Men of the MISC!

[Boomer29]

I'm going to take advantage of our abundance of men here lately and put you all to good use. I am teaching/hosting whatevs, a free clinic if you will at our gym for finding cals and macros basically the sticky for us women in a condensed version. I have found that when calculating calories and macros, it is best for women to do as follows:

losing fat- 2 lbs a week extremely aggressive, 1 lb a week average, (on your game without killing yourself), 1/2 pound a week slow to moderate.
bulking- should aim for .5 a pound a week gain to keep the most of the gains lean and prohibit excess fat.

Is this pretty accurate ladies?

So for men blessed by the gods, your caloric maintenance's are significantly higher than ours. So fill in the blank what is?

losing fat 1.aggressive rate of weekly loss in pounds 2.average 3.slow to moderate
bulking 1. conservative weekly gain in pounds to keep fat gain minimal. 2. average 3. Hello Sweet Cut!

Any other tidbits you could help me with to throw in for guys would help! Appreciate you all. Much love!

Boomz!

[l1festyle]

I'm going to take advantage of our abundance of men here lately and put you all to good use. I am teaching/hosting whatevs, a free clinic if you will at our gym for finding cals and macros basically the sticky for us women in a condensed version. I have found that when calculating calories and macros, it is best for women to do as follows:

losing fat- 2 lbs a week extremely aggressive, 1 lb a week average, (on your game without killing yourself), 1/2 pound a week slow to moderate.
bulking- should aim for .5 a pound a week gain to keep the most of the gains lean and prohibit excess fat.

Is this pretty accurate ladies?

So for men blessed by the gods, your caloric maintenance's are significantly higher than ours. So fill in the blank what is?

losing fat 1.aggressive rate of weekly loss in pounds 2.average 3.slow to moderate
bulking 1. conservative weekly gain in pounds to keep fat gain minimal. 2. average 3. Hello Sweet Cut!

Any other tidbits you could help me with to throw in for guys would help! Appreciate you all. Much love!

Boomz!

First in, sorry Boom, i don';t have the knowledge to answer but trying to get to my 30 post >.<

[fived]

I will just speak from my own experience. If I dirty bulk I can gain 2lbs a week (8lbs/month - mostly fat/water), but I think naturally one can only gain 1-1.5lbs of muscle per month. When I cut I eat 500 calories under maintenance and usually lose 1lb per week without losing any muscle.

[Richy P]

For me -

Weight loss - 500 cals below maintenance
Maintenance 1500 cals (lots of sleep & very little movement / exercise)
Bulking - 2500 cals (desk job, little movement)
Bulking - 3000 cals (Winter time - working outside - long day)

[blindspot13]

whatevs

Sweet Cut!

Boomz!

why do you talk like this?

[GreekyBeth]

why do you talk like this?

Why do you care? Instead of critiquing BOOMZ lexicon, assist in answering her questions.

[JVDTWG]

Hey 'Boomz'

Think it greatly depends on the guys body type, trainiing habits, and metabolism etc.

Atm i am eating about 750 cals above maintenance, which is probably a little to high for me as I'm adding a little too much fat (dirty bulk of peace). As I build muscle on my bulk i have to keep upping the cals as I burn more off with each lb of muscle.

My best mate is a 'shredder' and he is on the Warrior Diet atm, which has slowed his metabolism but has helped with his liver function etc, and his body is using the macros he intakes more efficiently with his work out program.

I would say there is no hard and fast rule.

I would suggest a start point of 500 above or below maintainence depending on what they are trying to achieve and then monitor and adjust each week alongside their work out and supplement regime.

Best of luck with it all.

[BrotherWolf]

I'm going to take advantage of our abundance of men here lately and put you all to good use. I am teaching/hosting whatevs, a free clinic if you will at our gym for finding cals and macros basically the sticky for us women in a condensed version. I have found that when calculating calories and macros, it is best for women to do as follows:

losing fat- 2 lbs a week extremely aggressive, 1 lb a week average, (on your game without killing yourself), 1/2 pound a week slow to moderate.
bulking- should aim for .5 a pound a week gain to keep the most of the gains lean and prohibit excess fat.

Is this pretty accurate ladies?

So for men blessed by the gods, your caloric maintenance's are significantly higher than ours. So fill in the blank what is?

losing fat 1.aggressive rate of weekly loss in pounds 2.average 3.slow to moderate
bulking 1. conservative weekly gain in pounds to keep fat gain minimal. 2. average 3. Hello Sweet Cut!

Any other tidbits you could help me with to throw in for guys would help! Appreciate you all. Much love!

Boomz!

Ahh this lean bulk bs
there is no such thing as a lean bulk you are gaining fat as well as muscle regardless of how much you gain a week , the only difference is that by bulking aggressively you will see more of both but we focus more on the chub then the actual muscle
muscles don't grow as fas as fat and the fat is always on top

for gaining I'd say 1lb a week is slow 2lbs and up more aggressive
same for cutting .. you lose/gain some muscles either way

[JVDTWG]

Ahh this lean bulk bs
there is no such thing as a lean bulk you are gaining fat as well as muscle regardless of how much you gain a week

Slightly disagree on this. If you can manage to perfect macros and completely avoid simple carbs it is somewhat possible....

But agree in principle

[acrawlingchaos]

Ahh this lean bulk bs
there is no such thing as a lean bulk you are gaining fat as well as muscle regardless of how much you gain a week , the only difference is that by bulking aggressively you will see more of both but we focus more on the chub then the actual muscle
muscles don't grow as fas as fat and the fat is always on top

for gaining I'd say 1lb a week is slow 2lbs and up more aggressive
same for cutting .. you lose/gain some muscles either way

Disagree.

Men and women should not be gaining at the same rate. We do not build muscle at the same pace. A female bulking at 1 pound per week is very aggressive. At 2 lbs a week, she is getting fat. Two to three pounds a month is more ideal.

If you are counting calories, this is very easy to dial into.



You can absolutely "lean bulk" and recomp. While your increase in lean mass may be slower, it is possible. Once again, if you are dialed into the diet. Either way, you can still increase strength and neural efficiency on maintenance or just slightly above.

[acrawlingchaos]

Slightly disagree on this. If you can manage to perfect macros and completely avoid simple carbs it is somewhat possible....

But agree in principle

Explain why you should avoid simple carbs? Excess fat will be determined by how much of a surplus you have. If you are getting adequate fat and protein on a modest surplus, the type of carb is of little consequence.

[copiusGains]

For men 3pounds is considered aggressive, 2pounds moderate, and 1 is slow. It is recommended that men stick to 2 as to not lose muscle tissue. Bulking is more lenient, so it would depend on how long a guy is bulking, since he could do it slow and clean or dirty, or a mix, but with cutting, if u do a TRUE cut, there's not much flexibility and u can either do it the right way or rush thru it, and even still it wud depend on genetics and build. One guy cu half-asss and look like chit, while another cud look relatively fit

[JVDTWG]

Explain why you should avoid simple carbs? Excess fat will be determined by how much of a surplus you have. If you are getting adequate fat and protein on a modest surplus, the type of carb is of little consequence.

SIMPLE CARBS

Simple carbohydrates are simple sugars with a chemical structure that is composed of one or two sugars. They are refined sugars that have very little nutritional value to the body, and therefore, it's advisable that their consumption be limited to small quantities. In comparison to complex carbohydrates, simple carbohydrates are digested by the body more quickly, because they have a very simple chemical structure.

There are two types of simple carbohydrates: monosaccharides and disaccharides. Monosaccharides consist of only one sugar, and examples include fructose, galactose and glucose. Disaccharides consist of two chemically-linked monosaccharides, and they come in the form of lactose, maltose and sucrose.

Foods that contain simple carbohydrates include table sugar, products with white flour, honey, milk, yoghurt, candy, chocolate, fruit, fruit juice, cake, jam, biscuits, molasses, soda and packaged cereals. Despite the fact that simple carbohydrates do not contain enough essential nutrients, some foodstuffs such as fruits may still be good for you.

COMPLEX CARBS

Complex carbohydrates consist of a chemical structure that is made up of three or more sugars, which are usually linked together to form a chain. These sugars are mostly rich in fiber, vitamins and minerals. Due to their complexity, they take a little longer to digest, and they don't raise the sugar levels in the blood as quickly as simple carbohydrates. Complex carbohydrates act as the body's fuel, and they contribute significantly to energy production.

Similar to simple carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates are divided into two categories: oligosaccharides and polysaccharides. Oligosaccharides consist of a small number of monosaccharides, which does not exceed 10. They are important in the absorption of certain minerals and the formation of fatty acids. Polysaccharides are often made up of a large number of monosaccharides and disaccharides. Examples of polysaccharides include cellulose, dextrin, glycogen and starch.

Complex carbohydrates are commonly found in vegetables, whole-meal bread and cereals. Examples of foods that contain complex carbohydrates include spinach, yams, broccoli, beans, zucchini, lentils, skimmed milk, whole grains and many other leguminous plants and vegetables.

Complex carbohydrates have a higher nutritional value than simple carbohydrates. It may be confusing to differentiate simple and complex carbohydrates due to the fact that complex ones contain certain elements of simple ones. Nevertheless, differentiating the two should not be a problem since their chemical structures are very different, and therefore, they can be distinguished by their nutritional properties. The consumption of simple carbohydrates is not recommended, especially for diabetics.

Cliffs

Simple carbs provide little nutritional benifit
Simple carbs will spike you BSL and cause you not to enter into a fat burning state
Simple carbs easily store in the body as hard to break down fat

Complex carbs > Simple Carbs

[mhockey9090]

For me -

Weight loss - 500 cals below maintenance
Maintenance 1500 cals (lots of sleep & very little movement / exercise)
Bulking - 2500 cals (desk job, little movement)
Bulking - 3000 cals (Winter time - working outside - long day)

SO when you bulk you don't workout?

[acrawlingchaos]

If it isn't original work, please cite.


And what you wrote doesn't explain why simple carbs make you fat, they just explain the difference.

Simple carbs provide little nutritional benifit

Simple carbs serve a purpose that complex carbs do not (readily available fuel), and plenty of sugars have other nutrients

Simple carbs will spike you BSL and cause you not to enter into a fat burning state

I didn't see anything in your post that indicated simple sugars store as fat. With a reasonable surplus, the difference will be insignificant.

Simple carbs easily store in the body as hard to break down fat

You are not trying to be in a "fat burning state" in a surplus, and on a deficit... the deficit takes care of weight loss.

Complex carbs > Simple Carbs

Rather over simplification, don't you think?

[BrotherWolf]

Slightly disagree on this. If you can manage to perfect macros and completely avoid simple carbs it is somewhat possible....

But agree in principle

BS
the way you can somewhat differentiate what you lose is with the right type of activity
lifting , HIIT etc.. calories of any kind when in excess will lead to gains of mostly fat and a small amount of muscles .. naturally

also when you bulk there is plenty of water retention so If you gain a lb a week a good percentage is obviously neither fat nor muscles.

3500 calories = 1lb of weight gain and that's 500 surplus calories a day , if you sit on your ass all day it will make you fat
if you bust your ass in the gym part of those calories are used to repair your body homeostasis

[BrotherWolf]

Disagree.

Men and women should not be gaining at the same rate. We do not build muscle at the same pace. A female bulking at 1 pound per week is very aggressive. At 2 lbs a week, she is getting fat. Two to three pounds a month is more ideal.

If you are counting calories, this is very easy to dial into.



You can absolutely "lean bulk" and recomp. While your increase in lean mass may be slower, it is possible. Once again, if you are dialed into the diet. Either way, you can still increase strength and neural efficiency on maintenance or just slightly above.

I was responding at the call for males not females and i disagree 1 lb a week for a female that lifts is not very aggressive and the word aggressive is relative to body composition

you cannot lean bulk simply because excess calories are stored as fat not muscles so if you are 500 calories in surplus unless you do something to burn those calories they will get stored as fat... seems logical and simple

you can recomp but that's not the same as bulking, recomposition happens when the lean tissue to fat ratio changes it can happen either during bulking or cutting
if you can manage to drop fat faster than muscles when you cut you have successfully achieved recomp , In my opinion a successful recomp has 2 phases .. bulking and cutting

Anyway Boomer .. this should help
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...mass-gain.html

[IronCharles]

I can't really add anything since I am apparently an "outlier" when it comes to metabolism. I have basically been on an all you can eat, all day long doing it, 300g of protein per day and as much fat and carbs as I can stuff in my face for years, and am as fat as I was in my towel pic from a couple weeks back. The benefit of this is, I'm not 400 pounds. also, when I need to get ripped, I can do it in a hurry, with only minor caloric modifications. The downside is, I am not able to pack on muscle as quickly as some guys can.

[BrotherWolf]

SIMPLE CARBS

Simple carbohydrates are simple sugars with a chemical structure that is composed of one or two sugars. They are refined sugars that have very little nutritional value to the body, and therefore, it's advisable that their consumption be limited to small quantities. In comparison to complex carbohydrates, simple carbohydrates are digested by the body more quickly, because they have a very simple chemical structure.

There are two types of simple carbohydrates: monosaccharides and disaccharides. Monosaccharides consist of only one sugar, and examples include fructose, galactose and glucose. Disaccharides consist of two chemically-linked monosaccharides, and they come in the form of lactose, maltose and sucrose.

Foods that contain simple carbohydrates include table sugar, products with white flour, honey, milk, yoghurt, candy, chocolate, fruit, fruit juice, cake, jam, biscuits, molasses, soda and packaged cereals. Despite the fact that simple carbohydrates do not contain enough essential nutrients, some foodstuffs such as fruits may still be good for you.

COMPLEX CARBS

Complex carbohydrates consist of a chemical structure that is made up of three or more sugars, which are usually linked together to form a chain. These sugars are mostly rich in fiber, vitamins and minerals. Due to their complexity, they take a little longer to digest, and they don't raise the sugar levels in the blood as quickly as simple carbohydrates. Complex carbohydrates act as the body's fuel, and they contribute significantly to energy production.

Similar to simple carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates are divided into two categories: oligosaccharides and polysaccharides. Oligosaccharides consist of a small number of monosaccharides, which does not exceed 10. They are important in the absorption of certain minerals and the formation of fatty acids. Polysaccharides are often made up of a large number of monosaccharides and disaccharides. Examples of polysaccharides include cellulose, dextrin, glycogen and starch.

Complex carbohydrates are commonly found in vegetables, whole-meal bread and cereals. Examples of foods that contain complex carbohydrates include spinach, yams, broccoli, beans, zucchini, lentils, skimmed milk, whole grains and many other leguminous plants and vegetables.

Complex carbohydrates have a higher nutritional value than simple carbohydrates. It may be confusing to differentiate simple and complex carbohydrates due to the fact that complex ones contain certain elements of simple ones. Nevertheless, differentiating the two should not be a problem since their chemical structures are very different, and therefore, they can be distinguished by their nutritional properties. The consumption of simple carbohydrates is not recommended, especially for diabetics.

Cliffs

Simple carbs provide little nutritional benifit
Simple carbs will spike you BSL and cause you not to enter into a fat burning state
Simple carbs easily store in the body as hard to break down fat

Complex carbs > Simple Carbs

LOL where did you get this ?
simple carbs have their place in any diet..this article is stupid
that have very little nutritional value to the body


table sugar, products with white flour, honey, milk, yoghurt, candy, chocolate, fruit, fruit juice, cake, jam, biscuits, molasses, soda and packaged cereals.
minus sodas these are all foods with nutritional value some of them have great nutritional value ... milk, yogurt, fruit, sugar,honey, flour and chocolate and even cereals

[acrawlingchaos]

Of course you lift, I never suggested other wise. I give advice based on the assumption that those here lift.

If you don't go into a 500 calorie surplus, you will have a better ratio of fat to muscle gain. A 200 calorie surplus is MORE than enough for a female to grow on (+10%).

Seems logical and simple.


Here is Leigh Peele's recommendations.

http://www.leighpeele.com/a-realisti...-muscle-gain-2

Percentage of daily intake increase to gain mass

8 percent: Roughly 0.2 – 0.3 pounds mass per week

10 percent: Roughly 0.4 -0.5 pounds of mass per week

15 percent: Roughly 0.75 pounds of mass per week

20 percent: Roughly 1 pound of mass per week

Wome rate of muscle gain.

Newbie: 1-6 months of serious lifting = Roughly .75 to 1 pounds a month in muscle

Newbie: 6-12 months = .5 pounds a month in muscle

Intermediate: 1-2 years of lifting = 0.3-0.4 pounds a month in muscle

Advanced: 4-plus years of lifting = 0.1- 0.2 pounds a month in muscle

Recommendation

Note 1: I recommend that newbies increase their caloric intake by 10-15 percent starting off and adjust as needed. Since gains can be made during this stage even in absence of a noticeable surplus, a surplus is still important on small levels.

Note 2: Since females gain muscle at a slower rate than men your excess intake should be at a smaller percentage to decrease excess fat storage.

Note 3: Age is also a important factor both for men and women. As you get into the 30′s and above you can start to decrease the surplus amount.

In other words, she recommends an increase of .4 - .75 lbs a week for a novice that can taper to a smaller surplus with experience and as they age. A female with any sort of lifting experience only needs a 10% surplus.

[BrotherWolf]

I can't really add anything since I am apparently an "outlier" when it comes to metabolism. I have basically been on an all you can eat, all day long doing it, 300g of protein per day and as much fat and carbs as I can stuff in my face for years, and am as fat as I was in my towel pic from a couple weeks back. The benefit of this is, I'm not 400 pounds. also, when I need to get ripped, I can do it in a hurry, with only minor caloric modifications. The downside is, I am not able to pack on muscle as quickly as some guys can.

I have the same problem, it takes me 4k calories to bulk up to 190lbs.. all you can eat buffet, donuts, pizza, pasta and fast food
but I can drop 25lbs in 2-3 months eating "normally" 2.5k.. I do it every year
winter I train for my competitions so I have to eat non stop as long as I get to my weight class but once my job gets busy training gets inconsistent

[BrotherWolf]

Of course you lift, I never suggested other wise. I give advice based on the assumption that those here lift.

If you don't go into a 500 calorie surplus, you will have a better ratio of fat to muscle gain. A 250 calorie surplus is MORE than enough to grow on.

Any surplus is sufficient to grow even a 10 calories surplus .. even maintenance is sufficient


all "maintenance" means is that you are supporting all physiological processes and you have sufficient fuel

however things move along much faster with a bigger surplus .. there's no mention of any studies in that link, those numbers are estimates (made up)
the ratio muscle to fat is nearly impossible to establish , there's genetic , body composition and another million different variables
one thing I agree with is that the more advanced a lifter is the harder it is to build muscle naturally

so yeah a 250 calorie surplus is sufficient for a newbie for a short period of time

There are studies that shows that overweight people have more muscles without weight training... in short eating alone will promote muscle growth, even candy

[acrawlingchaos]

..

All fine and dandy, but my initial rebuttal (assuming adequate strength training), your suggested rate of 1-2 pounds a week for any female is excessive.



And what about Leigh Peele's numbers are made up? The rate of muscle gain in females? Or recommended weight gain? Fine


Here is Emma's take (10-20% surplus that tapers as you progress)

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=121703921



And here is Lyles, Aran's, Casey's and Berkhams Comparison of muscle rate gain.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...potential.html

[RetBodyBuilder]

I can't really add anything since I am apparently an "outlier" when it comes to metabolism. I have basically been on an all you can eat, all day long doing it, 300g of protein per day and as much fat and carbs as I can stuff in my face for years, and am as fat as I was in my towel pic from a couple weeks back. The benefit of this is, I'm not 400 pounds. also, when I need to get ripped, I can do it in a hurry, with only minor caloric modifications. The downside is, I am not able to pack on muscle as quickly as some guys can.

Same here with me. I can eat whatever I want (I don't though) and they'll just burn.

[Richy P]

SO when you bulk you don't workout?

Those figures are with working out included, but with a daily description of the rest of the day - What can I say, It doesn't take many calories to keep me going.

I've been maintaining for the last six months due to budgetary cut backs, and with a workout, I have been getting 1500 cals, and maintaining my bodyweight to within + or - 500g.

[Richy P]

Simple and complex carbs?

I thought the rule of thumb was have your simple carbs before your workout to sustain energy levels, and have a mixture after to immediately replenish the 'energy' burnt during the workout, and have complex for the continued 'fuelling' of muscle repair.

[yrot21]

Simple and complex carbs?

I thought the rule of thumb was have your simple carbs before your workout to sustain energy levels, and have a mixture after to immediately replenish the 'energy' burnt during the workout, and have complex for the continued 'fuelling' of muscle repair.

Simple carbs/protein P(ost)WO. You want to shuttle nutrients to the muscles for repair/recovery as fast as possible. That's how I've always known it to be.

[Nelly87]

I'm going to take advantage of our abundance of men here lately and put you all to good use. I am teaching/hosting whatevs, a free clinic if you will at our gym for finding cals and macros basically the sticky for us women in a condensed version. I have found that when calculating calories and macros, it is best for women to do as follows:

losing fat- 2 lbs a week extremely aggressive, 1 lb a week average, (on your game without killing yourself), 1/2 pound a week slow to moderate.
bulking- should aim for .5 a pound a week gain to keep the most of the gains lean and prohibit excess fat.

Is this pretty accurate ladies?

So for men blessed by the gods, your caloric maintenance's are significantly higher than ours. So fill in the blank what is?

losing fat 1.aggressive rate of weekly loss in pounds 2.average 3.slow to moderate
bulking 1. conservative weekly gain in pounds to keep fat gain minimal. 2. average 3. Hello Sweet Cut!

Any other tidbits you could help me with to throw in for guys would help! Appreciate you all. Much love!

Boomz!

Hey,

When you say "bulking" that can vary greatly as others have said on fat/muscle ratio, depends on how you measure this gain and loss that matters most to me. I personally don't like to just hop on a scale and look at myself to think I am gaining pure muscle or loosing just fat and bulking to me is putting on muscle, not just going bear-mode. I track my body fat percentage as well as weight. I know using calipers and those scales you stand on are not the most accurate means of measuring your body fat percentage, but it gives you an estimate. Also if you use the same exact formula and process to measure these stats week in week out, you can at least track the changes in those calculations. Most people here probably already assume this, but if you are new to the fitness world I feel that most people just stand on a scale and track weight, not the other stats.

For me, last year I started off at 220lbs about %30 BF and after 90 days was at 187lbs a lil below %15 BF. According to my stats I put on BodySpace, lean body mass went from 152lbs to 162lbs so a gain of 10lbs of "muscle" in about 13 weeks puts me at a little under a pound/week. I felt that was pretty aggressive but then again I am no pro. So sorry to ramble but here is cliffs

In my opinion, also depends on where you are already at, here is for someone with little muscle mass:
Straight muscle gain:
Aggressive: 1lb/week
Average: .75/week
Slow: <.5/week

"Bulk" weight gain:
Aggressive: 2lb/week
Average: 1lb/week
Slow: <1lb/week

For me -

Weight loss - 500 cals below maintenance
Maintenance 1500 cals (lots of sleep & very little movement / exercise)
Bulking - 2500 cals (desk job, little movement)
Bulking - 3000 cals (Winter time - working outside - long day)

Seems low, especially for a guy who is 6ft and active. If this is true when you are trying to lose weight, you are only eating 1k cals/day?

[Hannah82]

Lol @ the carb arguements. I eat bread, wavy lays, potatoes and ice cream all. the. time. Can still see abs.

[Hannah82]

For me -

Weight loss - 500 cals below maintenance
Maintenance 1500 cals (lots of sleep & very little movement / exercise)
Bulking - 2500 cals (desk job, little movement)
Bulking - 3000 cals (Winter time - working outside - long day)

Annnd this is why ur skinny. Fuk I eat 2400 @ 120lb 5ft7.