Road to Six Pack ABs - Get Ripped!
Options
Replies
-
Read the thread.JeffseekingV wrote: »Mohamed18492 wrote: »I think bulking with 14+ body fat will just make you fat later on. You might get to 20% or more and I think that's not what you want. I'm cutting to less than 10% body fat and don't care if people think I'm skinny. I will bulk up when I reach my goal.
So you want to lose muscle / fat to get into the sub 10%, then go on a bulk to try to get the muscle back?
Why not pack on the muscle now and cut later?
Read and I still have the same question. Seems counter productive.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »
Read the thread.JeffseekingV wrote: »Mohamed18492 wrote: »I think bulking with 14+ body fat will just make you fat later on. You might get to 20% or more and I think that's not what you want. I'm cutting to less than 10% body fat and don't care if people think I'm skinny. I will bulk up when I reach my goal.
So you want to lose muscle / fat to get into the sub 10%, then go on a bulk to try to get the muscle back?
Why not pack on the muscle now and cut later?
Read and I still have the same question. Seems counter productive.
I believe he is saying that it is more efficient to begin a bulk a lower body fat percentage rather than beginning at 14%
Ie. moving from 8 - 14%, rather then 14 - 20%0 -
Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Yeah, but at the end of the day it's really just six of one, a half dozen of another, isn't it?0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Yeah, but at the end of the day it's really just six of one, a half dozen of another, isn't it?
Explain, my coffee intake is low today and I'm running on E0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Which ends being what I just theorizied. IMHO again. If he wants to cut down to be ripped and then try to maintain that leanness during the bulk, he's welcomed to give it a shot. It's not the most efficient way to obtaining those goals IMHO. As long as he's willing to endure that longer process, fine with me. I don't think most bodybuilders prepping for a show goes about their routine in this manner and I'd think they would be pretty efficient about the whole process0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Yeah, but at the end of the day it's really just six of one, a half dozen of another, isn't it?
Explain, my coffee intake is low today and I'm running on E
LOL--you're cute
Cut to 10% bulk to 16% or stay at 14% and bulk to 20% then cut to 16%. It's just bulk-cut or cut-bulk. In the end, does it really make much of a difference aside from being a little "fatter" for awhile?
Personally, I don't care, I'm just a chick starting at 16% bf for this bulk.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Which ends being what I just theorizied. IMHO again. If he wants to cut down to be ripped and then try to maintain that leanness during the bulk, he's welcomed to give it a shot. It's not the most efficient way to obtaining those goals IMHO. As long as he's willing to endure that longer process, fine with me. I don't think most bodybuilders prepping for a show goes about their routine in this manner and I'd think they would be pretty efficient about the whole process
Most natural bodybuilders would not start prepping for a show at 20% body fat because they wouldn't ever reach that high of a percentage (at least none that I know of). Most hang out in the lower teens as an absolute ceiling. Cutting from 20% down to single digits is an even longer process.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Yeah, but at the end of the day it's really just six of one, a half dozen of another, isn't it?
Explain, my coffee intake is low today and I'm running on E
LOL--you're cute Cut to 10% bulk to 16% or stay at 14% and bulk to 20% then cut to 16%. It's just bulk-cut or cut-bulk. In the end, does it really make much of a difference aside from being a little "fatter" for awhile?
Personally, I don't care, I'm just a chick starting at 16% bf for this bulk.
Let me look and see if I still have a link to the study. It showed that the higher the body fat the less lean mass the person added. It has to do with higher estrogen levels and lower testosterone levels with higher body fat (in males). I think there are other studies that say the same thing and tracked other markers instead of hormones.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Yeah, but at the end of the day it's really just six of one, a half dozen of another, isn't it?
Explain, my coffee intake is low today and I'm running on E
LOL--you're cute Cut to 10% bulk to 16% or stay at 14% and bulk to 20% then cut to 16%. It's just bulk-cut or cut-bulk. In the end, does it really make much of a difference aside from being a little "fatter" for awhile?
Personally, I don't care, I'm just a chick starting at 16% bf for this bulk.
Let me look and see if I still have a link to the study. It showed that the higher the body fat the less lean mass the person added. It has to do with higher estrogen levels and lower testosterone levels with higher body fat (in males). I think there are other studies that say the same thing and tracked other markers instead of hormones.
Excellent! I wasn't sure if there was actual research on that or not--thank you for that. That's why I asked if it was the same or not. I
learning! 0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Which ends being what I just theorizied. IMHO again. If he wants to cut down to be ripped and then try to maintain that leanness during the bulk, he's welcomed to give it a shot. It's not the most efficient way to obtaining those goals IMHO. As long as he's willing to endure that longer process, fine with me. I don't think most bodybuilders prepping for a show goes about their routine in this manner and I'd think they would be pretty efficient about the whole process
Most natural bodybuilders would not start prepping for a show at 20% body fat because they wouldn't ever reach that high of a percentage (at least none that I know of). Most hang out in the lower teens as an absolute ceiling. Cutting from 20% down to single digits is an even longer process.
I don't know what is a longer process. If he's goal is XXlbs of lean body mass, then he's willing to lose some of that to get to <10% body fat. Then he has to bulk to get that back and then starting gaining on top of that to get to XXlbs of lean body mass, then he has to cut back down again. Wouldn't that take longer?0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Which ends being what I just theorizied. IMHO again. If he wants to cut down to be ripped and then try to maintain that leanness during the bulk, he's welcomed to give it a shot. It's not the most efficient way to obtaining those goals IMHO. As long as he's willing to endure that longer process, fine with me. I don't think most bodybuilders prepping for a show goes about their routine in this manner and I'd think they would be pretty efficient about the whole process
Most natural bodybuilders would not start prepping for a show at 20% body fat because they wouldn't ever reach that high of a percentage (at least none that I know of). Most hang out in the lower teens as an absolute ceiling. Cutting from 20% down to single digits is an even longer process.
I don't know what is a longer process. If he's goal is XXlbs of lean body mass, then he's willing to lose some of that to get to <10% body fat. Then he has to bulk to get that back and then starting gaining on top of that to get to XXlbs of lean body mass, then he has to cut back down again. Wouldn't that take longer?
It makes no sense to hover 40 lbs over your stage weight and spend a whole year in a deficit.
As your training age increases your ability to add additional LBM decreases, so getting up to a body fat level of that high is a waste of time.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Which ends being what I just theorizied. IMHO again. If he wants to cut down to be ripped and then try to maintain that leanness during the bulk, he's welcomed to give it a shot. It's not the most efficient way to obtaining those goals IMHO. As long as he's willing to endure that longer process, fine with me. I don't think most bodybuilders prepping for a show goes about their routine in this manner and I'd think they would be pretty efficient about the whole process
Most natural bodybuilders would not start prepping for a show at 20% body fat because they wouldn't ever reach that high of a percentage (at least none that I know of). Most hang out in the lower teens as an absolute ceiling. Cutting from 20% down to single digits is an even longer process.
I don't know what is a longer process. If he's goal is XXlbs of lean body mass, then he's willing to lose some of that to get to <10% body fat. Then he has to bulk to get that back and then starting gaining on top of that to get to XXlbs of lean body mass, then he has to cut back down again. Wouldn't that take longer?
It makes no sense to hover 40 lbs over your stage weight and spend a whole year in a deficit.
As your training age increases your ability to add additional LBM decreases, so getting up to a body fat level is a waste of time.
See? That makes sense. Thank you!0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Which ends being what I just theorizied. IMHO again. If he wants to cut down to be ripped and then try to maintain that leanness during the bulk, he's welcomed to give it a shot. It's not the most efficient way to obtaining those goals IMHO. As long as he's willing to endure that longer process, fine with me. I don't think most bodybuilders prepping for a show goes about their routine in this manner and I'd think they would be pretty efficient about the whole process
Most natural bodybuilders would not start prepping for a show at 20% body fat because they wouldn't ever reach that high of a percentage (at least none that I know of). Most hang out in the lower teens as an absolute ceiling. Cutting from 20% down to single digits is an even longer process.
I don't know what is a longer process. If he's goal is XXlbs of lean body mass, then he's willing to lose some of that to get to <10% body fat. Then he has to bulk to get that back and then starting gaining on top of that to get to XXlbs of lean body mass, then he has to cut back down again. Wouldn't that take longer?
It makes no sense to hover 40 lbs over your stage weight and spend a whole year in a deficit.
As your training age increases your ability to add additional LBM decreases, so getting up to a body fat level is a waste of time.
I never mentioned 40lbs over and he never mentioned 40lbs over. And I never mentioned upping the bodyfat only. You can't lose only bodyfat and you can't just gain LBM. If he's goal is LBM, not sure why cutting down is the avenue to that goal. Cutting will only decrease his LBM. Like I said, if he wants to try to gain LBM while maintaining at / near <10%, so be it.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »The tricky thing with my metabolism is working with my appetite. I do try to eat a fair amount of healthy foods, although my diet is certainly not entirely clean. My diet already includes some calorie dense foods such as nuts, cheese, and dried fruits.
I like how those get lumped on the end into "not entirely clean"
all those things I would toss into "clean"
When we talk calorie dense- we are talking peanut butter on top of my full fat moosetracks ice cream with oreos mashed in.
-
time to get dirty my friend.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Based on what I've been eating, I think around 2100-2200. MFP suggests about 1950, but I think that's a little too low.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, maybe you are right then.@ForecasterJason
The reason it seems ridiculous to you about the concept of how hard it is to do what you are talking about is because reading it and doing it are completely different. When you try it a few times, you outlook changes.
Personally, I am not that far right now from the starting stats I mentioned in that example. For all intents and purposes, I would be considered a complete beginner in consistent weight training. For my entire life I have always been very lean. At this point, I am trying to do a slow bulk. I don't expect to be putting on 20 pounds in the next year at the pace I'm going. But because of my age, muscle/fat ratio, and perhaps other factors, I have been blessed with a lightning fast metabolism right now. I know it will slow down as I get older, and for that reason I am hesitant to slow it down by gaining unnecessary body fat right now. This is why I do believe (for me, at least) gaining muscle on a slow bulk is hard, and why I am setting my expectations low.
But clearly, I seem to be an outlier in this thinking.
What are your maintenance calories at out of curiosity.?
Holy *kitten*! What are your stats? I maintain at 2600. I'm a 29 year old, female, 5'9",190 pounds and 23% body fat. MFP has me around 2200.
this makes me so sad.
I'm not losing on 1700...0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Which ends being what I just theorizied. IMHO again. If he wants to cut down to be ripped and then try to maintain that leanness during the bulk, he's welcomed to give it a shot. It's not the most efficient way to obtaining those goals IMHO. As long as he's willing to endure that longer process, fine with me. I don't think most bodybuilders prepping for a show goes about their routine in this manner and I'd think they would be pretty efficient about the whole process
Most natural bodybuilders would not start prepping for a show at 20% body fat because they wouldn't ever reach that high of a percentage (at least none that I know of). Most hang out in the lower teens as an absolute ceiling. Cutting from 20% down to single digits is an even longer process.
I don't know what is a longer process. If he's goal is XXlbs of lean body mass, then he's willing to lose some of that to get to <10% body fat. Then he has to bulk to get that back and then starting gaining on top of that to get to XXlbs of lean body mass, then he has to cut back down again. Wouldn't that take longer?
It makes no sense to hover 40 lbs over your stage weight and spend a whole year in a deficit.
As your training age increases your ability to add additional LBM decreases, so getting up to a body fat level is a waste of time.
I never mentioned 40lbs over and he never mentioned 40lbs over. And I never mentioned upping the bodyfat only. You can't lose only bodyfat and you can't just gain LBM. If he's goal is LBM, not sure why cutting down is the avenue to that goal. Cutting will only decrease his LBM. Like I said, if he wants to try to gain LBM while maintaining at / near <10%, so be it.
I'm using 40 lbs as an example for being 20% body fat.0 -
40lbs and 20% bodyfat would make him 200lbs right? He's nowhere close to being that. And he wouldn't have to lose 40lbs. More like 20-25lbs. Which shouldn't take him a year?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions