The best bulk is one in which you very gradually gain a small amount of fat, as its impossible to know your providing yourself with the optimal amount of calories you can use towards muscle without this. The key as was said is to not gain fat like crazy and accept it as being ok. Everyone has a different ideal surplus, because everyone can synthesize muscle at a different rate. As with everything else, the best way to find out what is optimal for you is to use trial and error and track your results.
good article
- Thread starter faz
- Start date
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Are you implying that slow bulk is faster than bulk/cut?</div>
If you can be satisfied with your body fat percentage for a while, then the slow bulk has its benefits. You don't have to worry about the cut portion of the diet. Comparing which one is faster than the other is a bit tougher than looking at the efficiency of a slow bulk. I have had great results with a slow bulk albeit aided with muscle memory. Slow bulk and a regular bulk/cut cycle may get to the same point in the same time, but you don't lose strength with a slow bulk like you will in the cut portion.
If you can be satisfied with your body fat percentage for a while, then the slow bulk has its benefits. You don't have to worry about the cut portion of the diet. Comparing which one is faster than the other is a bit tougher than looking at the efficiency of a slow bulk. I have had great results with a slow bulk albeit aided with muscle memory. Slow bulk and a regular bulk/cut cycle may get to the same point in the same time, but you don't lose strength with a slow bulk like you will in the cut portion.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
I have never seen a difference personally between a small bulk and a big bulk.
IMO opinion if everything is 100% right and optimal.
The human body is only going to put on some much muscle at one time.
So as long as a calorie surplus is there by more than your body needs...I dont think there is a difference in surplus of 100 calories or 500 calories....as far as building muscle.
Now dirty bulk tend to work better b/c you get in way more than you actually need most of the time.
If everything is the same surplus is a surplus.
However if you combine drugs and steroids with this everything I said changes...somewhat.
IMO opinion if everything is 100% right and optimal.
The human body is only going to put on some much muscle at one time.
So as long as a calorie surplus is there by more than your body needs...I dont think there is a difference in surplus of 100 calories or 500 calories....as far as building muscle.
Now dirty bulk tend to work better b/c you get in way more than you actually need most of the time.
If everything is the same surplus is a surplus.
However if you combine drugs and steroids with this everything I said changes...somewhat.
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 29 2007,19:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Avi1985 @ Aug. 29 2007,18:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So dont do slow bulk. Bulk fast, get fat, and spend long cycles on cutting the fat.</div>
Are you implying that slow bulk is faster than bulk/cut?</div>
I dont know. I didnt try slow bulk becuase i still on cut because the fast bulk i did before. And i dont see the end of the cut in the near future. So i wont do fast bulk anymore.
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 29 2007,19:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Avi1985 @ Aug. 29 2007,18:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So dont do slow bulk. Bulk fast, get fat, and spend long cycles on cutting the fat.</div>
Are you implying that slow bulk is faster than bulk/cut?</div>
I dont know. I didnt try slow bulk becuase i still on cut because the fast bulk i did before. And i dont see the end of the cut in the near future. So i wont do fast bulk anymore.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
<div>
(colby2152 @ Aug. 30 2007,07:14)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have never seen a difference personally between a small bulk and a big bulk.</div>
The amount of weight you are gaining, hence the amount of muscle you CAN gain.</div>
Yeah...thats what I mean.
I have never seen anyone gain more muscle on a Large bulk or dirty bulk...than someone who was bulking cleanly.
NOw I have seen them gain more mass/ fat...but when they cut down they were no bigger than if they had done a smaller bulk..and not gained as much fat.
IMO
(colby2152 @ Aug. 30 2007,07:14)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have never seen a difference personally between a small bulk and a big bulk.</div>
The amount of weight you are gaining, hence the amount of muscle you CAN gain.</div>
Yeah...thats what I mean.
I have never seen anyone gain more muscle on a Large bulk or dirty bulk...than someone who was bulking cleanly.
NOw I have seen them gain more mass/ fat...but when they cut down they were no bigger than if they had done a smaller bulk..and not gained as much fat.
IMO
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Aug. 31 2007,15:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have never seen anyone gain more muscle on a Large bulk or dirty bulk...than someone who was bulking cleanly.
NOw I have seen them gain more mass/ fat...but when they cut down they were no bigger than if they had done a smaller bulk..and not gained as much fat.
IMO</div>
I have seen plenty people on 'clean' bulks not gaining anything at all.
but i gotta eat clean, yawn
(Joe.Muscle @ Aug. 31 2007,15:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have never seen anyone gain more muscle on a Large bulk or dirty bulk...than someone who was bulking cleanly.
NOw I have seen them gain more mass/ fat...but when they cut down they were no bigger than if they had done a smaller bulk..and not gained as much fat.
IMO</div>
I have seen plenty people on 'clean' bulks not gaining anything at all.
but i gotta eat clean, yawn
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have seen plenty people on 'clean' bulks not gaining anything at all.
but i gotta eat clean, yawn</div>
My clean bulks never work out well
Having to clean all my food with 100% alcohol solution just leads to inconsistency
but i gotta eat clean, yawn</div>
My clean bulks never work out well
Having to clean all my food with 100% alcohol solution just leads to inconsistency
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have never seen anyone gain more muscle on a Large bulk or dirty bulk...than someone who was bulking cleanly.</div>
I thought you were comparing a slow bulk to a normal or large bulk. I said nothing about the cleanliness of the diet, but all statements were made in regards to caloric intake.
I thought you were comparing a slow bulk to a normal or large bulk. I said nothing about the cleanliness of the diet, but all statements were made in regards to caloric intake.
Martin Levac
New Member
How do we define slow, normal, large bulk?
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 31 2007,14:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How do we define slow, normal, large bulk?</div>
That's what I'm wondering. It sounds like the author of the article considers a typical 500 a day surplus to be a slow bulk. I would consider a slow bulk to be one where you only gain .5 to 1 lb a week on average (though how you can weigh yourself that accurately from day to day is beyond me...) A normal bulk would then be where you gain a pound or two a week, on average. A large bulk is one where you become a fat slob within the course of a month.
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 31 2007,14:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How do we define slow, normal, large bulk?</div>
That's what I'm wondering. It sounds like the author of the article considers a typical 500 a day surplus to be a slow bulk. I would consider a slow bulk to be one where you only gain .5 to 1 lb a week on average (though how you can weigh yourself that accurately from day to day is beyond me...) A normal bulk would then be where you gain a pound or two a week, on average. A large bulk is one where you become a fat slob within the course of a month.
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(Totentanz @ Aug. 31 2007,20:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 31 2007,14:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How do we define slow, normal, large bulk?</div>
That's what I'm wondering. It sounds like the author of the article considers a typical 500 a day surplus to be a slow bulk. I would consider a slow bulk to be one where you only gain .5 to 1 lb a week on average (though how you can weigh yourself that accurately from day to day is beyond me...) A normal bulk would then be where you gain a pound or two a week, on average. A large bulk is one where you become a fat slob within the course of a month.</div>
I find your examples reasonable. This means I'm on a normal bulk. It also means the article is ambiguous.
(Totentanz @ Aug. 31 2007,20:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 31 2007,14:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How do we define slow, normal, large bulk?</div>
That's what I'm wondering. It sounds like the author of the article considers a typical 500 a day surplus to be a slow bulk. I would consider a slow bulk to be one where you only gain .5 to 1 lb a week on average (though how you can weigh yourself that accurately from day to day is beyond me...) A normal bulk would then be where you gain a pound or two a week, on average. A large bulk is one where you become a fat slob within the course of a month.</div>
I find your examples reasonable. This means I'm on a normal bulk. It also means the article is ambiguous.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Aug. 30 2007,17:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Aug. 31 2007,15:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have never seen anyone gain more muscle on a Large bulk or dirty bulk...than someone who was bulking cleanly.
NOw I have seen them gain more mass/ fat...but when they cut down they were no bigger than if they had done a smaller bulk..and not gained as much fat.
IMO</div>
I have seen plenty people on 'clean' bulks not gaining anything at all.
but i gotta eat clean, yawn</div>
I wasn't saying clean eating bulk is better or worse than a dirty bulk...we all know the clean vs dirty eating is complete bullsh-it.
However what I was reiterating IMO...is given a clean ro dirty bulk...I dont see how 1000 calories over your maintenance is going to be better than say 500 over maintenance given protein and training is correct.
I would think IMO 1000 calories over maintenance is going to lead to more fat.
I think when you bring partioning and the ability to put on muscle you have to have and excess calorie surplus but at some point excess is just excess IMO over maintenance unless of course drugs are involved.
(Aaron_F @ Aug. 30 2007,17:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Aug. 31 2007,15:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have never seen anyone gain more muscle on a Large bulk or dirty bulk...than someone who was bulking cleanly.
NOw I have seen them gain more mass/ fat...but when they cut down they were no bigger than if they had done a smaller bulk..and not gained as much fat.
IMO</div>
I have seen plenty people on 'clean' bulks not gaining anything at all.
but i gotta eat clean, yawn</div>
I wasn't saying clean eating bulk is better or worse than a dirty bulk...we all know the clean vs dirty eating is complete bullsh-it.
However what I was reiterating IMO...is given a clean ro dirty bulk...I dont see how 1000 calories over your maintenance is going to be better than say 500 over maintenance given protein and training is correct.
