# Lean Bulk Diet - Time To Take Things Seriosuly



## JJW87 (May 15, 2015)

Hello Everyone,

Been reading a lot on this forum lately so decided to join up and start my own thread as I have read lots and lots of really helpful replies.

So a bit of background on myself. I am 28 years old, 6ft tall and weight 190lbs. Judging by other pics I have seen online I would guess my body fat level is somewhere around the 20% mark.

I have trained for just short of a year and am happy with the results and with the strength I have gained but not too happy with the excess fat I have put on. I have never really stuck to a set diet as then I did not understand how important it was to building muscle.

I just made sure I had 3 protein shakes a day and just and then just ate when I felt hungry, and anything that was easy to make which included a lot of processed foods. I also spend over 40 hours a week sat at a desk so apart from training 4 days a week I am not the most active person.

I entered all of my information in to my fitness pal and it says if I want to maintain my current weight I need to consume 2340 calories per day and if I want to gain 0.5lbs per week I need to consume 2590 calories per day.

I do not particularly want to gain any more fat but do not have enough muscle to cut down to a lower body fat level, so was wondering if it would be beneficial for me to just eat 2340 calories a day which is my maintenance calories in order to slowly build muscle while possibly loosing some fat.

I have read this is very hard to do loose fat and build muscle but is possible for beginners. Or would I better to just consuming that extra few hundred calories to make sure that I have enough food inside me to grow ?

Here is the rough diet I have come up with, please feel free to suggest any changes


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

JJW87 said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Been reading a lot on this forum lately so decided to join up and start my own thread as I have read lots and lots of really helpful replies.
> 
> ...


Have you got a pic mate?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

If you really are around 20% body fat you'd likely be best off cutting for now. As body fat gets higher the better the body gets at storing more fat and so the harder it becomes to lean bulk. More info here:

https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/bulking-diet-delusion.


----------



## JJW87 (May 15, 2015)

Here is the only photo I have at the moment, can take some better ones if need be.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

30% plus mate. Run the figures again using that as your starting point.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

I would definitely cut, for the reasons I posted above.


----------



## JJW87 (May 15, 2015)

Cheers for that, like I said I just went of some graph I found on google in regards to the body fat percentage.

So going by that picture do would you advise that I eat a few hundred calories below maintenance for a few month to shift some fat before starting a lean bulk ?


----------



## JJW87 (May 15, 2015)

@ Ultrasonic

Just read this after after I posted the above post.

Thanks for the feedback and will be cutting as suggested


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

JJW87 said:


> So going by that picture do would you advise that I eat a few hundred calories below maintenance for a few month to shift some fat


Yes. Some cardio would probably be good for you too given your lifestyle.

What is your training like? I'm assuming you don't use steroids etc, right?


----------



## JJW87 (May 15, 2015)

I train 4 days a week like this :

Monday - Chest and Triceps

Tuesday - Legs

Thursday - Back and Biceps

Friday - Shoulders and Traps

My work outs are pretty low volume and based mainly around compound exercises.

Chest (Triceps) day - 3 x 10 Flat Barbell Bench, 3 x 10 Incline DB Bench, 3 x 10 Close Grip Bench then 3 x 10 Skull crushers.

Back (Biceps and Forearms) Day - 3 x 10 Deadlift, 3 x 10 Bent Over Rows, 3 sets of Wide Grip Pull Ups, 3 x 10 Lat Pulldowns, 3 x 10 Wide Grip EZ Bar Curls, 3 x 10 Close Grip EZ Curls, 3 x 10 Hammer Curls.

Legs - 3 x 10 Squats, 3 x 10 Leg Press, 3 x 10 Walking Lunges, 3 x10 Leg Extensions, 3 x 10 Calf Raises.

Shoulders (Traps) - 3 x 10 Barbell Overhead Press, 3 x 10 Arnold Press, 3 x 10 Upright Rows, 3 x 10 Lateral Raises, 3 x 10 Barbell Shrugs.


----------



## JJW87 (May 15, 2015)

For my first 4 month I trained like this with 3 sets of 10 on all exercises then changed to 4 sets of 6 for another 12 weeks to mix it up.

Now I am back on to 3 sets of 10 but add in the odd drop set when doing isolation exercises, or might do 3 sets of 15-20 when doing something like calf raises or leg extensions.

No don't use AAS or do any cardio.


----------



## VeneCZ (May 30, 2014)

JJW87 said:


> I train 4 days a week like this :
> 
> Monday - Chest and Triceps
> 
> ...


Typical type of training of almost everyone's at the beggining. I was there  . 3x10 on every excercise, every body part only once a week.

I'd personally advice to go for training every body part at least twice a week...somtehing like upper/lower split. Check out T-nation like Ultrasonic posted, it is a great source of knowledge in every way (training, diet, etc.)


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

As a relatively inexperienced nattie you would most likely be better off training your whole body 3 days per week instead of your current body part split routine. I would definitely suggest you at least try it. For cutting, training your legs more regularly would be a definite advantage as well.

As you've never done it before following Stronglifts for 2-3 months wouldn't be a bad idea, particularly as the initial strength gains are largely neurological and so won't be hindered by cutting. Whole body training doesn't have to be just 5x5 style though, and after a while you can use a mix of higher and lower rep work across different workouts. This thread from the Natural Bodybuilding section is worth a read, giving views from a range of people:

http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/natural-bodybuilding/222427-upper-lower-body-split-vs-body-workout-vs-training-split.html

I'm nattie BTW.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

JJW87 said:


> Cheers for that, like I said I just went of some graph I found on google in regards to the body fat percentage.
> 
> So going by that picture do would you advise that I eat a few hundred calories below maintenance for a few month to shift some fat before starting a lean bulk ?


Yes mate, 800 below.


----------



## JJW87 (May 15, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> As a relatively inexperienced nattie you would most likely be better off training your whole body 3 days per week instead of your current body part split routine. I would definitely suggest you at least try it. For cutting, training your legs more regularly would be a definite advantage as well.
> 
> As you've never done it before following Stronglifts for 2-3 months wouldn't be a bad idea, particularly as the initial strength gains are largely neurological and so won't be hindered by cutting. Whole body training doesn't have to be just 5x5 style though, and after a while you can use a mix of higher and lower rep work across different workouts. This thread from the Natural Bodybuilding section is worth a read, giving views from a range of people:
> 
> ...


Thanks for that mate Gunna check that out now as I fancy doing something new.


----------



## JJW87 (May 15, 2015)

saxondale said:


> Yes mate, 800 below.


Thanks for the reply 

How do you think this looks ? It is 900 calories below maintenance, but I will also be adding one of two handful of mixed nuts per day to get in some extra good fats which is an extra few hundred calories, so roughly - 700 calories.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

JJW87 said:


> Thanks for the reply
> 
> How do you think this looks ? It is 900 calories below maintenance, but I will also be adding one of two handful of mixed nuts per day to get in some extra good fats which is an extra few hundred calories, so roughly - 700 calories.


Pretty good.


----------



## Rytiny4 (Apr 14, 2014)

saxondale said:


> Pretty good.


Your telling him that it's pretty good for him to consume 1358 calories?


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Rytiny4 said:


> Your telling him that it's pretty good for him to consume 1358 calories?


Yep. Problem with that?


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

saxondale said:


> Yep. Problem with that?


Fvcking terrible advice


----------



## G-man99 (Jul 15, 2008)

saxondale said:


> Yep. Problem with that?


At 6ft, 190lbs then isn't 1400 Cals excessive??


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

BrahmaBull said:


> Fvcking terrible advice


He can pss about and still over eat, get no where and blame it all on his poor genetics

Everyone over eats.

choices choices.


----------



## bogbrush (Sep 19, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> If you really are around 20% body fat you'd likely be best off cutting for now. As body fat gets higher the better the body gets at storing more fat and so the harder it becomes to lean bulk. More info here:
> 
> https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/bulking-diet-delusion.


This article just convinced me to diet.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

I wouldn't look to start to cut on anything like as little as 1400 kcal per day.

For starters you don't really have much of a feel for what you maintenance calories (TDEE really is). Any 'calculator' is VERY approximate. Your numbers so far have come from myfitnesspal which I think tends to underestimate calorie needs - there are some others at IIFYM - If It Fits Your Macros & Flexible Dieting if you fancy a play. Any of these estimates should only every be taken as a starting point. You ultimately need to start cutting with a particular calorie intake, monitor progress, and adjust accordingly. During this process I would always err on starting too high than too low.

As a suggestion I would start to cut on 2000 kcal per day.

There are two main problems with starting with a calorie intake that is too low:

1) To lose the fair amount of body fat that you currently have you need a diet that you can stick to for several months. There is no point going for a large calorie deficit initially that simply isn't sustainable. Very large calorie deficits will also be very tough over the period that you do actually stick to them.

2) Large calorie deficits will likely negatively affect your performance in the gym, which is bad from the point of view of muscle retention.

To lose body fat you need an overall calorie deficit, which can come from whatever combination of eating less and exercising more that suits you best. Doing some form of cardio at least one day per week would be a good idea given your lifestyle though, from a health point of view as well as a fat loss one.

Best of luck whatever way you choose to go with all of this.


----------



## 4NT5 (Jun 1, 2007)

Are you doing any cardio to compliment your diet?


----------



## 4NT5 (Jun 1, 2007)

Ultrasonic said:


> As a relatively inexperienced nattie you would most likely be better off training your whole body 3 days per week instead of your current body part split routine. I would definitely suggest you at least try it. For cutting, training your legs more regularly would be a definite advantage as well.
> 
> As you've never done it before following Stronglifts for 2-3 months wouldn't be a bad idea, particularly as the initial strength gains are largely neurological and so won't be hindered by cutting. Whole body training doesn't have to be just 5x5 style though, and after a while you can use a mix of higher and lower rep work across different workouts. This thread from the Natural Bodybuilding section is worth a read, giving views from a range of people:
> 
> ...


Whats the reason for training legs more regularly while cutting?

Larger increase in natural test?

im nattie to

cheers


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

4NT5 said:


> Whats the reason for training legs more regularly while cutting?
> 
> Larger increase in natural test?
> 
> ...


I squat every other day whether cutting or not. But what I was getting at was that leg work will burn more calories due simply to the greater volume of work done (more so with squats than e.g. leg press FWIW). Leg exercises use more energy than e.g. arm exercises because you use larger muslces to move more weight. The issue relating to training frequency is two-fold. Firstly most can do a larger total volume of leg work per week by training in more than one session. Secondly, the higher training frequency is usually better for growth (and therefore presumably muscle retention), particularly is less experienced trainees.

Studies looking at correlations between natural testosterone and growth hormone level increases with training don't generally show a positive effect on hypertrophy (see e.g. this study). I don't recall seeing a study relating to training in a calorie deficit though (perhaps @dtlv has). It is actually an interesting question whether hormonal effects from training may be more significant when in a calorie deficit, from the point of view particularly of muscle retention. This is purely an academic question though.


----------



## 4NT5 (Jun 1, 2007)

Ultrasonic said:


> I squat every other day whether cutting or not. But what I was getting at was that leg work will burn more calories due simply to the greater volume of work done (more so with squats than e.g. leg press FWIW). Leg exercises use more energy than e.g. arm exercises because you use larger muslces to move more weight. The issue relating to training frequency is two-fold. Firstly most can do a larger total volume of leg work per week by training in more than one session. Secondly, the higher training frequency is usually better for growth (and therefore presumably muscle retention), particularly is less experienced trainees.
> 
> Studies looking at correlations between natural testosterone and growth hormone level increases with training don't generally show a positive effect on hypertrophy (see e.g. this study). I don't recall seeing a study relating to training in a calorie deficit though (perhaps @dtlv has). It is actually an interesting question whether hormonal effects from training may be more significant when in a calorie deficit, from the point of view particularly of muscle retention. This is purely an academic question though.


Good man. Well explained!


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

JJW87 said:


> Cheers for that, like I said I just went of some graph I found on google in regards to the body fat percentage.
> 
> So going by that picture do would you advise that I eat a few hundred calories below maintenance for a few month to shift some fat before starting a lean bulk ?


Yeah. Add some cardio in too. Keep protein highish and train hard to maintain muscle.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> I wouldn't look to start to cut on anything like as little as 1400 kcal per day.
> 
> For starters you don't really have much of a feel for what you maintenance calories (TDEE really is). Any 'calculator' is VERY approximate. Your numbers so far have come from myfitnesspal which I think tends to underestimate calorie needs - there are some others at IIFYM - If It Fits Your Macros & Flexible Dieting if you fancy a play. Any of these estimates should only every be taken as a starting point. You ultimately need to start cutting with a particular calorie intake, monitor progress, and adjust accordingly. During this process I would always err on starting too high than too low.
> 
> ...


Another advocate of over eating.

1600 cals a day is plenty.


----------



## Ryker (May 7, 2015)

Lose the fat first then bulk as others have said


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

saxondale said:


> Another advocate of over eating.
> 
> 1600 cals a day is plenty.


For you. It may or may not be for the OP.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> For you. It may or may not be for the OP.


Exactly, probably for the OP too.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

saxondale said:


> Exactly, probably for the OP too.


Whereas I would say probably not for the OP :wink: . I would suggest more people successfully cut on much higher calorie intake than you do. This doesn't mean that what you do is wrong for yourself, but I don't think it's a sensible starting point to suggest to everyone.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> Whereas I would say probably not for the OP :wink: . I would suggest more people successfully cut on much higher calorie intake than you do. This doesn't mean that what you do is wrong for yourself, but I don't think it's a sensible starting point to suggest to everyone.


How many hundreds of thousands diet and achieve fvck all?

The ops already fat, get it off asap then recomp

Non intended OP


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

saxondale said:


> How many hundreds of thousands diet and achieve fvck all?


And how many people start crash diets, quickly fail to stick to them, and rebound, potentially ending up fatter than they started? Dieting with a more modest calorie deficit is likely to be much more sustainable and therefore successful IMHO.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> And how many people start crash diets, quickly fail to stick to them, and rebound, potentially ending up fatter than they started? Dieting with a more modest calorie deficit is likely to be much more sustainable and therefore successful IMHO.


I thought the op had been dieting years already?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

saxondale said:


> I thought the op had been dieting years already?


What makes you think that?


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

saxondale said:


> How many hundreds of thousands diet and achieve fvck all?
> 
> The ops already fat, get it off asap then recomp
> 
> Non intended OP


Any progress pics from these methods ?


----------



## Tom90 (Jan 29, 2010)

OP I'm a similar height and weight. Eating 3100 cals on training days, 2500 cals on rest days, and averaging a drop of 1-2lbs a week, and no cardio.

Utilise your carbs around training, and train hard.

Inb4 IIFYMcrew2k15 nutrient timing is irrelevant hurrdurrrr


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

BrahmaBull said:


> Any progress pics from these methods ?


Sure, i had a journal on here years ago


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Ultrasonic said:


> I squat every other day whether cutting or not. But what I was getting at was that leg work will burn more calories due simply to the greater volume of work done (more so with squats than e.g. leg press FWIW). Leg exercises use more energy than e.g. arm exercises because you use larger muslces to move more weight. The issue relating to training frequency is two-fold. Firstly most can do a larger total volume of leg work per week by training in more than one session. Secondly, the higher training frequency is usually better for growth (and therefore presumably muscle retention), particularly is less experienced trainees.
> 
> Studies looking at correlations between natural testosterone and growth hormone level increases with training don't generally show a positive effect on hypertrophy (see e.g. this study). I don't recall seeing a study relating to training in a calorie deficit though (perhaps @dtlv has). It is actually an interesting question whether hormonal effects from training may be more significant when in a calorie deficit, from the point of view particularly of muscle retention. This is purely an academic question though.


This is really nicely summed up IMO - the best reason for higher frequency training is simply that the weight of evidence supports it as being slightly more effective (for naturals) at helping to improve lean mass gains. As far as I'm aware there are no studies on training frequency and muscle mass when in a calorie deficit, but it is a pattern that most competitive naturals follow a higher frequency (muscles trained more than once per week) routine than a less frequent routine.

In respect of the acute GH and T (and cortisol) responses to compound exercises I agree also that's not a thing to obsess about and is a bit of a red herring. Those hormones only elevate post workout until the body is fed and then they drop off fast and the short term elevations in those hormones post exercise simply regulate energy supply until the body is fed.


----------



## Frandeman (Mar 24, 2014)

saxondale said:


> Another advocate of over eating.
> 
> 1600 cals a day is plenty.


I couldn't function on that


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Frandeman said:


> I couldn't function on that


Different people mate, the OP doesnt need all the food hes getting, no one knows he needs the uk average either so cutting 500 of a nominal figure makes little sense to me.

Diet, diet hard


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Personally, my approach with a client of similar starting stats would be to a) establish their maintenance intake at their current stats, B) cut body fat (assuming 20% is accurate) to between 10-13% (depending on the longer term goals of the client) and then lean bulk them up.

The best, most effective degree of calorie deficit does vary between individuals but for a natural you really want to keep the rate of total weight loss under 1.5% per week - deally closer to 0.5 - 1%. At higher percentage losses than 1.5% there is invariably muscle and lean mass loss as well as fat mass loss, and that isn't desirable either from a bodybuilding nor a health point of view.

The actual calories/macros needed to achieve this loss vary a lot with how active the individual is, but a 0.75% weekly bodyweight loss for someone at around 190lbs would start at a 500-700kcal deficit below whatever their starting maintenance was, which probably vary between 2300 and 2800kcal.

That would mean a cut on somewhere between 1600 and 2300kcals depending on total activity levels and the desired rate of loss.


----------



## Tom90 (Jan 29, 2010)

dtlv said:


> Personally, my approach with a client of similar starting stats would be to a) establish their maintenance intake at their current stats, B) cut body fat (assuming 20% is accurate) to between 10-13% (depending on the longer term goals of the client) and then lean bulk them up.
> 
> The best, most effective degree of calorie deficit does vary between individuals but for a natural you really want to keep the rate of total weight loss under 1.5% per week - deally closer to 0.5 - 1%. At higher percentage losses than 1.5% there is invariably muscle and lean mass loss as well as fat mass loss, and that isn't desirable either from a bodybuilding nor a health point of view.
> 
> ...


When you say starting maintenance, is that an individual's BMR or TDEE? I know that neither of those aren't an exact science, but if you were just using those numbers for a reference point..

Also, do you have any thoughts on regulating leptin, or delaying the onset of it's adaptation?


----------



## Ryker (May 7, 2015)

dtlv said:


> Personally, my approach with a client of similar starting stats would be to a) establish their maintenance intake at their current stats, B) cut body fat (assuming 20% is accurate) to between 10-13% (depending on the longer term goals of the client) and then lean bulk them up.
> 
> The best, most effective degree of calorie deficit does vary between individuals but for a natural you really want to keep the rate of total weight loss under 1.5% per week - deally closer to 0.5 - 1%. At higher percentage losses than 1.5% there is invariably muscle and lean mass loss as well as fat mass loss, and that isn't desirable either from a bodybuilding nor a health point of view.
> 
> ...


Won't they just go back to being skinny?

I cut to 11% as a natural and looked skinny, I am currently on my first ever bulk I am nearly 20lbs up in 18 months and now around 19% bf eating clean foods.

It's a vicious cycle.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Ryker said:


> Won't they just go back to being skinny?
> 
> I cut to 11% as a natural and looked skinny, I am currently on my first ever bulk I am nearly 20lbs up in 18 months and now around 19% bf eating clean foods.
> 
> It's a vicious cycle.


The OP is fat, not bulked (again op, non intended)


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Tom90 said:


> When you say starting maintenance, is that an individual's BMR or TDEE?


Of the two it would definitely be TDEE - it would be meaningless to talk about a 'maintenance BMR'. I suspect that when dtlv said 'establish their maintenance intake' he meant by monitoring food intake and weight rather than an equation BTW, but obviously he will need to confirm this for you.


----------



## Tom90 (Jan 29, 2010)

Ultrasonic said:


> Of the two it would definitely be TDEE - it would be meaningless to talk about a 'maintenance BMR'. I suspect that when dtlv said 'establish their maintenance intake' he meant by monitoring food intake and weight rather than an equation BTW, but obviously he will need to confirm this for you.


I did think that. On here you see people post about how few calories they're on, and it just makes me wonder what they're using as a reference point.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Ryker said:


> Won't they just go back to being skinny?
> 
> I cut to 11% as a natural and looked skinny, I am currently on my first ever bulk I am nearly 20lbs up in 18 months and now around 19% bf eating clean foods.
> 
> It's a vicious cycle.


As was explained by many of us on the thread you chose to delete, what you did was not even close to the sort of lean bulk that I'm confident dtlv has in mind. Making it not a vicious cycle requires paying more attention to your diet, as well as ensuring your training programme is productive.


----------



## Ryker (May 7, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> As was explained by many of us on the thread you chose to delete, what you did was not even close to the sort of lean bulk that I'm confident dtlv has in mind. Making it not a vicious cycle requires paying more attention to your diet, as well as ensuring your training programme is productive.


What weekly weight ratio constitutes a lean bulk and what bf percentage do you start one?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Ryker said:


> What weekly weight ratio constitutes a lean bulk and what bf percentage do you start one?


I'll leave this for dtlv to comment on for now as he is much more of an expert than I am...


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Tom90 said:


> When you say starting maintenance, is that an individual's BMR or TDEE? I know that neither of those aren't an exact science, but if you were just using those numbers for a reference point..
> 
> Also, do you have any thoughts on regulating leptin, or delaying the onset of it's adaptation?


TDEE. Obviously TDEE changes as body comp changes, especially in relation to lean mass, and it changes too according to energy balance as, when in deficit, NEAT generally automatically reduces to compensate for energy loss. When you have a pretty accurate idea (within 100-200kcals) of where your average daily TDEE is though, manipulating body composition becomes a lot more easy to do with relatively small dietary adjustments, especially when following a macro based diet.

You don't need a lot of 'extra' calories to ensure consistent gain of muscle, nor do you need a large deficit to consistently lose fat whilst protecting muscle, but if you don't know your maintenance then you have to aim much higher or lower to ensure gaining or cutting respectively. IMO this leads to excessive fat gain for most people on a bulk (and thus a need to cut more than they otherwise would later), and when cutting leads to a far higher likelihood of ending the cut with less muscle mass preserved.

I guess the trade off though is that on the macro based tight control diets you have a lot of work to do in being consistent and precise, while on the big cut/big bulk approach you have extra work cutting and bulking - the moral of the story I guess is do what suits your mentality best but either way, to do well, you gotta work hard for it somehow!

In regards to leptin that's a complicated one - different protocols for different people based upon how much they are looking to cut and where (starting body fat percentage) they are looking to cut from. Studies show pretty clearly that genetic variation in humans mean that some people are far more naturally inclined to have good levels of leptin sensitivity while some people are cursed to the exact opposite. Working out whether to go high or low carb and whether to refeed or not and in what degree in low carb diets is definitely an individual thing I think. Personally though I favor mini refeeds every 3-4 days on otherwise low carb diets rather than the once a week large refeed that most people do. That generally promotes a better overall preservation of leptin levels and sensitivity to it I think.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Ryker said:


> Won't they just go back to being skinny?
> 
> I cut to 11% as a natural and looked skinny, I am currently on my first ever bulk I am nearly 20lbs up in 18 months and now around 19% bf eating clean foods.
> 
> It's a vicious cycle.


Well it obviously depends upon the individuals goals and how they feel comfortable. My personal definition of a 'lean bulk' could probably be re-worded to 'non increasing body fat percentage bulk', and this is what I do with most of my clients - firstly get them to the kind of body fat level they would like to be at eventually and then increase their bodyweight over time without body fat percentage going up much at all. Obviously this means that total body fat will go up as total weight goes up (being 10% body fat at 100kg means more body fat than 10% at 80kg), but the relative degree of leanness doesn't change much at all and in fact the body often looks more lean than it actually is as muscle mass increases and 'muscular shape' increases.

Most people seem to want to be of around 10-13% where the body looks pretty lean without being shredded, but some people are happy to slow bulk this way at higher percentages, and there's no reason why they shouldn't if they feel happy that way. They can always change approach and cut later anyway.


----------



## Tom90 (Jan 29, 2010)

@dtlv thanks for taking the time with that reply, appreciate it :thumbup1:


----------



## Ryker (May 7, 2015)

dtlv said:


> Well it obviously depends upon the individuals goals and how they feel comfortable. My personal definition of a 'lean bulk' could probably be re-worded to 'non increasing body fat percentage bulk', and this is what I do with most of my clients - firstly get them to the kind of body fat level they would like to be at eventually and then increase their bodyweight over time without body fat percentage going up much at all. Obviously this means that total body fat will go up as total weight goes up (being 10% body fat at 100kg means more body fat than 10% at 80kg), but the relative degree of leanness doesn't change much at all and in fact the body often looks more lean than it actually is as muscle mass increases and 'muscular shape' increases.
> 
> Most people seem to want to be of around 10-13% where the body looks pretty lean without being shredded, but some people are happy to slow bulk this way at higher percentages, and there's no reason why they shouldn't if they feel happy that way. They can always change approach and cut later anyway.


So what ratio of a lean bulk do you consider adequate?

I got to 12% bf bulked on good food gaining roughly 0.5 to 1lbs a week over 18 months, gained 26lbs and I am up to 18% bf.

This is the first time I have bulked, what did I or am doing wrong?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Ryker said:


> So what ratio of a lean bulk do you consider adequate?
> 
> I got to 12% bf bulked on good food gaining roughly 0.5 to 1lbs a week over 18 months, gained 26lbs and I am up to 18% bf.
> 
> This is the first time I have bulked, what did I or am doing wrong?


The rate of gain depends on the start body weight/body comp, and also is variable to each individual. I hate to sound like I'm skirting the question but it's genuinely impossible to let someone how fast they should go without actually working with them and playing around with macros to see how they respond and find their optimum rate of progress.

Generally though for a lean bulk to work you need to be pretty anal about macros and to self monitor closely - macro/calorie increases are almost always small and sometimes frequent (weekly for several weeks) and sometimes less frequent as required. The body seems to like to do things in a not-quite-linear way, and sometimes you need to speed up and at others slow right down.

I would guess from what you have said that increases were too frequent, but is also possible that macros were not right either. Hard to say exactly of course.


----------

