UNoffical "How to Bulk" thread and sample diet...

[toofatbuilder]

6ft 295 or so.

damn, im 5'11" 275....but im 21% bf....lol id kill to be the same stats but 8%. thanks for this post though guys. it helps me out a bunch. 3395.76 cal to maintain what ive got. for loosing weight, is there a minimum cal intake i should have?

[toofatbuilder]

i checked on your weight loss forum but its directed twards builders who need to cut down. not fatties like me who just need to drop lbs so i can continue lifting.....

[BITTAPART2]

this is a goo sticky but as stated this is in no way what works for everyone. personally i dont do that pro/carb then pro/fat meal crap during a bulk, it is chicken and potatoes all day long. breakfast is protien and oats and for the rest of the day i eat chicken breasts and about 3.5cups boiled red potatoes. 6 meals a day i eat like this, then at night i will swallow down olive oil/PB and whey right befpre bed to make sure my cals get there. I just started this bulk im currently doing now at around 3000cals ED and am increasing by about 200-250cals ED untill 5000cals is met, at that point i asses and replan my next phase of dieting.

[Growingpains]

good times, anyone else got any diets?

[space.ghost]

I am currently bulking natural...I've been following pretty close to the first post diet. I've done plenty of cardio in the past through military pt. Now i have the opportunity to cut back on cardio to twice a week and been hitting the weights hard and definitely had some gains. Thanks for the great post of the past from both diets. The second diet puts things into perspective of what is capable in gear and bulking. but, hey I'm 25 and 206 at 5'11'' with somewhere around 12% BF and stronger than ever. Making some good gains...actually lost some weight at first by cutting simples and adding the complex carbs. Right now though after two months I've probably gain 5lbs of lean muscle just in change of diet and adding good cals alone. Thanks, SG

[holck074]

OK, your diet sounds great and all, but what about time? Right now I am attending class in the morning, working out, and then going to work from roughly 5-9 at night. I don't have time to eat 8 meals! What can I do about that? I am trying to get bigger now and am kind of new to all the supplements and stuff.

I am about 5'10''-5'11'' and weight 168-170 pounds.

And if someone can help me with one more thing: I am getting on a cycle of tes pretty soon to help jumpstart my growth. I would rather not, but a year after seeing no gains is pretty discouraging. I was wondering if someone could let me know what would be the best supplements to take while on the tes and which ones would be best to continue taking AFTER I get off the tes to keep my gains? SOMEONE please help me.

Thank you

[Leader05]

this is a good read.
thanks

[fenceguy]

great post!!!!

[Crest]

yer helpfull mate, ys suger such a tho ??

[Jacky_Zebsten]

how the hell do u afford diets like this? thats bulk spending on the food bill and preparation time?

why cant it all come in a can

[Beejis60]

That's kinda my problem. Im a college student who's at school for nearly 12 hours each day and I have to be up real early. There's nothing remotely close to healthy near campus and I don't want to drive 15 minutes one way to pick up food; not only can't I afford it, but gas prices too! I guess I should make all my food at night, no? But I have a problem reaching my suggested caloric intake of approximately 3100 kcals; I'm lucky if I squeeze in 2000 with a big ol fat hamburger and french fries. And eight egg whites are pretty rough unless they're fried with a ton of pepper and just a pinch of creole seasoning salt.
Overall, this is/was a sweet post!

[toyo92]

awesome read, my question is what about a person who works from 8 pm to roughly 8 am...and works out at the end of day about 2-3 hrs prior to sleep? i took the initial post regimen and tweaked it (accordingly?)...to fit into my schedule. If theres a vet or sr member who wants to critique it, id be more than willing to send it in a PM.

again, i guess i'm fairly lucky since uncle sam will be picking up a good part of my food bill

[Sheridan]

this helped me out a TON tyvm bro.

[JudgeTred]

Hey Leanmeout, Excellent information, Ive tried ssooooooo many diets, but normally put on too much body fat, or dont take in enough calories. I will now put your formulas into practise and surely get some results.
Thanks

[darr]

great post got all the info i needed.

[RonHop23]

I need newbie help if someone can contact me...thanks

[RonHop23]

I need newbie help if someone can contact me...thanks

[brjrj0000]

only 250 carbs a day for a full on bulk???

[sponger]

anyone know how much lean ground beef in meal 2 to eat? also in meal 3 and 6 it shows brown rice. meal 3 1 1/2 cup brown rice for 64 grams of carbs, but meal 6 only 1/2 cup for 70 carbs? anyone got answers to this. thanks.

[Elexecution]

anyone know how much lean ground beef in meal 2 to eat? also in meal 3 and 6 it shows brown rice. meal 3 1 1/2 cup brown rice for 64 grams of carbs, but meal 6 only 1/2 cup for 70 carbs? anyone got answers to this. thanks.

yeah i was wondering the same thing... the carb numbers mustve been a typo

[RBIZZY]

bump for a great post.....

[brjrj0000]

great post??? the diet plan sucks 250-275 carbs for a full on bulk are you serious

[Airnzah]

This is a great post, for sure. It makes great sense. But just now, I also agree with this statement, that is opposed w/ the 'separation' theory. Take note, these people are in a class of their own:

J Beaty: What are your thoughts on the reemergence of the macronutrient food combining theory where carbs shouldn't be mixed with protein/fat meals and fat shouldn't be mixed with protein/carb meals?

L Norton: This is a rather simplistic way of looking at nutrition and focuses mainly on insulin rather than looking at the whole picture. While it probably isn't a good idea to have a really high carb meal with a really high fat meal, there's nothing wrong with having moderate amounts of both.

W Brink: like many theories, it comes around every few years or decades and gets people all worked up over their food. Problem is, it's no more true today then it was when the book Fit for Life by Harvey and Marilyn Diamond came out. The theory had no scientific support then and it has none now. Humans have been combining fats, carbs, and proteins quite successfully for eons and as omnivores, are perfectly capable of digesting mixed meals.

J Hale: You are probably referring to the theory that assumes insulin and blood levels of fat should never be raised at the same time. This theory assumes that insulin is the key contributor to obesity. There are a few things wrong with this line of thought. One of the key problems is not recognizing something called Acylation Stimulating Protein. Acylation stimulating protein (ASP) is a hormone produced by adipocytes and is of importance for the storage of energy as fat. The consumption of dietary fat alone can increase fat storage. Dietary fat affects fat cell metabolism with NO INCREASE in insulin. Some studies have indicated dietary fat loading found a decrease in HSL (hormone sensitive lipase) and an activation of fat storage despite no increase in insulin. The key reason was activation of acylation stimulating protein (ASP) which is activated by the presence of chylomicrons (basically packaged triglycerides that are found in the bloodstream after the meal). ASP increases glucose uptake into the fat cell, increases insulin release from the pancreas and has been described as 'the most potent stimulator of triglyceride storage' in the fat cells by numerous scientists. Another problem with this line of thought is some proteins causes substantial elevations in insulin. Minimal levels of insulin affect fat cell metabolism. Basal levels can decrease lipolysis by 50%. Another consideration is most bbers are eating every 2-3 hrs so nutrients are still absorbing from previous meals; therefore previous meals interact with the blood levels of nutrients of the present meal.

