PDA

View Full Version : Dirty bulking



wnt2gitswoll
02-14-2007, 09:59 PM
when I'm dirty bulking I know I should expect excess fat but should I also expect results to come a lot quicker... such as arms, legs, back etc thickening?. Someone give me the scoop.

PowerInTheRaw
02-14-2007, 10:25 PM
No.
Dirty bulking does not build more muscle then clean bulking. What dirty bulking does is give you lots of pump, but do not mistaken the pump for muscle mass. There is no point in going dirty unless you want to look dirty.

Matt04
02-15-2007, 02:01 AM
No.
Dirty bulking does not build more muscle then clean bulking. What dirty bulking does is give you lots of pump, but do not mistaken the pump for muscle mass. There is no point in going dirty unless you want to look dirty.

ummm....... could you please explain what that means?

to the OP, dirty bulking should help you gain weight quicker. just the ratio of fat to muslce gained would be much higher. you mite get the allusion of looking thicker from excess bodyfat but this is not really desirable if you are looking at bodybuilding as apposed to powerlifting. where as p[ower lifting you are looking for total strength.

i hope that helps.

wnt2gitswoll
02-15-2007, 11:47 AM
Well from here on until the year ends I want a husky/strong look. I'll cut after new year's. Does that help any?

HighSchoolGuy
02-15-2007, 02:14 PM
No.
Dirty bulking does not build more muscle then clean bulking. What dirty bulking does is give you lots of pump, but do not mistaken the pump for muscle mass. There is no point in going dirty unless you want to look dirty.

What the hell are you even saying? What does pump have anything to do with dirty bulking? Yea you're right about dirty bulking not building more muscle than clean bulking but since when does gaining lots of fat give you more pump?

Howard 9
02-15-2007, 03:03 PM
I did a dirty bulk and i noticed little fat gain barely an inch on my waist, but i was a noob.

levronefan
02-15-2007, 04:20 PM
you will get stronger with the excess bodyweight, thus much bigger.....

RichMcGuire
02-15-2007, 04:29 PM
In general, you will put on more fat, but, youll also probably put more muscle on too. Clean bulking is difficult for many people because of a larger time committment. Generally, theres fewer calories. Really, fat doesnt make you fat.

Ive been dirty bulking now (increase of 20 lbs) and I havent noticed any fat gain. I think it can depend on genetics. The main calorie punch I get 5 days a week is McDonalds.

Xand
02-16-2007, 11:00 PM
Dirty Bulkng? Clean Bulking? Dude, just eat. Bigger is better. Ask any pro.

bullethead74
02-17-2007, 01:10 AM
Christina Aguilara not bulky but totally dirty.

Just thought as this thread was full of nonsense I'd add some!

smitch250
02-17-2007, 08:38 AM
No.
Dirty bulking does not build more muscle then clean bulking. What dirty bulking does is give you lots of pump, but do not mistaken the pump for muscle mass. There is no point in going dirty unless you want to look dirty.

ive always dirty bulked. it works great for me. sure my waist may gain some fat but thats easy to lose. i just stop bulking. its pretty much impossible for a poor college student to truely clean bulk. i just dont have the funds to be spending on fresh food.

yea and i dont look dirty either. whatever dirty looks like. im assuming rolling around in mud after a workout??

Stumprrp
02-17-2007, 09:15 AM
Dirty Bulkng? Clean Bulking? Dude, just eat. Bigger is better. Ask any pro.

YES!

man, when your trying to get bigger, do it up!

*sips down a nitrean/coffee icecream shake after a nice ME lower workout

Progress
02-17-2007, 09:44 AM
It depends on how much over your caloric maintenance you're eating when determining how much "fat" you'll put on. If you eat much more over your maintenance, your body will be less efficient when storing those calories. To minimize fat gain on a bulk it's a slow bulk that you want (15%-25% above maintenance).

ancom41
02-17-2007, 10:20 AM
No.
Dirty bulking does not build more muscle then clean bulking. What dirty bulking does is give you lots of pump, but do not mistaken the pump for muscle mass. There is no point in going dirty unless you want to look dirty.

Im assumming by pump you mean exccess body fat?


you will get stronger with the excess bodyweight, thus much bigger.....

:bang:


In general, you will put on more fat, but, youll also probably put more muscle on too. Clean bulking is difficult for many people because of a larger time committment. Generally, theres fewer calories. Really, fat doesnt make you fat.


How will dirty bulking put on more muscle? and how is there more of a time committment? Calories are calories...whether you eat 4000 calories on a clean diet, or 4000 calories on a dirty diet. The only difference is going to be the ratio of LBM/fat.

The only clear advantage to a dirty diet is the ease at which the calories can be ingested. You get more of them, and they are more fun to eat.

RichMcGuire
02-17-2007, 11:37 AM
Christina Aguilara not bulky but totally dirty.

Just thought as this thread was full of nonsense I'd add some!

Im not really sure what you are referring to as non-sense. Perhaps PowerintheRaw? lol.

Anyways,

Clean bulking is healthier. I havent had my blood pressure increase because of mcdonalds yet, but its very possible that it will.


My "dirty bulk" has more saturated and trans fats than i"d like, but its also the easiest way to get my calories. And really, thats what its all about in the end - Calories. The only question afterwards is how healthy your arteries are ;)

humidityhater
02-17-2007, 12:41 PM
Christina Aguilara not bulky but totally dirty.

Just thought as this thread was full of nonsense I'd add some!

She is dirty isn't she? I love it!

Keep eating man.

Tyrtl
02-17-2007, 01:06 PM
Dirty Bulkng? Clean Bulking? Dude, just eat. Bigger is better. Ask any pro.


I'm with Xand on this one. Really, you'll only grow if you eat. True, dirty bulking with bring you the unwanted fat, but thats what you risk.

BFGUITAR
02-17-2007, 01:42 PM
This is my view on bulking.

Lets look at bulking in terms of calculus!

On a graph you can have a function (a cruve really) showing us that for every pound of muscle gained, a certain amount of fat is also gained. Now at first little fat is gained for a certain amont of muscle, but as the amount of muscle gained increases so does the amount of fat.

Clean bulking is basically optimization. Your finding a place on the curve where your getting the most muscle for the least amount of fat.

Past that point (dirty bulk) youll still get a decent amount of muscle (more muscle than a clean bulk) but also alot more fat that a clean bulk.

Overall, you can get stronger by doing a dirty bulk in a shorter amount of time.

I prefer just eating alot of food. I dont mind the extra fat because I know I can lose it quite easily. As well, ill be getting stronger in a shorter amount of time.

ancom41
02-18-2007, 08:52 AM
Past that point (dirty bulk) youll still get a decent amount of muscle (more muscle than a clean bulk) but also alot more fat that a clean bulk.


Please explain this. It seems that everyone here shares that theory.. yet no one has explained this yet. If you get 4000 calories on a clean diet, and 4000 calories on a dirty diet.. please explain to me how you will gain more muscle mass on the dirty diet?

VikingWarlord
02-18-2007, 09:56 AM
Please explain this. It seems that everyone here shares that theory.. yet no one has explained this yet. If you get 4000 calories on a clean diet, and 4000 calories on a dirty diet.. please explain to me how you will gain more muscle mass on the dirty diet?

It seems that your definitions of "clean" and "dirty" differ from everyone else's here, and that's the sticking point. The terminology doesn't have to do with what you eat, but how much you eat.

"Clean" bulk refers to eating a small amount above maintenance (15-20% or so) to minimize fat gain on a bulk. It takes more time to gain weight, but that means you don't have to cut as long.

"Dirty" bulk refers to eating everything that isn't nailed down in an effort to gain as much weight as possible as quickly as possible regardless of the distribution.

By these definitions, your 4000 cal clean vs 4000 cal dirty scenario can't work because the same person can't do both, since bulking has to do with amount eaten above maintenance, not an absolute value or the content of what's eaten.

Bulking dirty will give your body MORE material to use than eating on a clean bulk, so the potential to gain more lean mass is there. It's not necessarily going to happen, but it's very probable.

levronefan
02-18-2007, 11:44 AM
:bang:







generally speaking......... you will get bigger as you get stronger

Progress
02-18-2007, 11:47 AM
I was under the impression that "dirty" meant not watching what you eat in terms of macros. "Clean" meant keeping macros in line with the respective percentage increase of the bulk overall. While a slow bulk is one with relative minimal increase over caloric maintenance.

I could be wrong and/or this could be an argument over semantics.

RichMcGuire
02-18-2007, 11:51 AM
Im assumming by pump you mean exccess body fat?



:bang:



How will dirty bulking put on more muscle? and how is there more of a time committment? Calories are calories...whether you eat 4000 calories on a clean diet, or 4000 calories on a dirty diet. The only difference is going to be the ratio of LBM/fat.

The only clear advantage to a dirty diet is the ease at which the calories can be ingested. You get more of them, and they are more fun to eat.

Well, clean bulking is more of a time committment because you actually have to prepare a lot of your foods..

Clean bulking foods generally have less calories so you need to find time to eat more of it.

Now dirty bulking on the otherhand, I can go to McDonalds and order 4 cheeseburgers, throw some mayo in there, get a large fry and bam, 2200+ calories in 1 meal. The committment? Well, I did have to stand in line while they made my food ;)

Also, dirty bulking is usually associated with more calories than a clean bulk - and thats why you can see larger muscular gains but perhaps a larger fat increase as well.

ancom41
02-18-2007, 05:43 PM
It seems that your definitions of "clean" and "dirty" differ from everyone else's here, and that's the sticking point. The terminology doesn't have to do with what you eat, but how much you eat.

"Clean" bulk refers to eating a small amount above maintenance (15-20% or so) to minimize fat gain on a bulk. It takes more time to gain weight, but that means you don't have to cut as long.

"Dirty" bulk refers to eating everything that isn't nailed down in an effort to gain as much weight as possible as quickly as possible regardless of the distribution.

By these definitions, your 4000 cal clean vs 4000 cal dirty scenario can't work because the same person can't do both, since bulking has to do with amount eaten above maintenance, not an absolute value or the content of what's eaten.

Bulking dirty will give your body MORE material to use than eating on a clean bulk, so the potential to gain more lean mass is there. It's not necessarily going to happen, but it's very probable.


No. 15-20% over your maintenance is a bulk, period. Like you said a dirty bulk is eating every and anything. Including foods that have macros that most people would rather avoid. If you are pushing much past that 20% mark on either a clean or dirty diet you are risking lots of fat gains.


I was under the impression that "dirty" meant not watching what you eat in terms of macros. "Clean" meant keeping macros in line with the respective percentage increase of the bulk overall. While a slow bulk is one with relative minimal increase over caloric maintenance.

I could be wrong and/or this could be an argument over semantics.


Exactly. And yea, it really is all semantics. It doesnt really matter, people get the point.. you eat more, you get bigger. I just dont want half of the WBB community going home and eating 10 jars of mayonaise because they think they are going to gain more muscle.


generally speaking......... you will get bigger as you get stronger

Yes, I agree with you.. but, the whole debate is about the risk of adding massive amounts of fat along with the muscle. It changes the whole weight/strength ratio.


Well, clean bulking is more of a time committment because you actually have to prepare a lot of your foods..

Clean bulking foods generally have less calories so you need to find time to eat more of it.

Now dirty bulking on the otherhand, I can go to McDonalds and order 4 cheeseburgers, throw some mayo in there, get a large fry and bam, 2200+ calories in 1 meal. The committment? Well, I did have to stand in line while they made my food

Also, dirty bulking is usually associated with more calories than a clean bulk - and thats why you can see larger muscular gains but perhaps a larger fat increase as well.


I agree with everything you just said man. Although, If you think about it the 5 bucks you spent on Mcdonalds could buy you a 10 pack of bonless skinless chicken breast that has probably around 4x the calories. If your saying that your dirty bulk consists of only fast food.. then yes.. its less time consuming.. but most of us still prepare our own meals.. and in that aspect.. it is equal time wise.

Like you said, when dirty bulking, eating the same portions will equal out with more calories on the dirty diet. My argument was more of, if you eat the same calories on a dirty and on a clean.

ancom41
02-18-2007, 05:45 PM
"Clean" = Good macros, 15-20% over maintenance.
"Dirty" = Bad macros, 15-20% over maintenance.

Do you guys disagree?

xxtacofishxx
02-18-2007, 05:58 PM
I find it hard to get my cals in when clean bulking. Like RichMcGuire said, going and getting fast food makes getting those calories in easier. I have now met half way in the middle and eat clean foods for breakfast and lunch, and then throw in a someone worse dinner to help me finish off the colories I need.

RichMcGuire
02-18-2007, 08:30 PM
"Clean" = Good macros, 15-20% over maintenance.
"Dirty" = Bad macros, 15-20% over maintenance.

Do you guys disagree?

I agree.

Mr. D
02-18-2007, 09:28 PM
No.
Dirty bulking does not build more muscle then clean bulking. What dirty bulking does is give you lots of pump, but do not mistaken the pump for muscle mass. There is no point in going dirty unless you want to look dirty.


Dont we just miss this guy? When he first joined the boards he pretty much alienated everyone in site, now he is banned. Thats another forum he is banned from.

ancom41
02-18-2007, 09:36 PM
Dont we just miss this guy? When he first joined the boards he pretty much alienated everyone in site, now he is banned. Thats another forum he is banned from.

I didnt really understand that post? Did it have something to do with the topic? (not trying to be sarcistic, just curious)

ancom41
02-18-2007, 09:45 PM
I find it hard to get my cals in when clean bulking. Like RichMcGuire said, going and getting fast food makes getting those calories in easier. I have now met half way in the middle and eat clean foods for breakfast and lunch, and then throw in a someone worse dinner to help me finish off the colories I need.


No doubt man, by far the hardest part about trying to gain mass is the dieting. Dont get me wrong, Im not argueing about the means, I just think we all have slightly different definitions and was hoping to clear that up. Like I said, we dont need kids trying to get 1000's of calories at a time off of crap in the hopes of getting huge.

VikingWarlord
02-19-2007, 04:35 AM
"Clean" = Good macros, 15-20% over maintenance.
"Dirty" = Bad macros, 15-20% over maintenance.

Do you guys disagree?

I disagree. I was always told by many people (including many members of this forum) that clean referred to a bulk to monimize fat gain by eating a small amount over maintenance, while a dirty bulk is eating way over maintenance just to gain any kind of weight, fat or mass.

If the definitions you've set up above are for bulk, what happens if you eat "clean" but at 25-30% above maintenance? What happens? Chances are calories in will be way over calories out and you'll get fat...even by eating what you call clean.

It's for that reason that I can't get behind what you've suggested. Doesn't make sense to me.

Stumprrp
02-19-2007, 06:15 AM
viking - ive thought of the same thing clean food but 25-30% over, ill tell you all right now on my first bulk i ate everything, clean, horrible, decent, and alot of it, but i was lifting literally killing myself each workout to the point where walking out was a problem and i was tired all day, i would eat sometimes a double breakfast and double dinner, 1000-1400 calorie shakes after workout.

i put on problem 20 lbs of LBM in 3-4 months

ancom41
02-19-2007, 08:05 AM
If the definitions you've set up above are for bulk, what happens if you eat "clean" but at 25-30% above maintenance? What happens? Chances are calories in will be way over calories out and you'll get fat...even by eating what you call clean.

Let me put it this way. You are right. We both agree on the important things. Both of our methods will work and have worked. My only concern was having newcomers read this and think by eating a pound of lard they can gain more muscle quicker than eating eggs or tuna. This thread reinforces my fears because obviously there are differing opinions on clean vs dirty.

You are saying:
Clean = Good Macros, 15-20%
Dirty = Good Macros, 20+%

I can live with that. Long as we are both promoting healthy diets. The only thing that differs is the %. Thanks for the healthy debate :D

Guido
02-19-2007, 08:16 AM
ancom - I generally agree with your definition of "clean" vs. "dirty" bulking, though I don't think the percentages are necessary. ANY consistent caloric intake over maintenance could be considered "bulking", though by how much really means the difference between a "fast" and a "slow" bulking process.

Aside from the fact that clean bulking is going to be more efficient at putting on quality LBM, your going to stay at more reasonable cholesterol and blood pressure levels.

ancom41
02-19-2007, 08:19 AM
ancom - I generally agree with your definition of "clean" vs. "dirty" bulking, though I don't think the percentages are necessary. ANY consistent caloric intake over maintenance could be considered "bulking", though by how much really means the difference between a "fast" and a "slow" bulking process.


I didnt mean to give the impression that the #'s were written in stone. I agree with you.