My Clean Bulking

Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. Re: My Clean Bulking


    Quote Originally Posted by gorgor03 View Post
    Macros: 56 fat 284 carb 221 protein
    Increase fat and decrease CHO and PRO intake.


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates


  2. My current macro ratio is fat 25% carb 40% and protein 35%. What is the optimal ratio? Thank you!
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by gorgor03 View Post
    My current macro ratio is fat 25% carb 40% and protein 35%. What is the optimal ratio? Thank you!
    There isn't a definite one.

    If you will read through the article and the referenced studies within the article, you will have a solid, scientifically supported idea as to how you should structure your diet.
  4. Re: My Clean Bulking


    Quote Originally Posted by gorgor03 View Post
    My current macro ratio is fat 25% carb 40% and protein 35%. What is the optimal ratio? Thank you!
    What is optimal is kinda tricky.

    Optimal Protein intake is gonna be 1.6-1.8g*kg

    Optimal Carb intake for metabolic functions is around 150g BUT this can be lower if you choose to go higher in PRO intake as it can be used to make glucose. For workout days you would want to add another 125g CHO per hour of exercise but again this can vary.

    Fat intake can be used to make up the difference to reach your total caloric goal but I would recommend getting at the very least 100g of fat.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  5. Thanks All! Going to see if I can do 245 carb 210 protein and 109 fat.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    Unfortunately, there haven't been any studies done on bodybuilders to prove the notion that constant grazing isn't beneficial.

    Some interesting things to read though:

    Iwao and colleagues examined boxers who were subjected to a hypocaloric diet while either consuming two or six meals per day. The study lasted for two weeks and the participants consumed 1,200 kcals per day. At the conclusion of the study, overall weight loss was not significantly different between the groups. However, individuals that consumed 6 meals per day had significantly less loss of lean body mass and urinary 3-methylhistidine/creatinine as opposed to those that only consumed two meals. This would suggest that an increased meal frequency under hypocaloric conditions may have an anti-catabolic effect.

    Iwao S, Mori K, Sato Y: Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers.

    Scand J Med Sci Sports 1996, 6(5):265-72.


    A published abstract by Benardot et al. demonstrated that when a 250 calorie snack was given to 60 male and female college athletes for two weeks after breakfast, lunch, and dinner, as opposed to a non-caloric placebo, a significant amount of fat (-1.03%) was lost and lean body mass (+1.2 kg) gained. Furthermore, a significant increase in anaerobic power and energy output was observed via a 30-second Wingate test in those that consumed the 250 calorie snack. Conversely, no significant changes were observed in those consuming the non-caloric placebo. Interestingly, when individuals consumed the total snacks of 750 kcals a day, they only had a non-significant increase in total daily caloric consumption of 128 kcals [49]. In other words, they concomitantly ate fewer calories at each meal. Lastly, when the 250 kcal snacks were removed, the aforementioned values moved back to baseline levels 4 weeks later.

    Benardot D, Martin DE, Thompson WR, Roman SB: Between-meal energy intake effects on body composition, performance, and total caloric consumption in athletes.

    Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2005, 37(5):S339.




    And an excerpt from a pretty long article:

    The time course of mps in response to a meal and the
    refractory nature of mps in response to constant elevations in
    amino acids make it seem unlikely that an additional
    stimulation can be achieved 3 hours post prandially with a
    second meal of similar composition to the first, as plasma
    leucine concentrations remain peaked. Thus, in order to
    avoid refractoriness and maximize mps it may be best to
    consume larger doses of protein
    that contain sufficient leucine to
    maximize mtor signalling and mps
    while allowing enough time (4-6
    hours) for post prandial amino acid
    levels to fall in between meals in
    order to re-sensitize the system.
    According to the protein stat
    theory, a second nutritional
    intervention which may overcome
    refractoriness is to create a
    supraphysiological rise in plasma
    amino acid levels between meals.
    A free form amino acid supplement
    would likely be rapidly digested
    and empty into the bloodstream
    quickly, potentially elevating plasma amino acid levels
    above their meal induced plateau. Finally, it may also be
    advantageous to consume a carbohydrate source between
    high protein meals if insulin does in in fact play a role in mps
    becoming refractory. Evidence for this was provided by,
    Padden-Jones et al. (30) who demonstrated that consuming
    30 grams of carbohydrates and 15 grams of free form
    essential amino acid supplement containing ~3g of leucine in between meals spaced 5 hours apart enhanced mps
    compared to unsupplemented subjects fed the same meals.
    This suggests that supplemental free form amino acids and
    carbohydrates may either enhance the anabolic response
    to a meal or somehow overcome the refractory response.
    The potential of free form amino acid supplements and
    carbohydrate ingestion between meals to overcome
    refractoriness is a future focus of our labís research. Athletes are more active and have very different goals
    with regards to nutrition compared to the average person.
    Athletes looking to maximize muscle mass and strength
    may benefit from protein levels well above the RDA. While
    the RDA focuses on minimum needs to achieve nitrogen
    balance, athletes should focus on consuming sufficient
    protein to maximize beneficial metabolic outcomes of
    greater protein intakes on a meal to meal basis.
    Current
    research suggests that the amino acid leucine is
    responsible for much of the anabolic properties of a meal
    and maximization of mps in response to a meal is
    dependent upon consuming sufficient leucine (3g or
    ~0.05g/kg bodyweight) to saturate the mtor signalling
    pathway. The amount of protein required at a meal to
    achieve this outcome will differ based on the leucine
    content of the protein source with leucine rich protein
    sources like dairy, egg, meats and poultry being preferable
    to leucine poor sources of protein such as wheat. These
    leucine rich meals should be consumed multiple times per
    day and consumption of carbohydrate with free form
    essential amino acids ingested between whole protein
    meals may further optimize mps, possibly by overcoming
    refractoriness
    .

    http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/u...-Tech-2008.pdf

    ^ The supporting studies are noted and referenced in the article.



    OP, evidence suggests your carb intake is beneficial, as is your "grazing". If you can't afford all the meat, protein supps are "necessary". You're doing it right.
    Can you please link the FULL TEXT for the boxing one? What you copied and pasted was merely the abstract which doesn't paint a picture to how the study was conducted or even if the same foods were utilized during the study for both groups and whether or not their was a control group.

    Thanks.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    Can you please link the FULL TEXT for the boxing one? What you copied and pasted was merely the abstract which doesn't paint a picture to how the study was conducted or even if the same foods were utilized during the study for both groups and whether or not their was a control group.

    Thanks.
    http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/u...-Tech-2008.pdf

    However it is FAR from conclusive. It is a novel idea and makes logical sense but the majority of the research does not really support his hypothesis but then again who knows really?
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    Can you please link the FULL TEXT for the boxing one? What you copied and pasted was merely the abstract which doesn't paint a picture to how the study was conducted or even if the same foods were utilized during the study for both groups and whether or not their was a control group.

    Thanks.
    The study was linked for anyone interested in reading it.


    Edit, never mind. Just referenced. Still searchable but I'll see if I can link it later today, I'm going to be pretty busy this morning.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/u...-Tech-2008.pdf

    However it is FAR from conclusive. It is a novel idea and makes logical sense but the majority of the research does not really support his hypothesis but then again who knows really?
    Perhaps the majority of research on a general population, a limitation he addresses while analyzing research geared to athletes, which still doesn't conclusively speak to bodybuilding with its various physiological effects of hypertrophy and increased futile turnover.

    He gives a more accurate picture imo than methodologies built around ignoring severe limitations concerning MPS and nitrogen retention where bodybuilding is concerned.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post

    Iwao S, Mori K, Sato Y: Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers.

    Scand J Med Sci Sports 1996, 6(5):265-72.
    This is actually an interesting one but was carried out horrible. Not long enough and too small of a sample size would be a start but the most glaring problem was the boxers only consumer 1200 calories and only 60g of PRO. So you have an athlete you is insanely hypocaloric AND barely taking in sufficient protein. Is it really a surprise to anyone the they experienced a loss in lbm? Perhaps if they were given adequate calories and protein intake then we can start speculating on the impact of meal frequency.


    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    Benardot D, Martin DE, Thompson WR, Roman SB: Between-meal energy intake effects on body composition, performance, and total caloric consumption in athletes.

    Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2005, 37(5):S339.
    This is hardly evidence of anything especially any benefit of higher meal frequency. The group that was given the snacks had a higher overall caloric intake then the NON-CALORIC placebo group. This higher overall energy intake can easily explain the difference in lbm gain. Without total energy and macronutrients being matched between both groups it is nearly impossible to attribute anything solely to meal frequency


    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/u...-Tech-2008.pdf

    ^ The supporting studies are noted and referenced in the article.
    as I said above the idea of supplementing leucine is an interesting but it rally hasnt panned out. See this discussion for my thoughts on leucine supplementation - BCAA discussion thread
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
    •   
       


  11. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    Can you please link the FULL TEXT for the boxing one? What you copied and pasted was merely the abstract which doesn't paint a picture to how the study was conducted or even if the same foods were utilized during the study for both groups and whether or not their was a control group.

    Thanks.
    Sorry I misread and for some reason thought you were asking about the Norton one.

    If you have access to it you can get it here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...469.x/abstract

    if not I can probably get the full text for you
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  12. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    This is actually an interesting one but was carried out horrible. Not long enough and too small of a sample size would be a start but the most glaring problem was the boxers only consumer 1200 calories and only 60g of PRO. So you have an athlete you is insanely hypocaloric AND barely taking in sufficient protein. Is it really a surprise to anyone the they experienced a loss in lbm? Perhaps if they were given adequate calories and protein intake then we can start speculating on the impact of meal frequency.




    This is hardly evidence of anything especially any benefit of higher meal frequency. The group that was given the snacks had a higher overall caloric intake then the NON-CALORIC placebo group. This higher overall energy intake can easily explain the difference in lbm gain. Without total energy and macronutrients being matched between both groups it is nearly impossible to attribute anything solely to meal frequency




    as I said above the idea of supplementing leucine is an interesting but it rally hasnt panned out. See this discussion for my thoughts on leucine supplementation - BCAA discussion thread
    Ideally we would have studies on bodybuilders to determine anything relating to protein intake and meal frequency for bodybuilders. Even more ideally we would have studies on bodybuilders comparing protein intake during high volume training periods and high intensity training periods as well as any other potential factor that would influence physiological responses.

    In the absence of these studies, I'll take a ceteris paribus situation such as the boxers to show a maintenence of lean body mass with frequent meals vs. ingesting the same macros and calories in a different structure. Whether they conducted the study in a hypobolic state, hyperbolic state, in Kentucky or on the Moon doesn't matter as much to me as the apples to apples comparison; big picture considered. Does the study have it's limitations? Yes. Every study does. The evidence is there, however, and it is telling if not definite.

    The second study did show a higher lbm gain at a higher caloric intake, without fat gain. You can't conclusively attribute frequency to these results but again, in the absence of any studies done on actual bodybuilders, either side of the meal frequency argument has to "make do" and this evidence can be extrapolated to an extent to support frequent meals for favorable body composition, especially when considered in a bigger picture such as a ceterus paribus scenario in the boxer study and the oodles of info in Layne Nortons write up.

    Layne Norton doesn't recommend just ingesting more leucine. He recommends ingesting leucine rich, full protein sources along with carbs at a 2:1 carb to protein ratio between protein rich meals. I don't expect most people to read such a long article fully but it is chock full of info, supported scientifically and presented accurately to show that yes, it is possible to achieve MPS among other desireable physiological effects through frequent feedings and over and above other dieting protocols. Interestingly, a reader can see the support for IF type diets and traditional three meal per day diets right up until Layne begins discussing supraphysical levels of MPS brought on by leucine rich, whole protein supps ingested with carbs to bypass MPS refraction. This article actually supports that yes, IF protocols do work to ellicit anabolism and will aid in building muscle, although it won't be as beneficial as frequent feeding, traditional bodybuilding style diets. We aren't talking about IF vs. Traditional in this thread though so I digress. Either way the article is soundly based on scientific observances and it is plain to see the results speak for themselves.

    And with a lack of studies on bodybuilder physiology, I'll take his scientific based research and the oodles of anecdotal evidence that can be observed to support the research in real world application over theories based on general population studies and worked through and between limitations in the grey area of the unkown. Especially when his research plainly supports these theories as effective, only to continue on demonstrating more effective protocols.

    For anyone genuinly interested in scientifically based best practices to a desireable physique, please read the article and it's corresponding research with an open mind. The proof is in the pudding for meal frequency.

    As far as winning arguments from one "camp" to another, every single argument from every single "side" will be dismantled by identification of limitations so we are on a merry go round of potentially misapplied science until legitimate studies are conducted on legitimate bodybuilders in a variety of training and dieting protocol scenarios. There is, however, strong evidence to support the efficacy of frequent meals over intermittent meals here for a variety of desireable physiological outcomes, including and especially the best MPS practice the OP of this thread is after.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post

    http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/u...-Tech-2008.pdf

    However it is FAR from conclusive. It is a novel idea and makes logical sense but the majority of the research does not really support his hypothesis but then again who knows really?
    Thanks man. Couldn't find the entire link via pubmed to draw my own conclusions.

    Nice analysis of the studies too.

    Edit: Ah yeah just checked the link ( couldnt before on my phone), but yeah I have access to that other link. Thanks for that.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable

  14. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    Ideally we would have studies on bodybuilders to determine anything relating to protein intake and meal frequency for bodybuilders. Even more ideally we would have studies on bodybuilders comparing protein intake during high volume training periods and high intensity training periods as well as any other potential factor that would influence physiological responses.

    In the absence of these studies, I'll take a ceteris paribus situation such as the boxers to show a maintenence of lean body mass with frequent meals vs. ingesting the same macros and calories in a different structure. Whether they conducted the study in a hypobolic state, hyperbolic state, in Kentucky or on the Moon doesn't matter as much to me as the apples to apples comparison; big picture considered. Does the study have it's limitations? Yes. Every study does. The evidence is there, however, and it is telling if not definite.

    The second study did show a higher lbm gain at a higher caloric intake, without fat gain. You can't conclusively attribute frequency to these results but again, in the absence of any studies done on actual bodybuilders, either side of the meal frequency argument has to "make do" and this evidence can be extrapolated to an extent to support frequent meals for favorable body composition, especially when considered in a bigger picture such as a ceterus paribus scenario in the boxer study and the oodles of info in Layne Nortons write up.

    Layne Norton doesn't recommend just ingesting more leucine. He recommends ingesting leucine rich, full protein sources along with carbs at a 2:1 carb to protein ratio between protein rich meals. I don't expect most people to read such a long article fully but it is chock full of info, supported scientifically and presented accurately to show that yes, it is possible to achieve MPS among other desireable physiological effects through frequent feedings and over and above other dieting protocols. Interestingly, a reader can see the support for IF type diets and traditional three meal per day diets right up until Layne begins discussing supraphysical levels of MPS brought on by leucine rich, whole protein supps ingested with carbs to bypass MPS refraction. This article actually supports that yes, IF protocols do work to ellicit anabolism and will aid in building muscle, although it won't be as beneficial as frequent feeding, traditional bodybuilding style diets. We aren't talking about IF vs. Traditional in this thread though so I digress. Either way the article is soundly based on scientific observances and it is plain to see the results speak for themselves.

