Sweets when bulking?
Options
Replies
-
DjinnMarie wrote: »In on zombie thread.
Not everything is so simple. The basic idea is correct... Calorie surplus =gains.
But, speaking from experience, a clean bulk gives the more desired 1 to 1 fat to muscle ratio gains than a dirty bulk on the same calorie surplus. A calorie is a calorie, a unit of measurement, but how that calorie translates once ingested can be vastly different depending on the source. 100 calories from alcohol also comes with the added inflammation in the liver, a slower metabolism and sluggish kreb cycle, an auto immune response, decrease in protein synthesis etc. excess sugar can cause similar responses.
But none of this matters unless you are at an elite level and need that extra 1% advantage to squeak out a win. I personally prefer a clean bulk. Maybe the extra fat from a dirty bulk is minimal, but I don't like to cut any longer than I absolutely have to. I'm a raving *kitten* while cutting and my husband doesn't appreciate it.
I don't understand what you're saying. Set aside that we use the terms 'dirty' and 'clean' bulk in a different way (comes across that you mean 'clean' food, I'd differentiate by the size of the surplus). Are you saying, you can only achieve optimum results by eating, for example, brown rice, brocolli, chicken, quinoa, nuts etc. but not by eating moderately if the calorie surplus and macro split are exactly the same?
I'm not being snarky btw, i'm genuinely interested, as it sounds like, from your post, you have tried both methods. I asked iknighton the same thing but he's only ever tried the 'clean(eating)' method. I'm not a fan of highly restrictive diets but it's not something I'd rule out in the future, especially when considering the laws of diminishing return.
0 -
Yeah i did a dirty bulk for like a week and stopped because i was putting on mega fat.... Get some chocolate whey protein and make protein brownies! the buff dude channel on youtube got a good recipe for them. However in my dirty bulk I wasn't using this calorie tracker just eating as much as I can
reaaaalllly bad idea 0 -
beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Dude, this thread had been dead for a little while. I don't know how you guys can state with such confidence that your health markers are better simply based off the fact that I'm technically underweight (which I think does have some genetic influence). Sure, some of you may have better levels of some things, but that's an awfully bold (and probably incorrect) statement to say that every single health marker is worse for me.
I'd be curious about the diet comparisons, but that would drag the thread too far off topic.
Because it's evident based on your posts that you're very misinformed about what is "healthy" and what is not.
EVERY marker may not be better, but I am highly confident my overall health is much greater than yours.
Bewides, you're the one who originally made the claim/assumption you were in better health than another memver...but haven't had labs done in in a few years...so you obviously have no clue what your markers look like.
I'm simply calling your bluff because I know you can't back it.
your better off disengaging bro …
he will just go back and fort with you for like four pages asking dump questions and then complaining because his arms are too skinny and is scared to eat more…
just trying to save you some frustration ...0 -
alexkeithwatson wrote: »Yeah i did a dirty bulk for like a week and stopped because i was putting on mega fat.... Get some chocolate whey protein and make protein brownies! the buff dude channel on youtube got a good recipe for them. However in my dirty bulk I wasn't using this calorie tracker just eating as much as I can reaaaalllly bad idea
You did not dirty bulk for a week and put on a tonne of fat. You maybe had a binge week and gained water
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »My comment about weight and health was in response to ndj's post, which was all about weight control. His post made it seem like weight control was everything.
Some of you probably have a better diet than me (depending on how you view it), but I'm guessing most of you probably eat better than the average American.
The average American eats too much food, but has no issue with micronutrients. According to the CDC the U.S. doesn't have any issues with malnutrition. Please, if you're going to talk, do some research, real research, and stop basing your (wildly incorrect) opinions off of sensationalistic tabloid journalism.0 -
DjinnMarie wrote: »In on zombie thread.
Not everything is so simple. The basic idea is correct... Calorie surplus =gains.
But, speaking from experience, a clean bulk gives the more desired 1 to 1 fat to muscle ratio gains than a dirty bulk on the same calorie surplus. A calorie is a calorie, a unit of measurement, but how that calorie translates once ingested can be vastly different depending on the source. 100 calories from alcohol also comes with the added inflammation in the liver, a slower metabolism and sluggish kreb cycle, an auto immune response, decrease in protein synthesis etc. excess sugar can cause similar responses.
But none of this matters unless you are at an elite level and need that extra 1% advantage to squeak out a win. I personally prefer a clean bulk. Maybe the extra fat from a dirty bulk is minimal, but I don't like to cut any longer than I absolutely have to. I'm a raving *kitten* while cutting and my husband doesn't appreciate it.
That's not what clean and dirty bulk means. A clean bulk is a small calorie surplus, a dirty bulk is a large calorie surplus. It has nothing to do with the foods eaten.0 -
Not overt malnutrition, but suboptimal intakes of some micronutrients, like vitamin D. Taking in a less than the recommended amount of a nutrient does not equal malnutrition. If you discredit this source, I would like to be pointed to a source that suggest most Americans are taking in sufficient vitamin D. http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/tigersword wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »My comment about weight and health was in response to ndj's post, which was all about weight control. His post made it seem like weight control was everything.
Some of you probably have a better diet than me (depending on how you view it), but I'm guessing most of you probably eat better than the average American.
The average American eats too much food, but has no issue with micronutrients. According to the CDC the U.S. doesn't have any issues with malnutrition. Please, if you're going to talk, do some research, real research, and stop basing your (wildly incorrect) opinions off of sensationalistic tabloid journalism.
0 -
DjinnMarie wrote: »In on zombie thread.
Not everything is so simple. The basic idea is correct... Calorie surplus =gains.
But, speaking from experience, a clean bulk gives the more desired 1 to 1 fat to muscle ratio gains than a dirty bulk on the same calorie surplus. A calorie is a calorie, a unit of measurement, but how that calorie translates once ingested can be vastly different depending on the source. 100 calories from alcohol also comes with the added inflammation in the liver, a slower metabolism and sluggish kreb cycle, an auto immune response, decrease in protein synthesis etc. excess sugar can cause similar responses.
But none of this matters unless you are at an elite level and need that extra 1% advantage to squeak out a win. I personally prefer a clean bulk. Maybe the extra fat from a dirty bulk is minimal, but I don't like to cut any longer than I absolutely have to. I'm a raving *kitten* while cutting and my husband doesn't appreciate it.
I don't understand what you're saying. Set aside that we use the terms 'dirty' and 'clean' bulk in a different way (comes across that you mean 'clean' food, I'd differentiate by the size of the surplus). Are you saying, you can only achieve optimum results by eating, for example, brown rice, brocolli, chicken, quinoa, nuts etc. but not by eating moderately if the calorie surplus and macro split are exactly the same?
I'm not being snarky btw, i'm genuinely interested, as it sounds like, from your post, you have tried both methods. I asked iknighton the same thing but he's only ever tried the 'clean(eating)' method. I'm not a fan of highly restrictive diets but it's not something I'd rule out in the future, especially when considering the laws of diminishing return.
i define a clean bulk as getting as much micro and macro nutrients as I can for the calorie load. I'd rather get my 600 calories from protein, complex carbs (fiber) and fats than from 6 cookies or 2 brownies. No I don't think sugar is "bad". It's essential for basic life processes like cellular division and neuro function. I'd just rather get more bang for my buck (er... Calories). But then again I'm a small person with very low maintenace and even bulking calorie numbers. And being a woman makes putting in muscle even more difficult. When I bulk on what I consider a "clean(er) diet I have more energy, endurance and focus in the gym. Changing my bulk to 10% calories from sweets (high sugar/simple carbs) FOR ME causes a blood sugar spike, then blood sugar crash. Within a relatively short period of time. Leaving me fatigued for the rest of the day. Complex carbs don't have the same effect on me.
And there are studies that show dieters on a high fat/protein diet have higher BMRs, and overall tdee's than the same dieters when on a high carb (food pyramid guidelines) diet. This doesn't negate the overall principle of calories in vs calories out. But what it does show is that the source of the calories can affect your overall calories out number. So, bulking on 300 calories over maintenance for example. If you get those 300 calories from sweets you are lowering your TDEE than if you got those 300 calories from protein. And not all of the difference can be explained by TFE (thermal food effect). The more calories you bulk on, the higher your fat to muscle ratio will be. And as I said, I try to keep my muscle to fat gain pretty tight. From my experience, the most I can hope for in terms of muscle gain is .5 lbs a week (that's wishful thinking) no matter how much I eat or the source of my calories. If I gain too much I have to cut even longer... And we all know what happens to lean mass when you are on an extended cut. So lowering my tdee is counter productive while bulking.
(Source: http://eatingacademy.com/books-and-articles/good-science-bad-interpretation)
This is turning into a novel. My bad. In short, the quality of my food affects my energy and mood therefore my work outs. Also, the source of the food affects my tdee, which affects how much weight I actually gain. Which then lengthens my cut cycle, in turn losing more lean mass than I would like.0 -
DjinnMarie wrote: »DjinnMarie wrote: »In on zombie thread.
Not everything is so simple. The basic idea is correct... Calorie surplus =gains.
But, speaking from experience, a clean bulk gives the more desired 1 to 1 fat to muscle ratio gains than a dirty bulk on the same calorie surplus. A calorie is a calorie, a unit of measurement, but how that calorie translates once ingested can be vastly different depending on the source. 100 calories from alcohol also comes with the added inflammation in the liver, a slower metabolism and sluggish kreb cycle, an auto immune response, decrease in protein synthesis etc. excess sugar can cause similar responses.
But none of this matters unless you are at an elite level and need that extra 1% advantage to squeak out a win. I personally prefer a clean bulk. Maybe the extra fat from a dirty bulk is minimal, but I don't like to cut any longer than I absolutely have to. I'm a raving *kitten* while cutting and my husband doesn't appreciate it.
I don't understand what you're saying. Set aside that we use the terms 'dirty' and 'clean' bulk in a different way (comes across that you mean 'clean' food, I'd differentiate by the size of the surplus). Are you saying, you can only achieve optimum results by eating, for example, brown rice, brocolli, chicken, quinoa, nuts etc. but not by eating moderately if the calorie surplus and macro split are exactly the same?
I'm not being snarky btw, i'm genuinely interested, as it sounds like, from your post, you have tried both methods. I asked iknighton the same thing but he's only ever tried the 'clean(eating)' method. I'm not a fan of highly restrictive diets but it's not something I'd rule out in the future, especially when considering the laws of diminishing return.
i define a clean bulk as getting as much micro and macro nutrients as I can for the calorie load. I'd rather get my 600 calories from protein, complex carbs (fiber) and fats than from 6 cookies or 2 brownies. No I don't think sugar is "bad". It's essential for basic life processes like cellular division and neuro function. I'd just rather get more bang for my buck (er... Calories). But then again I'm a small person with very low maintenace and even bulking calorie numbers. And being a woman makes putting in muscle even more difficult. When I bulk on what I consider a "clean(er) diet I have more energy, endurance and focus in the gym. Changing my bulk to 10% calories from sweets (high sugar/simple carbs) FOR ME causes a blood sugar spike, then blood sugar crash. Within a relatively short period of time. Leaving me fatigued for the rest of the day. Complex carbs don't have the same effect on me.
And there are studies that show dieters on a high fat/protein diet have higher BMRs, and overall tdee's than the same dieters when on a high carb (food pyramid guidelines) diet. This doesn't negate the overall principle of calories in vs calories out. But what it does show is that the source of the calories can affect your overall calories out number. So, bulking on 300 calories over maintenance for example. If you get those 300 calories from sweets you are lowering your TDEE than if you got those 300 calories from protein. And not all of the difference can be explained by TFE (thermal food effect). The more calories you bulk on, the higher your fat to muscle ratio will be. And as I said, I try to keep my muscle to fat gain pretty tight. From my experience, the most I can hope for in terms of muscle gain is .5 lbs a week (that's wishful thinking) no matter how much I eat or the source of my calories. If I gain too much I have to cut even longer... And we all know what happens to lean mass when you are on an extended cut. So lowering my tdee is counter productive while bulking.
(Source: http://eatingacademy.com/books-and-articles/good-science-bad-interpretation)
This is turning into a novel. My bad. In short, the quality of my food affects my energy and mood therefore my work outs. Also, the source of the food affects my tdee, which affects how much weight I actually gain. Which then lengthens my cut cycle, in turn losing more lean mass than I would like.
Scrolled through article and noticed it was written by Dr. Attia who is an anti Carb advocate. Strong biased source is biased.0 -
You're really going to go on this roller coaster of misunderstanding and confusion again? You don't fully understand the concept of bulking. You don't fully understand the process of building muscle, that has become one of the most evident facts on MFP in recent history. You are out of your league here. I say this with pure good intentions, 2 days ago Sarah offered to give you some advice via PM, did you take it? If you don't then you really are hopeless. You have no idea how many people here would love to have that opportunity. Take it, learn, then participate.
We have been PM'ing
.
Ugggh...new quote functions...
0 -
Hey thanks for taking the time to explain. Simple or complex carbs have no such affect on me (that I've noticed) but the mental aspect of having no treats does =D
I guess I don't buy into the whole, your body noticing a difference between salmon, quinoa and salad and a burger and salad (I'm sure the macro split is not the same but you get my gist). But I definitely understand wanting more volume of food - I definitely go cleaner while cutting.
I'll be happy with 0.25 lb muscle gain a week (works out half and half fat and muscle hopefully). I went dirty (BIG surplus) first time round, I won't be making that mistake this time but I'm keeping an element of 'junk' in.
Like I say, I definitely wouldn't rule it out but I'll be sticking with moderation for as long as it yields returns 0 -
You're really going to go on this roller coaster of misunderstanding and confusion again? You don't fully understand the concept of bulking. You don't fully understand the process of building muscle, that has become one of the most evident facts on MFP in recent history. You are out of your league here. I say this with pure good intentions, 2 days ago Sarah offered to give you some advice via PM, did you take it? If you don't then you really are hopeless. You have no idea how many people here would love to have that opportunity. Take it, learn, then participate.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not overt malnutrition, but suboptimal intakes of some micronutrients, like vitamin D. Taking in a less than the recommended amount of a nutrient does not equal malnutrition. If you discredit this source, I would like to be pointed to a source that suggest most Americans are taking in sufficient vitamin D. http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/tigersword wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »My comment about weight and health was in response to ndj's post, which was all about weight control. His post made it seem like weight control was everything.
Some of you probably have a better diet than me (depending on how you view it), but I'm guessing most of you probably eat better than the average American.
The average American eats too much food, but has no issue with micronutrients. According to the CDC the U.S. doesn't have any issues with malnutrition. Please, if you're going to talk, do some research, real research, and stop basing your (wildly incorrect) opinions off of sensationalistic tabloid journalism.DjinnMarie wrote: »DjinnMarie wrote: »In on zombie thread.
Not everything is so simple. The basic idea is correct... Calorie surplus =gains.
But, speaking from experience, a clean bulk gives the more desired 1 to 1 fat to muscle ratio gains than a dirty bulk on the same calorie surplus. A calorie is a calorie, a unit of measurement, but how that calorie translates once ingested can be vastly different depending on the source. 100 calories from alcohol also comes with the added inflammation in the liver, a slower metabolism and sluggish kreb cycle, an auto immune response, decrease in protein synthesis etc. excess sugar can cause similar responses.
But none of this matters unless you are at an elite level and need that extra 1% advantage to squeak out a win. I personally prefer a clean bulk. Maybe the extra fat from a dirty bulk is minimal, but I don't like to cut any longer than I absolutely have to. I'm a raving *kitten* while cutting and my husband doesn't appreciate it.
I don't understand what you're saying. Set aside that we use the terms 'dirty' and 'clean' bulk in a different way (comes across that you mean 'clean' food, I'd differentiate by the size of the surplus). Are you saying, you can only achieve optimum results by eating, for example, brown rice, brocolli, chicken, quinoa, nuts etc. but not by eating moderately if the calorie surplus and macro split are exactly the same?
I'm not being snarky btw, i'm genuinely interested, as it sounds like, from your post, you have tried both methods. I asked iknighton the same thing but he's only ever tried the 'clean(eating)' method. I'm not a fan of highly restrictive diets but it's not something I'd rule out in the future, especially when considering the laws of diminishing return.
i define a clean bulk as getting as much micro and macro nutrients as I can for the calorie load. I'd rather get my 600 calories from protein, complex carbs (fiber) and fats than from 6 cookies or 2 brownies. No I don't think sugar is "bad". It's essential for basic life processes like cellular division and neuro function. I'd just rather get more bang for my buck (er... Calories). But then again I'm a small person with very low maintenace and even bulking calorie numbers. And being a woman makes putting in muscle even more difficult. When I bulk on what I consider a "clean(er) diet I have more energy, endurance and focus in the gym. Changing my bulk to 10% calories from sweets (high sugar/simple carbs) FOR ME causes a blood sugar spike, then blood sugar crash. Within a relatively short period of time. Leaving me fatigued for the rest of the day. Complex carbs don't have the same effect on me.
And there are studies that show dieters on a high fat/protein diet have higher BMRs, and overall tdee's than the same dieters when on a high carb (food pyramid guidelines) diet. This doesn't negate the overall principle of calories in vs calories out. But what it does show is that the source of the calories can affect your overall calories out number. So, bulking on 300 calories over maintenance for example. If you get those 300 calories from sweets you are lowering your TDEE than if you got those 300 calories from protein. And not all of the difference can be explained by TFE (thermal food effect). The more calories you bulk on, the higher your fat to muscle ratio will be. And as I said, I try to keep my muscle to fat gain pretty tight. From my experience, the most I can hope for in terms of muscle gain is .5 lbs a week (that's wishful thinking) no matter how much I eat or the source of my calories. If I gain too much I have to cut even longer... And we all know what happens to lean mass when you are on an extended cut. So lowering my tdee is counter productive while bulking.
(Source: http://eatingacademy.com/books-and-articles/good-science-bad-interpretation)
This is turning into a novel. My bad. In short, the quality of my food affects my energy and mood therefore my work outs. Also, the source of the food affects my tdee, which affects how much weight I actually gain. Which then lengthens my cut cycle, in turn losing more lean mass than I would like.
Unfortunately, going off what you believe is a clean bulk, if you went ahead created a 1000 calorie daily surplus using all those "optimal nutrient filled foods" you would still put on a large amount of unwanted fat. Loading up on those "healthy" foods isn't going to alter MPS, IGF-1 and insulin production to now allow your body to add more muscle than if you have a more diverse diet including sweets. We don't get extra credit for getting morning micronutrients that we need. You may want to go into the whole protein has a higher TEF and you absorb less but at the end of the day we are talking about minimal differences.
I agree. I said eating more nutrient dense foods gets me to my desired 1 to 1 ratio easier than including more sweets. FOR ME, I am more productive in the gym if I eat protein and whole grain sourced carbs as opposed to sweets. And obviously if I eat 1000 calories of turkey I will pack on the fat. Could I bulk on more sweets? Sure. But given my relatively low caloric needs for my size, my other macro nutrients would suffer. And I consider protein, complex carbs and fats more important than sweets. This is not to say that I never eat sweets, just that I don't make an effort to add a certain percentage into my diet.
And my very first post I said none of this matters because very few of us are in the elite group where such minimal advantages are of concern. It's simply what I prefer and found easiest for meeting my goals.
0 -
Hey, if it helps, my sister ate whatever she wanted (mostly fast food) and was able to bulk up (tremendously) after working a at UPS for 6-12 months.
0 -
-
LolBroScience wrote: »DjinnMarie wrote: »DjinnMarie wrote: »In on zombie thread.
Not everything is so simple. The basic idea is correct... Calorie surplus =gains.
But, speaking from experience, a clean bulk gives the more desired 1 to 1 fat to muscle ratio gains than a dirty bulk on the same calorie surplus. A calorie is a calorie, a unit of measurement, but how that calorie translates once ingested can be vastly different depending on the source. 100 calories from alcohol also comes with the added inflammation in the liver, a slower metabolism and sluggish kreb cycle, an auto immune response, decrease in protein synthesis etc. excess sugar can cause similar responses.
But none of this matters unless you are at an elite level and need that extra 1% advantage to squeak out a win. I personally prefer a clean bulk. Maybe the extra fat from a dirty bulk is minimal, but I don't like to cut any longer than I absolutely have to. I'm a raving *kitten* while cutting and my husband doesn't appreciate it.
I don't understand what you're saying. Set aside that we use the terms 'dirty' and 'clean' bulk in a different way (comes across that you mean 'clean' food, I'd differentiate by the size of the surplus). Are you saying, you can only achieve optimum results by eating, for example, brown rice, brocolli, chicken, quinoa, nuts etc. but not by eating moderately if the calorie surplus and macro split are exactly the same?
I'm not being snarky btw, i'm genuinely interested, as it sounds like, from your post, you have tried both methods. I asked iknighton the same thing but he's only ever tried the 'clean(eating)' method. I'm not a fan of highly restrictive diets but it's not something I'd rule out in the future, especially when considering the laws of diminishing return.
i define a clean bulk as getting as much micro and macro nutrients as I can for the calorie load. I'd rather get my 600 calories from protein, complex carbs (fiber) and fats than from 6 cookies or 2 brownies. No I don't think sugar is "bad". It's essential for basic life processes like cellular division and neuro function. I'd just rather get more bang for my buck (er... Calories). But then again I'm a small person with very low maintenace and even bulking calorie numbers. And being a woman makes putting in muscle even more difficult. When I bulk on what I consider a "clean(er) diet I have more energy, endurance and focus in the gym. Changing my bulk to 10% calories from sweets (high sugar/simple carbs) FOR ME causes a blood sugar spike, then blood sugar crash. Within a relatively short period of time. Leaving me fatigued for the rest of the day. Complex carbs don't have the same effect on me.
And there are studies that show dieters on a high fat/protein diet have higher BMRs, and overall tdee's than the same dieters when on a high carb (food pyramid guidelines) diet. This doesn't negate the overall principle of calories in vs calories out. But what it does show is that the source of the calories can affect your overall calories out number. So, bulking on 300 calories over maintenance for example. If you get those 300 calories from sweets you are lowering your TDEE than if you got those 300 calories from protein. And not all of the difference can be explained by TFE (thermal food effect). The more calories you bulk on, the higher your fat to muscle ratio will be. And as I said, I try to keep my muscle to fat gain pretty tight. From my experience, the most I can hope for in terms of muscle gain is .5 lbs a week (that's wishful thinking) no matter how much I eat or the source of my calories. If I gain too much I have to cut even longer... And we all know what happens to lean mass when you are on an extended cut. So lowering my tdee is counter productive while bulking.
(Source: http://eatingacademy.com/books-and-articles/good-science-bad-interpretation)
This is turning into a novel. My bad. In short, the quality of my food affects my energy and mood therefore my work outs. Also, the source of the food affects my tdee, which affects how much weight I actually gain. Which then lengthens my cut cycle, in turn losing more lean mass than I would like.
Scrolled through article and noticed it was written by Dr. Attia who is an anti Carb advocate. Strong biased source is biased.
The study he cited is not biased. His conclusion might be... But not the actual study (which I can't find at the moment) is not. I am not anti carb.
0 -
Hey thanks for taking the time to explain. Simple or complex carbs have no such affect on me (that I've noticed) but the mental aspect of having no treats does =D
I guess I don't buy into the whole, your body noticing a difference between salmon, quinoa and salad and a burger and salad (I'm sure the macro split is not the same but you get my gist). But I definitely understand wanting more volume of food - I definitely go cleaner while cutting.
I'll be happy with 0.25 lb muscle gain a week (works out half and half fat and muscle hopefully). I went dirty (BIG surplus) first time round, I won't be making that mistake this time but I'm keeping an element of 'junk' in.
Like I say, I definitely wouldn't rule it out but I'll be sticking with moderation for as long as it yields returns
Like I said, I don't ban sweets. If I have a craving for something I eat it. I don't compete so it's not really a concern. I was just stating my personal results between the various bulks I have done. OP can take my completely anecdotal evidence and decide for himself.
0 -
DjinnMarie wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »DjinnMarie wrote: »DjinnMarie wrote: »In on zombie thread.
Not everything is so simple. The basic idea is correct... Calorie surplus =gains.
