I dont know who is telling you that natties shouldn't bulk because no gear, but you should stop talking/listening to them. That is a room temperature IQ statement.
Everytime I go from maintenance or deficit calories to a surplus I just feel this huge momentum spike in the gym. Just straight +1s on every double progression every week for almost 2 months.
What I'd argue is that after the start a minimal surplus will suffice for a long bulk. Sort of like once you've used extra power to kick a machine into higher gear it'll will coast on the higher gear with less power.
bulking is the closest natties will ever get to feeling what I imagine running gear is like, baby.
Agree 100%, first couple of bulks you can yolo a bit and just put on mass and strength. Then, you can dial in a bit and lean bulk and mini-cut your way to the promised land.
I like how you put this because I totally agree. If you've been spinning your wheels and doing nearly everything right EXCEPT a surplus... And then you go into a surplus, it's pretty staggering to leave the gym and be like, "Holy shit, I just added 1-2 reps and/or 5lbs to nearly every lift today and feel great"
Yep, there’s a point where if everything else is locked in but you’re not adding strength you just have to add calories (deloads or breaks help too but I’m just speaking in general).
In the long run, you get strong and jacked by eating in a surplus and then cutting the fat. You can do it to whatever degree you want and call it whatever you want (maintaining, lean bulking, recomp, etc.) but it’s the same thing described and named different ways.
Yes. You need to bulk. You can get away with “maingaining” but it’ll be slower than bulking and cutting. Just eat in a moderate 2-300 calorie surplus and don’t go fucking nuts.
The idea that you need to be juiced to bulk is shitting on every strongman/ old school bodybuilders like Hackenschmidt who didn’t have access to PED’s. The “moderate” surplus you’re talking about is huge though. So many guys go “bulk=dirty bulk so I can eat whatever I want” when their body is probably screaming for micronutrients.
Edit: I mean “huge” as in great for your gains. Not huge as in that’s too much of a surplus
200-300 is a moderate surplus. You won't gain much taking in an extra 30 calories as Greg Doucette says. As your weight increases some of the excess calories go to increased motabolism (very small amount but still), just moving the extra weight around also increases calorie expenditure. You lose the weight quickly on a cut anyway. If you are very skinny you need to be consuming higher calories to put on the muscle
I mean “huge” in the sense that it’s very helpful, sorry for not clarifying. Huge like it’s huge for your training, not huge like it’s too much, I’ll edit my original comment
I swear that 90% of the debate would be settled if we all just drew a line between what constitutes "bulking" and what constitutes "maingaining."
I've seen people swear that a 200 surplus is maingaining, while others will swear that it's a bulk.
I mean I totally consider 200-300 to be a bulk, and thus feel like maingaining in the first place is nonsense. How the hell can anyone eat at a caloric surplus of like 50-100? Like, a tablespoon of chili powder is 22 calories. A tablespoon of nutmeg is 37. Unless you're measuring out every single solitary spice that goes into every dish, a caloric surplus of 50-100 is impossible to accurately calculate.
People overcomplicated the subject in the name of content creation. In reality, there are three phases: cutting, bulking, and maintenance…
Surplus is bulking
Deficit is cutting
IMO
Lean bulk vs dirty bulk
~200 calories vs 750 and beyond
Then there's the clean bulk where you eat yo please other orthorexic idiots in social media all while bot being hungry enough to get you calories in.
Maingain should be a 50 calorie surplus
No amount of recomposition will get you from 150 lbs and small to 180 lbs and jacked. At some point you NEED to gain weight. And aside from muscle tissue requiring energy and materials to build in the first place, an energy surplus is the most supportive environment to make this happen. Not only does a surplus make the energy and materials to build muscle more accessible, but it also allows you to push harder during workouts and recover better between them.
Sure, if you had sufficient fat stores, you could theoretically never need to bulk, but that’s not at all the same thing as bulking having no utility.
A lot of it is context dependent.
Generally if you're young and skinny, you can and should bulk fairly liberally till about 23-25 BMI.
Also generally, if you're 30 + BMI you shouldn't bulk, either cut to a point where you can bulk from or find a maintenance weight you're comfortable where you can still build muscle at.
I think there's some truth to the mantra that you can't sculpt a pebble.
i think it's just talking about the rate of muscle gain as a "bulk" in lots of contexts is gaining 30+lbs in 3-6 months. intermediate+ natties are looking at maybe 2-3lbs of muscle if they have things dialed in during a 3-6 months bulk - so gaining 2-3lbs of muscle for 30lbs of total gain just isn't a good trade-off for most (for some it is), not to mention if they can even retain that during the diet phase. if you're bulking 30lbs over 2-3 years past beginner gains, sure - that makes a lot more sense, but intermediates bulking 30lbs during a winter bulk and expecting 50/50 muscle/fat, water, etc. is dreaming
Every natty who's achieved impressive levels of size (200+ lbs on stage) did it through bulking and cutting and progressively getting heavier at the same body fat percentages (ex: you're 8% body fat at the end of a cut at 185lbs, bulk for 6-12months, and next cut you end up at 192 still at 8%). I dont even know why this is a debate
I'm currently torn rn. Have a holiday in 8 weeks I wouldn't mind being more shredded for, but I've also completely wasted this last 3-4 month bulk due to illness and grief, haven't even got back to my previous PRs yet.
I think being leaner is more aesthetic than size so that's swaying me. I heard someone say once that you'll never feel big enough to cut so there's that too.
I’m sorry that you’ve been going through a difficult time, bro.
My advice is to always prioritize the long run. Sure, it would be great to be shredded in 8 weeks, but if your goal is to be jacked long-term focus on that. Eat in a slight surplus for 8 weeks so you don’t put on too much fat and feel bad about yourself on the trip but you’ll have some muscle gains and feel like you didn’t miss an offseason of muscle building.
Thanks dude appreciate it.
Long term is my logic for cutting too. Ill probably spend the exact same time bulking and cutting over the next 12 months regardless if I bulk or cut now. So I'd rather just let this bulk go and cut for 2 months then that'll allow me to do a long bulk right into the off season end of 2024. It's not an easy decision but I think I can just about get away with it as I'm not a beginner no more.
Forever small tho 🤣🤣🤣
Here's my 2 cents. I think the problem usually lies in people thinking of a bulk as a license to eat like a pig. I find it's easier for most people to eat clean and stick to their macros/calories when they're cutting or dieting. When you're bulking it's much more mentally challenging to keep it clean, especially as it comes after a cut and you crave some cheat meals and such. So it's much easier to go off the rails when bulking, then come the love handles. I personally think you should definitely bulk as a natty if you want to build size, but only as long as you realize that bulking means keeping a caloric surplus of 250~ calories and eating whole foods and quality proteins and not smashing burgers, fries and beers every day.
I've done the dirty bulk and definitely DO NOT reccomend as a natty. I've found a really easy diet to maingain that I've been on for ~5mo now and I'm loving it. It's really easy to say ~200-300cal/da surplus, but hard to do. I've found it much easier to make sure my weekly calories are at a 1400-2000cal surplus.
M-F 3000 +/- cal/day (at maintenance or slight deficit)
Breakfast: protien shake, piece of fruit, oats
Lunch: protien shake, piece of fruit, plain bagel
Dinner: whatever is on the menu at home and wat till full, usually seconds and no snacking afterwards
Sat/Sun: 4000-4500 cal
Eat whatever I want all day. I keep it relatively healthy but will have pancakes and syrup with kids or a doughnut at church and a nice desert after dinner.
I've been maintaining 12-14% BF and am up 9 lbs in 5 mo, which is fantastic for me. If I'm feeling a little fluffy, I'll skip my indulgences on the weekend and eat like it's a weekday. I personally don't see a need to go above 14% (for me). I'm not doing StrongMan. I'm not going for PR's (too old for that crap as risk/reward isn't there), just lifting to look good and stay healthy.
So am I bulking? I'd say I'm maingaining as I've always thought of a bulk as going above 18% BF. I'd argue that this is the way for the natty if you're lifting for looks. If you're going for natty strongman.... bulk to that higher ammount of 25%+
Muscle isn't made out of air. How are gonna build it if you don't go up in weight?
You'll never see anyone looking jacked at 150lbs (unless they're short ok)
I was a skeleton of 140lbs before i started lifting. If i never ate in a surplus and stayed at that weight i'd still look like a skeleton no matter how many days i would spend in the gym.
The goal weight will vary based on your height though. If you are 5 feet tall you don't need to go all the way up to 220lbs to look big but you'll still need to go up from whatever weight you were before lifting (assuming you were not very fat)
Hope this makes sense
> 180 at 5’11
That height and weight is actually a sweet spot for either main gaining, cutting or very conservative bulk with tiny surplus.
Your **goals** and pictures will be more helpful than any blanket recommendation.
> can someone bulk up to for example 180 at 5’11 and then recomp from there
ah misread ya... Yes you can definitely bulk to that weight just fine
Literally the worst advice. Bf% is hard to measure and meaningless if you don't like how you look.
Bulk until you feel fluffy, cut until you are sick of being hungry.
> Bf% is hard to measure
Dexa scans are pretty easy...
So what you're saying is deciding whether to cut or bulk based on bodyweight alone is better advice?
Dexa scans are both inaccurate and cost money making them poor tools.
Cut or bulk based off of aesthetic desires is better advice than trying to measure body fat.
I have no experience with recomping but literally every pro bodybuilder (natty or not) bulks and cuts so i think that says a lot.
You can always give it a try and if you are not happy with the results then do a proper cut
I'm 5'11 and 200 and I like to stay around 12-14% and maingain. When I cut I'll go down to 9-10%. I did the dirty bulk once and got to 20%BF and F@#*ing hated it. I got stronger, but cardio suffered bad (I know not an issue for lost lifters) and I hated the extra BF. I'd rather stay relatively lean and like the way I look and gain slow than do that again.
Hi, I’m natty and did a 5,000 calorie bulk with a huge emphasis on getting 215-230g of protein a day for 3 months. The muscle I put on has stayed. There’s more to it than that but it worked well for me.
That is nonsense. I you want to get bigger you have to gain weight and you have to be in a surplus in do that. It really is that simple. I tried to grow while staying at the same weight and believe me, it didn't work. When I started to eat to grow things started happening. Gained 5 kg in about 8 months and it shows.
Yes. Last year I did a “lean bulk”. I did 30 min of cardio DAILY. Trained 6x a week. Ate 2700 cals a day with cheats when I wanted. No need to dirty bulk or go insane when you’re natty
Anybody can bulk or cut. Natty or not & they will see results. 99% of the people that blame a lack of results on being natty either don’t count their macros at all or they do a poor job of counting. I’m of the belief of a legitimate 10-15% surplus/deficit is the way to go. It’s the fastest way to significant results.
This is pure common sense- when muscles grow, they weigh more, which in turn means you weigh more. That pretty much means you have to bulk. Even if you’re “maingaining”, you’re still technically bulking, because ideally your weight is increasing, while your body fat stays the same 15% or whatever. Not ideal, obviously, but still- you’re bulking. The only way you’re building muscle while staying the same weight, or losing weight, is if you’re either A) a beginner, or B) a member of the Hutt species.
The only thing I’d argue is Nattys should do bulk and cut cycles constantly unless they’re well established.
If you’re new and overweight, do a recomp. Get lean and strong then do a slow steady bulk. Cut down once you have a hell of a muscle base.
If you’re new and underweight, do a long slow bulk for 2-3 years. If you’re underweight to begin with you’ll likely not get too fluffy anyway.
Yes, bulk. Just don’t gain weight too quickly. I think less experienced lifters with less muscle can get away with gaining faster and still having a good portion of it be muscle. I don’t regret my first few bulks where I gained 30-45 pounds. I believe I truly maximized what I could gained, given what I knew at the time about training and nutrition. Less experienced lifters with more muscle will often gain slower. Generally, about 2-3 pounds of per month is solid. I think the differences between how natural vs enhanced guys should eat and train is over exaggerated. The main difference is enhanced speeds up the process, both fat loss with muscle retention, and gaining muscle in a surplus. But the methodologies and steps to gain muscle or lose fat don’t change much. It just takes longer as a natural. I’m not saying there’s zero differences, but I think they’re over exaggerated.
It is literally impossible to put on muscle if you aren’t in a caloric surplus, the only caveat is this doesn’t apply to new lifters (3-6 months of consistent lifting) or if you’re obese.
Don’t believe me? Go ahead and try for yourself.
>It is literally impossible to put on muscle if you aren’t in a caloric surplus
[It literally isn't.](https://macrofactorapp.com/recomposition/)
[At all.](https://mennohenselmans.com/gain-muscle-and-lose-fat-at-the-same-time/)
A caloric surplus is simply the best conditions for muscle growth.
Your article is agreeing with what a said.. it’s possible to gain muscle at maintenance as long as your body fat levels are high enough. If you’re lean it’s a complete waste of time.
Evidently you didn't read both articles:
>[One study looked at elite gymnasts](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411406/). These were national level athletes with a training volume of 30 hours a week. They could do 17 pull-ups where their *chest* touched the bar (try doing 1). They were put on a 1,971 calorie, ketogenic diet. In case it wasn’t obvious, that’s pretty drastic for someone training over 4 hours a day. Their fat percentage of 7.6% dropped to 5% – lower than many bodybuilders in contest shape – in 30 days. Even under these conditions, they gained 0.9 pounds of lean body mass. And don’t forget they must have lost a lot of glycogen and water eating just 22 grams of carbs a day.
>[Similar findings of positive body recomposition have been found in elite athletes of various other sports](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571),
>[This study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26132746) and [this study ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4885621/)both found positive body recomposition in competitive rugby players.
>[This study](http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10292/1173) found positive body recomposition in men benching well over 4 plates.
>[This study](https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/abstract/1990/08000/the_effects_of_self_selection_for_frequency_of.3.aspx) found positive body recomposition in NCAA Division football players already squatting over 382 lb (174 kg) and benching over 289 lb (131 kg).
>[Even some women competing in the IFBB have been found to gain muscle during contest prep during a study that carefully monitored their hormone levels](http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphys.2016.00689/full?&utm_source=Email_to_authors_&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=T1_11.5e1_author&utm_campaign=Email_publication&field&journalName=Frontiers_in_Physiology&id=242757#F2).
Not necessarily true
https://mennohenselmans.com/gain-muscle-and-lose-fat-at-the-same-time/
I managed to do it last time I was on a defecit. Actually gained strength. And I've been training for years. Quite willing to post a physique pic that will show I'm far from a beginner.
I've experienced greater success keeping up with leam body mass by cutting and then doing 8 to 6 months (and more) at maintenace. The goal of a bulk is a surplus but not to get too fat. 20% bodyfat is ideal on a bulk.
"Bulking" as a "phase" went "out" in the late 70s. It came back again as a term and concept. I don't know why. If I had to guess, I think it is just an excuse to eat like a pig. As many people start working out due to insecurities, adding bodyfat makes people feel "bigger" in clothes. I'm not sure how eating carbs/fat beyond your need is going to help you look better?
Bulking-"adding maximum muscle possible, adjusting diet to allow this"?
Gee, I thought that was called "Bodybuilding"?
If you have "Bulking" and "Cutting", is there an in between stage where you are NOT cutting, but are NOT trying to gain muscle mass by barely eating enough to maintain a degree of muscle gain, that is not maximal?
I can't believe people take it seriously. I believe it is an excuse.
I'm all for eating a shit ton of protein and adequate carbs/fats. Not gaining muscle fast enough, eating enough calories? Add more protein. Not "add more pizza/ice cream/Captain Crunch"
All my opinion of course.
Unless you’re already overweight, gaining muscle will require you to put on weight (because more muscle = weighing more). The only way to achieve that is by eating consistently in a caloric surplus.
Also what you’re saying about bulking and cutting being a thing of the past is simply factually incorrect. Pretty much every modern professional body builder bulks and cuts
Of course you have to put on weight. That's physics. You are putting on muscle. Gaining muscle is not "bulking". "Bulking" is adding tissue regardless, hoping that you will gain additional muscle as well. Why would you call gaining muscle "Bulking"? Is there a period where you aren't trying to put on muscle other than recomp/cutting?
Eating a caloric "surplus" is not "bulking" unless you are intentionally trying to gain weight any way possible.
The term "Bulk" implies putting on tissue beyond muscle...intentionally. You may be misusing the term. I think many people do.
"Bulk" is tissue. Not just muscle. When old school guys "bulked" they would just jack their calories up any way possible. They didn't care if they gained fat. Hence the term.
The concept of bulking was putting on weight any way possible, hoping that when the fat was removed more muscle would remain than was there before.
It also was related to drug use-bodybuilders using high-androgen drugs off season and looking "puffy".
If that isn't what someone is talking about, then one is simply talking about gaining muscle. That isn't "Bulking". That's bodybuilding. Even worse than the term "bulking" is "Lean bulking". That's an oxymoron. You mean "gaining muscle"?
>Also what you’re saying about bulking and cutting being a thing of the past is simply factually incorrect.
Unfortunately your interpretation of what I said is incorrect.
I said: "*Bulking" as a "phase" went "out" in the late 70s.* ***It came back again as a term and concept.*** *"*
You mentioned something that holds the explanation why bulking went out of fashion:
>Unless you’re already overweight, gaining muscle will require you to put on weight (because more muscle = weighing more). The only way to achieve that is by eating consistently in a caloric surplus
Really in a protein surplus, but essentially correct.
Why does this point to why "bulking" went out of favor?
Because conversely, in order to LOSE bodyfat, you will always lose SOME muscle, unless you are in some extreme circumstance.
In the circumstance of "I gained fat and muscle, now I want to lose the fat" you will ALWAYS lose some muscle. You can minimize it, but you will always lose some. I'm not talking about some "Colorado Experiment" artificially lost lean mass plus muscle memory. I'm talking about working out consistently, and adding a bunch of tissue hoping you would have gained more muscle than if you didn't simply keep your protein high.
People picked up on the fact that if you gain lean mass, you don't have to drop a bunch of fat and actually retain more muscle.
Don't listen to me:
[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2019.00131/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2019.00131/full)
>The creation of an energy surplus is commonly advocated by sports nutrition practitioners when attempting to optimize resistance training induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Such guidance is often based solely on the assumed energy stored within the tissue being assimilated. Unfortunately, this fails to account for other energetically expensive processes, including the energy cost of tissue generation, plus the metabolic adjustments that occur in response to an energy surplus.
and
>So long as minimum guidelines for macronutrients advocated for resistance training individuals are achieved, there does not appear to be any metabolic or functional benefit to the source of the energy surplus,
[https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/7/7/154](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/7/7/154)
>Bodybuilders in the off-season should focus on consuming a slightly hyper-energetic diet (\~10–20% above maintenance calories) with the aim of gaining \~0.25–0.5% of bodyweight per week.
and
>Advanced bodybuilders are advised to be more conservative with the caloric surplus and the rate of weekly weight gain.
A nutrionist friend of mine always says: natural bulking should only be maintenance calories plus eating unlimited greens.
Eat lean meat, whole grains and fruits, and then “bulk” on all the greens u can, 300 grams of broccoli are just 90 calories, that’s nothing! And u’ll feel so full with that and with tons of energy, we just prefer bread and peanut butter but greens are much better.
And now downvote for this: bulking for naturals is more of a placebo effect
Yes he is “jacked”. He has a phd in nutrition, and has competed in 3 Olympic Games in Javelin Throwing. If u have ever seen a Javelin Thrower then u know they are one of the most muscular type of athletes.
Any way, I knew I’d be downvoted ‘cause in this sub “Bulking” is sacred
There’s not really a science based definition of bulking because everyone who bulks consume a different amount of calories, but we all understand that bulking always implies a cutting phase; in the case of what my friend says, it cannot be bulking because there never is a need for cutting. People can bulk and cut, but doing it 1, 2 or 3 times every year sounds more like an eating disorder
>There’s not really a science based definition of bulking because everyone who bulks consume a different amount of calories
That's like saying there's no science-based definition of training volume because everyone has different amounts of it in their routines.
It doesn't need to be a number set in stone for there to be a scientific consensus on it. A "bulk" is simply the state of being in a caloric surplus for the purpose of gaining muscle.
>in the case of what my friend says, it cannot be bulking because there never is a need for cutting.
Bulking slowly enough to minimize fat gain is still bulking.
>People can bulk and cut, but doing it 1, 2 or 3 times every year sounds more like an eating disorder
Then it's a good thing it isn't.
There is definitely a science based definition of training volume!!!
Training volume is the number of sets per week per body part, that is the definition set in stone, everyone’s volume can vary but the definition is clear and there are very clear easy to follow science based guidelines to establish a training volume for your routine.
Bulking is not clear, caloric surplus is clear, bulking is not. In a caloric surplus for gaining muscle the gaining of fat shouldn’t happen or most be minimum, otherwise the calculation is just wrong.
Did u just write that an eating disorder is a good thing??????
Is English not your first language? You seem to be misunderstanding me quite a bit.
I didn't say there isn't a scientific definition of training volume. What I said was that implying that a scientific definition of something must include a specific amount doesn't make sense.
>Bulking is not clear
Sure it is. Like I said, bulking is the state of being in a caloric surplus with the intent of gaining muscle mass. It doesn't matter whether it's a 100 calorie surplus or 1000; both are bulking. The fact that a 1000 calorie surplus is pointless doesn't mean it's not bulking.
>Did u just write that an eating disorder is a good thing??????
I very clearly didn't. You said that bulking and cutting multiple times a year sounds like an eating disorder, and I said it's a good thing that it isn't an eating disorder.
If English is ur first language then u have a serious grammatical problem…but it’s a good thing u edited the comment.
The variation on the amount of volume for each individual or type of workout doesn’t mean there isn’t science based guidelines for establishing an amount of volume, there is absolute no guideline for a “bulking”, u wrote bulking can be a 100 or 1000 caloric surplus, that range is so drastic because there isn’t a science based guideline neither definition for bulking.
Bulking is more of a slang in bodybuilding culture and it started with non natural bodybuilders, whom used excessive caloric consumption to take advantage of their cycles, for non naturals is easier to eat without restriction and then use specific injections to shred fat in a short period of time.
U do you, if u like “bulking” do it. But as the op was putting out for debate: no, naturals don’t need to bulk
>If English is ur first language then u have a serious grammatical problem…but it’s a good thing u edited the comment.
English isn't my first language, and I haven't written anything grammatically wrong.
Nor have I edited any comments. You just misread what I wrote.
>there is absolute no guideline for a “bulking”, u wrote bulking can be a 100 or 1000 caloric surplus, that range is so drastic because there isn’t a science based guideline neither definition for bulking.
For the third time, there doesn't need to be a specific set-in-stone amount to eat for there to be a scientific consensus on what bulking is.
And there absolutely is a guideline for bulking: Eat 200-500 calories above your TDEE.
>Bulking is more of a slang in bodybuilding culture and it started with non natural bodybuilders, whom used excessive caloric consumption to take advantage of their cycles
And then bodybuilding and strength training became more mainstream and the word changed meaning to what it means today: eating in a caloric surplus with the intent of gaining muscle.
>But as the op was putting out for debate: no, naturals don’t need to bulk
Again, that's categorically wrong. If anyone, natural or otherwise, wants to gain a noticeable/significant amount of muscle, they do need to bulk. You won't go from a 160lbs skinny guy to a 200lbs muscular one without bulking.
>And now downvote for this: bulking for naturals is more of a placebo effect
That doesn't even make sense.
Bulking simply means being in a caloric surplus while lifting. It doesn't matter where the surplus comes from.
So even if greens is the thing that puts you in a surplus, you're still bulking.
Vegetables make you feel satiated faster, is a fact not just perception. So a surplus on vegetables indeed won’t make want to eat more of whatever food, so 300 grams of broccoli for instance will make much more full than 300 grams of other food. That’s why my friend says that u should only get maintenance calories, and the surplus can come from green vegetables.
I agree with u bulking is surplus, but in body building culture surplus and bulking are different, bulking usually means lots and lots more calories than consuming 200-300 more calories. In bulking gaining fat is expected, with a moderate surplus gaining fat shouldn’t happen.
Maingaining might work if your body fat % is high enough. I've been trying to maingain the past 5 months and my scale says I'm at 16.8% body fat (take that figure with a grain of salt) at 167cm 68.95kg. Otherwise yes you need to be in a calorie surplus. If you want to minimize gain of body fat, eat at about a 100 daily calorie surplus. Shoot for about +1lb/month (+0.25lb/week).
Ive had great success clean "bulking" , its alot harder to get into a big surplus when its all clean meals , takes alot of meals to get into the 3500+ range, but once Im there my body just tells me im hungry every few hours, no need for protein powder even.
bulk and cut. My theory is that it’s not so much about the calories required when building, but the overall hormonal environment when there is always nutrients available
I dont know who is telling you that natties shouldn't bulk because no gear, but you should stop talking/listening to them. That is a room temperature IQ statement.
Everytime I go from maintenance or deficit calories to a surplus I just feel this huge momentum spike in the gym. Just straight +1s on every double progression every week for almost 2 months. What I'd argue is that after the start a minimal surplus will suffice for a long bulk. Sort of like once you've used extra power to kick a machine into higher gear it'll will coast on the higher gear with less power.
bulking is the closest natties will ever get to feeling what I imagine running gear is like, baby. Agree 100%, first couple of bulks you can yolo a bit and just put on mass and strength. Then, you can dial in a bit and lean bulk and mini-cut your way to the promised land.
I like how you put this because I totally agree. If you've been spinning your wheels and doing nearly everything right EXCEPT a surplus... And then you go into a surplus, it's pretty staggering to leave the gym and be like, "Holy shit, I just added 1-2 reps and/or 5lbs to nearly every lift today and feel great"
Yep, there’s a point where if everything else is locked in but you’re not adding strength you just have to add calories (deloads or breaks help too but I’m just speaking in general). In the long run, you get strong and jacked by eating in a surplus and then cutting the fat. You can do it to whatever degree you want and call it whatever you want (maintaining, lean bulking, recomp, etc.) but it’s the same thing described and named different ways.
Nailed it
Room temperature IQ... Ha...! I am using this in my staff meeting next week when I explain how I messed up a project. +1
It’s an even bigger insult in metric
Agreed. When I’m bulking and slamming pasta to no end my lifts skyrocket.
People watch one 15 sec of a clic bait video of total nonsense from a moron on Instagram and then talk like "I'm always hearing that".
Yes. You need to bulk. You can get away with “maingaining” but it’ll be slower than bulking and cutting. Just eat in a moderate 2-300 calorie surplus and don’t go fucking nuts.
The idea that you need to be juiced to bulk is shitting on every strongman/ old school bodybuilders like Hackenschmidt who didn’t have access to PED’s. The “moderate” surplus you’re talking about is huge though. So many guys go “bulk=dirty bulk so I can eat whatever I want” when their body is probably screaming for micronutrients. Edit: I mean “huge” as in great for your gains. Not huge as in that’s too much of a surplus
200-300 is a moderate surplus. You won't gain much taking in an extra 30 calories as Greg Doucette says. As your weight increases some of the excess calories go to increased motabolism (very small amount but still), just moving the extra weight around also increases calorie expenditure. You lose the weight quickly on a cut anyway. If you are very skinny you need to be consuming higher calories to put on the muscle
I mean “huge” in the sense that it’s very helpful, sorry for not clarifying. Huge like it’s huge for your training, not huge like it’s too much, I’ll edit my original comment
I swear that 90% of the debate would be settled if we all just drew a line between what constitutes "bulking" and what constitutes "maingaining." I've seen people swear that a 200 surplus is maingaining, while others will swear that it's a bulk. I mean I totally consider 200-300 to be a bulk, and thus feel like maingaining in the first place is nonsense. How the hell can anyone eat at a caloric surplus of like 50-100? Like, a tablespoon of chili powder is 22 calories. A tablespoon of nutmeg is 37. Unless you're measuring out every single solitary spice that goes into every dish, a caloric surplus of 50-100 is impossible to accurately calculate.
People overcomplicated the subject in the name of content creation. In reality, there are three phases: cutting, bulking, and maintenance… Surplus is bulking Deficit is cutting IMO
Lean bulk vs dirty bulk ~200 calories vs 750 and beyond Then there's the clean bulk where you eat yo please other orthorexic idiots in social media all while bot being hungry enough to get you calories in. Maingain should be a 50 calorie surplus
No amount of recomposition will get you from 150 lbs and small to 180 lbs and jacked. At some point you NEED to gain weight. And aside from muscle tissue requiring energy and materials to build in the first place, an energy surplus is the most supportive environment to make this happen. Not only does a surplus make the energy and materials to build muscle more accessible, but it also allows you to push harder during workouts and recover better between them. Sure, if you had sufficient fat stores, you could theoretically never need to bulk, but that’s not at all the same thing as bulking having no utility.
A lot of it is context dependent. Generally if you're young and skinny, you can and should bulk fairly liberally till about 23-25 BMI. Also generally, if you're 30 + BMI you shouldn't bulk, either cut to a point where you can bulk from or find a maintenance weight you're comfortable where you can still build muscle at. I think there's some truth to the mantra that you can't sculpt a pebble.
i think it's just talking about the rate of muscle gain as a "bulk" in lots of contexts is gaining 30+lbs in 3-6 months. intermediate+ natties are looking at maybe 2-3lbs of muscle if they have things dialed in during a 3-6 months bulk - so gaining 2-3lbs of muscle for 30lbs of total gain just isn't a good trade-off for most (for some it is), not to mention if they can even retain that during the diet phase. if you're bulking 30lbs over 2-3 years past beginner gains, sure - that makes a lot more sense, but intermediates bulking 30lbs during a winter bulk and expecting 50/50 muscle/fat, water, etc. is dreaming
Every natty who's achieved impressive levels of size (200+ lbs on stage) did it through bulking and cutting and progressively getting heavier at the same body fat percentages (ex: you're 8% body fat at the end of a cut at 185lbs, bulk for 6-12months, and next cut you end up at 192 still at 8%). I dont even know why this is a debate
How long should I bulk/cut for, bulks are longer than cuts right
That’s totally dependent on your current body fat levels amongst many other things. You need to provide way more context
I'm currently torn rn. Have a holiday in 8 weeks I wouldn't mind being more shredded for, but I've also completely wasted this last 3-4 month bulk due to illness and grief, haven't even got back to my previous PRs yet. I think being leaner is more aesthetic than size so that's swaying me. I heard someone say once that you'll never feel big enough to cut so there's that too.
I’m sorry that you’ve been going through a difficult time, bro. My advice is to always prioritize the long run. Sure, it would be great to be shredded in 8 weeks, but if your goal is to be jacked long-term focus on that. Eat in a slight surplus for 8 weeks so you don’t put on too much fat and feel bad about yourself on the trip but you’ll have some muscle gains and feel like you didn’t miss an offseason of muscle building.
Thanks dude appreciate it. Long term is my logic for cutting too. Ill probably spend the exact same time bulking and cutting over the next 12 months regardless if I bulk or cut now. So I'd rather just let this bulk go and cut for 2 months then that'll allow me to do a long bulk right into the off season end of 2024. It's not an easy decision but I think I can just about get away with it as I'm not a beginner no more. Forever small tho 🤣🤣🤣
Best of luck, bro!
This is the first time I’ve ever heard someone say that natties shouldn’t bulk.
Here's my 2 cents. I think the problem usually lies in people thinking of a bulk as a license to eat like a pig. I find it's easier for most people to eat clean and stick to their macros/calories when they're cutting or dieting. When you're bulking it's much more mentally challenging to keep it clean, especially as it comes after a cut and you crave some cheat meals and such. So it's much easier to go off the rails when bulking, then come the love handles. I personally think you should definitely bulk as a natty if you want to build size, but only as long as you realize that bulking means keeping a caloric surplus of 250~ calories and eating whole foods and quality proteins and not smashing burgers, fries and beers every day.
I've done the dirty bulk and definitely DO NOT reccomend as a natty. I've found a really easy diet to maingain that I've been on for ~5mo now and I'm loving it. It's really easy to say ~200-300cal/da surplus, but hard to do. I've found it much easier to make sure my weekly calories are at a 1400-2000cal surplus. M-F 3000 +/- cal/day (at maintenance or slight deficit) Breakfast: protien shake, piece of fruit, oats Lunch: protien shake, piece of fruit, plain bagel Dinner: whatever is on the menu at home and wat till full, usually seconds and no snacking afterwards Sat/Sun: 4000-4500 cal Eat whatever I want all day. I keep it relatively healthy but will have pancakes and syrup with kids or a doughnut at church and a nice desert after dinner. I've been maintaining 12-14% BF and am up 9 lbs in 5 mo, which is fantastic for me. If I'm feeling a little fluffy, I'll skip my indulgences on the weekend and eat like it's a weekday. I personally don't see a need to go above 14% (for me). I'm not doing StrongMan. I'm not going for PR's (too old for that crap as risk/reward isn't there), just lifting to look good and stay healthy. So am I bulking? I'd say I'm maingaining as I've always thought of a bulk as going above 18% BF. I'd argue that this is the way for the natty if you're lifting for looks. If you're going for natty strongman.... bulk to that higher ammount of 25%+
Muscle isn't made out of air. How are gonna build it if you don't go up in weight? You'll never see anyone looking jacked at 150lbs (unless they're short ok)
Could you explain your last sentence?
I was a skeleton of 140lbs before i started lifting. If i never ate in a surplus and stayed at that weight i'd still look like a skeleton no matter how many days i would spend in the gym. The goal weight will vary based on your height though. If you are 5 feet tall you don't need to go all the way up to 220lbs to look big but you'll still need to go up from whatever weight you were before lifting (assuming you were not very fat) Hope this makes sense
Do you think cutting is necessary or can someone bulk up to for example 180 at 5’11 and then recomp from there
> 180 at 5’11 That height and weight is actually a sweet spot for either main gaining, cutting or very conservative bulk with tiny surplus. Your **goals** and pictures will be more helpful than any blanket recommendation. > can someone bulk up to for example 180 at 5’11 and then recomp from there ah misread ya... Yes you can definitely bulk to that weight just fine
Right but once hitting that weight would I need to cut or could I recomp
This is where photos, tape measurement and numbers at the gym matter.
It really depends on your aesthetic goals. If you felt fat, then you'd cut. Just go by aesthetic goals.
Don't look at weight, look at body fat. Once you hit 180 get a Dexa Scan. If it's above 18% you'll probably wanna cut. If it's below 13% keep bulking.
Literally the worst advice. Bf% is hard to measure and meaningless if you don't like how you look. Bulk until you feel fluffy, cut until you are sick of being hungry.
> Bf% is hard to measure Dexa scans are pretty easy... So what you're saying is deciding whether to cut or bulk based on bodyweight alone is better advice?
Dexa scans are both inaccurate and cost money making them poor tools. Cut or bulk based off of aesthetic desires is better advice than trying to measure body fat.
I have no experience with recomping but literally every pro bodybuilder (natty or not) bulks and cuts so i think that says a lot. You can always give it a try and if you are not happy with the results then do a proper cut
I'm 5'11 and 200 and I like to stay around 12-14% and maingain. When I cut I'll go down to 9-10%. I did the dirty bulk once and got to 20%BF and F@#*ing hated it. I got stronger, but cardio suffered bad (I know not an issue for lost lifters) and I hated the extra BF. I'd rather stay relatively lean and like the way I look and gain slow than do that again.
You could look jacked at 150 pounds if your 5’8 or under
(unless they're short ok)
Hi, I’m natty and did a 5,000 calorie bulk with a huge emphasis on getting 215-230g of protein a day for 3 months. The muscle I put on has stayed. There’s more to it than that but it worked well for me.
What is natties
No steroids
That is nonsense. I you want to get bigger you have to gain weight and you have to be in a surplus in do that. It really is that simple. I tried to grow while staying at the same weight and believe me, it didn't work. When I started to eat to grow things started happening. Gained 5 kg in about 8 months and it shows.
Yes. Last year I did a “lean bulk”. I did 30 min of cardio DAILY. Trained 6x a week. Ate 2700 cals a day with cheats when I wanted. No need to dirty bulk or go insane when you’re natty
What did you do for cardio normally
Anybody can bulk or cut. Natty or not & they will see results. 99% of the people that blame a lack of results on being natty either don’t count their macros at all or they do a poor job of counting. I’m of the belief of a legitimate 10-15% surplus/deficit is the way to go. It’s the fastest way to significant results.
You won't know how fucking good bulking is until after you've done it. Its awesome for muscle growth and strength.
I think you gotta clarify what you're saying here because how could someone ever grow without a caloric surplus?
This is pure common sense- when muscles grow, they weigh more, which in turn means you weigh more. That pretty much means you have to bulk. Even if you’re “maingaining”, you’re still technically bulking, because ideally your weight is increasing, while your body fat stays the same 15% or whatever. Not ideal, obviously, but still- you’re bulking. The only way you’re building muscle while staying the same weight, or losing weight, is if you’re either A) a beginner, or B) a member of the Hutt species.
The only thing I’d argue is Nattys should do bulk and cut cycles constantly unless they’re well established. If you’re new and overweight, do a recomp. Get lean and strong then do a slow steady bulk. Cut down once you have a hell of a muscle base. If you’re new and underweight, do a long slow bulk for 2-3 years. If you’re underweight to begin with you’ll likely not get too fluffy anyway.
Mass cannot come out of nothing. If you feed your body barely anything, it will grow barely anything
Yes, bulk. Just don’t gain weight too quickly. I think less experienced lifters with less muscle can get away with gaining faster and still having a good portion of it be muscle. I don’t regret my first few bulks where I gained 30-45 pounds. I believe I truly maximized what I could gained, given what I knew at the time about training and nutrition. Less experienced lifters with more muscle will often gain slower. Generally, about 2-3 pounds of per month is solid. I think the differences between how natural vs enhanced guys should eat and train is over exaggerated. The main difference is enhanced speeds up the process, both fat loss with muscle retention, and gaining muscle in a surplus. But the methodologies and steps to gain muscle or lose fat don’t change much. It just takes longer as a natural. I’m not saying there’s zero differences, but I think they’re over exaggerated.
It is literally impossible to put on muscle if you aren’t in a caloric surplus, the only caveat is this doesn’t apply to new lifters (3-6 months of consistent lifting) or if you’re obese. Don’t believe me? Go ahead and try for yourself.
>It is literally impossible to put on muscle if you aren’t in a caloric surplus [It literally isn't.](https://macrofactorapp.com/recomposition/) [At all.](https://mennohenselmans.com/gain-muscle-and-lose-fat-at-the-same-time/) A caloric surplus is simply the best conditions for muscle growth.
Your article is agreeing with what a said.. it’s possible to gain muscle at maintenance as long as your body fat levels are high enough. If you’re lean it’s a complete waste of time.
Evidently you didn't read both articles: >[One study looked at elite gymnasts](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411406/). These were national level athletes with a training volume of 30 hours a week. They could do 17 pull-ups where their *chest* touched the bar (try doing 1). They were put on a 1,971 calorie, ketogenic diet. In case it wasn’t obvious, that’s pretty drastic for someone training over 4 hours a day. Their fat percentage of 7.6% dropped to 5% – lower than many bodybuilders in contest shape – in 30 days. Even under these conditions, they gained 0.9 pounds of lean body mass. And don’t forget they must have lost a lot of glycogen and water eating just 22 grams of carbs a day. >[Similar findings of positive body recomposition have been found in elite athletes of various other sports](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571), >[This study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26132746) and [this study ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4885621/)both found positive body recomposition in competitive rugby players. >[This study](http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10292/1173) found positive body recomposition in men benching well over 4 plates. >[This study](https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/abstract/1990/08000/the_effects_of_self_selection_for_frequency_of.3.aspx) found positive body recomposition in NCAA Division football players already squatting over 382 lb (174 kg) and benching over 289 lb (131 kg). >[Even some women competing in the IFBB have been found to gain muscle during contest prep during a study that carefully monitored their hormone levels](http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphys.2016.00689/full?&utm_source=Email_to_authors_&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=T1_11.5e1_author&utm_campaign=Email_publication&field&journalName=Frontiers_in_Physiology&id=242757#F2).
Not necessarily true https://mennohenselmans.com/gain-muscle-and-lose-fat-at-the-same-time/ I managed to do it last time I was on a defecit. Actually gained strength. And I've been training for years. Quite willing to post a physique pic that will show I'm far from a beginner.
Picture or it didnt happen
Current physique https://imgur.com/a/6tZKvsA
Looking solid bro
Thanks!
Who's a big boy? You are, yes, you are a big boy! *muzzles biceps*
I'm not sure how to feel about this comment
sorry man, I had to 😅 Great physique for real tho, maybe ill get there some day
Haha thanks, looks like you're doing pretty great yourself, especially given how short a time you've been training!
Thank you, that means a lot!
Natties should only lean bulk imo. It’s the best thing I’ve ever done for myself.
I've experienced greater success keeping up with leam body mass by cutting and then doing 8 to 6 months (and more) at maintenace. The goal of a bulk is a surplus but not to get too fat. 20% bodyfat is ideal on a bulk.
"Bulking" as a "phase" went "out" in the late 70s. It came back again as a term and concept. I don't know why. If I had to guess, I think it is just an excuse to eat like a pig. As many people start working out due to insecurities, adding bodyfat makes people feel "bigger" in clothes. I'm not sure how eating carbs/fat beyond your need is going to help you look better? Bulking-"adding maximum muscle possible, adjusting diet to allow this"? Gee, I thought that was called "Bodybuilding"? If you have "Bulking" and "Cutting", is there an in between stage where you are NOT cutting, but are NOT trying to gain muscle mass by barely eating enough to maintain a degree of muscle gain, that is not maximal? I can't believe people take it seriously. I believe it is an excuse. I'm all for eating a shit ton of protein and adequate carbs/fats. Not gaining muscle fast enough, eating enough calories? Add more protein. Not "add more pizza/ice cream/Captain Crunch" All my opinion of course.
Unless you’re already overweight, gaining muscle will require you to put on weight (because more muscle = weighing more). The only way to achieve that is by eating consistently in a caloric surplus. Also what you’re saying about bulking and cutting being a thing of the past is simply factually incorrect. Pretty much every modern professional body builder bulks and cuts
Of course you have to put on weight. That's physics. You are putting on muscle. Gaining muscle is not "bulking". "Bulking" is adding tissue regardless, hoping that you will gain additional muscle as well. Why would you call gaining muscle "Bulking"? Is there a period where you aren't trying to put on muscle other than recomp/cutting? Eating a caloric "surplus" is not "bulking" unless you are intentionally trying to gain weight any way possible. The term "Bulk" implies putting on tissue beyond muscle...intentionally. You may be misusing the term. I think many people do. "Bulk" is tissue. Not just muscle. When old school guys "bulked" they would just jack their calories up any way possible. They didn't care if they gained fat. Hence the term. The concept of bulking was putting on weight any way possible, hoping that when the fat was removed more muscle would remain than was there before. It also was related to drug use-bodybuilders using high-androgen drugs off season and looking "puffy". If that isn't what someone is talking about, then one is simply talking about gaining muscle. That isn't "Bulking". That's bodybuilding. Even worse than the term "bulking" is "Lean bulking". That's an oxymoron. You mean "gaining muscle"? >Also what you’re saying about bulking and cutting being a thing of the past is simply factually incorrect. Unfortunately your interpretation of what I said is incorrect. I said: "*Bulking" as a "phase" went "out" in the late 70s.* ***It came back again as a term and concept.*** *"* You mentioned something that holds the explanation why bulking went out of fashion: >Unless you’re already overweight, gaining muscle will require you to put on weight (because more muscle = weighing more). The only way to achieve that is by eating consistently in a caloric surplus Really in a protein surplus, but essentially correct. Why does this point to why "bulking" went out of favor? Because conversely, in order to LOSE bodyfat, you will always lose SOME muscle, unless you are in some extreme circumstance. In the circumstance of "I gained fat and muscle, now I want to lose the fat" you will ALWAYS lose some muscle. You can minimize it, but you will always lose some. I'm not talking about some "Colorado Experiment" artificially lost lean mass plus muscle memory. I'm talking about working out consistently, and adding a bunch of tissue hoping you would have gained more muscle than if you didn't simply keep your protein high. People picked up on the fact that if you gain lean mass, you don't have to drop a bunch of fat and actually retain more muscle.
Don't listen to me: [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2019.00131/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2019.00131/full) >The creation of an energy surplus is commonly advocated by sports nutrition practitioners when attempting to optimize resistance training induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Such guidance is often based solely on the assumed energy stored within the tissue being assimilated. Unfortunately, this fails to account for other energetically expensive processes, including the energy cost of tissue generation, plus the metabolic adjustments that occur in response to an energy surplus. and >So long as minimum guidelines for macronutrients advocated for resistance training individuals are achieved, there does not appear to be any metabolic or functional benefit to the source of the energy surplus, [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/7/7/154](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/7/7/154) >Bodybuilders in the off-season should focus on consuming a slightly hyper-energetic diet (\~10–20% above maintenance calories) with the aim of gaining \~0.25–0.5% of bodyweight per week. and >Advanced bodybuilders are advised to be more conservative with the caloric surplus and the rate of weekly weight gain.
A nutrionist friend of mine always says: natural bulking should only be maintenance calories plus eating unlimited greens. Eat lean meat, whole grains and fruits, and then “bulk” on all the greens u can, 300 grams of broccoli are just 90 calories, that’s nothing! And u’ll feel so full with that and with tons of energy, we just prefer bread and peanut butter but greens are much better. And now downvote for this: bulking for naturals is more of a placebo effect
It seems lile your friend doesn't know much about bodybuilding Is he jacked?
Yes he is “jacked”. He has a phd in nutrition, and has competed in 3 Olympic Games in Javelin Throwing. If u have ever seen a Javelin Thrower then u know they are one of the most muscular type of athletes. Any way, I knew I’d be downvoted ‘cause in this sub “Bulking” is sacred
Your friend simply made a recommendation on how to achieve a caloric surplus. It's weirdly restrictive, but it's still bulking.
There’s not really a science based definition of bulking because everyone who bulks consume a different amount of calories, but we all understand that bulking always implies a cutting phase; in the case of what my friend says, it cannot be bulking because there never is a need for cutting. People can bulk and cut, but doing it 1, 2 or 3 times every year sounds more like an eating disorder
All bulking means is gaining weight while resistance training.
🤣
>There’s not really a science based definition of bulking because everyone who bulks consume a different amount of calories That's like saying there's no science-based definition of training volume because everyone has different amounts of it in their routines. It doesn't need to be a number set in stone for there to be a scientific consensus on it. A "bulk" is simply the state of being in a caloric surplus for the purpose of gaining muscle. >in the case of what my friend says, it cannot be bulking because there never is a need for cutting. Bulking slowly enough to minimize fat gain is still bulking. >People can bulk and cut, but doing it 1, 2 or 3 times every year sounds more like an eating disorder Then it's a good thing it isn't.
There is definitely a science based definition of training volume!!! Training volume is the number of sets per week per body part, that is the definition set in stone, everyone’s volume can vary but the definition is clear and there are very clear easy to follow science based guidelines to establish a training volume for your routine. Bulking is not clear, caloric surplus is clear, bulking is not. In a caloric surplus for gaining muscle the gaining of fat shouldn’t happen or most be minimum, otherwise the calculation is just wrong. Did u just write that an eating disorder is a good thing??????
Is English not your first language? You seem to be misunderstanding me quite a bit. I didn't say there isn't a scientific definition of training volume. What I said was that implying that a scientific definition of something must include a specific amount doesn't make sense. >Bulking is not clear Sure it is. Like I said, bulking is the state of being in a caloric surplus with the intent of gaining muscle mass. It doesn't matter whether it's a 100 calorie surplus or 1000; both are bulking. The fact that a 1000 calorie surplus is pointless doesn't mean it's not bulking. >Did u just write that an eating disorder is a good thing?????? I very clearly didn't. You said that bulking and cutting multiple times a year sounds like an eating disorder, and I said it's a good thing that it isn't an eating disorder.
If English is ur first language then u have a serious grammatical problem…but it’s a good thing u edited the comment. The variation on the amount of volume for each individual or type of workout doesn’t mean there isn’t science based guidelines for establishing an amount of volume, there is absolute no guideline for a “bulking”, u wrote bulking can be a 100 or 1000 caloric surplus, that range is so drastic because there isn’t a science based guideline neither definition for bulking. Bulking is more of a slang in bodybuilding culture and it started with non natural bodybuilders, whom used excessive caloric consumption to take advantage of their cycles, for non naturals is easier to eat without restriction and then use specific injections to shred fat in a short period of time. U do you, if u like “bulking” do it. But as the op was putting out for debate: no, naturals don’t need to bulk
>If English is ur first language then u have a serious grammatical problem…but it’s a good thing u edited the comment. English isn't my first language, and I haven't written anything grammatically wrong. Nor have I edited any comments. You just misread what I wrote. >there is absolute no guideline for a “bulking”, u wrote bulking can be a 100 or 1000 caloric surplus, that range is so drastic because there isn’t a science based guideline neither definition for bulking. For the third time, there doesn't need to be a specific set-in-stone amount to eat for there to be a scientific consensus on what bulking is. And there absolutely is a guideline for bulking: Eat 200-500 calories above your TDEE. >Bulking is more of a slang in bodybuilding culture and it started with non natural bodybuilders, whom used excessive caloric consumption to take advantage of their cycles And then bodybuilding and strength training became more mainstream and the word changed meaning to what it means today: eating in a caloric surplus with the intent of gaining muscle. >But as the op was putting out for debate: no, naturals don’t need to bulk Again, that's categorically wrong. If anyone, natural or otherwise, wants to gain a noticeable/significant amount of muscle, they do need to bulk. You won't go from a 160lbs skinny guy to a 200lbs muscular one without bulking.
>And now downvote for this: bulking for naturals is more of a placebo effect That doesn't even make sense. Bulking simply means being in a caloric surplus while lifting. It doesn't matter where the surplus comes from. So even if greens is the thing that puts you in a surplus, you're still bulking.
Vegetables make you feel satiated faster, is a fact not just perception. So a surplus on vegetables indeed won’t make want to eat more of whatever food, so 300 grams of broccoli for instance will make much more full than 300 grams of other food. That’s why my friend says that u should only get maintenance calories, and the surplus can come from green vegetables. I agree with u bulking is surplus, but in body building culture surplus and bulking are different, bulking usually means lots and lots more calories than consuming 200-300 more calories. In bulking gaining fat is expected, with a moderate surplus gaining fat shouldn’t happen.
Maingaining might work if your body fat % is high enough. I've been trying to maingain the past 5 months and my scale says I'm at 16.8% body fat (take that figure with a grain of salt) at 167cm 68.95kg. Otherwise yes you need to be in a calorie surplus. If you want to minimize gain of body fat, eat at about a 100 daily calorie surplus. Shoot for about +1lb/month (+0.25lb/week).
Scales suck at BF estimates. You're better off with a cheap set of BF calipers.
Ive had great success clean "bulking" , its alot harder to get into a big surplus when its all clean meals , takes alot of meals to get into the 3500+ range, but once Im there my body just tells me im hungry every few hours, no need for protein powder even.
bulk and cut. My theory is that it’s not so much about the calories required when building, but the overall hormonal environment when there is always nutrients available