Bulking
Options
Replies
-
That's a recomp...ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, some people could look at it from the standpoint of lifting heavy but barely eating at a surplus. In other words, gains would be very slow, but this is in contrast to a faster bulk and then cutting. I'm not suggesting that people need to do this, but I know people who would still consider that "bulking".ForecasterJason wrote: »The exact definition of bulking could probably be considered subjective, but I'd consider it to be lifting weights and eating enough calories to gain muscle/weight.
OK I'll bite
How can the term bulking be considered subjective ?0 -
bryanna277 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, some people could look at it from the standpoint of lifting heavy but barely eating at a surplus. In other words, gains would be very slow, but this is in contrast to a faster bulk and then cutting. I'm not suggesting that people need to do this, but I know people who would still consider that "bulking".ForecasterJason wrote: »The exact definition of bulking could probably be considered subjective, but I'd consider it to be lifting weights and eating enough calories to gain muscle/weight.
OK I'll bite
How can the term bulking be considered subjective ?
How is that subjective? The only thing subjective is the amount of surplus one chooses to use. Sure, you could call it a "clean" bulk (low surplus), "dirty bulk" or "GFH bulk" (large surplus), but either way it involves eating at a caloric surplus (preferably with strength training involved) in order to gain weight.
What is the difrence in a clean bulk and a dirty bulk?
The common definitions are that a "clean" bulk is done at a slight surplus (around 250 calories/day), so in theory you'd gain about a half pound a week - which (theoretically) keeps fat gains to a minimum. A "dirty" bulk is done at a much more significant surplus (say, 1000+ calories/day), where you're going to add a lot of fat along with the muscle.0 -
bryanna277 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, some people could look at it from the standpoint of lifting heavy but barely eating at a surplus. In other words, gains would be very slow, but this is in contrast to a faster bulk and then cutting. I'm not suggesting that people need to do this, but I know people who would still consider that "bulking".ForecasterJason wrote: »The exact definition of bulking could probably be considered subjective, but I'd consider it to be lifting weights and eating enough calories to gain muscle/weight.
OK I'll bite
How can the term bulking be considered subjective ?
How is that subjective? The only thing subjective is the amount of surplus one chooses to use. Sure, you could call it a "clean" bulk (low surplus), "dirty bulk" or "GFH bulk" (large surplus), but either way it involves eating at a caloric surplus (preferably with strength training involved) in order to gain weight.
What is the difrence in a clean bulk and a dirty bulk?
The common definitions are that a "clean" bulk is done at a slight surplus (around 250 calories/day), so in theory you'd gain about a half pound a week - which (theoretically) keeps fat gains to a minimum. A "dirty" bulk is done at a much more significant surplus (say, 1000+ calories/day), where you're going to add a lot of fat along with the muscle.
Thank you0 -
adamhendrickson92 wrote: »For me, bulking is purposely maintaining a high protein calorie surplus for the sole purpose of making them gains.
The key to bulking is to accept that you will gain some fat, but you will be able to earn disproportionately more muscle. Usually while bulking keep your cardio to a bare minimum. Don't get me wrong, you won't get visibly obese or bulky as long as you are hitting the gym consistently - I've been maintaining roughly 10-15% body fat while bulking so my abs are still visible.
Macronutrients are fat, protein, and carbs; these are "macros". When I'm bulking I aim for around 35-40% of calories from protein, 35-40% from carbs on lifting days, and the remaining 20-30% from fats.
Slightly more complicated - quality of macros is important as well, carbs have different glycemic indexes, fats are broken down into saturated, trans, etc. Basically I think of it as the more refined and unnatural something is the worse it is, but some people follow the IIFYM (if it fits your macros) idea that as long as you get the right proportions you are good to go. This does work, I ate 20pc chicken nuggets and a big mac daily for a while to bulk on the cheap and built lots of muscle without going over ~15% bodyfat.
I'm just finishing up a bulk to get past 200lbs, so the method I would prefer right now is to hit that calorie surplus, maintaining consistent, well-proportioned macros, while focusing each workout on limitless greatness.
Im keeping my protein at 50 and below.more0 -
Bulking - "the process of lifting and eating more and more in order to make it exceedingly difficult to fit through doors."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
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions