PDA

View Full Version : 'Clean Bulk' vs 'Dirty Bulk'



Beholder
09-29-2006, 07:03 PM
Im currently 'bulking' (lolololololll im still skinny). And I am having a hard time eating dirty foods as to think that I am going to gain more fat from it.
Is there any concern at all for this or should I just eat what I can and go for it. I know to eat about ~400-500 calories over my maintenance for a relatively low fat bulk.

Whats everyone figure?

RedSpikeyThing
09-29-2006, 08:16 PM
Eat as healthy and clean as possible. If you don't cheat anymore than you would on a cut, you'll be happy.

charles_316
09-29-2006, 08:47 PM
Eat as healthy and clean as possible. If you don't cheat anymore than you would on a cut, you'll be happy.

ive been trying to bulk and been eating everything and even going out to eat a lot....

is a "dirty" bulk a really bad way to increase the calories? or is it ok if you don't mind to train hard and work off the extra fat gained from the dirty bulk?

Beast
09-29-2006, 09:03 PM
It's a LOT better to eat clean on a bulk. You might say that you don't mind working off all of that fat, but trust me, the less fat you have, the happier you'll be when it's time to cut down.

charles_316
09-29-2006, 09:25 PM
It's a LOT better to eat clean on a bulk. You might say that you don't mind working off all of that fat, but trust me, the less fat you have, the happier you'll be when it's time to cut down.

true

Beholder
09-29-2006, 09:34 PM
It's a LOT better to eat clean on a bulk. You might say that you don't mind working off all of that fat, but trust me, the less fat you have, the happier you'll be when it's time to cut down.
See I figured as much, I just wanted an opinion from a few people that have dont successful bulks/cuts and whatever else.
Sigh, its time to go back to the drawing board ;)

Sug
09-30-2006, 01:41 AM
Dirty Bulk= Eat 1000-2000 Calories over maintance, Clean bulk is like a couple hundred over your maintance, then when you start stalling in the weight gain department, add 100-200 more till you do. Thats the clean kinda bulk Im doing right now and its working pretty good. Keeping the gut in check. :strong:

Beholder
09-30-2006, 02:08 AM
Dirty Bulk= Eat 1000-2000 Calories over maintance, Clean bulk is like a couple hundred over your maintance, then when you start stalling in the weight gain department, add 100-200 more till you do. Thats the clean kinda bulk Im doing right now and its working pretty good. Keeping the gut in check. :strong:
I know how to bulk...I was wondering if on a macro nutrient level if it was goign to affect me differentally.

Davidelmo
09-30-2006, 02:36 AM
DIrty doesn't necessarily mean the foods you eat - you could still eat pizza, ice cream etc on a clean bulk IMO... so long as the total calories don't go way too high.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
09-30-2006, 03:25 AM
Keyword: Moderation

Westsidemonster
09-30-2006, 04:12 AM
Eat clean!!!! Keep the junk food to a minimum!!!

Turnip
09-30-2006, 05:06 AM
Is it just me or do some people think a dirty bulk is a major exess of calories, and some think its eating donuts and crappy quality foods.

McIrish
09-30-2006, 06:25 AM
Is it just me or do some people think a dirty bulk is a major exess of calories, and some think its eating donuts and crappy quality foods.

I always figured "dirty bulk" referred to the quality of the garbage you're ingesting, as the body has different physiological responses to different things... ie., I'm reminded of the study I read on here a while back where monkeys were fed a set amount of calories and split into two groups, one of which received a substantially higher amount of trans fats, etc. The trans-fat group gained a statistically significant amount of fat.

Therefore, doesn't make much sense to me to eat complete garbage while bulking (and by "complete garbage" I mean fast food, pizza, donuts, etc., which are more likely to have trans fats, etc.) and put on more fat as a result. Anyone disagree with that?

Davidelmo
09-30-2006, 10:13 AM
I'm reminded of the study I read on here a while back where monkeys were fed a set amount of calories and split into two groups, one of which received a substantially higher amount of trans fats, etc. The trans-fat group gained a statistically significant amount of fat.


I dont disagree.. i'm not decided yet. But I'm VERY VERY interested in seeing that study.

From everything I have seen it suggests that a calorie is a calorie - the source doesn't matter and in terms of gaining or losing WEIGHT, only the total number of calories matters. Of course for muscle gain you would want more protein etc but again protein from a whey shake carries the same number of calories as protein from a processed burger. i.e. my maintenance is 4000kcal so technically I could lose weight on 1lb of sugar a day (only 2000kcal)...

McIrish
09-30-2006, 10:23 AM
I dont disagree.. i'm not decided yet. But I'm VERY VERY interested in seeing that study.

http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=80847&highlight=monkey+trans+fat

Here's a quote from said thread for those too lazy to click, hehe :redface:


Globe and Mail (Major Canadian Newspaper) June 14, 2006

Of monkeys and midriff bulge

Monkeys fed a diet high in trans fats gained much more weight that those fed the same number of calories but healthier types of fat, a new study has found.

What's more, the extra pounds were deposited around the belly in "dramatic levels," according to researchers.

"Diets rich in trans fat cause a redistribution of fat tissue into the abdomen and led to higher body weight even when total dietary calories are controlled," said Lawrence Rudel, head of the lipid sciences research program at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

"What it says is that trans fat is worse than anticipated," he said.

The research was presented this week at the scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association conference in Washington.

Canadians are the world's biggest consumers of trans-fatty acids, ingesting about 10 grams a day on average.

For the study, researchers fed two groups of male monkeys a Western-style human diet, with carefully controlled caloric intake, and 35 per cent of calories from fat.

The only difference between the two groups is that one group of monkeys got 8 per cent of its calories from trans fats, while the other group got those calories from monounsaturated fats (these so-called good fats come from natural products such as olive oil).

After six years, the monkeys who had trans fats in their diet had an average 7.2 per cent increase in body weight; the monkeys who did not consume trans fats saw their weight increase on average by only 1.8 per cent"

I also remember a quote perhaps apocryphally attributed to Lyle McDonald saying that he could "get ripped on table sugar." I'm not really sold... I thought simple sugar triggers a cortisol response which promotes fat storage? Quick, somebody light the Built-signal! ;)

smalls
09-30-2006, 02:48 PM
It's a LOT better to eat clean on a bulk. You might say that you don't mind working off all of that fat, but trust me, the less fat you have, the happier you'll be when it's time to cut down.


Why anyone would "dirty bulk" is beyond me. If you cant eat clean AND get enough calories every day then you simply dont want it bad enough.

Davidelmo
09-30-2006, 04:33 PM
http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=80847&highlight=monkey+trans+fat

Here's a quote from said thread for those too lazy to click, hehe :redface:



I also remember a quote perhaps apocryphally attributed to Lyle McDonald saying that he could "get ripped on table sugar." I'm not really sold... I thought simple sugar triggers a cortisol response which promotes fat storage? Quick, somebody light the Built-signal! ;)

Interesting read, although I am understandably still a little sceptical. The way I see it is that a calorie is a measure of energy - if you need 2000kcal a day then eating more makes you gain weight. If a gram of sugar has 4kcal and a gram of oats has 4kcal (hypothetically) I dont see how one makes you gain more than the other. Same for fats - 1g of trans fats has 9kcal and 1g of mono has 9kcal.. i dont see how one makes you gain more weight than the other. If it does.. where does the extra energy come from.

Yes, eating titloads of sugar will raise your insulin and promote fat storage after you eat it, but in a long term scenario it should make no difference. If you eat under maintenance you will lose weight. Of course, it's not healthy to do that - you miss out on vitamins, minerals and will bugger up your insulin sensitivity etc but you would lose weight.

Holto
09-30-2006, 04:34 PM
I dont disagree.. i'm not decided yet. But I'm VERY VERY interested in seeing that study.

http://www.bantransfats.com/

It's a long page just search for monkey.

I'm pretty convinced the laws of physics are unavoidable. My only explanation is that trans effect RMR in a negative way. Not totally shocking considering the number of health disturbances they cause.

Davidelmo
09-30-2006, 04:36 PM
Why anyone would "dirty bulk" is beyond me. If you cant eat clean AND get enough calories every day then you simply dont want it bad enough.

You use 6+ 1000kcal shakes each day, right? I guess your definition of "clean" is the content of the food? See, I'm not sure if I'd call a 1000kcal shake "clean" or not. Are you never tempted to use ice cream, hot dogs and burgers to reach your total calories? Not trying to challenge you.. just interested in your rationale behind your methods.

BFGUITAR
09-30-2006, 04:45 PM
I think dirty bulks imply the type of food eaten.
Sure, eating bad food will get you the calories but there is something your missing when you do this. While you may have to eat more food in general on a clean bulk to get the saem calorie intake, the benefit is the vitamins and nutrients gained.

Stick to healthy food and you cant go wrong.

Davidelmo
09-30-2006, 05:07 PM
http://www.bantransfats.com/

It's a long page just search for monkey.

I'm pretty convinced the laws of physics are unavoidable. My only explanation is that trans effect RMR in a negative way. Not totally shocking considering the number of health disturbances they cause.

Interesting read, thanks. I dont know a lot obout hydrogenated fats to be honest - is it true that your body can't process them properly?

Jinkies
09-30-2006, 05:14 PM
Dirty bulk is more effective in the longrun assuming you know what your doing and have a set plan for dropping down. Cleanbulk you can put on mass and still look good without having to cut down as much but a dirty bulk won't look good for a longtime.

Personally I wish I had clean bulked better, its alot of trial and error for anyone. I ate and go to the weight I wanted to weigh, then I find my matanience and stick to that and work till im leaner at that weight.

Holto
09-30-2006, 07:38 PM
Interesting read, thanks. I dont know a lot obout hydrogenated fats to be honest - is it true that your body can't process them properly?

Chemisty is not my stong point, but as I understand, the extra hydrogen atoms eliminate potential bonding sites along the fatty acid chain and make it less usefull for biosynthesis. I'm really hazy on this but I believe they can pretty much only be used for energy and even then it's a bit more complicated. Perhaps they don't yield the ~9 cals of most fats. These early primate studies certainly raise some questions.

Clifford Gillmore
09-30-2006, 07:42 PM
Why anyone would "dirty bulk" is beyond me. If you cant eat clean AND get enough calories every day then you simply dont want it bad enough.

Its a case of get big quick, I'm doing it because I know damn well when I'm 250lbs+ I can diet down to whatever BF% I choose too a loose a minimal amount of bodyfat. That I'm European, you know us crazy Euro's and our food!

Holto
09-30-2006, 07:44 PM
See, I'm not sure if I'd call a 1000kcal shake "clean" or not.

What if its made of:

Organic Soy Milk
Organic Oats
Organic Olive Oil
New Zealand Whey


just interested in your rationale behind your methods.

I think it has to do something with chewing. LOL

Our boy Smalls has been on really high cals for a long time.

McIrish
09-30-2006, 11:43 PM
Interesting read, although I am understandably still a little sceptical. The way I see it is that a calorie is a measure of energy - if you need 2000kcal a day then eating more makes you gain weight. If a gram of sugar has 4kcal and a gram of oats has 4kcal (hypothetically) I dont see how one makes you gain more than the other. Same for fats - 1g of trans fats has 9kcal and 1g of mono has 9kcal.. i dont see how one makes you gain more weight than the other. If it does.. where does the extra energy come from.

Yes, eating titloads of sugar will raise your insulin and promote fat storage after you eat it, but in a long term scenario it should make no difference. If you eat under maintenance you will lose weight. Of course, it's not healthy to do that - you miss out on vitamins, minerals and will bugger up your insulin sensitivity etc but you would lose weight.

I don't dispute that a calorie is a measure of energy, but different types of foods result in different physiological responses in the body... note the example of monkeys eating trans fats and getting fat(ter). Also, say hypothetically you ate 1000 cals of pure protein (from a hypothetically purely lean cow) - surely your body wouldn't have the same response as if you had consumed 1,000 calories of table sugar? As far as I know, blood sugar levels influence insulin/cortisol levels, which in turn influence fat storage? Does that make sense? I'll have to defer to someone who actually knows what they're talking about on this one.

The blood sugar-influence-fat-storage-mechanism makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, at least - it makes sense for a body to want to preferentially create fat when food sources are abundant and then use that during leaner times. Then again, that's not based in science, more in my own personal conjecture. I still want to understand the science behind insulin response, etc.

Davidelmo
10-01-2006, 03:55 AM
What if its made of:

Organic Soy Milk
Organic Oats
Organic Olive Oil
New Zealand Whey



I think it has to do something with chewing. LOL

Our boy Smalls has been on really high cals for a long time.

lol, maybe. I guess it depends on your definition of "clean." Mine isn't so much to do with the food itself but how controlled you are on your bulk - someone who goes out and binges (on whatever food) without really counting their calories... that would be my definition.

Davidelmo
10-01-2006, 04:07 AM
I don't dispute that a calorie is a measure of energy, but different types of foods result in different physiological responses in the body... note the example of monkeys eating trans fats and getting fat(ter). Also, say hypothetically you ate 1000 cals of pure protein (from a hypothetically purely lean cow) - surely your body wouldn't have the same response as if you had consumed 1,000 calories of table sugar? As far as I know, blood sugar levels influence insulin/cortisol levels, which in turn influence fat storage? Does that make sense? I'll have to defer to someone who actually knows what they're talking about on this one.

The blood sugar-influence-fat-storage-mechanism makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, at least - it makes sense for a body to want to preferentially create fat when food sources are abundant and then use that during leaner times. Then again, that's not based in science, more in my own personal conjecture. I still want to understand the science behind insulin response, etc.

You're right - the sugar would be digested and cause an increase in blood sugar. Your pancreas then releases insulin which causes the sugar to enter cells, which in turn reduces the concentration in the blood. That sugar will then be turned to fat and stored... temporarily.
However, protein also triggers an insulin response (although I dont think it's as big as a glucose-induced one.)

Just for the whole picture, since you said you were interested, if blood sugar is low your pancreas will release a hormone called glucagon which triggers the release of sugar back from the cells and into the blood. There is a fine balance because your body needs blood sugar to run optimally (although it is possible to go on a no-carb diet because your body will make glucose from other sources) but hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar) is bad and can cause comas if it goes unchecked.

That is the basis of diabetes mellitus - the body does not produce insulin and so you can not reduce your blood sugar levels effectively.

By the way cortisol is a hormone associated with stress. It has all sorts of effects on your blood sugar - basically a function opposite to insulin. If you want, this is a decent bit of info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol

HOWEVER, my point is that since the protein and sugar have the same amount of energy, one won't make you more fat than the other. Yes the sugar would promote fat storage temporarily but if you are eating under your maintenance calories it makes no difference in the long run since that fat will be used to run your body... get it?

Basic laws of physics - energy can't be created or destroyed. If you need 2000kcal every day and you only eat 1000kcal, you still have 1000kcal defecit which has to come from somewhere - be it glycogen, muscle protein or fat stores. If you eat 3000kcal every day, you have 1000kcal excess which is stored somewhere - again it might be glycogen, muscle or fat depending on whether you are lifting weights etc.

Stumprrp
10-01-2006, 08:06 AM
imo, dirty bulks are really for the people who are just THAT thin or cant afford all the food, some people just dont have the money!

as a clean bulk, i personally think 500 over maintaince is just weak and really pathetically slow, what is that 2 lbs a month?? i personally think a bulk should be done with an ABUNDANCE of healthy food, lots of eggs meat milk fish vegetables pastas potatos fruit etc etc.

RedSpikeyThing
10-01-2006, 09:28 AM
500 cal over maintenance = ~1 lb / week = ~4 lbs / month

Holto
10-01-2006, 11:27 AM
As far as I know, blood sugar levels influence insulin/cortisol levels, which in turn influence fat storage? Does that make sense? I'll have to defer to someone who actually knows what they're talking about on this one.

To see the big picture we need to realize that the body stores fat nearly every time we eat.

The body is storing and mobilizing fat all day. It doesn't mean you become fatter. That is only possible via a calorie surplus over time.

Steele
10-01-2006, 04:20 PM
Bear in mind that trans-fats can't be metabolized by the human body, it gets converted straight into visceral fat ._.

-Steele

Holto
10-01-2006, 04:48 PM
Bear in mind that trans-fats can't be metabolized by the human body, it gets converted straight into visceral fat ._.

-Steele

Link?

Steele
10-01-2006, 04:54 PM
Trans fats are metabolized differently by the liver than other fats and interfere with delta 6 desaturase. Delta 6 desaturase is an enzyme involved in converting essential fatty acids to arachidonic acid and prostaglandins, both of which are important to the functioning of cells[20]. Trans fats which cannot be metabolized normally end up in the liver for biotransformation. If they simply can never be metabolized, they are returned in the blood to fat cells for storage, possibly posing a risk of permanent obesity[citation needed].

Research with monkeys indicates that trans fat may also increase weight gain and abdominal fat, despite a similar caloric intake [21]. A 6-year experiment revealed that monkeys fed a trans-fat diet gained 7.2% of their body weight, as compared to 1.8% for monkeys on the mono-unsaturated fat diet. Monkeys eating trans fats also had 30% more abdominal fat. Abdominal fat is associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 and heart disease.

Cited from - http://www.answers.com/topic/trans-fatty-acid

It was partially right ;)

-Steele


Link?

Holto
10-01-2006, 06:36 PM
^ thanks

Beast
10-01-2006, 06:52 PM
Why anyone would "dirty bulk" is beyond me. If you cant eat clean AND get enough calories every day then you simply dont want it bad enough.
Exactly. Dirty bulkers are lazy.

I know this for a fact, because I've been there!

Mussty
10-01-2006, 07:09 PM
500 cal over maintenance = ~1 lb / week = ~4 lbs / month

How do you work that out? Not saying your wrong just interested to know. :nod:

smalls
10-01-2006, 07:10 PM
You use 6+ 1000kcal shakes each day, right? I guess your definition of "clean" is the content of the food? See, I'm not sure if I'd call a 1000kcal shake "clean" or not. Are you never tempted to use ice cream, hot dogs and burgers to reach your total calories? Not trying to challenge you.. just interested in your rationale behind your methods.


IMO and the way the term has been described here before is that a dirty bulk refers to the types of foods and not the quantities. And since 6000 cals for me is barely even a surplus at the very beginning of a bulk after dieting for some time I consider it a very clean bulk. Eventually I wont gain weight unless in increase well over 7000.

I agree that for the most part, when dealing with weight gain or loss that a calorie is a calorie. When it comes to health (which i do have to concern myself with because of my poor cholesterol levels) then food choice becomes increasingly important. The other reason I choose to eat clean is that tracking calories and being in control of your diet become exceedingly easier when all your foods come from clean, consistent choices.

Howard 9
10-01-2006, 07:32 PM
I just eat everything in sight, and at night when I need an extra 1,000 calories I go to McDonals and get a Big Mac meal. Yeah I know it is terrible...I am thinking about cleaning it up soon.

K1M
10-01-2006, 07:38 PM
If McDonald's and Whole milk is the only way you can get the calories to grow, don't let it stop you. Nothing is worse than not progressing.

Steele
10-02-2006, 04:55 AM
Anytime =)

-Steele


^ thanks

McIrish
10-02-2006, 11:00 AM
If McDonald's and Whole milk is the only way you can get the calories to grow, don't let it stop you. Nothing is worse than not progressing.

...except for heart disease. :windup: I'm with you for the short-term, Kim, but do a search for peanut butter whole milk diet on here. A few months back someone had the idea to have a diet solely comprised of peanut butter and whole milk (and a multi-vitamin!). IMHO, it was adequately proven lacking on a number of levels (increased risk of heart disease being the front-runner).

RedSpikeyThing
10-02-2006, 11:11 AM
How do you work that out? Not saying your wrong just interested to know. :nod:

There are about 3500 calories to a pound of weight gain/loss. That number is pretty loose and I'm not sure if it referes to exclusively fat or muscle.

7 days * 500 calories surplus = 3500 calorie surplus / week = 1 lb / week

DoUgL@S
10-02-2006, 11:55 AM
There are about 3500 calories to a pound of weight gain/loss. That number is pretty loose and I'm not sure if it referes to exclusively fat or muscle.

7 days * 500 calories surplus = 3500 calorie surplus / week = 1 lb / week

I think it is 3500 cals in a pound of fat, as this number is usually referenced when people are cutting.

ArchAngel777
10-02-2006, 12:13 PM
I think it is 3500 cals in a pound of fat, as this number is usually referenced when people are cutting.

You know, I have always wondered why it is quoted at 3500. If there are 9 calories per gram of fat, then it would be 4091.

1lb = 454g (rounded down)

454g * 9 = 4086 kcals

Anyone know why it is quoted as 3500 all the time?

Vapour Trails
10-02-2006, 12:28 PM
I'm the guy that originally posted the monkey article and it changed my mind on bulking excessively dirty. That being said I have found clean bulking is more like work than working out is. It's hard to eat a high volume of foods that don't taste all that great (Tuna anyone?). There are pros and cons to each approach.

Dirty bulking will maximize you muscle gains and your fat gains. No so bad if you could stick to a PSMF diet for 2 weeks afterward to shed the lard. It's nice seeing your lifts increase almost everytime you step in the gym.

Clean bulking means slower gains but less cutting. Better if you don't cut so well.

SpecialK
10-02-2006, 12:38 PM
imo, dirty bulks are really for the people who are just THAT thin or cant afford all the food, some people just dont have the money!

as a clean bulk, i personally think 500 over maintaince is just weak and really pathetically slow, what is that 2 lbs a month?? i personally think a bulk should be done with an ABUNDANCE of healthy food, lots of eggs meat milk fish vegetables pastas potatos fruit etc etc.

You are assuming that more weight gained per month means more muscle gained per month, which may not be the case. There is a point of diminishing returns to it all. As you increase calories, your body's ability to produce muscle is going to quickly become limited by something other than total caloric intake, and the rest is just going to get stored as fat.

By your logic, why not just eat 7000 calories over maintenance per day? That means you'd be gaining weight at a rate of about 2 lb/day! Of course no one does this because most of that would just end up as fat.

Like I said, there is a point beyond which throwing more food at the problem isn't going to help, and is only going to make you fatter.

MantiXX
10-02-2006, 01:53 PM
You're right - the sugar would be digested and cause an increase in blood sugar. Your pancreas then releases insulin which causes the sugar to enter cells, which in turn reduces the concentration in the blood. That sugar will then be turned to fat and stored... temporarily.
However, protein also triggers an insulin response (although I dont think it's as big as a glucose-induced one.)

Just for the whole picture, since you said you were interested, if blood sugar is low your pancreas will release a hormone called glucagon which triggers the release of sugar back from the cells and into the blood. There is a fine balance because your body needs blood sugar to run optimally (although it is possible to go on a no-carb diet because your body will make glucose from other sources) but hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar) is bad and can cause comas if it goes unchecked.

That is the basis of diabetes mellitus - the body does not produce insulin and so you can not reduce your blood sugar levels effectively.

By the way cortisol is a hormone associated with stress. It has all sorts of effects on your blood sugar - basically a function opposite to insulin. If you want, this is a decent bit of info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol

HOWEVER, my point is that since the protein and sugar have the same amount of energy, one won't make you more fat than the other. Yes the sugar would promote fat storage temporarily but if you are eating under your maintenance calories it makes no difference in the long run since that fat will be used to run your body... get it?

Basic laws of physics - energy can't be created or destroyed. If you need 2000kcal every day and you only eat 1000kcal, you still have 1000kcal defecit which has to come from somewhere - be it glycogen, muscle protein or fat stores. If you eat 3000kcal every day, you have 1000kcal excess which is stored somewhere - again it might be glycogen, muscle or fat depending on whether you are lifting weights etc.

I think you hit the nail on the head above... If you were taking 1000 kcals from a protein source or a straight white sugar source and burned them in a crucible in a lab, they'd generate the same amount of 'heat', hence the 1000 kcal number..

BUT, its all about how the 'body' reacts to things.. The body's hormones go crazy from the sugar, thereby causing all kinds of other things to occur (that may or may not be good - crash anyone?).. The body may also have a ton of allergic or inflamatory responses that it must deal with (depending on whats eaten), therefore things may not go the way you thought. If I can find the studies I'll post them, but they were about the trans fats and how the body really doesn't like them and so inflamation starts to take over and the body stores these oxidants and such in the fat cells to 'control' them.. I'll look for the studies on it... This may be why the monkey's got 'fatter' looking from them, the body is protecting itself the only way it knows how... Google it....

Anyways, interesting thread...

Peace out...

Holto
10-02-2006, 02:15 PM
Anyone know why it is quoted as 3500 all the time?

A lb of bodyfat is not pure. It has a percentage of water content.

Holto
10-02-2006, 02:18 PM
I think you hit the nail on the head above... If you were taking 1000 kcals from a protein source or a straight white sugar source and burned them in a crucible in a lab, they'd generate the same amount of 'heat', hence the 1000 kcal number..

BUT, its all about how the 'body' reacts to things.. The body's hormones go crazy from the sugar, thereby causing all kinds of other things to occur

You can look at it from a perspective of biology ie: hormones, RMR etc.

You can also look at it more topographically from a standpoint of physics. No matter what the biological reactions are the body as a biological system will allways be bound by the laws of physics.

In the case of the monkeys that gained more fat that energy has to come from somwhere. Either earned (ie: consumed) or saved (ie: decrease in expenditure).

Mussty
10-03-2006, 12:48 AM
There are about 3500 calories to a pound of weight gain/loss. That number is pretty loose and I'm not sure if it referes to exclusively fat or muscle.

7 days * 500 calories surplus = 3500 calorie surplus / week = 1 lb / week

Thanks

Ok so does is the 3500 calories the same for 1 pound of fat and 1 pound of muscle?

K1M
10-03-2006, 01:08 AM
Well, not really.

A pound of 100% Fat takes 3500cals or so to create.
A pound of 100% Muscle is like 2400 or something, I don't recall the correct number.

So if you wanted to gain 1 pound of pure muscle a week (highly unlikely) you would need a surplus of 2400cals, however if oyu wanted to gain 1 pound of pure fat, (once again, highly unlikely) 3500 cals would be needed.

Lyle talks about it here :http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/forums/showpost.php?p=21887&postcount=12

Davidelmo
10-03-2006, 10:28 AM
Well, not really.

A pound of 100% Fat takes 3500cals or so to create.
A pound of 100% Muscle is like 2400 or something, I don't recall the correct number.

