Does dirty bulking effect body composition any differently than clean bulking?

[maxey127]

Say equal surplus with the two diets, one dirty food diet and one clean food diet (in b4 i wash my food or some clean vs dirty food debate). Macros and micros are matched. Would there be any difference?

Also, what if some one dreamer bulked where macros and micros were met while eating at an even higher surplus. Would body composition change other than more fat gain.

This quote from Alan Aragon got me wondering: "Similarly, an exhaustive literature review by Gibson and colleagues found that 20% of total calories from added sugars is roughly the maximum amount that won’t adversely dilute the diet’s concentration of essential micronutrition [25]."

Why would sugars diluting micronutrition concentration even matter? all that stuff will get absorbed by the body regardless right? I understand macros play the biggest role in body composition, but do micros play any role in body comp or are they just for optimal health?

EDIT: *For sake of this thread dirty bulking will be a diet consisting an amount of ice cream/cookies/sugar/etc that exceeds the recomended 10-20% rule. A clean diet will consist of chicken/steak/veggies with ~10% of the diet on cookies/icecream etc

not really interested in what a clean bulk or dirty bulk is... im aware that a clean bulk is technically anything under 500cal surplus. My question is more about the AA quote.

[nosix]

You are confused.. Dirty Bulking means not tracking calories and macros you can dirty bulk on chicken and veg

[penisbrahh]

dirty bulking in my opinion is bulking over 500 calories over maintenance. clean is bulking around the 250 over maintenance mark.

So OFCOURSE. if u bulk 500+ calories over maintenance u'll gain more than a lb a week. that's 52 or more in a year. no way that's all muscle ull gain like half fat or more. ON the other hand at 250 over ull gain about 26 lbs and a good 20 lbs could be muscle.

basically, diminishing returns. the more u eat doesn't mean more muscle. that's true up to a point.

edit: and i mean a true 500 over a lot of people bulk and think theyre at 500 over but if u were u'd gian a lb a week. I have done that (40 lbs in 10 months) NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!

[nosix]

dirty bulking in my opinion is bulking over 500 calories over maintenance. clean is bulking around the 250 over maintenance mark.

So OFCOURSE. if u bulk 500+ calories over maintenance u'll gain more than a lb a week. that's 52 or more in a year. no way that's all muscle ull gain like half fat or more. ON the other hand at 250 over ull gain about 26 lbs and a good 20 lbs could be muscle.

basically, diminishing returns. the more u eat doesn't mean more muscle. that's true up to a point.

edit: and i mean a true 500 over a lot of people bulk and think theyre at 500 over but if u were u'd gian a lb a week. I have done that (40 lbs in 10 months) NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!

Plsgo.

[AlwaysTryin]

Plsgo.

??? What was wrong with his post?

[nosix]

??? What was wrong with his post?

Nothing wrong with his post in this thread but other post in genral.

[penisbrahh]

Nothing wrong with his post in this thread but other post in genral.

dont be mean bro

[MrCarl.]

penishbrah said it all
/thread

[SuffolkPunch]

By your definitions of clean and dirty OP, the answer is that you gain more fat on a dirty bulk. You might gain muscle more slowly on a smaller surplus where you are trying to minimise fat gain. Some people will even gain 50/50 muscle and fat if they eat over maintenance WITHOUT even lifting. I am sure this is why powerlifters often just get really fat - it is to their advantage (not the only reason).

[TheEther24]

Why would his definition of dirty bulking -- where macros / calories are equal -- result in more fat?

[SuffolkPunch]

My bad, I used this one, not the OPs

dirty bulking in my opinion is bulking over 500 calories over maintenance. clean is bulking around the 250 over maintenance mark.

The answer to the OP is that the two diets described are the same, they might differ in fiber content but that is about all. And that should not affect body composition, just stool composition


Also, I believe Alans quote is assuming that sugar displaces wholefood carb sources which is why he suggests that micronutrition gets displaced. Oats or potatos have lots of micros but pure sugar does not.

[WonderPug]

Say equal surplus with the two diets, one dirty food diet and one clean food diet (in b4 i wash my food or some clean vs dirty food debate). Macros and micros are matched. Would there be any difference?

By your definitions of clean and dirty OP, the answer is that you gain more fat on a dirty bulk. You might gain muscle more slowly on a smaller surplus where you are trying to minimise fat gain. Some people will even gain 50/50 muscle and fat if they eat over maintenance WITHOUT even lifting. I am sure this is why powerlifters often just get really fat - it is to their advantage (not the only reason).

I strongly disagree.

Isocaloric diets, composed from the same intake of macronutrient and micronutrient, will not result in different body composition.

Why? Because the names of the foods consumed do not determine the outcome of a diet, but rather the nutrients that are consumed are the governors.


EDIT: I see you posted a correction while I was trying my reply. Now I see where the confusion originated.

[KiengKoopa]

I strongly disagree.

Isocaloric diets, composed from the same intake of macronutrient and micronutrient, will not result in different body composition.

Why? Because the names of the foods consumed do not determine the outcome of a diet, but rather the nutrients that are consumed are the governors.


EDIT: I see you posted a correction while I was trying my reply. Now I see where the confusion originated.

While what you say makes complete sense in that the body composition will not change. Do you think it effects overall health in terms of memory, reaction time, recovery, etc? I ask this because I am into boxing and enjoy weight lifting but my diet is geared towards the bulking spectrum and would like to know if it'll effect anything other than body composition

[SuffolkPunch]

While what you say makes complete sense in that the body composition will not change. Do you think it effects overall health in terms of memory, reaction time, recovery, etc? I ask this because I am into boxing and enjoy weight lifting but my diet is geared towards the bulking spectrum and would like to know if it'll effect anything other than body composition

Vitamin deficiency might impact on some of the things you mentioned but we are talking about diets with equivalent micronutrients so it's not an issue.

[chickenbroc]

I just got done reading lengthy articles by a few of the nutrition heavyweights (Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald, Martin Berkhan in particular) and lots of various threads and news journals. What I thought was a really complex topic is actually quite simple and has been stated here already.

In the SHORT TERM, for BODY COMPOSITION, it does not matter what you eat as long as you are in line with your caloric intake and protein intake.
In the LONG TERM, for HEALTH (and as a corollary BODY COMPOSITION), it matters immensely as you can develop health side effects and increase your risk factors for certain diseases as a result of long periods of not consuming a diet balanced in micronutrients.

That said, it's pretty stupid to just eat a diet composed of donuts and ice cream because you "can". The golden rule seems to be: get your protein intake right, consume a healthy amount of fats, fill the rest with carbs (or fats if you prefer keto), and allow 10-20% of total calories to come from whatever the **** calories you want and adjust total calories as you go.