Who has it easier? Bulkers or cutters?
Options
Replies
-
What? rofl no. Just because one is an ectomorph does not mean they can eat whatever they want and they all have fast metabolisms.It sounds like an ectomorph vs endomorph. IMO ectomorphs have it easeir since they can damn near eat whatever they want when they're bluking. Endos still need to keep the diet relatively clean or risk putting on excess fat while bulking. But I'm an endo so it could just be "grass is greener" thinking.
I will admit, I do like the fact that putting on muscle isn't that difficult which would cause some ectomorphs to give up.
It varies by each individual. Some need to eat clean, some don't; an empty calorie is an empty calorie. Oddly enough, I'm surrounded by tall skinny people at work and most of them really struggle with adding weight in the gym. We all eat together so I see the amount of refined and process carbs they eat with relatively little weight gain. The crazy thing is most of us are in late 20's to 30's so it can't be attributed to a young metabolism. I just can't figure out where all that damn glucose is going with all the insulin they should be producing.
Then there's the 20 year old in our ship, he eats whatever he wants, lifts, and the scale barely moves. Take two days off and he loses weeks of progress. I would attribute this to his genetics and youth.0 -
What? rofl no. Just because one is an ectomorph does not mean they can eat whatever they want and they all have fast metabolisms.It sounds like an ectomorph vs endomorph. IMO ectomorphs have it easeir since they can damn near eat whatever they want when they're bluking. Endos still need to keep the diet relatively clean or risk putting on excess fat while bulking. But I'm an endo so it could just be "grass is greener" thinking.
I will admit, I do like the fact that putting on muscle isn't that difficult which would cause some ectomorphs to give up.
It varies by each individual. Some need to eat clean, some don't; an empty calorie is an empty calorie. Oddly enough, I'm surrounded by tall skinny people at work and most of them really struggle with adding weight in the gym. We all eat together so I see the amount of refined and process carbs they eat with relatively little weight gain. The crazy thing is most of us are in late 20's to 30's so it can't be attributed to a young metabolism. I just can't figure out where all that damn glucose is going with all the insulin they should be producing.
Then there's the 20 year old in our ship, he eats whatever he wants, lifts, and the scale barely moves. Take two days off and he loses weeks of progress. I would attribute this to his genetics and youth.
That's a function of overall energy balance rather than the cleanliness of the food source.0 -
Here on MFP, many people are on a one-time program that takes a year or two, and then maintain after that. As far as starting stats, on one end, you've got your skinny, underweight men and women lacking muscle who have to eat a surplus and gain weight while working out. I belong to this group due to having eaten at a deficit for a long time without realizing it.
And on the other end, you've got your formerly athletic, chubby men and women who ate at a surplus and still did enough exercise that they bulked without realizing it, and have copious amounts of muscle lurking under their fat as a result.
Both groups end up at the same point by lifting and sticking to their diets...the builders build muscle and gain a little fat along with it.
The dieters burn off most of their fat and retain most of their muscle in the process, revealing what they had all along.
Both look similar and look great in the end.
But who has it easier? Or another way to say this, is what's easier when you only have one phase to go through...bulking or cutting?
I'd like to also bring up the third group - the skinny fat, who are at a "healthy" weight or even underweight, but are under-muscled and have a higher body fat% than they should with their weight stats. I personally believe this group would have it the hardest because they can either a) cut, become underweight, look like crap and realise they have no muscle, leading to a bulk or (more preferably) b) bulk to give themselves a solid foundation of muscle that they can eventually cut down to, at the cost of not seeing any quick results and still being kinda fluffy.
They have it worse than both other groups because they have to do both to get their desired results.
As for the original two, I'd say (in a somewhat biased way - I'm bulking) that cutters have it easier than bulkers. You already have the muscle, it's right there, you just need to create a slight deficit, lift and stuff'll happen. If you have a bad day and go over your goal, well, you can always cut your intake down the next day or even just say "screw it" and go with it for awhile. Bulkers, on the other hand, need to have their surplus and, should they have a calories blowout - in either direction - it will hinder their goals; going over can equal unnecessary fat gain since you're always in a surplus, and going under (FAR worse IMHO, since you an always diet the fa off later) can mean you stall out or, hell, even lose weight.
I think I'd find cutting easier than bulking, anyway. But that's only because I don't really like eating that much and have to force myself to hit my micros - I get my calories in by eating foods I enjoy, not loads of veggies.
Just my take, anyway.0 -
Depends on the person of course. I have a monster appetite and could put away 4,000 calories a day without thinking about it. My boyfriend, who is actually TRYING to put on weight, has a hard time eating more than 1500. We both have a ****ty time cutting and bulking respectively... hence the need for us to do it.0
-
How is this even a question?
People who can't bulk just aren't eating the right foods.0 -
Here on MFP, many people are on a one-time program that takes a year or two, and then maintain after that. As far as starting stats, on one end, you've got your skinny, underweight men and women lacking muscle who have to eat a surplus and gain weight while working out. I belong to this group due to having eaten at a deficit for a long time without realizing it.
