Road to Six Pack ABs - Get Ripped!
Options
Replies
-
beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I've read stories of guys who have basically been able to achieve that. It can be done, but most people around here seem to think bulking/cutting is better than gaining muscle while staying very lean.
Also, in case there was confusion, I didn't literally mean trying to bulk without gaining an ounce of body fat. Take for example a man who is 130 pounds with 8% body fat. That means he would have 10 pounds of fat and 120 pounds of lbm. If he does a clean bulk to 150 pounds and 9% body fat in 12-15 months, he would likely still have visible abs. However, that would mean he would have gained 3-4 pounds of fat (almost 25%).
The issue here is that, even a complete newbie is likely not going to achieve anywhere near a 75/25 ratio of lean mass/fat during a bulk...at least, not if they're doing so at anything respectable of a pace.
Sure, if they felt like taking 3-4 years to pack on that 20lbs...maybe, they would.
But for anyone bulking at a respectable rate, and actually making REAL progress, the optimal rate of development they'd likely experience would be closer to 50/50 (at best).
In the last year I added 15 pounds of lean mass (natural). I went a bit wild and ended up gaining about 60% fat 40% lean mass. Obviously not optimal by any means, but 15 pounds without gear for a woman is a lot. Next bulk I expect less than that.0 -
beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I've read stories of guys who have basically been able to achieve that. It can be done, but most people around here seem to think bulking/cutting is better than gaining muscle while staying very lean.
Also, in case there was confusion, I didn't literally mean trying to bulk without gaining an ounce of body fat. Take for example a man who is 130 pounds with 8% body fat. That means he would have 10 pounds of fat and 120 pounds of lbm. If he does a clean bulk to 150 pounds and 9% body fat in 12-15 months, he would likely still have visible abs. However, that would mean he would have gained 3-4 pounds of fat (almost 25%).
The issue here is that, even a complete newbie is likely not going to achieve anywhere near a 75/25 ratio of lean mass/fat during a bulk...at least, not if they're doing so at anything respectable of a pace.
Sure, if they felt like taking 3-4 years to pack on that 20lbs...maybe, they would.
But for anyone bulking at a respectable rate, and actually making REAL progress, the optimal rate of development they'd likely experience would be closer to 50/50 (at best).
In the last year I added 15 pounds of lean mass (natural). I went a bit wild and ended up gaining about 60% fat 40% lean mass. Obviously not optimal by any means, but 15 pounds without gear for a woman is a lot. Next bulk I expect less than that.
Was this your first true bulk following established nutrition and training protocols?
How was the accuracy of your development tracked to determine exactly how much lean mass & fat mass was added?
0 -
beastcompany wrote: »beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I've read stories of guys who have basically been able to achieve that. It can be done, but most people around here seem to think bulking/cutting is better than gaining muscle while staying very lean.
Also, in case there was confusion, I didn't literally mean trying to bulk without gaining an ounce of body fat. Take for example a man who is 130 pounds with 8% body fat. That means he would have 10 pounds of fat and 120 pounds of lbm. If he does a clean bulk to 150 pounds and 9% body fat in 12-15 months, he would likely still have visible abs. However, that would mean he would have gained 3-4 pounds of fat (almost 25%).
The issue here is that, even a complete newbie is likely not going to achieve anywhere near a 75/25 ratio of lean mass/fat during a bulk...at least, not if they're doing so at anything respectable of a pace.
Sure, if they felt like taking 3-4 years to pack on that 20lbs...maybe, they would.
But for anyone bulking at a respectable rate, and actually making REAL progress, the optimal rate of development they'd likely experience would be closer to 50/50 (at best).
In the last year I added 15 pounds of lean mass (natural). I went a bit wild and ended up gaining about 60% fat 40% lean mass. Obviously not optimal by any means, but 15 pounds without gear for a woman is a lot. Next bulk I expect less than that.
Was this your first true bulk following established nutrition and training protocols?
How was the accuracy of your development tracked to determine exactly how much lean mass & fat mass was added?
It was my first true bulk. Training was on point, I went a bit overboard with calories (but I hit macros even if I went over).
Development was tracked through scale, tape measure, bioelectrical impedance (just for tracking sake) and calipers (through a trainer with 10+ years of experience). I was coming off of a long cut and two bodybuilding competitions, so I was primed for growth and grew quickly in the beginning (even accounting for glycogen/water).0 -
It can be done - with lots and lots and lots of drugs. It is amazing that a lot of people have the misconception that any bodybuilder beyond being a newbie (less than 1 year or so) can just go out and gain 20lbs (and not gain any fat to boot). Wow! If you can do that without drugs, please do share the secret. That concept is a wet dream to the supplement companies! I don't honestly know if most people even really know what adding 20lbs of muscle would look like. Think of what a 20lb piece of meat would look like and then imagine that added to your frame. It takes time for a natural body builder to add muscle.
