>You can only add about 1-2 pounds of dry muscle a month.
Which doesn't sound like a lot but if you eat and lift right, you can gain about 10-20 pounds of muscle a year. So you fat bulk fucks eating 9,000 calories a day, just stop.
You didnt put 10 pounds of muscle on this month. You gained eight pounds of fat, some fluids and a few ounces of muscle
Other urls found in this thread:
Thanks Dad
steroids
What if I'm a skellington and struggle to stomach 3k Cal full stop?
With a 300 calorie surplus a day instead of 500, would I still build the same amount of muscle but with less fat?
you want those noob gains
Yes.
No. You would build less muscle. But also get less fat, both in mass and in proportion of the mass you make.
There's a diminishing return on the additional muscle mass you make for every calorie you add to your surplus. Basically, your metabolism is only capable of synthesizing muscle at a given rate, but this maximum rate is reached only at a high surplus. But at a high surplus, only a smaller fraction of your calorie surplus goes toward muscle mass, the rest is stored as fat. So you should only go there if you're a fat powerlifter, or as a short time shock treatment if you're a hungry skeleton (been there, done that).
If you care about having visible abs year round but still want to build muscles (natty) then you have to have a calorie surplus so small you won't built fat. You will make muscle much slower, obviously.
In the end, it all comes down on where you personally put yourself on the spectrum of [Fast muscle max fat] - [Slow muscle min fat].
Lastly, note that your body cannot maintain more than a given muscle mass, without fat. Above that, if you want more muscle your body will store more fat whatever you do (unless /fraud/).
Similarly, your body fat will not go lower a certain point without sacrificing some muscles (again, unless /fraud/).
That's why muscular men with high muscle definition are a big red flag for unnattiness (unless it's for 1-2 days for a competition etc)
There's an indicator that uses all that stuff and try to put it on a scale to see if someone is natural based on their muscle/fat ratio etc : the fat free mass index (ffmi).
You should google it and use some fitness models stats to put in it, you will be surprised at how many "natural" kids today who have been lifting for 5 years have body compositions far superior to that of mr olympias from the pre steroids era.
>tfw almost been lifting for a year and have weighed 170lbs since the begining.
is a 500 calorie surplus worth it??
You wasted a year of your life.
Why do you need an energy surplus to put on muscle?
Think hard before answering this question.
no shit thanks newfag go buy some mutant mass with mommy's credit card
>tfw don't care about being fat as im not gonna cut until my 3rd year
1 year in and I'm still not a fatfuck, just watch what you eat
>what is a recomp
170lbs at 20% looks vastly different to 170lbs at 10%
>falling for the body recomp meme
Nothing really to fall for. It only works for people who are still beginners.
>Nothing really to fall for
>It only works for people who are still beginners.
>I got smaller progress than I would have gotten if I went the conventional route but it still works!
>>I got smaller progress than I would have gotten if I went the conventional route but it still works!
Smaller progress sounds better than big progress and a shitton of fat. Just imagine, there are people who don't really care how much their bench has improved in the last year but instead want to look good when they take their shirt off. Fucking mindblowing.
>bulk/cut doesn't produce more muscles and an overall better body! who cares if you're stronger because you built more muscles!
I've tried to start threads on this topic in the past and have never really gotten a straight answer. What IS the optimum caloric surplus to shoot for? +250? +500?
When losing weight, once you know your TDEE, you can actually predict, quite accurately, what a given caloric deficit will do to your weight.
But for bulking, this seems to be more of a gray area. Assuming your protein macros are on point, what IS the optimum caloric surplus? +250? +500?
If we're saying 2 pounds of muscle per month is the max, then even at +500 it seems like you'd be adding just as much fat as muscle, assuming muscle follows the same 3500 calories = 1 pound rule (which by most accounts it's actually lower than that.)
If you eat to only put on exactly your estimated muscle gain possible you wont actually be jsut putting on that muscle and not putting on any fat.
You need to eat a bit extra on top to maximise muscle gains but it will also lead to a bit more fat gain.
This is a pretty shit article but I guess it explains the concept pretty well
rippedbody.jp
Well there are different angles to look at the "optimum" caloric surplus. If you want to stay relatively lean during your bulk, you'll stay slightly above your TDEE and try to gain like half a pound or a pound max a week. Your muslce mass won't increase as fast but you'll also make alsmost no gain in fat. If your aim is to build the most amount of muscle at the lowest possible surplus, you'll just have to experiment for yourself. Not every body is the same. 300 calorie surplus is a good starting point though, slowly ramp it up to 500 calories if you're not happy with your results.
What you're saying makes not sense. At this point you just want to drakepost.
>1/2-1 pound of "almost no fat" per week
>he doesnt realize im mocking him in his very inefficient way of building muscle
3500 calories = 1 pound actually works for fat only, and even then, it's more of a general approximation than anything else. To synthesize some mass of muscle, your body probably needs more energy than it does to store the same mass of fat. So my broscience instinct tells me that 1 pound of muscle os more than 3500cal.
It also depends of you're synthesizing or breaking down. You certainly need more energy to synthesize stuff, than you can get out of the breaking down of the same stuff. But again, that's full broscience here.
But because 1 pound of fat isn't equal (in calories) to 1 pound of muscle, you can't know for sure your TDEE if you only look at your calorie intake and your weight gain. You'd have to know how much of this weight is fat and how much is lean mass. So I suggest you think about absolute values for your calories and not as surplus/deficit in regards to some TDEE value you think you have. ie try 2800cal for 3 weeks and see what happens. from there, don't infer that your TDEE is x or y. It's way more complicated than that, and if you use this inferred TDEE value for your next bulk or cut, you might be pretty off of what is actually going on in your body.
>What IS the optimum caloric surplus to shoot for? +250? +500?
As I said, it depends on how much fat you're willing to put on while you gain muscle. There's no single best value, because different people will have different tolerance to being fat if it means getting more muscle.
All I can tell you is that what I consider my sweet spot is 300 calories above what I think my TDEE is. I still have this extra energy I need at the gym that allows me not to feel weak (contrary to cutting) without putting too much fat on.
But someone else with exactly the same metabolism than me might feel that they are getting muscle too slowly and would like better to add another 300 cal
...
If you are skelly you can gain way more than that, progress slows considerably and requires better nutrition and resting after a while.
Most people here just spout whatever is in the sticky like it's some kind of holy book or some shit.
>So my broscience instinct tells me that 1 pound of muscle os more than 3500cal
Stopped reading here. It's less than half of that, muscles are mostly water.
I'm talking about the protein chains in your muscles, not the glycogen they bath in ;-)
Remember 50/50 muscle/fat gains means bf% is unchanged
False.
100lb muscle + 10lb fat = 9% bodyfat.
150lb muscle + 60lb fat = 29% bodyfat.
> he thinks body fat works this way
OR JUST BE A /MUTANT/
So, it SEEMS like the general consensus is that, on a bulk, anything above +500 calorie surplus is mostly going to go to body fat. And that for some people, even +500 might be too high/less than optimal.
Would that be a good rule of thumb?
that sounds reasonable
what about wet muscle?
>realistically gain 10-20lbs of dry lean muscle a year if you eat right
lol no, maybe during dyel noob gains mode. If people were able to put on 10lbs of lean aesthetic muscle a year we'd all natty potential 7% 5 scoops 3 times a day status within 4 years
Weak bait.
10lbs a year is probably maximum natty. You would need to have extremely high test levels to make more than that along side of perfect nutrition. If you make over 10-12lbs a year in muscle i would just assume roids. Because thats just not human. I wouod only belive it if they had multiple physicians agree theybare completely natty, which would call for lots of study so we can try and replicate the results.
Remember, when you bulked above certain point (said, 20% bf), you are like permafucked. Your body developed new fat cells, they will not die unless you starve yourself for a year or so.
LOL 10 lbs in one year is not only not the maximum its fucking easy. You must be one of those never makes progress fag. I went from 140-184 in 2 years and have less BF% now then when i started. The joys of starting skelly.
it's like 25 lbs the first year, 10-15 next, then it goes down to like 2-3 lbs after 5 years. Ultra skellies can gain more, especially when they go after the t-rex aesthetic.
You think hypertrophy is fucking free?!
You think ATP is fucking free?!
Fuck You
but ATP grows on trees
>select all images with trees