I can't understand why its Bulk then Cut and the cycle goes on and on and on. Why gain extra weight(fat) if you'll have to burn it again ? And you'll also lose dome of the muscle you just put on but prolly more fat than muscle or else no one would gain muscle. Why isn't it possible to put on lean mass so then you wouldnt have to cut ? Now I know that some ppl will say that you wont gain mass if you have deficit caloric intake but whats the reason ? Why can't you just burn the extra fat while bulking without the extra calories and use the proteins for building ?
Because God said so. If you don't like it, drugs are pretty much the only way around it.Originally Posted by migs
Last edited by Scott S; 08-01-2004 at 02:50 PM.
Why gain extra weight(fat) if you'll have to burn it again ?
- Because it's easier and faster.
Why isn't it possible to put on lean mass so then you wouldnt have to cut ?
- It's definitely possible, but results are much more difficult and slower to obtain.
Now I know that some ppl will say that you wont gain mass if you have deficit caloric intake but whats the reason ?
- A deficit means you aren't eating enough calories to maintain your current weight ...
Why can't you just burn the extra fat while bulking without the extra calories and use the proteins for building ?
- It's possible to lose fat while gaining muscle, but it's so difficult and time consuming that most people chose to bulk/cut.
Last edited by Anthony; 08-01-2004 at 03:04 PM.
Facebook - BW166 SQ585 BP405 DL660 CL310
Visit aka23's journal if you're interested in a slow bulk, which seems to be what you are getting at.
I've heard that for beginners to weightlifting, it is possible to gain significant muscle while losing significant fat. But then the law of diminishing returns quickly takes over...
They say that when your ships comes in
The first man takes the sails
Second takes the afterdeck
The third: the planks and rails.
the other reason to bulk and then cut is of course that muscle burns calories. so cutting with 180lbs LBM is going to be easier than cutting with 160 and then bulking. the muscle you gain from the bulk will then speed up the cut. cutting with no muscle mass lending a helping hand is a depressing business of low calories and cardio. with a lot of muscle mass a simple calorific deficit will see most BB's strip off the fat pretty nicely. toss in a little cardio and bobs your uncle unless you want to start going sub 9%
this has been argued back and forth and i've never seen any science on either side that directly applies to this question.
I've been eating about 2000 calories a day for the past 6 months and my weight hasn't gone up at all. I know that Ive gained more muscle because that shows in the mirror and my weights have increased alot. Im not quite sure if 6 months on bulking/cutting routine would have given me better results but Im not really satisfied with my progress although ppl in my gym say that the first few months are like a warm up. Keep in mind that I Havent taken any supplements before and my avg intake of proteins is 150-180g a day.
I weigh 160lb and im 5'10.
im 20 lbs lighter than you (mind you im also 4 inches shorter) and i have to eat 3000 cal a day to gain weight...and thats with no cardio...just 4x per week weights. Your first 6-12 weeks are going to be neural adaptation with little musclular volume change until your body has stopped being able to lift more just by getting more efficient at fibre recruitment. After that reaches a "max" you will get muscular growth as thats the only way to safeguard against future trauma (heavier weights).
think of it this way:Originally Posted by migs
My numbers are pulled outta the air, so don't ask for references.If you eat just enough to gain muscle and not put on any fat (to maintain), then you'll put on say 3lbs of muscle each year.
If you overeat (bulk) you might put on 15lbs of muscle each year and 8lbs of fat
When you cut you'll lose the 8lbs of fat, and possibly 2 pounds of muscle (if you undereat), which would leave you add a gain of 13 pounds for the year.
Which is 4x more muscle than if you just ate to maintain.
This is the concept that I've come to understand and believe.
your grossly undereating for a bulk, so there is no surprise why you haven't gained weight.Originally Posted by migs
my guess is you lost bodyfat and some muscle.Originally Posted by migs
And that the lower bf gives you the illusion that you've gained muscle.
I'm skeptical that you've gained any muscle at your calorie intake.
you might have lost.
the weights you lift increasing is NOT indicative of muscle gain
Last edited by geoffgarcia; 08-05-2004 at 09:43 AM.
I can bench press 110lb more than i could at the beginning now at least that has got to count for more muscle gain, is there anything such as increase strength with no increase muscle ? And Im pretty sure that I have put on more muscle because If I had only lost fat then I would be losing weight which I havent, Im still the same. My t's also look different and Ive added extra muscle size to my arms, ive never measured them before but the sleeves are pretty tight ib some of them that werent before.
I see how you've come to the conclusions you have, they seem to be common sense, however I think there are other reasons your seeing the things you are...in my experience:
after 6 months on a 2k calorie diet its safe to say that your leptin and metabolism levels are pretty much running on empty...your not losing anything nor gaining anything because your calories are so low.Originally Posted by migs
you said so yourself, you haven't gained any weight...since muscle has weight you should have seen a difference, granted its possible you've put on small amounts of muscle and lost some bf which would account for the even weight...but...I wouldnt' count on it at your intake levels.Originally Posted by migs
If you've gained it then you would surely see it on the scale. I recommend you take measurements of your various muscle sizes, bodyfat, weight, etc. And track these things so you can see your progress over the months, years, etc...
Bottom line is you need to learn more about proper diet/nutrition if you expect to maximize your results...
This is based on real life experience more than it is on common sense. You dont really add 110lb to a bench press out of no where and the small amount of muscle increase will not acount for that difference, 110lb is not a small amount. And I dont really have to READ it on the scale to know it, you can see it in the mirror and seeing is believing. And its not only me that sees it, it's everyone around me noticing the difference pre and post gym.
I agree that I could have gained more muscle, I just dont think a cut/bulk cycle is for me. I tend to store fat over my sides/chest/stomach and by the time I finish cutting those Id be back to square one cuz it will take a ****load of time.
Originally Posted by migs
Yes. Over time the CNS gets more efficient and the neural response is greater enabling you to lift more weight. There are several members on these boards (including myself) who do not gain much if any weight from year to year, but steadily (if slowly) get stronger and stronger.
Bottom line: You can get stronger, a lot stronger, without increasing in size. However you cannot get BIGGER without getting stronger.
exactly...Originally Posted by ExtremeAnabolic
if I got on a bench today I could probably only do 150lbs for a set of 10 since I haven't done bench in about 5 years...in about 3 months I could most likely be doing sets of 10 at about 300 lbs...does that mean I've gained any muscle? not at all...my CNS/muscle memory has just caught up and fallen into the groove.
And if I take 3 months off my bench is gonna go right back down to 150...but my muscle size doesn't change...
I can assure you i am getting bigger, not the rate I had hoped for but I am.
Originally Posted by migs
This makes no sense at all. First you say this, and then you say that you are getting bigger. Are you sincere? If your weight has not increased, you can not possibly be getting bigger. You have probably lost some fat and gained some muscle, making you more defined and thus making you LOOK bigger. You seem to be arguing solely for the sake of proving the conventional wisdom on this board wrong.