Lean Bulk - so far so good.

pbryd wrote: »

2015
September 123.4lb
October 124.9lb
November 127.5lb
December 129.3lb
2016
January 130.1lb

How do these figures look for a long lean bulk?

I'm 5'6" and in my early forties. Previous to these figures I was dieting down to get lean (29.5" waist, around 10%bf).

Then I increased my calories a little until I started gaining weight slowly. My waist has crept up to 30" but I think it's acceptable.

My plan is to carry on lifting and eating until I hit a point where my waist is getting too large and then I'll cut back on the calories for a quick cut.

Numbers looks great.

IMO, there’s really no use in applying a set time frame to anyone's bulking phase, as it’s not going to be possible for that person to predict exactly how fast they'll ultimately make gains in the first place. Your individual rate of muscle growth will depend on your genetics, how well your program is structured, and how closely you adhere to it.

Around half a pound of lean body weight per week is a reasonable guideline, but this is just a rough estimate.

Not only that, but you won’t even be able to predict how those resulting gains will appear on your individual frame once you make them. For example, 15 pounds of muscle on a 5’7 frame with shorter limbs will not appear the same as 15 pounds of muscle on a 6’4 frame with longer limbs. You’ll only know how it looks and whether or not you’re actually satisfied with it once you actually get there.

The second thing to consider are your body fat levels.

Any time you try to gain a significant amount of muscle, you’re always going to gain some body fat with it. This is just the nature of remaining in a calorie surplus over time, and your goal during a bulking phase is to simply keep those fat gains to an absolute minimum.

This is best accomplished by maintaining only a small, well controlled calorie surplus of around 15% above your calorie maintenance level… ensuring that you’re employing a properly structured weight training routine… and including some additional cardio exercise to keep fat gains at bay.

Your best bet is to simply take it week by week, monitor your progress (which you're already doing) and then simply shift into fat loss mode when/if it becomes necessary.

To set out from the get go and explicitly say this person is going to “bulk for 4 months and then cut for 2 months” or “bulk for 1 year and then cut for 3 months” probably isn’t going to do anybody any real good, as there are too many unpredictable factors at play.

Just continue bulking until you reach a level of muscular development that you’re happy with, or until your body fat levels reach a level that you aren’t comfortable with and want to reduce.

Just make sure that you stay in your bulking phase long enough to truly make some solid, measurable progress first before shifting gears. Just don't be the guy who constantly goes back and forth every few weeks, and after a year or two still hasn’t made any real noticeable progress in either direction.

pbryd wrote: »

Thanks for the reply, your advice matches my plan exactly, apart from cardio, I'm not doing any atm.

The weights I'm lifting are moving up nicely too, so I'm really pleased with the progress.

If my weight gain stalls or the weights on the bar stop going up, i'll take this as a sign to up my calories further, as long as my waist is still under control.

P

Agreed sir.

Gaining strength is actually by far the single most important factor of anything in your entire training program, and it’s the one thing that should be given the highest amount of focus when you’re in the gym.

Yes, total training volume and frequency are also important, but PROGRESSIVE OVERLOAD is still the ultimate bottom line when it comes to building muscle.

So many people try to over complicate things, and in the process they end up losing sight of this one basic principle. However, it’s the one principle that lies at the very foundation of the entire muscle building process.

If you’re not consistently getting stronger, you’re not going to be getting much bigger. You can pretty much be guaranteed of that.

This is why I constantly talk about how crucial it is that you keep a training logbook, track your workouts (weight, sets and reps) and then focus on “beating the numbers” each week.

In fact, doing this one thing alone and combining it with a reasonably controlled calorie surplus essentially guarantees muscle growth for you.

Take into consideration your age too. Your peak growing time was in your 20's due to hormones. They reduce as you get older, so a "lean" bulk would mean much more fat now than in your 20's.

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

pbryd wrote: »

I think my metabolism must be racing because I'm having to consume 2600 calories daily for this small weight gain.

Based on your stats, 2600 is more in the standard range.


Your results seem pretty good, so keep it up.

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

Take into consideration your age too. Your peak growing time was in your 20's due to hormones. They reduce as you get older, so a "lean" bulk would mean much more fat now than in your 20's.

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

Just another reason why aging sucks.

ha ha!

Another kick in the nuts for #teamgrayballs

pbryd wrote: »

2015
September 123.4lb
October 124.9lb
November 127.5lb
December 129.3lb
2016
January 130.1lb

How do these figures look for a long lean bulk?

I'm 5'6" and in my early forties. Previous to these figures I was dieting down to get lean (29.5" waist, around 10%bf).

Then I increased my calories a little until I started gaining weight slowly. My waist has crept up to 30" but I think it's acceptable.

My plan is to carry on lifting and eating until I hit a point where my waist is getting too large and then I'll cut back on the calories for a quick cut.

Not a fan of any "quick cuts" especially after a slower, cleaner/lean(er) bulk. I hate that dehydrated feeling.

Started the bulk around end of October at 194 lbs. Currently hovering around 213 lbs. Originally wanted to get up to about 220 and start cutting up in February but decided to just start earlier than usual. Trying to reach 10-11% BF by May, which is more realistic.

pbryd wrote: »

GUARDiAN_GUiLD wrote: »

Not a fan of any "quick cuts" especially after a slower, cleaner/lean(er) bulk. I hate that dehydrated feeling.

Started the bulk around end of October at 194 lbs. Currently hovering around 213 lbs. Originally wanted to get up to about 220 and start cutting up in February but decided to just start earlier than usual. Trying to reach 10-11% BF by May, which is more realistic.

Good to hear your bulk went well. I'm following the advice of Mike Matthews who advises against long cuts because it allows more time for your metabolism to slow down.

i did a 6 week cut before I started bulking which went very well and allowed me to continue increasing my strength in the gym while losing fat around my waist. Beginner gains I suppose.

A cutting phase can continue for whatever length of time is necessary for any individual to reach their desired level of leanness, or until they simply want to shift gears and add some muscle mass based on their personal preference of how they want to look.

Again, depending on the person, the time frame for this could vary all over the map.

If you want to lay out a set bulking and cutting cycle length for yourself right from the start just to get a rough idea of the time frames you might be dealing with, that’s fine.

However, just keep in mind that these will only be rough estimates, since there’s no way for you to predict what your exact rate of muscle growth or fat loss will be, how those changes will reflect in your actual physical appearance, or how your preferences might also change over time

Long cuts are fine. As long as you're maintaining a small to moderate deficit (or a large deficit but only over a short period of time) it's not going to be a concern. But yes, I would not recommend using a large deficit over an extended period for that reason.