bulking = broscience

>>42113345
That's not how it's supposed to work you inbred retard.

Here's how it actually works: if you DON'T eat as many calories as your body requires to build muscle, it doesn't matter how much you work out, it just won't happen.

The point of bulking is admitting that your calorie-counting is going to fail and just taking the safe approach and overeating to make sure that calories won't be missing. To make sure that you'll be getting every last gram of muscle that you worked out for.

It gets a bit more complex than that since it's not just calories that matter, but that's the underlying idea on it all.

>>42113345
thinking of adding 1 kg every 3 months after my cut, what do you think

>>42113436
kek

>>42113459
Damn dude that is way too slow. You can gain a kg/month and stay lean easy as, unless your already pretty swole. Hell, a kg every 2-3 weeks is still easy. Obviously this assumes you're natty

>>42113493
ok thanks I'll consider it

>>42113436

Yeah ok, I'm sure the body needs 500 extra calories a day (the equivalent of 50 pounds/year) to put on muscle. You forgot
>t. delusional fatty who's too dumb/lazy to count calories

>>42113459
I think that's actually possible according to science, unlike hurr durr gain 50 pounds of muscle a year by eating big bro!!

>>42113493
>You can gain 0.5kg of LBM a week naturally
[citation needed]

you can expect those type of gains on a medium-dosed testosterone cycle. Holy shit, this board really knows fuck all about fitness.

>>42113345
Look up DOI:10.1001/jama.2011.1918. There is no cut-off at 10 pounds of muscle a year, and there have been studies of sedetary people gaining a very large amount of weight and having 30% of it gained as muscle.

You can argue that after cutting you'll end up with the same lean body mass, but you absolutely do gain more muscle during a bulk, and there is absolutely no way to really milk all your possible gains by only eating enough to recover and gain muscle.

Long term either way you'll hit your natty limit, but bulking is more time efficient (which I personally don't care too much about).

>>42114305
Sure, but you can absolutely gain muscle during maintenance.

>>42114406

Absolutely, because while longterm you're maintaining, after a meal you're at a surplus. It's just not the best use of your time if you're in a hurry.

>>42114422
So according to your logic IF/OMAD would lead to less muscle gain, because of less surpluses after meals?

>>42113727
Haha, fuck off m8, I never specified LBM, and I'm saying 1kg a month is easy and lean, but even at 2-3 week period, you could still manage if you're new.

>>42114619
yeah 1kg of lean fat lmao

>>42114788

Basically what I'm understanding from your responses, you sensitive, grouchy fuck, is that you literally don't believe in any bulk but a clean bulk? As in, not only think it's ineffective, but think dirty bulks are somehow bro science?

That's a weird fucking opinion but thank you for offering it so I can squint angrily at my computer screen.

>>42114958
that's not a bulk you, that's called getting fat.
If you put on 1kg in 2 weeks 80% of that is fat. why would you ever do that

>work out
>don't change diet
>slowly get stronger

uhh /fit/ards?

https://forum.muscleandstrength.com/threads/58623-Layne-Norton´s-Bulking-Strategy

>spend 1/3 of your bulk cutting
>put on 24 lbs LBM in a year

yeah sorry OP if you didn't eat like an ethiopian maybe you could actually get somewhere in a reasonable amount of time