    And with a lack of studies on bodybuilder physiology, I'll take his scientific based research and the oodles of anecdotal evidence that can be observed to support the research in real world application over theories based on general population studies and worked through and between limitations in the grey area of the unkown. Especially when his research plainly supports these theories as effective, only to continue on demonstrating more effective protocols.

    For anyone genuinly interested in scientifically based best practices to a desireable physique, please read the article and it's corresponding research with an open mind. The proof is in the pudding for meal frequency.

    As far as winning arguments from one "camp" to another, every single argument from every single "side" will be dismantled by identification of limitations so we are on a merry go round of potentially misapplied science until legitimate studies are conducted on legitimate bodybuilders in a variety of training and dieting protocol scenarios. There is, however, strong evidence to support the efficacy of frequent meals over intermittent meals here for a variety of desireable physiological outcomes, including and especially the best MPS practice the OP of this thread is after.
    The science certainly didn’t support the approach [eating ever few hours], so how come everyone was ranting about high meal frequency patterns being ideal? I already had my doubts, but I needed to have a closer look at the hard facts in order to convince myself to quit the meal pattern that started to become a burden on my life. Was eating every second or third hour important in order to “stoke the metabolic fire”? No, there was no scientific support for that idea and studies on the subject were carefully controlled, showing no correlation at all between meal frequency and metabolism. Perhaps a high meal frequency was needed in order to provide the body with a regular stream of nutrients, making sure that you had a constant supply of amino acids in order to stave off muscle catabolism and promote muscle growth? No, looking at how the body processes and digests meals, this wasn’t the case either. Digestion of a regular meal takes about 6-7 hours and during this time amino acids are being released into the bloodstream. 30 g’s of casein takes about 7 hours to get fully assimilated. Double that amount and you will have amino acids in the bloodstream most of your waking hours. Was a high meal frequency needed in order to keep hunger at bay and not overeat? This is the only point where a high meal frequency has some empirical backing – at least when you look at how inactive test subjects in lab settings rate hunger, on different meal patterns, while being fed a high carb diet compromised of calorie dense foods. Not really something that can be applied the physique conscious crowd, or the environment most people spend their waking hours in.
    There are also some correlation studies showing a link between high meal frequency and lower bodyweight in the general population, but this is easily explained when you look at the behavioral aspects surrounding low meal frequencies among “regular” people. For example, your average low meal frequency eater is usually a spontaneous eater, snacks between meals and has no clue about proper nutrition (a snickers bar on the go, maybe something from the vending machine after lunch, and so forth). Again, this is not something that can be applied to the health conscious crowd, which has a basic grasp on proper nutrition, and strives to improve his or hers body composition – the crowd reading this interview, for example.

    -Exert from Leangains.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    The science certainly didn’t support the approach [eating ever few hours], so how come everyone was ranting about high meal frequency patterns being ideal? I already had my doubts, but I needed to have a closer look at the hard facts in order to convince myself to quit the meal pattern that started to become a burden on my life. Was eating every second or third hour important in order to “stoke the metabolic fire”? No, there was no scientific support for that idea and studies on the subject were carefully controlled, showing no correlation at all between meal frequency and metabolism. Perhaps a high meal frequency was needed in order to provide the body with a regular stream of nutrients, making sure that you had a constant supply of amino acids in order to stave off muscle catabolism and promote muscle growth? No, looking at how the body processes and digests meals, this wasn’t the case either. Digestion of a regular meal takes about 6-7 hours and during this time amino acids are being released into the bloodstream. 30 g’s of casein takes about 7 hours to get fully assimilated. Double that amount and you will have amino acids in the bloodstream most of your waking hours. Was a high meal frequency needed in order to keep hunger at bay and not overeat? This is the only point where a high meal frequency has some empirical backing – at least when you look at how inactive test subjects in lab settings rate hunger, on different meal patterns, while being fed a high carb diet compromised of calorie dense foods. Not really something that can be applied the physique conscious crowd, or the environment most people spend their waking hours in.
    There are also some correlation studies showing a link between high meal frequency and lower bodyweight in the general population, but this is easily explained when you look at the behavioral aspects surrounding low meal frequencies among “regular” people. For example, your average low meal frequency eater is usually a spontaneous eater, snacks between meals and has no clue about proper nutrition (a snickers bar on the go, maybe something from the vending machine after lunch, and so forth). Again, this is not something that can be applied to the health conscious crowd, which has a basic grasp on proper nutrition, and strives to improve his or hers body composition – the crowd reading this interview, for example.

    -Exert from Leangains.
    Layne Norton supports all of this, including anabolism for hours after ingesting meals. He shows that hypertrophy is possible with LG type diets, and it is. Nobody disagrees. He then, however, goes on to discuss supraphysical levels of MPS that leangains doesn't allow for or address. It's all in the essay and its referenced research.

    And we have here a study demonstrating meal frequency as superior to obtaining the same calories in a less frequent structure.

    Leangains is a diet that works and the marketing write up is catchy, but the science doesn't actually support it as the best practice hypertrophy diet, no matter how hard the author takes the salesman role. His whole premise is built around protein refractory limitations where MPS is concerned, a false premise addressed directly by referenced studies in the linked essay.

    Leangains works, it is not the most effective.
  16. Re: My Clean Bulking


    I'm not even gonna bother

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  17. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    In the meantime, OP, you have research supported evidence to the efficacy of your diet vs. unsubstantiated claims on an internet forum. Take them each for what you will.


    It is a real shame bodybuilders aren't studied though, given increased futile turnover, hormonal response to training stimuli, muscle damage where protein is required for repair and a slew of other physiological actions brought on by a specific type of training as compared to general athletes, CNS centered strength programs and certainly the general, largely sedentary population. Until that happens we won't have a real answer to the question in this thread and limitations to studies both supporting and detracting will abound.

    The available evidence does point to the frequent feeding schedule with protein and carb intake between meals to be beneficial , however.

    And the study comparing 60 college athletes absolutely shows frequent meals to reach a set calorie point vs. limited meals reaching the same to favor increases in lean mass and decreases in fat mass, as a side note to your belly issue.
    John Parillo studies them. His gym is a lab.

    But what do I know, I try to make helpful suggestions and I get "debunked". I just don't care to help anyone anymore. Their loss. I'll continue making gains.

  18. The author of LeanGains also doesn't market the diet as a good mass-building platform. Last time I checked (which was about 18 months ago), LeanGains was ideal for maintaining muscle mass while losing the belly fat. It does this very well from my experience.

  19. Im sorry, "clean bulking" is a misnomer, unless your on juice, otherwise bulking is messy, sloppy, cramming as many calories into your pie hole as you can without puking. Trying to gain "just muscle" and see your abs while you put on 10lbs is ridiculous. eat more, get bigger.period.

  20. Clean bulk is possible with patience. You can perform targeted fat loss activities regularly and at the right times while eating a caloric surplus filled with foods that have a tendency to go towards energy and muscle building rather than fat storage. Just takes patience.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Critique My Clean Bulk!!!
    By MESSPLAY in forum Bulking
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-28-2008, 07:52 PM
  2. Hows my Clean Bulk Diet?
    By mathis50262 in forum Bulking
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-27-2008, 11:34 PM
  3. hows my CLEAN bulk diet
    By warren in forum Bulking
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-25-2008, 09:27 PM
  4. Critique my clean bulk cycle
    By aceman0920 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-02-2005, 02:38 PM
Log in
Log in