManRiot
09-13-2007, 12:14 PM
You would need to count them for at least a month, and probably 2 to get anywhere near an accurate measure.
I agree. 3-4 weeks IMO.


It's good to get accustomed to counting calories
Disagree on the whole, some people wil like to keep track of them, some will be overly anal, but it isn't necessary at all and can often lead to obsessive behavior.


no. Calculators are made to fit the population average. If you eat normally for a week and track it, you will have a very good idea of your average caloric intake. Then check if you gained/lost any weight and you'll know where you stand.
Disagree. Mainly for the same reasons as monkeyarms.


Monkey, it's a starting point. Nobody wants to wait two months for a STARTING point.
Nobody wants to wait 4-5 years to build quality mass, but thats the game we're in. Trial and error and learning to what your body responds to is the only true way to get results.

RedSpikeyThing
09-13-2007, 01:19 PM
A calculator will likely get closer than this.


This is where I have the problem. I, for example, am a very active young male. Those calorie calculators are designed around average people - people who are not like the majority of those on this site. How can we use a calculator that isn't even designed for us?

Although I think we're just bickering because as long as you track your bodyweight you should know what you need to do.

monkeyarms
09-13-2007, 01:32 PM
This is where I have the problem. I, for example, am a very active young male. Those calorie calculators are designed around average people - people who are not like the majority of those on this site. How can we use a calculator that isn't even designed for us?

You are right--people who have been lifting for a significant amount of time will have a different body composition/lifestyle and the calculators will be less accurate, but experienced lifters are not (usually) the ones with questions like the OP's. The people who ask how much to eat are newbies who probably fit in a little more with the "average person" that the calculators base there numbers on.



Although I think we're just bickering because as long as you track your bodyweight you should know what you need to do.

Agreed. No matter what you are going to have to adjust based on what the scale tells you.

Built
09-13-2007, 02:29 PM
I agree. 3-4 weeks IMO.


I'd lose interest pretty fast. Just track for a few days and make your adjustments. You get it wrong, you can fix it up pretty quick - and start getting results within the month 1Man and Monkey are suggesting.


Disagree on the whole, some people wil like to keep track of them, some will be overly anal, but it isn't necessary at all and can often lead to obsessive behavior.


That's like saying nobody should drink alcohol because it can lead to alcoholism.


Disagree. Mainly for the same reasons as monkeyarms.


Nobody wants to wait 4-5 years to build quality mass, but thats the game we're in. Trial and error and learning to what your body responds to is the only true way to get results.


Wow, I had no idea. Here I was thinking it was going to be fast and easy.

<goes off to googling for magic beans>

;)