Getting big first a major advantage?

[timelinex]

I feel like there has been a big inconsistency between what I've seen happen anecdotally versus what studies show.

1. The Science™: I haven't had an eye on the research field in 2-3 years, so this is going off memory. Studies show that after a certain amount of weight gain, the muscle to fat gain ratio becomes worse and worse. Also the higher the body fat you have the less muscle building response you even get from training. Outside of maybe SS Dogma, I think that this has led most modern respected outfits to recommend reasonable slow weight gains and losses to optimize growth.
2. Anecdotes: A very LARGE portion of strong and/or impressively muscular people that I have either seen online or met in person have a similar story. In broad strokes it is: "When I started, I was an idiot and gained a ton of weight while lifting. I was strong but unhealthy and fat. Then I realized I don't have to be fat to be strong or muscular so I went on a cut. I lost a ton of strength and muscle. Don't be like me".... Meanwhile, if you look at their post weight loss pictures, it is obvious that even though they may have lost alot of muscle/strength they are so much more muscular than us "I''ll responsibly gain and lose weight 10lb at a time" folks that look like we may never have seen the inside of a gym before.

I am always hesitant to dismiss clear studies all going in the same direction, but I am also usually hesitant when research is showing me something that is in clear contradiction than what my eyes are seeing. I admit that my gaze may just be on a self selected crowd and that just explains it all. On the other hand, I can see mechanisms of action being possible that make both results relatively consistent. It may be true that muscle building slows the more weight you gain... But as we all know, actual muscle gain is alot harder than losing weight. So even at fractional gains, you are better off in the long run getting as many "easy" gains as possible first. Then even though you have lost alot of the muscle from cutting, it is always easier to gain it back than it is to get it in the first place.

I don't know.

But I would love to hear everyone's thoughts!

[timelinex]

II wanted to include this as a separate post as I don't think it's pertinent to the actual questions, but it is something I found interesting. I have seen a similar dynamic in the business world. Successful people say they did X, Y, Z rising to the top, but it was wrong and inefficient and they would do A, B, C if they were to do it all over again. Then they start courses pushing the virtuous A, B, C methods. Being successful in business myself, I think it is the biggest disservice in town. A, B, C may be best for these guru's NOW that they have some success, but it's actual X, Y, Z that has made them successful in the first place. Time and place for everything.

The phenomenon I describe in my original post has a similar smell to it.

[augeleven]

My n=1
I did the $t$t sheetcakes dreamerbulk thing. I didn’t get strong. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one.
There might be some kind of survivorship bias in play when it comes to evaluating fitness influencers’ dreamer bulk results.

Nuckols did a study review where he refuted a lot of that p ratio, excess fat blunts muscle growth thinking by analyzing D1 football there’s data. His findings are pretty in line with your anecdotes.
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/p-ratios/

[timelinex]

My n=1
I did the $t$t sheetcakes dreamerbulk thing. I didn’t get strong. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one.
There might be some kind of survivorship bias in play when it comes to evaluating fitness influencers’ dreamer bulk results.

Nuckols did a study review where he refuted a lot of that p ratio, excess fat blunts muscle growth thinking by analyzing D1 football there’s data. His findings are pretty in line with your anecdotes.
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/p-ratios/

Thanks for chiming in! I'll check out the article.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean "drink a gallon of milk a day and eat cheesecake" is optimal. I was implying reasonable rates of weight gain. (let's say 0.25-.75 lb a week depending on multiple factors)

EDIT:

Holy crap, it seems like Greg has acknowledged almost word for word my anecdotal experience:

"As Greg and I have discussed a few times on the podcast, just about everyone who is big and strong has had some phase where they implemented something approximating a “dreamer bulk” (that is, a focused bulking phase in which they dramatically over-consumed calories, stopped giving a damn about fat gain, and just packed on a ton of mass)."

Well atleast I know I'm not just crazy haha

[Hardartery]

So, I am going to say some entirely anecdotal stuff with zero peer review or other "Science" realted paraphernalia. I'll be hones up front, I take the science with a grain of salt at all times because it tends to follow the practitioners and not the other way around. So, I admit to that bias.
Fatter is stronger. Especially if you are natural. But only up to a point. I did a dirty bulk after my first Strongman contest and I absolutely got stronger from it. I ate everything I could get my hands on, and gave zero f***s about the involved nutrition. I you have the genetics, and the work ethic, then the calories work wonders. Not that you can't get stronger without doing that, you can, but it's slower and arguably less effective. Eating like a bastard got me stronger than rather larger and definitely not natural guys. It also gets really hard to continue growing after a certain point no matter how much you eat if you are lifting. I was seriously shooting for at least 10k calories a day at one point and it barely got me to 300 lbs. Did I overdo it? Maybe. I probably could have gained more or less the same strength with some less reckless eating, and it would have been kinder to my BP and lipid profile.
My experience was that the really ripped guys were at a disadvantage, but less of one if they were sufficiently gassed up. You need a calorie surplus to grow, and I think it's a disservice to let people think it's as simple as CICO for growth. What I ate accomplished my nutritional needs by way of brute force quantity. A cleaner diet could have accomplished the same thing and left me less fat, but I don't think the idea that a 300 or 500 calories surplus gets it done is plausible. And cake in general does not contribute to much except a sugar rush. The fat also helps when you are in calorie deficit because you can draw on that stored energy to minimize losses unless you get super drastic on the speed of cut. SS advocates an uneducated and irresponsible approach, IMO. What you eat matters as much as how much. Too many guys go crazy with the simple carbs and leave out the necessary protein and vegetables. The micro-nutrients matter too, a huge bulk is just the easy way to guarantee that you covered all of those bases. I think a bulk followed by a VERY gradual cut is probably the best approach.

[mbasic]

Depends.

If you are older and/or a shitty responder to weight training ..... going the power-bulk way is probably the absolute fucking worse thing you could do.

So its probably commonplace (at SS and other places) for a guy having slow-to-no gains to get preached at "you're not eating enough calories (or protein, or carbs) to grow" ..... then the fat fucking begins. The fuck-around-to-find-out ratio is not 1:1 with this.

[timelinex]

300 lbs.

I've now come to realized that my dreams of 225lb (from my current 180s at 6ft) are small peas compared to some titans on here

[Hardartery]

300 lbs.

I've now come to realized that my dreams of 225lb (from my current 180s at 6ft) are small peas compared to some titans on here

We are the same height. 300 lbs seemed to be kind of the minimum necessary weight to try and play as a HW, I was 265 lbs when I decided to do that. I looked like a stick figure at 180 lbs when I was young. Bone structure plays a part in that, I got scanned and my bone density is offsetting the osteoporosis of several little old ladies. I still think you need to eat big to get big, but I also think what you eat matters a lot. The body adapts, and every body is different, so it seems silly to try and make a blanket statement that you can only utilize X calories for lean tissue growth and the rest will be fat.

[broseph]

I think a lot of this stuff depends on how anabolic you are. If you're a high responder, you can gain strength and muscle mass pretty easily and maintain those gainz while trimming fat. Such an individual should probably gain weight faster than a low responder when bulking because... why not.

Low responders are stuck doing everything slowly because rapid weight gain is just going to be fat, and rapid weight loss might steal too much gainz.

So the "dreamer bulk" is probably fine for a young and highly anabolic person, but those are outliers. If you're not a kid and have any concern about health and/or aesthetics, it's the wrong move.


Yes, I know there are some fat dudes that are strong and sexy and their blood work and blood pressure is great and they have huge cocks and are absolutely killing it in the stock market, but I believe they are outliers and probably not worth using as examples for the average person.

[Hardartery]

I think a lot of this stuff depends on how anabolic you are. If you're a high responder, you can gain strength and muscle mass pretty easily and maintain those gainz while trimming fat. Such an individual should probably gain weight faster than a low responder when bulking because... why not.

Low responders are stuck doing everything slowly because rapid weight gain is just going to be fat, and rapid weight loss might steal too much gainz.

So the "dreamer bulk" is probably fine for a young and highly anabolic person, but those are outliers. If you're not a kid and have any concern about health and/or aesthetics, it's the wrong move.


Yes, I know there are some fat dudes that are strong and sexy and their blood work and blood pressure is great and they have huge cocks and are absolutely killing it in the stock market, but I believe they are outliers and probably not worth using as examples for the average person.

This is probably entirely true, IMO. Every person is different, so it's not really practical to use blanket ideas (As good as Eat Big to Get Big sounds as a slogan). I know I would bulk differently if I had it to do over. I still would have done it, but I would have eaten cleaner (Which also means less calories by default). I also know that Phil Pfister ate a float comprising a 2 litre of pop (Soda if you rpefer) and a half gallon of ice cream every noght before bed to bulk, on top of eating every two hours during the day. Not everyone can pull that off and not look like Glenn Ross.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Interesting topic. Here's my broscience (all opinion, all anecdotes, no citation needed, 100% true):

- I agree that getting big "first" is a good approach if you want to be strong in the long run, because muscles move weight. And once you are very muscular you'll stay that way forever if you keep eating and training. It is much better than first trying to get strong having very little muscle, then plateauing, then trying to become more muscular. If you look at what actual good coaches (like Sheiko) do when training beginners, they do a lot of reps, a lot of different exercises, not a lot of "specific work" (no single @8 on the comp squat with a belt). This is much more intelligent than doing something like "beginner programs" found on the internet where you do nothing but specific work, every 2 days, until you stall or you break yourself or you stall while breaking yourself.
- Now I also think that this phase where you get big "first" is actually very long, in the sense that it is probably the first 10 years of lifting and that's assuming you are constantly bulking and cutting and training your ass off and you never got a major injury. The rate at which you gain muscle is very very slow, but bulk for 10 years and you'll be pretty damn muscular, because all of the microscopic gains adds up. Also if you start young, the first years of lifting will be the most "anabolic" so it would be a waste not to take advantage of them.
- people tend to be delusional about the amount of muscle and fat they gain
- bulking is necessary, but it is not necessary to become a fat, de-conditionned Michelin man with high blood pressure
- I know literally 0 individuals who became remotely big or strong by "maingaining" (what a stupid expression) for 20 years.
- calories enables you to train harder which makes you stronger (no shit !). But calories have to be earned: the whole goal of eating big is to do much more volume than you could have done if eating less. This is why dreamer bulks coupled with minimalistic training do not work: you eat big but you train small, and the only gains are on your waistline. When bulking you should be maximalistic.
- I think that food quality matters a lot: eating big will enable you to train hard, but most of your calories should come from meat, eggs, veggies, potatoes, rice, bread etc. You're not going to become a monster on a diet centered around ice-cream and pop-tarts. I know that the egg heads who are "doing the science" will tell you otherwise but whatever.

[Hardartery]

Interesting topic. Here's my broscience (all opinion, all anecdotes, no citation needed, 100% true):

- I agree that getting big "first" is a good approach if you want to be strong in the long run, because muscles move weight. And once you are very muscular you'll stay that way forever if you keep eating and training. It is much better than first trying to get strong having very little muscle, then plateauing, then trying to become more muscular. If you look at what actual good coaches (like Sheiko) do when training beginners, they do a lot of reps, a lot of different exercises, not a lot of "specific work" (no single @8 on the comp squat with a belt). This is much more intelligent than doing something like "beginner programs" found on the internet where you do nothing but specific work, every 2 days, until you stall or you break yourself or you stall while breaking yourself.
- Now I also think that this phase where you get big "first" is actually very long, in the sense that it is probably the first 10 years of lifting and that's assuming you are constantly bulking and cutting and training your ass off and you never got a major injury. The rate at which you gain muscle is very very slow, but bulk for 10 years and you'll be pretty damn muscular, because all of the microscopic gains adds up. Also if you start young, the first years of lifting will be the most "anabolic" so it would be a waste not to take advantage of them.
- people tend to be delusional about the amount of muscle and fat they gain
- bulking is necessary, but it is not necessary to become a fat, de-conditionned Michelin man with high blood pressure
- I know literally 0 individuals who became remotely big or strong by "maingaining" (what a stupid expression) for 20 years.
- calories enables you to train harder which makes you stronger (no shit !). But calories have to be earned: the whole goal of eating big is to do much more volume than you could have done if eating less. This is why dreamer bulks coupled with minimalistic training do not work: you eat big but you train small, and the only gains are on your waistline. When bulking you should be maximalistic.
- I think that food quality matters a lot: eating big will enable you to train hard, but most of your calories should come from meat, eggs, veggies, potatoes, rice, bread etc. You're not going to become a monster on a diet centered around ice-cream and pop-tarts. I know that the egg heads who are "doing the science" will tell you otherwise but whatever.

I'm going to ignore that blasphemous word/phrase you are quoting there. Eww. I agree that getting big first makes more sense and is more effective. It can be a fight to cut fat later, but it's actually easier with greater muscle mass anyway. I think the bulking phase tends to be overdone and I think that goes to your point regarding food quality. Bulking with pizza and fried chicken is a very different animal than bulking with good fats and healthy proteins. And CICO is an oversimplification, timing and actual calorie sources seem to very much matter. Exercise selection surely has an impact as well. Many of the newer, more successful PLers are moving numbers that were in dreamland 30 years ago and they can actually tie their own shoes and cross a parking lot without having a coronary event.

[dw]

"Maingaining" presumably means improving body composition while maintaining weight.

Glacially bulking at a steady pace is a different phenomenon, as are short bulk cut cycles.

At least some natural bodybuilders do the former, because their ability to put on muscle after their first 5 years or whatever is so slow that there's just no advantage to more than a tiny (say well under 100 kcals) surplus, besides the bookkeeping head ache that comes with tiny surpluses.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

"Maingaining" presumably means improving body composition while maintaining weight.

Glacially bulking at a steady pace is a different phenomenon, as are short bulk cut cycles.

At least some natural bodybuilders do the former, because their ability to put on muscle after their first 5 years or whatever is so slow that there's just no advantage to more than a tiny (say well under 100 kcals) surplus, besides the bookkeeping head ache that comes with tiny surpluses.

I like Mike T's approach: a +250 kcal surplus during the development cycle, and a -500 kcal deficit during the pivot cycle (1/3 in lenght of the development cycle). If everything works well after the whole process you'd be about the same weight you were when you started, and a bit more muscular. And then repeat this until you made all the gainz.