Quote:
Originally Posted by pkrplyrX
Rather than trying to do a somewhat lean bulk by using a small caloric excess, would it be better to do what Lyle recommends to those concerned with looking good: alternate between cutting down to 10% BF and bulking up to 15% BF?
See whether Zach ate too much or not, my issue in this controversy is I think Lyle's "lean slow bulk" idea is basically a myth.
My totally unscientific theory is that if you are working out efficiently, you will put on a mix of LBM:fat that is fixed across a wide range of surpluses.
Meaning if your age and genetics are such that you put on 50/50 fat muscle, this will be true for a 500 calorie surplus or a 1500 calorie surplus.
Obviously there comes a point of diminishing returns. If you consume 20,000 calories a day your overall gain is probably going to be like 85% fat or whatever.
But the point is that threshold is quite high, way above 500 calories a day.
I also question whether anyone has really gotten SS level results on
+500 calories a day (barring freak genetics). I feel like everyone who gets to say the 150/200/300/400 5rm level goes through a period of eating a ton.
I think the reason it might look like you can bulk more leanly at +500 calories than +1500 calories is when you slow the weight gain down that much, it gives you a lot more time to mix in aerobic exercise or even mini bouts of dieting (undereating on a vacation or whatever).