Episode 190 – Is Bulking Dead?

Key Topic

Lately, there’s been a lot of talk online about the idea that bulking is “dead.” A few evidence-based people even sent me videos on the topic, asking for my thoughts—some going as far as to say, “This is kind of breaking everything I’ve ever learned.”

As with anything in nutrition and fitness, research evolves, and our understanding deepens year by year. So, is bulking really outdated? Or is this just another fitness trend making waves? Let’s unpack the latest evidence and where both Leah and I stand on the topic.

Reasons Why People Claim it is “Dead”

Going through some of the claims I’ve seen:
“There are 3 interference mechanisms that negatively affect muscle growth, none of which require a surplus to counteract:

Reduction in motor unit recruitment and mechanical tension e.g. less carbs/fuel would impact performance in the gym.
A lack of protein as a raw material
A lack of energy required to create new functional proteins

Another argument is more so around the definition of a surplus.

But let’s go through and unpack these claims more deeply.

Unpacking Those Claims

Technically there is truth to those points.
You can easily have enough glycogen for gym performance at maintenance or even slightly below.
When you look at the amount of protein required for muscle growth, it’s easy to reach those targets. And only a small percentage of your protein intake actually goes to new muscle.
Since muscle growth is slow, the energy cost per gram of actual muscle tissue is quite low.
BUT a super simple argument for WHY this is oversimplified logic is that just because the body CAN grow muscle under those conditions doesn’t mean it will be optimised.
If there are surplus calories left over, would the body be more likely to use them for muscle growth?

Other Claims

Some people have different definitions of what a calorie surplus is.
The technical definition is – eating more than your Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE).
My simple definition: eating enough calories to cause your body weight to gradually increase over time. Adding another layer of complexity—this weight gain can come in the form of muscle, fat, or both.
One super long video I watched on the topic used a different definition. They said it was silly to use scale weight as the metric because it’s influenced by hydration.
But I would say that whilst differing levels of hydration can lead to weight fluctuations, this wouldn’t necessarily impact trend over time when accounting for those fluctuations.
But nonetheless, these people argue that a “surplus = gaining fat,” and “deficit = losing fat.”
Whilst a few people also have said “while adding muscle at maintenance calories, body weight will increase over time, and you will naturally eat more calories at maintenance.”

Assessing That

From my perspective, I prefer the definition based on scale weight WHILE factoring in hydration. And just accepting imperfection.
Particularly with super small surpluses where scale weight change on average should be slow – hydration changes will often outweigh that. But I’m okay with that.
The other definition is just too flawed.
When someone says, “eating at maintenance calories while body weight increases over time, with maintenance calories also rising,” I simply call that a small surplus.
Talking more about why the other definition is flawed though:
Example 1: Somebody who has a major injury, if they go into a small deficit that meets the criteria of the technical definition, they likely will “decomp” where they lose muscle and gain fat. And even with scale weight slowly dropping, their body fat can increase.
Example 2: There are some rare cases where people gain scale weight AND their body fat decreases. Mathematically they are in a surplus based on the technical definition, while losing body fat.

A Quick Note on the Research

You might be expecting us to talk about research.
In an ideal world, we’d have large-scale research with a massive sample size, where everyone follows the same training program. Ideally, their nutrition would also be similar, allowing us to compare the effects of a small deficit, maintenance, a small surplus, and a large surplus.
But that doesn’t exist.
We have heaps of small sample size data. But I think that’s too skewed by the fact that some people gain muscle easier than others.
Plus there are adherence issues too.
So yes we would love to have good quality data here but we just don’t have that at this stage.

Outlier Cases

Even some of the people in the “bulking is dead” crowd have acknowledged that outlier cases exist.
Example: A super skinny person who is new to weight training OR someone who is returning to lifting.
That person likely has the ability to gain muscle more quickly.

Adding Another Layer of Complexity

Something that is obvious when you take a step back is that if you get to low body fat percentage, it is harder to recomp.
The body has a minimum amount of fat it needs to protect. So because of this, it has mechanisms that make it harder to recomp in that state.
The thing I wanted to add is: All the mechanisms mentioned earlier, technically are still true in this state. But muscle growth still isn’t optimised without a surplus UNLESS you use the definition based on surplus = fat gain.
That’s part of why I say those mechanisms are oversimplified.

Interpretation

My stance in a way is the same as it has been for a long time.
To maximise muscle growth, you likely need a surplus.
But going into a large surplus is silly because it increases fat gain heaps while barely increasing muscle gain more.
Doubling down on that – the research we do have actually has shown more muscle growth in larger surpluses. It’s just not “efficient” because the fat gain is so much more. But to say muscle growth is MAXIMISED at maintenance is interesting with the data we have.
The thing that has evolved over the years is that my idea of a “small surplus” has gotten smaller and smaller.
- Often my clients are “bulking” at a rate of ~500g per month, sometimes more but that is a really common target. So over 6 months, that would be a 3kg gain. It is SLOW but it is still a surplus, albeit a tiny one.

Relevant Blogs/Research

Relevant Blogs:

Relevant Podcasts:

Episode 40 – Ideal Calorie Surplus for Muscle Gain

Relevant Studies: