Yup 1-2 lbs a week is great just remember gains arent linear some weeks may juts be a touch some 2 lbs. if you stagnate for two weeks eat more
Phill
[quote]projectaero wrote:
Hey guys.
I am going to be going with a clean bulk for the next 5 months.
Currently i am 5,10 172 pounds 20% bf never really trained before.
I have my workout fine will be doing rippetoes workout.
Now with y diet maitenance is roughly 2900 calories. 340g/P 340g/C 70/gF
What should i be aiming at per week.
I was thinking 1 pound per week equates to 4 pounds per month which would put me at somewhere near 192 pounds.
Is that a good figure or shoudl i be going higher and hitting the gym harder ?
I dont have a write up of my diet but it will be 95% clean with maybe 1-2 cheat meals per week
Sounds good man. On a side note, your macro ratios add up to 3350 calories. I’m not sure if you meant the 2900 you referred to as your maintenance to be what you were going to eat, or just simply stating a fact.
[quote]A-Dizz wrote:
Sounds good man. On a side note, your macro ratios add up to 3350 calories. I’m not sure if you meant the 2900 you referred to as your maintenance to be what you were going to eat, or just simply stating a fact.
good luck to you.
-dizzle[/quote]
No offense, but it is retarded for any newbie to approach training that worried about their specific macronutrient intake. Your caloric intake IS BASED ON THE RESULTS YOU GET, not some number that pops up in your calculator.
Yes, but I think there’s a psychological advantage to having a starting point (given by one of those statistical formulas) depending on how much faith you place in them.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
A-Dizz wrote:
Sounds good man. On a side note, your macro ratios add up to 3350 calories. I’m not sure if you meant the 2900 you referred to as your maintenance to be what you were going to eat, or just simply stating a fact.
good luck to you.
-dizzle
No offense, but it is retarded for any newbie to approach training that worried about their specific macronutrient intake. Your caloric intake IS BASED ON THE RESULTS YOU GET, not some number that pops up in your calculator.
[/quote]
[quote]rbpowerhouse wrote:
Yes, but I think there’s a psychological advantage to having a starting point (given by one of those statistical formulas) depending on how much faith you place in them.
[/quote]
There’s a psychological advantage to NOT making this that damn complicated and basing your food intake on what the mirror and the scale are saying. If you aren’t growing, eat more. I think most would do better to keep it that simple.
I’m not a beginner and I STILL don’t make my diet that complicated. The only time I even get a very close estimation for my food intake is when dieting. the rest involves changes or maintenance based what results I am getting. Someone so out of tune to not understand at least that much isn’t going to do better by looking at their diet through a microscope.
Does this mean you don’t count calories, ProfX? I’m very interested in knowing how you, the resident bigguy, monitor your food intake.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rbpowerhouse wrote:
Yes, but I think there’s a psychological advantage to having a starting point (given by one of those statistical formulas) depending on how much faith you place in them.
There’s a psychological advantage to NOT making this that damn complicated and basing your food intake on what the mirror and the scale are saying. If you aren’t growing, eat more. I think most would do better to keep it that simple.
I’m not a beginner and I STILL don’t make my diet that complicated. The only time I even get a very close estimation for my food intake is when dieting. the rest involves changes or maintenance based what results I am getting. Someone so out of tune to not understand at least that much isn’t going to do better by looking at their diet through a microscope.[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
A-Dizz wrote:
Sounds good man. On a side note, your macro ratios add up to 3350 calories. I’m not sure if you meant the 2900 you referred to as your maintenance to be what you were going to eat, or just simply stating a fact.
good luck to you.
-dizzle
No offense, but it is retarded for any newbie to approach training that worried about their specific macronutrient intake. Your caloric intake IS BASED ON THE RESULTS YOU GET, not some number that pops up in your calculator.
[/quote]
Results based caloric changes are the best way to go. Fuck calculators and equations- they don’t take into account enough variables and that shit can lead to discouragement. Lift, eat, and grow.
I know this is controversial, but at 20% BF I would cut that down before bulking, especially at 5’10" and 172lbs. Yeah yeah, I know, you can’t flex bone, yada yada. But at 20% you’re fat regardless of the other numbers. That may mean skinny fat in this case, but fat nonetheless. One can not expect to gain LBM exclusively, so adding even more fat is a given, and not what I would do.
My $.02
[quote]whosyobobby wrote:
I know this is controversial, but at 20% BF I would cut that down before bulking, especially at 5’10" and 172lbs. Yeah yeah, I know, you can’t flex bone, yada yada. But at 20% you’re fat regardless of the other numbers. That may mean skinny fat in this case, but fat nonetheless. One can not expect to gain LBM exclusively, so adding even more fat is a given, and not what I would do.
My $.02[/quote]
This guy is UNTRAINED. Not only that, but you are making a huge assumption believing a number without KNOWING WHAT THE FUCK HE LOOKS LIKE. He has under 138lbs of lean body mass on his whole body…and you want him to “cut”?
[quote]SGDerek wrote:
Does this mean you don’t count calories, ProfX? I’m very interested in knowing how you, the resident bigguy, monitor your food intake.
[/quote]
No, I don’t. My intake is an estimate and I have never tried to come up with some specific constant number. Why? Because your body doesn’t work that way. There is no way you are going to specifically calculate whether you used the stairs today instead of the elevator, whether that cup of oatmeal had 120cals rather than 150cals, or whether your body simply went through a brief stage where it was ready to grow a whole lot in one single burst…but you were feeding it less.
That is why people who approach training that way are almost always smaller and making less progress. Common sense doesn’t exist anymore.
[quote]whosyobobby wrote:
I know this is controversial, but at 20% BF I would cut that down before bulking, especially at 5’10" and 172lbs. Yeah yeah, I know, you can’t flex bone, yada yada. But at 20% you’re fat regardless of the other numbers. That may mean skinny fat in this case, but fat nonetheless. One can not expect to gain LBM exclusively, so adding even more fat is a given, and not what I would do.
My $.02[/quote]
What are the chances he’s actually at 20%? Probably less than a 20% chance unless he’s had a DEXA scan.
Your opinion might be valid at around 30%, but anything less at this guy’s weight is a perfect time for a clean bulk and hitting the weights hard. Not everyone is “fat” at 20%.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
SGDerek wrote:
Does this mean you don’t count calories, ProfX? I’m very interested in knowing how you, the resident bigguy, monitor your food intake.
No, I don’t. My intake is an estimate and I have never tried to come up with some specific constant number. Why? Because your body doesn’t work that way. There is no way you are going to specifically calculate whether you used the stairs today instead of the elevator, whether that cup of oatmeal had 120cals rather than 150cals, or whether your body simply went through a brief stage where it was ready to grow a whole lot in one single burst…but you were feeding it less.
That is why people who approach training that way are almost always smaller and making less progress. Common sense doesn’t exist anymore.[/quote]
I’ve had to learn this through experience. Taking a more random approach to lifting and diet rather than forcing any specific numbers on your body is the way to go. But it takes time to become tuned in to what your body’s telling you.