Well, I'm contemplating my course of action right now, and would like some input from all you guys. In about ~1-2 [no more than 2, gauranteed. closer to 1 most likely] months I'll be down to 8-9% body fat or so. that will be end of march to beginning of April.

At that point, I'm proposed with these various options:


maintain - 2800-3000 calories / day
moderate bulk - 3300 - 3500 calories / day
full bulk - 4000 - 4200 calories / day

Those are all according to my BMR at the new weight/height

At 8-9% BF i'll be 6'3'' @ upper 160s in weight. (166-170). I'm ~175lbs now, 12% bf with a 6-pack coming in :nod:

Thus far I've been eating 2100 calories spot on with 210-230 grams of protein per day, hitting 40/40/20 diet.

My real question: how will the results of a maintenance cycle at 3000 differ from moderate bulk at 3500 vs. bulk @ 4000 calories day. WIth some muscle growth at 2100 calories / day, i assume i'd see more muscle growth at 3000 which is purely maintenance, but retain body fat % instead of dropping. then at 3500 and 4000 i assume i'd see real growth, but combined with increase in body fat (just like a standard bulk).

will 3000 cals be much less growth than 4000 cals / day? I'd like to retain the definition while growing moderately larger, and if that can be accomplished at 3000 a day (effective maintenance) I'd definitely give that a try with the coming months of summer ahead. or maybe go with a healthy medium of 3500 cals / day and see slower muscle growth with slower fat gain.

Thanks :tu:

The body can only process so much muscle in a week. The difference between a moderate and a full bulk isn't muscle - it's fat. When bodybuilders put on massive amounts of weight in short periods of time, they end up losing massive amounts of lean in short periods of time when leaning down. The ones who consistently add muscle year to year and end up becoming pro natural bodybuilders stay relatively lean and simply bulk slowly over time.

The steroid show in the non-natural (i.e. Olympia) shows is an entirely different story - because they half the time don't even admit to doing steroids, there really isn't a way to know if any of the other rubbish they advertise or publish regarding diet and training is true, either.

If you are serious about putting on clean, natural muscle, I'd go get a free nutrition guide here:

http://www.bodybuildingworld.com/client/index.html

Hands down they will give you one of the best bodybuilding/bulking program available on the net. (Why would I even think of handing out a free nutrition link as a coach myself? Because my coaching focuses on health and nutrition for life, not nutrition for getting freaky on stage).

If you doubt their programs, take a look at the list of bodybuilders who have benefitted from their services ... and understand none of them get paid a penny to share their testimonials ...

http://www.beverlyinternational.net/bodybuilders/

Jeremy Likness

Well, I'm contemplating my course of action right now, and would like some input from all you guys. In about ~1-2 [no more than 2, gauranteed. closer to 1 most likely] months I'll be down to 8-9% body fat or so. that will be end of march to beginning of April.

At that point, I'm proposed with these various options:


maintain - 2800-3000 calories / day
moderate bulk - 3300 - 3500 calories / day
full bulk - 4000 - 4200 calories / day

Those are all according to my BMR at the new weight/height

At 8-9% BF i'll be 6'3'' @ upper 160s in weight. (166-170). I'm ~175lbs now, 12% bf with a 6-pack coming in :nod:

Thus far I've been eating 2100 calories spot on with 210-230 grams of protein per day, hitting 40/40/20 diet.

My real question: how will the results of a maintenance cycle at 3000 differ from moderate bulk at 3500 vs. bulk @ 4000 calories day. WIth some muscle growth at 2100 calories / day, i assume i'd see more muscle growth at 3000 which is purely maintenance, but retain body fat % instead of dropping. then at 3500 and 4000 i assume i'd see real growth, but combined with increase in body fat (just like a standard bulk).

will 3000 cals be much less growth than 4000 cals / day? I'd like to retain the definition while growing moderately larger, and if that can be accomplished at 3000 a day (effective maintenance) I'd definitely give that a try with the coming months of summer ahead. or maybe go with a healthy medium of 3500 cals / day and see slower muscle growth with slower fat gain.

Thanks :tu:

I'm not looking to put on massive amount of muscle Jeremy, if nothing else im realistic. I would be completely happy in the next two months to lose 5 lbs of fat and chisel my 6-pack just a little more. I'm going to strive to do better than that, and don't doubt that I will, but I would still be happy with that change. No problem.

I'm going to thoroughly read the website you gave me, and even if i don't take that route, I dont think i'll be going above 3500 calories with your response. John had very good results at 4000, which is why I wondered. Thus far I've had similar results to John in cutting and actually have a very similar build, just 3 inches taller.

3000-3500 seems to make sense, for me at least. its about maintenance with some room to grow. i could sustain that amount, without needing to fluctuate my calories on a tri-monthly basis (which sounds great). I believe your programs may not be pounded out to the calorie, but I loved talking to you and hearing from you, and you definitely helped guide me in the right direction.

thanks for the advice jeremy, im going to look into it no doubt.

Thanks for this post. How would you compare this to your own program for people looking to put on muscle? Is yours more appropriate for someone looking to put on some solid muscle but not interested in getting bodybuilder big? I am definitely interested in putting on mass after my cut but not an insane amount. thanks

The body can only process so much muscle in a week. The difference between a moderate and a full bulk isn't muscle - it's fat. When bodybuilders put on massive amounts of weight in short periods of time, they end up losing massive amounts of lean in short periods of time when leaning down. The ones who consistently add muscle year to year and end up becoming pro natural bodybuilders stay relatively lean and simply bulk slowly over time.

The steroid show in the non-natural (i.e. Olympia) shows is an entirely different story - because they half the time don't even admit to doing steroids, there really isn't a way to know if any of the other rubbish they advertise or publish regarding diet and training is true, either.

If you are serious about putting on clean, natural muscle, I'd go get a free nutrition guide here:

http://www.bodybuildingworld.com/client/index.html

Hands down they will give you one of the best bodybuilding/bulking program available on the net. (Why would I even think of handing out a free nutrition link as a coach myself? Because my coaching focuses on health and nutrition for life, not nutrition for getting freaky on stage).

If you doubt their programs, take a look at the list of bodybuilders who have benefitted from their services ... and understand none of them get paid a penny to share their testimonials ...

http://www.beverlyinternational.net/bodybuilders/

Jeremy Likness

These guys will pack on a lot of muscle. I know, because I've taken their program. However, I didn't enjoy it. I was almost ready to become a vegetarian after eating so much meat and protein. It was effective, and I gained mass, but I didn't enjoy the nutrition at all. The training was fun!

My programs focus on general health. I'm not convinced having bigger muscles is healthier. It might look better to certain people, but functionally, I feel strength and flexibility are more important than size. So when I look to put on muscle, it's usually more of a side effect from focusing on strength, joint integrity and mobility, and flexibility. My nutrition is probably not optimal to put on the most muscle in the least amount of time, again, because I'm not looking to focus on muscle gain at the expense of health - I'd rather develop something more balanced with vegetables, fruit, fiber, etc.

It's not to say muscle isn't important - the new Fit over 40 book has several people are enjoying a great quality of life due to their commitment to resistance training - but I still believe it is the training and the strength response more important than the size, and those with size are benefitting from the strength that comes with the size. Of course, this can be debated left and right, so I'm not saying right or wrong, only my opinion and philosophy.

Jeremy Likness

Thanks for this post. How would you compare this to your own program for people looking to put on muscle? Is yours more appropriate for someone looking to put on some solid muscle but not interested in getting bodybuilder big? I am definitely interested in putting on mass after my cut but not an insane amount. thanks

Thanks for those links Jeremy. I really like Beverly but have not seen all of this before.

Thanks. I tend to agree with you. It's important for me to feel good and maintain good health. This is something I definitely want to continue as I strive for more mass. a big part of why I work out beyond the desire to look good. By the way, since you're looking at this thread, as part of your dairy test do you advise eliminating whey protein and the occasional protein bar with trace amounts of dairy? thanks,

Justin



My programs focus on general health. I'm not convinced having bigger muscles is healthier. It might look better to certain people, but functionally, I feel strength and flexibility are more important than size. So when I look to put on muscle, it's usually more of a side effect from focusing on strength, joint integrity and mobility, and flexibility. My nutrition is probably not optimal to put on the most muscle in the least amount of time, again, because I'm not looking to focus on muscle gain at the expense of health - I'd rather develop something more balanced with vegetables, fruit, fiber, etc.

.

Jeremy Likness

I'm backing Jeremy's suggestion here again with Beverly. I jumped on a Bev. plan around this time last year. The advisors that they have on their staff are all winning bodybuilders that have been in the game for double digit years. My body comp completely changed in about 4 weeks time once I started on their plan. I didn't get huge, I just began to get really ripped. (of course my trainer at the time tried to take all the credit)
With the best supplements in the industry, and free guidence regarding their usage, and a diet plan, you can't go wrong.

Yes! Great stuff. I enjoyed all of my advisors from there when I had the idea I was going to compete awhile back.

As per milk, yes, I suggest eliminating all dairy - whey, casein, lactose, etc - and then when it is over, you can reintroduce them slowly, i.e. add back the whey shakes, then add back the casein or milk protein shakes, etc. That way, you can determine if you are allergic to the milk proteins, the milk sugars, or a combination of both. I seem to be fine with whey, for example, but casein still gives me a bit of stuffy nose.

Jeremy Likness

I'm backing Jeremy's suggestion here again with Beverly. I jumped on a Bev. plan around this time last year. The advisors that they have on their staff are all winning bodybuilders that have been in the game for double digit years. My body comp completely changed in about 4 weeks time once I started on their plan. I didn't get huge, I just began to get really ripped. (of course my trainer at the time tried to take all the credit)
With the best supplements in the industry, and free guidence regarding their usage, and a diet plan, you can't go wrong.

As per milk, yes, I suggest eliminating all dairy - whey, casein, lactose, etc - and then when it is over, you can reintroduce them slowly, i.e. add back the whey shakes, then add back the casein or milk protein shakes, etc. That way, you can determine if you are allergic to the milk proteins, the milk sugars, or a combination of both. I seem to be fine with whey, for example, but casein still gives me a bit of stuffy nose.

Jeremy Likness

Thanks. I have eliminated everything but whey so far. Can you recommend a good whole food (or otherwise) fast-absorbing protein for post workout? Or do you think any quaility protein is fine and absorbtion rate a non-issue?

I believe protein is less important than carbohydrate post-workout. Fast absorbing? Why? You don't suddenly have a burst of tissue repair. That is a process that can take several days, so focus on a variety of proteins throughout the day and then getting carbohydrate to your tissue after the workout.

About the only thing I'd say may be beneficial protein-wise is pharmaceutical grade branched chain amino acids, and those are so expensive that you'd probably want a good reason, like being a competitive bodybuilder, to go to those extremes.

Jeremy

Thanks. I have eliminated everything but whey so far. Can you recommend a good whole food (or otherwise) fast-absorbing protein for post workout? Or do you think any quaility protein is fine and absorbtion rate a non-issue?

I do consume carbs in a 2-1 ratio to protein after lifting. I'm not at the level of a competitive body builder, so I'll skip the aminos. I will follow your suggestion and swap the whey for a quality non-dairy protein during this experiment of no dairy. thanks again for all the advice.

I believe protein is less important than carbohydrate post-workout. Fast absorbing? Why? You don't suddenly have a burst of tissue repair. That is a process that can take several days, so focus on a variety of proteins throughout the day and then getting carbohydrate to your tissue after the workout.

About the only thing I'd say may be beneficial protein-wise is pharmaceutical grade branched chain amino acids, and those are so expensive that you'd probably want a good reason, like being a competitive bodybuilder, to go to those extremes.

Jeremy

the reason for protien post workout specifically fast digesting is

insulin is a storage horormone

when you spike your insulin with simple carbs post workout you might as well take advantage of the ability to store nutrients much more efficiently

the reason for protien post workout specifically fast digesting is

insulin is a storage horormone

when you spike your insulin with simple carbs post workout you might as well take advantage of the ability to store nutrients much more efficiently

Yes, I have heard this often. But I'm seeing how my body does without any dairy whatsoever. And this means temporarily dropping my normal whey post workout. But any suggestions, for a non-dairy alternative?

Don't full bulk. At an artificially low body fat your bodyfat levels will sky rocket on a high calorie diet. Take it slowly...