And on the other end, you've got your formerly athletic, chubby men and women who ate at a surplus and still did enough exercise that they bulked without realizing it, and have copious amounts of muscle lurking under their fat as a result.
Both groups end up at the same point by lifting and sticking to their diets...the builders build muscle and gain a little fat along with it.
The dieters burn off most of their fat and retain most of their muscle in the process, revealing what they had all along.
Both look similar and look great in the end.
But who has it easier? Or another way to say this, is what's easier when you only have one phase to go through...bulking or cutting?
I'd like to also bring up the third group - the skinny fat, who are at a "healthy" weight or even underweight, but are under-muscled and have a higher body fat% than they should with their weight stats. I personally believe this group would have it the hardest because they can either a) cut, become underweight, look like crap and realise they have no muscle, leading to a bulk or (more preferably) b) bulk to give themselves a solid foundation of muscle that they can eventually cut down to, at the cost of not seeing any quick results and still being kinda fluffy.
They have it worse than both other groups because they have to do both to get their desired results.
As for the original two, I'd say (in a somewhat biased way - I'm bulking) that cutters have it easier than bulkers. You already have the muscle, it's right there, you just need to create a slight deficit, lift and stuff'll happen. If you have a bad day and go over your goal, well, you can always cut your intake down the next day or even just say "screw it" and go with it for awhile. Bulkers, on the other hand, need to have their surplus and, should they have a calories blowout - in either direction - it will hinder their goals; going over can equal unnecessary fat gain since you're always in a surplus, and going under (FAR worse IMHO, since you an always diet the fa off later) can mean you stall out or, hell, even lose weight.
I think I'd find cutting easier than bulking, anyway. But that's only because I don't really like eating that much and have to force myself to hit my micros - I get my calories in by eating foods I enjoy, not loads of veggies.
Just my take, anyway.
I was hoping someone would bring up you guys too! Many here started out that way as well.
The very existance of skinny-fat people, to me proves that the endo-ecto thing is all wrong. Now, some claim the skinny-fat are just endo-ecto. But if you think about it, that cannot be. There is no way one can be two opposites at the same time. It all comes down to hormone levels. Sheldon unfortunately related hormone levels and bone structure together, and came up with body types. When I joined MFP, I was a believer in somatotypes too...I thought I was just "ecto-meso" because I tend to be thin and low in body fat, but also build muscle readily. But then as I started studying the hormone systems, I realized it's all wrong. There may be a few unfortunate individuals who do fit the textbook description of endo- or ecto- morphic. But on the whole, most of us have the required hormonal mechanisms needed to both bulk and cut effectively (in other words, what some will call "meso-"). If one doesn't have those meachanisms intact and are perpetually skinny, fat, or both at the same time despite proper diet and exercise, one might have a pituitary issue, an adrenal or thyroid issue, or might be an untreated diabetic.0 -
How is this even a question?
People who can't bulk just aren't eating the right foods.
...and/or the right *amount* of those foods...0 -
Thanks for the replies.
Maybe another way to think of the question (as some of us have been already) is: which would/do you prefer?
I've found that my appetite adjusts to how much I've been shoveling into my mouth duirng a period of time! When I ate 3-4 times per day at a deficit, I felt hungry only before meal times. Now eating a surplus in 4-6 meals, feel hungry more often than before. So hunger is a poor way of knowing when I've gotten enough, despite what all the diet doctors tell people. (Or maybe I'm one of those rare, metabolically flexible people who is both a natural bulker and cutter.)
I can eat like a beast...talking 1400 to 2000 calories in a sitting, no problem - so I prefer any program that has me eating more ..actually looking forward to my october bulkfest...0 -
Thanks for the replies.
Maybe another way to think of the question (as some of us have been already) is: which would/do you prefer?
I've found that my appetite adjusts to how much I've been shoveling into my mouth duirng a period of time! When I ate 3-4 times per day at a deficit, I felt hungry only before meal times. Now eating a surplus in 4-6 meals, feel hungry more often than before. So hunger is a poor way of knowing when I've gotten enough, despite what all the diet doctors tell people. (Or maybe I'm one of those rare, metabolically flexible people who is both a natural bulker and cutter.)
I can eat like a beast...talking 1400 to 2000 calories in a sitting, no problem - so I prefer any program that has me eating more ..actually looking forward to my october bulkfest...
Read your profile...you're doing awesome!0 -
Depends on the person of course. I have a monster appetite and could put away 4,000 calories a day without thinking about it. My boyfriend, who is actually TRYING to put on weight, has a hard time eating more than 1500. We both have a ****ty time cutting and bulking respectively... hence the need for us to do it.
Wow. That's hot.
Seriously though, I respect your challenges and his...and hope sincerely you both have success. Or, maybe you'll end up a "beast" (that's a good thing, btw) with a "twiggy" boyfriend and both of you still live happily ever after...either way as long as you're happy!
0 -
Thanks for the replies.
Maybe another way to think of the question (as some of us have been already) is: which would/do you prefer?
I've found that my appetite adjusts to how much I've been shoveling into my mouth duirng a period of time! When I ate 3-4 times per day at a deficit, I felt hungry only before meal times. Now eating a surplus in 4-6 meals, feel hungry more often than before. So hunger is a poor way of knowing when I've gotten enough, despite what all the diet doctors tell people. (Or maybe I'm one of those rare, metabolically flexible people who is both a natural bulker and cutter.)
I can eat like a beast...talking 1400 to 2000 calories in a sitting, no problem - so I prefer any program that has me eating more ..actually looking forward to my october bulkfest...
Read your profile...you're doing awesome!
thanks man ...I am down 8 pounds on this cut...trying to get sub 170 by October 1....0 -
It doesn't take many calories over maintenance to gain muscle. Eat too much and the fat will start pouring on, eat too little and be stuck at a weight or lose weight. The body can build fat faster and more efficiently than muscle mass. Build a disproportionate amount of fat with the muscle, and you'll need to diet longer which is risky because prolonged dieting reduces muscle mass.
When I eat more I tend to desire to eat more. When I eat less I have no problem with cravings and overeating. Bulking there are problems with overeating, blood sugar crashes, and cravings. It is difficult to achieve a calorie surplus using only clean foods too. It is easier to overeat a calorie goal on a bulk than it is when dieting ironically.
When dieting you have to eat cleaner to get protein requirements without going overboard on fat and carbs. Besides the inevitable muscle loss from dieting and realizing that you're fatter than initially thought (i.e little muscle gained on bulk).
It's all just a big pain in the *kitten* really, feels like a 24 hour job. Wish it was as easy as just working out three to four times a week and that's it.0 -
Like i said before, you guys know nothing about force feeeding. I guess it's just because I'm naturally a skinny guys and if I only ate when I am hungry and stop working out, I would lose a ton of weight. Time for me to stop being a ***** and to continue to force feed.0
-
Like i said before, you guys know nothing about force feeeding. I guess it's just because I'm naturally a skinny guys and if I only ate when I am hungry and stop working out, I would lose a ton of weight. Time for me to stop being a ***** and to continue to force feed.
How many calories are you eating these days?
Edit: Just read your profile...says 3400. Is that an average, or on non-workout days? Also, do you eat exceptionally clean? If so, I can see how that would be an issue. I eat well, but not perfectly clean every day. I do eat my deserts at times. My diary reads 3516, 3553, 3314, 3278 the last few days. Not too far off from what you're doing. But if someone is just eating stuff like plain boiled chicken, spinach, etc, I can see that being an issue.
.0 -
Like i said before, you guys know nothing about force feeeding. I guess it's just because I'm naturally a skinny guys and if I only ate when I am hungry and stop working out, I would lose a ton of weight. Time for me to stop being a ***** and to continue to force feed.
How many calories are you eating these days?
Edit: read your profile...says 3400. Is that an average, or on non-workout days?
.
I try to hit that everday, but today I'm just going to try to hit cloose to 3000 because I just don't feel like staying up to eat my calories and today I'm resting... I eat that amount on rest days to but today I'm making an exception.0 -
Like i said before, you guys know nothing about force feeeding. I guess it's just because I'm naturally a skinny guys and if I only ate when I am hungry and stop working out, I would lose a ton of weight. Time for me to stop being a ***** and to continue to force feed.
How many calories are you eating these days?
Edit: read your profile...says 3400. Is that an average, or on non-workout days?
.
I try to hit that everday, but today I'm just going to try to hit cloose to 3000 because I just don't feel like staying up to eat my calories and today I'm resting... I eat that amount on rest days to but today I'm making an exception.
I edited my previous post and asked a couple more questions. I sincerely want to help...0 -
those aren't the only 2 groups of people on here, but to answer the OP, neither. Both are hard.0
-
I think my diary is open, you can give it a check. If I dont have much time in the day, I will eat dirty to get my calories in. Dirty as in a mcwrap from mcdonalds and mcflurry.0
-
I think my diary is open, you can give it a check. If I dont have much time in the day, I will eat dirty to get my calories in. Dirty as in a mcwrap from mcdonalds and mcflurry.
The thing that really jumps out at me, is that you're cramming everything into 4 ~900-calorie meals a day. i don't know if you can find a way to do five or six, but that's generally what I do. My breakdown on a sample day is as follows:
Breakfast: 117 cal (never been a big breakfast eater for the past few years, and I like to feel hungry in the morning)
meal 2: 538 cal
3: 529
4: 635
Dinner: 1095
6: 400
Total: 3314
Eating like this, I get hungry multiple times a day.0 -
those aren't the only 2 groups of people on here, but to answer the OP, neither. Both are hard.
Yeah. It's just a generalization taking into account the two extremes.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions