>bulk at a very small surplus, let's say 100-200 cal

>>42732196
Yours body might not even recognize a 100 calorie surplus. 200 calories would be better, but still that will take absolutelty forever to put on a lot of mass. It will really all depend on how you're currently built and what you're genetics are like

>>42732196
assuming ur natty ur gains will be slow and u will eventually have to cut, u wont lose fat in a surplus

File: 1478152617077.jpg (122KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1200x675px

thats too obvious of a choice it wont work. in order to effectively diet you have to confuse the body, if you go with an obvious diet like that the body will be privy to it , and therefore you will make no progress because the body wont be confused in the sligthest. nice bait

assuming you start at 10% bf, you'd have to assume that all weight-gain is less than 10% fat, just doesn't seem feasible desu

File: mfw_elsa.jpg (30KB, 456x402px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 456x402px

>>42732196
>calorie surplus
>burn fat
>why won't this work

>>42732196
S T I C K Y

bulking is a meme

>>42732438
>>42732223
If you gain muscle and fat, but gain muscle at a faster rate (or gain muscle without gaining fat, not necessarily losing fat), then your BF% will go down over time.

>>42732196
>surplus
>lowing BFP

pick one. you can increase muscle and burn fat at the same time, but only for noob gains, and not on a surplus

It would work, except for the fact that your TDEE is an estimate, the amount of calories you're eating is an estimate, and the amount of calories you're burning through exercise is an estimate. So you're 200 cal surplus might actually not be a surplus at all, which is why people do ~500 or more

>>42734241
this
you can't fine tune that much

>>42733491
Which is not gonna happen natty. Not unless you're on your noob gains.

you can only create or destroy.

not both

>>42734213
You can just eat more and do some conditioning to burn off the extra calories. I've done it plenty of times before.

>>42732196
You're just saving time you'd be wasting cutting. It's fine if you're patient

If that surplus is in protein only it might work. Protein doesn't get stored as fat easily

>>42732196
Yes OP it would work in theory, but the truth is that you'd probably spin your wheels for a while trying to work out how much of a surplus you need to build muscle, not too much to get any fat gains, etc etc. Not to mention the increase in calories as you gain weight. By the time you manage to do it it would have been quicker to bulk on 500 surplus and then cut whatever fat you gained.
Unless of course you have access to anabolics in which case just eat and lift

>>42734801
your body is not a unidirectional machine. you're constantly breaking down and building molecules.

>>42730857