Bulking Up?

Options
2»

Replies

  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Just curious on what your Macro percentages would look like or currently look like.. I am currently bulking but just started using this to follow my bulking diet.. Just need an idea on what peoples looks like

    .5g of fat per lb
    1g of protein per lb

    minimum

    and a ~250 cal surplus
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    you should ask some of the ladies around here. they bulk up so quickly.

    win.
  • n0ob
    n0ob Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    Just curious on what your Macro percentages would look like or currently look like.. I am currently bulking but just started using this to follow my bulking diet.. Just need an idea on what peoples looks like

    .5g of fat per lb
    1g of protein per lb

    minimum

    and a ~250 cal surplus

    you don't get huge like the OP at 19 on a 250 cal surplus...
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Options
    you should ask some of the ladies around here. they bulk up so quickly.

    The macros I use for quick bulking are:

    40% nutella, 30% cheese fries, 30% oreos (double stuff. Leave the single stuff for the dieters)

    ironically, that would be rather effective with proper lifting...

    LOL out of curiosity I plugged it in to my diary- too low protein.
    @3k cal- 41P/314C/173F
    6%P/42%C/52%F

    Maybe if you add some meat to the cheese fries. Chili cheese fries it is!
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Just curious on what your Macro percentages would look like or currently look like.. I am currently bulking but just started using this to follow my bulking diet.. Just need an idea on what peoples looks like

    .5g of fat per lb
    1g of protein per lb

    minimum

    and a ~250 cal surplus

    you don't get huge like the OP at 19 on a 250 cal surplus...

    A surplus is a surplus, no? For me, that's ~ 2500 cals. For him, it might be 3500 or whatever.
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Options
    Just curious on what your Macro percentages would look like or currently look like.. I am currently bulking but just started using this to follow my bulking diet.. Just need an idea on what peoples looks like

    .5g of fat per lb
    1g of protein per lb

    minimum

    and a ~250 cal surplus

    you don't get huge like the OP at 19 on a 250 cal surplus...

    A surplus is a surplus, no? For me, that's ~ 2500 cals. For him, it might be 3500 or whatever.

    I know you said MINIMUM 250 so I won't belabor it. but @250 cal surplus it would take FOR.EV.ER to really get big. Plus, the bigger the total calories, the more total calories within your margin of error, and 250 cal surplus becomes difficult to actually stay at.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Just curious on what your Macro percentages would look like or currently look like.. I am currently bulking but just started using this to follow my bulking diet.. Just need an idea on what peoples looks like

    .5g of fat per lb
    1g of protein per lb

    minimum

    and a ~250 cal surplus

    you don't get huge like the OP at 19 on a 250 cal surplus...

    A surplus is a surplus, no? For me, that's ~ 2500 cals. For him, it might be 3500 or whatever.

    I know you said MINIMUM 250 so I won't belabor it. but @250 cal surplus it would take FOR.EV.ER to really get big. Plus, the bigger the total calories, the more total calories within your margin of error, and 250 cal surplus becomes difficult to actually stay at.

    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?
  • testease
    testease Posts: 220
    Options
    250 cal surplus is good, the slower you put on weight, the longer you can bulk and add muscle, the less time you spend in a deficit and lose muscle.
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Options

    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.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options

    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.

    True, but the margin of error goes both ways. The same way you might be eating 10% more than you think, you could be eating 10% less than you think. Or burning 10% more or less. Everything is an estimate... but at some point you have to trust your estimates, do it for a month and evaluate then. You can't preempt everything.
  • Awkward30
    Awkward30 Posts: 1,927 Member
    Options
    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
    Options

    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
    Options
    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.

Categories