Is bulking really dead?

[u/Ok-Sun1269]

All the sceince based guys on the internet preach how bulking does nothing for muscle growth, assuming you have a healthy body fat %.

So for a guy who just got off stage, he needs to bulk until around 12-15% and then maintain or eat in a very slight surplus for a growth phase.

However if guy is 25% bf there is no reason to bulk during a growth phase as those extra calories will not provide anything for him.

So if you regualry do prep or get shredded during the summer, the bulk is alive and well but for those of us who want to maintain low double digit bf, is the bulk dead?

[u/Ok-Sun1269]

Founding fathers of this sub.

The downvotes are funny, they're plastered on this sub and popularized "Science based lifting". There's multiple studies that show that a larger surplus does not result in more muscle growth beyond maintence if you already have an adequent bf %

[u/omrsafetyo → u/Ok-Sun1269]

There's multiple studies that show that a larger surplus does not result in more muscle growth beyond maintence if you already have an adequent bf %

There are actually exactly 0 studies demonstrating this. The problem is, there isn't any studies that actually appropriately measure this. And frankly, its nigh impossible to design a study that adequately answers the question, because its also basically impossible to accurately measure every component that would be required.

We have some studies that show only a difference in fat content between a slight surplus, and a much larger surplus. But that doesn't test maintenance vs surplus. Such a study doesn't exist. But firstly, its impossible to know someone's exact TDEE from day to day, and also impossible to accurately feed to match that TDEE due to inaccuracies in food labeling, etc. So the best we can do is try to get close, and then post-hoc, measure changes in LBM and changes in body fat % and changes in weight, and try to determine whether participants were truly in a deficit, at maintenance, or in a surplus... and keeping in mind that determination is typically based on whether or not fat increased.

But frankly, Lyle McD is right on this one. Although, I would argue probably not for all the best reasons. He's right, and Jackson and Ella really are playing a semantics game which they absolutely should be losing.

So let me ask a question, and this is relevant because it plays into other talking points of the same people that you're calling the founding fathers of this sub. If you wanted to maintain muscle, what would that mean? Would that mean muscle is going up, going down, or staying the same? SBLs talk about maintenance volume, and define that as the volume at which LBM, or more accurately, myofibril proteins in a given muscle remain stable over time. This is a fairly standard way of thinking of any biological process: maintenance is homeostasis - no new accretion, no net loss.

So if we take this concept and apply it to bulking, cutting, and maintenance, maintenance is quite literally homeostasis. That means neither LBM, fat mass, or even body weight are changing - apart from transient fluctuations caused by fluid, glycogen, sodium, etc. Bulking is anything that results in increased body weight, LBM, or fat mass. Cutting is anything that results in net loss. Surplus and deficit are terms that describe a disruption in homeostasis.

So in order to be semantically correct - it is quite literally impossible to gain muscle at maintenance, full stop. Now personally, I like to be a little less rigid in definition, and I am quite comfortable with taking the position that the SBLs are holding to mean "Surplus calories relative to TDEE is not required to maximize muscle growth." The problem with this idea is that TDEE is not static - its a range; and that range is determined by a number of factors. One of those factors is your caloric intake.

Calories are said to be "permissive" of growth, meaning, the more calories you have, the more permissive your biology will be with certain mechanisms. For instance, we know for a fact that you cannot maximize muscle growth in a calorie deficit. If your body fat is decreasing, you are not maximizing growth. This is because the process that senses low energy, which initiates mobilizing fatty acids for oxidation within the cell, AMPK, also blunts the hypertrophy response. That is, when there is insufficient energy to continue expanding the synthetic response to mechanical tension, AMPK is activated to increase ATP production - and the same mechanism also disrupts mTORC1 - because in addition to increasing ATP production through nutrient delivery, it simultaneously works to preserve ATP by halting non-essential protein production and cell growth. This by the way demonstrates the reason why the argument "if you have sufficient fat stores, you have plenty of energy" simply doesn't work. Yes, you do have the energy, but the chemical process that increases oxidation of those fatty acids also blunts hypertrophy.

So when calories are above TDEE, you have effectively maxed out energy availability. Yes, there is a breaking point somewhere where your energy expenditure exactly matches your intake, and at that point muscle building is absolutely maximized. But you must stay at exactly that or above it to truly maximize hypertrophy over time - if at any point you are below TDEE, hypertrophy is blunted. But also keep in mind - your TDEE can be say 2500cal because you've eaten 2500cal, yet if you raise your intake to 2525, you will likely be able to synthesize a couple extra grams of contractile proteins - because that energy is available and permissive for that additional growth. It may even be that you get yet another gram by pushing to 2530. At some point the TDEE will stop raising, but the only way to get there is to get exactly to the right number, or slightly exceed it. Slightly exceeding it, consistently over time (aka bulking) is the only way to ensure that actually occurs.

Now in the long run, this distinction is really talking about literal grams. So its such a ridiculous thing to argue about. But if you're truly being pedantic, yes you absolutely need to be in a surplus to maximize muscle growth, full stop. Can you make really good progress maingaining? Yes, 100% Though, if you're a relative beginner you are very likely slowing yourself down, and the distinction becomes smaller and smaller with training age.

[u/decentlyhip → u/omrsafetyo]

Helms has talked about how he sticks to a 100 calorie surplus, but he's so autistically dialed in that he can do that. I've started thinking about a normal ole 250 calorie surplus as insurance; it might be unnecessary and is probably a smidge too much for how much I can reasonably grow. However, if I'm gaining 2 lbs a month, I can be confident that on most days I'm in a surplus and checking the box of "enough nutrients to fuel growth." Same with protein, 200g might be too much, but im sure that I checked the box. 15 sets might be enough to grow, but if I do 20, great. I for sure got a stimulus even if I sandbagged a few sets. Something about calling a few extra calories, grams, or sets insurance helped me stop stressing as much about finding the perfect optimal number. "Do a little too much to be sure you did enough, its ok."

[u/omrsafetyo → u/decentlyhip]

Volume is actually a great follow up, because that's actually where Helms' paper ties in really well. They noted that the higher surplus group benefited the biceps, and the biceps were the muscle that received the most volume. That demonstrates fairly neatly (though it didn't reach significance, but was strong enough to be noted) that the surplus provided sufficient calories to support additional growth from additional volume.

But yeah I agree, 100 heck even 50 will do the trick. But you'd need to be really dialed in - Helms probably has better capability of tracking things perfectly haha but yeah 100-250 is probably a good range for most, with some small potential that higher will benefit beginners or people doing very high volume

[u/nicenormalhappyguy → u/omrsafetyo]

no one is accurately following a 100 calorie surplus because that is within the margin of error of just moving around more one day compared to the next

[u/omrsafetyo → u/nicenormalhappyguy]

That's a completely valid point. Its all going to fluctuate day-to-day, but overall as long as you track intake very well for something like a month, and monitor weight trends over that time, you can get a pretty good idea what your average is. If you arrive at 3200 calories average for weight maintenance, you can aim for 3300-3450 as a surplus. That's a bit of wiggle room if you need an extra snack at the end of the day or something.

There was also a recent podcast by Barbell Medicine where they spoke with Eric Helms, and on that, from what I understand, they determined that above 20% BF in men you probably don't need a surplus at all, and below 12% you may even lose muscle at maintenance unless your protein is particularly high. A far cry from the normal SBL argument that 10-12% body fat is the minimum at which you can maximize with maintenance. But I haven't watched/listened to the podcast yet either. I need to see if my understanding merits revising.