Thoughts on a "clean bulk"

If we take the following assumptions:

1.Muscle cannot be gained when cutting
2.Cutting takes up 33.3% of the annual bulk/cut cycle (roughly - please adapt this number as per your own setup)

Then we can arrive at the conclusion that in the long run, if you average everything out, you are only building 66.6% of the muscle you should be building for the amount of time you put in at the gym.

Now, instead, let's say you eat just above maintenance (say 50 calories over per day) ALL year round, so in a very small surplus thus a "clean bulk" and rarely if ever being required to cut, what would the gains be like compared to the typical bulk/cut method as listed above?

Surely if the gains are anything above the 66.6% efficiency of providing your body with a larger surplus then a lean bulk is superior to bulk/cut cycles?

What am I missing here?

Is my logic that far off?
I'm not trying to discredit bulk/cut I just want people to look at the numbers and ask if a lean bulk is really that inefficient?

Also if you make claims such as
>"50 calories surplus per day is not enough"
then fine, but please back it up

Interested to hear Veeky Forums's thoughts

Other urls found in this thread:

scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

You can't account for the marginal changes in your TDEE due to activity every single day. Lean bulking is inefficient purely because it relies on calorie counting as an exact science; proper bulking just entails eating enough to gain and not worrying about calories at all. Eat big and eat often. It works, whereas lean bulking categorically doesn't, otherwise it'd be the practice of every sucessful person in fitness trying to gain mass, even on steroids, which don't absolutely preclude fat gain.

>1.Muscle cannot be gained when cutting

This is not correct. When people say this, they are referring to how bodybuilders training for years cannot gain muscle on a cut.

You OP, can gain muscle on a cut.

2. Correct, when done properly. 33% is actually ideal.

>Now, instead, let's say you eat just above maintenance (say 50 calories over per day) ALL year round, so in a very small surplus thus a "clean bulk" and rarely if ever being required to cut, what would the gains be like compared to the typical bulk/cut method as listed above?


Minimal gains.

First of all, lean bulk, is the ideal. A lean bulk refers to +250 though.

Your body has a lot of trouble putting on muscle mass at a tiny surplus (+50). It will greatly slow the process for beginners. If you aren't a beginner, then, it is actually totally impossible.

Much, much more progress can be made in 3 months by +250 x 2 + 1 month -500 than matiencne +0 for 3 months.

disregard this dyel's ravings

It is either a bait post or seriously misguided.

The ideal bulk is calculated, slow, and steady. If you try to eat at a gigantic +1000 surplus like he does, you are gaining maybe an extra 1% muscle mass (maybe), trading it for having to cut exactly FOUR times longer.

This obviously fucks up your progress.

The body can only really benefit from a 250-500 surplus, anything over that is getting fat needlessly.

This board is very toxic around new years. Beware anyone saying stuff that doesn't make sense logically like

>proper bulking involves not worrying about calories at all

What you are saying makes a lot of sense, I guess part of what I'm getting at is the nominal value of the typical calorie surplus

500 calories is a lot to be adding on per day - 250 seems to make more sense and won't be subject to the issue you raised, in addition to the fact it will probably reduce the cutting phase, resulting in an overall efficiency nearer to 80% (excuse my overuse of these calculations - just hard to communicate what i'm trying to say without them)

Plus the face you'll be looking how you want to look for more of the year round

I may be DYEL by your reckoning but I've hit 2/3/4/5 after 2.5 years of lifting at a bodyweight of 90kg and that's because I haven't worried overmuch about gaining weight, and I started out at 50kg. I'm 6'1" and all. If your goal is to gain strength and size quickly, you need to bulk effectively, and the best way to do that is by eating big and eating often.

Fat goes away. In the context of your training career, a longer cut here and there is not worth worrying about. What's important is making the steady, decent progress that drives you to work hard.

What do you think the "normal" cut/bulk cycle should be then?

250 cal surplus until a given bf% then cut?

>If we take the following assumptions:

>1.Muscle cannot be gained when cutting
>2.Cutting takes up 33.3% of the annual bulk/cut cycle (roughly - please adapt this number as per your own setup)

>
Surely if the gains are anything above the 66.6% efficiency of providing your body with a larger surplus then a lean bulk is superior to bulk/cut cycles?
If you take those two assumptions to be true, sure, but the first is retarded and false and the second is completely flexible.

>What am I missing here?
Correct assumptions and realism

>I'm not trying to discredit bulk/cut I just want people to look at the numbers and ask if a lean bulk is really that inefficient?
Lean bulks generally take far longer than bulking and cutting for a few reasons:

>It takes longer
>It requires more discipline and consistency
>It requires a better diet

Even if you're taking hormones then bulking and cutting at around 20% is about the best way to go

>>"50 calories surplus per day is not enough"
>then fine, but please back it up
Even a rudimentary google will show you that the best methods are eating at around 20%+ for hypertrophy, particularly because of protein

Do your homework and test them out before you start making ridiculous assumptions and asking silly questions.

Also you'll learn this a lot faster by working out and fixing your diet than by calculating the numbers on Veeky Forums

you are right about the "to gain muscle you need to eat big" but the whole point of my post was averaging these numbers out for the average person who doesn't want to be a bulky 20% bodyfat year round. It's about the middleground

>make 10% less gains in bulk season
>but allows you to cut for half as long

get the angle i'm coming from? Overall you will grow quicker

I recognise your point, and I appreciate that for someone whose primary goal is to look good it's the right way to go about it, but I just wanted to point out that if strength is his primary goal, it's better not to worry about gaining fat and to focus on driving progressive overload for as long as possible.

+250 surplus until a bf % where you feel unhapy with yourself OR 15%.

Do not go above 15%. If you have body image issues, you may feel unhappy or fat at 12%, 11%, , and then you can just cut at that point.

Once you get to 15% your body starts producing an excessive amount of estrogen so regardless of how comfortable being fat you are, don't do it.

That applies for the first 5 years.

Past year 5, you no longer make gains on +250, and you need to do +500.

>a longer cut is not worth worrying about

No. Cutting is obviously detrimental to progress (are you really gonna argue this one with me?)

So you want to MINIMIZE the fat you gain, so you can spend less time cutting and more time bulking.

>bulk effectively

A +250 lean bulk is 95%+ (desu, 99%) as good as +1000 or more.

Oh yeah, if strength is his primary goal, he should eat a +2000 surplus until the end of time, never cut, and invest in a mobility scooter.

I will not argue the point.

Not him but whichever you're more likely to stick to is obviously the best choice, regardless of duration

and for 99/100 people that's bulking and cutting at around 20%

no one is arguing that

In the context of a 10-20 year training career, a four-month cut won't matter compared to a two-month cut, whereas inefficient bulks that don't produce progress and potentially don't manage fatigue and nutrient supply well enough to avoid injury will.

Do you see what I mean?

cool but what about if you lose 5-10% efficiency on the bulk (due to eating a 250 calorie surplus vs 500)

but your cut is reduced to 2 months from 4 months, allowing you to start bulking 2 months earlier?

The numbers aren't solid but thats generally what i'm getting at

I see what you're arguing but I really disagree with the premise.

> a four month cut won't matter compared to a two month cut

Disagree strongly. You wasted 2 months.

That is 16.66% of the year.

This would be efficient, if a bulk at +1000 gave 17% more results than a bulk at +500.

But the reality of the matter is the +1000 bulk will give .17% more results, because your body only really can make use of the first +500 surplus.

>Inefficient bulks

DESU, I consider a bulk inefficient if you gain excess fat and have to cut for longer (reducing your progress overall)

"not achieving maximum productivity; wasting or failing to make the best use of time or resources."

you are SEVERLY underestimating what can be achieved on a small surplus. +250 first 5 years, after that, +500.

+1000 only makes sense on roids, and even then, very specific componds like tren that effect nutrient partitioning.

I don't think OP is on tren

>DESU, I consider a bulk inefficient if you gain excess fat and have to cut for longer (reducing your progress overall)

OP here, this is the point of the thread which i'm pretty sure only you understand so far

Why do people still make a distinction between "clean bulk" and "dirty bulk"?

Shouldn't it be obvious that stuffing your mouth with as much garbage as you can is a pretty bad approach to gaining weight?

Just eat a controlled caloric surplus of somewhere between 250-500 and eat at least somewhat healthy and you're fine.

in this thread "clean" and "dirty" (no one actually said dirty) mean small caloric surplus and large caloric surplus, respectively

we aren't talking about the actual foods

>Shouldn't it be obvious that stuffing your mouth with as much garbage as you can is a pretty bad approach to gaining weight?
It's a fantastic approach to gaining weight
It's just a poor approach to gaining muscle

Threads like these all assume that bulking closer to maintenance is a plus when it's usually worse because your diet is what matters. 20% is about perfect so long as you're eating to facilitate muscle growth and not fat/weight gain.

Fat is converted to glucose used by the body to fuel muscles and organs. Protein is used by the body to build muscle.

QED eat right and you can have the best of both worlds, but bulking with less than 20% is still retarded.

>this whole fucking thread
please stick to fat hate threads, when Veeky Forums tries to understand science all you get is this terrible broscience bullshit

>20% surplus for everyone

Kys. This is way too much for anyone with 2500+ maintenance.

A 100-300kcal surplus is far more efficient if you ever consider cutting.

Have fun being fat.

It's whatever. A lot of people on Veeky Forums like to get sidetracked and stuff.

Just bulk at +250. You gain 2 lbs a month lol. You don't need to worry about getting fat overnight, it's such a slow process bulking like that. Most of your gains will be muscle too, just remember to eat clean and do cardio and make sure you're gaining around .5lb a week

Eating a +50 """Surplus""" is super inefficient, you don't build nearly as much muscle as +250

Traditionally, 'Clean' bulk refers to eating only 'clean' food, and dirty bulk means you bulk on mcdonald's and papa ginos.

Clean bulking drastically improves the quality of mass gained because of insulin levels and micronutrients, as well as being healthier.

That said, this thread is about ideal surplus for a bulk, not about quality of food on bulk.

I am sure some 40% bf lardass with a mcdonalds addiction (and micronutrient deficiency!) will flame me with his IIFYM nonsense and the thread will warp into a IIFYM debate

Assumption 1 is incorrect.

Not only can you gain muscle on a cut, but you can gain mass on a cut (as in your body weight goes up).

As 1 gram of body fat has about 10x more calories than 1 gram of muscle.

Your total stored calories in your body goes down, but your mass can go up.

Of course given the rate of muscle gain this cut will need to be rather small for the muscle gain to be greater than the fat loss.

Unless you significantly reduce your muscle protein breakdown and significantly raise your muscle protein synthesis.

>Clean bulking drastically improves the quality of mass gained

While I also prefer clean bulking for the health benefits, insulin sensitivity etc, your claim cannot be backed.

I kinda get that a 50 cal surplus is probably too little to track and likely too little to build muscle

250 just seems the way to go because even if you build HALF as much muscle than on a 500 cal surplus (which you obviously won't) it all evens out due to the halfing of time spend cutting in the future.

Still playing around with my own diet as you can prob tell but i'm defo going for a surplus smaller than 500

scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/

tldr version; you cant calculate how much you need to eat closely enough to 'clean' bulk because the whole caloric method is based on estimations and averages that doesnt translate to human consumption.

In an ideal situation you would know exactly how many calories you need and could eat that, providing 100% of what your body needs when it needs it and never gain fat while gaining muscle at 100% efficiency, but we simply dont have that technology.

>1.Muscle cannot be gained when cutting
>2.Cutting takes up 33.3% of the annual bulk/cut cycle (roughly - please adapt this number as per your own setup)


#things fatfuck natty says

Anyway, yes bulking at 250-300 calorie surplus with "clean, bro food" is the best because you will maximize muscle gain and minimize fat gains.

the higher your caloric surplus the more inefficient your muscle:fat gains will be and it spikes up very fast even when on gear unless you're one of the genetic elite (hence why there's a lot of fatfuck DYEL steroid users)

People like jeff seid, mike o hearn, and other fake natties plus most physique competitors are pretty much at 7-10% bodyfat all year long and take their bulks very , very slow and have abs and striations all year long.

It's only the super freaks with 260-300+ lbs with insane amounts of steroids/hgh/insulin that bulk at high surpluses, because with a TDEE of 7000-9000+ they can very easily drop ridiculous amounts of weight in the 14 week olympia/arnold prep.

It can. Consuming micro nutrients and properly managing insulin levels does have an effect of the proportions of mass gained.

Do you think your body will put on muscle as efficiently without micronutrients and with a fucked up insulin level 24/7, or do you think it will put on excess fat instead?

It's not that +50 is too little to track, if you are as autistic as I am, it's easy.

It's just too little for your body to take advantage of.

>surplus smaller than 250

This works fine until you get really, really big years down the road. When you get to an expert level, nearing competition ready, you really need to struggle to put on muscle. The result is you consuming +500 to gain muscle AT ALL, and even then, you're look at 1-.5lbs a year.

People suggesting for novices to bulk at +500 really underestimate what their bodies can do with +250.

>eating processed food

We know good enough what the content of proper foods common for bodybuilding are.

Processed shit with multiple ingredients will always be a guess.

>Do you think

I don't know. Never seen a long term study with IIFYM vs clean bulk.

>long term study

decades of IFFYM

Alex,dont talk like you know shit,you brainless imbecile fuck.

>t. 25% BF pajeet nutrition
>"ill cut eventually and show you blast bulking was worth it, now where's my fucknig quadruple order of biryani rice and naan?!!"

I am not involved in this dialog.
But I can understand these post belongs to you by your retarded writing style.
you dont know ANYTHING about fitness,so dont get involved in,fucking retard.

wtf I love iffym now

bulk for years then cut