Bulking Up?

2»

Replies

  • Awkward30
    Awkward30 Posts: 1,927 Member
    60% protein, 40% Carbs and 30% fat.

    thats 130%

    Its called bulking bro

    lol! I hate it when I'm forum brwsing and something makes me laugh at work... Now everyone KNOWS I'm not reading scientific literature...
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member

    True, the bigger the surplus, the faster you put on weight... but the "sloppier" the bulk becomes. Sure, adding some BF is unavoidable... but you don't want to be adding 10lbs of fat for every 1lb of muscle, do you? I guess it comes down to specific goals... size/weight or overall body comp.

    Assuming body comp goals, it takes forever regardless (assuming natural bulk). It's just the way it is with adding muscle. I don't understand the part about total cals within margin of error, but why is 250 cals hard to stay at?

    Just because say there's a 10% margin of error (hypothetically) on everything you eat. If your goal is 3000 calories, 250 calories is less than the margin of error......It's kind of meaningless in practical application. I regret pointing it out, it's overthinking it, really.

    I don't think it's overthinking it at all. The OP is a big, young male, and looks like he also plays football or some sort of organized sport for his school. 250 is so low as to be insignificant for him. Not only is it margin of error for his food intake, it's margin of error for his TDEE. Guys playing football eat like animals for a reason

    If he was trying to be a fitness model, then ok, better safe than sorry and go super slow. But if he's bulking because he wants to be huge and dominate his position on the field, then eat up. More weight is more weight, and the bigger guy is going to win in the trenches.

    More to the point, it's highly unlikely that he'd gain 1 lb of muscle for each `10 lbs of fat. While it's technically possible, it's too easy to see when it's that out of whack and to scale it back.
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    At a young age and very active, I wouldn't worry too much about having an excessively large surplus-provided that it is still reasonable. I usually go with Lyle McDonald's potentials of 2 lbs of muscle gain per month for guys, and half that for women, since it's reasonable and realistic. So if a guy is looking to see a 1:1 ratio of fat-to-muscle, that's approximately a 500 +(-) a few calories depending on individual differences; and a girl would see a 250 +(-) surplus to gain her potential without going too overboard on fat gains.

    As for as macros, my surplus calories come nearly entirely from more carbs but are 50:25:25 (carbs, fats, proteins) at 3350 calories.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories