sexbelowsound Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I can see why the term lean bulk sounds like nonsense but if its used to mean a clean bulk then obviously it makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 26, 2016 Moderator Share Posted January 26, 2016 Yeah it was more the combination of bulk and cut in the same post. But I see now that he's going to cut his calorie count to only BE a small bulk. Ambiguous choice of word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 26, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted January 26, 2016 A clean bulk is difficult though, in terms of diet. I find it much harder to stick to a clean bulking diet than I do to stick to a cutting diet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 26, 2016 Moderator Share Posted January 26, 2016 Surely if your usual diet is clean then your house will be full of that stuff and you just eat more of it. I would find it harder to change the type of thing that I eat, rather than to just change the amount of it. IOW you are probably either a clean eater or a dirty eater anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I know exactly what he means by a clean bulk but as an idea it's absolute nonsense. If you're in a surplus, you will put on weight regardless of the food you eat. The whole differentiation between "clean" and "dirty" with regards food is massively subjective anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 26, 2016 Moderator Share Posted January 26, 2016 I don't think he's saying the weight will be different. I think he means feeling better for example after eating fruit and veg rather than after eating fish and chips. I'd say I could affect my strength by eating badly or goodly but eating comparable calories in both scenarios. Energy for one being a huge variable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 26, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted January 26, 2016 He's saying he's going to bulk by eating a small surplus and adding weight slowly. Which is how it should be done. When a lot of people bulk (me included in the past) they tend to up the calories loads, put on muscle, but also put on a load of fat at the same time. I assume Gabanna is trying to put on as little fat as possible whilst bullking. That's what I take from the clean and dirty distinction. It's not necessarily the type of food. It's the difference between setting out a, say, 3000 calorie diet at a 500 calorie surplus and sticking to it; and just eating whatever the **** you want for 3 months. The former will give you a steady "clean" weight gain. The latter will probably end up with you putting on a load of fat on top of any muscle gains. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 26, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted January 26, 2016 25 minutes ago, BOF said: Surely if your usual diet is clean then your house will be full of that stuff and you just eat more of it. I would find it harder to change the type of thing that I eat, rather than to just change the amount of it. IOW you are probably either a clean eater or a dirty eater anyway. I'm a dirty eater in a clean eater's body It's psychological for me. When I'm cutting I can look at the cakes somebody has brought into the office or the dessert I'm offered in a restaurant or the biscuits I'm offered at my mom's house and say no. I'm cutting, I can't eat that. Done. When I'm bulking, I think "ah well I'm bulking, one dessert won't matter". It becomes harder and harder to resist. And when you're already eating a surplus of calories, it then gets very easy for it to get out of control. I have a huge appetite. I am literally never full. Ever. So giving myself that bit of leeway on a bulk is often opening the floodgates. I controlled it much better this year though, although as I said, it went out of the window for xmas. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Fair enough. What I didn't explain very well was that if you have a calorie surplus, it doesn't matter what the food sources are - your body will be no more or less likely to store fat. Vice-versa with a deficit. Eat enough protein, get adequate fibre, vitamins and minerals and you will see virtually no difference in body composition whether you fill in the gaps with rice or Haribos. A calorie is a calorie. If it makes you feel better and increases your chances of adherence, have at it. But very, very few foods (if any) are inherently bad for you. Flexible dieting is the way forward. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 26, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted January 26, 2016 That's how I do it. Hit my calories, get the right amount of protein and let the rest take care of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 The right amount of protein is a debate to be had as well. I saw somewhere that the 1 to 1.2 grams of Protein per pound of bodyweight or lean mass is overkill. I wonder if its done to make sure that the calories are coming in but they aren't coming in from carbs and fats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 18 minutes ago, JB said: Fair enough. What I didn't explain very well was that if you have a calorie surplus, it doesn't matter what the food sources are - your body will be no more or less likely to store fat. Vice-versa with a deficit. Eat enough protein, get adequate fibre, vitamins and minerals and you will see virtually no difference in body composition whether you fill in the gaps with rice or Haribos. A calorie is a calorie. If it makes you feel better and increases your chances of adherence, have at it. But very, very few foods (if any) are inherently bad for you. Flexible dieting is the way forward. I think the only time a calorie isn't a calorie is when it comes to fat. It'll obviously still impact your weight in the same way but health wise it won't. Then again subbing in Haribo for rice would probably do the same in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 There are differing opinions/interpretations of the data but from what I've read, 1g protein per pound of BW (or target BW) is probably about right as a baseline. I find that I respond better to slightly more so I usually aim for about 1.2g. Protein has a greater thermic effect on the body (takes more calories to digest) but any long term difference in weight because of this would be very small. Any excess wouldn't be designed to reduce carbs and fats. There's no need to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Did anybody see the Trust Me I'm a Doctor thing on protein a couple of weeks ago? Basically they gave the youngish doctor guy some protein and then he worked out his leg, they took a sample from his muscle (looked pretty painful) and it showed the increased levels of protein going to that muscle to help the rebuild so to speak. All logical stuff. Then they did a test with a whole range of people and gave them all supplements to take as they went on an exercise regime over a couple of weeks. Some were given protein some a placebo. At the end of the test all participants showed an increase in strength etc but there was no difference between the protein group and the placebo group. The researcher said this was because the body can only absorb between 20/25g of protein at a time which we tend to get from our meals anything else is literally pissed away. Wasn't the most compelling scientific study (small sample etc) but interesting nonetheless. For a couple of months last year I was doing a double hit 50g at lunchtime which was probably a massive waste of time. Didn't notice any discernible difference anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) There's been tonnes of research carried out proving that the maximum amount of protein that can be absorbed in one sitting is nowhere near as low as suggested by studies such as the one you saw. The idea that it is doesn't make logical sense. As a rule thumb, I don't trust anything nutrition-wise from the mainstream media. Edited January 26, 2016 by JB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 26, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted January 26, 2016 Girl in my office told me about that. What I'd like to see, before any conclusions are drawn, is how much protein they were given. If they took a 200lb man who had a low protein diet, let's say 50g a day. Then they gave him a protein shake to up him to say, 80g a day, then it's perfectly logical to me that you'd see little or no difference between him and a guy who hadn't taken that protein shake. Protein shakes and supplements should be taken as a supplement to your diet, to help you hit protein goals. So taking one protein shake taking you from 50g of protein to 80g of protein isn't going to do anything. What you need to do is be using shakes to help you hit a total protein goal of around what JB was talking about. it's like saying "raising the temperature of this water by 10 degrees didn't make it boil, therefore boiling isn't caused by heat" I didn't see it though, so maybe it covered these concerns. I don't have anything to back it up, but I'm sure the theory that you can only absorb 20-30g of protein a time was dispelled as bro-science a long time ago 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 ^This! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 That 20-30g of Protein absorption theory has been around for donkeys years but I believe there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Whether or not the subjects of that study were trained or untrained makes or breaks it. Untrained individuals would likely see similar results regardless of protein intake; dem newbie gainz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Yeah I don't have the answers to any of the questions as with a lot of what they do on that show it's interesting but hard to know how seriously to take it because of the limited nature of the studies they do. Out of interest what do others on here think the level of protein is that the body can absorb in a given sensible timeframe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts