bulk/cut vs recomp

jacksonpt

Clif notes:
Let's oversimplify the conversation and remove most of the variables... assuming appropriate diets, adherence, consistency, and workout intensity, does a bulk/cut cycle yield greater results than a recomp over a set period of time? i.e. Does bulking for 3 months then cutting for 2 give better results than a 5 month recomp, or is the progress just faster/easier to see as you bulk up and cut back down, but the end result is basically the same?

I'm guessing it's hard to say for sure, but feel free to hypothesize based on your extensive research/knowledge.



Some background as to where this question is coming from...

I'm 5' 8", 170ish lbs, 10-12% BF (calipers). Generally I race during the summer and lift/bulk/cut during the winter. This fall when race season ended I got a little sloppy, so I've been cutting the last couple of months in preparation for a vacation at the end of the year.

Goals are pretty typical... I want to look better, get stronger, and be faster.

Once I'm back from vacation in Jan, I'll be free to do whatever until race season ramps up in June, at which point I'll want to be at least close to race weight (165lbs).

I'm hesitant to bulk so close to race season as I, like many, have a much harder time taking weight off than I do putting it on. Can I? Absolutely. Will I? One can only hope, lol. But, the thought of going an entire off-season with minimal gains is disappointing. Yes, I know I put myself in this position by getting too lax at the end of race season last year.

But with all the "you can't build muscle and lose fat at the same time" posts having been beaten into my head for the last 3 years, is recomping all that meaningful/beneficial?



edited because I never proofread before hitting submit

michellekicks

In. I have nothing valuable to add... just want in.

jofjltncb6

In to hear the conclusion/discussion.

SideSteel

It could depend on the level of trainee and it could depend on how we measure progress, but making a sweeping generalization out of it I would guess that bulking/cutting will give better results. You're definitely right about it being more noticeable as well.

I would also make the guess that strength increases will happen more rapidly in an energy surplus, and when you look at several months of bulking/cutting (keep in mind that most people can cut much faster than they bulk, which means the majority of the time is spent in a surplus and not in a deficit), you're also potentially looking at greater lift increases when you've got calories working in your favor.

Having said that, I do think recomping can work and I wouldn't label it as "wheel spinning" as many often do. I recomped for the first 8-12 weeks when I started lifting 3 years ago, and I saw noticeable results. Granted, any noob that gets off the couch and picks up some weight should see noticeable results.

jacksonpt

It could depend on the level of trainee and it could depend on how we measure progress, but making a sweeping generalization out of it I would guess that bulking/cutting will give better results. You're definitely right about it being more noticeable as well.

I would also make the guess that strength increases will happen more rapidly in an energy surplus, and when you look at several months of bulking/cutting (keep in mind that most people can cut much faster than they bulk, which means the majority of the time is spent in a surplus and not in a deficit), you're also potentially looking at greater lift increases when you've got calories working in your favor.

Having said that, I do think recomping can work and I wouldn't label it as "wheel spinning" as many often do. I recomped for the first 8-12 weeks when I started lifting 3 years ago, and I saw noticeable results. Granted, any noob that gets off the couch and picks up some weight should see noticeable results.

If it matters...

Intermediate trainee, progress measured first by change in body fat %, second by progression of lifts. Also, being fairly lean to begin with, I cut more slowly. If I actually stayed the course with my diet, I'd bulk at about the same rate I'd cut - .5-1lb per week.

run2bfree

good post.

BarbellApprentice

good post.

ditto

SideSteel

It could depend on the level of trainee and it could depend on how we measure progress, but making a sweeping generalization out of it I would guess that bulking/cutting will give better results. You're definitely right about it being more noticeable as well.

I would also make the guess that strength increases will happen more rapidly in an energy surplus, and when you look at several months of bulking/cutting (keep in mind that most people can cut much faster than they bulk, which means the majority of the time is spent in a surplus and not in a deficit), you're also potentially looking at greater lift increases when you've got calories working in your favor.

Having said that, I do think recomping can work and I wouldn't label it as "wheel spinning" as many often do. I recomped for the first 8-12 weeks when I started lifting 3 years ago, and I saw noticeable results. Granted, any noob that gets off the couch and picks up some weight should see noticeable results.

If it matters...

Intermediate trainee, progress measured first by change in body fat %, second by progression of lifts. Also, being fairly lean to begin with, I cut more slowly. If I actually stayed the course with my diet, I'd bulk at about the same rate I'd cut - .5-1lb per week.

Here is more of my current opinion.


I would still suggest bulking and cutting provided that you can manage those cycles with your....cycling. giggity.

Is there a reason you confine your rate of loss to the .5 to 1lb/week range?

I would generally (this really is a generalization here so please treat it as such) expect most people to bulk somewhere in a range of .5lb/week to 1lb/week max, the latter being potentially more appropriate for people who aren't anywhere near genetic limits (more muscle can be gained in this population) and the former being more likely for intermediate (Lyle, Alan, Martin all have similar theories on this that tend to approximate each other).

I would generally expect people to be able to cut at around .5-1.5% bodyweight per week give or take. Now obviously there's going to be some variance there, but very generally speaking, you should be able to lose weight at a faster pace than you would bulk at, which would then put your cutting cycles at shorter duration than your bulking cycles.

For ME, it tends to be about half, in that if I bulk for 16 weeks I would cut for about 8. But having said that, I tend to cut fairly fast, and I tend to over-eat on my bulk and gain faster than I should, which puts on extra body fat.

sijomial

But with all the "you can't build muscle and lose fat at the same time" posts having been beaten into my head for the last 3 years, is recomping all that meaningful/beneficial?

Those posts in the general forums frustrate the hell out of me - being told I can't be doing something I'm clearly managing makes me grind my teeth!!
Oh well, will continue making slow but steady progress. The joy of being a contrarian....

junlex123

Kinda related to the OP; do you consider there to be any benefit to IF approaches apart from the potential for some to maintain stricter adherence to a calorie restriction under certain IF protocols?

Example:

Say I'm following a 3 day split, M W F, and I maintain on an average 2.2k calories per day, and dead set on recomping rather than cut/bulk. Do you think there'd be noticeable difference if I were to eat 2,400 calories Sunday -> Friday, and only eat 1000 on Saturday (in the form of almost entirely protein with a bit of fat) vs just eating around 2200 every day?

Similarly, is there any benefit to 'bulk breaks'? I seem to recall the hormonal response that promotes anabolism (or perhaps it suppresses catabolism, I forget) that occurs from being on a prolonged surplus lasts several days even when you're no longer in surplus. Would, for example, 3 cycles of (3 weeks of bulk at tdee+500 followed by a week of cut at tdee-500) leave you in a better place than 9 straight weeks of bulk followed by 3 weeks of cut? Leaving tapering of calories out of things for this particular hypothetical.

I appreciate that studies probably haven't been done that would extensively test these kinds of scenarios, guess I'm looking more for your educated intuitions than anything else.

jacksonpt

Here is more of my current opinion.


I would still suggest bulking and cutting provided that you can manage those cycles with your....cycling. giggity.

Is there a reason you confine your rate of loss to the .5 to 1lb/week range?

I would generally (this really is a generalization here so please treat it as such) expect most people to bulk somewhere in a range of .5lb/week to 1lb/week max, the latter being potentially more appropriate for people who aren't anywhere near genetic limits (more muscle can be gained in this population) and the former being more likely for intermediate (Lyle, Alan, Martin all have similar theories on this that tend to approximate each other).

I would generally expect people to be able to cut at around .5-1.5% bodyweight per week give or take. Now obviously there's going to be some variance there, but very generally speaking, you should be able to lose weight at a faster pace than you would bulk at, which would then put your cutting cycles at shorter duration than your bulking cycles.

For ME, it tends to be about half, in that if I bulk for 16 weeks I would cut for about 8. But having said that, I tend to cut fairly fast, and I tend to over-eat on my bulk and gain faster than I should, which puts on extra body fat.

Bulking is hard once the weather turns and my cardio really ramps up, but that will probably make it easier to cut, at least for a shorter period of time. There's no reason I couldn't bulk Jan-March(ish), then start my cut and be in decent shape for race season.

I know from experience that .5-1lb per week is all I can sustain for more than a week or so. On a related note, do you agree with all the "the greater the deficit, the more lean mass you'll lose" posts, or are you in the "lifting + protein mitigates most of the LBM loss during a cut" camp? I know *some* loss is unavoidable, but are gains necessarily "undone" by a more aggressive cut? 1% of my body weight would be 1.7lbs per week. That's pretty aggressive for someone at <15% body fat, no? Or am I falling into another of those great generalizations with no context that are so often made on the regular forums.

eating4me

Here to listen in.

SideSteel

I know from experience that .5-1lb per week is all I can sustain for more than a week or so. On a related note, do you agree with all the "the greater the deficit, the more lean mass you'll lose" posts, or are you in the "lifting + protein mitigates most of the LBM loss during a cut" camp?

It depends on current levels of leanness in addition to factors you mention above. I would state generally that the leaner you are, the more aggressive your deficit is, and the lower your protein intake is, the less likely you are to retain LBM during a prolonged deficit. In addition, performance considerations can't be ingored either. So for example if you keep what you consider to be a moderate deficit, but your performance goes in the tank which causes your lifts to go down, that's going to be a factor in potential muscle losses.

I know *some* loss is unavoidable, but are gains necessarily "undone" by a more aggressive cut? 1% of my body weight would be 1.7lbs per week. That's pretty aggressive for someone at <15% body fat, no? Or am I falling into another of those great generalizations with no context that are so often made on the regular forums.

I wouldn't be concerned with that rate of loss provided that you are able to maintain gym performance. Now, that doesn't mean you HAVE to go that fast, but for example lets say you're in a position that you need to lose 15lbs on a cut in order to get to your desired level of leanness.

Losing it at .75lbs per week would put you on a 20 week cut.
Losing it at 1.25lbs per week would knock this down to 12 weeks.

My belief is that this difference is significant in that, in the latter situation, you've got 8 additional weeks to spend at higher caloric intake, which means added potential to make "dem gains".

Now granted I'm oversimplifying things here. Obviously each individual needs to consider how their performance and adherence/lifestyle are impacted by the above scenarios. There may be people who are perfectly content with playing this easy knowing that they are spending more time in a deficit.

At this point in time though, my personal experience and my preference with other people is to keep their deficit moderate (I would call 1.25lbs/week "moderate" in the above scenario and .75/week "mild") in order to get noticeable results in a timely fashion, get them out of the deficit sooner rather than later.

jacksonpt

I know from experience that .5-1lb per week is all I can sustain for more than a week or so. On a related note, do you agree with all the "the greater the deficit, the more lean mass you'll lose" posts, or are you in the "lifting + protein mitigates most of the LBM loss during a cut" camp?

It depends on current levels of leanness in addition to factors you mention above. I would state generally that the leaner you are, the more aggressive your deficit is, and the lower your protein intake is, the less likely you are to retain LBM during a prolonged deficit. In addition, performance considerations can't be ingored either. So for example if you keep what you consider to be a moderate deficit, but your performance goes in the tank which causes your lifts to go down, that's going to be a factor in potential muscle losses.

I know *some* loss is unavoidable, but are gains necessarily "undone" by a more aggressive cut? 1% of my body weight would be 1.7lbs per week. That's pretty aggressive for someone at <15% body fat, no? Or am I falling into another of those great generalizations with no context that are so often made on the regular forums.

I wouldn't be concerned with that rate of loss provided that you are able to maintain gym performance. Now, that doesn't mean you HAVE to go that fast, but for example lets say you're in a position that you need to lose 15lbs on a cut in order to get to your desired level of leanness.

Losing it at .75lbs per week would put you on a 20 week cut.
Losing it at 1.25lbs per week would knock this down to 12 weeks.

My belief is that this difference is significant in that you've got 8 additional weeks to spend at higher caloric intake, which means 8 more weeks of progress.

Now granted I'm oversimplifying things here. Obviously each individual needs to consider how their performance and adherence/lifestyle are impacted by the above scenarios. There may be people who are perfectly content with playing this easy knowing that they are spending more time in a deficit.

At this point in time though, my personal experience and my preference with other people is to keep their deficit moderate (I would call 1.25lbs/week "moderate" in the above scenario and .75/week "mild") in order to get noticeable results in a timely fashion, get them out of the deficit sooner rather than later.

Good stuff, thanks. Especially the bolded part... I didn't think it through far enough to connect those particular dots - that a faster cut means more time in bulk = more gains.

I'll plan to bulk for 3-4 months, but I'll keep a VERY close eye on how fast I'm gaining. I struggle with moderation, so my bulks have a tendency to turn into excuses to eat as much as I want. If I can keep things in check, I shouldn't have any problem making reasonable progress without any negatives come race season.

.

SideSteel

Kinda related to the OP; do you consider there to be any benefit to IF approaches apart from the potential for some to maintain stricter adherence to a calorie restriction under certain IF protocols?

I think the benefits lie mostly in adherence.

Say I'm following a 3 day split, M W F, and I maintain on an average 2.2k calories per day, and dead set on recomping rather than cut/bulk. Do you think there'd be noticeable difference if I were to eat 2,400 calories Sunday -> Friday, and only eat 1000 on Saturday (in the form of almost entirely protein with a bit of fat) vs just eating around 2200 every day?

I don't think there would be much of a difference if any. That being said, if you were going to attempt to recomp I do think it's probably a good idea to manipulate nutrient timing to attempt to get as much theoretical benefit out of it as you can. Can I say for certain that it's going to matter? No. But if you're going to choose to eat at maintenance, which IMO is a slower/inefficient process in most contexts, then I don't think it's a bad idea to try to partition more calories near training.

Similarly, is there any benefit to 'bulk breaks'? I seem to recall the hormonal response that promotes anabolism (or perhaps it suppresses catabolism, I forget) that occurs from being on a prolonged surplus lasts several days even when you're no longer in surplus. Would, for example, 3 cycles of (3 weeks of bulk at tdee+500 followed by a week of cut at tdee-500) leave you in a better place than 9 straight weeks of bulk followed by 3 weeks of cut? Leaving tapering of calories out of things for this particular hypothetical.

I'm not aware of any evidence that shorter cycles would be better or that "bulk breaks" are necessary or beneficial. It would seem that most knowledgeable coaches would favor longer bulk cycles rather than shorter ones.

Sarauk2sf

Tagging

MstngSammy

In for what is sure to be an interesting discussion :-)

cmeiron

in.

Mischievous_Rascal

In for reading later.

junlex123

Thanks for the food for thought.

kristen2713

In for reading material later on...very interesting topic to me

jaweiss1

Great thread, thanks to all of you.

bheathfit

Thank you SideSteel and Sarauk2sf for creating this group. The knowledge that you are sharing with us all is priceless and I am definitely not alone in appreciating it!

_benjammin

Thank you SideSteel and Sarauk2sf for creating this group. The knowledge that you are sharing with us all is priceless and I am definitely not alone in appreciating it!

+1
:-D

Unknown

This content has been removed.

jacksonpt

Kind of a related question...

You said it's generally safe to lose 1.5ish+ % of one's body weight per week. For me, that would be upwards of 2.5lbs per week, which is way above what most people suggest. Does nutrient timing become more important as the cut gets more aggressive, assuming consistency/adherence is good? Does type of exercise influence your answer (lifting vs HIIT vs long duration/low intensity cardio)?

SideSteel

Kind of a related question...

You said it's generally safe to lose 1.5ish+ % of one's body weight per week. For me, that would be upwards of 2.5lbs per week, which is way above what most people suggest. Does nutrient timing become more important as the cut gets more aggressive, assuming consistency/adherence is good? Does type of exercise influence your answer (lifting vs HIIT vs long duration/low intensity cardio)?

To clarify further, and I'll also go back and re-read what I wrote to make sure I didn't say something conflicting with the following: I would expect MOST people to be around 1% bodyweight per week. As you get fatter, I would expect people to be able to lose slightly faster, closer to the 1.5% per week. As you get leaner, I would expect people to lose it slower, closer to the .5% per week.

Assuming you're in the mid teens for example, I think 1% per week is a really good place assuming performance and adherence factors are being met.

Nutrient timing is always important for performance based reasons and generally speaking I think it may become more important in an energy deficit since you're more likely to have performance based limitations/issues.

jacksonpt

Kind of a related question...

You said it's generally safe to lose 1.5ish+ % of one's body weight per week. For me, that would be upwards of 2.5lbs per week, which is way above what most people suggest. Does nutrient timing become more important as the cut gets more aggressive, assuming consistency/adherence is good? Does type of exercise influence your answer (lifting vs HIIT vs long duration/low intensity cardio)?

To clarify further, and I'll also go back and re-read what I wrote to make sure I didn't say something conflicting with the following: I would expect MOST people to be around 1% bodyweight per week. As you get fatter, I would expect people to be able to lose slightly faster, closer to the 1.5% per week. As you get leaner, I would expect people to lose it slower, closer to the .5% per week.

Assuming you're in the mid teens for example, I think 1% per week is a really good place assuming performance and adherence factors are being met.

Nutrient timing is always important for performance based reasons and generally speaking I think it may become more important in an energy deficit since you're more likely to have performance based limitations/issues.

That's good enough for me. I'm around 12% right now, so 1% (1.7lbs) is probably towards the high end for me. I suspect that'll be hard enough for me to sustain.

SideSteel

Kind of a related question...

You said it's generally safe to lose 1.5ish+ % of one's body weight per week. For me, that would be upwards of 2.5lbs per week, which is way above what most people suggest. Does nutrient timing become more important as the cut gets more aggressive, assuming consistency/adherence is good? Does type of exercise influence your answer (lifting vs HIIT vs long duration/low intensity cardio)?

To clarify further, and I'll also go back and re-read what I wrote to make sure I didn't say something conflicting with the following: I would expect MOST people to be around 1% bodyweight per week. As you get fatter, I would expect people to be able to lose slightly faster, closer to the 1.5% per week. As you get leaner, I would expect people to lose it slower, closer to the .5% per week.

Assuming you're in the mid teens for example, I think 1% per week is a really good place assuming performance and adherence factors are being met.

Nutrient timing is always important for performance based reasons and generally speaking I think it may become more important in an energy deficit since you're more likely to have performance based limitations/issues.

That's good enough for me. I'm around 12% right now, so 1% (1.7lbs) is probably towards the high end for me. I suspect that'll be hard enough for me to sustain.

Agreed. The only purpose of me providing a range to you was to just illustrate what I think it a reasonable slot to land in, again assuming that performance and adherence remain strong. If your performance goes in the tank at 1.3lbs per week but you're rock solid at .8lbs/week then obviously the latter is going to be better even if that means you're spending a few additional weeks cutting.

But if you have equal performance and adherence losing slightly faster, but still within a reasonable range according to your bodyweight and leanness, I'd consider that superior in that it shortens the cut duration.

Does this make sense?

jacksonpt

perfect sense. The range based on weight was just the context I needed.

NutellaAddict

Good stuff. For me (mentally) I was attempting a bulk (because my lifts were stalling) but I was not in a lower percentage as far as body fat...I'm ASSuming I was around 20-21% BF..Is that fairly normal? And yes, I stopped because I was oh *kitten* my belly is coming back...yes i pussed out.