I would think IMO 1000 calories over maintenance is going to lead to more fat.
I think when you bring partioning and the ability to put on muscle you have to have and excess calorie surplus but at some point excess is just excess IMO over maintenance unless of course drugs are involved.
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Aug. 31 2007,21:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Aaron_F @ Aug. 30 2007,17:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Aug. 31 2007,15:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have never seen anyone gain more muscle on a Large bulk or dirty bulk...than someone who was bulking cleanly.
NOw I have seen them gain more mass/ fat...but when they cut down they were no bigger than if they had done a smaller bulk..and not gained as much fat.
IMO</div>
I have seen plenty people on 'clean' bulks not gaining anything at all.
but i gotta eat clean, yawn</div>
I wasn't saying clean eating bulk is better or worse than a dirty bulk...we all know the clean vs dirty eating is complete bullsh-it.
However what I was reiterating IMO...is given a clean ro dirty bulk...I dont see how 1000 calories over your maintenance is going to be better than say 500 over maintenance given protein and training is correct.
I would think IMO 1000 calories over maintenance is going to lead to more fat.
I think when you bring partioning and the ability to put on muscle you have to have and excess calorie surplus but at some point excess is just excess IMO over maintenance unless of course drugs are involved.
</div>
i agree completely. some of the proposed callorie intakes are way too high.
people often dont realise just how much fat a surplus of a 1000 callories can potentially give you.i mean a thin layer of fat over the body is hardly noticable and people can easily be fooled into thinking theyve gained leanmass when infact they havent . i perosnally would go with around 500 surplus callories.
but then again im not a big fan of gaining loads of weight and then going into a cut anyway.if i were to use a high callorie surplus it would only be for a short time.
unless you are on aas theres no use in anything over a 1000 callorie SURPLUS imo. however age/metabolism are important factors as to just how many surplus callories you need.
p.s im not discussing power lifters or sumo wrestlers here!
and my reference to surplus callories is factored in after training,work and anyother activity.
(Joe.Muscle @ Aug. 31 2007,21:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Aaron_F @ Aug. 30 2007,17:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Aug. 31 2007,15:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have never seen anyone gain more muscle on a Large bulk or dirty bulk...than someone who was bulking cleanly.
NOw I have seen them gain more mass/ fat...but when they cut down they were no bigger than if they had done a smaller bulk..and not gained as much fat.
IMO</div>
I have seen plenty people on 'clean' bulks not gaining anything at all.
but i gotta eat clean, yawn</div>
I wasn't saying clean eating bulk is better or worse than a dirty bulk...we all know the clean vs dirty eating is complete bullsh-it.
However what I was reiterating IMO...is given a clean ro dirty bulk...I dont see how 1000 calories over your maintenance is going to be better than say 500 over maintenance given protein and training is correct.
I would think IMO 1000 calories over maintenance is going to lead to more fat.
I think when you bring partioning and the ability to put on muscle you have to have and excess calorie surplus but at some point excess is just excess IMO over maintenance unless of course drugs are involved.
i agree completely. some of the proposed callorie intakes are way too high.
people often dont realise just how much fat a surplus of a 1000 callories can potentially give you.i mean a thin layer of fat over the body is hardly noticable and people can easily be fooled into thinking theyve gained leanmass when infact they havent . i perosnally would go with around 500 surplus callories.
but then again im not a big fan of gaining loads of weight and then going into a cut anyway.if i were to use a high callorie surplus it would only be for a short time.
unless you are on aas theres no use in anything over a 1000 callorie SURPLUS imo. however age/metabolism are important factors as to just how many surplus callories you need.
p.s im not discussing power lifters or sumo wrestlers here!
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 31 2007,14:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How do we define slow, normal, large bulk?</div>
I define a normal bulk at 500 calories over maintenance. Slow bulk is about 250 calories over, and a heavy bulk can be 1,000 over.
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 31 2007,14:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How do we define slow, normal, large bulk?</div>
I define a normal bulk at 500 calories over maintenance. Slow bulk is about 250 calories over, and a heavy bulk can be 1,000 over.
<div>
(colby2152 @ Sep. 01 2007,11:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 31 2007,14:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How do we define slow, normal, large bulk?</div>
I define a normal bulk at 500 calories over maintenance. Slow bulk is about 250 calories over, and a heavy bulk can be 1,000 over.</div>
thats how i would rate bulking also.
(colby2152 @ Sep. 01 2007,11:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 31 2007,14:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How do we define slow, normal, large bulk?</div>
I define a normal bulk at 500 calories over maintenance. Slow bulk is about 250 calories over, and a heavy bulk can be 1,000 over.</div>
thats how i would rate bulking also.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
Ditto!
Thats a good estimate Colby!
Thats a good estimate Colby!