Should i bulk bodybuilding

People call this process body recomposition. Athletes with a good deal of training find it difficult to efficiently build muscle and lose fat at the same time. During that time period, while you may have put on a good deal of muscle, you may have also gained some fat in the process. At that point, you may initiate a period of cutting to lose the extra fat you gained while maintaining the new muscle you built. In theory, this cycling method will allow you to gradually gain muscle while preventing you from gaining excess fat.

People usually bulk for a given amount of time followed by a cutting period to reduce excess fat. Most people with training experience find it difficult to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. Bulking and cutting are two complementary strategies that bodybuilders often use, one after the other, to gain muscle and lose fat. While each comes with some notable benefits, there are several potential downsides you should keep in mind. A bulking diet includes nutrient- and calorie-dense foods to promote muscle gains, whereas a cutting diet focuses on nutrient-dense, lower calorie foods to stimulate fat loss.

To decide which strategy to start with, assess your current body composition and long-term muscle and strength goals. Body composition refers to more than weight, since it accounts for both fat and muscle mass.

This article explains how to improve your body…. A cutting diet is a popular diet among bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts who want to maximize weight loss but maintain muscle mass. This article…. Body fat scales can be a great tool to measure aspects of your body composition. Here are the 12 best body fat scales of Bulking is a strategy frequently employed by bodybuilders to gain weight and muscle mass. This article tells you how bulking works, explains whether….

Pre-workout supplements are designed to help you gain muscle by allowing you to work out harder for longer. Here are the 10 best pre-workout…. Clean bulking is a strategy for sustainable muscle gain. This article explains how to clean bulk and includes a how-to guide and lists of foods to eat…. However, bodybuilders during their contest preparation period typically perform resistance and cardiovascular training, restrict calories and achieve very lean conditions [ 2 - 6 , 17 - 21 ].

Each of these factors increases protein requirements and when compounded may further increase protein needs [ 33 ]. Therefore, optimal protein intakes for bodybuilders during contest preparation may be significantly higher than existing recommendations. In support of this notion, Butterfield et al. Celejowa et al. Out of these five, as many as three were in a caloric deficit. The authors concluded that a protein intake of 2—2. Walberg et al. One group consumed a protein intake of 0.

The length of the intervention was only one week, but nonetheless nitrogen losses occurred only in the lower protein group and LBM decreased by a mean of 2. While the high protein group mitigated LBM losses compared to the low protein group, they were not eliminated.

A recent study by Mettler et al. The high-protein group lost significantly less LBM 0. Unlike Walberg et al. While it appears that the 2. In this study, a non-significant trend of greater LBM retention occurred when subjects consumed 1.

However, the participants were intentionally prescribed low volume, low intensity resistance training "to minimize the potential of an unaccustomed, anabolic stimulus influencing study outcome measures". Maestu et al. These results when considered alongside the works by Walberg et al. However, it should be noted that this study did not include a low protein control and not all studies show a linear increase in LBM preservation with increases in protein [ 40 ].

Furthermore, two subjects did lose significant amounts of LBM 1. The group as a whole progressively decreased their calories by reducing all three macronutrients throughout the investigation. Thus, the two subjects uniquely increased their proportion of protein, possibly reducing fat and carbohydrate to the point of detriment [ 6 ].

That said it is also plausible that the lost LBM seen by these two subjects was necessary in order to achieve their low levels of body fat. It is unknown whether or not the lost LBM influenced their competitive outcome and it is possible that had the competitors not been as lean, they may have retained more LBM but also not have placed as well. In a review by Phillips and Van Loon [ 28 ], it is suggested that a protein intake of 1. While this is one of the only recommendations existing that targets athletes during caloric restriction, this recommendation is not given with consideration to bodybuilders performing concurrent endurance and resistance training at very low levels of body fat.

However, the recently published systematic review by Helms et al. Moreover, the authors suggest that the lower the body fat of the individual, the greater the imposed caloric deficit and when the primary goal is to retain LBM, the higher the protein intake within the range of 2. High carbohydrate diets are typically thought to be the athletic performance standard. However, like protein, carbohydrate intake needs to be customized to the individual.

Inadequate carbohydrate can impair strength training [ 41 ] and consuming adequate carbohydrate prior to training can reduce glycogen depletion [ 42 ] and may therefore enhance performance. While it is true that resistance training utilizes glycogen as its main fuel source [ 43 ], total caloric expenditure of strength athletes is less than that of mixed sport and endurance athletes.

