just how far can you take the bulk/cut cycle?

McCloud33

So I've been cutting weight for about 2 years now and finally looking to start a bulk. I'm wondering how far you can take the bulk/cut cycles and still have them be effective? Basically, 1yr bulk followed by 1 yr cut? 6 mo each? What about 1mo? 1week? Every other day? How far can you take it before you lose the effectiveness?

Matt_Wild

Its personal based on genetically how well you put on muscle and conversely, how much you put on fat.

Also, it depends on how well you've got your diet set up and how you respond to it.

Of course everyone here will tell you all foods are equal, but it also depends on how you respond to the different foods you eat and which you personally digest and assimilate best.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ndj1979

it is up to you …

most people like to time them with seasons just for aesthetic reasons. So a popular trend is bulk fall through winter, cut in the spring to show off your new muscles/progress by summer/beach season ….

SideSteel

Definitely up to you how you handle it but as a very general rule, assuming you're doing it reasonably well:

Gaining phases should be much longer than cutting phases primarily because you can and should be gaining slower than you lose, and when you gain, a portion will be muscle and a portion will be fat. When you lose, if done correctly the majority should come from fat.

McCloud33

I guess what I'm really asking is at what point does it just go from a bulk/cut cycle to more of a recomp plan? I'm thinking of maybe trying 3 week bulk followed by a 1 week cut. Assuming I'm right with my diet and gaining 1 lb a week (.5 fat/.5 muscle) that would be, 3 weeks should be around 1.5lbs of each, which should be able to be lost in a week of good diet. I guess if it's just based on genetics, I won't know until I try it.

physioprof

You won't likely gain 1/2 lb of muscle per week. Studies in athletes have shown that even a modest increase of 500 calories per day can result in about a 60/40 split of fat/muscle. You're also assuming that all mass lost during your cutting week will come from fat, which isn't the case either. Hypertrophy is goverened by genes moreso than diet; otherwise we could all just eat 400 extra calories per day and muscle mass would increase. Not the case (unfortunately). Metabolically, it makes more sense to follow a longer bulking plan as SideSteel stated, with a modest excess of ~300-500 calories per day from carbohydrates and protein. You will really need to kill it in the gym, too. And also you'll really need to get enough sleep! Bulks can last months, and if you do it right you won't have much fat to lose when you're ready to cut.

McCloud33

physioprof wrote: »

You won't likely gain 1/2 lb of muscle per week. Studies in athletes have shown that even a modest increase of 500 calories per day can result in about a 60/40 split of fat/muscle. You're also assuming that all mass lost during your cutting week will come from fat, which isn't the case either. Hypertrophy is goverened by genes moreso than diet; otherwise we could all just eat 400 extra calories per day and muscle mass would increase. Not the case (unfortunately). Metabolically, it makes more sense to follow a longer bulking plan as SideSteel stated, with a modest excess of ~300-500 calories per day from carbohydrates and protein. You will really need to kill it in the gym, too. And also you'll really need to get enough sleep! Bulks can last months, and if you do it right you won't have much fat to lose when you're ready to cut.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You state at best it's a 60/40 split and then say that if done right you won't have much fat to lose. If you're doing an extra 500 cal/day that's 4 lbs a month or 24 in 6 months. Of that 24, 14.5 is going to be fat - best case scenario. That's a pretty good amount of fat to lose.

physioprof

I suggested 300-500 extra calories per day. And yes, it's a good amount of fat to lose, which is why you don't need to go crazy eating an extra 1,000 calories per day. Start out with 500 and see how that goes; if you're noticing more squish than power in the gym, back off a little. If you're a hard gainer, you might need to surpass 500. Either way, when it comes to protein synthesis, your work in the gym on Monday will initiate a signaling cascade that might last until Wednesday. If you cut that short every three weeks by going into a caloric deficit, your progress will be much slower. The signaling cascades that occur in a caloric deficit block those that cause hypertrophy.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

McCloud33

Is 6 months a minimum bulk then that's effective? Or could you do 3 months/1month cycle?

physioprof

You can always evaluate at 3 months and determine if you're ready to cut. Wouldn't be a bad idea to lay down some performance and physique goals. Do you want to squat more? Have bigger biceps? Maybe set a limit on waist circumference?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

McCloud33

MrM27 wrote: »

McCloud33 wrote: »

Is 6 months a minimum bulk then that's effective? Or could you do 3 months/1month cycle?

It really comes down to what your goals are. Setting a specific time frame like 6 months you might expect to be in one place but you get there and you're somewhere else. Some people will go off how many overall pounds they want to gain. Some go off a look where they may have a fully visible 6 pack at the start of the bulk and go until the bottom 2 a blurred. Some people go until they feel they added a specific amount of size without worrying to much about the accumulated fat gains. And some run shorter bulk cut cycles to remain in the lower teen range all year round. You need to decide what you want. No one can tell you what your plan should be because it's your plan and your body.

I understand that it's all about personal preference and goals, but I'll go back to the original premise...what's the shortest bulk that can still be effective. I'd like to keep it as close to a recomp as possible without losing the benefit of the bulk/cut. It's not that a recomp doesn't work after all, it's just that it works much slower.

I'm just now in the lower teens with my bf and would like to go lower, but feel that I need a break both mentally and physically from the cutting calories. My cuts just aren't as effective in months 4 and 5 as they were in months 1 and 2. If I can bulk for 3 months and then cut for 1 or 2 and gain some muscle while ending up with les fat than I started with, that is my goal. I want it to be just long enough to be effective while giving my mind/body the needed break to reset from a cut cycle. Make sense?

SideSteel

McCloud33 wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

McCloud33 wrote: »

Is 6 months a minimum bulk then that's effective? Or could you do 3 months/1month cycle?

It really comes down to what your goals are. Setting a specific time frame like 6 months you might expect to be in one place but you get there and you're somewhere else. Some people will go off how many overall pounds they want to gain. Some go off a look where they may have a fully visible 6 pack at the start of the bulk and go until the bottom 2 a blurred. Some people go until they feel they added a specific amount of size without worrying to much about the accumulated fat gains. And some run shorter bulk cut cycles to remain in the lower teen range all year round. You need to decide what you want. No one can tell you what your plan should be because it's your plan and your body.

I understand that it's all about personal preference and goals, but I'll go back to the original premise...what's the shortest bulk that can still be effective. I'd like to keep it as close to a recomp as possible without losing the benefit of the bulk/cut. It's not that a recomp doesn't work after all, it's just that it works much slower.

I'm just now in the lower teens with my bf and would like to go lower, but feel that I need a break both mentally and physically from the cutting calories. My cuts just aren't as effective in months 4 and 5 as they were in months 1 and 2. If I can bulk for 3 months and then cut for 1 or 2 and gain some muscle while ending up with les fat than I started with, that is my goal. I want it to be just long enough to be effective while giving my mind/body the needed break to reset from a cut cycle. Make sense?

I get where you're coming from but you are overthinking things quite a bit in my opinion.

If your goal is to be leaner and you're fried from dieting then bring your calories to maintenance, sit there for two to four weeks, go back into a deficit and finish the cut. Chances are good that you will feel entirely different after a long diet break than you do now.

McCloud33

Why waste those 4 weeks when I already know that at some point I'm going to want to add mass to my upper body? I've been dieting now for 16 of the last 20 months. My 4 month break in there was during my second round of stronglifts and I made really good strength gains and it really seemed to reset my body chemistry too. I'm sure it would be considered a bulk, but I didn't log any food for those 4 months and just ate whenever I wanted. I want to basically do the same thing but on a much more controlled calorie count.

SideSteel

McCloud33 wrote: »

Why waste those 4 weeks when I already know that at some point I'm going to want to add mass to my upper body? I've been dieting now for 16 of the last 20 months. My 4 month break in there was during my second round of stronglifts and I made really good strength gains and it really seemed to reset my body chemistry too. I'm sure it would be considered a bulk, but I didn't log any food for those 4 months and just ate whenever I wanted. I want to basically do the same thing but on a much more controlled calorie count.

It's not a waste of four weeks. It's reacting strategically to what is currently happening so that you can continue to make progress towards your goals.

Wheelhouse15

Threads like this remind me why I love this section so much. Strong posters and solid, research backed advice.

Wheelhouse15

physioprof wrote: »

I suggested 300-500 extra calories per day. And yes, it's a good amount of fat to lose, which is why you don't need to go crazy eating an extra 1,000 calories per day. Start out with 500 and see how that goes; if you're noticing more squish than power in the gym, back off a little. If you're a hard gainer, you might need to surpass 500. Either way, when it comes to protein synthesis, your work in the gym on Monday will initiate a signaling cascade that might last until Wednesday. If you cut that short every three weeks by going into a caloric deficit, your progress will be much slower. The signaling cascades that occur in a caloric deficit block those that cause hypertrophy.

I assume you are talking about the mTORC1 signaling (with AMPK, IGF-1, IGF-2, MGF etc). Could you tell me how long does the downgrade in signaling last after a bulk starts? It always seems that there is some lag time between a cut and bulk and I was wondering if it takes a while to clear the AMPK or if there are other factors that downgrade mTORC1 signalling that may take some time. Or maybe you could just message me since it's probably too much depth...