So if you wanted to gain 1 pound of pure muscle a week (highly unlikely) you would need a surplus of 2400cals, however if oyu wanted to gain 1 pound of pure fat, (once again, highly unlikely) 3500 cals would be needed.

Lyle talks about it here :http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/forums/showpost.php?p=21887&postcount=12

I have to register to view it. Please can you copy-paste it?

Holto
10-03-2006, 02:31 PM
As lyle points out it might take 2500 calories to biosynthesize a lb of muscle. Conversely when than muscle is catabolized it only yields ~600 cals.

Muscle is 70% water. Thus it is much less energy dense than fat which I believe is around 5% water.

TheGimp
10-03-2006, 03:41 PM
Thus it is much less energy dense than fat which I believe is around 5% water.

~15%. Hence 454 x 9 x 0.85 = ~3500 calories

K1M
10-03-2006, 06:22 PM
David:


Now this gets even more complicated because the number of calories that go into one pound of muscle is differnt than what goes into one pound of fat (it's roughly 1200-2400 cal/lb for muscle vs. 3500 cal/lb for fat).

So assume a 10,000 calorie surplus over some time period. If you get 100% muscle gain (let's use 2400 cal/lb), you gain just over 4 lbs of muscle, zero fat. If you get 100% fat gain, you gain 2.85 lbs of fat (note, total bodymass change is different, caloric value of that bodymass change is not). If you gained 50/50, you get 2 lbs of muscle (5000 calories) and 1.42 lbs of fat (5000 calories).

Westsidemonster
10-06-2006, 03:12 AM
The way I see it, junk food is for losers...;)

K1M
10-06-2006, 04:52 AM
The way I see it, junk food is for losers...;)

How did you come to that conclusion? Oreo's sure tasty awesome.

Westsidemonster
10-09-2006, 12:58 AM
I hate oreo cookies!!!! Eww gross! I hate the taste of junk food!!!

Droy777
02-27-2009, 12:13 PM
This applies primarly to natural bb's and even moreso to people that just want to get into better shape and have a healthy physique for the majority of the year:

Everyones body has a certain number of fat cells. With regards to these fat cells, our bodies can reduce the size of these cells by reducing the amount of fat in the cell, but it CANNOT get rid of fat cells themselves. On the opposite side our body CAN create more fat cells. The more %bf and fat cells we have the less insulin responsive we become and the harder it becomes to cut the fat when the time comes because your body will have more cells to store fat. Beyond that, simply when the time comes you will spend more time cutting higher % bf then you would have otherwise if you had done a clean bulk, which over the course of a year will lead to less muscle gains then if you were clean bulking as you will spend less time cutting and more time bulking.

As a natural or someone that just wants to look healthy and lean for most of the year you should not be following the regiment of pro bb's that are boosting the natural limits of their bodies. No matter how many calories above maintenance you go your body can only naturally build so much muscle at a time, and as a natural its not an overnight process. I would say overall optimally you will be looking at 1.5-2 pounds per month plus a bit more for the added weight of the new gylocgen in that muscle mass.

My advice to the OP and anyone that is looking to bulk naturally or wants to look semi-lean year round is to do so clean, get to know your maintanance level and start 500 cal's above it when your ready to start bulking and see what your gains are week to week. Your body looks pretty much the same for men between about 13-16%bf and it's quite possible to clean bulk at around 10%bf and stay in around that number and still look good while you bulk over time. 10% bf is no where near comp bb lean but it is lean enough that you will look decently shredded.

I'd say shoot to cut down to around 10% bf then start a clean bulk and cut if/when your bf gets back up around that 13-15%. If you keep things clean most of the year should be bulking with a bit of cutting here and there. With this system you will not be adding crazy amounts of fat cells, not be taking in a whole bunch of wasted cal's, have less to cut when it comes time to, and be healthier overall.

Hope this helps.

D

Cards
02-27-2009, 12:14 PM
lol at old posts and new people.

given'er
02-27-2009, 12:33 PM
LOL!!