Your best bet if trying to make steady gains is the same thing that is repeated over and over on MFP; Lift heavy weights on good programing that emphasizes progressive overload, eat at a reasonable surplus of ~250-500 calories in decent macro ratios, get as much rest as possible, and end the bulk when you are ~15% or less body fat. Then you enter a cut to slowly get to ~9-10% body fat, and repeat process until you get where you want. Oh, and one last thing, this is important and probably what messes more people up than anything else. Have a realistic expectation. If you want to look like one of the behemoths in a magazine then go on a steroid cycle.
But for a natural, gaining 20lbs in a year without fat is like owning a unicorn; it just cannot be done. Instead just put in the work, enjoy the process, and keep at it and you will get there.
yup!!!! concur, nicely said sir.0 -
0 -
beastcompany wrote: »beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I've read stories of guys who have basically been able to achieve that. It can be done, but most people around here seem to think bulking/cutting is better than gaining muscle while staying very lean.
Also, in case there was confusion, I didn't literally mean trying to bulk without gaining an ounce of body fat. Take for example a man who is 130 pounds with 8% body fat. That means he would have 10 pounds of fat and 120 pounds of lbm. If he does a clean bulk to 150 pounds and 9% body fat in 12-15 months, he would likely still have visible abs. However, that would mean he would have gained 3-4 pounds of fat (almost 25%).
The issue here is that, even a complete newbie is likely not going to achieve anywhere near a 75/25 ratio of lean mass/fat during a bulk...at least, not if they're doing so at anything respectable of a pace.
Sure, if they felt like taking 3-4 years to pack on that 20lbs...maybe, they would.
But for anyone bulking at a respectable rate, and actually making REAL progress, the optimal rate of development they'd likely experience would be closer to 50/50 (at best).
In the last year I added 15 pounds of lean mass (natural). I went a bit wild and ended up gaining about 60% fat 40% lean mass. Obviously not optimal by any means, but 15 pounds without gear for a woman is a lot. Next bulk I expect less than that.
Was this your first true bulk following established nutrition and training protocols?
How was the accuracy of your development tracked to determine exactly how much lean mass & fat mass was added?
It was my first true bulk. Training was on point, I went a bit overboard with calories (but I hit macros even if I went over).
Development was tracked through scale, tape measure, bioelectrical impedance (just for tracking sake) and calipers (through a trainer with 10+ years of experience). I was coming off of a long cut and two bodybuilding competitions, so I was primed for growth and grew quickly in the beginning (even accounting for glycogen/water).
Sounds fairly reasonable for a first bulk, and your expectations are logical for the following bulk.
Most of the 'big names', out there (Lyle, Alan, Brad, etc.) seem to theorize that your bulk progression will likely cut in half from one cycle to the next (of course depending on experience, length of bulk, etc.).
0 -
beastcompany wrote: »beastcompany wrote: »beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I've read stories of guys who have basically been able to achieve that. It can be done, but most people around here seem to think bulking/cutting is better than gaining muscle while staying very lean.
Also, in case there was confusion, I didn't literally mean trying to bulk without gaining an ounce of body fat. Take for example a man who is 130 pounds with 8% body fat. That means he would have 10 pounds of fat and 120 pounds of lbm. If he does a clean bulk to 150 pounds and 9% body fat in 12-15 months, he would likely still have visible abs. However, that would mean he would have gained 3-4 pounds of fat (almost 25%).
The issue here is that, even a complete newbie is likely not going to achieve anywhere near a 75/25 ratio of lean mass/fat during a bulk...at least, not if they're doing so at anything respectable of a pace.
Sure, if they felt like taking 3-4 years to pack on that 20lbs...maybe, they would.
But for anyone bulking at a respectable rate, and actually making REAL progress, the optimal rate of development they'd likely experience would be closer to 50/50 (at best).
In the last year I added 15 pounds of lean mass (natural). I went a bit wild and ended up gaining about 60% fat 40% lean mass. Obviously not optimal by any means, but 15 pounds without gear for a woman is a lot. Next bulk I expect less than that.
Was this your first true bulk following established nutrition and training protocols?
How was the accuracy of your development tracked to determine exactly how much lean mass & fat mass was added?
It was my first true bulk. Training was on point, I went a bit overboard with calories (but I hit macros even if I went over).
Development was tracked through scale, tape measure, bioelectrical impedance (just for tracking sake) and calipers (through a trainer with 10+ years of experience). I was coming off of a long cut and two bodybuilding competitions, so I was primed for growth and grew quickly in the beginning (even accounting for glycogen/water).
Sounds fairly reasonable for a first bulk, and your expectations are logical for the following bulk.
Most of the 'big names', out there (Lyle, Alan, Brad, etc.) seem to theorize that your bulk progression will likely cut in half from one cycle to the next (of course depending on experience, length of bulk, etc.).
Sounds reasonable since you are hitting diminishing marginal returns on muscle gain while fat has fewer restrictions on growth.0 -
beastcompany wrote: »beastcompany wrote: »beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I've read stories of guys who have basically been able to achieve that. It can be done, but most people around here seem to think bulking/cutting is better than gaining muscle while staying very lean.
Also, in case there was confusion, I didn't literally mean trying to bulk without gaining an ounce of body fat. Take for example a man who is 130 pounds with 8% body fat. That means he would have 10 pounds of fat and 120 pounds of lbm. If he does a clean bulk to 150 pounds and 9% body fat in 12-15 months, he would likely still have visible abs. However, that would mean he would have gained 3-4 pounds of fat (almost 25%).
The issue here is that, even a complete newbie is likely not going to achieve anywhere near a 75/25 ratio of lean mass/fat during a bulk...at least, not if they're doing so at anything respectable of a pace.
Sure, if they felt like taking 3-4 years to pack on that 20lbs...maybe, they would.
But for anyone bulking at a respectable rate, and actually making REAL progress, the optimal rate of development they'd likely experience would be closer to 50/50 (at best).
In the last year I added 15 pounds of lean mass (natural). I went a bit wild and ended up gaining about 60% fat 40% lean mass. Obviously not optimal by any means, but 15 pounds without gear for a woman is a lot. Next bulk I expect less than that.
Was this your first true bulk following established nutrition and training protocols?
How was the accuracy of your development tracked to determine exactly how much lean mass & fat mass was added?
It was my first true bulk. Training was on point, I went a bit overboard with calories (but I hit macros even if I went over).
Development was tracked through scale, tape measure, bioelectrical impedance (just for tracking sake) and calipers (through a trainer with 10+ years of experience). I was coming off of a long cut and two bodybuilding competitions, so I was primed for growth and grew quickly in the beginning (even accounting for glycogen/water).
Sounds fairly reasonable for a first bulk, and your expectations are logical for the following bulk.
Most of the 'big names', out there (Lyle, Alan, Brad, etc.) seem to theorize that your bulk progression will likely cut in half from one cycle to the next (of course depending on experience, length of bulk, etc.).
I don't know if I would even expect half of that for another bulk. I'd be happy with half, but as you know it gets harder the closer you get to your natural potential. I more look forward to the muscle maturity over the next few years. The women on stage who have maintained the mass for a few years look better than the fresh ones even if the fresh ones have more mass.0 -
beastcompany wrote: »beastcompany wrote: »beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I've read stories of guys who have basically been able to achieve that. It can be done, but most people around here seem to think bulking/cutting is better than gaining muscle while staying very lean.
Also, in case there was confusion, I didn't literally mean trying to bulk without gaining an ounce of body fat. Take for example a man who is 130 pounds with 8% body fat. That means he would have 10 pounds of fat and 120 pounds of lbm. If he does a clean bulk to 150 pounds and 9% body fat in 12-15 months, he would likely still have visible abs. However, that would mean he would have gained 3-4 pounds of fat (almost 25%).
The issue here is that, even a complete newbie is likely not going to achieve anywhere near a 75/25 ratio of lean mass/fat during a bulk...at least, not if they're doing so at anything respectable of a pace.
Sure, if they felt like taking 3-4 years to pack on that 20lbs...maybe, they would.
But for anyone bulking at a respectable rate, and actually making REAL progress, the optimal rate of development they'd likely experience would be closer to 50/50 (at best).
In the last year I added 15 pounds of lean mass (natural). I went a bit wild and ended up gaining about 60% fat 40% lean mass. Obviously not optimal by any means, but 15 pounds without gear for a woman is a lot. Next bulk I expect less than that.
Was this your first true bulk following established nutrition and training protocols?
How was the accuracy of your development tracked to determine exactly how much lean mass & fat mass was added?
It was my first true bulk. Training was on point, I went a bit overboard with calories (but I hit macros even if I went over).
Development was tracked through scale, tape measure, bioelectrical impedance (just for tracking sake) and calipers (through a trainer with 10+ years of experience). I was coming off of a long cut and two bodybuilding competitions, so I was primed for growth and grew quickly in the beginning (even accounting for glycogen/water).
Sounds fairly reasonable for a first bulk, and your expectations are logical for the following bulk.
Most of the 'big names', out there (Lyle, Alan, Brad, etc.) seem to theorize that your bulk progression will likely cut in half from one cycle to the next (of course depending on experience, length of bulk, etc.).
Oh man, that is depressing. I knew there was diminishing returns but didn't think it was as bad as half
I'm on my second now.
0 -
beastcompany wrote: »beastcompany wrote: »beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I've read stories of guys who have basically been able to achieve that. It can be done, but most people around here seem to think bulking/cutting is better than gaining muscle while staying very lean.
Also, in case there was confusion, I didn't literally mean trying to bulk without gaining an ounce of body fat. Take for example a man who is 130 pounds with 8% body fat. That means he would have 10 pounds of fat and 120 pounds of lbm. If he does a clean bulk to 150 pounds and 9% body fat in 12-15 months, he would likely still have visible abs. However, that would mean he would have gained 3-4 pounds of fat (almost 25%).
The issue here is that, even a complete newbie is likely not going to achieve anywhere near a 75/25 ratio of lean mass/fat during a bulk...at least, not if they're doing so at anything respectable of a pace.
Sure, if they felt like taking 3-4 years to pack on that 20lbs...maybe, they would.
But for anyone bulking at a respectable rate, and actually making REAL progress, the optimal rate of development they'd likely experience would be closer to 50/50 (at best).
In the last year I added 15 pounds of lean mass (natural). I went a bit wild and ended up gaining about 60% fat 40% lean mass. Obviously not optimal by any means, but 15 pounds without gear for a woman is a lot. Next bulk I expect less than that.
Was this your first true bulk following established nutrition and training protocols?
How was the accuracy of your development tracked to determine exactly how much lean mass & fat mass was added?
It was my first true bulk. Training was on point, I went a bit overboard with calories (but I hit macros even if I went over).
Development was tracked through scale, tape measure, bioelectrical impedance (just for tracking sake) and calipers (through a trainer with 10+ years of experience). I was coming off of a long cut and two bodybuilding competitions, so I was primed for growth and grew quickly in the beginning (even accounting for glycogen/water).
Sounds fairly reasonable for a first bulk, and your expectations are logical for the following bulk.
Most of the 'big names', out there (Lyle, Alan, Brad, etc.) seem to theorize that your bulk progression will likely cut in half from one cycle to the next (of course depending on experience, length of bulk, etc.).
Oh man, that is depressing. I knew there was diminishing returns but didn't think it was as bad as half I'm on my second now.
Notice he mentions it's a theory and there are a lot of variables such as how much you gained on the first bulk.0 -
so far, I was able to gain and I'm up to 155 lbs but surely the fat % has increased. what can I do to cut down that fat % and still maintain muscle mass?0
-
What's the magic body fat % for a woman to get optimal results on a bulk? Like for the OP, y'all said he should cut to under 15% first to get better results when he bulks. What about for women?0
-
Can anyone quote that for me cause I can't see the numbers0
-
For a non-bodybuilder athlete? That seems pretty low...0
-
The under 18% part mainly0
-
For a female at 18% BF, that is a good starting point for a bulk.
Considering that for a stage appearance, a woman (depending on class)...will be around 11% +/- 3%
I would say that 18% on a woman would be comparable to a guy at 10-12%0 -
For a non-bodybuilder athlete? That seems pretty low...
under 20 is low- but it's not unreasonably low for you're average bear. Competitors are much lower than 18-20%.
I bulked in mid/low 20's- I hit 180#'s and was probably high 20's by the time I was done.
You can bulk whenever you want- but there is definitely a point of diminishing returns- I chose to bulk not for the actual appearance but I had specific strength goals and I felt I had tapped my natural resources on the cut I was on. So I bulked. And my cut was harder- first 10 flew off then the last little bit really I fought for- and I'm back now a year later fighting to get below my 165 range (where I originally started my bulk over a year ago).
Had I started lower- I would have probably had a more efficient/less difficult cut and I'd be not fighting THIS season to get lower now. But at the time- it was worth it for me. I don't regret it- I'm bigger this year than last year and still look good. Just need to keep going lower LOL
0 -
more clues needed. 152 lbs - 16% fat and 1400-1900 eating. how can I really cut down fat % in two months during holidays?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions