Cutting-gaining periods vs slightly above maintena
- Thread starter Henry
- Start date
No offence but this is an impossible-to-answer poll! Far too many variables to be able to be able to answer with certainty.
Your body fat levels at the start of your training will dictate how much you need to eat. Once you are at around 10-15% bf, keeping a calorie excess going will allow you to continue to make gains as long as your HST training regimen is sorted. Periodically, you would need to cut to get bodyfat levels back down again. The more time you spend cutting the less you will be likely to gain unless your b/f levels were high initially.
My advice would be to do a long slow bulk if b/f levels are important. Otherwise, eat a bit more and worry about cutting later. When you can squat and dead with 500lbs, bench with 330lbs and chin with b/w +100lbs you will then have some muscle to show off!
Your body fat levels at the start of your training will dictate how much you need to eat. Once you are at around 10-15% bf, keeping a calorie excess going will allow you to continue to make gains as long as your HST training regimen is sorted. Periodically, you would need to cut to get bodyfat levels back down again. The more time you spend cutting the less you will be likely to gain unless your b/f levels were high initially.
My advice would be to do a long slow bulk if b/f levels are important. Otherwise, eat a bit more and worry about cutting later. When you can squat and dead with 500lbs, bench with 330lbs and chin with b/w +100lbs you will then have some muscle to show off!
I saw this concept debated on another forum. The final synopsis was that the results would usually be about the same for most folks, so it's a matter of preference wether you want to get fat fast and suffer cutting or get fat slowly and suffer cutting.
Another bulking method I've heard of is to slow bulk, then when it starts getting uncomfortable to look at, fast bulk the rest of the way to your cut. This sort of appeals to me, as I get to keep gaining for long periods (and EATING!) then spend less time taking it off. (hopefully) But that's not right or wrong, it's just me, and I've always had and always will have a 1" "stickout" gut due to spinal curve, so it doesn't matter as much. I'll never have a 'wasp waist'.
Another bulking method I've heard of is to slow bulk, then when it starts getting uncomfortable to look at, fast bulk the rest of the way to your cut. This sort of appeals to me, as I get to keep gaining for long periods (and EATING!) then spend less time taking it off. (hopefully) But that's not right or wrong, it's just me, and I've always had and always will have a 1" "stickout" gut due to spinal curve, so it doesn't matter as much. I'll never have a 'wasp waist'.
From my experience, I feel a fast bulking might be best at the proper time (end of 10's & all through the 5's & post 5's). This allows for a caloric periodization same as with the weights & reps. Basically when going heavy "eat big" to grow big, then go back to maintenance at SD & just above maint during 15's & 10's, then hit the big weight & big food when the time is right. Also, for me it's easier to see if I'm consuming too many calories as my waist (and overall fat content) would grow noticeably in this "short period" of time, so then the cal's intake can be reduced.
Part of the challenge I see with a slow bulk is the body adapting & expecting the almost constant flow of above maint calories & its more tedious to monitor the waist line/fat levels over "long" periods.
O
Part of the challenge I see with a slow bulk is the body adapting & expecting the almost constant flow of above maint calories & its more tedious to monitor the waist line/fat levels over "long" periods.
O
Uhhhh...monitor?
It always sounded to me like there was an equation of food intake vs. weight moved. One way you take in a certain amount of food to a lOT of exersize...and the other a LOT of food to less exersize (time/workouts)
I would then suppose that there is a balance point, and each individual would be better off to one side or the other of that point. But given extremes, there must be some points where the positive effects begin to ebb. Some of us put on fat more easily or quickly than others, and I think that is what skews the equation.
It always sounded to me like there was an equation of food intake vs. weight moved. One way you take in a certain amount of food to a lOT of exersize...and the other a LOT of food to less exersize (time/workouts)
I would then suppose that there is a balance point, and each individual would be better off to one side or the other of that point. But given extremes, there must be some points where the positive effects begin to ebb. Some of us put on fat more easily or quickly than others, and I think that is what skews the equation.
That's a good idea. The only exception is that I would eat above maintenance at least a couple days into SD when it will still be productive. Other than that, it sounds like a neat plan.
I know a lot of this is individual as well. Some people put fat (and muscle) on more easily. Other people, like me, have a hard time putting on any kind of weight no matter what, while cutting fat off is no big deal. So you'd have to take that into account. Obviously what works best for me may not work best for any of you. People who gain weight more easily could probably do the whole slow bulk thing and have it still be productive while someone like me would stagnate on it.
I know a lot of this is individual as well. Some people put fat (and muscle) on more easily. Other people, like me, have a hard time putting on any kind of weight no matter what, while cutting fat off is no big deal. So you'd have to take that into account. Obviously what works best for me may not work best for any of you. People who gain weight more easily could probably do the whole slow bulk thing and have it still be productive while someone like me would stagnate on it.
<div>
(Totentanz @ Aug. 09 2006,08:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That's a good idea. The only exception is that I would eat above maintenance at least a couple days into SD when it will still be productive. Other than that, it sounds like a neat plan.</div>
TOT, I agree with you that eating above maint for a few days into SD is a good idea.
Overall, I think the concept sound in that, it can be tweaked according to body type. The hard gainers would need much more in the ratio for carb/fats, where as those who gain easily need to reduce those numbers. Either way, the sudden increase (hard gainer) or mild increase (easy fat gainer) should benefit as either can monitor fat increases easier in that 4wk (+/-) periodized window.
Basically this is what I did my last cycle & what I'm doing now (second week of 10's), eating a little more this week, then for the next 4 weeks (5's & post 5's) I will be eating "the house" again while using the waist line as a guide so I don't over do it too much.
O
(Totentanz @ Aug. 09 2006,08:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That's a good idea. The only exception is that I would eat above maintenance at least a couple days into SD when it will still be productive. Other than that, it sounds like a neat plan.</div>
TOT, I agree with you that eating above maint for a few days into SD is a good idea.
Overall, I think the concept sound in that, it can be tweaked according to body type. The hard gainers would need much more in the ratio for carb/fats, where as those who gain easily need to reduce those numbers. Either way, the sudden increase (hard gainer) or mild increase (easy fat gainer) should benefit as either can monitor fat increases easier in that 4wk (+/-) periodized window.
Basically this is what I did my last cycle & what I'm doing now (second week of 10's), eating a little more this week, then for the next 4 weeks (5's & post 5's) I will be eating "the house" again while using the waist line as a guide so I don't over do it too much.
O
9to5lifter
New Member
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Maybe these guys I know are actually eating at maintenance though.</div>
Yeah, I believe that's what they do. They think they are doing a slow bulk, but actually they are eating at maintenance.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Anyone here lose bf% during cycle and still gaining mass?</div>
That would be pretty difficult for an experienced lifter. Someone new to weightlifting could probably do it, but chances are it won't happen if you have been at it for years.
Cheers,
Dimitris
Yeah, I believe that's what they do. They think they are doing a slow bulk, but actually they are eating at maintenance.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Anyone here lose bf% during cycle and still gaining mass?</div>
That would be pretty difficult for an experienced lifter. Someone new to weightlifting could probably do it, but chances are it won't happen if you have been at it for years.
Cheers,
Dimitris
I've been trying to do it for years. And I've been the guy at maintenance who thinks he's bulking too. As much as I hate to do it (or admit it), I think for a slow bulk it's important to count calories, rather than just stuff yourself a lot.
If I don't pay some sort of attention to how much I'm eating, before I know it, I'm at maintenance again. I've also tried the clean bulk to try for hypertrophy with no fat gains and I still gain fat regardless. I believe some of that is age and some of it is due to having lifted for years...and maybe it wouldn't have ever been possible anyway.
If I don't pay some sort of attention to how much I'm eating, before I know it, I'm at maintenance again. I've also tried the clean bulk to try for hypertrophy with no fat gains and I still gain fat regardless. I believe some of that is age and some of it is due to having lifted for years...and maybe it wouldn't have ever been possible anyway.
Exactly. You have to count calories. You can't claim to be on a bulk if you don't know how much you are taking in. Even if you just figure out what you can eat in one day to get to your goal, then eat that same thing all week long, at least you know what your calorie intake is. I just don't understand how guys can cut or bulk without counting. If I don't count and consciously make myself eat more, I will perpetually remain the same weight.
stevejones
Member
<div>
(Henry @ Oct. 22 2005,04:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I asked this question in the forum yesterday but would like to make it a poll.
I hope everybody will vote for a higher reliablity.
Best regards and thanks in advance.
Henry</div>
Henry, here is part of an article posted by Dante Bautista (aka Doggcrapp) in another forum.
"There was a study some years back which included 3 groups--elite sumo wrestlers who did no weight training whatsoever, advanced bodybuilders and advanced powerlifters--about 20 in each group. Now there is a lot of variables here but they took the lean muscle mass of each group and divided it by their height in inches. Surprisingly the sumo wrestlers came out well ahead of the powerlifters (2nd) and the bodybuilders (very close 3rd). This is a group who did no weight training at all but engorged themselves with food trying to bring their bodyweight up to dramatic levels. How is a group that is doing no weight training having more muscle mass per inch of height than powerlifters and bodybuilders? For anyone that doubts food is the greatest anabolic in your arsenal....."
I did a similar thing to this. For a long time I worked out hard (although improperly at times), did cardio every day, but ate...well, kind of like a sumo wrestler does. So, despite all the hard exercise I was doing, I was carrying a great deal of bodyfat, but...a lot of muscle too. When I cut, I lost muscle, but that's because I only took four months to do it, when I should have taken six. If you DO NOT have a voracious appetite, then you should track every calorie that enters your mouth, I never had to do that. However, I probably could have saved myself some of the fat gains if I did track them.
Most of the muscle I have was acquired during that long bulk where I was eating...probably up to 10k cals per day at times (because my diet was so bad). Lots of protein in a gallon of chocolate milk
Now that my diet has been cut dramatically, and I'm counting calories (to keep fat under control), the gains have slowed down alot (both muscle and fat gains). Just some anecdotal evidence to think about.
(Henry @ Oct. 22 2005,04:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I asked this question in the forum yesterday but would like to make it a poll.
I hope everybody will vote for a higher reliablity.
Best regards and thanks in advance.
Henry</div>
Henry, here is part of an article posted by Dante Bautista (aka Doggcrapp) in another forum.
"There was a study some years back which included 3 groups--elite sumo wrestlers who did no weight training whatsoever, advanced bodybuilders and advanced powerlifters--about 20 in each group. Now there is a lot of variables here but they took the lean muscle mass of each group and divided it by their height in inches. Surprisingly the sumo wrestlers came out well ahead of the powerlifters (2nd) and the bodybuilders (very close 3rd). This is a group who did no weight training at all but engorged themselves with food trying to bring their bodyweight up to dramatic levels. How is a group that is doing no weight training having more muscle mass per inch of height than powerlifters and bodybuilders? For anyone that doubts food is the greatest anabolic in your arsenal....."
I did a similar thing to this. For a long time I worked out hard (although improperly at times), did cardio every day, but ate...well, kind of like a sumo wrestler does. So, despite all the hard exercise I was doing, I was carrying a great deal of bodyfat, but...a lot of muscle too. When I cut, I lost muscle, but that's because I only took four months to do it, when I should have taken six. If you DO NOT have a voracious appetite, then you should track every calorie that enters your mouth, I never had to do that. However, I probably could have saved myself some of the fat gains if I did track them.
Most of the muscle I have was acquired during that long bulk where I was eating...probably up to 10k cals per day at times (because my diet was so bad). Lots of protein in a gallon of chocolate milk
9to5lifter
New Member
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Most of the muscle I have was acquired during that long bulk where I was eating...probably up to 10k cals per day at times</div>
But, Steve, doesn't that suggest that you would choose the first answer (i.e. bulking/cutting periods)? You said that you voted for the third choice (slow bulk, slightly above maintenance).
But, Steve, doesn't that suggest that you would choose the first answer (i.e. bulking/cutting periods)? You said that you voted for the third choice (slow bulk, slightly above maintenance).
stevejones
Member
Guess I overlooked the word "slightly." I suppose "slightly" could mean 10 calories or 2000 calories. I also assumed a "cycle" was a standard 8 week hst cycle, which is a very short time for a bulk, in my opinion. Anyway, I edited my post so it doesn't reflect a choice, thanks
scientific muscle
New Member
That is really interesting Steve Jones, I know a heavy guy who doesn't lift at all but he is about 380 lb.s. He actually has an upper body about as strong as mine (@ 185 lb.s), but his legs are insanely strong just from supporting his weight. I doubt my legs will ever be as strong as his even with lifting for years. ( basically this guy walks around with 380 lb.s all day, that would be like me walking around all day with 200 lb.s on my back!!!
) I would think sumo wrestlers also have super heavy muscles in the legs to support their weight which could partly explain the heavier LBM per height. It is still surprising though given that both bodybuilders and powerlifters had less lean mass, although both groups probably had very heavy legs. Interesting stuff.
Heavy Duty dude
New Member
Another solution is to combine morning cardio with eating significantly above maintenance - like DC advocates -.
There are many suplements that can reduce muscle loss during morning cardio. These include fat burners, cortisol blockers - like vitamin C or phosphatildylserine -. Taking some whey, BCAAs or glutamin will also reduce muscle loss.
So you can say burn around 300 cal every morning, most of it will be fat, and eat about 500 cal above maintenance the rest of the day.
Cardio after training is a bit less effective but still a viable option - with the same supplements.
There are many suplements that can reduce muscle loss during morning cardio. These include fat burners, cortisol blockers - like vitamin C or phosphatildylserine -. Taking some whey, BCAAs or glutamin will also reduce muscle loss.
So you can say burn around 300 cal every morning, most of it will be fat, and eat about 500 cal above maintenance the rest of the day.
Cardio after training is a bit less effective but still a viable option - with the same supplements.
Heavy Duty dude
New Member
Huh.. why? - It's what DC says btw, it's what I do and it works.
No it doesn't. If you are on a calorie surplus, which you already said, then you aren't going to lose bodyfat. Your body isn't just going to lose fat like that.
Okay, so assuming your body burns through its glycogen in the morning and your body manages to burn 300 calories from fat. Yeah, too bad you are on a calorie surplus and your body puts that fat right back where it was later in the day while you are eating that "significantly above maintenance" amount of calories. Unless you are creating a deficit that you are unaware of, it isn't working. It might be able to work to keep your bodyfat levels stable while bulking, but you are not going to actually lose fat.
Okay, so assuming your body burns through its glycogen in the morning and your body manages to burn 300 calories from fat. Yeah, too bad you are on a calorie surplus and your body puts that fat right back where it was later in the day while you are eating that "significantly above maintenance" amount of calories. Unless you are creating a deficit that you are unaware of, it isn't working. It might be able to work to keep your bodyfat levels stable while bulking, but you are not going to actually lose fat.