However, in the specific case of a bodybuilder in contest preparation, achieving the necessary caloric deficit while consuming adequate protein and fat would likely not allow consumption at the higher end of this recommendation.

Satiety and fat loss generally improve with lower carbohydrate diets; specifically with higher protein to carbohydrate ratios [ 44 - 49 ]. In terms of performance and health, low carbohydrate diets are not necessarily as detrimental as typically espoused [ 50 ]. In a recent review, it was recommended for strength athletes training in a calorically restricted state to reduce carbohydrate content while increasing protein to maximize fat oxidation and preserve LBM [ 28 ].

However, the optimal reduction of carbohydrate and point at which carbohydrate reduction becomes detrimental likely needs to be determined individually. However, muscular endurance was degraded in the lower carbohydrate group. In a study of athletes taking in the same amount of protein 1.

Mettler, et al. Finally, in Pasiakos et al. One key difference between these studies was the highest protein group in Mettler et al. While performance was not measured, the participants in Pasiakos et al.

The difference in training protocols or a nutritionally mediated decrement in training performance could have either or both been components that lead to the greater losses of LBM observed by Pasiakos et al. While it appears low carbohydrate, high protein diets can be effective for weight loss, a practical carbohydrate threshold appears to exist where further reductions negatively impact performance and put one at risk for LBM losses.

In support of this notion, researchers studying bodybuilders during the final 11 weeks of contest preparation concluded that had they increased carbohydrate during the final weeks of their diet they may have mitigated metabolic and hormonal adaptations that were associated with reductions in LBM [ 6 ]. Therefore, once a competitor has reached or has nearly reached the desired level of leanness, it may be a viable strategy to reduce the caloric deficit by an increase in carbohydrate.

For example, if a competitor has reached competition body fat levels lacking any visible subcutaneous fat and is losing half a kilogram per week approximately a kcals caloric deficit , carbohydrate could be increased by g, thereby reducing the caloric deficit by kcals in an effort to maintain performance and LBM. However, it should be noted that like losses of LBM, decrements in performance may not affect the competitive outcome for a bodybuilder.

It is possible that competitors who reach the leanest condition may experience unavoidable drops in performance. The importance of carbohydrate and protein in sports nutrition is often emphasized over that of dietary fat. Subsequently, recommendations typically focus on maintaining adequate fat intake while emphasizing carbohydrate to fuel performance and protein to build and repair LBM.

However, there is evidence that dietary fat influences anabolic hormone concentrations which may be of interest to bodybuilders attempting to maintain LBM while dieting [ 5 , 26 , 51 , 52 ]. However, distinguishing the effects of reducing total dietary fat on hormonal levels from changes in caloric intake and percentages of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids in the diet is difficult [ 51 , 52 , 55 ].

In a study by Volek et al. In a similar study of resistance trained males, correlations were found between testosterone, protein, fat and saturated fat which lead the researchers to conclude that diets too low in fat or too high in protein might impair the hormonal response to training [ 52 ]. Competing bodybuilders must make an obligatory caloric reduction.

If a reduction in fat is utilized, it may be possible to attenuate a drop in testosterone by maintaining adequate consumption of saturated fat [ 5 ]. However, a drop in testosterone does not equate to a reduction in LBM. In direct studies of resistance trained athletes undergoing calorically restricted high protein diets, low fat interventions that maintain carbohydrate levels [ 13 , 29 ] appear to be more effective at preventing LBM loses than lower carbohydrate, higher fat approaches [ 32 , 40 ].

These results might indicate that attempting to maintain resistance training performance with higher carbohydrate intakes is more effective for LBM retention than attempting to maintain testosterone levels with higher fat intakes. Body composition and caloric restriction may play greater roles in influencing testosterone levels that fat intake.

During starvation, a reduction in testosterone occurs in normal weight, but not obese, males [ 56 ]. In addition, rate of weight loss may influence testosterone levels. Additionally, an initial drop in testosterone occurred in the first six weeks of contest preparation in a group of drug free bodybuilders despite various macronutrient percentages [ 6 ]. Finally, in a one year case study of a natural competitive bodybuilder, testosterone levels fell to one fourth their baseline values three months into the six month preparation period.

Levels then fully recovered three months into the six month recovery period. Furthermore, the quadrupling of testosterone during the recovery period from its suppressed state back to baseline was accompanied by a 10 kg increase in body mass and a kcal increase in caloric intake. Thus, the collective data indicates that when extremely lean body compositions are attained through extended, relatively aggressive dieting, the caloric deficit and loss of body fat itself may have a greater impact on testosterone than the percentage of calories coming from dietary fat.

While dieting, low carbohydrate diets may degrade performance [ 32 ] and lead to lowered insulin and IGF-1 which appear to be more closely correlated to LBM preservation than testosterone [ 6 ]. Some bodybuilders do use very-low carbohydrate, "ketogenic diets" for contest preparation [ 60 , 61 ]. While these diets have not been sufficiently studied in bodybuilders, some study of ketogenic diets has occurred in resistance trained populations.

In an examination of the effects of a 1 week ketogenic diet 5. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions due to the very short term nature of this study and due to an ad libitum implementation of the ketogenic diet. Thus, it is unclear whether the improvements in body composition and performance can be attributed to the low-carbohydrate and high-fat nature of the diets or rather a decrease in calories and an increase in protein.

At least with regards to weight loss, previous research indicates that the often concomitant increase in protein observed in very low carbohydrate diets may actually be the key to their success [ 63 ].

The only research on strength athletes following ketogenic diets for longer periods is a study of gymnasts in which they were observed to maintain strength performance and lose more body fat after 30 days on a ketogenic diet in comparison to 30 days on a traditional western diet [ 64 ]. Therefore, more study is needed in resistance trained populations and bodybuilders before definitive recommendations can be made to support ketogenic diets.

However, the research that does exist challenges traditional views on carbohydrate and anaerobic performance. Despite the common belief that carbohydrate is the sole fuel source for weight training, intramuscular triglyceride is used during short term heavy resistance training [ 65 ] and likely becomes an increasingly viable fuel source for those adapted to high-fat low-carbohydrate diets.

While some might suggest that this implies a ketogenic diet could be a viable option for contest preparation, a trend of decreased performance and impaired maintenance of FFM is associated with lower carbohydrate intakes in the majority of studies included in this review.

While it is our contention that the majority of the evidence indicates that very-low carbohydrate diets should be avoided for contest preparation at least until more research is performed , it must be noted that there is a high degree of variability in the way that individuals respond to diets. Carbohydrate and fat utilization as a percentage of energy expenditure at rest and various intensities has as much as a four-fold difference between individual athletes; which is influenced by muscle fiber-composition, diet, age, training, glycogen levels and genetics [ 66 ].

Additionally, individuals that are more insulin sensitive may lose more weight with higher-carbohydrate low-fat diets while those more insulin resistant may lose more weight with lower-carbohydrate higher-fat diets [ 67 ]. However, there is no evidence of any relationships with bone structure or regional subcutaneous fat distribution with any response to specific macronutrient ratios in bodybuilders or athletic populations. Bodybuilders, like others athletes, most likely operate best on balanced macronutrient intakes tailored to the energy demands of their sport [ 68 ].

In conclusion, while the majority of competitors will respond best to the fat and carbohydrate guidelines we propose, the occasional competitor will undoubtedly respond better to a diet that falls outside of these suggested ranges. Careful monitoring over the course of a competitive career is required to determine the optimal macronutrient ratio for pre-contest dieting.

After caloric intake is established based on the time frame before competition [ 69 ], body composition of the athlete [ 14 , 15 , 34 ], and keeping the deficit modest to avoid LBM losses [ 13 , 16 ], macronutrients can be determined within this caloric allotment. Table 1 provides an overview of these recommendations. If training performance degrades it may prove beneficial to decrease the percentage of calories from dietary fat within these ranges in favor of a greater proportion of carbohydrate.

Finally, while outside of the norm, some competitors may find that they respond better to diets that are higher in fat and lower in carbohydrate than recommended in this review. Therefore, monitoring of individual response over a competitive career is suggested. Traditional nutrient timing guidelines are typically based on the needs of endurance athletes.

For example, it is common lore that post-exercise carbohydrate must elicit a substantial glycemic and insulinemic response in order to optimize recovery. The origin of this recommendation can be traced back to , when Ivy et al. Glycogen storage was 2—3 times faster in the immediate condition during four hours post-exercise resulting in greater glycogen storage at four hours.

These findings initiated the faster-is-better post-exercise guideline for carbohydrate. However, complete glycogen resynthesis to pre-trained levels can occur well within 24 hours given sufficient total carbohydrate intake.

Jentjens and Jeukendrup [ 71 ] suggest that a between-bout period of eight hours or less is grounds for maximally expediting glycogen resynthesis.

Therefore, the urgency of glycogen resynthesis is almost an exclusive concern of endurance athletes with multiple glycogen-depleting events separated by only a few hours. Bodybuilders in contest preparation may exceed a single training bout per day e. However, bodybuilders do not have the same performance objectives as multi-stage endurance competition, where the same muscle groups are trained to exhaustion in a repeated manner within the same day.

Furthermore, resistance training bouts are typically not glycogen-depleting. However, there is a disparity between short- and long-term outcomes in studies examining the effect of nutrient timing on resistance training adaptations. Cribb and Hayes [ 80 ] found that timing a supplement consisting of 40 g protein, 43 g carbohydrate, and 7 g creatine immediately pre- and post-exercise resulted in greater size and strength gains than positioning the supplement doses away from the training bout.

Additionally, Esmarck et al. In contrast, the majority of chronic studies have not supported the effectiveness of timing nutrients protein in particular closely around the training bout. Burk et al. Hoffman et al. Wycherley et al. A meal containing 21 g protein consumed immediately before resistance training was compared with its consumption at least two hours after training.

No significant differences in weight loss, strength gain, or cardio metabolic risk factor reductions were seen. Most recently, Weisgarber et al.

These studies examined the effect of additional nutrient content, rather than examining the effect of different temporal placement of nutrients relative to the training bout. Thus, they cannot be considered true timing comparisons. Nevertheless, these studies have yielded inconsistent results. Willoughby et al. Hulmi et al. In contrast to the previous 2 studies, Verdijk et al. The authors attributed this lack of effect to an adequate total daily protein intake. Recently, a week trial by Erksine et al.

Burd and colleagues [ 90 ] found that resistance training to failure can cause an increased anabolic response to protein feedings that can last up to 24 hours. Demonstrating the body's drive toward equilibrium, Deldicque et al. This result suggests that the body is capable of anabolic supercompensation despite the inherently catabolic nature of fasted resistance training. These data, in addition to the previously discussed chronic studies, further support the idea that macronutrient totals by the end of the day may be more important than their temporal placement relative to the training bout.

There are additional factors that might explain the lack of consistent effectiveness of nutrient timing in chronic studies. Training status of the subjects could influence outcomes since novice trainees tend to respond similarly to a wider variety of stimuli. Another possible explanation for the lack of timing effects is the protein dose used, 10—20 g, which may not be sufficient to elicit a maximal anabolic response. MPS rates have been shown to plateau with a post-exercise dose of roughly 20 g of high-quality protein [ 92 ].

However, in subsequent research on older subjects, Yang et al. In addition to the paucity of studies using ample protein doses, there is a lack of investigation of protein-carbohydrate combinations.

Only Cribb and Hayes [ 80 ] have compared substantial doses of both protein 40 g and carbohydrate 43 g taken immediately surrounding, versus far apart from both sides of the training bout.

Nearly double the lean mass gains were seen in the proximally timed compared to the distally timed condition. However, acute studies examining the post-exercise anabolic response elicited by co-ingesting carbohydrate with protein have thus far failed to show significant effects given a sufficient protein dose of approximately 20—25 g [ 94 , 95 ]. Koopman et al. Since these bouts typically do not resemble endurance bouts lasting 2 hours or more, nutrient consumption during training is not likely to yield any additional performance-enhancing or muscle -sparing benefits if proper pre-workout nutrition is in place.

In the exceptional case of resistance training sessions that approach or exceed two hours of exhaustive, continuous work, it might be prudent to employ tactics that maximize endurance capacity while minimizing muscle damage. Nutrient timing is an intriguing area of study that focuses on what might clinch the competitive edge. In terms of practical application to resistance training bouts of typical length, Aragon and Schoenfeld [ 99 ] recently suggested a protein dose corresponding with 0.

However, for objectives relevant to bodybuilding, the current evidence indicates that the global macronutrient composition of the diet is likely the most important nutritional variable related to chronic training adaptations. Figure 1 below provides a continuum of importance with bodybuilding-specific context for nutrient timing.

Previous optimal meal frequency studies have lacked structured resistance training protocols. Moreover, there are no studies that specifically examined meal frequency in bodybuilders, let alone during contest preparation conditions.

Despite this limitation, the available research has consistently refuted the popular belief that a grazing pattern smaller, more frequent meals raises energy expenditure compared to a gorging pattern larger, less frequent meals. Disparate feeding patterns ranging from two to seven meals per day have been compared in tightly controlled studies using metabolic chambers, and no significant differences in hour thermogenesis have been detected [ , ].

It should be noted that irregular feeding patterns across the week, as opposed to maintaining a stable daily frequency, has been shown to decrease post-prandial thermogenesis [ ] and adversely affect insulin sensitivity and blood lipid profile [ ]. However, relevance of the latter findings might be limited to sedentary populations, since regular exercise is well-established in its ability to improve insulin sensitivity and blood lipids.

Bodybuilders typically employ a higher meal frequency in an attempt to optimize fat loss and muscle preservation. However, the majority of chronic experimental studies have failed to show that different meal frequencies have different influences on bodyweight or body composition [ - ].

Of particular interest is the research examining the latter, since the preservation of muscle mass during fat loss is a paramount concern in the pre-contest phase. A recent review by Varady [ ] examined 11 daily caloric restriction CR studies and 7 intermittent calorie restriction ICR studies.

It was concluded that although both types have similar effects on total bodyweight reduction, ICR has thus far been more effective for retaining lean mass. Along these lines, Stote et al. Curiously, the one meal per day group also showed a slight gain in lean mass, but this could have been due to the inherent error in BIA for body composition assessment.

To-date, only two experimental studies have used trained, athletic subjects. Iwao et al. However, limitations to this study included short trial duration, subpar assessment methods, a small sample size, and a kcal diet which was artificially low compared to what this population would typically carry out in the long-term. To illustrate the inadequacy of this dose, Mettler et al. The other experimental study using athletic subjects was by Benardot et al.

A significant increase in anaerobic power and lean mass was seen in the snacking group, with no such improvements seen in the placebo group. However, it is not possible to determine if the superior results were the result of an increased meal frequency or increased caloric intake.

A relatively recent concept with potential application to meal frequency is that a certain minimum dose of leucine is required in order to stimulate muscle protein synthesis. Norton and Wilson [ ] suggested that this threshold dose is approximately 0. A related concept is that MPS can diminish, or become 'refractory' if amino acids are held at a constant elevation.

For the goal of maximizing the anabolic response, the potential application of these data would be to avoid spacing meals too closely together. In addition, an attempt would be made to reach the leucine threshold with each meal, which in practical terms would be to consume at least 30—40 g high-quality protein per meal. In relative agreement, a recent review by Phillips and Van Loon [ 28 ] recommends consuming one's daily protein requirement over the course of three to four isonitrogenous meals per day in order to maximize the acute anabolic response per meal, and thus the rate of muscle gain.

It is important to note that the leucine threshold and the refractory nature of MPS are not based on human feeding studies that measure concrete outcomes over the long-term. These ideas are largely based on mechanistic studies whose data was derived via steady intravenous infusion of amino acids [ , ].

Long-term studies are needed to determine if the refractory nature of MPS seen in acute infusion data would have any real impact on the gain or preservation of LBM at various meal frequencies. Munster and Saris [ ] recently shed further light on what might be optimal in the context of pre-contest dieting. Some people may be tempted to increase calorie intake with highly processed foods and snacks, but an unhealthful diet has the same consequences during bulking as at any other time. People who bulk may develop poor nutritional habits, which can increase the risk of health problems over time.

Specifically, poor nutrition increases the risk of:. Also, bulking typically leads to an increase in body fat. Noticing this may cause a person to stop bulking before they see the benefits.

In some cases, people find it hard to move from a bulking to a cutting phase. Because bulking increases the appetite, switching to a calorie-restricted diet may be uncomfortable. People new to strength training rarely require bulking to build muscle, as they typically build muscle quickly. Still, during the bulking phase, people tend to consume more carbohydrates.

Healthful carbohydrates include :. Healthful sources of protein include:. Some people also take supplements while bodybuilding. For example, protein powder provides one way to increase daily protein intake with fewer calories. Caffeine and creatine are other supplements that may improve muscle performance. These are also ergogenic, meaning that they enhance energy production.

Avoid foods that provide more calories but little nutrition. Consuming large amounts of these foods will increase excess body fat during bulking and may even interfere with performance. While it is possible to gain strength without gaining size for the most part if you are gaining strength you will gain size.

If you are bulking and not gaining strength or losing strength then something needs to be fixed. Remember you grow outside of the gym! Your workouts serve as the stimulus for muscle growth but if you are not getting adequate rest and recovery time between workouts your results will suffer. I recommend weight training times per week max. We all know the importance of protein for muscle growth, so make sure you are eating If you are having trouble eating enough protein, adding in protein shakes is an easy way to boost your protein intake.

Getting adequate calories and protein to grow is the ultimate challenge! A quality gainer can be the game-changer that finally makes the scale go up. Just because you are getting enough protein doesn't mean you can overlook your fat and carbohydrate intake. Both fats and carbohydrates are needed to support muscle growth so be sure you aren't skimping on these nutrients.