Body Recomposition/Lean Strengthtraining

>The arguments are kind of mutually exclusive. Either you need to cut/bulk to get results or you don't.

But that's just a false statement. You can get results doing either one; they are just two ways to get to the same place. That was basically my point. Use your brain and pick the method you prefer. There's more than one way to skin a cat, stop being your average Veeky Forums autist that needs to be told the only possible choice.

Like I said in a well planned and smartly programmed bulk/cut will probably get your size/strength gains faster in the end, but you have to deal with more exaggerated effects of the bulk/cut while you do it. That's why professional bodybuilders do it that way - let themselves gain a little extra weight and then cut hardcore to get super dry and lean for shows. If its all they are doing, it doesn't really matter how bulking or cutting impacts any other aspect of your life, there is no other aspect.

it works somehow but it's really bullshit unless you are competing bodybuilder. avoiding bulkmeme is better for strength and aesthetics too. however if you are willing to sacrifice some performance to look ripped, cutting is fine.

trying to do a "lean bulk" or "body recomp" as a beginner is a massive waste of time. you have the potential to grow so fast as a rank novice, but that will only happen if you eat significant amounts of food. you will get a little chubby in the process, but you can cut down quite easily later with the help of a significantly higher TDEE. this is, IMO, the only time you should do a fast bulk, because it's the only time you can grow that quickly. when you have that "baseline" of muscle mass (around 200-210lbs for a normal, 6' guy) you can think about lean bulking and recomping.

If you can get results doing either one then you don't HAVE to bulk/cut, which was my question all along.
That's what I've been thinking too. I don't care about getting there super fast, but I eventually do want to be able to bench 3 pl8. However I like the girls, play basketball and go swimming so being lean/ripped is something I want to be my permanent state. However I've seen lots of people on Veeky Forums say bulk or you'll never make any gains.

Is this really true though? I've been at a slight deficit most of the time and my OHP is 105x3x5 and bench 155x3x5 after 6 months. For my size and experience (never touched a barbell before) I feel like that's pretty good. Surely I wouldn't be benching 225 if I did some GOMAD shit?

While this is true to an extent, you're underestimating how much of noob gains is really just CNS adaptation (and learning form too) as apposed to muscle growth. This will not be affected by pounding gallons of milk. There is no more reason to let yourself get fat as fuck when you're first coming up as there is later on in your lifting life.

bulking is what fitness industry wants you to do. guys who are bulking and doing it right are looking like pigs almost entire year and they cut before competition. otherwise "bulking" is just an excuse for pathetic diet or people imitating bodybuilders while they don't even know what they aim for

Lean gains is better unless you're taking steroids and also has the advantage of you not being obese during a bulk

My understanding is that about half a pound a week is the most muscle you can put on natty. If this is the case, then there's no point in eating more than 250 calories a day surplus, assuming protein macros are good. Right?

I mean, can you actually build more muscle by doing 5k cals a day of fast food, or would that just make you fat with the same amount of muscle?

I heard 5.lbs a week if the limit too. I'm wondering why are calories so important. I see the protein, but if you have body fat and you are stressing your body under maintenance why wouldn't your body just use the fat for energy to build muscle. That's kinda the whole point of fat. I can see if you have a huge deficit your body can go into scared starvation mode but under a mild deficit or maintenance why would it?

Doing Lyle McDonalds ultimate diet 2.0

Seriously, if you're comfy with your muscle mass but have stubborn fat (15% or below bf) just try it for 4 to 8 weeks.

Not even shilling, he explains his reasoning and methods with logic and science. Shit works.

So what should a normal person do?

100-300kcal surplus iifym while PICKING THINGS UP AND THEN PUTTING THEM DOWN CONSISTENTLY.

I think it's like a hunter-gatherer thing. Your body won't burn body fat until there's literally nothing else left. It will always choose food in your belly for energy first. I think?

But, okay, wait. So when they say "one gram of protein per lb of lean mass", is that IN ADDITION TO your TDEE calories? That can't be right, that would already be more than double half a pound a week for me.

Well if you're planning on playing basketball, you can pretty much say goodbye to your knees when bulking, solution to this is heavy leg gains which will fuck up your perfomance on the court

I can see that but going to like 8-12% body fat isn't nothing. That's still a good 20 lbs of fat for someone my size.

Lots of contrasting stuff on protein. Best I heard was 0.8g for LEAN body mass. So if you weight 200 lbs and have 20% body fat do
200 lbs * 0.8 lean/lb * 0.8 g/lean = 128g a day.

Those goals are fucking shit. You can't measure any of them.

Also you're just looking for us to validate what you've already decided to do anyway.

So my TDEE is 2200, and I need 160 g of protons a day.

Would my most efficient bulk be:

1. 2200 + 640 (160 * 4) calories?

Or 2. 2550 (TDEE + 250 for half a pound a week) as long as 160g of it is proton?

That's a meme. Leg gains = faster running and better jumping. Look at olympic sprinters.
I haven't decided anything. I want to know if I can make comparable strength gains training at maintenance compared to doing bulk/cut cycles. Can I?

The protein is PART of the TDEE. So if you need 2200 cals it would include the cals from the protein. I don't know about 2550, that's a minor bulk (you're eating at above TDEE). If you want to bulk then sure, if you want to stay at current weight then eat TDEE with the protein calories included in TDEE.

Recomps only happen with trenbolone or if you just started lifting

No. 2

Ok. That's what I thought. I'm basing that on the advice that half a pound of muscle a week is the most you can build natty, which would work out to +250 calories a day.

Or is one pound of muscle more calories than one pound of body fat (3500)?

Why? What are your sources?

small caloric surplus to make gains, hitting nutrient levels and most importantly avoiding unhealthy processed shit.

if you have cravings go fuck a chick or do something meaningful / what makes you happy, sleep well etc. worst case scenario go bananas and fill your belly with shitty meal once a month or even week to the point of hating that delicious poisonous crap for a long time

>115kg tub of lard.
>diet down to 105kg.
>start lifting, diet is shitty, squat 1RM is 1plt.
>start taking care of diet: make sure to eat enough protein (100g,) replace simple with complex carbs whenever possible, replace saturated, hydrolyzed and omega-6 with mono, omega-3 etc., drink exclusively water and black coffee.
>over the next 3.5 months drop down to 95kg. squat is up to 120kg for reps.

the next part is guesstimating but I've probably put on about 2-3kg of muscles and 2kg of water. so I probably cut down about 14kg of fat without actively trying to or doing cardio in 3.5 months.

I have no idea what it takes to build a lb of muscle. Tbh that number of +250 is broscience, not any special number.

>comparable
Obviously not. If eating at maintenance was remotely comparable, why the hell would anyone bulk and cut? You might get acceptable gains but that's just something you'll have to try and judge for yourself.

Why is this even a thread holy shit

Why small caloric surplus? Why can't your body use the fat it has to build muscle in order to adapt to stress?
nice progress bro
why the hell would anyone use a smith machine or do any of the retarded shit I see people do at the gym? Just because people think something is true without proof doesn't make it true. It's just a logical fallacy.

(me) I'm googling this now, and getting all sorts of different answers, but it sounds like a pound of muscle is actually LESS than 3500 calories. If that's the case then even +250 is too much.

moar

I was going to reply literally this

That's what I'm trying to figure out. Based on two assumptions: 1. You can only build half a pound a week, and 2. A pound is 3500 calories, that math would work out to +250 a day.

If you can, in fact, build more than half a pound a week natty, or it takes a different amount of calories to build a pound of muscle vs. a pound of fat, then my math is wrong.

>Why small caloric surplus?

too much energy = fat. it's not turning into bm

Calories don't work as concretely as that - if you eat at a surplus, 100 percent of your surplus is not going to go directly into building muscle.

Really, your best option is not to eat 250 over TDEE but just eat (16 x bodyweight in lbs) calories if you want to lean bulk. So for you, eat 2800 calories a day and work out three times a week and do some cardio occasionally and you should see yourself begin to become le shred master

Long-story-short:
You can build muscle under a quite decent deficit as long as you get enough macros and micros. It will be slower going building muscle than bulking and losing fat will be slower than going an extreme cut. But that's how most beginners/manual-laborers get fit. The more advanced you are the slower it will be and after some point it will probably start to be impossible but that's when you are very close to your genetic max. I never understood that whole b/c obsession. Sure, you'll get there a bit slower but you'll look better throughout the year and stress your body less.

bump

That would be more in line with my first scenario above, i.e. eating 160 grams of protein a day IN ADDITION TO my normal TDEE. 2200 + (160*4)