PDA

View Full Version : slow bulking?



gator
03-02-2006, 12:10 AM
From my understanding on a regular bulk you go about 500 cals over maintenance a day. If you were to go on a "slow bulk" say 300-500 cals over a day would you be getting a better muscle to fat gain ratio?

Hypothetical situation

Regular bulk 1lb week 75% muscle 25% fat
slow bulk .75lbs week 85% muscle 15% fat

Is that realistic? The more you go over maintenance the higher the ratio of fat you will put on? I know you will put on more fat if you gain more lbs but I'm strickly talking muscle to fat ratio here

smalls
03-02-2006, 01:46 AM
IMO, for most people who are not beginners, no that is not realistic. At least not for more than a couple weeks.

gator
03-02-2006, 06:23 AM
IMO, for most people who are not beginners, no that is not realistic. At least not for more than a couple weeks.

Expalin, it would seem to be the opposite

Fenrir
03-02-2006, 06:23 AM
I agree with smalls

HILL
03-02-2006, 06:54 AM
I dont think you can ratio it like that personally. However your theory in the first statement is correct the less you ae over maintanace the less fat you will gain it will just be a slow process however i would consider 500 cals over maintanance a slow bulk but that could be me

ShockBoxer
03-02-2006, 07:36 AM
This is the approach I want to use for my next bulk. I was very dumb about my 500 a day because I'm addicted to junk food. I would also be interested in why going say 250 - which is a natty PB sandwich - wouldn't change how much will end up fat if you're lifting heavy.

gator
03-02-2006, 10:56 AM
I would like some more discussion from people who dissagree with me. Lets leave out people on newbie gains for this example. it would seem like muscle after say 250 cals over a day would be a diminishing returns kinda thing. After that you put on more of a % of fat as you go over the 250 cals. If this wasn't the case people would be bulking 5lbs a week and still gaining 3lbs of muscle or so.

smalls
03-02-2006, 11:55 AM
Expalin, it would seem to be the opposite


What I meant was that most people are not going to be able to sustain high percentages of muscle gains at .75lbs a week (which is a lot more than it sounds like when 85% is muscle).

Also what I was saying is that the more muscular you get the harder it will be to strictly put on muscle, even weight in general. That is when real overeating is necassary, or at least more beneficial to gaining muscle.

Also, for me, the higher over maintenance I am the better my strength gains are. Thus more stimulas for adaptation.


Yes, there is a limit at which muscle can be put on, so it seems useless to eat more than is necassary to do so. But it's very very difficult to get the exact cals each day and it's slow process. Too slow for me. In short, most people wont become very big individuals unless they are willing to put on gobbs and gobbs of weight, fat included.

gator
03-02-2006, 01:28 PM
What I meant was that most people are not going to be able to sustain high percentages of muscle gains at .75lbs a week (which is a lot more than it sounds like when 85% is muscle).

Also what I was saying is that the more muscular you get the harder it will be to strictly put on muscle, even weight in general. That is when real overeating is necassary, or at least more beneficial to gaining muscle.

Also, for me, the higher over maintenance I am the better my strength gains are. Thus more stimulas for adaptation.


Yes, there is a limit at which muscle can be put on, so it seems useless to eat more than is necassary to do so. But it's very very difficult to get the exact cals each day and it's slow process. Too slow for me. In short, most people wont become very big individuals unless they are willing to put on gobbs and gobbs of weight, fat included.


Your taking my example to literally, I was using the %'s as an example not a fact, I was just pulling those numbers out of the air to illustrate what I'm talking about. Your again missing the enter point, and taking things to the extreme. Maybe I should put this in simpler terms, Does your muscle to fat ratio gained decreased when say going from 250 cals over maintence to say 500 cals. I'm not talking about strength or anything else but the muscle to fat ratio.

brickt.
03-02-2006, 04:12 PM
Lets say you decide to go on a nazi clean bulk diet, say 250 calories over maintenance. It is also possible that your core body temp will raise a degree or so, thus raising your BRM, and will burn off those extra cals.

ALso to note, 1 person may go 500 over maintenance, and gain, hypothetically speaking, 95% muscle, 5% fat. Another person, same 500 cals over, might gain 50% muscle, 50% fat. It's all genetic.

gator
03-02-2006, 04:15 PM
Yea it's all genetic, but the same person who has bad genes going 500 cals over maintance a day will still have bad genes if they are going 250 over, it's not necessarly relavent here. I guess I'll go in even simplier terms here. Obviously you can't gain 5lbs a week and have most of it be muscle, but you can gain 1lb a week and have most of it become muscle, so does this ratio just gradually decrease or does it just drop off durastically at some point

brickt.
03-02-2006, 06:09 PM
Your body can only use so many calories for muscle growth. Anything over that amount (whatever it may be) that is added as body mass will be in the form of fat.

I don't think it is possible to do a PERFECT bulk as in 100% muscle, regardless of what your caloric intake is, what drugs you're on, what training you're doing etc

gator
03-02-2006, 08:33 PM
I don't think it is possible to do a PERFECT bulk as in 100% muscle, regardless of what your caloric intake is, what drugs you're on, what training you're doing etc

Oh I know, I'm just trying to find the optimal rate here, weather it be 400,500,600 cals a day over maintance.

Sidior
03-02-2006, 08:45 PM
it is different for everyone is the answer

Sidior
03-02-2006, 08:45 PM
also especially if you are natural putting on muscle with minimal fat gain will become tougher and tougher the larger you get

gator
03-02-2006, 09:02 PM
also especially if you are natural putting on muscle with minimal fat gain will become tougher and tougher the larger you get

yep, not looking forward to that

eatit
03-02-2006, 10:50 PM
Oh I know, I'm just trying to find the optimal rate here, weather it be 400,500,600 cals a day over maintance.

optimal rate is the optimal rate for *you*. Like the other thread going on right now it's way too genetically determined to have a rule of thumb for this type of thing. Best advice on this would be to start out around 400-500 cals over maintenance and then add 100 cals every week or two and monitor your gains (you'll have to be very strict about this for it to be even somewhat valid/reliable) and then add or subtract cals depending on how your bulk is going.

Rex
03-03-2006, 09:29 AM
Maybe I should put this in simpler terms

Oh, the irony!!!

The answer to your well thought out question is yes.

By definition, everything over maintainance will be stored as fat.

Or it wouldn't be maintainance.

eatit
03-05-2006, 12:44 PM
By definition, everything over maintainance will be stored as fat.


uhm, i could be wrong here. But calories over maintenance go to both muscle and fat. Hence the point of eating over maintenance and then the need to cut off excess fat gains.

HILL
03-05-2006, 01:01 PM
Thats right eat it. It all depends on what your diets like + your training program + how many cals over maintanance you are and your genetics to what percentage goes to muscle and fat. As has been stated their is no clear cut definition far from it. Guess work will not even work here really in my opinion.

I would take your br reading and weight reading. Then say go 400-500 cals a day over maintanance for 4 weeks. Take the readings again as well as roughly if your strength has gone up and by how much. If your happy then stick with it if your not slow it down a little.

Rex
03-05-2006, 03:02 PM
uhm, i could be wrong here. But calories over maintenance go to both muscle and fat. Hence the point of eating over maintenance and then the need to cut off excess fat gains.

It's might seam like semantics but maintenance includes muscle growth. When:

Energy In - Energy Out = 0 then your at maintenance.

Energy out isnít just cardio!

Energy out = the total amount of energy expended by the body in a given period of time. Muscle synthesis requires energy (allot of it!).