PDA

View Full Version : bulk-cut in 2 week intervals?



PoutineEh
01-31-2007, 05:56 PM
has anyone tried something like this? 2 week bulk followed by a 2 week cut and keep alternating? seems this would be a great way to increase lbm and keep fat at bay, and you wouldnt have to deal with some of the hormone problems that come with dieting for months. does this work or am i looking at it the wrong way?

Mr. D
01-31-2007, 06:02 PM
if you are interested in cyclical dieting and are very strict and disciplined, look into Ultimate Diet 2.0 by Lyle Mcdonald. The book is 27.99 on amazon.com.

PoutineEh
01-31-2007, 06:06 PM
yeah i own it and played around with it at the end of last summer. i wasnt really talking about doing all the depletion stuff, just sort of 2 weeks, maitenance+500 cals, then 2 weeks maintenance-500 cals. overall your bodyweight should be the same judging on calories alone, but would this sort of cyclical diet just provide a recomposition over time? anyone have experience with this? makes more sense to me to do this than bulk for months, cut for months. me personally, id rather diet for a short period of time, knowing soon ill get to pig out and it makes things easier psychologically. just wondering if this works...

c3p
01-31-2007, 06:08 PM
At least it isn't the velocity diet. Nothing but liquids. :omg:

mistergalarza
02-01-2007, 06:17 AM
Anyone else have opinions on this? I actually saw this friend of mine go through something similar except he was doing it by weeks.. One week he would cut hard, hard cardio, etc. The next he would pig out. I have to admit the guy was ripped to shreds. I can blame that on the 100 mgs of ephedra and clen but i'm still curious about this dieting method. ?

Stumprrp
02-01-2007, 06:53 AM
i personally feel that is rediculous, at the end of the year your lucky to have gained 8 lbs of muscle.

BULK UP and CUT HARD is the way to go. possibly a 6-6 month ratio

ArchAngel777
02-01-2007, 07:19 AM
yeah i own it and played around with it at the end of last summer. i wasnt really talking about doing all the depletion stuff, just sort of 2 weeks, maitenance+500 cals, then 2 weeks maintenance-500 cals. overall your bodyweight should be the same judging on calories alone, but would this sort of cyclical diet just provide a recomposition over time? anyone have experience with this? makes more sense to me to do this than bulk for months, cut for months. me personally, id rather diet for a short period of time, knowing soon ill get to pig out and it makes things easier psychologically. just wondering if this works...


Everyone has their opinion. Here is mine.

Lyle goes into details over the standard bulk, then cut routine in UD 2.0. I don't think bulking for two weeks, then cutting for two weeks will yield any better results than bulking for 3 months and cutting for three months. In fact, it might even do more harm. You could certainly *try* it and it *might* work, but I do not think it is optimal. I recomend you visit Lyle's website and check into the 14 day routine for UD 2.0. It will make the depletion workouts much more bearable (as you can spread them out) and stilll allow for great fat loss along with a teeny bit of muscle gain. At the very least, you should use the UD2.0 to LEAN out.

PoutineEh
02-01-2007, 08:33 AM
i personally feel that is rediculous, at the end of the year your lucky to have gained 8 lbs of muscle.

BULK UP and CUT HARD is the way to go. possibly a 6-6 month ratio

see i dont necessarily agree. and what i refer to above is not including getting to extremely lean body fat levels which is what ud 2.0 is about. isnt the point of a traditional bulk to add on a bunch of weight over a few months, and then take it all off and get back to your starting weight, with the point being to having more lbm and less fat than you began with? of course there are variations where you will weigh more at the end of a bulk-cut than you started, but you see my point. with the way i desribed, the 2 week bulk should pack on 2 lbs of mass, mostly lbm w/ a little fat (assuming you can put on that much lbm... but i digress). then for the 2 week cut, you would lose mostly fat (~2 lbs), and at then end, you are the same starting weight, but have more lbm and less fat. i guess the scenario i have in mind is someone who is 16-18% bf and they would do this type of cycle until they lower their bf to something like 12-13%. to me, it seems you would get the same results as if you put on 20 lbs over a few months of a bulk, and then cut for a few months and took off 20 lbs, but the 2 week cycle seems more managable and less likely to get out of hand and add on a ton of fat...

can anyone who has actually tried this or something similar enough comment? im not saying this is the best technique, i have no proof. just a thought. but you cant really say this wont work until you have tried it imo or know others who have .

FireRescue
02-01-2007, 09:37 AM
In some ways the 2 weeks on 2 weeks off would take more discipline than a 10 or 12 week cut. For me, once I get into a groove on a cut it is fairly easy for me to stick with it. JMHO

SaintGJR
02-01-2007, 12:33 PM
I dont think you could get into effective periodization from just 2 weeks and then swapping it round, etc...

PoutineEh
02-01-2007, 03:11 PM
I dont think you could get into effective periodization from just 2 weeks and then swapping it round, etc...

does that mean you wont be getting consistent increases in poundages one lifts because you are swapping back and forth so much and not allow your cns to be in a state where it can supercompensate? seems legit enough reason for it to not be the most effective, if i understood what you were talking about.