PDA

View Full Version : Cutting/Bulking rant/theory



gator
03-01-2006, 07:09 PM
I'm not saying people here are wrong or I'm right, in fact I think this disussion I'm about to start depends on personal preference.

I know a lot of people like to do long bulks till they get "fat" or until they are above 15-16% BF. Which will then mean a long cut since you have more fat. Are their any disadvantages of doing something like 10week bulk 3 week cut cycles, where you dont let your bf get above say 13-14%? My thinking is there might be some disatvantages and advantages of doing the short cycles of bulking and cutting.

Advantages: When on long cuts your metabolism slows down eventually and you have to reduce cals even more, of course you can refeed for a couple of days but that's just more cals and a minor set back (but still worth doing).

Disadvantages: Your going to be on more periods of "mainting/adjusting" your cals. When you do more bulk and cut cycles you have to slowly reduce cals when you cut and slowly up cals when you go back to bulking, and I guess that could be "wasted time" I learned the hard way that you shouldn't just add or subtract 800-1000 cals from your diet right away, and that you should just add/subract like 100 cals a day or something.

Just kinda wanted to start a discussion here. I"m a college kid so I dont really want to let my bf get too high, (mainly due to girls asking me to )

mikey4402
03-01-2006, 07:21 PM
i never let my body fat get that high... when i go on a bulk it is a very clean bulk and i shoot for maybe 3-5 lbs a week. like the bulk im on now im trying to gain 20 lbs. well ill probley go 25 because of the water retention

gator
03-01-2006, 07:27 PM
when i go on a bulk it is a very clean bulk and i shoot for maybe 3-5 lbs a week.

do you mean a month?

gator
03-01-2006, 08:40 PM
no one has any imput on this? maybe I should post, a "info about creatine" thread to get mroe responces.

ddegroff
03-01-2006, 11:19 PM
The last bulk I did I did for 12wks. I went from 166 to 188. That was right before the holidays and i Gained about 6 more lbs (not good lbs). I've been cutting for about 6wks, I weighed in about 182.5 tonight. I look like I did when I was @ 166 (vascular wise, and definition)! SO, i like the idea that your goin with. As you can see I did somewhat of what you were talking about. I find it quite effective to do a clean bulk and if need be at the cut for a few months. NOW thats not to say if I hadn't stoppd lifting over the holiday's i would have kept going, but just changed my routine.

Manveet
03-02-2006, 07:27 AM
I'm not saying people here are wrong or I'm right, in fact I think this disussion I'm about to start depends on personal preference.

I know a lot of people like to do long bulks till they get "fat" or until they are above 15-16% BF. Which will then mean a long cut since you have more fat. Are their any disadvantages of doing something like 10week bulk 3 week cut cycles, where you dont let your bf get above say 13-14%? My thinking is there might be some disatvantages and advantages of doing the short cycles of bulking and cutting.

Advantages: When on long cuts your metabolism slows down eventually and you have to reduce cals even more, of course you can refeed for a couple of days but that's just more cals and a minor set back (but still worth doing).

Disadvantages: Your going to be on more periods of "mainting/adjusting" your cals. When you do more bulk and cut cycles you have to slowly reduce cals when you cut and slowly up cals when you go back to bulking, and I guess that could be "wasted time" I learned the hard way that you shouldn't just add or subtract 800-1000 cals from your diet right away, and that you should just add/subract like 100 cals a day or something.

Just kinda wanted to start a discussion here. I"m a college kid so I dont really want to let my bf get too high, (mainly due to girls asking me to )


Gaining muscle while staying extremely lean (sub 10%) is hard to do as a natural, probably because people are too worried about getting fat that they don't eat enough to gain any appreciable amount of muscle.

Gaining muscle while being fat (above 15%) is tough to do as a natural (probably has a lot to do with partioning calories, etc.).

It seems to make more sense then to bulk up to about 15% or so, then diet back down to about 10%, then bulk back up again etc..

Here's a small excerpt explaining this a little further


Part of the reason that preceding a mass gaining phase with a diet is one of practicality. If you want to compete in a bodybuilding contest, you need to be sufficiently lean to start with (10-12% body fat for males) to have a chance of coming in on time. That may mean keeping body fat in check by dieting prior to trying to add mass. Similarly, if you simply want to get lean for appearances sake, you need to keep body fat under control.

Meaning this: if you start a mass gaining phase at too high of a body fat percentage (say 12-15%), you're going to gain some fat during that phase and end up in the high teens or worse. This makes dieting back to a non-fat assed body fat percentage a real hassle. Better to keep things in check by alternating periods of cutting and gaining.

As well, it seems empirically that once body fat gets to the 15% range or so for men, fat gains tend to accelerate during mass gaining phases. I suspect this is due to the development of systemic insulin resistance which causes calories to go into fat stores more readily. Keeping body fat levels below that may be helpful.

I should mention that there was always an anecdotal idea that mass gains were best with body fat about 10-12% body fat (for men, add 9-12% for women). While I had always dismissed this as being an excuse to stay fat, I suspect it's probably close to correct. Based on what's going on hormonally and physiologically at both low and higher body fat percentages, this may very well be a sweet spot for mass gaining. You're fed and healthy enough to lift well and make gains but not so fat that other problems arise.

full article:
http://www.readthecore.com/200501/mcdonald-body-composition.htm

Not to mention that there is a lot more stuff on Lyle's site:
www.bodyrecomposition.com

gator
03-02-2006, 10:59 AM
"Gaining muscle while staying extremely lean (sub 10%) is hard to do as a natural, probably because people are too worried about getting fat that they don't eat enough to gain any appreciable amount of muscle."

I didn't say anything about being sub 10% bf anywhere, people take so many extreme examples. I'm just saying dont let your bf get above 13% or so.

Anthony
03-02-2006, 11:09 AM
I think your assumption that everyone bulks until they are 15-16% is the problem. Bulk until you are uncomfortable with your fat gain, then cut. That might be 4 weeks, 4 months, or 4 years. There's no magic number.

gator
03-02-2006, 11:29 AM
I think your assumption that everyone bulks until they are 15-16% is the problem. Bulk until you are uncomfortable with your fat gain, then cut. That might be 4 weeks, 4 months, or 4 years. There's no magic number.


You people are still not getting the point of the thread, it wasn't to "bash" people who bulk till 15-16% bf, it's to find out if there are any advantages or disadvantes of doing that vs just bulking till 12-13% bf.

Anthony
03-02-2006, 11:35 AM
Bulk until you are uncomfortable with your fat gain, then cut. That might be 4 weeks, 4 months, or 4 years. There's no magic number.

:withstupi

You might have received a better response if you asked, "Is there any advantage in bulking past a point where I feel comfortable?"

The answer is no.

Utopianhopes
03-02-2006, 11:48 AM
Best way of bulking/cutting would depends on goal and preference.

gator
03-02-2006, 01:31 PM
Well if your goal is to become 210 10%bf as fast as possible and your just trying to optimize results what are the advantages and disadvantes of the two examples. It takes so much work to get people in this forum to foucs on the main point of the thread instead of nit picking at little details.

Anthony
03-02-2006, 03:30 PM
Gator, no one is giving you a hard time. Your question just wasn't very clear.

If you had originally said how do I get to 210 and 10% asap, then you'd get better answers.

:)

gator
03-02-2006, 04:17 PM
Well I figured most people are lifting to get optimal results, maybe it's just me but when you dedicate so much time to something like weightlifting and diet you try to get the best results, I dont like doing things half a****. So back to the original question... Als not there is not one single quesiton this is ment to be a discussion/theory type of thing so chime away.

Junin
03-02-2006, 04:30 PM
Wow, Anthony is beeing eerily nice and understanding. Something must be wrong! :)

It's actually pretty interesting to see where the topics lead even if they don't follow the original post exactly.

I'll chime in that I definitely gain more strength when I eat like an animal than I do when I eat 'clean' and monitor my calories exactly. However, I also put on the fat. I'm with you on not wanting to get too fat. I'm in college and I have a sex life to uphold!

gator
03-02-2006, 04:33 PM
I'm with you on not wanting to get too fat. I'm in college and I have a sex life to uphold!

The things us guys do for women....even when we know they will give us problems haha

Anthony
03-02-2006, 05:14 PM
Wow, Anthony is beeing eerily nice and understanding. Something must be wrong! :)

Hey now, I'm always nice. Sometimes it just doesn't translate over the net. :moon:

The higher your body fat percentage becomes, the less efficient your bulk becomes. Your body will use excess calories to build muscle or store fat. When you are lean, more of those excess calories will be used for muscle. When you are fat, more of those excess calories will be used for fat. Basically you reach a point of diminishing returns.

Most people don't track enough details to really determine this "sweet spot" so they just use the mirror. When they feel too fat, they cut. When they feel lean, they bulk.

Hope that makes sense. :alcoholic

Jorge Sanchez
03-02-2006, 05:25 PM
Gaining muscle while staying extremely lean (sub 10%) is hard to do as a natural, probably because people are too worried about getting fat that they don't eat enough to gain any appreciable amount of muscle.

Gaining muscle while being fat (above 15%) is tough to do as a natural (probably has a lot to do with partioning calories, etc.).

It seems to make more sense then to bulk up to about 15% or so, then diet back down to about 10%, then bulk back up again etc..

Here's a small excerpt explaining this a little further



full article:
http://www.readthecore.com/200501/mcdonald-body-composition.htm

Not to mention that there is a lot more stuff on Lyle's site:
www.bodyrecomposition.com

Gator, you got the answer to your question with this post. The excerpt from the article clearly states that 10-12% is ideal for gaining muscle mass. Anything over 15% and you will gain more fat.

So, short cuts and bulks that keep you between 10-12% would probably yield optimal results.

gator
03-02-2006, 05:38 PM
Yea that article was very informative, however it would be rather ignorant to base all your knowledge on one question off of just one article. I'm not saying it's wrong, it makes a lot of sence, and for now i agree with it all, but I still dont feel like I know everything on this yet.

brickt.
03-02-2006, 06:01 PM
I've also wondered about doing the 500 above maintenace for say, 10 weeks, gaining, hypothetically, 7lbs muscle, 3lbs fat, then immediately dropping to a PSMF for 11-12 days, as written in Lyle's Book. You would then refeed for 2 days, then continue bulking for another 10 weeks.

In that 11-12 days, you'd lose 1.5-2lbs fat, without losing much (if any) muscle, you woudn't suffer from metabolic shutdown, and it would be easy to adhere to mentally/physically, as you know you only have less than two weeks before you can eat food again.

Any thoughts? I'm hoping Pup or Severed Ties can chime in with their thoughts.

Edit for typing like a monkey

Utopianhopes
03-02-2006, 06:19 PM
Yea that article was very informative, however it would be rather ignorant to base all your knowledge on one question off of just one article. I'm not saying it's wrong, it makes a lot of sence, and for now i agree with it all, but I still dont feel like I know everything on this yet.


Built gave up the good on another thread.


I do NOT know enough about this stuff - the way I eat is partially based on stuff I've read by Berardi, McD, Erik Ledin, Joel Marion... and partially based on my own personal comfort.

If knowledge is what you're looking for then go read some of the above people's material.

Pup
03-02-2006, 07:10 PM
I've also wondered about doing the 500 above maintenace for say, 10 weeks, gaining, hypothetically, 7lbs muscle, 3lbs fat, then immediately dropping to a PSMF for 11-12 days, as written in Lyle's Book. You would then refeed for 2 days, then continue bulking for another 10 weeks.

In that 11-12 days, you'd lose 1.5-2lbs fat, without losing much (if any) muscle, you woudn't suffer from metabolic shutdown, and it would be easy to adhere to mentally/physically, as you know you only have less than two weeks before you can eat food again.

Any thoughts? I'm hoping Pup or Severed Ties can chime in with their thoughts.

Edit for typing like a monkey

That approach is one that you can do...another way is to simply set up a 16-20 week plan, where (depending if you are aiming for more size or definition) you can alternate weeks of calorie surplus and deficit to increase lbm w/o adding any fat and in some cases use this strategy to cut with...i might think of it as a diet with built in weeks of refeeding, but keeping them controlled so you don't take 3 steps backwards for the 1 step forward you took while being in a calorie deficit.

Also...much of this is something i would do if i was starting from a lower bodyfat (under 15%)...mostly because its slow and you aren't going to go from 20% to 8% in 16 weeks doing this.

eatit
03-02-2006, 07:15 PM
Brickt: I think that would be very possible. But each bulk would probably get harder and harder as you started reaching your genetic potential and then cals would probably start being partitioned poorly. But i was actually planning on doing something exactly along those lines as soon as i finish this cut (once i'm done it'll be my first time down to 10% so i don't know how i'll gain).

Gator: you'll never know everything on this. No one will. And when they finally do it'll only be a general understanding and not even one that applies specifically to you due to how much of an effect genetics can have on something like this. The "most efficient" way to do this is is to keep doing it over and over until you figure out what works best for you. But we all have to start somewhere, so pick whatever method you think looks the most effective and try it out.

brickt.
03-02-2006, 07:34 PM
That approach is one that you can do...another way is to simply set up a 16-20 week plan, where (depending if you are aiming for more size or definition) you can alternate weeks of calorie surplus and deficit to increase lbm w/o adding any fat and in some cases use this strategy to cut with...i might think of it as a diet with built in weeks of refeeding, but keeping them controlled so you don't take 3 steps backwards for the 1 step forward you took while being in a calorie deficit.

Also...much of this is something i would do if i was starting from a lower bodyfat (under 15%)...mostly because its slow and you aren't going to go from 20% to 8% in 16 weeks doing this.

Yes, it would only really work if you were a Cat 1 dieter (according to Lyle = >15%) so that you can stay lean whilst getting bigger. If it was over that, though, I'd focus on losing fat.

gator
03-02-2006, 08:29 PM
I've also wondered about doing the 500 above maintenace for say, 10 weeks, gaining, hypothetically, 7lbs muscle, 3lbs fat, then immediately dropping to a PSMF for 11-12 days, as written in Lyle's Book. You would then refeed for 2 days, then continue bulking for another 10 weeks.

In that 11-12 days, you'd lose 1.5-2lbs fat, without losing much (if any) muscle, you woudn't suffer from metabolic shutdown, and it would be easy to adhere to mentally/physically, as you know you only have less than two weeks before you can eat food again.

Any thoughts? I'm hoping Pup or Severed Ties can chime in with their thoughts.

Edit for typing like a monkey

I've read some of of lyle's stuff on the PSMF diet, I dont think what your saying would work. It sounds good in theory but if I'm not mistaken he talkes about the first lbs you loose are usually water weight, so thats mostly what you would be loosing in those 11-12 days. Thats my understanding at least, would be an interesting approach I just dont think I could do the PSMF diet.

gator
03-02-2006, 08:31 PM
Gator: you'll never know everything on this. No one will. And when they finally do it'll only be a general understanding and not even one that applies specifically to you due to how much of an effect genetics can have on something like this. The "most efficient" way to do this is is to keep doing it over and over until you figure out what works best for you. But we all have to start somewhere, so pick whatever method you think looks the most effective and try it out.


Yea experience is usually the answer, was just trying to bypass that haha. I'll try something like a 9 week bulk 3 week cut kinda thing. I like going in 12 week cycles, every 12 weeks I take a week off. I'll start that in like 2 weeks, I dont want to put too much fat on during summer so I'll try that and see what happens.

brickt.
03-02-2006, 08:49 PM
I've read some of of lyle's stuff on the PSMF diet, I dont think what your saying would work. It sounds good in theory but if I'm not mistaken he talkes about the first lbs you loose are usually water weight, so thats mostly what you would be loosing in those 11-12 days. Thats my understanding at least, would be an interesting approach I just dont think I could do the PSMF diet.

Yes, of course you would lose 4-5lbs of water overnight. However, how can you not lose at BMR minus 1000 cals a DAY over 12 days? Law of thermodynamics, the cals have to come from somewhere.

eatit
03-02-2006, 10:40 PM
I totally agree with you here brickt. There's no way not to lose weight doing a PSMF. The only issue is doing it for a short enough duration that you maintain most of your LBM gains. It'd be a bit risky but i think i'll try it out after my next bulk because if it does end up working it'd be pretty rad to say the least.

brickt.
03-02-2006, 10:47 PM
^^
Granted, your bulks would have to be damn clean, so that periodic 2 week psmf mops up the excess.

Pup
03-05-2006, 09:26 AM
I've read some of of lyle's stuff on the PSMF diet, I dont think what your saying would work. It sounds good in theory but if I'm not mistaken he talkes about the first lbs you loose are usually water weight, so thats mostly what you would be loosing in those 11-12 days. Thats my understanding at least, would be an interesting approach I just dont think I could do the PSMF diet.

Actually...its closer to saying that the first few days are water weight. He recommends the 11-12 days for people who are under 15%, usually to help them break through a fat loss plateau or to tighten things up for an upcoming social event. During those 11-12 days you could conceivably lose 5lbs of fat. So, if someone were to bulk up to around 13-15%, then PSMF for 2 weeks, losing about 3%, they could alternate their following bulk/cuts in periods of 6 weeks/2 weeks if they gain .5% of fat a week on the bulk. Which would allow them to continue gaining mass year round without a net gain in bodyfat accumulation.

A vast majority of these ideas are theoretical concepts though as you eluded to in your post. Metabolism is a very complicated system in the body, the most complicated as far as i'm concerned. Most of the questions that arise on bulk/cuts or whatever else you throw out involves endo-mesos or pure endos. When you consider the issues of insulin senstivity, leptin response, and a host of other receptor mechanisms that go haywire once you get in the 20% bodyfat range, it becomes a lot more than calories in v. calories out (at least for fat loss). The math nazis will probably disagree with me, that's your right, but too many people have success on cyclical diets for the straight burn more than you consume diet to be 100% valid in every situation.

eatit
03-05-2006, 12:28 PM
A vast majority of these ideas are theoretical concepts though as you eluded to in your post. Metabolism is a very complicated system in the body, the most complicated as far as i'm concerned. Most of the questions that arise on bulk/cuts or whatever else you throw out involves endo-mesos or pure endos. When you consider the issues of insulin senstivity, leptin response, and a host of other receptor mechanisms that go haywire once you get in the 20% bodyfat range, it becomes a lot more than calories in v. calories out (at least for fat loss). The math nazis will probably disagree with me, that's your right, but too many people have success on cyclical diets for the straight burn more than you consume diet to be 100% valid in every situation.

I think too many people look for "the answer". They go onto forums like these and ask people on the other side of the country the create meal plans/routines for them that they then stick to them for months without ever stopping to be critical and analytical.

There are all kinds of great guidelines out there and just about all of them work to some degree or another. The trick is finding the one that works best for you then tweaking it to maximize the results. There's no one size fits all formula for this type of stuff.