# Bulking Fat Gain Level?



## Biggly (Jan 28, 2008)

What's the ideal or typical ratio between fat and muscle gain during a bulk? 

Obviously the absolute ideal would be pure muscle added, but if accepting some fat gain, what's to aim at?

For example if you gained say 10lbs of lean mass, 2lbs of flab, ie a 20% fat ratio would that be "high", or would one expect greater muscle gains if accepting, for example, 40% fat?

I don't mean as a body fat percentage, but as a percentage of the weight gain?



B.


----------



## sensamilia (Jan 28, 2008)

I believe typical muscle to fat gain ratio for a natural is 1:1


----------



## Biggly (Jan 28, 2008)

As high as that?   Criminy!


----------



## Witchblade (Jan 28, 2008)

In reality I think 1:1 is more common than the ideal 1:3.


----------



## Biggly (Jan 28, 2008)

In the past when I was heavily overweight I found I was able to lose flab and build muscle at the same time, but that's a bit like falling off a log isn't it?

It's the gaining muscle without too much flubber that's the tricky bit but I don't think I could accept 1:1, if only for health. Dizzy spells and taking 20 minutes to recover from running up the stairs isn't something I ever want to return to. 

I've let myself slide from my peak last year, well 2 years ago now, where I got down to 8% BF. I'm closer to 18% now and consider that way too chubby but at this level I know I can do both, gain lean, lose flab. I'd like to bulk up more this time but don't want to let the fat get out of control.

The trick is to have 'just enough calories to gain lean tissue' I know but wondered if there's some accepted point where muscle gain is _maximised_ if you spill over into fat gain? 

Put it this way, if gaining muscle would I maximise muscle growth at something such as 1:3 as opposed to being so technically perfect that I was gaining muscle with zero fat gain?

Actually the more I think about my own question the more I realise I already know the answer, you just need a calorie and protein _surplus_ available 24/7 really. 

The technical theory isn't always the same as the real-world experience though! You say 1:3 is the ideal? OK I can live with that - pass the peanuts 


B.


----------



## Witchblade (Jan 29, 2008)

You're right.

You need a caloric surplus to build fat and/or muscle tissue. When you're in a caloric surplus and there a sufficient training stress on your body to force a response (two components of hyperthrophy: training and diet), your body will build muscle tissue, but you will inevitably also get fatter. The ratio of the muscle/total weight can be optimized with a good program. 

I recommend a clean bulk with a ~500kcal surplus. See what works for you. The optimal level is the highest surplus you can create without getting fat. You generally don't need much more than a ~500kcal surplus for hyperthrophy. Additional calories will be stored as fat.

Here is where it gets personal. I don't think a 1:1 ratio is that bad. The average trainee won't be able to build more muscle than 1lb per month, if that. Since a good diet would result in a 1lb fat loss per week, you will only need to diet for ~10 weeks. At the end of the year your netto gains will be 10lbs of muscle and 0lbs of fat. That's a significant amount of muscle and a reduction of your bodyfatpercentage. That sounds like a good deal to me.

Of course this is all highly speculative and very subjective.


----------



## sensamilia (Jan 29, 2008)

Buddy u WILL gain in a 1:1 ratio, but like witchblade said , at the end of the year u get a realy good deal.
I personaly find 500cal to cause too much fat gain, 300kcal surplus works best for most.


----------



## Biggly (Jan 29, 2008)

I know I'm right but I want to be 'righter'! 

I found before with very careful monitoring (hence the software) that I seemed to gain the most muscle while gaining a bit of fat, yet the muscle gain _reduced_ at higher fat gain levels. Too much fat gain became nothing else except fat gain.

That suggests there's something else going on, such as a hormone response (?) that peaks at some specific _fat-gain level_. Last time I got distracted and rather than go through another 6 months of monitoring just to find out, was hoping there was some accepted cut-off point beyond simply 'enough calories' because the actual fat gain itself seemed to be an influence.

Mmm, thinking about it, maybe it was just "marbled meat", ie fat building up in the muscle?

Or maybe I'm thinking too much and should just concentrate on that one extra rep 


B.


----------



## sensamilia (Jan 30, 2008)

The higher your body fat the lower your test gets and the more insensitive to insulin you become, making your calorie partioning worse.


----------



## MJR (Nov 30, 2009)

True, but the lower your body fat level gets below your set point, the worse your calorie partitioning becomes. You should ideally stay somewhere in between, say 10-15% for males. or 8-12% if you need to compete.  For some endomorhpic people it may be higher, for some ectomorphic people it may be lower, but that is around ideal for most.


----------



## Built (Nov 30, 2009)

sensamilia said:


> The higher your body fat the lower your test gets and the more insensitive to insulin you become, making your calorie partioning worse.






MJR said:


> True, but the lower your body fat level gets below your set point, the worse your calorie partitioning becomes.


I think you need to clarify here MJR - you're talking about partitioning at low bodyfat but as you drop bodyfat, you're not bulking are you? That happensin a caloric deficit, certainly once you're dipping into the single-digits for bodyfat %.


MJR said:


> You should ideally stay somewhere in between, say 10-15% for males. or 8-12% if you need to compete.  For some endomorhpic people it may be higher, for some ectomorphic people it may be lower, but that is around ideal for most.



You and I may be in agreement - I suspect you just aren't being very clear. 

Dieted-down lean people can and do partition badly when they switch over to bulking unless they ease into it. 

This isn't the same as a lean person who adds a little extra to his caloric intake and starts "riding the wave" - the mythical "clean bulk" where most of the weight gained is muscle. This is a very slow way to gain muscle but the perk is fewer wardrobe changes - you just gradually get bigger.

For most, bulking will go well until, as you and sensamilia suggest, bodyfat levels get too high and partitioning goes to shit. 

Biggly may not be posting much so I'm not sure if he'll see this but to answer his question, "it depends". It depends on how fast you gain and how well you partition. How fast you gain depends on how much of a caloric surplus you run. How well you partition depends on your training, your bodyfat level and your genetics - as well as what type of assistance (if any) you're running. 

In terms of actual poundages, most men can probably count on 1-2 lbs of lean mass gain a month, with about the same amount of fat-gain. A 500-calorie a week surplus will provide sufficient calories to support a 4-lb a month fat-gain, supposing ALL the excess weight gained is bodyfat. My suggestion would be to decide how much fat you are willing to gain per month as a max, and how long you're willing to run this experiment before cutting. Do those and you won't turn into a monstrous fatass by the time you're ready to switch gears and unveil the fruits of your labour. 

My .02


----------



## MJR (Dec 1, 2009)

You are correct. We are in fact in agreement.

I know from past experiences competing as a fitness model that my strength was not that great at 6% body fat. However, around 8% it is much better, and by 10% I feel significantly stronger and more primed to build muscle.

I can tell we have both read Lyle McDonald's articles. Glad to see UD 2 worked so well for you, as the picture on the left demonstrates!


----------



## Built (Dec 1, 2009)

LOL - yep, we both read Lyle. 

My 'tar was from Baby Got Back with carb cycling and "how to do cardio if you must" - all of which are on my blog. I haven't quite been able to get UD2 working for me, but I'll give it another go before I give up on it. 

Re bodyfat and partitioning - you may be confusing stamina with partitioning. It's pretty hard to have any stamina at all when you're outrageously lean!

Thanks for posting.


----------



## danzik17 (Dec 1, 2009)

Built said:


> LOL - yep, we both read Lyle.
> 
> My 'tar was from Baby Got Back with carb cycling and "how to do cardio if you must" - all of which are on my blog. I haven't quite been able to get UD2 working for me, but I'll give it another go before I give up on it.
> 
> ...



How has your  UD 2.0 been going?  I know when I was doing it that I stalled out around 11% bodyfat.  I'll have to give your BGB/Carb cycling combo a shot to see if that's my magic bullet this year.


----------



## Built (Dec 1, 2009)

Ah, I ditched the cut when my neck started to get really bad earlier this year. 

It's settling down, I'll try it again in the spring. Putting on a bit of size right now, mostly good. <ahem>


----------



## MJR (Dec 1, 2009)

Kelly Baggett:

"4. Partitioning refers to what happens when excess calories are consumed. Are they directed into muscle or fat stores? The worse your partitioning, the more fat you gain when you gain weight. The better your partitioning, the more muscle you gain. This is largely impacted by training and diet, yet with those things being a given, how well you "partition" is primarily determined by levels of various hormones, which is determined by genetics.

5. Maximizing Partitioning

A natural trainee can maximize environmental factors that affect his partitioning by training at the right frequency with the right type and dosage of training, eating enough food, sleeping enough, staying relatively stress free, and keeping his body composition within his ???optimum muscle building window??? which, generally speaking, is between the range of 10-17% body-fat for most males and 12-20% for most females. At less then about 10% body-fat, levels of various anabolic hormones such as testosterone go to crap, (unless you were born at 5% body-fat). At the other end, anymore then 17% body-fat and sensitivity to various anabolic hormones goes down the drain."

(from higher-faster-sports DOT com)

(won't let me put direct web address b/c i'm under 25 posts; PM me if you'd like the direct link)


----------



## Built (Dec 1, 2009)

Baggett's a good read, too. I used to follow him on Rugged.


----------



## Bond007 (Dec 9, 2009)

This all sounds fascinating.  One question, what is UD2, and how would it help me.  I'm in kind of same boat, and want to know how much extra calories I should consume to get big, with minimum fat gain.  I'm walking a ver tight rope.


----------



## Built (Dec 9, 2009)

The Ultimate Diet 2.0 by Lyle McDonald | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald


----------



## Arnold (Dec 10, 2009)

we have many good articles by Lyle here: Author Lyle_McDonald - Articles by Lyle_McDonald on Bodybuilding, Diet, Nutrition and Supplements


----------



## juggernaut (Dec 10, 2009)

I'm on an AAS bulk right now and I still try to maintain my offseason fat because I dont want to do extra time in dieting. I've done the 1:1 ratio and it fits comfortably with me


----------



## MJR (Dec 13, 2009)

Obviously you will naturally eat a bit more on your training days, simply because of the increased activity, but the actual SURPLUS should remain static/constant over 7 days of the week, correct?

So say on training days your maintenance is 2500. With a 500 calorie surplus, you'd eat 3000.

Say on an off day your maintenance is 2200. With a 500 calorie surplus, you'd eat 2700 calories.

So you're naturally eating LESS on your off days, but the relative surplus is still the same.

This is optimal for bulking at the most efficient rate, correct? (500 is just an arbitrary number. The distribution of the surplus is the main focus of this post, as opposed to a 750cal surlpus on training days and 250 surplus on off days to produce the same 3500 weekly surplus or whatever. This shouldn't produce any significant difference in net muscle:fat ratio i don't think)


----------

