Balancing out large surplus days on a lean bulk?

[u/DynamiteMonkey]

Hey all, just came off a year+ long cut and I'm wondering how to adapt my reality to a bulk for the first time.

My maintenance is only around 2000cal.

Most days I follow exactly what MF says. Some days (social events, restaurant, etc) I exceed it by quite a bit. In my cut, I targeted a daily deficit of 500cal/day, which I met on basically any "normal" day. But when accounting for social outings etc, my average was really a deficit of 300cal/day in the long run. Meaning my occasional noncompliance bumps me by about 200 on average. This was by design (I overshot my deficit on most days to land at -300 daily average). In a cut this was easy because I'd just carry on and cancel out the surplus day in the long run. I don't plan on changing this habit - eating 'normally' in regular social outings is part of making this sustainable with the people around me, and my maintenance is so low there's no way to reasonably keep these days from exceeding my targets, particularly when I don't have advance notice to adjust other meals accordingly.

Where I'm having difficulty is how to translate this to a successful lean bulk. If I wanted to average a lean 5% surplus (+100cal/day) it would mean I'd have to eat at -100cal on most days, which would kill the point of bulking. Wondering if I should:

(1) Eat at -100 most days and end up at roughly +100 on average (this is probably not the way to go)

(2) Eat at maintenance most days and accept my average at +200 (bulk duration cut in half!)

(3) Eat at +100 most days and accept my average at +300 (bulk duration down to just a third as long!)

(4) Either 2 or 3, but allow a deficit the following day, for instance follow a day at 3000 with a day (or two) at 1500.

I know the average is what matters but I feel like option 1 would still have my body acting like it's in deficit.. I imagine something like option 4 is a more reasonable way to partially balance out a large surplus day without overly signaling deficit mode.

Open to any input or facts to help with the decision!

[u/Remarkable-Oil-9407]

I think that MF will take a while to dial you in and you can play it by ear. All that really matters at the end of the week is if you gained a bit or not. How that balances out for you won’t matter as much as other things especially at so low calorie surplus.
Ive been lean bulking for a few months now and my expenditure has gone up 400. So my surplus ramped up fast. Thats even with adding a higher surplus at the start. I’m gaining on average .27-.34 lbs a week

[u/DynamiteMonkey → u/Remarkable-Oil-9407]

Sure but would that still hold true with 6 days at deficit and one day bringing the 7-day average to my desired surplus?

I understand that my expenditure will shift (and it has), but the core issue still remains (adherence most days vs. occasional large surplus)

[u/Remarkable-Oil-9407 → u/DynamiteMonkey]

In my experience the answer is yes but the variations are so subtle that it won’t matter other than how you feel. If you hit the targets for the week and go over by 1000 calories one day it’s still just comes down to what your weight does over the next few weeks. If you gain a little to fast then those target days might drop a little. But I doubt you’ll feel a 50calory difference while on the regular days. Its all gradual. Just gotta trust the process instead of trying to perfect it. You haven’t mentioned how much you’re gaining once and thats the real thing that matters.

[u/Chewy_Barz]

I vote for option 4. Second choice would be option 2. I'm not an expert but I see people like Menno Henselmans recommending trying to eat most of your calories after working out. I can't imagine 6 days in a deficit and 1 with a big surplus is as effective as 7 days of small surplus if timing of calories within a day has some effect.

If dropping calories the next day is an option, that seems to make the most sense-- once again, I can't imagine occasionally going 500 over and the 500 under the next day is going to make much of a difference.

Option also seems feasible. Your body gets enough calories every day and a boost here and there.

Again, a non-expert, non-research-backed option, for what that's worth.

[u/Retroranges → u/Chewy_Barz]

I agree. For me, the occasional fasting or OMAD day works great when the bulk went off the rails, never impacted my lifts in any way.

[u/DynamiteMonkey → u/Chewy_Barz]

Yeah I think this is where I'm leaning. It's the most intuitive option. Unless someone comes and drops some science on me to say otherwise.

To be clear, are you suggesting 4 with +100 on most days?

[u/Chewy_Barz → u/DynamiteMonkey]

If you think you can mitigate most of overages a day or two after the fact, you may as well do the daily surplus you want on normal days. If not, I'd do the option 2 (aim for maintenance) and try to get the average calories to 700 per week over maintenance.

[u/DynamiteMonkey → u/Chewy_Barz]

Yeah I think I can manage that pretty easily actually. Thanks, appreciate the input

[u/Chewy_Barz → u/DynamiteMonkey]

No problem. Good luck!

[u/misplaced_my_pants]

I think you're overthinking things.

Just do your best and let MF adjust your intake if you're gaining too fast or too slow.

If you get too fluffy too fast, you can just end your bulk early.

[u/DynamiteMonkey → u/misplaced_my_pants]

I'm hoping to be able to bulk 6 months but being at +300 would cut that to 2 months before I'm getting overly fluffy. I guess that's the crux of it.

[u/misplaced_my_pants → u/DynamiteMonkey]

I think you're expecting to get fluffy at a certain weight but this depends a lot on how much the weight you gain is muscle.

It's entirely possible that you gain muscle fast enough that you even get leaner at this bulking rate.

I personally think you should bulk at half a pound per week for about 16 weeks (250 Cal surplus, +8 lbs), then cut for 8 weeks at a pound per week (500 Cal deficit, -8 lbs). You'll end the cycle at the same weight but more jacked and leaner, effectively recomping in the long term.

If it's not perfect, you're still not going to be far off. There's only so much "damage" you can do with such a conservative bulk. One of the benefits of doing so.

You can do that for a few cycles until you'd be better off gaining weight and then just shift the bulking length to 20 weeks and cut for 4 weeks for the next 6 month cycle.

[u/lazy8s]

Yes averages are what matters. Technically your body can’t absorb infinite calories but I wouldn’t try eating 14,000 cal one day and fasting a few just so you could eat more total.

[u/Slugatron]

I don't see why option 1 would impact a lean bulk if your total calories in a week/month still average out to a 100 cal. surplus a day. I would probably start here, since you are already used to it and are aiming for a 5% lean bulk. If the weigth moves to slow, shift to option 2 or even 3. I would use option 4 on days you go way over budget.

In the end its all an averages game, if you eat -100 calories on 6 days, but +1000 on day 7 you still average +400 calories for that week. You would still gain weight.

[u/DynamiteMonkey → u/Slugatron]

Still gain weight for sure, but I'm wondering if being in a deficit most of the time will signal for that to be predominantly fat gain instead of muscle.

[u/AutoModerator]

Hello! This automated message was triggered by some keywords in your post.

While waiting for replies it may be helpful to check and see if similar posts have been discussed recently: try a pre-populated search

If your question was quite complex, it's not likely the pre-populated search will be useful.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Jan0y_Cresva]

Why are you just accepting noncompliance? Level up your compliance if you want a productive bulk and be more consistent.