# Slow Bulk -- Possible?



## kyoun1e (Mar 29, 2009)

From what I've read about bulking, you should increase your caloric intake 15-20% above maintenance. 

My question is, can you bulk up by increasing at a smaller percentage? 

Does it just take more time?

I had previously calculated my maintenance at around 3200 calories, which surprised me because I always seemed full at far less calories. Now that my body seems to be demanding more and I'm not gaining any weight I can now see that this is indeed my maintenance level. What I'd like to do is slowly bulk, but also minimize the fat gain. I don't care if it takes longer...I'm not in a terrible hurry.

So, would I see gains at a slower pace if I upped my calories to say, 3400?

I'm looking to set the battle plan for April. I spent February figuring out what the hell is going on and spent March upping my calories to maintenance. Now ready for the next step.

Thanks.

KY


----------



## Hench (Mar 30, 2009)

As far as I know, slow bulks dont give any better muscle:fat gain than normal bulks (ie 15-20% above maint.) Have a look here for more info:

Calorie Partitioning | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

When someone does a slower bulk, they gain less weight total than someone on a ''faster'' (for lack of a better word) bulk. Because they have gained less weight total, they will have gained less fat and so at the end of their slow bulk may still have some reasonable definition. What they dont realise is that while someone who used a ''faster'' bulk may have gained more fat, they will also have gained considerably more muscle. 

Bottom line, I have yet to read an article that has found any connection between slightly lower caloric intake leading to improved nutrient partitioning.


----------



## kyoun1e (Mar 30, 2009)

I've got to read this site.

So what you're saying is that the ratio would remain the same...whether you're bulking fast or slow. That would seem to make sense.

I guess what I'm recognizing is the "risk" to your non-professional type who doesn't quite have the discipline to "shift gears" after a fast bulk and into a cutting phase. I've got to think there are a ton of novices out there who bulk and then unfortunately stay bulky due to their lack of discipline.

Just seems like it would be easier to bulk slowly and then maybe back off slightly if you aren't happy with the fat gain vs. bulking and then really having to cut big time. 

In my mind, staying just a couple hundred calories above maintenance could potentially reduce that risk. 

KY


----------



## Hench (Mar 31, 2009)

kyoun1e said:


> I've got to read this site.
> 
> So what you're saying is that the ratio would remain the same...whether you're bulking fast or slow. That would seem to make sense.
> 
> ...



Ky, your clearly a smart guy, have a read around Lyles site and I think a lot of your questions and concerns should be answered.


----------



## kyoun1e (Mar 31, 2009)

15% body fat eh?

I need to start measuring this.Tried over the weekend myself with calipers. Was kind of a mess.

I'm wondering if it's possible to partion your calorie better if your diet improves?

For example, I'm pretty sure my body has been annoyed with me for years not eating breakfast, having lousy macros, not eating enough protien, and not consuming enough calories (probably 2600ish pre 2009), etc. Having said that, my macros have been gradually improving since January to the point where I am ingesting 3200 daily calories, working out hard, yet not gaining weight.

If my body can respond better and partion better due to this change, maybe my results moving forward will be better as well...without increasing caloric intake to 4200.

KY


----------



## Ben dur (Mar 31, 2009)

i think it is completely possible to slow bulk, add little to no body fat and gain muscle



ive done it


----------



## vader (Mar 31, 2009)

I've done it, from 148 to 183 in ten years, started at age 29. 
SLOW


----------



## kyoun1e (Mar 31, 2009)

For you guys that have done this, what % and / or # of  calories over maintenance are you?

KY


----------



## Ben dur (Mar 31, 2009)

300 cals over maint should do it

you just have consider the amount of muscle your body is absolutely capable of building under the optimal conditions


stimulus must be sufficient
overtraining will wreck your efforts
and i believe the actual SUBSTANCE of your diet, and timing DO play a significant role

although alot of people will argue that final point


your body is only really capable of building about 2 or 3 lbs of real protein in a month

maybe 4 if your elite

anything beyond that would be fat

2lbs a month is 7000 cals if im not mistaken

7000 in 30 days is 233 cals a day

so id say 300 cals over maint


----------



## Ben dur (Mar 31, 2009)

most people dont have their diet down THAT exact...

i know i dont


----------



## kyoun1e (Apr 1, 2009)

Thanks much.

I've been trying to "find" my maintenace for two months now. I re-jiggered my diet starting in Feb. I've had a hard time ratcheting up the calories to encourage muscle growth due to a lousy diet for years. For Feb, I averaged 2,782 calories -- I gained nothing. Then in March, I upped this to 3,200 -- again, I gained nothing. My weigh has pretty much remained constant at 208.

So, it's April 1. I'm thinking of bumping it up to 3,400 and seeing if this can start the gaining process. Even if it's just a little, fine. Slow is fine. I don't want to gain too much fat.

We'll see how the body responds to 3,400 for a week. 

210 lbs by May 1?

KY


----------



## PainandGain (Apr 1, 2009)

kyoun1e said:


> Thanks much.
> 
> I've been trying to "find" my maintenace for two months now. I re-jiggered my diet starting in Feb. I've had a hard time ratcheting up the calories to encourage muscle growth due to a lousy diet for years. For Feb, I averaged 2,782 calories -- I gained nothing. Then in March, I upped this to 3,200 -- again, I gained nothing. My weigh has pretty much remained constant at 208.
> 
> ...



My question is this though, did you get leaner as you stayed at that weight?

I have done fat, heavy bulks, 1000cals+ over maint for 2 months before.
And I have done 200-300 over.
Even tried just doing straight maintenance for a while to see what it did.

For me, I believe the best is 300-500 over maint.

With those cals, over the past month I have stayed the same weight but surely got leaner, and am stronger.
It's quite refreshing.


----------



## kyoun1e (Apr 1, 2009)

Got leaner while over maintenance?

I don't get it.

What's odd, to answer your question, I do feel a bit leaner. Definitely stronger. Even though I'm at the same weight.


----------



## PainandGain (Apr 1, 2009)

kyoun1e said:


> Got leaner while over maintenance?
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> What's odd, to answer your question, I do feel a bit leaner. Definitely stronger. Even though I'm at the same weight.



Sure why not? It goes against what is said a lot...But in reality
it is possible to eat and workout in a way that will gain you muscle while losing fat albeit slowly.

Of course the better shape you are in, and how long you have been training/eating right has a lot to do with it.



For example. I did a slow bulk for about 3-4 months and gained only 6-7 lbs total right?
Well after that I did heavy bulk and gained another 7 lbs over 2 months.
Still following me? well then I cut my cals way down for the last 5 weeks. from 1000+ cals a day over my maintenance down to right at maintenance.

What happened?
well I have stayed at the same weight but I kept getting leaner and stronger.

I think what happened is my metabolism and body simply adjusted to being overfed for so long. Even though I decreased my cals quite a bit, my body continued to build muscle at the same pace that it was. But having less cals for energy, my body just naturally began using my fat stores.


It's slowed down now, but i bet you if I bulked for the next couple months, I could do it again and see similar results.


----------



## Jodi (Apr 1, 2009)

I always preferred slow bulk in the oh maybe 2 times I've done lol. but yes, it's very possible as long as you aren't expecting to gain much in a short time.  You will gain lean muscle and if and when you cut it will be much less painful.


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 1, 2009)

kyoun1e said:


> Got leaner while over maintenance?
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> What's odd, to answer your question, I do feel a bit leaner. Definitely stronger. Even though I'm at the same weight.



You won't lose fat while over maintenance for the most part.  What most people are referring to as getting leaner on a slow bulk is maintaining your body fat while putting on muscle.  If you maintain a constant bodyfat level but increase muscle then your BF % has decreased, hence you have leaned out.


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 1, 2009)

Pretty well.  A combination of that whole anal retentive need for perfection that was hammered into my head a couple years back and Built getting me into doing some PSMF/UD 2.0 has yielded some great results.  Took a few years, but I finally found a diet that I can effectively lean out on - only took like 15 attempts at different ones


----------



## Ben dur (Apr 1, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> You won't lose fat while over maintenance for the most part.  What most people are referring to as getting leaner on a slow bulk is maintaining your body fat while putting on muscle.  If you maintain a constant bodyfat level but increase muscle then your BF % has decreased, hence you have leaned out.



its amazing how hard this concept is for people to grasp




150    10% =15lbs of body fat


175    8.5-9% = 15 lbs of body fat


thats a big jump
but you see
same amount of bodyfat
lower bf%


----------



## kyoun1e (Apr 2, 2009)

Well, if there's a greater chance of maintaining bodyfat while increasing muscle with a slow bulk I'm all for it.

We'll see, because I'm gradually increasing my calories over maintenance.

KY


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 2, 2009)

try a UD2 style bulk. By far, it is the best way (I believe) to add size. Or AAS.


----------



## kyoun1e (Apr 2, 2009)

UD2?

AAS?

Juggernaut...did a search...couldn't find anything on this. Could you elaborate?

Thanks.

KY


----------



## Ben dur (Apr 2, 2009)

UD2?

educate me please






-----------------
AAS=steroids


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 2, 2009)

Ultimate Diet 2.0 by Lyle McDonald. 

AAS is an acronym for juice!


----------



## kyoun1e (Apr 2, 2009)

From Lyle McDonald's literature:

"If you use the fat loss variant, you should be losing *a pound or more of fat per week, while gaining some muscle*. At the very least you???ll maintain muscle without loss which can be an improvement for most people. "

Losing fat *and* gaining muscle?

That's a hell of a claim. Again, something I keep hearing is impossible from the "Make a choice...cut or bulk...crowd."

This doesn't sound like a bulking diet though that's for sure. I'm surprised I haven't seen more about UD2 on these threads more. The promise of this diet is great. Would be very interested in hearing more.

For now, I'm going to try and identify the 200-300 calories above maintenance level and continue to train in April. Maybe the UD2 would be the perfect switch come May to lean out and gain muscle for summer.

KY


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 2, 2009)

coming from personal experience, I have done both and it isnt that hard, once you get into the mode of understanding the full body workouts and I enjoy seeing the transformation I go through. Not to mention that I get to eat 1000+ grams of sweet wonderful carbs in one day.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 2, 2009)

buy the ebook. Read it. Getting information from the bro-school of bbing is a stupid way to live, especially since there are so many scientifically backed ways to improve what you already are. Also, read Built's posts. She insanely knowledgable. And built like a hot brick shithouse.


----------



## Hench (Apr 2, 2009)

Aside from using a diet like UD2 or running AAS, I dont know how this is possible. Could someone please explain the science behind a slow bulk and how it helps to partition calories better than a diet where you eat more over maint. cals? (ie +200cals vs. +500cals)


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 2, 2009)

in your example, you're adding more calories. That's it. be more specific.


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 2, 2009)

kyoun1e said:


> From Lyle McDonald's literature:
> 
> "If you use the fat loss variant, you should be losing *a pound or more of fat per week, while gaining some muscle*. At the very least you???ll maintain muscle without loss which can be an improvement for most people. "
> 
> ...



What you're saying is true.  You cannot gain muscle while in a caloric deficit.  What you maybe haven't realized is that for 1-2 days each week of UD2.0, you are eating WAY over maintenance (I eat over double mine).  Think of it as putting a mini-bulk at the end of each week of dieting.

Speaking from experience, I started UD2.0 at 168 and I am still at 168 roughly.  But I am a leaner 168.


----------



## kyoun1e (Apr 2, 2009)

So the net-net at the end of the week sounds like you are eating over maintenance...no?

But the net result would be different than your normal bulk.

I obviously need o read the book. 

This thread is going off topic at this point, but a couple more questions on UD2:

1. Is the diet strict? In other words, do you need to change your life to deal with it?

2. Workout Routine: Full body? 3-4 days per week?

From the sounds of it, this diet/routine sounds like the perfect plan for somebody who has already bulked up, but now wants to maintain, get ripped, and if they're lucky, gain muscle mass.

KY


----------



## PainandGain (Apr 2, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> What you're saying is true.  You cannot gain muscle while in a caloric deficit.  What you maybe haven't realized is that for 1-2 days each week of UD2.0, you are eating WAY over maintenance (I eat over double mine).  Think of it as putting a mini-bulk at the end of each week of dieting.
> 
> Speaking from experience, I started UD2.0 at 168 and I am still at 168 roughly.  But I am a leaner 168.



Maybe not (except for obese people who have never worked out before).

However, there's no reason why you can't eat maintenance or a little over and gain muscle without putting on additional fat.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 2, 2009)

kyoun1e said:


> So the net-net at the end of the week sounds like you are eating over maintenance...no?
> *You have certain amount of carbs that are required once you do the math. I can help on that after you show me your initial setup.*
> 
> But the net result would be different than your normal bulk.
> ...


----------



## Hench (Apr 7, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> in your example, you're adding more calories. That's it. be more specific.



e.g.    my maint. cals = 3400      

  slow bulk 3400 + 200 = 3600cals
                                               fast bulk 3400 + 600 = 4000cals

Quite a few people have posted in this thread saying that they have managed to gain only muscle, and no fat while 'slow' bulking. I would like someone to explain (being as detailed as possible) why eating a lower amount over maint. cals allows for better partitioning.


----------



## Ben dur (Apr 7, 2009)

id like you to check the pics in my album....

you tell me
slow bulk possible?


----------

