>start bulking >moon face is there a way to combat this

Nope. Can't spot reduce, sorry.

>>42561384
problem often is people who bulk start eating more salt which causes face bloating

>>42561384
calorie surplus?

are you lifting 5 days a week?

if you are bulking, you must workout hard, 5 days and 1 hour min

>>42561396
This, watch your sodium intake, and if that doesn't work: stop bulking, it's a meme

>>42561406
somewhere around 500. lifting 5 or 6 with cardio

File: bible.jpg (41KB, 640x585px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x585px

Carbcycling to increase your insulin sensitivity can help you add more muscle and less fat from your meals but no real cure just for the face.

I had a friend though who swore that cutting out creatine made him lose "waterweight" around his neck and face.

Guess you could also tren hard and hope the masseter gains gives your face better structure.

>>42561384
train more

File: 1490225998622.png (5KB, 359x96px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 359x96px

>>42561384
>>42561427
>the bulking meme claims another victim

>>42561384
brown>red>blonde

>>42561614
it's fucking impossible to bulk at <200 surplus because tdee varies so much daily

>>42561614
>60 calories surplus

The meme internet coach who made this could use a rope

>>42561626
you don't need to bulk to start with.
>>42561632
>lyle mcdonald is a meme internet coach
neck yourself.

>>42561619
Are you trolling? Red has sagging tits pointing nearly sideways and brown still needs to hit puberty.

>>42561648
bulk=surplus retard

just be 300 over, you wont get too fat, you'll gain the most muscle possible.

/thread

>>42561626
then aim at +250kcal and call it a day

>>42561648
>you don't need to bulk to start with.
yeah i'll just eat at deficit and grow bigger by the day

>>42561666
i tried at first but with lifting + cardio and my physical job it's impossible. i've found that around 500 is the lowest i can go

File: babbyweight struggle.jpg (39KB, 501x430px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 501x430px

>>42561648
Dyel "buy my book" mcdonald? HAHAHAAHA shit son you´re beyond saving. Might aswell throw your money on TV-shop gadgets.

60 cal surplus is just dumb, your TDEE varies too much to make it a realistic daily goal. I know you´re gonna have a tough time to swallow this since you prob spent money on this horseshit but please make an attempt.

>>42561665
>retard
Wow, the pot calling the kettle a nigger
You don't need to bulk to start with. +30 grams of lentils would be enough in the worst case scenario. It's fucking nothing. It's totally negligible.
>just aim for being fat anyway
double retard.
>>42561692
>eat at deficit
>but with lifting + cardio and my physical job
then you're simply estimating your TDEE badly.

>>42561721
You're totally clueless and pathetic.

>>42561727
nah, it's just that some days are more physically demanding than others and because i don't feel like guess eating calories on those days i just at a constant surplus and look at weekly gain. i usually gain around 1 lbs per week or two then eat at maintenance for the next week and some increased cardio to burn the excess fat.

>>42561732
Solid argument pal. Just give some thought into what you are buying or explain how you are going to keep a steady 60 cal surplus. If you forget to log walking a few flight of stairs or a wank you´ve fucked your day.

>>42561663
reds tits are fine
brown is top tier qt
blonde has crazy long neck and receding hairline
not that i wouldnt any of them but brown is by far the best

>>42561452
Well yeah, less creatine, less water-weight. But also less creatine.

>>42561663
red has nice tits but blonde has perfect

https://i.imgur.com/7MUjELx.jpg

>>42561788
>>42561727

File: 1469360351208.jpg (234KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 480x640px

>>42561663
>>42561794
>>42561818
all three are too small

shoo shoo boobs goblin

>>42561818

Where can I go to pay for three of these to walk into my room and start fucking me and eachother?

>>42561818
there's a melanoma on blonde's tits
5/10
red's face is 2/10
brunette is a fridge with no tits, but has a nice face 5/10

I've fucked better ffs

File: a727514.gif (892KB, 361x317px) Image search: [Google]

892KB, 361x317px

>>42561865
any escort website

>chinlet
>Thick neck
Never gonna make it will I?

Yes. Tape your cheeks every time you eat a meal. Fat cells won't have any room to grow

>>42561894
Depends what you mean by making it. You probably already look like an average guy with the full potential of "making it" and having a great life but you excuse your failure to do so with superficial reasons nobody cares about.

>>42561920
Some real momscience here

>>42561387
>he doesn't abuse yohimbine

High doses of MK677 and 3 table spoons of salt a day should take care of your problem. They work synergistically by killing excess water cells in your body.

>>42561920
Wow nice science there idiot. The fat would just be pushed to his nose and make him look even dumber

>>42561384

Whats the blondes name?

File: IMG_6889.jpg (35KB, 259x188px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 259x188px

>>42561619
Brown, blonde then red fag

3 > 1 > 2

>>42561626
Are you serious? Your tdee will Flux the other way as well and make you 400 over instead of 0 over. It all balances out over time.

>>42562468
>Lifting weight is metabolically taxing. Studies have found that doing 4 sets of 8 deadlifts with 175 kilograms burns about 100 calories. That's roughly the amount of energy you'd burn running a mile if you weigh 130lbs, or running half a mile if you weigh 260lbs.

>>42561721
Are you retarded? Do you know how to read? did you read the article before talking shit?
The article looks into how much of a surplus is NECESSARY to maximize muscle gains while minimizing body fat gain, and the numbers are just that: numbers. In no part of the article he actually recommends to eat at those numbers.

In the same article you can read that those numbers are not only what Lyle Mcdonalds found to be needed to optimize muscle gain and reduce excessive fat gain, but Alan Aragon, and Eric Helms got almost the same numbers.

In the same article he states:
>Hell, 60 calories/day is probably within measurement error on most foods for all but the most neurotic. But it amounts to almost nothing. Throw in an extra piece of fruit or protein drink and there’s 100 calories.
>Let me make a quick note that it is not uncommon for some people to find out that they need much higher calorie intakes than the above to gain at any appreciable rate. These are often the skinny ‘hardgainers’ and this is probably due to the fact that Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT) often ramps up as calories go up.
>The reality is that the rate of muscle gain is pretty limited (by things like genetics, hormones, etc.) and just eating more won’t push that to higher (or much higher levels). Which means that the extra calories either have to be burned off (i.e. via increased NEAT as I mentioned above) or stored as fat.
>In this vein is a fascinating study by Garthe (who has done work on elite athletes and body composition). In it athletes were either given nutritional counseling or to eat ad-libitum (basically without control). The nutritional counseling group ended up eating significantly more than their maintenance (about 500 calories/day extra) while the ad-lib group was actually damn close to maintenance.

>>42562578
>>And while both groups gained similar amount of lean body mass (1.7-1.2 kg for counseling vs. ad lib group which wasn’t statistically significant), the counseling group gained 1.1 kg of fat compared to 0.2 kg for the ad lib group). Even if we assume that the difference in LBM was significant, they only gained 0.5 kg (1 lb) LBM more while gaining about 1 kg (2.2 lbs) extra fat.
STUDY:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23679146
>Energy intake was higher in the NCG than in the ALG (3585±601 vs. 2964±884 kcal) and consequently BW increased more in NCG than in ALG (3.9±0.6% vs. 1.5±0.4%). Fat mass (FM) increased more in NCG than in ALG (15±4 vs. 3±3%), but gain in LBM was not different between groups.
In conclusion, if you eat more past a certain point, you just get fatter.
I still think that the smartest thing to do is to eat 250 calories surplus if you're a beginner. This accounts for the margin of error and you won't gain much fat.

>>42562578
not him but nobody is talking about muscle gain. point is there is no way as of yet to accurately measure your daily TDEE to that kind of precision

>>42562606
There is if you weight yourself and see changes in body composition. Obviously with weekly averages.
I know it's not 100% accurate, but it's the most accurate you can get.

>>42561614
I did my own caculation, if you follow that chart you're a fucking idiot because that's for a 130lb woman lmao

Mine came out to 320 calories

>>42562624
from your calculations I get you're both a DYEL and a fattie.
An 80 kg, natty, non-overweight individual, 1.5% MAX as a total beginner beginner would = 1.2 kg/mo MAX ( 2.6 lbs/month )
so it should stay more on ~+300 kcal MAX to stay on a safe side
if he literally halved the surplus the difference would still probably be nihil

>>42561764
>gain around 1 lbs per week or two then eat at maintenance for the next week and some increased cardio to burn the excess fat
Does this work? I thought persistently (months at a time) eating at a surplus was the optimum way to gain lean mass. Gaining 1-2lbs a week followed by a week at maintenance sounds much on your gut.

>>42562737
From your comment you must be a manlet, I'm actually a 6'2 180lb dyel. My bodyfat is around 13% because I can still see my abs.

>>42562786
>180 lbs
that's 80 kg, and the result is not 320 kcal. From your comment I get you're not very good in math and you can't get that what 1.5% MAX means as well (it's 1-1.5%)
you're probably bad at calculating your TDEE to begin with since you're such a skelly, so that's why the technically incorrect "GOMAD" meme is still perpetrated. Because of silly faggots like yourself.
When you're not busy counting your abs hit the fucking gym.