Fat gain during bulking

[curtb]

I'm wondering how much fat put on during bulking is enough. I've been keeping my diet very clean, except for about ten days when I went on holiday not so long ago.

I used to train and eat not enough food, thus I didn't see great results in terms of gaining muscle, although I became more ripped. Over the past two months I have disciplined myself on eating a lot more throught each day, but I feel very disheartened as I feel I have lost the body I had workedhard for. I'm hoping its all still there and more, buried underneath a little layer of fat.

How much fat doe you guys gain when yourbulking? I've read some people gain very little, which makes me feel even worse.

[two_phat]

I seem to gain a bit. However I do barely any (if any) cardio during this time. I also eat alot - I make a conservative effort to eat alot more than I usually would. I'm not so worried about eating clean. Because of this I do gain a bit of fat (whilst building muscle).

However I find that when I cut back my food intake and up the cardio, I seem to lose this fat reasonably quickly.

[steak]

I put it on all over..at the moment 24% BF and thats with eating clean with no cardio whatsoever. I guess as long as your training hard, making gains in your lifting and bodyweight and sticking to diet you should be right. All will be revealed when you drop the fat off later. I wonder if taking a thermogenic like LeanFX or similar would help keep the fat gain down whilst bulking?

[Luigi]

Because average natural bodybuilders cannot afford to get fat and then trim down. The reason for this is because in the process of trimming down from a large body fat percentage a lot of muscle gets sacrificed (since naturals lose muscle much easier than an assisted athlete). So it is imperative that a natural athlete always stays lean (never more than 10% body fat). Assisted athletes can bulk up and trim down successfully (since the drugs help to prevent the muscle loss), but in my opinion, even they would benefit from staying leaner at all times as even with drugs some muscle gets sacrificed anyways in the process of losing 60-70 lbs of fat as some bodybuilders do.

[steak]

watching with interest. :nod:

[JumpNZ]

Because average natural bodybuilders cannot afford to get fat and then trim down. The reason for this is because in the process of trimming down from a large body fat percentage a lot of muscle gets sacrificed (since naturals lose muscle much easier than an assisted athlete). So it is imperative that a natural athlete always stays lean (never more than 10% body fat). Assisted athletes can bulk up and trim down successfully (since the drugs help to prevent the muscle loss), but in my opinion, even they would benefit from staying leaner at all times as even with drugs some muscle gets sacrificed anyways in the process of losing 60-70 lbs of fat as some bodybuilders do.

? sarcasm post Luigi ? Not sure if I agree with what he wrote there..

[steak]

I found this article intersting

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_diet_mass/the_quality_mass_diet

[two_phat]

interesting article - raises some good points. although most of it seems to be just opinion and not backed up by much at all.

I do like what he says - however I'm unsure about how this applies to different body types and metabolisms.

[Optimass]

Because average natural bodybuilders cannot afford to get fat and then trim down. The reason for this is because in the process of trimming down from a large body fat percentage a lot of muscle gets sacrificed (since naturals lose muscle much easier than an assisted athlete). So it is imperative that a natural athlete always stays lean (never more than 10% body fat). Assisted athletes can bulk up and trim down successfully (since the drugs help to prevent the muscle loss), but in my opinion, even they would benefit from staying leaner at all times as even with drugs some muscle gets sacrificed anyways in the process of losing 60-70 lbs of fat as some bodybuilders do.

? sarcasm post Luigi ? Not sure if I agree with what he wrote there..

Agree - certainly has some merit but IME the only reason you lose muscular size during diet phase as a natural athlete is because on low cal diet your body doesn't hold as much glycogen and water as an enhanced ... (To be fair - you can lose size restricting cals whilst on cycle too) - your muscle just doesn't pack its bag and exit ... there are plenty of nats that hold their size during diet phase.

[goinhard]

As far as fat burner while bulking unless it works through inhibiting enzymes or aiding glucose disposal it will just mean you have a slightly elevated metabolic rate and perhaps appetite suppressant meaning you might as well have just eaten slightly less.

[Luigi]

yes it was sarcasm, since nicksmith was over 20% when he started his cut the post is absolute bullshit and makes no sense at all.

[boostinggtir]

? sarcasm post Luigi ? Not sure if I agree with what he wrote there..

Agree - certainly has some merit

Yea it has a little merit. In real life I doubt I would have made half the gains maintaining a bf of 10%. With regards to been I natural vs not. I believe that been natural I have to let my bf go higher then I would been on the gear, since protein synthesis is much more efficient, and wouldn't need as much of a cal excess to make decent gains. (not to say you dont need more cals on the gear since your metabolism goes through the roof.)

[NZPT]

Because average natural bodybuilders cannot afford to get fat and then trim down. The reason for this is because in the process of trimming down from a large body fat percentage a lot of muscle gets sacrificed (since naturals lose muscle much easier than an assisted athlete). So it is imperative that a natural athlete always stays lean (never more than 10% body fat). Assisted athletes can bulk up and trim down successfully (since the drugs help to prevent the muscle loss), but in my opinion, even they would benefit from staying leaner at all times as even with drugs some muscle gets sacrificed anyways in the process of losing 60-70 lbs of fat as some bodybuilders do.

dont read into this too much....

looking at nicks photos he probably just under 10% now after his cut (dont let the lighting fool you). Good effort by nick im sure he achieved what he wanted but he is claiming things he yet did not enforce himself and then using a "smoke and mirrors approach" to quantify his results.

agree with you luigi and boosting, excess cals are need. but thats not free right to the drive through either :pfft: regulation and moderation of cals is the key.