But, speaking from experience, a clean bulk gives the more desired 1 to 1 fat to muscle ratio gains than a dirty bulk on the same calorie surplus. A calorie is a calorie, a unit of measurement, but how that calorie translates once ingested can be vastly different depending on the source. 100 calories from alcohol also comes with the added inflammation in the liver, a slower metabolism and sluggish kreb cycle, an auto immune response, decrease in protein synthesis etc. excess sugar can cause similar responses.
But none of this matters unless you are at an elite level and need that extra 1% advantage to squeak out a win. I personally prefer a clean bulk. Maybe the extra fat from a dirty bulk is minimal, but I don't like to cut any longer than I absolutely have to. I'm a raving *kitten* while cutting and my husband doesn't appreciate it.
I don't understand what you're saying. Set aside that we use the terms 'dirty' and 'clean' bulk in a different way (comes across that you mean 'clean' food, I'd differentiate by the size of the surplus). Are you saying, you can only achieve optimum results by eating, for example, brown rice, brocolli, chicken, quinoa, nuts etc. but not by eating moderately if the calorie surplus and macro split are exactly the same?
I'm not being snarky btw, i'm genuinely interested, as it sounds like, from your post, you have tried both methods. I asked iknighton the same thing but he's only ever tried the 'clean(eating)' method. I'm not a fan of highly restrictive diets but it's not something I'd rule out in the future, especially when considering the laws of diminishing return.
i define a clean bulk as getting as much micro and macro nutrients as I can for the calorie load. I'd rather get my 600 calories from protein, complex carbs (fiber) and fats than from 6 cookies or 2 brownies. No I don't think sugar is "bad". It's essential for basic life processes like cellular division and neuro function. I'd just rather get more bang for my buck (er... Calories). But then again I'm a small person with very low maintenace and even bulking calorie numbers. And being a woman makes putting in muscle even more difficult. When I bulk on what I consider a "clean(er) diet I have more energy, endurance and focus in the gym. Changing my bulk to 10% calories from sweets (high sugar/simple carbs) FOR ME causes a blood sugar spike, then blood sugar crash. Within a relatively short period of time. Leaving me fatigued for the rest of the day. Complex carbs don't have the same effect on me.
And there are studies that show dieters on a high fat/protein diet have higher BMRs, and overall tdee's than the same dieters when on a high carb (food pyramid guidelines) diet. This doesn't negate the overall principle of calories in vs calories out. But what it does show is that the source of the calories can affect your overall calories out number. So, bulking on 300 calories over maintenance for example. If you get those 300 calories from sweets you are lowering your TDEE than if you got those 300 calories from protein. And not all of the difference can be explained by TFE (thermal food effect). The more calories you bulk on, the higher your fat to muscle ratio will be. And as I said, I try to keep my muscle to fat gain pretty tight. From my experience, the most I can hope for in terms of muscle gain is .5 lbs a week (that's wishful thinking) no matter how much I eat or the source of my calories. If I gain too much I have to cut even longer... And we all know what happens to lean mass when you are on an extended cut. So lowering my tdee is counter productive while bulking.
(Source: http://eatingacademy.com/books-and-articles/good-science-bad-interpretation)
This is turning into a novel. My bad. In short, the quality of my food affects my energy and mood therefore my work outs. Also, the source of the food affects my tdee, which affects how much weight I actually gain. Which then lengthens my cut cycle, in turn losing more lean mass than I would like.
Scrolled through article and noticed it was written by Dr. Attia who is an anti Carb advocate. Strong biased source is biased.
The study he cited is not biased. His conclusion might be... But not the actual study (which I can't find at the moment) is not. I am not anti carb.
This study sought to test an important question:
When an overweight or obese person loses weight, how does their choice of macronutrients impact their tendency to regain lost weight?
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Conclusion: Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre–weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in REE and TEE that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet
0 -
This is not relevant for someone who is tracking their caloric intake.
It may be relevant for someone who has lost a ton of weight, does not track their calories, and has not readjusted to their new maintenance calories. Holding calories constant and adjusting to a new TDEE, it won't make a difference if you are consistent with intake.
I'm also fairly certainly the population were those with metabolic disorders...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions