Is bulking and cutting a meme?

File: 1476859040447.png (538KB, 864x720px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 864x720px

>unironically getting fat in the name of gains

Idk, eating at a surplus is nice because you have more energy and thus can lift heavier.
You recover faster too.

Idk how small that surplus can be tho

>>41285687
No, it's just faster and much more efficient to bulk/cut than to do both at the same time
Especially if you are not a novice

>>41285804
Natty muscle gains are very limited
A big surplus will simply turn into fat, you cannot force your body to produce more muscle than it physically can by eating more
Eating a small surplus is enough to get muscle plus you won't have to spend months cutting fat and possibly losing some muscle in the process
Bulking and cutting is first and foremost a thing steroid users do

>>41285687
There's no straightforward answer IMO — depends on the individual and their goals.

It's definitely easier to gain muscle mass whilst bulking, but it also easier to gain fat.

It is possible to gain muscle mass whilst cutting mass, (unless you are already lean as fuck). Anyone who says it isn't possible will probably also try and tell you that cardio kills gains.

>>41285687
No, it is faster and superior to "recomp" bullshit

>>41285846
>It is possible to gain muscle mass whilst cutting mass
On tren, sure

listen to candytoe

https://youtu.be/GIX-RyorgkQ

>>41285687
Yes.
The kind pushed by fat as fat ass powerlifters and bodybuilders who're both on heavy gear while the former simply does not give a fuck if you get fat as shit only works for scrawny teen boys/very young adult males who're still growing and have shitloads of test helping to fill out their bodies and pregnant women for some reasons I don't want to get into right now.

A long bulk of 2 months where you don't go ham on eating followed by a 2-3 week cut is apparently much easier to follow.

But some people simply like to stay at certain bodyweight levels and eat in a way that will keep them at that level. I don't mean morbidly obese or skinny is as skinny does either.

>>41285844
Bulking at 300-500 cal surplus and then cutting at 300-500 deficit will reap much better results than simply recomping for the same period of time

>>41285866
>18-20% is certainly not overweight
lol I bet he had to add that because some fat fucks (powerlifters) sperged out

bulking: eating at a calorie surplus
goal: gain muscle mass
meme?: no

cutting: eating at a calorie deficit
goal: lose fat
meme?: no

any further questions?

>>41285880
this. only downside is it'll take much much longer than if you suicide cut or dreamer bulk

that being said you'll preserve muscle (if cutting) and gain more muscle than fat (if bulking)

File: images.jpg (10KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 259x194px

>>41285687
See anon get lean enough and they'll never know you eat clen and tren hard

A suckers born every minute

This guy needs to add at least 2 inches to his neck asap

people take a basic truth and go too far with it

to build muscle you need to take on more energy than you're expending in your current state. so a surplus is necessary. what isn't necessary is getting to 25% bodyfat. look at golden era body builders in the off season, they're leaner than an amateur on a "bulk" is these days

unless you're taking it very seriously you don't need to go through extreme bulk/cut cycles. perhaps in the summer you'll lower your energy intake to lean out for a spell, but it's not something to live by

>>41285804
This is correct

>>41285687
For natties bulking will mostly make you fat.

>>41285854
Is this nigga serious?

Pretty much.
But worrying about calories and shit while lifting hard and doing all other life stuff is tiresome. It's just easier to relax and bulk.

>cut = 2,376 calories a day
>bulk = 3,166 calories a day
>recomp = ??????

File: 54PKvvsz.jpg (41KB, 382x383px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 382x383px

Ask the guy who started as a skinnyfat and never got lean.

You can see those guys at the gym.

>>41288301
he is, you have more energy and can make better gains at eating a surplus
>>41288454
maintenance

Considering I eat 4k calories a day on workouts and have hardly put on fat I'd say no. Depends though considering some here turn themselves into fat asses.

Seems to me if you're eating the right food then you won't turn into a lard ass regardless of calories.

>>41285687
Of course it is why on earth wouldn't you just figure out your caloric need and eat that instead of getting fat.

File: 1491571599695.jpg (77KB, 447x540px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 447x540px

>>41288563
>regardless of calories

>>41288563
you don't understand nutrition

>>41287723
Yeah. He has a bad case of gear neck

>>41288650
I dare you say this on his Facebook account and not here like a lil bitch

>>41288645
actually I do, more then 99% of people on here. nutrition is a lot more then the old generic "calories in vs calories out" I can't even begin to tell you how much bullshit that is.

>>41285695
fpbp

>>41288670
enlighten us then

what is the point of spouting shit if you can't back it up

basic thermodynamics say otherwise

>>41288670
>doesn't know the difference between 'then' and 'than'
>expects us to believe he is an expert on nutrition
wew lad

>>41288693
if you think nutrition is that basic then there's no helping you.

>>41285687
Lmao, no.

Bulk.

Cut with carb cycling.

Never count calories.

Make great gains.

Fuck off with this shit.

>>41288729
Still waiting for your argument. I'm not even him, but you're not giving any answers.

>>41288729
It is tho, that is why its so simple to gain and lose weight, even without counting calories you can see how you feel when you over or undereat for the day

holy fuck as I said if you're eating all the wrong calories OF COURSE you're going to be putting on weight! you can't apply the basic laws of thermodynamics to your body and assume it's that simple.

>>41288729
Typed up response and realized you were trolling, 10/10 for making me reply my dude. Good shit

>>41288859
basic information we all know...a calorie is made up of protein/fats/carbs. obviously certain calories aren't going to effect the body in the same way. simple breakdown...would a low GI carb have the same effect as a high GI carb that promotes insulin spikes and fat storage? fuck no. like i said in simple terms as long as you're not eating shit food you're not going to turn into a fatass with excess calories. sure, you're going to add SOME fat but nothing comparable to the dirty bulkers that don't watch what types of calories they're putting into their body.

you can't make nutrition as simple to laws of thermodynamics, that's niave.

sorry i type like a screeching autistic ocd fuck on here

>>41288904
>a calorie is made up of protein/fats/carbs
its the other way around m8

Bulking and cutting is inefficient.

>>41288818
>the wrong calories
Yikes.

>>41288955
you're right, my fault.

>>41288972
>actually believes a "calorie is a calorie"

File: 1457048516729.jpg (13KB, 300x184px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x184px

>>41285844
This board is really getting worse everyday

>>41288904
Okay let me break that down for you. What you mean is: Protein and carbohydrates are 4 calories per gram, and fat is 9 calories per gram. On an efficient bulk, you would want to eat 10% higher than your TDEE. If you were 150 pounds, you'd want to eat about 150 grams of protein(assuming you're following a proper lifting routine). You would also want about 50-60 grams of monounsaturated/polyunsaturated fat. Less saturated fat if you can help it. You'd want to fill the rest in with complex carbohydrates and not necessarily simple sugars. However, your body still needs sugar. I get what you're making an attempt to say because I actually know what I'm talking about, but you're fucking it all up and sounding retarded.
In the most basic terms of weight loss and weight gain, you can ABSOLUTELY boil it down to calories in vs. calories out. If you eat more than you burn, you will positively gain weight. If you eat less than you burn, you will, without a shadow of a doubt, lose weight. That is literally physics and no amount of arguing is going to change that.
t. guy working on MS in exercise physiology and prospective DPT student when I finish.

>>41285844
>Eating a small surplus is enough to get muscle
How is that not bulking?

>>41289073
exactly, sorry for sounding like an idiot and pulling a Janoy... after hitting your macronutrient goals any excess calories will turn to fat obviously but quality of calories will make a big difference in overall body structure/fat stores.

>>41289024
It would be depressing except pol said this would literally happen 5 years ago. It's said to see that they were right :(

>>41285687
Eat right and do cardio. Gains will be made. Fat will be lost.

Scooby has good information on this

>>41285687
maybe. probably makes things faster. I gained 15kg of muscles (68kg->83kg, roughly same body fat) over 3 years without bulking though.
At some point maybe I'll do mega bulk to 100kg, but it sounds like a drag.

>>41289177
>I gained 15kg of muscles over 3 years
What was your stack?

>>41288904
Fuck off and stop pretending you know shit.
>a calorie is made up of protein/fats/carbs
>cites the GI without context
>Thinking dirty bulking is defined by choice of foods and not caloric suplus

You're right about one thing though. Nutrition is not simple. Too bad we're not talking about nutrition as a whole, but the simple concept of weight gain/loss. Which boils down to "energy in - energy out".

Slow bulk unless you have a reason to gain fat.

I'm on a 300kcal surplus and I'm gaining approximately .5lbs a week. Assuming good diet, this equals 2lbs of muscle a month, which is about as fast as it gets for a majority of lifters natty.

>>41289223
natty. Anyone can do it (or I'm just hightest, though I doubt it, as I constantly feel tired). You just need to be consistent with your lifting. Every other day, 1,5h. Seriously, people underestimate what consistency can do.

>>41289223
That's entirely doable you DYEL.

>>41289269

i'll gladly leave you alone internet warrior

>>41287757
How "extreme" is extreme bulking? 500cal? 1000+Cal?

>>41289390
Probably 1000+. GOMAD is an example of this. Unless you're literally straight outta auschwitz, it's counter productive because it's going to produce twice as much fat as muscle.

>>41289284
just fyi homie i think what you're doing is exactly correct, but if you're not a novice you're probably gonna be gaining 50/50 fat muscle even at that surplus. that's still huge over time, just thought i'd give you reasonable expectation.

>>41289421
I've only been bulking for about 1 month, and lifting for a total of about 10 months. The rest of that time was cutting or losing weight in general, so by all accounts, I'm still on my newbie gains.

>>41285880
Sweet sources

>>41289333
This. 15kg(30lbs) is perfectly normal, especially in 3 years. In fact, new lifters can expect at least 10-20 pounds of lean mass in their first year alone with a proper routine and diet. For each year after that, that number steadily decreases. Over 5 years of lifting regularly with an immaculate diet, it's possible to put on maybe 30-40 pounds of lean mass. It's completely doable. As for lifting, I go 5-6 days a week for 1-2 hours each time. That's on top of a 40 hour work week and graduate school, so just about anyone should be able to hack it if they put in the effort.

Here's my source for those numbers, feel free to update me if I'm wrong on this.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-build-naturally/

File: 1492591381117.jpg (90KB, 544x756px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 544x756px

>>41289177
>I gained 15kg
>without bulking though

how do i know how much to eat for a lean bulk when all sites' activity levels etc are really different and all give different results

>>41285880
>Bulking at 300-500 cal surplus and then cutting at 300-500 deficit will reap much better results than simply recomping for the same period of time
Agreed, but the problem is that I see tons of guys turning that 300-500kcal range into 1000-1500kcal. Not to mention all the 30%BF marshmallows that start out on a bulk so they can even further destroy their hormonal profile.

File: progress overall 2.jpg (564KB, 3048x1188px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 3048x1188px

Worked for me.
Anecdotes are the real deal.

>>41289081
bulking you generally eat enough that you end up gaining some fat as well, what he is suggesting is to eat a very small surplus (maybe 100-300kcal) and this will ensure all extra calories are turned to muscle. Although in reality this usually is not how things work.

>>41285687
The extreme bulk and cut cycles you see lots of youtubers and pros shill are about the most terrible thing a natty could do.

>A natty past the noob stage is doing alright if he is seeing about 0.5kg of muscle gain a month. >That's a 135kcal daily surplus.
>If you aim for a acceptably lean bulk (and you really should as a natty) at 70% of mass gained being lean - that's 190kcal.
>In practice that turns into a bit more since it's very hard to get precisely and consistently within a such a narrow range.

>inb4 "but you need extra calories to work out harder"
Of fucking course you're going to account for than in your TDEE.

Sure, going a huge bulk will give better results in the short term - but unless you're content to be permabulking piece of lard you're going to see that advantage melt when you have to go on an extended cut. As a natty you're not going to see roider level progress, so settle in for the long term if you want to get anywhere.

>>41290093
Sorry for the wide hips

>>41290254
HEY!
FUCK YOU!
WE DONT TAKE KINDLY TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEYRE TALKING ABOUT 'ROUND HERE!

File: march body 17.jpg (214KB, 720x1278px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 720x1278px

>>41290271
Its alright, my back is big enough to offset it :)

Complete noob. Started at 30% bf 180 5'11. I just do maintenance lift and 150g protein. Cutting to 150, at 160 right now. Tired of being fat so i cut first before lean gaining. Did i do this wrong?

>>41285687

Unless you are an utter genetic freak, it is not possible to synthesize muscle without gaining fat tissue as well. Anabolic processes for all tissues are deeply intertwined, though hard work certanly influences what grows more rapidly. (Anything from lifting, to steroids).

"Lean bulking" will not really improve much of anything unless you're, once again, genetically gifted. Some people have it more than others.

That skinny kid over in the corner who's been doing curls for the past year and can't get his bench above 150? Yeah, he's lean bulking.

I'm not saying that everybody needs to be on a 5000kcal diet half of the year, then needs to cut down to 2000kcal for the other half. That's retarded.

If you're a novice (which most people here are), you have NO business doing a lean bulk. It will take lots of time, you will get stuck real fast, and ultimately not go anywhere.

If you're one of those guys who gets fat after a bulk, when your deadlift is 500+lbs, you have the muscle mass to lose that fat quite fast. Not to mention the discipline to actually man up and lose the weight.

Most people's goal is quite easy: Be big and strong, and look good while doing it. If you're a novice, it's very simple to get big and strong. But you need to bulk up first.

Now if you're an advanced lifter, sure, the rules start to change. But if you were an advanced lifter (and EVERY good body builder is an advanced lifter too) you'd already have an opinion on bulking and cutting, and how it works.

But telling a 140lb skinny kid who wants to look like Thor that he can achieve his goal while eating a 500kcal surplus is plain cruel.

Depends on who you are, if you are a skinny fgt who does not know how to eat then he will need to bulk (eat what a normal person eats)

If you are fat never bulk its fucking stupid, same goes for if you have problems staying lean.

You dont get much stronger bulking compared to maintenance either in my experience, but other people get different results.

>>41291640
>Unless you are an utter genetic freak, it is not possible to synthesize muscle without gaining fat tissue as well.

>eat 500kcal surplus
>do TM for months, try out every variation
>bench numbers creep up at snail pace
>BF baloons to 20%

>eat maintenance
>do PPL
>bench goes up faster during late intermediate stage than it did when I just started TM
>drop back down to 15% in the meantime

beyond the gains i've seen i also like bulking and cutting because it keeps things dynamic. the monotony of eating clean constantly all year long would make me want to kill myself

at the end of a bulk I'm usually pretty sick of super calorie dense foods, and at the end of cut im ready to enjoy food again for a while

>>41289024
95% of fit is retarded

>>41285687
>What is myostatin?