Dirty Bulk

[BirdJacked]

I head alot of about dirty bulking but can anyone explain how it is different and how it is done...Will rep.

[WannaBbuilt]

the difference between clean and dirty bulking is the foods you eat, when bulking you need an excess amount of calories in a clean bulk you consume quality calories and in a dirty bulk you pretty much just eat like crazy and lift like crazy but you also risk adding fat along with the muscle.

[The Brotherhood]

the difference between clean and dirty bulking is the foods you eat, when bulking you need an excess amount of calories in a clean bulk you consume quality calories and in a dirty bulk you pretty much just eat like crazy and lift like crazy but you also risk adding fat along with the muscle.

No. The difference is in the results. On a dirty bulk you gain more fat than you need to. On a clean bulk you don't gain more than you need to. Food source is a common misconception. Eating clean does not mean you will not gain excess fat, and eating "junk" does not mean you will gain excess fat if you are following a scientifically sound macro plan.

[bigforgood1]

clean bulking is when u eat all healthy foods and dirty bulking is when u eat foods like mcdonalds, and taco bell and all ****ty foods

[The Brotherhood]

clean bulking is when u eat all healthy foods and dirty bulking is when u eat foods like mcdonalds, and taco bell and all ****ty foods

No such thing as a "****ty food". Your gains will be unclean if you eat too much broccoli and brown rice. Your gains will be clean if you eat mcdonalds but adhere to a proper macro plan. The foods you consume have little to do with the resultant physique.

[MSmith19]

No. The difference is in the results. On a dirty bulk you gain more fat than you need to. On a clean bulk you don't gain more than you need to. Food source is a common misconception. Eating clean does not mean you will not gain excess fat, and eating "junk" does not mean you will gain excess fat if you are following a scientifically sound macro plan.

BUT saturated fats are more easily stored by the body as fat and starch and simple sugars (in a dirty bulk) more likely turn into fat because they digest extremely quickly. Macro plan does matter, but if all your carbs are starches and sugars, you will see different results.

[The Brotherhood]

BUT saturated fats are more easily stored by the body as fat and starch and simple sugars (in a dirty bulk) more likely turn into fat because they digest extremely quickly. Macro plan does matter, but if all your carbs are starches and sugars, you will see different results.

GI is irrelevant to body composition. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=1503011

Show me evidence that a diet higher in saturated fat, with total cals and macros the same, causes greater fat storage than a diet without any saturated fat.

[MSmith19]

No such thing as a "****ty food". Your gains will be unclean if you eat too much broccoli and brown rice. Your gains will be clean if you eat mcdonalds but adhere to a proper macro plan. The foods you consume have little to do with the resultant physique.

What makes you think this? Despite eating well being great for mood, brain, heart and organ health, eating non-processed foods will help keep the fat off. Don't think so? Let me ask you to do this; eat 300g sugar as your carb intake for a month while I am eating 300g of whole grains, oats, rice and pasta?

[MSmith19]

GI is irrelevant to body composition. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=1503011

Show me evidence that a diet higher in saturated fat, with total cals and macros the same, causes greater fat storage than a diet without any saturated fat.

It's simple- glucose that is not readily used is turned into fat. Why do you think bodybuilders and health-conscious people avoid sugars and simple carbs? If all carbs gave the same results in body composition, everyone would be eating sugar all day long.

The studies cited have little relevance because they were based around obese people, on a caloric deficit AND STILL, the low-GI diet proves to be a better option- increased lipid metabolisation. What are you drawing your own conclusions? Where it says "Conclusions:,' did you add that part yourself? Come on.

Lower GI carbs take longer to digest, meaning APPETITE WILL BE SUPPRESSED. Even in all these obese subjects, lower cholesterol was always observed. Your post is basically a load of crap- especially for you to make such a strong claim and the conclusion that GI index does not effect body composition or overall health.

[The Brotherhood]

It's simple- glucose that is not readily used is turned into fat. Why do you think bodybuilders and health-conscious people avoid sugars and simple carbs? If all carbs gave the same results in body composition, everyone would be eating sugar all day long.

Your post shows both sides of the coin and neither seem more convincing than the other.

Nope, the post pretty effectively favors the fact that GI is irrelevant to body composition. Yes, glucose that is not readily used is stored as fat. However, over a sustained period of time, fat gained/lost will be dependent solely on thermodynamic balance. One can of course favor better lipid oxidation with the consumption of a few tens of grams of EFAs, but a few tens of grams is where their positive effects on the physique stop.

Stop looking at extremes. Why would any body in their right mind eat sugar all day long? It increases the chances of diabetes, you will have alot of sugar crashes, and will get sick of the sweetness. Not to mention your diet will lack in fiber and phytonutrition.

Consume a few tens of grams of EFAs, consume enough fiber, avoid trans-fats in moderate or large quantities, and you can eat whatever you want to hit the remaining of your macros

[MSmith19]

Nope, the post pretty effectively favors the fact that GI is irrelevant to body composition. Yes, glucose that is not readily used is stored as fat. However, over a sustained period of time, fat gained/lost will be dependent solely on thermodynamic balance. One can of course favor better lipid oxidation with the consumption of a few tens of grams of EFAs, but a few tens of grams is where their positive effects on the physique stop.

Stop looking at extremes. Why would any body in their right mind eat sugar all day long? It increases the chances of diabetes, you will have alot of sugar crashes, and will get sick of the sweetness. Not to mention your diet will lack in fiber and phytonutrition.

Consume a few tens of grams of EFAs, consume enough fiber, avoid trans-fats in moderate or large quantities, and you can eat whatever you want to hit the remaining of your macros

Stop looking at extremes

And yet your studies were based mostly on obese people with diabetes and ANIMALS?

I will try to lay out the reason WHY to 'clean' bulk or 'clean' cut in its original form:

-Saturated fats increase cholesterol and are shown to more readily be converted to body fat than unsaturated fats.
-LGI carbhoydrates are digested slower, meaning that one's appetite would be suppressed because their digestive system is 'full.'
-Most HGI carbohydrates available come extremely processed or refined.
-Refined foods lack micro/phytonutrients, and have unhealthy preservatives, hormones, chemicals and reduced nutrients.
-'Dirty' food contains far too much sodium for good health.
-HGI carbohydrates that are not readily needed will turn into fat (please explain the 'thermodynamic' thing further please, I am not a nutritionist or human biologist- just a grade 11 ).
-Unrefined foods contain more vitamins and minerals that refined do.
-'Dirty' food often contains alot of trans-fat, which again is bad for the arteries, blood pressure and cholesterol.

I don't see WHY one would dirty bulk, regardless of if HGI/LGI makes a difference (which I still think it does). Why do BBers use dextrose post workout and oats in the morning/during the day?

[WannaBbuilt]

No. The difference is in the results. On a dirty bulk you gain more fat than you need to. On a clean bulk you don't gain more than you need to. Food source is a common misconception. Eating clean does not mean you will not gain excess fat, and eating "junk" does not mean you will gain excess fat if you are following a scientifically sound macro plan.

uh thats exactly what i said you just basically elaborated it and i never said you dont gain fat...

[The Brotherhood]

Stop looking at extremes

And yet your studies were based mostly on obese people with diabetes and ANIMALS?

I will try to lay out the reason WHY to 'clean' bulk or 'clean' cut in its original form:

-Saturated fats increase cholesterol and are shown to more readily be converted to body fat than unsaturated fats.
-LGI carbhoydrates are digested slower, meaning that one's appetite would be suppressed because their digestive system is 'full.'
-Most HGI carbohydrates available come extremely processed or refined.
-Refined foods lack micro/phytonutrients, and have unhealthy preservatives, hormones, chemicals and reduced nutrients.
-'Dirty' food contains far too much sodium for good health.
-HGI carbohydrates that are not readily needed will turn into fat (please explain the 'thermodynamic' thing further please, I am not a nutritionist or human biologist- just a grade 11 ).
-Unrefined foods contain more vitamins and minerals that refined do.
-'Dirty' food often contains alot of trans-fat, which again is bad for the arteries, blood pressure and cholesterol.

I don't see WHY one would dirty bulk, regardless of if HGI/LGI makes a difference (which I still think it does). Why do BBers use dextrose post workout and oats in the morning/during the day?

If anything, diabetics would be more inclined to gain excess fat on a high gi diet. They didn't.

I want to see studies supporting the claim that a diet high in saturated fat cause greater fat gain than a diet with a similar macro plan without any sat fat.

"Dirty" foods do not contain "alot" of trans fat, especially after the trans fat ban in fast food.
Yes, complex carbs do offer better satiety. This is irrelevant to body composition if you follow a fixed macro plan.

I have already talked about phytonutrition. Stop looking at extremes. You can eat a couple of meals of fast food a couple of times a week without compromising phytonutrition. Compromised phytonutrition will take awhile to affect performance anyhow.

"Why do bodybuilders use oats ?". Very nice argument . Only the ones disillusioned that you HAVE to eat complex sources ONLY eat only oats etc.

How dirty or clean your bulk is is not determined by the food type but by the results. Unless you eat like utter crap over a long period of time, hitting your macros is the main concern.

Thermodynamics - energy balance. If you have a caloric deficit or surplus of X amount, if you consume enough protein and train hard enough, your excess calories will be stored as those many calories worth of fat, or in the case of a deficit you will lose fat equivalent to your caloric deficit. Whether or not fat is used as a substrate during cardio, whether or not fat is stored around a meal, is irrelevant. Total fat lost over set period of time of 24 hours + is dependent on caloric deficit/surplus.

2000 calories of complex carbs consumed at 6am in the morning. They are utilized over time considering they are disgested slowly. If your maintenance calories are 2000, you will not gain any fat as the calories from the carbs will perfectly balance the 2000 calorie requirement.

2000 calories of sugar? A large amount might be stored as fat around the meal. What will the body use to meet it's 2000 calorie requirement over the rest of the day? If your protein is high enough and your training is balls to the wall, it will use the 2000 calories of stored fat. Net fat stored? 0 calories worth, in both cases.

Basic thermodynamics

[iam fuzz]

Great arguments. GOOD READ FOR EVERYONE

-fuzz

[BHF]

Dirty bulking is eating anything you can get your hands on for example Pancakes, Mcdonalds, Pizza, Chips etc... and clean bulking involves foods such as Veggies, Steaks, Oats, Nuts etc... hope this helped.

[MSmith19]

If anything, diabetics would be more inclined to gain excess fat on a high gi diet. They didn't.

No, because obese people generally have terrible diets in the first place- the monitored diets were probably miles above than their original ones, hence the benefits in BOTH test groups. Their diets were most likely high gi, high sugar, high processed crap to begin with and I'm not just speculating. People with horrible diets, consisting of too many calories, too much sugar and too much fat are overweight people- it's a real-life situation.

On a side note, your arguement suggests that it is possible to eat all your carbs in the morning without gaining any fat and still reaping the benefits of a slow digesting carb. Like any other digestive process- if you consumed your daily dose of B vitamins in the morning, and nothing throughout the day, your body will expell of the excess (ie. useless glucose-> fat) and be malnourished during the rest of the day. This is one of the reasons that bodybuilders eat 6 meals during the day- for a slow, sustained supply of nutrients. Your body doesn't stockpile nutrients as easily as you think, and constantly transfering carbs>glucose>fat>energy is not an efficient process.


Why do bodybuilders use oats ?". Very nice argument . Only the ones disillusioned that you HAVE to eat complex sources ONLY eat only oats etc.

Yet this is recommended by almost everyone on this board; including many nutritionists, doctors, human biologists, professional bodybuilders and people with first-hand experience. Do you really think your idea of eating simple carbs in replacement for complex carbs is some new discovery that nobody is using yet because it's not yet known? No. Things are consistently done for a reason, and when they are wrong- they are naturally fixed by the community- and the bodybuilding diet has been pretty sturdy since the sport began.

hitting your macros is the main concern

Yes, this is a concern. But for overall health, watching your consumption of chemicals, perservatives, refined and processed foods, hormones and other man-made crap is worth recognizing. You seem to be excusing eating junk-food in replacement for whole, unprocessed food, but why? Are you just playing the devil's advocate? I can't see why someone would choose something packed with processed garbage and unnatural ingredients over whole, hearty, healthy food.

2000 calories of sugar?

So, you think having your body inefficiently convert food to fat to energy is better than consuming complex carbs and sparing your body the process and stress? Undoubtedly, some of that fat will not be used as energy- muscle, glycogen and the rest of your food intake will.

If your hypothetical situation was true, one could lose fat and gain muscle in the same day. They would simply do cardio during the morning with sufficient protein, and do weightlifting in the night with sufficient nutrients afterwards. They would burn fat as energy (with no muscle loss apparently) and then they would build muscle after the workout. Unfortunately, fat is not metabolized this easily and many other things are used first. This is why having a slow-released, sustaining meal plan is better than consuming all your carbohydrate calories at once- even if it was an extreme situation.

Remember that nutrient timing is a very important part of bodybuilding and there is a reason it is.

This has nothing to do with theory but reality:

How come THE MAJORITY of people that eat fast foods and 'dirty' foods have a ****ty physique, while those who eat organic, healthy, non-processed, low sugar, low fat diets have astounding physiques?

[The Brotherhood]

If anything, diabetics would be more inclined to gain excess fat on a high gi diet. They didn't.

No, because obese people generally have terrible diets in the first place- the monitored diets were probably miles better than their original ones, hence the benefits in BOTH test groups. Their diets were most likely high gi, high sugar, high processed crap to begin with and I'm not just speculating. People with horrible diets, consisting of too many calories, too much sugar and too much fat are overweight people- it's a real-life situation.

On a side note, your arguement suggests that it is possible to eat all your carbs in the morning without gaining any fat and still reaping the benefits of a slow digesting carb. Like any other digestive process- if you consumed your daily dose of B vitamins in the morning, and nothing throughout the day, your body will expell of the excess (ie. useless glucose-> fat) and be malnourished during the rest of the day. This is one of the reasons that bodybuilders eat 6 meals during the day- for a slow, sustained supply of nutrients. Your body doesn't stockpile nutrients as easily as you think, and constantly transfering carbs>glucose>fat>energy is not an efficient process.


Why do bodybuilders use oats ?". Very nice argument . Only the ones disillusioned that you HAVE to eat complex sources ONLY eat only oats etc.

Yet this is recommended by almost everyone on this board; including many nutritionists, doctors, human biologists, professional bodybuilders and people with first-hand experience. Do you really think your idea of eating simple carbs in replacement for complex carbs is some new discovery that nobody is using yet because it's not yet known? No. Things are consistently done for a reason, and when they are wrong- they are naturally fixed by the community- and the bodybuilding diet has been pretty sturdy since the sport began.

hitting your macros is the main concern

Yes, this is a concern. But for overall health, watching your consumption of chemicals, perservatives, refined and processed foods, hormones and other man-made crap is worth recognizing. You seem to be excusing eating junk-food in replacement for whole, unprocessed food, but why? Are you just playing the devil's advocate? I can't see why someone would choose something packed with processed garbage and unnatural ingredients over whole, hearty, healthy food.

2000 calories of sugar?

So, you think having your body inefficiently convert food to fat to energy is better than consuming complex carbs and sparing your body the process and stress? Undoubtedly, some of that fat will not be used as energy- muscle, glycogen and the rest of your food intake will.

If your hypothetical situation was true, one could lose fat and gain muscle in the same day. They would simply do cardio during the morning with sufficient protein, and do weightlifting in the night with sufficient nutrients afterwards. They would burn fat as energy (with no muscle loss apparently) and then they would build muscle after the workout. Unfortunately, fat is not metabolized this easily and many other things are used first. This is why having a slow-released, sustaining meal plan is better than consuming all your carbohydrate calories at once- even if it was an extreme situation.

Remember that nutrient timing is a very important part of bodybuilding and there is a reason it is.

This has nothing to do with theory but reality:

How come THE MAJORITY of people that eat fast foods and 'dirty' foods have a ****ty physique, while those who eat organic, healthy, non-processed, low sugar, low fat diets have astounding physiques?

You seem to be completely misreading my arguments. My argument is that physique changes happen over a longer period of time than just around a single cardio session or meal. Your response is that "by your logic one can gain muscle and lose fat by performing cardio in the morning and training at night". That is completely the opposite of my logic.

Because the majority of the people who eat dirty foods don't eat it in a macro controlled environment. Theres plenty of people on these boards with great physiques that don't bother themselves with "eating clean"

Who said anything about obese people? We are talking about diabetics.

Why eat junk food? Because it exists, tastes great, and if consumed in a macro controlled environment, will not hamper the physique as long as one doesn't take it to the extreme.

I am not advocating a diet of junk food 24/7. The diet will lack fiber, cause alot of water retention, lack micronutrition in the long run, have possibly negative effects on lipid profiles,etc. I AM advocating diets where you eat junk food 30-40% of the time, if you so want to, while keeping the rest of your food whole and unprocessed, all while sticking to your macros.

The reason I bring up the irrelevance of GI is because people pigeon-hole themselves avoiding fruit, juices, occasional sweet treats, white rices, potatos, etc because they are "not low GI". I don't bring it up to advocate a diet of snickers and m&ms.

I bring up fats because, again, people pigeon hole themselves into eating an EFA only diet, where the positive effects of EFAs cease after a few tens of grams, and people feel like crap avoiding cheeses, butter, etc, stuff that makes food taste good. I do not bring it up because I advocate a diet purely consisting of trans fats.

[MSmith19]

My argument is that physique changes happen over a longer period of time than just around a single cardio session or meal.

But in the same post you say that excess fat from a meal will be burned off during the day. I am not misunderstanding, you are either not being clear, or have a flawed arguement. What was that 2000 calories of sugar not turning to fat about if a physique change happens over time. Sure, it won't be a noticable change in day- but the change is still consistently happening.

Because the majority of the people who eat dirty foods don't eat it in a macro controlled environment. Theres plenty of people on these boards with great physiques that don't bother themselves with "eating clean"

Okay, fair enough. But by clean you mean healthy? Why wouldn't someone want to eat healthy?

Who said anything about obese people?

Almost everyone on your cited studies.

I AM advocating diets where you eat junk food 30-40% of the time, if you so want to, while keeping the rest of your food whole and unprocessed, all while sticking to your macros.

That is ludicrous. Eating junkfood is bad for your heart, brain, liver, kidneys and your entire body. Don't believe me? Check the manufacturing/processing of junkfood- check the perservatives, chemicals, growth hormones and sweeteners/tenderizers used- they are NOT GOOD FOR THE HUMAN BODY

The reason I bring up the irrelevance of GI is because people pigeon-hole themselves avoiding fruit, juices, occasional sweet treats, white rices, potatos, etc because they are "not low GI". I don't bring it up to advocate a diet of snickers and m&ms.

This is fine. But I still believe that timing your high/low GI carbs is extremely important because of fat gain/absorption/what your body needs and when. Your post is hardly convincing, especially the conflicting studies. I would rather go with what the nutrition and health community commonly agrees upon. So far, the only benefits of fast food and junkfood that we can agree on is the taste and conveniency. Guess what? Taste is acquired and the average person wastes over 40% of their day while being extremely inproductive.

As far as fats- I agree- keep fats relatively low (20-30% for the most part) and keep a solid base of EFA's and saturated fats have their place. However, the McDonalds burger doesn't have a particularly favourable fat ratio does it?

I have to go to bed, so let me summarize my thoughts.

I agree that macro ratios are very important in the diet. However, I believe that they are not the only variables.

I do not agree that eating junk food has ANY benefits besides conveniency, which can be combatted by eliminating laziness. Additionally, you claim that junk food is healthy on what basis?

I do not agree with your HGI/LGI arguement simply because it is not complete. The studies are not relevant(not done on bodybuilders, done on obese individuals), they are very conflicting and the medical/nutrition community has been advising LGI carb base for years. The bodybuilding community advises careful nutrient timing- ie. high HGI at breakfast and post workout only- while LGI during the day. BUT, remember that variation is always key.

I do not agree that eating 200g of sugar has the same effect on the body as 200g of oats because of the digestion time and fat production. Simply, energy not used is stored as fat and becomes more and more difficult to remove from the fat cells. Fat being used as energy is not such a simple process.