How much REAL muscle gain from a bulk cycle?

For the sake of discussion, let's assume the target weight gain is 15 lbs. over 4 months (approx. 1 lb per week). Of those 15 lbs., assume 5 lbs. comes from water/glycogen. Of the remaining 10 lbs.gained, assume a 1:1 partitioning ratio where 5 lbs. is actual muscle gain and 5 lbs. is fat. So, assume 5 lbs. actual muscle gain in 4 months.

Now let's move to the cut phase. Assume a target weight loss of 15 lbs. over 4 months (approx. 1 lb per week). Again, assume 5 of those lbs. are water glycogen depletion. Now, for the remaining 10 lbs. lost, assume a 30% muscle loss. So, a 7 lb. fat loss and a 3 lb. muscle loss.

So, over a 7-8 month period, the net body recomposiiton would be +2 lbs. of muscle and -2 lbs. of fat. at the same before/after weight.

Assuming a solid training plan and consistent eating with plenty of protein, are these results what someone should expect? Any flaws in the logic above?

Total opinion at this point:

I would find a 30% loss of muscle on a cut to be quite high unless you're cutting quite low.

Wow, so as a woman I have little chance of gaining much muscle --sad.

Sounds about right, the truth is its a desperately small amount! If anybody claims double digit muscle gain in a year they are either
A) lying
using steroids

I've read here and there that as a teenager it is potentially possible, with perfect training and diet to grow up to double digits. However, as a grown man you can basically forget adding inches to your arms/ thighs in anything close to the short term. The older I get the more I notice this. I can honestly say I doubt anybody is capable of adding more than 5lbs of lean muscle in a year.

I'm depressing myself.....

For the sake of discussion, let's assume the target weight gain is 15 lbs. over 4 months (approx. 1 lb per week). Of those 15 lbs., assume 5 lbs. comes from water/glycogen. Of the remaining 10 lbs.gained, assume a 1:1 partitioning ratio where 5 lbs. is actual muscle gain and 5 lbs. is fat. So, assume 5 lbs. actual muscle gain in 4 months.

Now let's move to the cut phase. Assume a target weight loss of 15 lbs. over 4 months (approx. 1 lb per week). Again, assume 5 of those lbs. are water glycogen depletion. Now, for the remaining 10 lbs. lost, assume a 30% muscle loss. So, a 7 lb. fat loss and a 3 lb. muscle loss.

So, over a 7-8 month period, the net body recomposiiton would be +2 lbs. of muscle and -2 lbs. of fat. at the same before/after weight.

Assuming a solid training plan and consistent eating with plenty of protein, are these results what someone should expect? Any flaws in the logic above?

Total opinion at this point:

I would find a 30% loss of muscle on a cut to be quite high unless you're cutting quite low.

i agree. With a reasonable calorie deficit,high protein diet and heavy weight training, LBM loss would be negligible unless you decide to go down below 12 % bf.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume the target weight gain is 15 lbs. over 4 months (approx. 1 lb per week). Of those 15 lbs., assume 5 lbs. comes from water/glycogen. Of the remaining 10 lbs.gained, assume a 1:1 partitioning ratio where 5 lbs. is actual muscle gain and 5 lbs. is fat. So, assume 5 lbs. actual muscle gain in 4 months.

Now let's move to the cut phase. Assume a target weight loss of 15 lbs. over 4 months (approx. 1 lb per week). Again, assume 5 of those lbs. are water glycogen depletion. Now, for the remaining 10 lbs. lost, assume a 30% muscle loss. So, a 7 lb. fat loss and a 3 lb. muscle loss.

So, over a 7-8 month period, the net body recomposiiton would be +2 lbs. of muscle and -2 lbs. of fat. at the same before/after weight.

Assuming a solid training plan and consistent eating with plenty of protein, are these results what someone should expect? Any flaws in the logic above?

Logic is correct. As mentioned, if one is gaining more (especially a female), they are either superbly genetically endowed or using chemical enhancement to attain it.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Bullcrap.

Ninerbuff. Why try to be a smart *kitten*? I agree to a point if i was an advanced bodybuilder that was close to reaching his genetic potential. But i am far from being considered " advanced " or anywhere close to my gentic potential. I have been lifting for 2 + plus years with the majority of that time eating at a deficit or maintaining. I might have spent 7-8 months buliking since i reached my goal weight of 203 lbs and now weigh 219 lbs.

So, at that rate, how much slowly is a body recomp, all things considered?

A lot of variables that are not in your example.

Experience level, age and starting body fat level being big ones.

An average male within the first couple years of training could realistically gain around a pound of muscle per month.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html

With a sensible surplus you could be shooting for around a 1:1 ratio of fat and muscle. The couple pounds of water between cutting and bulking is something a lot of people dont think about but it goes on pretty fast in the beginning and comes off pretty fast when you start cutting.

Depending on how lean you started out a 1 pound per week loss for the whole cutting cycle might be bit aggressive.

So in 8 months you could bulk for 4 of them gaining around 8lbs. Half muscle, half fat. Cut for the next 4 months losing about .5 lbs a week. With a this slow cut, enough protein and proper training you should have almost no muscle loss. In the end you could be the same-ish body fat % you started at but with 4 lbs of new muscle.

If you did this for the whole year you would see about 5-6 lbs of new muscle. I bet this is pretty much what most men realistically gain in a year if they care at all about staying somewhat lean.

So if no one supports .6 pounds of muscle gain per week
Why is the recommendation all over this site and others to gain
.5 pounds per week when bulking?
Lets say someone who has never lifted in a surplus and starts
Lifting at .5 pounds gain per week and over the.course of 10 months (40 weeks)
He puts on 20 pounds.
You're telling me that its not going to be almost all muscle?
That doesn't make sense or else everyone would constantly be wasting time in a Continuous
Bulk/cut cycle since gains are 50/50 and losses are 50/50.
Lets even assume all gains are 50/50 and losses 100% fat.
Over the 40 weeks only ten pounds muscle and then another 3 months to cut the fat.
So 13 months to add 10 pounds of muscle to someone in their first year?
Hmmm.

Lifting at .5 pounds gain per week and over the.course of 10 months (40 weeks)
He puts on 20 pounds.
You're telling me that its not going to be almost all muscle?
That doesn't make sense or else everyone would constantly be wasting time in a Continuous

Required reading...

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html

The article says 1 year lifting 2 pounds a month is possible yet you dismiss
The guy above when he claimed 16 pounds in 8 months,which IS 2 pounds per month.
So if you disagree with the article why are you referencing it?

Lifting at .5 pounds gain per week and over the.course of 10 months (40 weeks)
He puts on 20 pounds.
You're telling me that its not going to be almost all muscle?
That doesn't make sense or else everyone would constantly be wasting time in a Continuous

Required reading...

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html

The article says 1 year lifting 2 pounds a month is possible yet you dismiss
The guy above when he claimed 16 pounds in 8 months,which IS 2 pounds per month.
So if you disagree with the article why are you referencing it?

The article is talking about 2 pounds of "muscle" gain per month. My example was 2 pound total with equal fat and muscle.

My example was just trying to work with a realistic average. I think the link above is pretty accurate but I also think that would require a bulk with proper training and diet for the entire year to accomplish. I would guess most people dont start out really lean and dont bulk for an entire year. I dont think it is realistic to expect those results if you spend anytime cutting body fat.

My guess (please correct me if I am wrong) is that the possible muscle gain is determined by how much you have already gained and not by how much time it took to put it on. If you dont gain 20 lbs the first year I dont think you are just out of luck. You will simply be able to put more on for longer than that chart says. One guy might add 20lbs in year one and 10lbs in year 2. The next guy might add 10lbs three years in a row.

In my example, and what I am hoping for myself, is that a 5-6 pound per year can be sustained for a few years in a row while staying pretty lean.

Awesome thanks for explaining. What you're saying makes more sense now
Because obviously most people don't bulk for a year straight.
Thanks

Lifting at .5 pounds gain per week and over the.course of 10 months (40 weeks)
He puts on 20 pounds.
You're telling me that its not going to be almost all muscle?
That doesn't make sense or else everyone would constantly be wasting time in a Continuous

Required reading...

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html

The article says 1 year lifting 2 pounds a month is possible yet you dismiss
The guy above when he claimed 16 pounds in 8 months,which IS 2 pounds per month.
So if you disagree with the article why are you referencing it?

The article is talking about 2 pounds of "muscle" gain per month. My example was 2 pound total with equal fat and muscle.

My example was just trying to work with a realistic average. I think the link above is pretty accurate but I also think that would require a bulk with proper training and diet for the entire year to accomplish. I would guess most people dont start out really lean and dont bulk for an entire year. I dont think it is realistic to expect those results if you spend anytime cutting body fat.

My guess (please correct me if I am wrong) is that the possible muscle gain is determined by how much you have already gained and not by how much time it took to put it on. If you dont gain 20 lbs the first year I dont think you are just out of luck. You will simply be able to put more on for longer than that chart says. One guy might add 20lbs in year one and 10lbs in year 2. The next guy might add 10lbs three years in a row.

In my example, and what I am hoping for myself, is that a 5-6 pound per year can be sustained for a few years in a row while staying pretty lean.

Awesome thanks for explaining. What you're saying makes more sense now
Because obviously most people don't bulk for a year straight.
Thanks

Speaking as someone who has bulked for a year and a half in the past and gone from 2x 35lb dumbbell press to 2x110lb for 8 reps in that time - I d say you can put quite a lot of usefull muscle on in that short period if you put everything in place to do so.

bump

It's all 'fluff' unless you have a somewhat accurate ways to quantify actual muscle/ fat loses/ gains.

I had a BodPod test done 8 weeks ago pre holiday. I know my exact weight to 3 decimals places and how much fat I have. I have another 3/4 weeks of cutting to go. I'll know how much fat/ muscle I have lost/ gained. It'll be very interesting to see how much I actually lose. It's the next best accurate way to measure yourself unless you want to pay £300 for a dexia scanner which I'm not.

I'm coaching a complete beginner at the moment. He was up 2kg in the past 4 weeks. He is training 3-4x a week and eating like a BEAST. He is 17 and had about 4/5months tops of unfocused training with no legs or back. He did not eat anywhere as much food and admits that he is training with A LOT more intensity and same with his eating.

27/08/2013, 64.1kg, weeks average was 64.59
14/10/2013, 67.7kg, weeks average 66.97

The average 170lb guy is no where near a *real* 12-13% imo. They are much more likely to be 15-17%.

When I start to bulk I'll get another BodPod done at some point, and then I can see exactly how much muscle/ fat i have gained. The difference is I'll probably be able to gain it much faster than someone else who has never weighed 99kg before. 2012 I weighed 99kg and my bf% was 22-24% at a guess. I looked pretty solid still though!

Koing

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/


This is a good article, i mean the science is there but everyone's different. For the guy that talks about how he went from benching 35lb dumbbells to benching 110lb dumbbells, building muscle and gaining strength aren't the same thing.

Exactly. Unless you have Dexia/BodPod/Water tank test you do not know how much muscle you have gained. The callipers aren't that great either.

Koing