What did Greg mean by this?

What did Greg mean by this?
youtube.com/watch?v=xl0ZNFcvuJI

Attached: 343562346.png (1181x661, 835.84K)

He means that a calorie surplus, ie a bulk is just fatty cope. Which it fucking is if you're into bodybuilding and trying to gain muscle. It's a waste of time and you're just packing on fat which you're gonna have to shred off and more than likely loose muscle mass in the process. Hence be around maintenance and just build muscle faggot.

So essentially a "lean bulk" ?

I don't get this. Hitting macros will also mean hitting a certain amount of calories each day. If your maintenance is around 3000, you're not going to make any progress on 1000 calories.

I like the way he says zero

No

Yeah. I want to believe him but it's hard to when every coach says you have to eat for size and strength.
Also my own experience tells me I just spin in circles when I'm eating at maintenance

Post the body you made my eating at maintenance, then i'll believe you.

What? Greg is not advocating lean bulking, he's advocating not bulking at all.

I guess reading isn't your strong suit.

Nigga is on gear, of course he can make gains eating at maintenance.

A "lean bulk" is a small caloric surplus. Greg is advocating not being on a surplus at all. Stop wasting oxygen.

Breh don't make me defend Greg. I don't believe him either. But no he is not advocating "lean bulking" like every delusional DYEL twink drone like

Yea, wtf are you talking about, when did someone said 1000 cals? Ik he rambles about a bunch of shit but that aint the essence. If you're maintenance is 3000 kals, ie you're maintaining your weight, then that's sufficient for hypertrophy, and you won't pack on fat. The thing is, muscle takes time to grow and develop, so the whole bulking up 10-15 pounds in like 6 months is literally just packing on fat. So it's useless since you'll most likely loose the small amount of muscle you gained while trying to cut all the fat.

Strength more, since you tax your body more, or well you're nervous system, so you need more energy and more rest. However training for muscle if you train smart you don't need a surplus.

>just put on mass by burning as much energy as you consume

Attached: 852.jpg (600x668, 32.13K)

/thread

Read the post you replied to again. He said maintenance you brainlet.

Yes you fucking tard, as long as you're training correctly and eating sufficiently, especially accounting for protein. The thig all dyel cope-lords don't understand is that muscle takes time to build, long time. If you think differently you're deluding yourself. Trying to put on "mass" over a short period of time, like an off season, it day even a year, is fucking dumb and you'll be disappointed.

How does anyone listen to this guy? He's insufferable.

Read the whole chain you inbred fuck. He said "lean bulk"

>The thig all dyel cope-lords don't understand is that muscle takes time to build, long time
Could it be that it takes a long time to build muscle because your net calorie balance hovers around zero, so your body has only crumbs to latch onto whenever you happen to be in a minimal caloric surplus?
>Trying to put on "mass" over a short period of time, like an off season, it day even a year, is fucking dumb and you'll be disappointed
Is that why almost all bodybuilders have an offseason and don't stay lean year round?

Face it, eating maintenance while still trying to maximize muscle gain as a non-beginner is an absolute brainlet strategy. That doesn't mean that you should let yourself go and bulk dirty. A slight caloric surplus is the way to go and anything else is cope. Also, muscle loss during a cut is a meme.

Attached: d1a.png (1066x600, 323.79K)

This guy gets it.

The other user is a retarded dyel who wont post body.

>what are fat storages
>what is recomp

...do you really think Greg has been on gear his entire lifting career? he looked good when he was natty, you're delusional

First, no. Thinking you can put on, quality muscle quickly without ped's is retarded. It's not. Especially if you're experienced.
Second, those bodybuilders are blasting peds. Helping them A train harder, B putting on more size C shred fat while keeping said size.
Third, I'm obviously not talking about picking one maintenance and sticking to it for the rest of your life, if anyone thinks that they're sub iq retarded. However, doing bulks, especially fast ones, like half a year to even a year, will lead you to gain more fat to muscle ratio than what's productive, leading you to lose said gains while cutting. This all hinges on being natural. But yes obviously your calories will have to go up over time if you wanna increase weight and size. But the point is it's a longer period of time.

That’s why you do not see any young mr Olympia’s. We are talking decades of muscle growth to achieve true muscle maturation. Sure you can jump on a cycle young and get big but it almost looks cartoonish b/c it’s not real muscle

Yea partly, they are blasting gear though, but yes all the pros are seasoned for a reason. And especially if competing, being at a unnecessary high bodyfat makes the on season a lot harder since the dieting period becomes longer.

LMAO at this thread, not single person here has a clue

because retards love their macho man yelling at camera bullshit

>Thinking you can put on, quality muscle quickly without ped's is retarded.
I agree. It takes time, which is why a slight surplus is ultimately better than a hard bulk because more calories =/= more muscle. However, more calories than maintenance = more muscle.
Eating at maintenance is good for beginners or those who are satisfied with their physiques and want to maintain while accepting that gaining any additional muscle will be a much longer process than if they were to eat slightly above maintenance. I don't think anybody here is advocating for bulking fast/dirty. The consensus seems to be that it's a retard way to go about building muscle. I am just arguing that a slight surplus (50-150 calories) is preferable to maintenance for naturals who want to maximize muscle gain. Obviously, over time maintenance calories will increase with this approach since you're gaining weight by adding muscle and minimal fat. But the average person will ultimately achieve a better muscle to fat ratio and more return on your investment (of time spending working out) with this apprach than you would if you did a dirty bulk or ate maintenance.

yes and these gentlemen would be more than willing to post physique because they know what theyre talking about?

No, but i bet you he didn't get that mass by eating at fucking maintenance for his entire career.

Alright here you go
>In before gyno
Ik fat as a kid
>In before not that lean
Ik not training much atm or Keep track on diet due to corona aids.

Attached: IMG_20200418_171445.jpg (2976x3968, 3.84M)

Yeah that's great and all, but did you get that far by simply eating at maintenance? That seems to be the crux of the matter here.

i took advice like this, and wasted 6 months putting on muscle super slowly. AS SOON as i started eating loads i was making crazy gains, and still was until lockdown. "Gain muscle in a deficit" is just fucking retarded. I guess you just have to find what works for you. plus hes on test and shit