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