A study conducted by Golay and colleagues compared a diet with equal macronutrient content and substrate percentages; that differed only in how the substrates were consumed (mixed diet vs. food combining). The results were no difference in weight loss. Here are the exact results reported by the researchers. “Results: There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to dissociated (6.2 +/- 0.6 kg) or balanced (7.5 +/- 0.4 kg) diets. Furthermore, significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip circumference ratio were seen in both groups, and the magnitude of the changes did not vary as a function of the diet composition. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, total cholesterol and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly and similarly in patients receiving both diets. Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure values decreased significantly in patients eating balanced diets. The results of this study show that both diets achieved similar weight loss. Total fat weight loss was higher in balanced diets, although differences did not reach statistical significance. Total lean body mass was identically spared in both groups. CONCLUSION: In summary at identical energy intake and similar substrate composition, the dissociated (or 'food combining') diet did not bring any additional loss in weight and body fat”. Actually looks like a slight increase in fat loss with mixed diet (balanced diet). We have tons of anecdotal evidence that denies the need for food combining. We have evolved on a mixed diet. With all of that said food combining may be beneficial regarding calorie control. Once you eliminate an entire macronutrient from a meal this can go a long way in decreasing total caloric intake. If this is what you need to do to control energy intake feel free to do so.

A Aragon: I think that the “P+C & P+F = okay but avoid C+F” principle is idiotic when applied across the board without any contingencies or attention to individual situations. For example, if someone is low-carbing for whatever reason you choose (pathological carbophobia included), they might be done with their carb intake by early afternoon, and their meal construction for the rest of the day is gonna be primarily P+F by sheer default. In the latter scenario, I can see the principle being legit. However, when issued blanketly, it’s usually based upon the wacky idea that you don’t want fat floating around systemically when your insulin levels are high, because this will magically shift your net adipose balance in the positive. That’s false for a number of reasons. First of all, the insulin response generated by CHO + fat generally depends upon the degree of the fat’s saturation. Unsaturated fats tend to either lower insulin response of the coingested carbs, or not affect insulin response at all. Coingested sat fat, on the other hand, tends to raise insulin response, and can do so in a synergistic fashion. But then the question becomes, so what? Others have mentioned the more direct role ASP has in TG synthesis, and indeed, insulin is more of a multi-tasking anabolic /anticatabolic agent in comparison to ASP, which seems to exist solely to pump up the adipocytes. And of course the kicker is that ASP can do its TG-synthesizing magic in the sheer absence of insulin.

And then there’s energy balance… In a negative energy balance, insulinogenesis is wonderful thing, as long as the training stimulus & nutrition is there to work in concert with it to preserve LBM. In the condition of a positive energy balance, trainees in general are gonna have a lot more carbs to throw around, so this makes the whole separation thing even more dicey. Which meals should be carb-free or fat-free in order to pull of this magic separation tactic, and why? The logical answers to this question simply don’t exist. If you were to actually adhere to the mechanics of separation, you’d actually be hard-pressed to maintain a stable insulin profile – which is ironic, since the control of insulin is what “separatists” are aiming for. Regardless of all the previous points, the fundamental shortsight is that digestion/absorption of meals overlap each other when meal frequency is as high as it should be. Therefore, attempting strict separation of the macros = kidding yourself. Not to mention, most foods in nature are a combo of all the macros to begin with.

not to offend or anything, but like a curious man would ask, "Which is which"?

[Airnzah]

This is a great post, for sure. It makes great sense. But just now, I also agree with this statement, that is opposed w/ the 'separation' theory. Take note, these people are in a class of their own:

J Beaty: What are your thoughts on the reemergence of the macronutrient food combining theory where carbs shouldn't be mixed with protein/fat meals and fat shouldn't be mixed with protein/carb meals?

L Norton: This is a rather simplistic way of looking at nutrition and focuses mainly on insulin rather than looking at the whole picture. While it probably isn't a good idea to have a really high carb meal with a really high fat meal, there's nothing wrong with having moderate amounts of both.

W Brink: like many theories, it comes around every few years or decades and gets people all worked up over their food. Problem is, it's no more true today then it was when the book Fit for Life by Harvey and Marilyn Diamond came out. The theory had no scientific support then and it has none now. Humans have been combining fats, carbs, and proteins quite successfully for eons and as omnivores, are perfectly capable of digesting mixed meals.

