How important is calorie cycling?
- Thread starter soflsun
- Start date
Actually the problem is, that if you are only eating maintenance calories, you will grow very very slowly. If you up your calories you both gain muscle and fat. Then to become lean you must perform some kind of dieting to loose the gained fat. This is the basis of calorie cycling. That we all know. Nothing new. But then it is a matter of how long each cycle should be. 6 months bulking followed by 6 months cutting are perhaps normal, but is it effective? As you yourself hinted at, will the body adapt to certain levels of caloric intake? We all know that constant dieting will slow the metabolism down. Constant bulking is unhealthy. You risk develop insulin resistivity and high blood pressure. You may gain so much fat that adipose tissue undergo hyperplasia and you develop obesity.
So, what is a more sensible approach to stay ahead of adaptations? Shorter cycles. The intermittent fasting (IF) idea is the shortest of them all. Eat 12-24 hours, then fast 12-24 hours. Will it work? Probably. ABCDE diet proposes 2 weeks bulking followed by 2 weeks cutting. Will it work? Most probably.
Any other diet idea will be based on the same premises. You may adjust the length of a phase to achive different results. Doing more bulking will eventually make you fat, while doing more cutting will eventually get you ripped but not very musclular. Balance these phases out is the key, while using all the advantages weight lifting can get you.
Then, if you start out with, for example 15% BF, how will you make it drop off while packing on muscle? Most would argue to diet down to 10% BF and then bulk to 12-13%, and then diet down to 10% again. Bulking up to 20-25% BF just to grow big and muscular will make it so much harder on you (and you probably won't be so impressed with the reflection in the mirror either). The lean mass you have gained will be hidden from view. Surely not the best way to go.
So, what is a more sensible approach to stay ahead of adaptations? Shorter cycles. The intermittent fasting (IF) idea is the shortest of them all. Eat 12-24 hours, then fast 12-24 hours. Will it work? Probably. ABCDE diet proposes 2 weeks bulking followed by 2 weeks cutting. Will it work? Most probably.
Any other diet idea will be based on the same premises. You may adjust the length of a phase to achive different results. Doing more bulking will eventually make you fat, while doing more cutting will eventually get you ripped but not very musclular. Balance these phases out is the key, while using all the advantages weight lifting can get you.
Then, if you start out with, for example 15% BF, how will you make it drop off while packing on muscle? Most would argue to diet down to 10% BF and then bulk to 12-13%, and then diet down to 10% again. Bulking up to 20-25% BF just to grow big and muscular will make it so much harder on you (and you probably won't be so impressed with the reflection in the mirror either). The lean mass you have gained will be hidden from view. Surely not the best way to go.
bluejacket
New Member
<div>
(soflsun @ Jun. 04 2008,9:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thanks NKL,
That makes perfect sense. What about the diets that allow for certain higher/lower calorie days during each individual week so the body cannot adapt to any set calorie level?</div>
the IF approach can hinge on this as long as your working out 3-4 times a week. of course the real diff comes on your "off" days.
your almost always +maint on w/o days (cut or bulk) but the off days are typically maint to -maint to 1/2 maint.........something like that.
obviously if your trying to maximize your intake around a w/o (espec carbs) then non-w/o days will need to be "toned down" so as to limit too much fat gain like you might find in straight +500 cal a day/everyday type bulks.
for what its worth.....ive done many bulks and many types of bulks. GFH, slow, moderate, IF ,even low/modest carb bulk. personally IF has worked the best as far as a nice mix of size/strength/limited fat gain. nothing amazing but still nice gains without too much fat. anyway the main thing i learned was that my partitioning ratio didnt really change much. IF was def. the best for me as far as % of improvement but.........im still talking about a 10-20% improvement so...........
good luck
(soflsun @ Jun. 04 2008,9:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thanks NKL,
That makes perfect sense. What about the diets that allow for certain higher/lower calorie days during each individual week so the body cannot adapt to any set calorie level?</div>
the IF approach can hinge on this as long as your working out 3-4 times a week. of course the real diff comes on your "off" days.
your almost always +maint on w/o days (cut or bulk) but the off days are typically maint to -maint to 1/2 maint.........something like that.
obviously if your trying to maximize your intake around a w/o (espec carbs) then non-w/o days will need to be "toned down" so as to limit too much fat gain like you might find in straight +500 cal a day/everyday type bulks.
for what its worth.....ive done many bulks and many types of bulks. GFH, slow, moderate, IF ,even low/modest carb bulk. personally IF has worked the best as far as a nice mix of size/strength/limited fat gain. nothing amazing but still nice gains without too much fat. anyway the main thing i learned was that my partitioning ratio didnt really change much. IF was def. the best for me as far as % of improvement but.........im still talking about a 10-20% improvement so...........
good luck
beingisbeing
New Member
Blue:
Do you know what typical p ratio's are for average bulkers/cutters? Say you dial everything in perfect, buy are genetically pretty average, and bulking relatively clean. What would you expect...60% muscle 40% fat?
And on the cut, likewise. Would the average guy that does everything else (besides his boring genetics) right ideally lose 90% fat, 10% muscle, or is that wishful thinking...?
Do you know what typical p ratio's are for average bulkers/cutters? Say you dial everything in perfect, buy are genetically pretty average, and bulking relatively clean. What would you expect...60% muscle 40% fat?
And on the cut, likewise. Would the average guy that does everything else (besides his boring genetics) right ideally lose 90% fat, 10% muscle, or is that wishful thinking...?
bluejacket
New Member
1st i dont think there are typical ratios for bulking and cutting. each person has his own ratio and its typically only born out thru a decent amount of time lifting/eating seriously (perhaps 6months to a yr depending on how serious). by that i mean a real effort at a legit lifting program and a real effort to get in sufficient cals as well as protein etc.
after that i think its quickly apparent where your p-ratio falls. 60/40 is prob. on the better side of genetically avg imo. not outstanding or typical pro athlete level but better then avg.
i think the main thing to keep in mind is how much you can actually affect your ratio.......even with all the variables you mention being dialed in your looking at a 10-20% improvement. so if your ratio happens to be 50/50 then doing all you can "just right" will at best move you a little above that 50/50 maybe even to 60/40. of course "just right" can and does vary person to person so it takes time to figure out how your body responds to all the variables involved in bulking or cutting. this is why folks who cut or bulk (for real) for the 1st time are rarely happy with the results. usually the 2nd and 3rd attempts are more successful as people learn to keep what works and discard what didnt.
as far as your last question. i think 90/10 is very very optimistic but still possible. again, i think a person would need a pretty good understanding of how their body responds to whatever diet/workout plan they where going to use. picking a good diet strategy that is effective (say ud2.0 or IF etc.) will most likely yield good results but i doubt 90/10 on the 1st try. perhaps on the 2nd or 3rd once youve figured out the nuances, how you resond, worked it into your lifestyle, sched, etc.
here is a link to one of the chapters in lyles ud2.0 where ive gotten most of my info about p-ratio.
http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=125
finally, as far as what is an avg p-ratio.......i couldnt say. i could venture a guess but i dont think it would really matter. i have a pretty good idea of my personal ratio and thats the only one im sure of. i cant really change it so i just have to adjust to it and be realistic about my goals or at least the time it may take to reach them.
i hope that is of some help
good luck
after that i think its quickly apparent where your p-ratio falls. 60/40 is prob. on the better side of genetically avg imo. not outstanding or typical pro athlete level but better then avg.
i think the main thing to keep in mind is how much you can actually affect your ratio.......even with all the variables you mention being dialed in your looking at a 10-20% improvement. so if your ratio happens to be 50/50 then doing all you can "just right" will at best move you a little above that 50/50 maybe even to 60/40. of course "just right" can and does vary person to person so it takes time to figure out how your body responds to all the variables involved in bulking or cutting. this is why folks who cut or bulk (for real) for the 1st time are rarely happy with the results. usually the 2nd and 3rd attempts are more successful as people learn to keep what works and discard what didnt.
as far as your last question. i think 90/10 is very very optimistic but still possible. again, i think a person would need a pretty good understanding of how their body responds to whatever diet/workout plan they where going to use. picking a good diet strategy that is effective (say ud2.0 or IF etc.) will most likely yield good results but i doubt 90/10 on the 1st try. perhaps on the 2nd or 3rd once youve figured out the nuances, how you resond, worked it into your lifestyle, sched, etc.
here is a link to one of the chapters in lyles ud2.0 where ive gotten most of my info about p-ratio.
http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=125
finally, as far as what is an avg p-ratio.......i couldnt say. i could venture a guess but i dont think it would really matter. i have a pretty good idea of my personal ratio and thats the only one im sure of. i cant really change it so i just have to adjust to it and be realistic about my goals or at least the time it may take to reach them.
i hope that is of some help
good luck
beingisbeing
New Member
its alot of help actually. I went back and re read that section of UD2.0 as well.
I wonder if 50/50 is average without considering training, why not just eat like a slob, hope for a 50/50 gain, and then cut effectively and precisely?
Is good training really only worth a shift from 50% to 60%? Thats so depressing! And even with an IF, which is supposed to be a clean bulk? (I think Lyle claims much better for UD2.0, but thats real slow I think).
...now I'm SCARED to complete my cut and move onto the bulk...
I wonder if 50/50 is average without considering training, why not just eat like a slob, hope for a 50/50 gain, and then cut effectively and precisely?
Is good training really only worth a shift from 50% to 60%? Thats so depressing! And even with an IF, which is supposed to be a clean bulk? (I think Lyle claims much better for UD2.0, but thats real slow I think).
...now I'm SCARED to complete my cut and move onto the bulk...
bluejacket
New Member
it really comes down to "where" your coming from.
50/50 sounds pretty avg.......unless your p-ratio is 30/70 or 40/60. think about it that way. if your one of those folks who gain 2lbs of fat for every lb of muscle (during normal 1/2 to 1lb a week bulk) then your looking at trying to "hit it right" with hard training, good freq., proper intake of cals pro. carbs etc etc prob. slow bulking and still be hoping for 50/50.....
then there are guys who just fell off the turnip truck as far as real training and diet are concerned yet the have a more favorable p-ratio so they are the ones who look like they have been lifting for yrs not months.
whichever cat. you fall into the facts/reality of the situation can help you be more realistic about what (and when) you can accomplish while still being ambitious.
good luck
50/50 sounds pretty avg.......unless your p-ratio is 30/70 or 40/60. think about it that way. if your one of those folks who gain 2lbs of fat for every lb of muscle (during normal 1/2 to 1lb a week bulk) then your looking at trying to "hit it right" with hard training, good freq., proper intake of cals pro. carbs etc etc prob. slow bulking and still be hoping for 50/50.....
then there are guys who just fell off the turnip truck as far as real training and diet are concerned yet the have a more favorable p-ratio so they are the ones who look like they have been lifting for yrs not months.
whichever cat. you fall into the facts/reality of the situation can help you be more realistic about what (and when) you can accomplish while still being ambitious.
good luck