Realistic Gains Progression

[umbrellaboy]

What have I learned (and what does science confirm) about realistic natural gains and how to best achieve them? Here's what I've found.

First year of training...a male can probably gain 20-25 lbs of lean mass depending on your height, frame-size, etc.

During the first year (and only the first year), I would recommend a "dirty" or all-out bulk where you don't worry about fat and just cut it later even if that takes a few months.

At a 1:1 ratio with fat gain during this first bulk is ok. So you'll want to gain 40-50 lbs, half of which will be fat.

To gain a pound is 3500 calories, to gain 50 lbs is thus 175000, spread out over the course of a year.

If you do even a little higher, I'd even bet that you could get most of those first-year's gains in only 8-9 months if we're talking about the whole bulk/cut process being a year rather than just the bulk, because eventually the fat gains start overtaking muscle and it's no even really worth continuing as you're adding mostly fat.

What I mean is that: at 10% BF every pound you gain might be 75% muscle, 25% fat, but by the time you hit 15% BF it'll be more 50/50, and by the time you're over 20% BF it'll be mostly fat. So when they say 20-25 lbs in your first year, note that this is not necessarily an even distribution of a steady rate of gain. It well could work out that 50% of lean gains will be in your first three months, 25% in the next three, and only 25% over the last six as the ratio of gains skews from more muscle to more fat as your BF increases.

175000 over 365 days is a surplus of about 500 per day above maintenance. Not just BMR, but maintenance *including* the activity level factor.

So that's first year.

Second year, though, your potential drops to 10-12 lbs of lean mass (and third year even more, to 5-6, and fourth year on to 1-3, etc...you approach an asymptote).

So, just eating 500 surplus and gaining 50 lbs isn't going to work. Because only 10 will be lean this time, 40 will be fat...so now you're at a ridiculous 1:4 ratio of lean to fat gains, and cutting 40 lbs would be tough.

You really don't want to go over 1:1. So, 10-12 lbs in your second year, that's about a lean pound per month, two pounds total per month if you assume a 1:1 ratio with fat. So two lbs in a month is 7000 calories extra, divided by 30 days is about 230 calories surplus per day.

And that's IF you assume a 1:1 ratio with body fat. If you start pretty lean and eat an even lower surplus (say 200)...you can probably put on even less fat while still putting on the muscle.

Third year I'd say do the same thing and don't worry about the ratio since the numbers are so small anyway. It's hard to precisely do less than a 200 calorie surplus without risking going under maintenance...so I'd just stick to 200 per day, which is about 73000 per year which is 20 lbs total for the year.

Sure, in year 3 that will be only 5-6 lbs muscle and 15 lbs of fat, a 1:3 ratio...but 15 lbs of fat isn't terrible and as you approach that asymptote of natural gains it's hard to keep the fat any lower while still maximizing muscle gains. Cutting 15 lbs can be done in 6 weeks, and at this point you're approaching your natural lean mass limit anyway, so you might not even need to cut all 15.

Consider this progression just as an example:

6'0" guy starts at 165 lbs, 15% BF. So he has roughly 140 LBM and 25 lbs fat on him.

First year he eats a 500 calorie surplus and gains 50 lbs in a 1:1 ratio. 25 muscle, 25 fat. He's now at 215 lbs and has 165 LBM and 50 lbs fat on him.

This is 23% BF. It's not pretty, but he works hard on his cut and 12-15 weeks later is at around 185 or maybe a pound or two lower. So 165 LBM and 18-20 lbs fat on him. This is around 10% BF.

So then he goes into his second year of bulking. He knows he can only gain maybe a pound or less of muscle a month this time, so he shoots for no more than 2 lbs total per month with a 200 calorie surplus.

At the end of his 10-12 months, he's put on 20 lbs (or less if his fat gains stayed below 1:1). 10 are muscle and 10 are fat. So he's carrying 175 lbs LBM and 25-30 lbs of fat. He's 200-205 lbs. This is 12.5-14.5% BF, which is not that bad! He still has some cutting to do, but not nearly as much as last time, and bulking any dirtier wouldn't have increased how much muscle he gained at all this time around.

So he cuts down to 10%, which is now at 195 lbs. This is 175 LBM and 20 lbs fat on him, and he starts his third year of bulking. Sticks with 200 calorie surplus, gains 20 lbs in the year, 5 of which are muscle, 15 of which are fat.

He's now at 215 again, with 180 LBM and 35 lbs fat. This is 16% BF, but he only has to cut 15 lbs to be at 10% BF at 200 lbs, which is probably only 5 lbs less than his true natural genetic maximum.

If you ask me, the third year isn't even worth it. A whole year of work and strict diet (and of going back up to higher BF) just to put on 5 more lbs (only like half an inch on the arms)...it's diminishing marginal returns at a higher and higher proportionate cost.

10% at 195 with 16" arms sounds good enough for me.

If you're an athlete who can get inspired by tiny gains (like a swimmer shaving a fraction of a second off his time)...go for it.

Otherwise, if you're not a *competitive* body builder, if you're just trying to look as impressive as possible in life...two years should be plenty to look pretty much your best if your diet is truly strict and you're doing heavy lifting 3-4 times a week.

If the sort of progression above I outlined isn't good enough for you, I'd suggest you have delusional notions about body image (or at least an inflated sense of the *numbers* involved) and probably won't be satisfied with anything but steroids.

[CrystalB2011]

Thanks for posting, very helpful.

[budgetbiceps]

Thanks for the article! That's a pretty reasonable way of breaking it down - especially the estimates at the beginning being dependent on a person instead of being based on some objective rule or formula. Great info

[Swolepaczek]

Great motivation. Thanks.