J Hale: You are probably referring to the theory that assumes insulin and blood levels of fat should never be raised at the same time. This theory assumes that insulin is the key contributor to obesity. There are a few things wrong with this line of thought. One of the key problems is not recognizing something called Acylation Stimulating Protein. Acylation stimulating protein (ASP) is a hormone produced by adipocytes and is of importance for the storage of energy as fat. The consumption of dietary fat alone can increase fat storage. Dietary fat affects fat cell metabolism with NO INCREASE in insulin. Some studies have indicated dietary fat loading found a decrease in HSL (hormone sensitive lipase) and an activation of fat storage despite no increase in insulin. The key reason was activation of acylation stimulating protein (ASP) which is activated by the presence of chylomicrons (basically packaged triglycerides that are found in the bloodstream after the meal). ASP increases glucose uptake into the fat cell, increases insulin release from the pancreas and has been described as 'the most potent stimulator of triglyceride storage' in the fat cells by numerous scientists. Another problem with this line of thought is some proteins causes substantial elevations in insulin. Minimal levels of insulin affect fat cell metabolism. Basal levels can decrease lipolysis by 50%. Another consideration is most bbers are eating every 2-3 hrs so nutrients are still absorbing from previous meals; therefore previous meals interact with the blood levels of nutrients of the present meal.

A study conducted by Golay and colleagues compared a diet with equal macronutrient content and substrate percentages; that differed only in how the substrates were consumed (mixed diet vs. food combining). The results were no difference in weight loss. Here are the exact results reported by the researchers. “Results: There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to dissociated (6.2 +/- 0.6 kg) or balanced (7.5 +/- 0.4 kg) diets. Furthermore, significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip circumference ratio were seen in both groups, and the magnitude of the changes did not vary as a function of the diet composition. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, total cholesterol and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly and similarly in patients receiving both diets. Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure values decreased significantly in patients eating balanced diets. The results of this study show that both diets achieved similar weight loss. Total fat weight loss was higher in balanced diets, although differences did not reach statistical significance. Total lean body mass was identically spared in both groups. CONCLUSION: In summary at identical energy intake and similar substrate composition, the dissociated (or 'food combining') diet did not bring any additional loss in weight and body fat”. Actually looks like a slight increase in fat loss with mixed diet (balanced diet). We have tons of anecdotal evidence that denies the need for food combining. We have evolved on a mixed diet. With all of that said food combining may be beneficial regarding calorie control. Once you eliminate an entire macronutrient from a meal this can go a long way in decreasing total caloric intake. If this is what you need to do to control energy intake feel free to do so.

A Aragon: I think that the “P+C & P+F = okay but avoid C+F” principle is idiotic when applied across the board without any contingencies or attention to individual situations. For example, if someone is low-carbing for whatever reason you choose (pathological carbophobia included), they might be done with their carb intake by early afternoon, and their meal construction for the rest of the day is gonna be primarily P+F by sheer default. In the latter scenario, I can see the principle being legit. However, when issued blanketly, it’s usually based upon the wacky idea that you don’t want fat floating around systemically when your insulin levels are high, because this will magically shift your net adipose balance in the positive. That’s false for a number of reasons. First of all, the insulin response generated by CHO + fat generally depends upon the degree of the fat’s saturation. Unsaturated fats tend to either lower insulin response of the coingested carbs, or not affect insulin response at all. Coingested sat fat, on the other hand, tends to raise insulin response, and can do so in a synergistic fashion. But then the question becomes, so what? Others have mentioned the more direct role ASP has in TG synthesis, and indeed, insulin is more of a multi-tasking anabolic /anticatabolic agent in comparison to ASP, which seems to exist solely to pump up the adipocytes. And of course the kicker is that ASP can do its TG-synthesizing magic in the sheer absence of insulin.

And then there’s energy balance… In a negative energy balance, insulinogenesis is wonderful thing, as long as the training stimulus & nutrition is there to work in concert with it to preserve LBM. In the condition of a positive energy balance, trainees in general are gonna have a lot more carbs to throw around, so this makes the whole separation thing even more dicey. Which meals should be carb-free or fat-free in order to pull of this magic separation tactic, and why? The logical answers to this question simply don’t exist. If you were to actually adhere to the mechanics of separation, you’d actually be hard-pressed to maintain a stable insulin profile – which is ironic, since the control of insulin is what “separatists” are aiming for. Regardless of all the previous points, the fundamental shortsight is that digestion/absorption of meals overlap each other when meal frequency is as high as it should be. Therefore, attempting strict separation of the macros = kidding yourself. Not to mention, most foods in nature are a combo of all the macros to begin with.

This is from http://www.alanaragon.com/bodybuildi...ne-norton.html

Both points make excellent sense! but not to offend or anything, but like a curious man would ask, "Which is which"? I'm scratching my head over this

[Stoneco|d]

wow one of the best posts i have read. I sure need to follow this diet. Thank you!

[brjrj0000]

post sucks

[LeanMeOut]

great post??? the diet plan sucks 250-275 carbs for a full on bulk are you serious

It's only as good as the reader is intelligent. You adjust accordingly for YOUR body. The sample diet posted is for a person with the example size / weight listed and a certain type of body type.

[brjrj0000]

yeah 250 carbs might be enough if this diet plan is for someone who weighs 150 pounds but even then. This is supposed to be a bulk and you clearly said it was for someone who weighs 220. Sorry but it sucks and we have all wasted our time by reading it

[BuffBuffalo]

Wow, that's a lot of info! I think I need a nap after reading all of that.

[LeanMeOut]

yeah 250 carbs might be enough if this diet plan is for someone who weighs 150 pounds but even then. This is supposed to be a bulk and you clearly said it was for someone who weighs 220. Sorry but it sucks and we have all wasted our time by reading it

You obviously know nothing about Nutrition. This thread has helped hundreds of people over the years......move on smart guy.

[Garnelek]

yeah 250 carbs might be enough if this diet plan is for someone who weighs 150 pounds but even then. This is supposed to be a bulk and you clearly said it was for someone who weighs 220. Sorry but it sucks and we have all wasted our time by reading it

Its proven that u don't need any more than 1,5gr of Crbs/Lb to bulk!That mostly in ur breakfast,pre workout and post workout!I think this tread is great and there is no need to post unjustified claims like that which only make people confused!

[cslade305]

This maybe covered in another thread, but what are the ratios of protein, carbs and fat after you have established you BMR?

[brjrj0000]

should be that hard to (lean you out) if thats all the carbs your eating smart guy. and i know a lot about nutrition i can put on 60 pounds in 2 months and lose it just as easy in 2 - 3 months without losing much muscle and ive done it without the help of any steroids at the diet my diet was perfect. I love the how to cut sticky but this thread is worthless.

[Kale]

should be that hard to (lean you out) if thats all the carbs your eating smart guy. and i know a lot about nutrition i can put on 60 pounds in 2 months and lose it just as easy in 2 - 3 months without losing much muscle and ive done it without the help of any steroids at the diet my diet was perfect. I love the how to cut sticky but this thread is worthless.

So rather than being a smart ass why dont you post up your idea's ?

[brjrj0000]

yeah being a smart ass by saying 250 grams of carbs are not enough for even a light person on a full on bulk ok? EAT MORE THAN 250 CARBS FOR A BULK! theres my idea bro that make you happy. Or do you wanna continue riding this guys nuts cuz he has way too much time on his hands and wrote this worthless novel on how to bulk

[brjrj0000]

you know maybe im wrong this diet would be perfect if the person had a underactive thyroid or the worlds slowest metabolism

[jon-john]

Hey man....thanks for this post. Ive been searching for ideas on bulking up. this will def help
peaceout
JJ

[SteelRain]

Sweet

[JDawg1536]

you know maybe im wrong this diet would be perfect if the person had a underactive thyroid or the worlds slowest metabolism

You win second place in the "Biggest Tool on AR" contest. Congrats.

[packetninja]

Anyone have a copy of the spread sheet, that link no longer works....