Should I end my diet and start bulking?

Tricep_A_Tops

I am thinking the best way for me to approach this may be to start adding 200-300 calories per day to my diet every week. Over the course of 3-6 weeks, I will get my calories up to a better place for gaining muscle. And at the same time, I will be getting used to eating more. I just have a hard time eating clean and still getting much over 2000 calories. That would probably still net me another 2-5 pounds of weight loss during the transition.

Sounds like a great plan.After losing 83 lbs over a 13 month period It was very hard to force myself to eat enough (healthy) food to bulk.

MyChocolateDiet

just gotta say. I think guys running in the snow and guys with amazing abs profile pics in camo's are exactly the best people to listen to on a thread like this. Carry on!

Kmenczynski88

Can you see your abs flexed or unflexed?

If you can flexed you're at least in the 14% area.
If you can unflexed you're in the 10% or less area.

Good rule of thumb for bulking cutting, bulk until your abs start losing detail when flexed, cut until you start seeing them unflexed. Staying in that band should keep you in the ideal area for muscle growth, as well as always looking reasonably good.

I can't see my abs at all. The thing is that is the ONLY place I have fat. None on my legs or arms. None on my back (I think, I can't see it very well). Well, and my love handles as well.

If you can't see abs when flexed, you aren't close to 10%.

Other signs of 10%/near 10%, an adonis belt, sharp serratus muscles, details in your quads, some striations (especially shoulders, possibly chest), strong deltoid/bicep separation, strong vascularity in the arms.

I have seperation in my quads, delt/bicep seperation, and striations in my chest.... yet my abs do not hardly show through. I store most of my fat on my stomach and i have very thin abs.

Kmenczynski88

I am thinking the best way for me to approach this may be to start adding 200-300 calories per day to my diet every week. Over the course of 3-6 weeks, I will get my calories up to a better place for gaining muscle. And at the same time, I will be getting used to eating more. I just have a hard time eating clean and still getting much over 2000 calories. That would probably still net me another 2-5 pounds of weight loss during the transition.

If you want to minimize the fat gain slowly increase your calories as stated on a weekly basis, when you get to a pain where you are adding weight stop there and milk it. When you stop gaining add in some additional calories.

I came off a cut in October and my progession is as such....

October 2500 Cals - 30 Days, no weight gain
November 2700 Cals - 30 Days, no weight gain
December - 2900 Cals - 30 days, 173.5 to 174.5 lbs
Jan - 2900 Cals - 27 days - 174.5 to 175.6 lbs

I'm sticking with 2900 until i cant gain more then ill add another 200 cals.

No_Finish_Line

I need some more opinions on this, as I am having a hard time making up my mind. I have been doing a five day split lifting Monday through Friday. Also, I have been on a diet the last three weeks, eating 1350-1550 calories per day 5 days per week, and between 1800 and 2200 on the weekends. In that three weeks, I have gone from 170.2 lbs with a body fat of 17.5% to 164.8 lbs with a body fat of 14.37% this morning, according to 4 site skin fold measurements I have been doing and using this calculator: http://www.naturalphysiques.com/31. My plan was to continue my diet until my skinfold tests said 10%.

However, the Omron handheld at the gym is telling me I am at 10.8% body fat, and I had a trainer measure me this morning and he said 8.5%.

very good question, i'm wondering the same myself.

Currious if you've ever tested yourself twice in a row? like one right after the other. YOu might be shocked at how different the out come is. BF% is notoriously inaccurate no matter how its done. Quite frankly its silly to assume you can get it accurate down to .01% when its off up to 4% even if done professionally.

If you ask me its only good as a measure of progress, and for that reason, the sites where you just use a tape measure as input data are better to measure progress because the input data is more reliable then a caliper or a BF% scale. The % may be way off, but at least if the input data is accurate you can be confident that the changes in the result are due to actual body composition changes and not taking a measurement a fraction of an inch in a different spot then before.

IMO, even if you carried all your fat in your midsection, you'd stil see some kind of abs at 10 or 8 %. most men carry the vast majority of fat in their abdomen anyway. i'm guessing your closer to 14% or higher, i'm lucky if i'm 15%.

of course, if your not doing any ab work, that could be another reason why you don't see anything. i'd keep cutting tho

No_Finish_Line

on the other hand, you probably wouldn't hurt yourself buy doing some eating at a reasonable surplus for awhile, train appropriately and then go back to cutting again.

dfquigley

My perfomance when I run has actually improved at 231 lbs then when it was at 220 lbs prior to my bulk. And bulking for 8-12 weeks and then cutting once in a while is not harmful. But yes, It does depend on his goals like you said.

A 10 pound difference will be much more distinct on someone's running in the 150-160 pound range than someone in the 220-230 range

Lost 83 pounds? Congrats. I'm down ~~60 myself

djeffreys10

very good question, i'm wondering the same myself.

Currious if you've ever tested yourself twice in a row? like one right after the other. YOu might be shocked at how different the out come is. BF% is notoriously inaccurate no matter how its done. Quite frankly its silly to assume you can get it accurate down to .01% when its off up to 4% even if done professionally.

If you ask me its only good as a measure of progress, and for that reason, the sites where you just use a tape measure as input data are better to measure progress because the input data is more reliable then a caliper or a BF% scale. The % may be way off, but at least if the input data is accurate you can be confident that the changes in the result are due to actual body composition changes and not taking a measurement a fraction of an inch in a different spot then before.

IMO, even if you carried all your fat in your midsection, you'd stil see some kind of abs at 10 or 8 %. most men carry the vast majority of fat in their abdomen anyway. i'm guessing your closer to 14% or higher, i'm lucky if i'm 15%.

of course, if your not doing any ab work, that could be another reason why you don't see anything. i'd keep cutting tho

I have been horribly slacking on my ab work, not going to lie. But still, looking at me, I can't imagine being lower than 14% right now.

Tricep_A_Tops

My perfomance when I run has actually improved at 231 lbs then when it was at 220 lbs prior to my bulk. And bulking for 8-12 weeks and then cutting once in a while is not harmful. But yes, It does depend on his goals like you said.

A 10 pound difference will be much more distinct on someone's running in the 150-160 pound range than someone in the 220-230 range

Lost 83 pounds? Congrats. I'm down ~~60 myself

Yep it would but I didnt suggest to anyone that runs and weighs 150-160 should gain 10 lbs, Just that I did. ; P Congrats on losing 60lbs!! Awesome work!

LeanButNotMean44

It is virtually impossible to shed 3% body fat in 3 week's time. Handheld body fat testers are not accurate, and measuring with calipers in only 4 places isn't much better. I don't mean to be negative, but if you are going to use those tools for measuring you would be better served looking at the numbers to study trends rather than zeroing in on a specific number.

NRBreit

In my opinion, you need to confirm if you're closer to 14% or 8-10% body fat. That natural physiques calculator uses the same Jackson-Pollack 3 or 4 site skin fold measurements that your trainer would use. So you need to figure out why you got such different results. If you're 14%+, most recommendations would be to cut. If you're 8-10%, you should bulk.

BurtHuttz

I'd like to read this thread more closely in the future; "bump."

djeffreys10

It is virtually impossible to shed 3% body fat in 3 week's time. Handheld body fat testers are not accurate, and measuring with calipers in only 4 places isn't much better. I don't mean to be negative, but if you are going to use those tools for measuring you would be better served looking at the numbers to study trends rather than zeroing in on a specific number.

That was my thought. However, I have lost 5.4 pounds, going from 170.2 to 164.8, during that three weeks. Weighing every Friday morning when I first wake up, wearing nothing but under armour underwear each time. I know weight fluctuates, but that is as close as I can get to being consistent. Assuming my initial measurement of 17.5% was correct, loosing that much fat would put me at 14.8%, just doing the math and assuming my lean body weight stayed the same. Now there is no way to accurately judge whether my lean body weight stayed the same, decreased, or increased. But a slight increase in lean body mass would mean a slightly larger decrease in fat, causing the reading of 14.4%. Now granted I don't have the means available to me to determine the composition of the lost mass, but according to the math a 3% drop is not entirely out of question.

djeffreys10

In my opinion, you need to confirm if you're closer to 14% or 8-10% body fat. That natural physiques calculator uses the same Jackson-Pollack 3 or 4 site skin fold measurements that your trainer would use. So you need to figure out why you got such different results. If you're 14%+, most recommendations would be to cut. If you're 8-10%, you should bulk.

Agreed with your percentage recommendations. I just don't know how to get a more accurate assessment at this time. I know the trainers assessment of 8.5% is absurdly low. That only leaves the calipers method that I have been using, and the Omron handheld. According to the calipers, I should keep dieting and loose another 5-7 pounds. According to the Omron, it would be an ok time to up my calories. I just find this very confusing lol.

LeanButNotMean44

If you have access to only those two methods to measure, then my suggestion would be to use the calipers and measure more than 4 different areas on your body; I have been told that one should measure at least 17 different places because most people do not have an even distribution of fat. My upper body is very lean, my lower body not so much. Also remember that the caliper measurements are only as good as the person doing them, meaning that the measurer needs to be doing them correctly.

Summer_Lunatic

I am thinking the best way for me to approach this may be to start adding 200-300 calories per day to my diet every week. Over the course of 3-6 weeks, I will get my calories up to a better place for gaining muscle. And at the same time, I will be getting used to eating more. I just have a hard time eating clean and still getting much over 2000 calories. That would probably still net me another 2-5 pounds of weight loss during the transition.

Sounds like a great plan.After losing 83 lbs over a 13 month period It was very hard to force myself to eat enough (healthy) food to bulk.

I can totally relate. 3000 cals of healthy food is a lot to take in every day. I feel like I eat constantly. Sometimes having to force it down when I'm not even hungry.