# Why so many calories on a bulk?



## Dirk McQuickly (Dec 29, 2010)

I'm 190lb, so calculate my basal metabolic rate at about 1800-1900 cal pd. If I eat 500 a day in excess of that, will that not be enough to put on weight? The reason I ask is because I rarely see anyone talking about anything below 3500 when they talk about bulking. I know I'm light and that most people on here bulking will need significantly more pd than me, but I don't think I've seen anyone mention figures below this.

So my question is, does the excess become redundant above a certain amount over BMR, and I'm best sticking to about 2300 cal pd, or should I really be aiming for north of 3000?


----------



## Steuk (Dec 21, 2011)

Figures don't seem to add up mate how old are you and how often do you go to the gym? I'll work it out on my app for you mate.


----------



## jaycue2u (Jul 23, 2011)

You need to take your BMR and multiply it by a factor taking into account your excercise levels, then add 500cals


----------



## FGT (Jun 2, 2008)

BMR is you at rest for the day or at least just sitting in a office you need to work out your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure).

You could be active at work all day and train 5 times a week, on 1900kcals you will melt away!


----------



## Chunkee (Sep 1, 2012)

You have to take in to account the calories you expend when excersising to, so something like BMR + excersise + 500 excess...

That's what i do anyway mate.


----------



## XRichHx (Mar 7, 2012)

You need to factor in exercise by timesing you BMR by activity level for example 1.3.

then add 500 calories to this figure to get a bulking total you should aim for.


----------



## imabigguy (Oct 4, 2011)

how do you cal your bmr at 1900 calories? a regular male who doesnt train and weighs about 30lb less than you maintains on 2.5k BMR is individually based dont use a calculator if your bodyweight isnt increasing on however much you are eating simply eat more until you are gaining weight 3.5k is low for a bulk for most guys.


----------



## Steuk (Dec 21, 2011)

chilli said:


> I'm 49 mate. Train 6 days a week. 4 days weights 2 days kettlebells


Ok mate need your height too.


----------



## TommyFire (Jul 18, 2010)

BMRx1.6+500=kcals to bulk on.


----------



## Dirk McQuickly (Dec 29, 2010)

Steuk said:


> Figures don't seem to add up mate how old are you and how often do you go to the gym? I'll work it out on my app for you mate.


I'm 49 mate. Train 6 days a week. 4 days weights 2 days kettlebells

- - - Updated - - -



Steuk said:


> Ok mate need your height too.


6 foot 1 mate


----------



## PlymDan (Jan 22, 2012)

That's true 1900kcals is extremely low. My base rate was calculated at 2100kcals at my weight now post show so relatively low. That multiplied by my exercise level and physical job + 500 calories is already approximately 3600kcals. So even on my rebound I'll be looking to hit Atleast 4000 clean calories a day and monitor weight every 4-5 days to gauge my progress, this will inevitably increase as my weight does.

- - - Updated - - -

That's true 1900kcals is extremely low. My base rate was calculated at 2100kcals at my weight now post show so relatively low. That multiplied by my exercise level and physical job + 500 calories is already approximately 3600kcals. So even on my rebound I'll be looking to hit Atleast 4000 clean calories a day and monitor weight every 4-5 days to gauge my progress, this will inevitably increase as my weight does.


----------



## crazy (Apr 6, 2011)

I'm 70kg and I would loose weight on less than 2500 per day I did a cut at 2200 per day,

Bulking now and will be 3500cal so far today.


----------



## Dirk McQuickly (Dec 29, 2010)

Yeah. I'm not taking account of my exercise am I? What a t1t. Thanks everyone.


----------



## FGT (Jun 2, 2008)

I'm sure I read or heard somewhere that a pregnant woman only needs an extra 200kcals a day in the third trimester, now if a woman can grow a baby on this excess do we just throw 500kcals out ther to make sure we are in an excess??

I know we drop 500kcal a day when cutting as 500x7 =3500(1 lb stored fat lost/week).

I'm sure the 500 is there to cover your ass but maybe 250 would be enough?


----------



## Steuk (Dec 21, 2011)

This is what I got mate.

So to maintain your weight you need to consume the 3100cals. To bulk wack on 500 extra Cals. :thumbup1:


----------



## anabolik (Aug 19, 2010)

Those calculators are sh1te imo. You need to track how many calories you're consuming and stick with it for a few weeks at least and monitor your weight to find out how many cals it actually takes for you to maintain your current weight. That's the only way to truly know if you're on the money.


----------



## TommyFire (Jul 18, 2010)

FGT said:


> I'm sure I read or heard somewhere that a pregnant woman only needs an extra 200kcals a day in the third trimester, now if a woman can grow a baby on this excess do we just throw 500kcals out ther to make sure we are in an excess??
> 
> I know we drop 500kcal a day when cutting as 500x7 =3500(1 lb stored fat lost/week).
> 
> I'm sure the 500 is there to cover your ass but maybe 250 would be enough?


Yeah your right mate. Its about consuming sufficient kcals for growth not excess Kcals.


----------



## Steuk (Dec 21, 2011)

anabolik said:


> Those calculators are sh1te imo. You need to track how many calories you're consuming and stick with it for a few weeks at least and monitor your weight to find out how many cals it actually takes for you to maintain your current weight. That's the only way to truly know if you're on the money.


There a good guide, it gives you something to start from. And like you say give it a few weeks and adjust accordingly :thumbup1:


----------



## The Cheese (Sep 22, 2012)

TommyFire said:


> Its about consuming sufficient kcals for growth not excess Kcals.


500 is used as it's the average surplus required to add about 0.5lbs a week.

0.5-1lb is the max that anyone should look to be putting on a week as any more is going to lead to adding too much fat (unless you're on juice).

OP should go for the 500 surplus, monitor it and then adjust up or down accordingly after a week or so.


----------



## TommyFire (Jul 18, 2010)

The Cheese said:


> 500 is used as it's the average surplus required to add about 0.5lbs a week.
> 
> 0.5-1lb is the max that anyone should look to be putting on a week as any more is going to lead to adding too much fat (unless you're on juice).
> 
> OP should go for the 500 surplus, monitor it and then adjust up or down accordingly after a week or so.


So if he has to adjust it its sufficient kcals then!?

And how do you know that the OP requires only+500kcals to add 0.5lbs a week??And why is 0.5 the max anyone should be looking at? What happens if someone is new to training or on a diet rebound? Broscience again. Keep reading.


----------



## The Cheese (Sep 22, 2012)

TommyFire said:


> Broscience again. Keep reading.


Actually, it's not. 0.5 to 1lb per week is the maximum that a normal person can add in lbm. Even a rebounder or a new trainee is going to find it hard to exceed that number.

And yes. You adjust calories. It's not rocket science. In fact, just about every single dieter has to adjust at some point. It's unusual for even those who've gone through many bulking and cutting cycles to hit the sweet spot first time.

As I said: the 500 is given as an average. Everyone is different. But when advising someone, it's going to be the closest and most convenient figure to pull out of the hat.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Have a go with one of these and see where you are...

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/bmr-calculator.html


----------



## TommyFire (Jul 18, 2010)

The Cheese said:


> Actually, it's not. 0.5 to 1lb per week is the maximum that a normal person can add in lbm. Even a rebounder or a new trainee is going to find it hard to exceed that number.
> 
> And yes. You adjust calories. It's not rocket science. In fact, just about every single dieter has to adjust at some point. It's unusual for even those who've gone through many bulking and cutting cycles to hit the sweet spot first time.
> 
> As I said: the 500 is given as an average. Everyone is different.


Which is exactly what i said to start with. "Its not about excess kcals, its about sufficient kcals"

If more people listened to that advice there would be alot less threads on here that start " I think i put on a bit too much fat on my recent bulk....."


----------



## Dezw (May 13, 2009)

I'm about the same weight as you, I've been cutting on close to 3000?

If you want to be big, eat BIG!] but clean.


----------



## Dirk McQuickly (Dec 29, 2010)

Mingster said:


> Have a go with one of these and see where you are...
> 
> http://www.diabetes.co.uk/bmr-calculator.html


that gives me just over 3000 pd as well Ming. So I reckon 3500 is a good starting place for me. Ta. Can't believe I made such a fundamental error as forgetting to factor in exercise. Keep it to yourselves would you?


----------



## The Cheese (Sep 22, 2012)

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I quoted your post as it was in reply to someone asking why we advise people on a bulk to go for 500.

But in reply to your last point, unfortunately, you're always going to end up with people complaining about putting fat on. Even on the cleanest, slowest natural bulk, it's almost unavoidable.

It's not always their fault either. Even something like finding your BMR and TDEE so you can then add the 500 surplus is filled with pitfalls. Just to find your BMR, there are something like a half a dozen different formulas out there and they vary wildly in their readings. I looked at a couple recently which gave me 400 calories difference!! In the end, I decided that the only thing I could do was to compare 5 of them and then go for the average reading between them.


----------



## Dezw (May 13, 2009)

chilli said:


> that gives me just over 3000 pd as well Ming. So I reckon 3500 is a good starting place for me. Ta. Can't believe I made such a fundamental error as forgetting to factor in exercise. Keep it to yourselves would you?


No chance of sweeping that under the carpet on here mate lol.

Deffo give 3500 a try, then re-evaluate after a couple weeks.


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

I think those calculators give a useful starting point.

What they cannot do is take into account your metabolic rate.

One person may lean gain on 3000. The next might fat gain (is that a term)


----------



## Lockon (Nov 21, 2011)

Dont worry mate you'll be fine~!


----------



## Ash1981 (Jun 16, 2009)

Get em down ya son


----------



## TommyFire (Jul 18, 2010)

The Cheese said:


> I wasn't disagreeing with you. I quoted your post as it was in reply to someone asking why we advise people on a bulk to go for 500.
> 
> But in reply to your last point, unfortunately, you're always going to end up with people complaining about putting fat on. Even on the cleanest, slowest natural bulk, it's almost unavoidable.
> 
> It's not always their fault either. Even something like finding your BMR and TDEE so you can then add the 500 surplus is filled with pitfalls. Just to find your BMR, there are something like a half a dozen different formulas out there and they vary wildly in their readings. I looked at a couple recently which gave me 400 calories difference!! In the end, I decided that the only thing I could do was to compare 5 of them and then go for the average reading between them.


Agree! :beer:


----------

