Is bulking more or less for people who are on gear? As an average

>>42643361
You need a calorie surplus to build muscle. How much of a calorie surplus is up to you, fatty

>>42643361
Bulking is for guys who gain fat on chest and arms and shoulders. We've all seen the type. Some muscle and plenty of fat and they wobble around in their tanktops as if they're pro powerlifters.

You should only bulk enough that you're progressing on your lifts at a reasonable speed for your level of training, when you think you're getting too fat start doing a slight cut until you're satisfied and repeat.

I've just been eating a surplus for a month or so while training, but I"m getting fat now.

I heard being leaner increases your testosterone.

I think I'm gonna do some intermittent fasting and cut down on the fat.

>>42643361
how do you expect to grow muscle if you aren't fat and not in a surplus? you can't just grow it out of thin air

>>42643651
eat less. aim for 1 lbs/2-3 weeks

>>42643694
I practice grappling, I know I can lose a lot more than that in a week. Bad idea?

>>42643703
You don't want to cut too hard or you'll just be gassed as fuck all the time and lose a lot of strength. You're better going slowly and trying to retain or you're spinning your wheels.

Bulking with anything more than a 500 calories surplus as a natty is a meme. Sure, you'll get strong and you will gain some muscle but you will also gain a lot of fat and id you're weak-willed that bulk will become a permabulk
I'd say thay you should go for a 500 surplus if you don't mind getting a little chubby, but a 100 to 300 surplus is ideal

>>42643684
Build muscle from protein you eat?

you should eat a surplus to gain muscle and in doing so you'll put on some fat. you shouldn't do a dreamer bulk and become a massive fat shit.

>>42643447
Cutting vs. bulking research is minimal, yet there are plenty of studies on gaining muscle on a cut (recomp).

>>42643863
Only when you're a beginner.

File: Screenshot_167.jpg (66KB, 914x137px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 914x137px

>>42643762
>>42639338
>>42639604

>>42643876

>>42643791
I'm supposed to bulk on 3500 atm for 500 surplus as natty, but usually end up eating around 750-1000 surplus some days aswell. I don't really care as I'm kinda going thicc mode. I'll just do a long cut for summer next year, I'd rather enjoy myself.

>>42643901
what's the source of this?

File: Screenshot_185.jpg (220KB, 722x653px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 722x653px

>>42643983
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411406/pdf/1550-2783-9-34.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571

>>42644021
So the group that cut calories by 20% still gained muscle while losing fat, where as the group that cut calories by 30% lost the same amount of fat, and gained no muscle.

Interesting.

File: Casein - FL_LMG.jpg (356KB, 669x491px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 669x491px

>>42644021

>>42644037
>30%
On ~104g protein..

>>42639338

>>42644067
Where does it say their protein intake?

File: Screenshot_186.jpg (65KB, 661x264px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 661x264px

>>42644081
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/42344154/Effect_of_two_different_weight-loss_rate20160207-25098-1gx8098.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1503786260&Signature=oXu7%2FjZ3plGT72Rb2WOjnefJ7qA%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DEffect_of_two_different_weight-loss_rate.pdf

>>42644021
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571
Well, even if this is conclusive (I don't think one study is enough). Bulking would still be worth it, cause probably you'll gain more muscle than in a deficit.

>>42644127
>probably
On what basis?

>>42644021
why the fk do i keep losing size on a cut and these twinks gain size

>>42644103
Sure, that's reasonable. 1.6g/kg

File: Screenshot_187.jpg (46KB, 658x218px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 658x218px

>>42644209
104g/81.9kg = ~1.27g/kg

>>42643901
>Roids
>Contest prep

This guy is a natty dyel not an elite gymnast, there's not really a good comparison.

>>42643901
>implying elite athletes don't use PEDs
Yes even gymnasts.

>>42643361
Bulking isn't a meme, it's just that a lot (most?) guys overdo it on calories.

If you're natty you can still bulk it just has to be a smaller surplus

>>42643791
im on 1500 bulk

>>42643791
How long should a bulking phase last?

I'm at about 15%bf (from like 25%) I wanted to get to at least 10% before december but everyone in the gym keep telling me that I should eat more.

I'll probably hit the gym with more intensity on september due to more free time, will additionally doing HIIT 3 days/week help to not gain that much fat during a bulk?

>>42643361
lee priest is a freak of nature, 5'4 and cut on stage over 200lbs, 22 inch arms or whatever they are... he was ripped at age 14. and he was on gear.

just watch Nick's power&strength youtube vid on natty bulking...everytime I read about someone going on a bulk I just cringe. unless you re a strong man or powerlifter pro you should never purposely become fat.

>>42646742
10% is pretty low 2bh aim for like 12ish. And if you're worried about getting fat then bulk really slowly and recomp/do a mini-cut until you're not fat and continue. The objective should always be to be in a surplus so you can grow but managing it so you don't get fat.

>>42646978
Who fucking says you purposefully get fat even rippletits.doesn't tell fatties to bulk.not that it's a big deal since fat losing is piss easy meanwhile trying to get your arms an extra inch is fucking hard.
If you want to gain muscle it's easier to do so whilst on a surplus.

>>42647990
I think it's an absolute meme for anyone unless you're on gas, you're not making any real gains one way or another being fatter. (just want to point out this is a distinction from people putting lean protein into their body compared to the bulk EAT WHAT I FUCKING WANT diets).

Your lifts might slightly improve but if you're struggling just to speak because you're taking in so much food how hard are you work outs going to be?

I've heard all manners of opinions and there are plenty of pros that look fucking great that never just eat just to put on weight. just look at the famous physique guys like zyzz or seid never bulked once. The only thing I know for sure is that it's not healthy, and if the gains are minimal and you'll have to lose all that fat to look good why even bother? just my 2 cents.

>>42648065
They absolutely did bulk, they just lean bulked instead of putting on as much weight as possible really fast, which you'd have to be a retard to do. The roids just made it way faster/easier.

Bulking just means gaining weight. How much of that weight is fat depends on the surplus, diet and activity but if you want to get bigger you're gonna need to put on weight. Unless your goal is be a twig and stay at the same weight forever and have your life be an endless plateau.

>>42643833
Body building is like sculpting art. You aren't going to get your ideal statue(body) if you have no rock (mass) to work with. Eat to add rock to your statue. Then cheasial(cut) when it starts to spin out of control for you.

>>42644196

You only lose size because your muscles lose water weight. As long as your lifts aren't decreasing then it'll bounce back when you start eating again.

Just read up on Lyle McDonald. Bulk a little, cut a little.